[Nfbf-l] Opposing the disabled, Ignorance in the Guise of Moral Leadership

[Alan Dicey]

Opposing the disabled, Ignorance in the Guise of Moral Leadership
Unfortunately, there are far too many among us who have little knowledge of 
our own history or the awareness of history of the political movements of 
our own country. Today, most Americans believe that the stands taken by the 
political right are a product of true conservative thought, when in fact, 
they are an outgrowth of a populist movement which sprang from the "No 
Nothing" party of the mid-19th century. The populist movement has opposed 
every attempt to bring about societal reform, from child labor laws through 
civil rights for minorities. But more and more their cry of moral 
superiority rings hollow. If you wonder why they now oppose the U.N. 
Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities, I invite you to read 
the following article taken from today's Intelligencer Journal Lancaster New 
Era. Where's the logic?

Opposing the disabled 2012 Lancaster Newspapers, Inc. Lancaster, PA .


President-unelect Rick Santorum made his triumphant return to the Capitol on 
Monday afternoon and took up a brave new cause: He is opposing disabled 
people. Specifically, Santorum, joined by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, declared 
his wish that the Senate reject the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons 
With Disabilities - a human rights treaty negotiated during George W. Bush's 
administration and ratified by 126 nations, including China, Russia, Iran, 
Cuba, Syria and Saudi Arabia.


The former presidential candidate pronounced his "grave concerns" about the 
treaty, which forbids discrimination against people with AIDS, who are 
blind, who use wheelchairs and the like.


This is a direct assault on us," he declared at a news conference. Lee, a 
tea party favorite, said he, too, has "grave concerns" about the document's 
threat to American sovereignty. I will do everything I can to block its 
ratification, and I have secured the signatures of 36 Republican senators, 
all of whom have joined with me saying that we will oppose any ratification 
of any treaty during this lame-duck session.


Lame or not, Santorum and Lee recognized that it looks bad to be 
disadvantaging the disabled in their quest for fair treatment. Santorum 
praised Lee for having "the courage to stand up on an issue that doesn't 
look to be particularly popular to be opposed.


Courageous? Or just contentious? The treaty requires virtually nothing of 
the United States. It essentially directs the other signatories to update 
their laws so that they more closely match the Americans with Disabilities 
Act. Even Lee thought it necessary to preface his opposition with the 
qualifier that "our concerns with this convention have nothing to do with 
any lack of concern for the rights of persons with disabilities.


Their concerns, rather, came from the dark world of U.N. conspiracy 
theories. The opponents argue that the treaty, like most everything the 
United Nations does, undermines American sovereignty - in this case via a 
plot to keep Americans from home-schooling their children and making other 
decisions about their well-being. The treaty does no such thing; if it had 
such sinister aims, it surely wouldn't have the support of disabilities and 
veterans groups,  the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Republican senators such as 
John McCain of Arizona and John Barrasso of Wyoming, and conservative legal 
minds such as Boyden Gray and Dick Thornburgh.


But the opposition is significant, because it shows the ravages of the 
Senate's own disability: If members can't even agree to move forward on an 
innocuous treaty to protect the disabled, how are they to agree on something 
as charged as the "fiscal cliff"? And although the number of senators who 
actually oppose the treaty - such as Lee, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Jim 
DeMint of South Carolina - is probably quite small, Lee's boast of 36 
signatures means he has persuaded enough of his colleagues to block action, 
at least temporarily. (Treaties need a two-thirds vote in the Senate.)


Santorum made an emotional appeal, even bringing his daughter Bella, who has 
a severe birth defect, to the Senate hearing room for the event. There's no 
benefit to the United States from passing it," he said, as Bella wriggled in 
her mother's arms. But what it does is open up a Pandora's box for the most 
vulnerable among us: children with disabilities. Yet the opponents couldn't 
agree on how this box would be opened. Do I believe that states will pass 
laws or have to pass laws in conformity with the U.N. edict? Santorum asked 
himself. Do we have to amend IDEA? the Individuals with Disabilities 
Education Act. I don't have any fear anytime soon that IDEA will be amended. 
But I do have concerns that people will go to courts and they will use this 
standard in this convention. This was contradicted by the next man at the 
microphone, home-schooling advocate Mike Farris, who pointed out that the 
document has a provision stating that "you can't go to court automatically. 
You must have implementing legislation first" - the very thing Santorum says 
he does not expect to happen. Still, their spurious theory of a U.N. 
takeover of parenting was enough to lead Lee and Santorum to oppose a treaty 
that would extend American values worldwide and guarantee disabled people 
equal treatment, and freedom from torture and exploitation.


Santorum justified his opposition by saying that other countries wouldn't 
actually enforce the provisions. It does not provide any moral leadership," 
he said. But in this fight against rights for the disabled, Santorum doesn't 
have a leg to stand on.


Tony B. Swartz


versatile Voicing


Versatile Premier Voice Acting Talent
Ready to Meet Your Voice Over Needs


If you need something said, your message clearly heard, let me be your 
voice!


1944 Girard Ave
Allentown, PA 18104-1114


Call 610-799-4565


__._,_.___