CRPD rebuttal

Regarding the UN's CRPD, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, here is just one page of many that gives voice to the problems we would and could face if the CRPD were ratified by the US. It contains a summary of the wording as well as the source of the article wording within the CRPD so that you can read for yourself whether or not the summary has been stretched or taken out of context.

Bear in mind that Thomas Jefferson's personal and private letter of reassurance and support for the religious liberty of the Methodist church has been taken out of context by the anti-godly and 'Liberal masses' in our country, and not only has the meaning of that letter been totally reversed, but that reversed meaning has been somehow incorporated into the wording of a separate document of legal standing, the Constitution of the US.

The UN is not our friend. Legalese, the language of twisting word meanings to fit 'new agendas' and 'new ideas' is not our friend. There are more than enough organizations and agendas that are fighting for loop holes through the existing ADA, Americans with Disabilities Act language that we don't need to give them more ammunition with the addition or acceptance of even slightly contradictory laws with even more legalese.

For actual reference, here is a link to the text of the CRPD from which you can read for yourself and compare the statements of both sides as to whether the fears and concerns are baseless;

There are several other sites that claim these statements made by opponents of the CRPD are myths and over-blown reactions, however on each and every one of these that I have read, they merely state over and over that the opponent's statements are myths with only their own statements of their own interpretations, no bona fide reference work ... I guess if something is repeated often enough it becomes truth and therefore fact on it's own merit? Nowhere on these sites supporting the CRPD and bashing opponents of the CRPD have I read a quote or a clearly referenced summary or even a specific reference to any specific CRPD text that nullifies the evidence of the - potential - ha! - inevitable - use of legalese to undermine our ADA further.

We need to instead concentrate on finding ways to solidify and enforce the laws we already have against the legalese twisting that is already coming against the ADA, not allow or to even fight for the means to further weaken them.

I question the claims that state "While it is true that the CRPD will not require any change to existing federal law, the treaty will have an impact on blind people and others with disabilities from the U.S. who wish to study or work abroad, or for that matter, wish to travel or live abroad". In what way will the U.S. ratification of the CRPD have any effect on any other country, especially if that country has not ratified the CRPD or on our citizens who travel or live there? If it somehow does, then how does the CRPD not have the power to effect our own federal law? I'd like to hear an explanation of this oxymoronic statement. If it will affect how our citizens are treated by altering the laws in other countries, then how can it not affect how our citizens are treated here at home at the federal level?

Here is a page where you will find out how to make your voice heard if you feel that opponents of CRPD are voicing real concerns about real problems we will face if/when the CRPD is ratified. If criticising and objecting to the CRPD being a legalist's wedge to weaken our already faltering ADA means that I'm anti-disabled in your eyes, then so be it. I can live with your bigotry, though not as easily as you apparently can, however, I don't want to live fighting with the added loopholes of the United Nation's Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilies to our own Americans with Disabilities Act. The CRPD will make our fight implementing and enforcing the ADA so much more harder for us to do in the future. Adding more laws, more words, related to the same focus only serves to give lawyers more killing or at least delaying ammunition to fight those very laws. It is senseless to give any adversary more ammunition than what they can make for themselves.

Remember the words of the famous lawyer and former president of the United States of America, William Jefferson Clinton; "It all depends on what YOUR interpretation of the meaning of the word sex is". There's another grand example of legalese for you!


Do you like this post?

Showing 1 reaction

published this page in Forum 2013-11-05 14:41:15 -0500