[PASSED] Rights of Sapient Species [Now with FAQ]

[Imperium Anglorum]

Then if they exclude all life, they are in non-compliance with GA#122. So they are willing to not comply anyways, no definition would do anything.

122 merely asks you to read the damn resolution, nothing more, nothing less. After reading it I determined that you did not define "physical entity" which leaves that loophole open perfectly well. It is within the bounds of legality, and heck, it is the first definition of "physical" that I am using, so I do not understand what you are getting at here.

No.

MANDATES that all governments in member states:

a) Establish a government office, whose task it shall be to read the entire text any resolution that comes up for debate, and to report it's findings back to the national government;

b) Ensure that this office shall be staffed by at least one sapient, literate employee;

[Atomic Utopia]

No.

MANDATES that all governments in member states:

a) Establish a government office, whose task it shall be to read the entire text any resolution that comes up for debate, and to report it's findings back to the national government;

b) Ensure that this office shall be staffed by at least one sapient, literate employee;

How could of I missed that problem. That was... stupid on my part, I will attempt to find another way to creatively comply with this in such a way that would not break WA law so the exploit can be patched if you will.

[Elke and Elba]

No.

How could of I missed that problem. That was... stupid on my part, I will attempt to find another way to creatively comply with this in such a way that would not break WA law so the exploit can be patched if you will.

Good luck!

As an aside I think it is an irony the 'literate' author of 122 has failed to discern between its and it's.

[Excidium Planetis]

Made a new draft, incorporated several suggestions:

• Made a Legal age of majority clause
• Added "unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights" to two of the clauses
• Added a definition of Appropriate judgement
• Made it so sapience tests cannot be based on anatomy or genetics, and must be based on mental capacity.

Anything else? I need more work on this, to be sure. Everyone Most people must be pleased!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Setting an age of majority is historically dicey territory, although I doubt the simple requirement that it be at the age of SM or above would cause any significant problems. See how it goes.

Regulating sapient rights as to whether they are "on a par with humans" throws me off. Humans are not specified in any standing resolution (the one or two that do single out human beings have been repealed). Why can't the standard simply be that all sapient species be afforded equal protection under WA law?

[Excidium Planetis]

Setting an age of majority is historically dicey territory, although I doubt the simple requirement that it be at the age of SM or above would cause any significant problems. See how it goes.

Regulating sapient rights as to whether they are "on a par with humans" throws me off. Humans are not specified in any standing resolution (the one or two that do single out human beings have been repealed). Why can't the standard simply be that all sapient species be afforded equal protection under WA law?

A mandate that all sapients be treated equally seems interesting, but runs up against many problems this one has faced:
- Can sapient be defined to exclude humans, and thus allow granting humans more/less rights than sapients?
- What if giving sapients certain protections is actually detrimental to them? Must you treat them equally?
- What if you treat all sapients equally horribly, but then grant special privileges to humans? Or, say Klingons make up 1% of your nation, and you legalize species-based job discrimination. This hurts the 99% humans far less than the Klingons, but you still are granting equal rights, no?

Additionally, while "human" is used rarely (though "human trafficking" still appears in Ban on Slavery and Trafficking), the word "person" is quite common... though I suppose I could define person here as "sapient being"...

Actually, I find your solution more elegant, and it also provides a way to avoid forced roleplaying the existence of humans! I will look into this further.

[Excidium Planetis]

Since the repeal draft by The Global Republic (and me) seems to be on track to make it to vote, I bump this thread.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Missed opportunity to call the thread Protection of Sapient Rights 2: Electric Boogaloo.

And you can probably drop the Definition of Extant International Law, it doesn't really need it.

[Cheyenne and Arapaho Systems]

Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights.

"As written, this currently incorporates both human rights like protection from torture, and civic rights, like firearms ownership and voting. You may want to specify rights granted by the WA, rather than all rights. CoCR will cover the more egregious issues of unequal application of rights and due processes between species while allowing for practical differentiation based on age or other reasonable criteria. While I realize the previous clause covers deals with that specifically, nations interpreting WA law from a common law perspective will take the later clause as superseding the previous, and, upon a literal interpretation of the clause in question, assume infants will be allowed to vote. A little clarification will help."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Requires that in defining legal age of majority, member nations must define legal age of majority for individual species; the legal age of majority cannot be lower than the average age of sexual maturity for that species.

"I'm not clear how this provision protects the rights of sapient beings. Even among human societies there's variation on what majority age should be; I can't imagine a good reason to impose this requirement on any beings, in any nation, without even asking them about it."

[Excidium Planetis]

And you can probably drop the Definition of Extant International Law, it doesn't really need it.

Yes it does. "Existing International Law" has been used before to mean "laws already existing when the resolution was passed" and has typically been a blocker phrase. I defined it that way in the original and in the replacement to prevent it from being construed that way.

"As written, this currently incorporates both human rights like protection from torture, and civic rights, like firearms ownership and voting. You may want to specify rights granted by the WA, rather than all rights.

"Why on Terra would I want to do that? Sapient beings should not be denied gun ownership if humans are allowed to possess guns."

CoCR will cover the more egregious issues of unequal application of rights and due processes between species while allowing for practical differentiation based on age or other reasonable criteria.

"Nope. CoCR only applies to inhabitants of member nations, allowing discrimination against non-human non-inhabitants. This was discussed in the original resolution."

While I realize the previous clause covers deals with that specifically, nations interpreting WA law from a common law perspective will take the later clause as superseding the previous, and, upon a literal interpretation of the clause in question, assume infants will be allowed to vote. A little clarification will help."

"How on Terra would you come to that conclusion? 'Mandates that member nations extend the same rights given to human children and mentally ill or mentally disabled humans to the children of sapient beings and mentally disabled or mentally ill beings of the same species as a sapient being, unless these rights threaten the survival of the beings to be granted the rights'. Unless you give human infants the right to vote, I don't see how non-human infants would get the right to vote."

Requires that in defining legal age of majority, member nations must define legal age of majority for individual species; the legal age of majority cannot be lower than the average age of sexual maturity for that species.

"I'm not clear how this provision protects the rights of sapient beings. Even among human societies there's variation on what majority age should be; I can't imagine a good reason to impose this requirement on any beings, in any nation, without even asking them about it."

"It prevents 'baby elf rape' as so eloquently named by the Mundiferrum ambassador. In other words, it clarifies that even if the legal age of majority for humans is 18 years of age, the legal age of majority for non-humans must be determined on a species-by-species basis and can't be set at a low enough age to make immature children legally old enough to consent to sex."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I'm not clear how this provision protects the rights of sapient beings. Even among human societies there's variation on what majority age should be; I can't imagine a good reason to impose this requirement on any beings, in any nation, without even asking them about it."

"It prevents 'baby elf rape' as so eloquently named by the Mundiferrum ambassador. In other words, it clarifies that even if the legal age of majority for humans is 18 years of age, the legal age of majority for non-humans must be determined on a species-by-species basis and can't be set at a low enough age to make immature children legally old enough to consent to sex."

"OK, I think we can all agree that's a fair concern. But it's still not clear why the age of sexual consent is necessarily linked with the voting age. Many, many countries have laws about things their people may not do until a certain age, above the age of majority - for example, the minimum age for recreational chemical use in many places is above the voting age. I don't see how that specific requirement solves the problem without mandating totally unrelated changes to other nations' consent or voting laws; and there's no particular reason I can see why a species with certain developmental characteristics shouldn't be able to have an age of consent above, and separate from, its voting age."

"If you must keep this provision, I would recommend changing the phrase 'sexual maturity for that species' to something like 'onset of reproductive maturation for that species.' That removes much of the sidelong micromanagement, and accounts for species that reproduce asexually."

"But there's still a problem: this draft requires nations to treat non-biological sapient beings equally with biological ones; but if the non-biological beings are not equipped to reproduce themselves, this draft leaves the gaping loophole that said entities might never achieve the age of majority, no matter how qualified they are for citizenship in every other possible way. I see three options to resolve this: first, you could trust nations to set their own ages of majority and trust that they will be able to handle the baby elf rape problem on their own; two, you could radically rework the age of majority requirement in some fashion I can't imagine right now on the fly; or three, you could leave non-biological beings for a separate resolution."

...

OOC: Some countries IRL have a voting age of 16; Iran let 15 year old boys vote as recently as 2007, with ongoing efforts to return it to that age; and if ancient Hebrews ran a modern electoral system, they'd have to have a voting age of 13. Even if 15 and 16 year olds are biologically capable of reproduction, that's not really sexual maturity. And that's not accounting for places like Indonesia, where the voting age is 18 but the age of sexual consent is 19. Anyway, give it some thought!

[Excidium Planetis]

"It prevents 'baby elf rape' as so eloquently named by the Mundiferrum ambassador. In other words, it clarifies that even if the legal age of majority for humans is 18 years of age, the legal age of majority for non-humans must be determined on a species-by-species basis and can't be set at a low enough age to make immature children legally old enough to consent to sex."

"OK, I think we can all agree that's a fair concern. But it's still not clear why the age of sexual consent is necessarily linked with the voting age. Many, many countries have laws about things their people may not do until a certain age, above the age of majority - for example, the minimum age for recreational chemical use in many places is above the voting age. I don't see how that specific requirement solves the problem without mandating totally unrelated changes to other nations' consent or voting laws; and there's no particular reason I can see why a species with certain developmental characteristics shouldn't be able to have an age of consent above, and separate from, its voting age."

"I don't see how it is linked with voting age, Ambassador. Age of majority is not specifically linked to voting age in the resolution text. If you want to give the right to vote to citizens who are minors, or wait until a citizens is X years above majority to be able to vote, I don't see what's stopping you."

"If you must keep this provision, I would recommend changing the phrase 'sexual maturity for that species' to something like 'onset of reproductive maturation for that species.' That removes much of the sidelong micromanagement, and accounts for species that reproduce asexually."

"That's a fair correction, especially in light of your argument that capability to reproduce does not necessarily indicate maturity. I'll add that into the next draft."

"But there's still a problem: this draft requires nations to treat non-biological sapient beings equally with biological ones; but if the non-biological beings are not equipped to reproduce themselves, this draft leaves the gaping loophole that said entities might never achieve the age of majority, no matter how qualified they are for citizenship in every other possible way. I see three options to resolve this: first, you could trust nations to set their own ages of majority and trust that they will be able to handle the baby elf rape problem on their own; two, you could radically rework the age of majority requirement in some fashion I can't imagine right now on the fly; or three, you could leave non-biological beings for a separate resolution."

"Hmmmm... I can see you are angling to try and get your own proposal passed to fill in a gap in my resolution. The first option is unacceptable. The second is difficult, and as of now I can only exempt non-biological beings from that clause. Still, I don't see how exempting non-biological beings from that clause but not the other clauses will hurt anything. I hardly see non-reproducing computer rape being a problem."

[Herby]

All apologies in advance, but when I read the phrase "non-reproducing computer rape", all that runs through my head is:

What are you doing, Dave? This is highly irregular.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

"The UNE will support this resolution, as it contains far fewer loopholes, and will hopefully provide adequate protection to the rights of our millions of sapient species."

[Bears Armed]

Re such matters as 'Age of Majority', have you checked GA Resolution #299: 'Legal Competence' to make sure that there's no contradiction with that law?

[Excidium Planetis]

Re such matters as 'Age of Majority', have you checked GA Resolution #299: 'Legal Competence' to make sure that there's no contradiction with that law?

(Not sure of this is IC or OOC):
After reading over the resolution, I see no contradiction. Age of Majority and Legal Competence are not synonyms, and at any rate:

i/ The only criteria that can be used for denying a person Legal Competence are immaturity (defined by chronological age and/or psychological testing),

Allows chronological age limits to be set. This resolution merely makes a limit on the lowest chronological age that can be set.
Unless I am missing something, perhaps? Do you see any contradictions that I may have missed.


And now on an unrelated note: the repeal is almost guaranteed to pass now, I'll need to get this replacement up soon. Are there any unaddressed or last minute concerns?

[The Silver Sentinel]

Why do you need to get this replacement up fast? Is the multiverse going to implode upon itself if this is ready to go as soon as the repeal passes?

[Wallenburg]

Why do you need to get this replacement up fast? Is the multiverse going to implode upon itself if this is ready to go as soon as the repeal passes?

Just submit.

Apparently the Multiverse will implode if "Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"" doesn't go up immediately after the current vote. What's the issue with working quickly on this one as well, and why doesn't that issue apply to the aforementioned repeal?

[The Silver Sentinel]

Why do you need to get this replacement up fast? Is the multiverse going to implode upon itself if this is ready to go as soon as the repeal passes?

Just submit.

Apparently the Multiverse will implode if "Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"" doesn't go up immediately after the current vote. What's the issue with working quickly on this one as well, and why doesn't that issue apply to the aforementioned repeal?

There is a significant difference in repealing legislation as opposed to introducing legislation. Perhaps when you become an author, this will all become clear.

[Wallenburg]

Apparently the Multiverse will implode if "Repeal "Nuclear Material Safeguards"" doesn't go up immediately after the current vote. What's the issue with working quickly on this one as well, and why doesn't that issue apply to the aforementioned repeal?

There is a significant difference in repealing legislation as opposed to introducing legislation. Perhaps when you become an author, this will all become clear.

And what is this significant difference?

[Thomas Branson III]

Thomas walks up to the podium: "I will be voting AGAINST this if it goes to vote."
"The citizens of Bitely would surely string me up if I supported this folly-rot." Thomas loudly *wispers* in his aides ear.

[Wallenburg]

Thomas walks up to the podium: "I will be voting AGAINST this if it goes to vote."
"The citizens of Bitely would surely string me up if I supported this folly-rot." Thomas loudly *wispers* in his aides ear.

"And why is that, Bitelian?"

[Thomas Branson III]

Thomas walks up to the podium: "I will be voting AGAINST this if it goes to vote."
"The citizens of Bitely would surely string me up if I supported this folly-rot." Thomas loudly *wispers* in his aides ear.

"And why is that, Bitelian?"

"How did they hear me?" *loudly whispers* Thomas in his aides ear. the aide shrugs and whispers back:"probably because you where practically yelling." Thomas' face turns red from embarrassment.

addressing the crowd Thomas says:"The definition of Sapient Being in this proposal is to broad. Heck rats could practically be considered "sapient" according to this definition."

[The Silver Sentinel]

There is a significant difference in repealing legislation as opposed to introducing legislation. Perhaps when you become an author, this will all become clear.

And what is this significant difference?

One is repealing legislation, whist the other one is introducing legislation, that if inadequate will require yet another repeal. Please don't just argue and throw ad hominems just because mmkay?