[Revived, DRAFT] Ex-Convict Enfranchisement

[Lalaki]

You keep drafting in this thread. You can resubmit it as many times as you like (so long as each version is legal). Enn submitted Habeas Corpus 15 times before it got to quorum.

Ah.

I think I'll submit one more time. If it fails once more, I will redraft.

[Goddess Relief Office]

What's with the all bold fonts? http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1408759049

Ambassador, if this was a filing error I suggest you fire the clerk immediately~

[Macwick]

I am sorry to say as this proposal is written we will have to vote against it. I apologise for our late appearance in this debate and would like it amended so we can support it at some future date.

The first thing that grates is the use of the word “convicts”. I would prefer “convicted criminals”. I note that Charlotte Ryberg has raised this issue already – “former offenders” and Upright Workers – “ex-felons”.

We then have problems with your definition:

DEFINING the term "ex-convicts" for the purposes of this resolution to include individuals who have completed the sentences they were given upon conviction, and have also shown no evidence for potential recurrences in crime.

This means that the police, I assume, only have to have what they consider evidence that this person is potentially about to commit a crime for them to be included in your definition. I would like to see “and have also shown no evidence for potential recurrences in crime” removed. Possibly you could add “and have not been convicted of another offence”. I note that Lexicor has suggested – “Shown evidence of good behavior in prison, with no evidence to suggest a recurrence of criminal offenses”. This is likely to have been addressed if the convicted criminal is released early on parole and so takes it away from the police and would also be acceptable to my nation. However we also note that Normlpeople objected to these extra words.

There is the issue of voting in elections and standing in elections, which are different. As we think this is about the former but the proposal is confused by the use of different terms – “participation in public elections” and “disenfranchisement”.

Therefore please can you add to

AWARE that part of this discrimination may include the denial of participation in public elections.

“especially disenfranchisement”

We would not be against the wider position as put forward by Upright Workers, "....granting them equal franchise as citizens, including, but not limited to, voting, free assembly, and the ability to serve in their local, regional, and national governments."

I note the comment from the Dark Star Republic and would like the words “the following of the guideline in this resolution” changed to “the compliance with this resolution” in the OEC section.

[Lalaki]

I have decided to reopen debate on this resolution.

My question is, why have people decided to reject this resolution?

[Separatist Peoples]

I have decided to reopen debate on this resolution.

My question is, why have people decided to reject this resolution?

"Because the right to vote is, and will always be, a national issue in the WA. Removing discriminatory and unfair practices has already been done, and ensuring the right for a particular demographic to vote, which has been stripped of that that for breaking the law anyways, is fairly nonsensical in light of that. Additionally, voters are traditionally very harsh towards violators of the law. It seems the masses have spoken."

[Hakio]

I have decided to reopen debate on this resolution.

My question is, why have people decided to reject this resolution?

"Because the right to vote is, and will always be, a national issue in the WA. Removing discriminatory and unfair practices has already been done, and ensuring the right for a particular demographic to vote, which has been stripped of that that for breaking the law anyways, is fairly nonsensical in light of that. Additionally, voters are traditionally very harsh towards violators of the law. It seems the masses have spoken."

"If the right to vote was only a national issue, we wouldn't have Furtherment of Democracy as a category," Sia argues soberly. "Removing the right for ex-convicts to vote is obviously a discriminatory practice."

[Mundiferrum]

"Because the right to vote is, and will always be, a national issue in the WA. Removing discriminatory and unfair practices has already been done, and ensuring the right for a particular demographic to vote, which has been stripped of that that for breaking the law anyways, is fairly nonsensical in light of that. Additionally, voters are traditionally very harsh towards violators of the law. It seems the masses have spoken."

"If the right to vote was only a national issue, we wouldn't have Furtherment of Democracy as a category," Sia argues soberly. "Removing the right for ex-convicts to vote is obviously a discriminatory practice."

But then he continued with "Removing discriminatory and unfair practices has already been done"; basically a reference to CoCR. I think what he meant by "a national issue" is whether or not disenfranchisement is a valid punishment against criminals (or something like that).

[Hakio]

"If the right to vote was only a national issue, we wouldn't have Furtherment of Democracy as a category," Sia argues soberly. "Removing the right for ex-convicts to vote is obviously a discriminatory practice."

But then he continued with "Removing discriminatory and unfair practices has already been done"; basically a reference to CoCR. I think what he meant by "a national issue" is whether or not disenfranchisement is a valid punishment against criminals (or something like that).

OOC: That's interesting, perhaps we could get a check from a mod on whether or not disallowing criminals to vote is discriminatory.

[Mundiferrum]

But then he continued with "Removing discriminatory and unfair practices has already been done"; basically a reference to CoCR. I think what he meant by "a national issue" is whether or not disenfranchisement is a valid punishment against criminals (or something like that).

OOC: That's interesting, perhaps we could get a check from a mod on whether or not disallowing criminals to vote is discriminatory.

OOC: And they'd probably say that it's all a matter of national purview....I mean, nations are already allowed to disenfranchise everyone on sight, and criminality isn't exactly a behavior that doesn't merit certain forms of discrimination (on that avenue, it's dubious at best).

[Separatist Peoples]

"Because the right to vote is, and will always be, a national issue in the WA. Removing discriminatory and unfair practices has already been done, and ensuring the right for a particular demographic to vote, which has been stripped of that that for breaking the law anyways, is fairly nonsensical in light of that. Additionally, voters are traditionally very harsh towards violators of the law. It seems the masses have spoken."

"If the right to vote was only a national issue, we wouldn't have Furtherment of Democracy as a category," Sia argues soberly. "Removing the right for ex-convicts to vote is obviously a discriminatory practice."

"But the WA is powerless to stop a nation from banning voting altogether. Since CoCR prevents discrimination based on arbitrary lines, and the GA can't force democracy on nations, it's rather a national decision."

[Hakio]

"If the right to vote was only a national issue, we wouldn't have Furtherment of Democracy as a category," Sia argues soberly. "Removing the right for ex-convicts to vote is obviously a discriminatory practice."

"But the WA is powerless to stop a nation from banning voting altogether. Since CoCR prevents discrimination based on arbitrary lines, and the GA can't force democracy on nations, it's rather a national decision."

"Yes, but 'arbitrary lines' has no real definition in international law. When does a characteristic barring someone from voting become arbitrary and in what resolution was this specifically set in stone?" Sia asks rather rhetorically knowing that no distinction has yet to be made, as far as she knows. "We need to provide resolutions and proposals for the protection of all people, and ex convicts' rights to vote are just as important of protecting in democracies as any other person's right to vote."

[Lalaki]

"If the right to vote was only a national issue, we wouldn't have Furtherment of Democracy as a category," Sia argues soberly. "Removing the right for ex-convicts to vote is obviously a discriminatory practice."

"But the WA is powerless to stop a nation from banning voting altogether. Since CoCR prevents discrimination based on arbitrary lines, and the GA can't force democracy on nations, it's rather a national decision."

The point of "Furtherment of Democracy" is to extend the vote to as many people as feasibly possible in WA member nations. This includes ex-convicts.

[Jarish Inyo]

Actually, it doesn't. If a nation decides that a person can not have vote, hold public office, or enter into certain career fields, after being convicted of a crime, it is that nation's right to do so. And it is something that should be decided at a national level. Not something mandated by the WA.

[Bananaistan]

We are strongly opposed to this proposal, not because it would introduce any onerous provision of law on us, as I already described that we allow all incarcerated citizens a vote anyway, but because we refuse to allow totalitarian and non-democratic member states dictate to us who or how we allow people to vote. As a matter of principle we will vote against all furtherment of democracy proposals until the day that we can vote in favour of a proposal abolishing fascism and totalitarianism.

[Separatist Peoples]

"But the WA is powerless to stop a nation from banning voting altogether. Since CoCR prevents discrimination based on arbitrary lines, and the GA can't force democracy on nations, it's rather a national decision."

"Yes, but 'arbitrary lines' has no real definition in international law. When does a characteristic barring someone from voting become arbitrary and in what resolution was this specifically set in stone?" Sia asks rather rhetorically knowing that no distinction has yet to be made, as far as she knows. "We need to provide resolutions and proposals for the protection of all people, and ex convicts' rights to vote are just as important of protecting in democracies as any other person's right to vote."

"Ambassador, have you even read CoCR?"

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

"Arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization seems incredibly self-explanatory to me. If your government is incapable of understanding that phrase without an attached dictionary, I'm afraid there's no hope, but for the rest of us, it makes sense: the reason for discrimination must be based on reason rather then whim. Those who break the social contract of society often carry that stigma their whole lives as a condition of punishment. That is not arbitrary."

The point of "Furtherment of Democracy" is to extend the vote to as many people as feasibly possible in WA member nations. This includes ex-convicts.

"And the point of the Gun Control category is to determine the legality of firearms in all members, but you don't see any intelligent members of the WA trying to use it. I'm as much a fan of democracy as anybody else; the C.D.S.P. is almost ridiculously democratic, but the fact is that, since extending voting rights is an entirely national issue, extending extra protections for groups that would absolutely fall under the exceptions of clause c of CoCR, is absolutely a national issue. You wanted to know why this was failing, ambassador. This is why."

[Araraukar]

"Yes, but 'arbitrary lines' has no real definition in international law.

"Ambassador, have you even read CoCR?"

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

"Arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization seems incredibly self-explanatory to me.
*snip*
the reason for discrimination must be based on reason rather then whim.

Considering this was my argument earlier in the debate, and I was told that ex-convict was not an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization", I'd argue it's a very good point. I think it fits the CoCR's discrimination ban, but a pack of banshees stuck at the top of the flagpole of RNT kept out-shouting my reasonable objections.

Now, you tell us, what does the CoCR definition actually mean, if "ex-convict" doesn't fit it? How is it in any manner reasonable, and how would a Reasonable Nation already not ban such arbitrary discrimination?

OOC: Not just for SP: It pisses me off that any time I roleplay something outside the Earth-human MT stuff, I get called RP-wanker and get the Reasonable Nation Theory thrown in my face, but as soon as I raise the RNT as an excuse, I get booed off the stage. Make up your fucking minds.

[Hakio]

"Ambassador, have you even read CoCR?"

"Arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization seems incredibly self-explanatory to me.
*snip*
the reason for discrimination must be based on reason rather then whim.

Considering this was my argument earlier in the debate, and I was told that ex-convict was not an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization", I'd argue it's a very good point. I think it fits the CoCR's discrimination ban, but a pack of banshees stuck at the top of the flagpole of RNT kept out-shouting my reasonable objections.

Now, you tell us, what does the CoCR definition actually mean, if "ex-convict" doesn't fit it? How is it in any manner reasonable, and how would a Reasonable Nation already not ban such arbitrary discrimination?

OOC: Not just for SP: It pisses me off that any time I roleplay something outside the Earth-human MT stuff, I get called RP-wanker and get the Reasonable Nation Theory thrown in my face, but as soon as I raise the RNT as an excuse, I get booed off the stage. Make up your fucking minds.

"Our country certainly could justify our national laws protecting the voting rights of criminals by the text in CoCR," Sia says in between snorting a line of crystallized methamphetamine. "Woo, shit. That's strong.. but anyways, I think this proposal is needed to specifically address this issue." A fly buzzes by Hedishi's face as she neurotically attempts to swat it distracted as the debate continues without her.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, have you even read CoCR?"

"Arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization seems incredibly self-explanatory to me.
*snip*
the reason for discrimination must be based on reason rather then whim.

Considering this was my argument earlier in the debate, and I was told that ex-convict was not an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization", I'd argue it's a very good point. I think it fits the CoCR's discrimination ban, but a pack of banshees stuck at the top of the flagpole of RNT kept out-shouting my reasonable objections.

Now, you tell us, what does the CoCR definition actually mean, if "ex-convict" doesn't fit it? How is it in any manner reasonable, and how would a Reasonable Nation already not ban such arbitrary discrimination?

OOC: Not just for SP: It pisses me off that any time I roleplay something outside the Earth-human MT stuff, I get called RP-wanker and get the Reasonable Nation Theory thrown in my face, but as soon as I raise the RNT as an excuse, I get booed off the stage. Make up your fucking minds.

"Sorry, ambassador, for being confusing, but that was my point. It isn't arbitrary. There's a valuable interest for the betterment of society that nations can argue for. It isn't discrimination, and it is a necessary power for several states."

[Defwa]

Considering this was my argument earlier in the debate, and I was told that ex-convict was not an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorization", I'd argue it's a very good point. I think it fits the CoCR's discrimination ban, but a pack of banshees stuck at the top of the flagpole of RNT kept out-shouting my reasonable objections.

Now, you tell us, what does the CoCR definition actually mean, if "ex-convict" doesn't fit it? How is it in any manner reasonable, and how would a Reasonable Nation already not ban such arbitrary discrimination?

OOC: Not just for SP: It pisses me off that any time I roleplay something outside the Earth-human MT stuff, I get called RP-wanker and get the Reasonable Nation Theory thrown in my face, but as soon as I raise the RNT as an excuse, I get booed off the stage. Make up your fucking minds.

"Sorry, ambassador, for being confusing, but that was my point. It isn't arbitrary. There's a valuable interest for the betterment of society that nations can argue for. It isn't discrimination, and it is a necessary power for several states."

Indeed. Though it is not the official position of the Defwaen government, how is refusal to behave within the boundaries of civil society not a perfectly valid reason to withhold certain civil rights?

[Araraukar]

"Sorry, ambassador, for being confusing, but that was my point. It isn't arbitrary. There's a valuable interest for the betterment of society that nations can argue for. It isn't discrimination, and it is a necessary power for several states."

Indeed. Though it is not the official position of the Defwaen government, how is refusal to behave within the boundaries of civil society not a perfectly valid reason to withhold certain civil rights?

OOC: Okay, colour me confused, are the two of you for or against this proposal? I can't tell from your IC statements.

[Separatist Peoples]

Indeed. Though it is not the official position of the Defwaen government, how is refusal to behave within the boundaries of civil society not a perfectly valid reason to withhold certain civil rights?

OOC: Okay, colour me confused, are the two of you for or against this proposal? I can't tell from your IC statements.

OOC: I am, though I don't disagree with it in its entirety. I'm arguing that its a national issue, not that its covered by CoCR. The quote was to point out to Haiko that "arbitrary limits" was, indeed, defined.

[Araraukar]

I'm arguing that its a national issue, not that its covered by CoCR. The quote was to point out to Haiko that "arbitrary limits" was, indeed, defined.

OOC: Except it isn't, since it can be read in two ways. The NatSov stance is your choice, and you're welcome to it, but it won't hold against something as feel-good as human rights.

[Defwa]

Indeed. Though it is not the official position of the Defwaen government, how is refusal to behave within the boundaries of civil society not a perfectly valid reason to withhold certain civil rights?

OOC: Okay, colour me confused, are the two of you for or against this proposal? I can't tell from your IC statements.

OOC: Defwa is against because it believes other countries should be allowed to continue to use previous imprisonment as a cause to rescind rights related to that imprisonment. Basically agreeing that this is legal and not a contradiction of CoCR but unwanted in the end.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Defwa is against because it believes other countries should be allowed to continue to use previous imprisonment as a cause to rescind rights related to that imprisonment. Basically agreeing that this is legal and not a contradiction of CoCR but unwanted in the end.

OOC: Ok, then the above holds true for you too. But ty both for clarification.

[John Q Cole]

The way I see it, this resolution seems to allow some exceptions to the rule, for if a government is so tyrannical that it normally grants long prison terms for small crimes which always happens in my nation, this resolution would barely affect such a nation.
-J. Q. Cole

EDIT: Also, I think that the GA should not have the authority to legislate on this topics. If someone was convicted of manslaughter due to suffocating babies, is it reasonable to expect that they will vote for a sane candidate? Thus, I, John Q. Cole, as representative of my nation, announce my intention to vote AGAINST.