[SHELVED]Repeal GA Resolution #16

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC: I realise that this would probably be a forlorn hope, bearing in mind not only the number of people who seem to vote simply on the basis of proposals’ titles (some of whom will assume that a resolution of this title actually abolishes individual rights directly, instead of just freeing member nations to make their own decisions on the matter; and some of whom will then react as though it’s their own RL rights being targeted…) but also those who support GAR#16 for reasons other than the one that I’m arguing against here and would be worried about the possible lack of a replacement (if the CoCR isn’t considered enough…) too, but the idea’s been floating around in my head for a while so I’ve decided to at least see what reaction this draft receives…

Repeal “Sexual Privacy Act”

Resolution targeted: GA resolution #16 “Sexual Privacy Act”

Argument: The World Assembly,

Aware that some of the various health problems from which people can suffer have a genetic basis,

Understanding the basic principles of both genetics and statistics,

Recognising therefore that such health problems are more likely to occur in those individuals whose parents were closely related to each other than they are to occur in individuals with parents less closely related to each other,

Believing that in some cases it may be considered desirable to reduce the incidence of such health problems,

Noting that one method for making such a reduction would be to restrict the rights of closely-related people to produce children together,

Recognising that GA Resolution #16, the “Sexual Privacy Act”, effectively bars member nations from imposing any such restrictions,

Hoping that any new resolution that might subsequent be passed to replace GA Resolution #16 will take this factor into account;

Hereby repeals GA Resolution #16, the “Sexual Privacy Act”.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Is there a particular reason for not using the actual word "incest" in the draft?

[Bears Armed]

Is there a particular reason for not using the actual word "incest" in the draft?

i'm trying to avoid 'morality' arguments here, and suspect that using that word would be likelier to provoke them.

[Defwa]

Is there a particular reason for not using the actual word "incest" in the draft?

i'm trying to avoid 'morality' arguments here, and suspect that using that word would be likelier to provoke them.

That's a good point.

Personally, I'd like to have a long discussion of creative compliance on gar16 before this gets to vote. I've heard at least reference to individuals misusing it to continue to ban things as innocent as homosexuality by declaring them mental illnesses. It that's valid, its enough grounds for me to be fully for this repeal.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Well, OK, two things:

1) The WA operates under a central doctrine called Reasonable Nations Theory. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

2) I've reread the entire original resolution and see nothing that would allow nations to ban sexual activity if participants are mentally ill.

[Defwa]

"(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness."

Its not unprecedented to consider incest and homosexuality a mental illness, even in reasonable nations. Many cannot comprehend how a person of sound mind could turn to these 'alternative' tastes.
It would have to be painted in a certain way- as a form of self harm or something dangerous to the public, but thats not unheard of either

[The Dark Star Republic]

Its not unprecedented to consider incest and homosexuality a mental illness, even in reasonable nations.

Hence the Institutional Psychiatry Act.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

... I've reread the entire original resolution and see nothing that would allow nations to ban sexual activity if participants are mentally ill.

You don't agree that the definition of "consent" in 2)b, which specifically excludes 'consent' given by those suffering "severe mental illness," coupled with the criminalization provision of nonconsentual activity in 3)c, allows such a ban? I agree that a plain reading wouldn't permit simply making all sexual activity carried out by any mentally ill persons illegal, full stop; but nations in this Assembly have been everything from willing, to cavalier, to proud about squeezing their laws through far slimmer loopholes than that.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

... I've reread the entire original resolution and see nothing that would allow nations to ban sexual activity if participants are mentally ill.

You don't agree that the definition of "consent" in 2)b, which specifically excludes 'consent' given by those suffering "severe mental illness," coupled with the criminalization provision of nonconsentual activity in 3)c, allows such a ban?

No, because I learned to read, particularly the very last clause of the resolution:

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

[Defwa]

Its not unprecedented to consider incest and homosexuality a mental illness, even in reasonable nations.

Hence the Institutional Psychiatry Act.

In sure you're referring to "5. No perceived threat to the social, political or cultural values of the majority (e.g., sexual orientation, unconventional gender roles or political ideology), or the suppression of dissent shall ever be the justification for a patient’s admittance to a mental health facility" as that's the only part I could find about this subject.

Note that it doesn't stop you from declaring someone mentally ill. You just can't use a case of the gay on the admittance form.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Hence the Institutional Psychiatry Act.

In sure you're referring to "5. No perceived threat to the social, political or cultural values of the majority (e.g., sexual orientation, unconventional gender roles or political ideology), or the suppression of dissent shall ever be the justification for a patient’s admittance to a mental health facility" as that's the only part I could find about this subject.

Note that it doesn't stop you from declaring someone mentally ill. You just can't use a case of the gay on the admittance form.

No reasonable nation could construe a condition that can't lead to hospitalisation as a "severe mental illness".

But, this is the same WA that tried to argue that a committee called a Courthouse must mean a literal courthouse is performing committee functions, that a reference to "past resolutions" includes repealed ones, and that a definition can only apply to one single conjugation of a verb, so who knows.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

*snip*

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

[Hakio]

"I must once again refer you to the hypothetical alien friends who could possibly not be affected by inbreeding due to the nature of how their genetics proliferate biologically. DNA is most likely not the only genetic make up that makes this honored Assembly," states Sia Hedishi adjusting her 'I <3 Aliens' T-Shirt. "Furthermore, what about synthetic sentient persons made up of by biotechnology that also would not be affected how us humans are by inbreeding."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

You don't agree that the definition of "consent" in 2)b, which specifically excludes 'consent' given by those suffering "severe mental illness," coupled with the criminalization provision of nonconsentual activity in 3)c, allows such a ban?

No, because I learned to read, particularly the very last clause of the resolution:

(b) No Nation shall construe the notion of consent in such a way as to summarily deny that capacity to heterosexuals, homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered individuals.

You're a real charmer, Ambassador. Now personally I like to save my own rhetorical goalpost movement to more dire and high-stakes cases, but to each his own, I suppose.

Were you telling the truth about having learned to read, you'd note I nowhere said anything about any nation being able to equate non-hetero sexuality with mental illness in and of itself. What I was (apparently far less obviously than I'd thought) responding to was specifically and only your comment about mental illness, which you never bothered to link to sexual orientation in any way:

Well, OK, two things:

1) The WA operates under a central doctrine called Reasonable Nations Theory. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it.

2) I've reread the entire original resolution and see nothing that would allow nations to ban sexual activity if participants are mentally ill.

If you'd like to amend your original statement, by all means I'm happy to consider it so amended.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

In context, the question was whether nations could effectively ban homosexual activity on the grounds that homosexuality is a "mental illness." That is what I was arguing against, and that is what I was assuming you were responding to. If you'd rather argue about something else, I don't know what to tell you.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In context, the question was whether nations could effectively ban homosexual activity on the grounds that homosexuality is a "mental illness." That is what I was arguing against, and that is what I was assuming you were responding to. If you'd rather argue about something else, I don't know what to tell you.

Nah, I'm good. Thanks for clarifying. To context, then:

In sure you're referring to "5. No perceived threat to the social, political or cultural values of the majority (e.g., sexual orientation, unconventional gender roles or political ideology), or the suppression of dissent shall ever be the justification for a patient’s admittance to a mental health facility" as that's the only part I could find about this subject.

Note that it doesn't stop you from declaring someone mentally ill. You just can't use a case of the gay on the admittance form.

No reasonable nation could construe a condition that can't lead to hospitalisation as a "severe mental illness".

While no member of our WA delegation has ever not been taken by surprise at the torture nations are able to wreak on language in service of non-, semi-, or imaginative compliance, I have to agree that I can't find any way to read the resolutions in question that permits classification of not specifically reproductive sexual desire as a mental health issue. A particularly obsessive regime might classify those activities which some cultures formerly called "sodomy" as hygienically unsound, and therfore a desire to do them constitutes "mental illness;" but no regime that then forcibly hospitalized such a huge portion of its population could long endure.

In short, we don't see the potential gross misreading of abundantly clear language as sufficient weakness to repeal GAR 16; and we don't see a way said language could be clearer save by prohibiting frankly silly minutiae like that "hygiene" example (which would be unbecoming a WA resolution even if it fit inside the character limit).

The repeal, therefore, rests on the social desirability of genetic screening (and the quality and speed of a replacement resolution); and we are not convinced that that can trump the individual right to privacy that's currently well protected by the target resolution. Of course we'll wait to hear further arguments before rushing to judgment.

[Hakio]

"What is this argument about 'reasonable nations'?" asks Sia Hedishi confused and befuddled. "Have we not already experienced enough crazy countries to know that some are entirely unreasonable? What I've learned in all my years of foreign policy work I know that if a country can find a loophole to oppress individuals, some country will. Just because their interpretation is unreasonable does not reduce our responsibility to protect the citizens of the World Assembly."

[Araraukar]

"What is this argument about 'reasonable nations'?" asks Sia Hedishi confused and befuddled.

Up until recently I had thought that Hakio was one of them, but there seems to have been a change of policy recently? Or maybe it's the drugs...

OOC: Sorry if I got that wrong, but I think Sia Hedishi is the one always snorting coke or something.

[Hakio]

"What is this argument about 'reasonable nations'?" asks Sia Hedishi confused and befuddled.

Up until recently I had thought that Hakio was one of them, but there seems to have been a change of policy recently? Or maybe it's the drugs...

OOC: Sorry if I got that wrong, but I think Sia Hedishi is the one always snorting coke or something.

Snorts cocaine.

"Our apologies, O Great Arbiter of Reasonableness."

[Bears Armed Mission]

"I must once again refer you to the hypothetical alien friends who could possibly not be affected by inbreeding due to the nature of how their genetics proliferate biologically. DNA is most likely not the only genetic make up that makes this honored Assembly," states Sia Hedishi adjusting her 'I <3 Aliens' T-Shirt. "Furthermore, what about synthetic sentient persons made up of by biotechnology that also would not be affected how us humans are by inbreeding."

You do realise that, being a repeal, this proposal would only repeal the former resolution and couldn't actually forbid inbreeding by those people -- or introduce any other new legislation, either -- as well? Hrright?
That being the case, the governments of nations with any people such as you describe in their populations would [of course] remain free to let those people continue breeding free of any consanguinity-based restrictions.

"What is this argument about 'reasonable nations'?" asks Sia Hedishi confused and befuddled. "Have we not already experienced enough crazy countries to know that some are entirely unreasonable? What I've learned in all my years of foreign policy work I know that if a country can find a loophole to oppress individuals, some country will. Just because their interpretation is unreasonable does not reduce our responsibility to protect the citizens of the World Assembly."

So we try to identify and block potential loopholes, yes. However finding and exploiting genuine loopholes is generally not regarded as "unreasonable" here. What would count as "unreasonable" in this context would be doing things like re-defining the terms used in legislation to suit the nation's tastes -- saying 'that in their nation the word "chalk" refers to the substance that most other nations call "cheese", and vice versa, for example -- and as there is no effective way to prevent that degree of unreasonable behaviour the Secretariat have said that we needn't bother trying to do so.

[Bananaistan]

I agree with Comrade Landfree. Let's tease out how countries try to get around this resolution.

On the face of it, we are disinclined to support a repeal attempt based solely on incestuous couples reproducing.

[McMasterdonia]

I would support this proposal.

[Sauvage]

How silly to not allow a country to control reproduction as it sees fit. This resolution should have been repealed sooner.

[Bears Armed Mission]

Poll added.

[Hakio]

"I must once again refer you to the hypothetical alien friends who could possibly not be affected by inbreeding due to the nature of how their genetics proliferate biologically. DNA is most likely not the only genetic make up that makes this honored Assembly," states Sia Hedishi adjusting her 'I <3 Aliens' T-Shirt. "Furthermore, what about synthetic sentient persons made up of by biotechnology that also would not be affected how us humans are by inbreeding."

You do realise that, being a repeal, this proposal would only repeal the former resolution and couldn't actually forbid inbreeding by those people -- or introduce any other new legislation, either -- as well? Hrright?
That being the case, the governments of nations with any people such as you describe in their populations would [of course] remain free to let those people continue breeding free of any consanguinity-based restrictions.

"Of course I realize it. The government of a country should not have any right to interfere with two consenting persons having sexual interaction with one another given that they are related," Sia explains her reasoning while drinking from her whiskey flask. "Incestuous couples are going to fuck whether you want them to or not. Thus, I believe that such a criticism is not enough to completely repeal a perfectly good resolution, just because some governments might want to act like dicks and try to control the sex lives of two consenting partners. Sure, incest does create more of a probability of producing offspring with defects, but it is up to their discretion whether or not they do not take proper precautions before sex."