[DRAFT] Convention Against Violence

[Losthaven]

Convention Against Violence
Category: Human Rights ~*~ Strength: Strong

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Understanding "violence" to be "the nonconsensual use or threatened use of physical force against another person, or against a group or community, which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation;"

Dismayed by the consequences of violence, which all too often extend beyond immediate bodily pain, suffering, and injury, to life-long woes including psychological trauma, disposition to risk-taking behavior, and the perpetuation of violence onto others;

Appalled by the consequences of aggravated or severe violence, which all too often include permanent injury, disability, disfigurement and death;

Saddened that violence can be engrained in the social structure of a nation by cultural promotion, practice, or tacit acceptance;

Resolved that all nations and their inhabitants have a fundamental right to be free from violence;

Convinced that the prevention of violence is a moral imperative, and that the high world-wide costs of violence justify and demand that the World Assembly take action.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Declares that Member Nations have an obligation to take all possible measures to eradicate violence within their territory and jurisdiction.

2. Mandates that Member Nations exercise vigilance, diligence, and care in recognizing, addressing, and preventing violence, especially systemic, cultural types of violence that have become socially ingrained over generations.

3. Requires Member Nations to provide reasonable and necessary assistance to the victims of violence as those individuals, groups, and communities deal with the direct and long-term consequences of violence.

4. Encourages Member Nations aid other nations in eradicating violence, especially systemic cultural types of violence which may be difficult for those other nations to address or even fully recognize.

5. Clarifies that notwithstanding the above provisions and definitions, the following are not violence under this Act and are not subject to its provisions:

1. Contact sports wherein the object of the sport is not to seriously injure or kill the opponent, and all involved parties consent to participate;
2. The use of reasonable physical force in child rearing, where the intent is not to injure or kill the child;
3. The use of reasonable physical force in self defense, defense of others, or defense of property as allowed by World Assembly law and national law;
4. Criminal punishments carried out by due process of law;
5. The reasonable use of force by law enforcement to diffuse a dangerous situation, apprehend a wrongdoer, or prevent the imminent commission of a crime.
6. Any other use of force expressly allowed by extant World Assembly law.

6. Establishes the World Assembly Coalition to End Violence (WACEV) and assigns it the following duties:

1. To raise political will and resources for ending all forms of violence
2. To establish data collection and conduct analysis on matters and issues relating to violence, and to promote scholarly work and study aimed at understanding the causes of violence and how to address them
3. To campaign against, and raise public awareness of, particularly troublesome or endemic forms of violence
4. To provide reasonable assistance and logistical support to Member Nations seeking to comply with the provisions of the Act.

Convention Against Violence
Category: Human Rights ~*~ Strength: Strong

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Understanding "violence" to be "the use or threatened use of physical force against another living being, or against a group or community, to which the targeted individual or community does not consent, and which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation;"

Dismayed by the consequences of violence, which all too often extend beyond immediate bodily pain, suffering, and injury, to life-long woes including psychological trauma, disposition to risk-taking behavior, and the perpetuation of violence onto others;

Appalled by the consequences of aggravated or severe violence, which all too often include permanent injury, disability, disfigurement and death;

Saddened that violence can be engrained in the social structure of a nation by cultural promotion, practice, or tacit acceptance;

Resolved that all nations and their inhabitants have a fundamental right to be free from violence;

Convinced that the prevention of violence is a moral imperative, and that the high world-wide costs of violence justify and demand that the World Assembly take action.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Declares that Member Nations have an obligation to take all possible measures to eradicate violence within their territory and jurisdiction.

2. Mandates that Member Nations exercise vigilance, diligence, and care in recognizing, addressing, and preventing violence, and to be especially vigilant when addressing systemic, cultural types of violence that have become socially ingrained over generations.

3. Requires Member Nations to provide reasonable and necessary assistance to the victims of violence as those victims deal with the direct and long-term consequences of the wrong done to them.

4. Encourages Member Nations support and aid other nations in eradicating violence, especially systemic cultural types of violence which may be difficult for those nations to address or even fully recognize.

5. Clarifies that notwithstanding the above provisions and definitions, the following are not violence under this Act and are not subject to its provisions:

1. Contact sports wherein the object of the sport is not to seriously injure or kill the opponent, and all involved parties consent to participate;
2. The use of reasonable physical force in parenting, where the intent is not to injure or kill the child;
3. The use of reasonable physical force in self defense, or defense of others, as allowed by World Assembly law and national law;
4. Criminal punishments carried out by due process of law;
5. Any other use of force expressly allowed by extant World Assembly law.

6. Establishes the World Assembly Coalition to End Violence (WACEV) and assigns it the following duties:

1. To raise political will and resources for ending all forms of violence
2. To establish data collection and conduct analysis on matters and issues relating to violence, and to promote scholarly work and study aimed at understanding the causes of violence and how to address them
3. To campaign against, and raise public awareness of, particularly troublesome or endemic forms of violence
4. To provide reasonable assistance and logistical support to Member Nations seeking to comply with the provisions of the Act.

Convention Against Violence
Category: Human Rights ~*~ Strength: Strong

The Member Nations of the World Assembly:

Understanding "violence" to be "the use or threatened use of physical force against oneself or another living being, or against a group or community, which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation;"

Dismayed by the consequences of violence, which all too often extend beyond immediate bodily pain, suffering, and injury, to life-long woes including psychological trauma, disposition to risk-taking behavior, and the perpetuation of violence onto others;

Appalled by the consequences of aggravated or severe violence, which all too often include permanent injury, disability, disfigurement and death;

Saddened that violence can be engrained in the social structure of a nation by cultural promotion, practice, or tacit acceptance;

Resolved that all nations and their inhabitants have a fundamental right to be free from violence;

Convinced that the prevention of violence is a moral imperative, and that the high world-wide costs of violence justify and demand that the World Assembly take action.

Now, therefore, the General Assembly hereby:

1. Declares that Member Nations have an obligation to take all possible measures to eradicate violence within their territory and jurisdiction.

2. Mandates that Member Nations exercise vigilance, diligence, and care in recognizing, addressing, and preventing violence, and to be especially vigilant when addressing systemic, cultural types of violence that have become socially ingrained over generations.

3. Requires Member Nations to provide reasonable and necessary assistance to the victims of violence as those victims deal with the direct and long-term consequences of the wrong done to them.

4. Encourages Member Nations support and aid other nations in eradicating violence, especially systemic cultural types of violence which may be difficult for those nations to address or even fully recognize.

5. Establishes the World Assembly Coalition to End Violence (WACEV) and assigns it the following duties:

1. to raise political will and resources for ending all forms of violence
2. to establish data collection and conduct analysis on matters and issues relating to violence, and to promote scholarly work and study aimed at understanding the causes of violence and how to address them
3. to campaign against, and raise public awareness of, particularly troublesome or endemic forms of violence
4. to provide reasonable assistance and logistical support to Member Nations seeking to comply with the provisions of the Act.

[/list]

[Grays Harbor]

Congrats, your very first statement just included boxing and pretty much every other individual and team contact sport. Outstanding job.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: Your proposal contradicts existing WA law ("Decriminalisation of Suicide"/"Sensible Limits on Hunting").

Separatist Peoples made an interesting point that the WA had not yet taken a stance on very basic issues such as murder, rape, and other universally-condemned crimes.

I don't know what CSDP said, but this is not correct. The WA has banned rape ("Sexual Privacy Act"/"Sexual Autonomy Guarantee").

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Your proposal contradicts existing WA law ("Decriminalisation of Suicide"/"Sensible Limits on Hunting").

Separatist Peoples made an interesting point that the WA had not yet taken a stance on very basic issues such as murder, rape, and other universally-condemned crimes.

I don't know what CSDP said, but this is not correct. The WA has banned rape ("Sexual Privacy Act"/"Sexual Autonomy Guarantee").

OOC: No. I didn't mention rape, though I imagine that my use of "assault" could have been misconstrued.

...especially when the WA has made absolutely no laws respecting the legality of murder, assault, private property ownership, or affiliation with organized crime."

IC: "Its been a long time since I've seen something like this. I can't say I support the draft as written, as it outlaws a number of athletic outlets and legitimate self defense if read literally, but its an idea that I ideally agree with."

[Bears Armed]

Congrats, your very first statement just included boxing and pretty much every other individual and team contact sport

... and war, too... and whether or not one considers foetuses to have any rights, wouldn't the phrase "against oneself or another living being" also cover abortion one way of the other?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Congrats, your very first statement just included boxing and pretty much every other individual and team contact sport

... and war, too... and whether or not one considers foetuses to have any rights, wouldn't the phrase "against oneself or another living being" also cover abortion one way of the other?

Using this line of reasoning, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (in one of its more serious moments) along with the Foreign Office and the Imperial Attorney General, has convinced the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons to express disapproval towards this resolution.

[The Two Jerseys]

Surely the General Assembly has better things to do with its time than tell people to hold hands and sing Kumbaya...

[Losthaven]

Congrats, your very first statement just included boxing and pretty much every other individual and team contact sport. Outstanding job.

We don't think that's accurate. The goal of boxing and other high contact sports isn't to injure anybody. In boxing the goal is to knock your opponent down for a 10 count, not to injure them. In fact, even in some of the most brutal sports we are familiar with, there are rules designed to prevent injuries and intentionally setting out to injure someone is not the spirit of the game and can even be considered cheating.

We are, of course, open to suggestions on how to improve the definition, but seeing as we did not receive a specific suggestion for improvement, would Your Grace be satisfied with a provision exempting contact sports?

OOC: Also, I think that's a rather uncharitable reading of this definition, seeing as I arrived at that definition by watering-down the definition of violence put forth by the WHO. (See here at page 4).

and war, too... and whether or not one considers foetuses to have any rights, wouldn't the phrase "against oneself or another living being" also cover abortion one way of the other?

OOC: Your proposal contradicts existing WA law ("Decriminalisation of Suicide"/"Sensible Limits on Hunting").

"Its been a long time since I've seen something like this. I can't say I support the draft as written, as it outlaws a number of athletic outlets and legitimate self defense if read literally, but its an idea that I ideally agree with."

We will need to spend some time considering these points and address them in the next draft.

[The Flame Dawn]

I think the idea for it would be cool. But similar to other Drafts I've commented on I think this would be better on a smaller and more local scale. I recommend seeing if you can get it by your region, expand it to other regions, and then after around 20 or so regions also participate you should think about submitting the draft.

To be honest I'm opposed to this.

[Separatist Peoples]

"You'll also need to consider ten prevalence of blood sport or gladiatorial contest, duels, anarchists wherein riots are an acceptable form of protest, assassination as a condoned means of ascension, a la Klingon command, the need for certain disciplinary violence, from spanking to public floggings, executions, use of force through police action...the list goes on and on."

[Losthaven]

"You'll also need to consider ten prevalence of blood sport or gladiatorial contest, duels, anarchists wherein riots are an acceptable form of protest, assassination as a condoned means of ascension, a la Klingon command, the need for certain disciplinary violence, from spanking to public floggings, executions, use of force through police action...the list goes on and on."

We shall do our best...

Edit: I think much of this could be solved by requiring a mental state, such as intent to injure. I'm not sure how hip the world assembly should be to public floggings...

[Bears Armed]

There was a defeated "historical" proposal by the title of 'Murder and Manslaughter'. If you can find a copy of its text (and perhaps even its drafting thread) cached anywhere then that might give you some useful ideas.

[Losthaven]

New draft up reflecting the issues brought to our attention so far. (Bears Armed's comment above not reflected)

Change log:
1. Updated the definition of "violence" from:
-"the use or threatened use of physical force against oneself or another living being, or against a group or community, which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation"
to
-"the use or threatened use of physical force against another living being, or against a group or community, to which the targeted individual or community does not consent, and which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation"

2. Added a new Provision 5 delineating specific exceptions

3. Renumbered Provision 6 to reflect the addition of the new Provision 5.

[Separatist Peoples]

5. Clarifies that notwithstanding the above provisions and definitions, the following are not violence under this Act and are not subject to its provisions:
Contact sports wherein the object of the sport is not to seriously injure or kill the opponent, and all involved parties consent to participate;

"Still manages to rule out gladiatorial combat."

The use of reasonable physical force in parenting, where the intent is not to injure or kill the child;

"Seems to exclude non-family members from engaging in discipline, which could be an issue for clan or tribe structured groups."

The use of reasonable physical force in self defense, or defense of others, as allowed by World Assembly law and national law;

"So, a nation could expand "reasonable" to include dirty looks and threatening language. Doesn't seem like it prevents much if a nation's goal is to leave killing and injuring legal."

Criminal punishments carried out by due process of law;

"Doesn't add any leeway for incidents of lethal force to neutralize a threat, such as in active shooter situations. Your next clause:

Any other use of force expressly allowed by extant World Assembly law.

"...doesn't include that caveat, as there is no law on the books regarding reasonable force for law enforcement.

"Also, your definition:

the use or threatened use of physical force against another living being, or against a group or community, to which the individual or community does not consent, and which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation

"...still doesn't really address the concept of assassination or rioting as legitimate options (OOC: there's a daily issue that deals with rioting as acceptable expression, so its not a nonissue). No doubt that, even if the community is accepting of the process, the target would not consent, and therefore the action would be in violation of this act. While abhorrent, the use of these methods is a primarily domestic decision, and likely to have laws tailored for that community specifically. Trying to force all definitions of acceptable violence in all nations will just make everybody except those in the proverbial middle unhappy."

[Losthaven]

5. Clarifies that notwithstanding the above provisions and definitions, the following are not violence under this Act and are not subject to its provisions:
Contact sports wherein the object of the sport is not to seriously injure or kill the opponent, and all involved parties consent to participate;

"Still manages to rule out gladiatorial combat."

Our delegation is not sure we're willing to make an exception for gladiatorial combat... but we think the definition currently excludes "consensual violence" anyway so we're considering removing that exception all-together as redundant.

The use of reasonable physical force in parenting, where the intent is not to injure or kill the child;

"Seems to exclude non-family members from engaging in discipline, which could be an issue for clan or tribe structured groups."

This is a reasonable point and we'll make an appropriate change in the next draft.

The use of reasonable physical force in self defense, or defense of others, as allowed by World Assembly law and national law;

"So, a nation could expand "reasonable" to include dirty looks and threatening language. Doesn't seem like it prevents much if a nation's goal is to leave killing and injuring legal."

We've never found the "what does 'reasonable' even mean?" argument to be all that eloquent or persuasive. The concept of reasonableness is not subjective. It's an objective measure indicating the exercise of sound judgement, sensibility and fairness. It cannot be expanded to absurd results in good faith.

Criminal punishments carried out by due process of law;

"Doesn't add any leeway for incidents of lethal force to neutralize a threat, such as in active shooter situations. Your next clause:

We consider this issue resolved by the exception for reasonable force in self defense and defense of others. That's what justifies lethal "active shooter" responses by law enforcement in the first place: the fact that if the police do not act with such force, someone else may be hurt or killed.

Any other use of force expressly allowed by extant World Assembly law.

"...doesn't include that caveat, as there is no law on the books regarding reasonable force for law enforcement.

See above. If folks really think that something is missing, we would consider adding an explicit "law enforcement" exception similar to the above exceptions for self-defense and defense of others.

"Also, your definition:

the use or threatened use of physical force against another living being, or against a group or community, to which the individual or community does not consent, and which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation

"...still doesn't really address the concept of assassination or rioting as legitimate options (OOC: there's a daily issue that deals with rioting as acceptable expression, so its not a nonissue). No doubt that, even if the community is accepting of the process, the target would not consent, and therefore the action would be in violation of this act. While abhorrent, the use of these methods is a primarily domestic decision, and likely to have laws tailored for that community specifically. Trying to force all definitions of acceptable violence in all nations will just make everybody except those in the proverbial middle unhappy."

We think Your Grace may be conflating "rioting" and "protesting." In any case, we're not about to make an exception for lynch mobs or Kristallnacht. Violence against an individual or community under the guise of "expression" is not tolerable. We're not making this about property: to the extent nations want to allow flag burning or "rioting" in the form of tipping over a police car and stealing a tv, this proposal does not regulate that "expression" (though, we imagine, a functional society would do that on its own).

We are not persuaded that this is a lost cause. We think the current lack of legislation on violence is probably more a result of a lack of imagination than a lack of consensus. Indeed, it would be a sad world if we can agree on trade rights and cooperation in science but we cannot agree on something as fundamental and obvious as taking a stand on endemic violence.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"This still seems to ban meat eating, scientific animal testing, and even anaesthetising sick animals.

We are not persuaded that this is a lost cause. We think the current lack of legislation on violence is probably more a result of a lack of imagination than a lack of consensus.

"Maybe some of us are just terrified of what "imaginative" legislators will come up with.

Indeed, it would be a sad world if we can agree on trade rights and cooperation in science but we cannot agree on something as fundamental and obvious as taking a stand on endemic violence.

"Those things have obvious international repercussions. Stepping on an ant - which your proposal would make a violation of international law - does not."

~ Daisy Chinmusic
Legislative Intern

OOC: To give a little IC context to Daisy's fervent opposition, while generally on the progressive end of the scale in terms of human rights law and humanitarian issues, The Dark Star Republic has notoriously scant laws on animal protection and is home to a vocal, occasionally violent, minority of animal rights protestors - or eco-terrorists, as Daisy would call them - who object to the government's sanctioning of virtually unrestricted animal rights testing and hunting and trapping, and lack of regulation in the meat and fur industries.

[Separatist Peoples]

Our delegation is not sure we're willing to make an exception for gladiatorial combat... but we think the definition currently excludes "consensual violence" anyway so we're considering removing that exception all-together as redundant.

"It isn't though. The clause specifically states that the goal cannot be to deliberately harm or kill others. Gladiatorial combat is directly contrary to that. Whether you want to make an exception or not, you've banned it, and while I don't personally care, there are plenty of Orcs among the voters who will. It was an uphill battle to convince those Orcs that killing civilians indiscriminately was bad and shouldn't be done."

We've never found the "what does 'reasonable' even mean?" argument to be all that eloquent or persuasive. The concept of reasonableness is not subjective. It's an objective measure indicating the exercise of sound judgement, sensibility and fairness. It cannot be expanded to absurd results in good faith.

"And yet its done regularly. After all, if nations will creatively comply with this, why wouldn't they also creatively comply with GAR#2? I get your point, but be aware its a loophole that many nations will abuse mercilessly."

We consider this issue resolved by the exception for reasonable force in self defense and defense of others. That's what justifies lethal "active shooter" responses by law enforcement in the first place: the fact that if the police do not act with such force, someone else may be hurt or killed.

"I'll take that, but defense of property might be something worth mentioning. Not being able to take down a suspect attempting to blow up an empty building would be unfortunate."

See above. If folks really think that something is missing, we would consider adding an explicit "law enforcement" exception similar to the above exceptions for self-defense and defense of others.

"Also see above. Its probably not a huge sticking point, but its worth noting."

"Also, your definition:

the use or threatened use of physical force against another living being, or against a group or community, to which the individual or community does not consent, and which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation

We think Your Grace may be conflating "rioting" and "protesting." In any case, we're not about to make an exception for lynch mobs or Kristallnacht. Violence against an individual or community under the guise of "expression" is not tolerable. We're not making this about property: to the extent nations want to allow flag burning or "rioting" in the form of tipping over a police car and stealing a tv, this proposal does not regulate that "expression" (though, we imagine, a functional society would do that on its own).

"Which still glosses directly over the use of targeted assassinations or coups that are much the norm in many nations. In some, they're even expected as the main means by which power is transferred, especially in more decentralized nations with a focus on militancy. Its not unheard of at all to have a leadership through combat system."

We are not persuaded that this is a lost cause. We think the current lack of legislation on violence is probably more a result of a lack of imagination than a lack of consensus. Indeed, it would be a sad world if we can agree on trade rights and cooperation in science but we cannot agree on something as fundamental and obvious as taking a stand on endemic violence.

Probably because that endemic violence rarely spills over national borders, as such an action would generally trigger a war. Since the World Assembly's goal is to deal with international issues, issues which do not constitute a human right that do not cross national borders is, logically, not the World Assembly's problem."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I must agree with my colleague from Separatist People's question. How is this an issue requiring the attention of the many nations of the World Assembly?

[Losthaven]

*snip*
Probably because that endemic violence rarely spills over national borders, as such an action would generally trigger a war. Since the World Assembly's goal is to deal with international issues, issues which do not constitute a human right that do not cross national borders is, logically, not the World Assembly's problem."

Your input deserves a much more thorough response (which we will provide) but we wished to immediately respond to this. The WA has passed laws on all sorts of issues that, while primarily domestic in origin and effect, and nonetheless international in scope and importance. We consider violence to be up there with slavery, torture, sex abuse, protection of children, fairness in criminal trials and other issues which, though they primarily manifest themselves domestically, are so fundamentally important as to justify a concerted international response. (And we'd note that many of those issues are really just different manifestations of violence, so we hardly see how addressing violence generally can be less internationally significant than addressing it in specific places). We certainly consider violence more "international" than issues like abortion, cultural site protection, and banning key man insurance.

Put more simply, this is an international issue because the reality of interpersonal violence, like slavery and torture, is such a prominent issue in the lives of so many people, causing so much world wide suffering and pain, that this Assembly of Nations must take note and address it. Regardless of whether violence spills over international borders or occurs only within the snug confines of a single nation, it is such an important issue that this Assembly must discuss and address it.

[The Flame Dawn]

I'm against this not because I believe or don't believe in violence. I'm thinking on an economic and practical level.

How much money do you think this would cost to set up?
Who will go?
How can we be sure that no one with dangerous intent will come?
If someone does come armed and with dangerous intent what can we do while keeping them in check while appeasing the crowds?
How can we maintain order?

My point is that it will be near impossible to pay for the entire event, maintain safety at the event, and keep order at these events. I see there to be little gain in this high costing and high rick event.

[Losthaven]

Our delegation is not sure we're willing to make an exception for gladiatorial combat... but we think the definition currently excludes "consensual violence" anyway so we're considering removing that exception all-together as redundant.

"It isn't though. The clause specifically states that the goal cannot be to deliberately harm or kill others. Gladiatorial combat is directly contrary to that. Whether you want to make an exception or not, you've banned it, and while I don't personally care, there are plenty of Orcs among the voters who will. It was an uphill battle to convince those Orcs that killing civilians indiscriminately was bad and shouldn't be done."

If the gladiatorial Orcs are opposed to this because they want to kill civilians indiscriminately, it seems we are at an impasse with the gladiatorial Orcs. That position is not really good cause to change the proposal.

But we will keep the sport exception just to make it perfectly clear to boxing/wrestling/gridiron fans that this proposal does not outlaw their hobby.

We've never found the "what does 'reasonable' even mean?" argument to be all that eloquent or persuasive. The concept of reasonableness is not subjective. It's an objective measure indicating the exercise of sound judgement, sensibility and fairness. It cannot be expanded to absurd results in good faith.

"And yet its done regularly. After all, if nations will creatively comply with this, why wouldn't they also creatively comply with GAR#2? I get your point, but be aware its a loophole that many nations will abuse mercilessly."

We are not concerned that member nations will use bad faith interpretations to loophole the proposal. The WA is based on the fundamental assumption that member nations will comply with laws in good faith. So long as member nations are doing that, we are satisfied.

We consider this issue resolved by the exception for reasonable force in self defense and defense of others. That's what justifies lethal "active shooter" responses by law enforcement in the first place: the fact that if the police do not act with such force, someone else may be hurt or killed.

"I'll take that, but defense of property might be something worth mentioning. Not being able to take down a suspect attempting to blow up an empty building would be unfortunate."

We'll add a law enforcement exception.

"*snip*... targeted assassinations or coups that are much the norm in many nations. In some, they're even expected as the main means by which power is transferred, especially in more decentralized nations with a focus on militancy. Its not unheard of at all to have a leadership through combat system."

For now, we're drawing a line here. The world assembly should not be specifically legitimizing political assassination. That would go against the World Assembly's democratic ideals.

I must agree with my colleague from Separatist People's question. How is this an issue requiring the attention of the many nations of the World Assembly?

I responded to this concern thusly:

The WA has passed laws on all sorts of issues that, while primarily domestic in origin and effect, are nonetheless international in scope and importance. We consider violence to be up there with slavery, torture, sex abuse, protection of children, fairness in criminal trials and other issues which, though they primarily manifest themselves domestically, are so fundamentally important as to justify a concerted international response. (And we'd note that many of those issues are really just different manifestations of violence, so we hardly see how addressing violence generally can be less internationally significant than addressing it in specific places). We certainly consider violence more "international" than issues like abortion, cultural site protection, and banning key man insurance.

Put more simply, this is an international issue because the reality of interpersonal violence, like slavery and torture, is such a prominent issue in the lives of so many people, causing so much world wide suffering and pain, that this Assembly of Nations must take note and address it. Regardless of whether violence spills over international borders or occurs only within the snug confines of a single nation, it is such an important issue that this Assembly must discuss and address it.

[Elke and Elba]

Put more simply, this is an international issue because the reality of interpersonal violence, like slavery and torture, is such a prominent issue in the lives of so many people, causing so much world wide suffering and pain, that this Assembly of Nations must take note and address it. Regardless of whether violence spills over international borders or occurs only within the snug confines of a single nation, it is such an important issue that this Assembly must discuss and address it.

"GAR#9 and GAR#23 covers both slavery and torture.", quipped Ambassador Norrland.

"I still don't see how this is not dead-on-arrival."

[Losthaven]

New Draft Up

Change Log:

1. Updated definition of violence:
to "the nonconsensual use or threatened use of physical force against another person, or against a group or community, which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation"

from "the use or threatened use of physical force against another living being, or against a group or community, to which the targeted individual or community does not consent, and which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation"

2. Altered the form, but not the substance, of Clause 2.

3. Altered the form, but not the substance, of Clause 3.

4. Added a law enforcement exception and defense of property exception to Clause 5.

---

"GAR#9 and GAR#23 covers both slavery and torture.", quipped Ambassador Norrland.

That's my point. Like combatting violence, those topics are both "domestic" issues with international implications because of their moral gravity.

[Elke and Elba]

New Draft Up

Change Log:

1. Updated definition of violence:
to "the nonconsensual use or threatened use of physical force against another person, or against a group or community, which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation"

from "the use or threatened use of physical force against another living being, or against a group or community, to which the targeted individual or community does not consent, and which results in or creates a substantial risk of injury, death, psychological harm, or degradation"

2. Altered the form, but not the substance, of Clause 2.

3. Altered the form, but not the substance, of Clause 3.

4. Added a law enforcement exception and defense of property exception to Clause 5.

---

"GAR#9 and GAR#23 covers both slavery and torture.", quipped Ambassador Norrland.

That's my point. Like combatting violence, those topics are both "domestic" issues with international implications because of their moral gravity.

"To be fair, I can see the intent, but unfortunately the draft is going down a slippery slope. As mentioned before by the Urrsish delegation I believe, the use of "reasonable" force that cannot be qualitatively judged makes the entire draft one that is unworkable. How about abuse inflicted through mental means, that may have more dire consequences that the aftermath of physical violence? What about forms of sports which - although do not aim to kill - may cause death and require people to sign indemnity forms? On what grey area of this "violence" do they lie on?"

"Essentially, while the idea itself is not dead-on-arrival, the phrasing of how the issue is meant to be addressed, as well as the vast scope of violence per se makes this idea unworkable within an acceptable word limit that the gnomes force us to fit into. Ask yourself why previous billwriters have chosen a specific topic of focus: rape, pillage, slavery, torture, etc to write. They all involve violence, but yet one small segment in itself suffice in a bill of its own. The Losthaven delegation will never get an acceptable draft within 3500 words on the entire topic of violence, in the Elkean delegation's opinion."

"Neither have anyone before proved that they are able to do so on a comparable topic of such vast scales and depth."

[Separatist Peoples]

For now, we're drawing a line here. The world assembly should not be specifically legitimizing political assassination. That would go against the World Assembly's democratic ideals.

"The World Assembly is explicitly barred from blocking non-democratic entities or compelling democracy. Its attempts to legitimize actual democratic events have only managed to compound the transition from non-democratic to democratic rule. The WA, except in it's own voting procedure, is not a bastion of democratic ideals, nor does it push democracy as a goal. It is not allowed to. As such, there are no ideals for such an allowance to go against in the first place."

I responded to this concern thusly:

The WA has passed laws on all sorts of issues that, while primarily domestic in origin and effect, are nonetheless international in scope and importance. We consider violence to be up there with slavery, torture, sex abuse, protection of children, fairness in criminal trials and other issues which, though they primarily manifest themselves domestically, are so fundamentally important as to justify a concerted international response. (And we'd note that many of those issues are really just different manifestations of violence, so we hardly see how addressing violence generally can be less internationally significant than addressing it in specific places). We certainly consider violence more "international" than issues like abortion, cultural site protection, and banning key man insurance.

"Legitimate cases can be made regarding abortion and cultural site preservation, as they either affect human rights or resources valuable to entities beyond national borders (not to mention the resolution specifically dealt with those sites in an international conflict context). Banning certain insurance setups is, I agree, hardly international. Just because the Assembly has passed non-international legislation in the past doesn't mean we ought encourage it now."

Put more simply, this is an international issue because the reality of interpersonal violence, like slavery and torture, is such a prominent issue in the lives of so many people, causing so much world wide suffering and pain, that this Assembly of Nations must take note and address it. Regardless of whether violence spills over international borders or occurs only within the snug confines of a single nation, it is such an important issue that this Assembly must discuss and address it.

"Except that the World Assembly has never considered there to be a right to life, just bodily sovereignty. It maintains that nations can choose to engage in war and execution, corporal punishment, and even, through deliberate negligence, refuse aid to external populations or craft. Mostly because the sort of interpersonal violence you're trying to target has too many nuances nation-by-nation for the World Assembly to address in a single, unamendable, 3,500 character law."