[Revived, DRAFT] Ex-Convict Enfranchisement

[Lalaki]

Draft ten has been posted, fifteen days after the original was first proposed.

[Araraukar]

PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction, while also noting that voting rights will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts.

nations from unfairly accusing ex-convicts of potential recurrences in crime to prevent the said group from voting.

I think you forgot to delete this bit when updating the draft. It looks like a left-over from editing anyway.

PREVENTS member nations from instituting harsher punishments for the purpose of curtailing the rights granted by this resolution.

It's definitely a step towards sanity, but I still wonder how you'd be able to tell between general cracking down on crime in the form of longer sentences as a run-up to a big election, and actually trying to prevent peeps from voting by putting them in prison?

Otherwise all the applied changes look good.

OOC: Hoping you don't need to create a committee for this, but is there an existing committee somewhere that you could use to settle the "no we didn't - yes you did" situation that that PREVENTS point might create? Also, OOCly I can say that while in-character I'm going to maintain that discriminating against ex-cons should already have been banned by the CoCR, this has definitely progressed to the point where I wouldn't have a beef with it being submitted. Unless it was a very tasty beef and came with garnishings.

[Lalaki]

Draft eleven has been posted.

The United City-States of Lalaki plans to submit this resolution by Sunday. Unless any other WA members would object to this, in which case submission will wait another week or two.

[Lalaki]

OOC: Hoping you don't need to create a committee for this, but is there an existing committee somewhere that you could use to settle the "no we didn't - yes you did" situation that that PREVENTS point might create? Also, OOCly I can say that while in-character I'm going to maintain that discriminating against ex-cons should already have been banned by the CoCR, this has definitely progressed to the point where I wouldn't have a beef with it being submitted. Unless it was a very tasty beef and came with garnishings.

OOC: I probably do need to create a committee. I don't see another way. Thanks for the suggestions, though!

[Bananaistan]

In a rather unusual move, the President of Bananaistan, Ms Alriel Clayhanger, has accompanied Ambassador Hornwood into the chamber, to address the WA for only the second time since taking office:

We note that the great big loophole of disenfranchisement of convicts as part of their sentence, IE the example we already gave of a person being given, say, a custodial sentence of some period of time and a period of disenfranchisement on top of that, has not been addressed, save that such a period of disenfranchisement could not be permanent.

The committee is superfluous. No other resolution requires a committee to ensure or monitor compliance. That's what the World Assembly Compliance Commission is for.

We remain utterly opposed. This was and still is nothing only a feel good piece of unnecessary fluff and is just more WA doublespeak regarding democracy and individual political rights. We would fully support any proposal introducing democracy across the board in member nations but, as we know, such would be against the rules. Yet, we still have the likes of CoCR, FOE and FOA on the books which, when taken at face value, appear to introduce the typical characteristics of modern democracy on all member states. But in the most glaringly obvious example of WA doublespeak, we are supposed to assume that these resolutions do not actually affect political rights, only every other sort of right. We reject totalitarian states introducing restrictions on our democracy while they can sail merrily away knowing full well that whilst their regimes endure, no convict or ex-convict in their states would ever get similar political and civil rights to those which ours already do.

[Louisistan]

Draft eleven has been posted.

The United City-States of Lalaki plans to submit this resolution by Sunday. Unless any other WA members would object to this, in which case submission will wait another week or two.

OOC: I have not followed the debate very closely and would like a chance to go over the current draft before you submit it, if you don't mind. As I'm currently not at home I'm afraid I will not be able to do so before sunday evening (CEST). If you could wait that long, that'd be appreciated.

[Lalaki]

Draft eleven has been posted.

The United City-States of Lalaki plans to submit this resolution by Sunday. Unless any other WA members would object to this, in which case submission will wait another week or two.

OOC: I have not followed the debate very closely and would like a chance to go over the current draft before you submit it, if you don't mind. As I'm currently not at home I'm afraid I will not be able to do so before sunday evening (CEST). If you could wait that long, that'd be appreciated.

Understood. Lalaki will wait until you can critique the resolution.

[Lalaki]

In a rather unusual move, the President of Bananaistan, Ms Alriel Clayhanger, has accompanied Ambassador Hornwood into the chamber, to address the WA for only the second time since taking office:

We note that the great big loophole of disenfranchisement of convicts as part of their sentence, IE the example we already gave of a person being given, say, a custodial sentence of some period of time and a period of disenfranchisement on top of that, has not been addressed, save that such a period of disenfranchisement could not be permanent.

The committee is superfluous. No other resolution requires a committee to ensure or monitor compliance. That's what the World Assembly Compliance Commission is for.

We remain utterly opposed. This was and still is nothing only a feel good piece of unnecessary fluff and is just more WA doublespeak regarding democracy and individual political rights. We would fully support any proposal introducing democracy across the board in member nations but, as we know, such would be against the rules. Yet, we still have the likes of CoCR, FOE and FOA on the books which, when taken at face value, appear to introduce the typical characteristics of modern democracy on all member states. But in the most glaringly obvious example of WA doublespeak, we are supposed to assume that these resolutions do not actually affect political rights, only every other sort of right. We reject totalitarian states introducing restrictions on our democracy while they can sail merrily away knowing full well that whilst their regimes endure, no convict or ex-convict in their states would ever get similar political and civil rights to those which ours already do.

General Secretary Jo S. Ko walks into the WA chamber to respond to President Clayhanger's comments.

"We appreciate the advice on the committee the resolution creates and the alleged loophole addressed (even if by the committee). However, the delegation of Banaistan seems to be ideologically opposed to this resolution. We apologize for this inability to reconcile. We assure you that Lalaki is not a totalitarian state, and we are simply disturbed that ex-convicts in many nations are refused the right to vote in democratic member nations. In our view, and in the view of many who have debated this resolution, this would not go against CoCR or other civil rights measures. It must be made as an explicit point. Thank you."

[Mundiferrum]

I wonder, though....
"PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction, while also noting that voting rights will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts. "
What if, as punishment, the government gave them the right to vote in an election, but not when an election is going on? I'm sort of sure that could also be a loophole....

And yeah, I agree with Bananaistan's point: we already have a compliance commission, why do we need a committee to enforce this resolution? It's not as if they have anything anymore special to do than determine whether a nation complies....EDIT: Although, and this may or may not be fully ture, the point on disenfranchisement as a punishment is already addressed with the, er, aforequoted statement, I believe.

[Lalaki]

I wonder, though....
"PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction, while also noting that voting rights will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts. "
What if, as punishment, the government gave them the right to vote in an election, but not when an election is going on? I'm sort of sure that could also be a loophole....

And yeah, I agree with Bananaistan's point: we already have a compliance commission, why do we need a committee to enforce this resolution? It's not as if they have anything anymore special to do than determine whether a nation complies....EDIT: Although, and this may or may not be fully ture, the point on disenfranchisement as a punishment is already addressed with the, er, aforequoted statement, I believe.

Draft 12 has been posted. Read through it and express any concerns you have.

[Mundiferrum]

I think I'm good. And ignore my earlier point on disenfranchisement, that was ill-advised on my part.

[Lalaki]

I think I'm good. And ignore my earlier point on disenfranchisement, that was ill-advised on my part.

Excellent. It has been a pleasure debating the resolution with you.

[Lalaki]

Does anyone else have suggestions? This needs to be as polished as possible.

[Normlpeople]

Does anyone else have suggestions? This needs to be as polished as possible.

"Just two. First:"

PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction, while also noting that voting rights during elections will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts.

"I think this should be broken up into two clauses, I dislike 'also' in a legal document. Perhaps break it up something like this:

PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction;

CLARIFIES that voting rights during elections will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts.

"

OOC: The second one is more of a technical thing.

AFFIRMING the right of the World Assembly Compliance Commission to investigate and ensure the following of all guidelines in this resolution.

Are you making a committee? Why not just use the currently existing OEA instead, expanding their duties?

[Mundiferrum]

OOC: The second one is more of a technical thing.

AFFIRMING the right of the World Assembly Compliance Commission to investigate and ensure the following of all guidelines in this resolution.

Are you making a committee? Why not just use the currently existing OEA instead, expanding their duties?

Oh, that's a much better committee to work with.

[Lalaki]

Does anyone else have suggestions? This needs to be as polished as possible.

"Just two. First:"

PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction, while also noting that voting rights during elections will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts.

"I think this should be broken up into two clauses, I dislike 'also' in a legal document. Perhaps break it up something like this:

PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction;

CLARIFIES that voting rights during elections will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts.

"

OOC: The second one is more of a technical thing.

AFFIRMING the right of the World Assembly Compliance Commission to investigate and ensure the following of all guidelines in this resolution.

Are you making a committee? Why not just use the currently existing OEA instead, expanding their duties?

I thought the World Assembly Compliance Commission was a committee?

Anyways, what does OEA stand for? So that I can look it up.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Anyways, what does OEA stand for? So that I can look it up.

viewtopic.php?p=4592277#p4592277

[Araraukar]

I thought the World Assembly Compliance Commission was a committee?

OOC: Isn't that the ingame in-character way the game applies the WA law stat changes to your nation? If so, it's not a resolution-created committee (as far as I know).

[Louisistan]

Deputy Ambassador Schulz is shouting at an aide. "You little .... You did WHAT?! I HAVE TOLD YOU TIME AND AGAIN THAT YOU DON'T GET TO FILTER WHAT LANDS ON MY DESK!!! I WANT TO BE INFORMED ABOUT EVERY DAMN PROPOSAL THAT IS INTRODUCED HERE YOU LITTLE...! GET OUT!!"

He turns around to address the assembly: "Sorry you had to hear that. Anyway. Here's our assessment of this proposal:"

PROHIBITS governments from inducing permanent disenfranchisement upon conviction, while also noting that voting rights during elections will only be granted if the offender meets all other necessary criteria that does not unjustly/unfairly discriminate against ex-convicts.

"I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. Permanent revocation of voting rights has been an important judicial tool in Louisistan when dealing with political crimes or cases of high treason. In such cases, the revocation is explicitly stated in the verdict. Maybe this could be changed to a version where such a revocation must be explicitly stated, so that it doesn't become some implicit consequence of being convicted of something? Otherwise I fear we must vote against - although there are very few publicly elected offices in our nation."

[Lalaki]

Draft thirteen has been posted.

[Lalaki]

"I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. Permanent revocation of voting rights has been an important judicial tool in Louisistan when dealing with political crimes or cases of high treason. In such cases, the revocation is explicitly stated in the verdict. Maybe this could be changed to a version where such a revocation must be explicitly stated, so that it doesn't become some implicit consequence of being convicted of something? Otherwise I fear we must vote against - although there are very few publicly elected offices in our nation."

I am afraid that this will be a point we cannot concede. Lalaki apologizes, and wishes your nation well.

[Normlpeople]

DELEGATES the power of EXPANDS the mandate of the Organization for Electoral Assistance (OEA), as established by WA Resolution #130, to ensure the following of the guidelines in this resolution in all applicable member nations. This includes making sure that punishments are not increased or modified to curtail enfranchisement for ex-convicts, and also investigating applicable member nations that are accused of doing so.

OOC: Leave that part out, reference the committee, not the establishing resolution, as to avoid the house of cards. Also, a small change in wording for consideration.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Leave that part out, reference the committee, not the establishing resolution, as to avoid the house of cards.

OOC: Well, that no longer seems to be an issue, as long as you don't build your whole resolution on top of another:

GA rules: A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existence...

OOC: This seems to indicate that referencing past resolutions is fine as long as the proposal referencing those past resolution can exist independently of those references <snip>

That's how I interpret that rule, too.

[Louisistan]

"I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. Absolutely unacceptable. Permanent revocation of voting rights has been an important judicial tool in Louisistan when dealing with political crimes or cases of high treason. In such cases, the revocation is explicitly stated in the verdict. Maybe this could be changed to a version where such a revocation must be explicitly stated, so that it doesn't become some implicit consequence of being convicted of something? Otherwise I fear we must vote against - although there are very few publicly elected offices in our nation."

I am afraid that this will be a point we cannot concede. Lalaki apologizes, and wishes your nation well.

"In that case, we return the good wishes and prepare to oppose this proposal.

[Lalaki]

Preparing for submission in the next few hours. Does anyone object?