[PASSED] Disabled Voters Act

[Christian Democrats]

For the sake of time, I'll address only a few of these points.

Many resolutions provide assistance to a member nation to help with compliance
...
It mentions nothing about non-compliance or remedies and appears to be only a dispute resolution mechanism

The courts in this proposal would be helping nations with compliance by interpreting the resolution, and "a dispute resolution mechanism" is precisely what the enforcement clause of this proposal is. Do you dispute that there will be disputes about accommodations for disabled citizens? I'm not saying nations won't comply; I'm saying there will be disagreements about how they comply.

That’s actually a terrible resolution that should be repealed. . . . It seems that it’s impossible for a state to be in compliance with that resolution.

How can compliance with a resolution be impossible if you believe compliance is automatic?

No other resolution has such an explicit reference to non-compliance by the government/state.

There is no explicit reference to non-compliance in this resolution, only a reference to obligations arising from international law.

There’s a big difference between a guaranteed independent WA committee and a tin pot domestic judiciary.

So, if this proposal had given disabled persons the right to sue their governments in an international court, you'd be fine with it?

It’s impossible for any of these to try governments as any government, in line with current WA precedent and practice, are automatically compliant. These tribunals are concerned with individuals not governments.
...
Re: #208, that’s all about two countries at loggerheads and not a citizen against their government. In any case given that all nations are automatically in compliance with WA law, it’s hard to see how that committee has any work to do at all.

I disagree. The GA Rules actually assume that some nations will not be in compliance with resolutions for the sake of roleplay.

The GA Rules ban proposals that require "that nations are ejected [from the WA] for non-compliance with any resolution."

How can a nation be in "non-compliance with any resolution" (GA Rules) if noncompliance is an impossibility?

[Bananaistan]

To ease the discussion, I'll return after you've had the opportunity to address all the points I've raised rather than muddying the waters by dragging it out over too many posts.

[Christian Democrats]

To ease the discussion, I'll return after you've had the opportunity to address all the points I've raised rather than muddying the waters by dragging it out over too many posts.

You're avoiding my questions.

• How is my clause different from the "assistance provisions" and "dispute resolution mechanisms" of which you approve?
• Do you imagine disputes under this proposal between disabled citizens and governments about implementation?
• How can compliance with a certain resolution be "impossible" if you believe compliance is automatic?
• Where is there "an explicit reference to non-compliance" in this proposal?
• Why is it okay to let citizens sue their governments in international courts but not in their own "tin pot domestic judiciaries"?
• How can a nation be in "non-compliance with any resolution" (GA Rules) if noncompliance is an impossibility?

This proposal:

Grants any person covered by Section 1 or an appropriate representative the right to sue the government in an appropriate domestic court and to receive appropriate equitable relief from that tribunal if the government does not meet its obligations under this resolution.

This is a "dispute resolution mechanism." It's just not one that you like.

Government: We're providing "appropriate accommodations" to disabled citizens in accordance with the Disabled Voters Act.
Disabled citizens: No, you're not. Your efforts are half-hearted and do not bring to fruition the intent and spirit of the law.
Judge: I agree. I order the government to provide additional accommodations to meet its international legal obligations.

I'd appreciate a name for the rule that I'm allegedly violating, not just a citation of an obscure and debatable ruling from four years ago (prompted by my critique of a proposal) under an old set of GA rules no longer in force.

[Bananaistan]

You're avoiding my questions.

I see, I have to reply all your points while you only have to reply a fraction of mine? I feel I have adequately addressed all this and if you went thought my long reply to your long reply, we might achieve something.

Regardless, I have stated that I think there might be an illegality on the basis of the ruling and the general practice that compliance is mandatory, as per the FAQ.

[Christian Democrats]

You're avoiding my questions.

I see, I have to reply all your points while you only have to reply a fraction of mine?

I didn't say you have to reply to all of my points. I'd be thrilled if you'd respond to just a few of them.

Like a committee proposal, this proposal designates domestic courts "to carry out specific duties related to the proposal" (GA Rules). What are those duties? The main duty is determining the government's "obligations under this resolution" (sec. 5), a "dispute resolution mechanism" to use your term or a "compliance enforcement mechanism" to use my own term for the exact same concept.

Regardless, I have stated that I think there might be an illegality on the basis of the ruling and the general practice that compliance is mandatory, as per the FAQ.

That ruling is vague, and it came under an old set of rules. "General practice" is not a GA Rule.

And my proposal does assume that compliance is mandatory, which is why there's a dispute resolution mechanism in the first place.

[Bananaistan]

I'll boil it down to this. You proposal contains the phrase “if the government does not meet its obligations under this resolution”, that is an explicit reference to non-compliance. No other resolution contains such a reference. Having such a reference, certainly gives the appearance of either an assumption of or an allowance for non-compliance.

That clause is totally different to the other assistance provisions and dispute resolution mechanisms, as there's nothing about assisting a government to comply with the resolution and the dispute resolution mechanisms are all about disputes between two state actors, not between a state and a citizen.

Edit: OOC: Btw, you might see me online occasionally between now and about 17/18 hours time. I'll be on the phone so I won't be able to reply in that timeframe but it won't mean that I've abandoned the debate.

[Christian Democrats]

I'll boil it down to this. You proposal contains the phrase “if the government does not meet its obligations under this resolution”, that is an explicit reference to non-compliance.

No, it isn't an explicit reference to noncompliance. It's a reference to obligations, namely obligations arising under Section 4:

Directs member states and their political subdivisions to make good-faith efforts to ensure that all persons covered by Section 1 receive appropriate accommodations allowing them to vote in public elections on an equal basis with voters who do not have physical or mental impairments.

Somebody has to determine what obligations arise from the terms "good-faith efforts," "appropriate accommodations," and "equal basis." In this proposal, that somebody is the domestic judiciary. There is nothing whatsoever in the GA Rules that requires proposals to create committees "to carry out specific duties related to [legislation]" (GA Rules). Domestic courts can be designated to carry out those tasks.

No other resolution contains such a reference.

False. There are 22 resolutions that use the word "compliance." This proposal doesn't even do that.

Having such a reference, certainly gives the appearance of either an assumption of or an allowance for non-compliance.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that disputes will arise between disabled citizens and their governments in some member states over interpretation and implementation of this act. Domestic courts will have the authority to decide such disputes, potentially forcing governments to do more. If such a case were to come up in a court, I'd recommend that the judge or judges proceed as follows:

• What are the obligations of the government under the Disabled Voters Act?
• Is the government meeting those international legal obligations?
• If not, what sort of equitable relief can we provide to help the plaintiffs?

That clause is totally different to the other assistance provisions and dispute resolution mechanisms, as there's nothing about assisting a government to comply with the resolution and the dispute resolution mechanisms are all about disputes between two state actors, not between a state and a citizen.

It's not unique at all. Surveying just part of this body's legislation, I found that the Assembly has granted prisoners the right to challenge their conditions in domestic "oversight institutions" (#194) and that it has given detainees the right to sue for their release in "impartial judicial bod[ies]" of the countries where they're being held (#201). What's more, GA#299 gives individuals the right to appeal government determinations that they are mentally handicapped; GA#202 gives individuals the right to appeal criminal convictions; and GA#147 gives individuals the right to challenge decisions by the government to extradite them to foreign countries.

If I went back further, I'm sure I could find many more examples.

Plenty of resolutions set forth "dispute resolution mechanisms" dealing with conflicts between the state and a citizen.

[Chester Pearson]

GA#272 bans chemical weapons attacks by member states but creates a committee to deal with chemical weapons attacks "offensive" to the resolution, thus assuming some nations will not comply.

Because non-members are not bound by the conventions of international law. If this travesty actually had some international relevance, you could use that argument, but using in the context you are is disingenuous, and you know it.

As it stands, this mess is going to pass. It was so nice of the Secretariat to even bother reading my GHR on the matter, let alone get back to me on it.

[Christian Democrats]

As it stands, this mess is going to pass.

Of course it'll pass. It doesn't fall under any rules violation.

A game mechanics violation "requires an adjustment to how the game does things, or requires a change of code." For example, a proposal that would require nations to be "ejected [from the WA] for non-compliance with any resolution" would fall in this category. The GA Rules say that game mechanics requests belong in the Technical forum. The Disabled Voters Act is completely roleplay. It contains no technical elements: quorum adjustments, new WA, automatic WA ejections, etc.

A meta-gaming violation "is one that breaks 'the fourth wall', or attempts to force events outside of the WA itself." The Disabled Voters Act does not go outside the WA. It does not affect non-WA nations, it does not regulate regions, it does not require the moderators to do anything, and it does not mandate certain "actions on the forums."

If this proposal does not require the administrators to make changes to the game and if it does not attempt to force external events within the jurisdiction of the WA, it is perfectly legal. The legal challenge is that it makes some implicit reference to compliance against "general practice," which is manifestly absurd since more than 20 past resolutions have spoken of compliance explicitly.

Mentioning compliance explicitly or implicitly clearly isn't banned as long as you don't write an entire proposal about it (cf. the ruling in 2011), and there is precedent for resolutions giving citizens the right to take legal action against state actors in domestic courts.

This proposal doesn't assume anything about compliance; it assumes that disabled persons and governments will have disputes regarding the "obligations" created by Section 4. If a disabled citizen needs a particular accommodation, he can sue for it. The domestic judiciary is charged with deciding whether or not the government is required to provide it. Is it "appropriate" given domestic circumstances?

I put Section 4 and Section 5 next to each other for this exact reason.

[Mandokarla]

As it stands, this mess is going to pass.

Of course it'll pass. It doesn't fall under any rules violation.

I agree. Unless you really read into the rules, there's no violation that I can see. If you don't like this thing, then you'd better get started drafting a repeal instead of arguing over little details.

[Christian Democrats]

Of course it'll pass. It doesn't fall under any rules violation.

I agree. Unless you really read into the rules, there's no violation that I can see. If you don't like this thing, then you'd better get started drafting a repeal instead of arguing over little details.

I can already give you the main ground for any attempted repeal effort.

This proposal could open nations up to flurries of lawsuits by disability rights advocates! Wah!

[Mallorea and Riva]

GA#272 bans chemical weapons attacks by member states but creates a committee to deal with chemical weapons attacks "offensive" to the resolution, thus assuming some nations will not comply.

Because non-members are not bound by the conventions of international law. If this travesty actually had some international relevance, you could use that argument, but using in the context you are is disingenuous, and you know it.

As it stands, this mess is going to pass. It was so nice of the Secretariat to even bother reading my GHR on the matter, let alone get back to me on it.

FWIW we read it and ruled, but a flurry of other rulings caused sending you a VOM to get lost in the shuffle. On the grounds that you requested we examined the resolution and found it to be legal.

[Mandokarla]

On the grounds that you requested we examined the resolution and found it to be legal.

Well, that's that. No more arguing required. Now the only thing to do is vote.

[Christian Democrats]

On the grounds that you requested we examined the resolution and found it to be legal.

Well, that's that. No more arguing required. Now the only thing to do is vote.

Mr. Pearson's complaint was that this proposal committed a strength violation.

Bananaistan has a separate complaint that this proposal violates GA "general practice," whatever the heck that means. Of course, I've given plenty of evidence that references to "compliance" and that citizen legal actions against states are not uncommon in legislation.

[Bananaistan]

The secretariat have not upheld my objection. I will report fully later.

I still haven't seen CD provide one example of any other resolution which directly includes a reference to "if a government doesn't comply" or words to that effect. The idea that the general practice is that compliance is mandatory and automatic is some fuzzy half-idea I dreamt up is disingenuous. It has always been clear around here.

[Christian Democrats]

The secretariat have not upheld my objection. I will report fully later.

Great news! I look forward to your report.

I still haven't seen CD provide one example of any other resolution which directly includes a reference to "if a government doesn't comply" or words to that effect.

This proposal doesn't say that, and there are numerous references to compliance in past resolutions. You're just not accepting them.

The idea that the general practice is that compliance is mandatory and automatic is some fuzzy half-idea I dreamt up is disingenuous. It has always been clear around here.

I don't believe so. Compliance is always mandatory, but resolutions often establish RP mechanisms (usually committees) for ensuring it.

In the absence of an RP enforcement clause (e.g., the WATC has jurisdiction to decide disputes arising under the terms of this act), we assume that Gnomes force nations to follow the resolution in some reasonable manner (i.e., reasonable nation theory).

Section 4 of the Disabled Voters Act foreseeably will give rise to multiple reasonable interpretations given that there are too many disabilities to count, given that member states have different levels of technology, given that member states have different electoral systems, and given other local factors. Section 5 will give the domestic judiciary the power to adjudicate between those reasonable interpretations and rule in favor of disabled citizens if it believes the government is not doing enough to meet its obligations.

[Bananaistan]

As stated in this moderation thread, nations are able to RP non-compliance. (even though from a stats perspective each nation is automatically compliant)
Legality appeal denied.

That's the tg from the mods.

I haven't gone through in in any details yet.

I still think that all those mentions of compliance in passed resolutions, and there's not really that many tbf, do not contain the same notional idea of a nation not being in compliance and providing a remedy to a harmed citizen. EG Debris Prevention says that the state must have system in place to certify an object. We have already been a pile of them earlier. I still see no other resolution, and you have still failed to point any other resolution, with a similar "if you don't comply, a harmed citizen etc can gain a remedy by x. y or z.

[Frustrated Franciscans]

Because the gnomes changes a nations laws doesn't mean that said nation actually enforces them. Do remember that the gnomes only ensure that the law of a nation conforms to resolutions. Not that said nation is actually abiding by the resolutions.

Just because a nation makes a selection on a daily issue doesn't mean that the nation actually enforces it ...

Except for the Stat Wank, the only actual measure of anything in this game.

But no one cares about the stats and ...

So what are you playing this game for anyway?

Be careful when pulling sticks out of the Jenga game, otherwise the entire pile collapses and you have a mess. Feel free to God Mod yourself somewhere else.

[Drewlantis]

If a nation was willing to do this and was democratic enough to assist it's citizens to vote, then do you not think that these said nations would allow for these citizens to vote and/or attempt to assist them? If someone is so ardently opposed to the disabled then this may drive them out of democracy and into dictatorship. I don't think that there is anyone like this, and since no one cares that much, I feel it is redundant and useless to pass a bill that is attempting to do what many free societies are already willing to do. All this bill may accomplish is complicating the few elections that may take place in dictatorial nations and furthermore jeopardize these elections' continual survival.

[Drewlantis]

The point of this is that I disagree that all-powerful governments, who rule their nations for various reasons (whether religious, philosophical, or just for fun) ardently and whom segregate and/or discriminate are no longer allowed to do so because other nations not of their beliefs feel as though it is unjustifiable. I must remind people that the sovereignty of nations should be held paramount to whether we agree or not with the nation's ruling style.

[Drewlantis]

Democratic nations have existed, and even exist today, without all of their citizen's having the right to vote. This does not make them bad nations, nor did it inhibit the United States, that was just who they were at the time. And a bill to attempt to forcibly change their ways may offset the growing acceptance of liberty in these countries.

Of course no one can respond and I'll have to drop it because the voting ends.

[Christian Democrats]

The next time you have three things to say in four minutes, please use the edit button.

[The Empire of Ebola]

Since it looks like this illegal travesty of a ACT will pass we just wish to state for the record we in the Empire have passed a law that OUTLAWS people with disabilities in the Empire.

Since you sure cannot vote from the grave (unless you are a Democrat or are from Chicago) this ACT no longer interests us and as such we no longer care.

Not that we HAVE elections anyway, or even have any surviving disabled people.

Carry on!

[Chester Pearson]

Since it looks like this illegal travesty of a ACT will pass we just wish to state for the record we in the Empire have passed a law that OUTLAWS people with disabilities in the Empire.

Since you sure cannot vote from the grave (unless you are a Democrat or are from Chicago) this ACT no longer interests us and as such we no longer care.

Not that we HAVE elections anyway, or even have any surviving disabled people.

Carry on!

*Crickets chirping....*

[Christian Democrats]

More than 5,000 nations were in favor of this resolution. I thank all of you for your support. Also, the Disabled Voters Act received 10,278 affirmative votes, making it the most popular resolution in absolute terms since December 3, 2013.