[PASSED] Repeal 'Protection of Sapient Rights'

[The Global Republic]

Repeal "Protection of Sapient Rights"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation

Category: Repeal
Target: GA#338
Proposed by: The Global Republic

---

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #338 "Protection of Sapient Rights" (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly,

While Commending the World Assembly's dedication to ensuring the rights of sapient beings wherever they may exist;

Dismayed that GAR#338 contains numerous flaws which even the author acknowledges, and that these flaws necessitate a repeal to enable a replacement with a more comprehensive and better thought out resolution;

Argues that "Protection of Sapient Rights"

• Defines "Sapient Being" as any entity possessing a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement. This excludes children and infants in the definition of a 'Sapient Being' as children do not have the full mental capabilities to reason and act with appropriate judgement. By excluding children and infants in the definition of a 'sapient being', this resolution clearly eliminates the rights of children, even if those children are members of sapient species;
  
• Excludes the mentally ill and incapacitated being defined as a 'sapient being' because of the poor definition of a "sapient being". The mentally ill and incapacitated obviously cannot reason and act with appropriate judgement;
  
• By granting the same rights as humans to non-human sapient beings, risks giving rights only for humans past the legal age of majority to non-humans that would normally be considered minors, and the resolution fails to address this;
  
• Sets up the sapience determination test for abuse, allowing nations to make human anatomy or other unique characteristics necessary to prove ability to reason;

Concerned that this resolution meant to protect the rights of any sapients discovered by WA member nations actually does very little to protect them, and opens the door for widespread abuse, including the ability to define many humans as non-sapient and thus rob them of WA rights given specifically to sapient beings rather than humans;

Hoping that a superior replacement is swiftly passed to secure the rights of sapients again; and

Hereby Repeals GAR#338

Co-authored by Excidium Planetis

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Link to the target resolution

[Excidium Planetis]

Link to the target resolution

Yeah, you should include that. Link the words "WA General Assembly Resolution #338 "Protection of Sapient Rights" ". And also " GA#338" too.

[The Global Republic]

I've added in all of the links now.

[Wallenburg]

"Oh, dear. Another attempt to curtail basic rights, disguised as a campaign for 'progress'."

Dismayed that GAR#338 contains numerous flaws which even the author acknowledges, and that these flaws necessitate a repeal to enable a replacement with a 0more comprehensive and better thought out replacement;

"You should fix that typo. Apart from that, this clause is redundant. You don't need to say that you want a better replacement with a better replacement."

Argues that "Protection of Sapient Rights"

• Defines "Sapient Being" as any entity possessing a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement. This excludes children and infants in the definition of a 'Sapient Being' as children do not have the full mental capabilities to reason and act with appropriate judgement.

"Incorrect. Children most certainly have the capacity to reason and act with proper judgement. Just because they don't always use this capacity doesn't mean they don't have it."

By excluding children and infants in the definition of a 'sapient being', this resolution clearly eliminates the rights of children, even if those children are members of sapient species;

"Incorrect again. Even if the targeted resolution excluded children, it would not be eliminating their rights. It would simply be failing to protect these rights from infringement by national governments."

• Excludes the mentally ill and incapacitated being defined as a 'sapient being' because of the poor definition of a "sapient being". The mentally ill and incapacitated obviously cannot reason and act with appropriate judgement;

"Again, incorrect. There are plenty of mentally ill people who can reason and act properly, at least most of the time. For instance, the Republic of Wallenburg is currently experiencing difficulties handling cases of battle fatigue as our troops withdraw from the Empire of Wallenburg. I can assure you, my friends and comrades struggling to cope with the aftershocks of battle are still able to reason.

"And a slight technicality: decide whether you are using single or double quotation marks."

• By granting the same rights as humans to non-human sapient beings, risks giving rights only for humans past the legal age of majority to non-humans that would normally be considered minors, and the resolution fails to address this;

"Please enlighten me as to how this is true. Because it sounds like bullshit."

• Sets up the sapience determination test for abuse, allowing nations to make human anatomy or other unique characteristics necessary to prove ability to reason;

"Incorrect. Perhaps you should read the definition of 'sapient being' that you seem to have forgotten so quickly."

Concerned that this resolution meant to protect the rights of any sapients discovered by WA member nations actually does very little to protect them, and opens the door for widespread abuse, including the ability to define many humans as non-sapient and thus rob them of WA rights given specifically to sapient beings rather than humans;

"Ambassador, familiarize yourself with the good faith clause."

Hoping that a superior replacement is swiftly passed to secure the rights of sapients again;

"And please tell me, taking into consideration that this draft is full of untruths, what would make for a better version of 'Protection of Sapient Rights'?"

[The Global Republic]

"Oh, dear. Another attempt to curtail basic rights, disguised as a campaign for 'progress'.

There is nothing political about this. Excidium Planetis (who actually passed the original resolution) and I drafted this repeal so that we could replace it with a better worded bill that includes portions of 'sapient species' that were left out in the current.

And please tell me, taking into consideration that this draft is full of untruths, what would make for a better version of 'Protection of Sapient Rights'?"

Thanks for asking. As I said in the draft, Excidium Planetis co-authored this bill. He has drafted a replacement resolution right here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 9&t=348943 Thanks for your input.

[Wallenburg]

"Oh, dear. Another attempt to curtail basic rights, disguised as a campaign for 'progress'.

There is nothing political about this. Excidium Planetis (who actually passed the original resolution) and I drafted this repeal so that we could replace it with a better worded bill that includes portions of 'sapient species' that were left out in the current.

And please tell me, taking into consideration that this draft is full of untruths, what would make for a better version of 'Protection of Sapient Rights'?"

Thanks for asking. As I said in the draft, Excidium Planetis co-authored this bill. He has drafted a replacement resolution right here: https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 9&t=348943 Thanks for your input.

"Well...that certainly is eye-opening. I wholeheartedly support a repeal-and-replace effort based on the draft currently ready to replace 'Protection of Sapient Rights'. Nevertheless, this proposal's arguments are weak at best and naïvely false at worst. I suggest you work on a more compelling and accurate argument for this repeal."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Oh, dear. Another attempt to curtail basic rights, disguised as a campaign for 'progress'."

"Incorrect, Ambassador. I co-author this repeal myself, with the express intent to repeal and replace. This is indeed a campaign for progress. No curtailing of basic rights will occur on my watch."

Dismayed that GAR#338 contains numerous flaws which even the author acknowledges, and that these flaws necessitate a repeal to enable a replacement with a 0more comprehensive and better thought out replacement;

"You should fix that typo. Apart from that, this clause is redundant. You don't need to say that you want a better replacement with a better replacement."

"Good catch. That should read 'better thought out resolution.' "

Argues that "Protection of Sapient Rights"

• Defines "Sapient Being" as any entity possessing a) the ability to reason and act with appropriate judgement. This excludes children and infants in the definition of a 'Sapient Being' as children do not have the full mental capabilities to reason and act with appropriate judgement.

"Incorrect. Children most certainly have the capacity to reason and act with proper judgement. Just because they don't always use this capacity doesn't mean they don't have it."

"Newborn Infants cannot reason or act with any judgement, Ambassador. Protection of Sapient Rights does not protect them."

By excluding children and infants in the definition of a 'sapient being', this resolution clearly eliminates the rights of children, even if those children are members of sapient species;

"Incorrect again. Even if the targeted resolution excluded children, it would not be eliminating their rights. It would simply be failing to protect these rights from infringement by national governments."

"No, you are incorrect. Look at the passed WA resolutions... How many grant rights to 'sapient beings'? Now that Protection of Sapient rights actually defines sapient being, and excludes children, how many WA rights are revoked?"

• Excludes the mentally ill and incapacitated being defined as a 'sapient being' because of the poor definition of a "sapient being". The mentally ill and incapacitated obviously cannot reason and act with appropriate judgement;

"Again, incorrect. There are plenty of mentally ill people who can reason and act properly, at least most of the time. For instance, the Republic of Wallenburg is currently experiencing difficulties handling cases of battle fatigue as our troops withdraw from the Empire of Wallenburg. I can assure you, my friends and comrades struggling to cope with the aftershocks of battle are still able to reason.

"But what about comatose patients, or those who are completely incapacitated by mental illness or disease? Can they reason and act with appropriate judgement?"

• By granting the same rights as humans to non-human sapient beings, risks giving rights only for humans past the legal age of majority to non-humans that would normally be considered minors, and the resolution fails to address this;

"Please enlighten me as to how this is true. Because it sounds like bullshit."

"Suppose a race of elves that live to four hundred and two have a legal age of majority of ninety-eight. But because they are given the same rights as humans, they can drink alcohol at... say eighteen, a normal human age of majority. Now we are granting minors rights they should not have?"

• Sets up the sapience determination test for abuse, allowing nations to make human anatomy or other unique characteristics necessary to prove ability to reason;

"Incorrect. Perhaps you should read the definition of 'sapient being' that you seem to have forgotten so quickly."

"Ambassador, I am insulted that you seem to believe me incapable of understanding my own resolution. Protection of Sapient Rights allows nations to determine sapience by a test applied equally to humans and non-humans... It does not specify anything else. If a nation defines reason in such a way as to require a human neurochemistry, they can exclude non-humans. A stretch, but still a flaw."

Concerned that this resolution meant to protect the rights of any sapients discovered by WA member nations actually does very little to protect them, and opens the door for widespread abuse, including the ability to define many humans as non-sapient and thus rob them of WA rights given specifically to sapient beings rather than humans;

"Ambassador, familiarize yourself with the good faith clause."

"Good Faith is in short supply in the WA. At any rate, you must admit Infants and severely mentally handicapped beings are excluded."

Hoping that a superior replacement is swiftly passed to secure the rights of sapients again;

"And please tell me, taking into consideration that this draft is full of untruths, what would make for a better version of 'Protection of Sapient Rights'?"

"This. Really, Ambassador, you think I'd lack a replacement for something so important to me?"

[Araraukar]

"Incorrect, Ambassador. I co-author this repeal myself, with the express intent to repeal and replace. This is indeed a campaign for progress. No curtailing of basic rights will occur on my watch."

Why aren't you the author then, instead of... whatever it is that posted this? And if you really do have any effect on the repeal text, why does it have so bad arguments?

OOC: Was the target resolution passed before the modly ruling that "human rights" equals "sapient rights" and that CoCR and other such resolutions apply to all sapient WA member nation inhabitants, not just humans? Because if so, this may now be redundant in general.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Incorrect, Ambassador. I co-author this repeal myself, with the express intent to repeal and replace. This is indeed a campaign for progress. No curtailing of basic rights will occur on my watch."

Why aren't you the author then, instead of... whatever it is that posted this?

"Because I'm not the author."

And if you really do have any effect on the repeal text, why does it have so bad arguments?

"These were the same arguments that came up against my resolution and in another repeal draft. They had overwhelming support from key WA Ambassadors. However, given that you hold a differing view, please explain exactly what makes these arguments 'bad'."

OOC: Was the target resolution passed before the modly ruling that "human rights" equals "sapient rights" and that CoCR and other such resolutions apply to all sapient WA member nation inhabitants, not just humans? Because if so, this may now be redundant in general.

OOC: No, it wasn't. It wasn't duplication, either. COCR affects only inhabitants of member nations, Protection of Sapient Rights applies to any sapients found in member nations, including non-inhabitants.

[Helen Trevanyika]

"Incorrect. Children most certainly have the capacity to reason and act with proper judgement. Just because they don't always use this capacity doesn't mean they don't have it."

"Newborn Infants cannot reason or act with any judgement, Ambassador. Protection of Sapient Rights does not protect them."

"That is untrue, Ambassador. Even with our very basic understanding of the mind and how it works, Wallenburgians have confirmed through scientific study that even newborns possess the mental capacity to reason and act logically. This may be different for other species, but it would surprise me if any ambassador here were from a species so precariously sapient that its offspring could be considered mere beasts."

"Incorrect again. Even if the targeted resolution excluded children, it would not be eliminating their rights. It would simply be failing to protect these rights from infringement by national governments."

"No, you are incorrect. Look at the passed WA resolutions... How many grant rights to 'sapient beings'? Now that Protection of Sapient rights actually defines sapient being, and excludes children, how many WA rights are revoked?"

"Again, 'Protection of Sapient Rights' does not exclude children. And again, failing to protect rights does not equate with revoking them. The World Assembly fails to protect my right to enjoy creeper flesh for supper. That doesn't mean I am prohibited from eating one of my favorite meals."

"Again, incorrect. There are plenty of mentally ill people who can reason and act properly, at least most of the time. For instance, the Republic of Wallenburg is currently experiencing difficulties handling cases of battle fatigue as our troops withdraw from the Empire of Wallenburg. I can assure you, my friends and comrades struggling to cope with the aftershocks of battle are still able to reason.

"But what about comatose patients, or those who are completely incapacitated by mental illness or disease? Can they reason and act with appropriate judgement?"

"Here, finally, you have some semblance of an argument for a repeal."

"Please enlighten me as to how this is true. Because it sounds like bullshit."

"Suppose a race of elves that live to four hundred and two have a legal age of majority of ninety-eight. But because they are given the same rights as humans, they can drink alcohol at... say eighteen, a normal human age of majority. Now we are granting minors rights they should not have?"

"Good point, Ambassador. It appears that this problem could arise from the current phrasing of the target resolution. I think my main problem was trying to understand the way you have phrased this argument."

"Incorrect. Perhaps you should read the definition of 'sapient being' that you seem to have forgotten so quickly."

"Ambassador, I am insulted that you seem to believe me incapable of understanding my own resolution. Protection of Sapient Rights allows nations to determine sapience by a test applied equally to humans and non-humans... It does not specify anything else. If a nation defines reason in such a way as to require a human neurochemistry, they can exclude non-humans. A stretch, but still a flaw."

"That is a stretch. Such a stretch, that it would blatantly contradict the good faith clause. Honestly, Ambassador, that isn't even attempting creative compliance."

"Ambassador, familiarize yourself with the good faith clause."

"Good Faith is in short supply in the WA. At any rate, you must admit Infants and severely mentally handicapped beings are excluded."

"Severely handicapped? Yes. Infants? No."

"And please tell me, taking into consideration that this draft is full of untruths, what would make for a better version of 'Protection of Sapient Rights'?"

"This. Really, Ambassador, you think I'd lack a replacement for something so important to me?"

"Perhaps you should listen when people are talking, Ambassador."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"The weakest part of the target resolution was always its far too imprecise definition of 'sapient being.' While the replacement's definition shares a substantial portion of the flaws of the active target law, we still support this repeal so that an improved version (or, better yet, several resolutions covering all the facets and nuances) may take its place."

[Bananaistan]

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan supports this repeal and we applaud the government of Excidium Planetis's decision to support and co-author the repeal."

- Ted Hornwood.

[Excidium Planetis]

"Newborn Infants cannot reason or act with any judgement, Ambassador. Protection of Sapient Rights does not protect them."

"That is untrue, Ambassador. Even with our very basic understanding of the mind and how it works, Wallenburgians have confirmed through scientific study that even newborns possess the mental capacity to reason and act logically. This may be different for other species, but it would surprise me if any ambassador here were from a species so precariously sapient that its offspring could be considered mere beasts."

"Can you provide a specific example in which a newborn was shown to act with appropriate judgement? Or reason? Remember, Ambassador, that what you qualify as reason or appropriate judgement must be applied to non-humans as well, so setting the bar too low can result in most sentient creatures having the rights of sapients."

"No, you are incorrect. Look at the passed WA resolutions... How many grant rights to 'sapient beings'? Now that Protection of Sapient rights actually defines sapient being, and excludes children, how many WA rights are revoked?"

"Again, 'Protection of Sapient Rights' does not exclude children. And again, failing to protect rights does not equate with revoking them. The World Assembly fails to protect my right to enjoy creeper flesh for supper. That doesn't mean I am prohibited from eating one of my favorite meals."

"Point taken. However, are you okay with nations being able to circumvent 'A Convention on Gender' and other resolutions by determining sapient beings in such a way as to allow only humans the rights of sapients?"

"But what about comatose patients, or those who are completely incapacitated by mental illness or disease? Can they reason and act with appropriate judgement?"

"Here, finally, you have some semblance of an argument for a repeal."

" An argument that is included in the repeal text."

"Suppose a race of elves that live to four hundred and two have a legal age of majority of ninety-eight. But because they are given the same rights as humans, they can drink alcohol at... say eighteen, a normal human age of majority. Now we are granting minors rights they should not have?"

"Good point, Ambassador. It appears that this problem could arise from the current phrasing of the target resolution. I think my main problem was trying to understand the way you have phrased this argument."

"I will admit it is somewhat confusing. Could you suggest a rewording? Mayhaps 'By granting the same exact rights as humans to non-human sapient beings, risks giving rights (such as consumption of alcoholic beverages) based on a human age of majority to non-humans that would normally be considered minors at the same age;'?"

"Ambassador, I am insulted that you seem to believe me incapable of understanding my own resolution. Protection of Sapient Rights allows nations to determine sapience by a test applied equally to humans and non-humans... It does not specify anything else. If a nation defines reason in such a way as to require a human neurochemistry, they can exclude non-humans. A stretch, but still a flaw."

"That is a stretch. Such a stretch, that it would blatantly contradict the good faith clause. Honestly, Ambassador, that isn't even attempting creative compliance."

"Unfortunately I cannot find the argument used, so I cannot present reasonable evidence that human anatomy could be a requirement at this time. I'll get back to you. "

"Good Faith is in short supply in the WA. At any rate, you must admit Infants and severely mentally handicapped beings are excluded."

"Severely handicapped? Yes. Infants? No."

"Once again, you need to demonstrate that infants can reason."

"This. Really, Ambassador, you think I'd lack a replacement for something so important to me?"

"Perhaps you should listen when people are talking, Ambassador."

"I was using the restroom when you uttered those comments.

"Anyways, I must know: Do you, or do you not support the repeal?"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Given that the resolution author has actively supported and assented to this repeal, along with the fact that the repeal is proposed by one of my regionmates, I will support this repeal unconditionally and without regard to its contents. Best of luck, Excidium Planetis.

[Wrapper]

Parts of this argument are blatantly false logic. Just one example:

By excluding children and infants in the definition of a 'sapient being', this resolution clearly eliminates the rights of children, even if those children are members of sapient species;

No, it absolutely does not. The resolution extends those "human rights" already given to humans (or any other dominant species, for non-human nations), including children and the mentally ill, to other entities that show sapience. Doing so does not in any way affect the rights already afforded to children and the mentally ill.

Look, let's say we enact a leash law on all dogs. Then we extend the reach of that law with another law that says that cats are now to be included in that leash law. Does that mean that the leash law doesn't affect dogs anymore because dogs don't fit the definition of cats?

[Excidium Planetis]

Parts of this argument are blatantly false logic. Just one example:

By excluding children and infants in the definition of a 'sapient being', this resolution clearly eliminates the rights of children, even if those children are members of sapient species;

No, it absolutely does not. The resolution extends those "human rights" already given to humans (or any other dominant species, for non-human nations), including children and the mentally ill, to other entities that show sapience. Doing so does not in any way affect the rights already afforded to children and the mentally ill.

Look, let's say we enact a leash law on all dogs. Then we extend the reach of that law with another law that says that cats are now to be included in that leash law. Does that mean that the leash law doesn't affect dogs anymore because dogs don't fit the definition of cats?

First of all, that's a false analogy. If Dogs are Humans, and Cats are non-human sapients, the repeal doesn't say that Dogs are not excluded... It says kittens (children of non-humans) are not covered.

If the second law also states that "cats are defined as military grade weapons", then indeed kittens are not covered by either leash law! The problem is that PoSR defines sapient in a way that undoubtedly excludes all severely mentally disabled, and reasonably excludes infants and most mentally disabled.

And for the record, why on Earth would I support a repeal of my own resolution if it contained false arguments? I support every argument Global Republic used in the repeal text.

[The Constellation Islands]

The Constellation Islands respectfully abstain from this resolution.

[WA Kitty Kops]

First of all, that's a false analogy. If Dogs are Humans, and Cats are non-human sapients, the repeal doesn't say that Dogs are not excluded... It says kittens (children of non-humans) are not covered."

A black cat jumps up on the table before the Exidiumian ambassador and sits back on its haunches. "Kittens are totally covered by World Assembly resolushions. After all, they are kittens, smarter than any dogs, and most humans, ever. Now you have been told so by the WA Kitty Kops, and can stop arguing!" The cat then starts to wash itself by licking its front paw and rubbing it against its face.

OOC: Yes, I think the argument is stupid, and that children are sapient, but as cats and dogs were being mentioned, I couldn't resist taking this puppet nation out for a walk. Don't worry, it's wearing a leash.

[Imperium Anglorum]

First of all, that's a false analogy. If Dogs are Humans, and Cats are non-human sapients, the repeal doesn't say that Dogs are not excluded... It says kittens (children of non-humans) are not covered."

A black cat jumps up on the table before the Exidiumian ambassador and sits back on its haunches. "Kittens are totally covered by World Assembly resolushions. After all, they are kittens, smarter than any dogs, and most humans, ever. Now you have been told so by the WA Kitty Kops, and can stop arguing!" The cat then starts to wash itself by licking its front paw and rubbing it against its face.

OOC: Yes, I think the argument is stupid, and that children are sapient, but as cats and dogs were being mentioned, I couldn't resist taking this puppet nation out for a walk. Don't worry, it's wearing a leash.

Housecat Memorandum today!

[Wrapper]

First of all, that's a false analogy. If Dogs are Humans, and Cats are non-human sapients, the repeal doesn't say that Dogs are not excluded... It says kittens (children of non-humans) are not covered.

Actually, no, read it again. It says that puppies are not covered, including kittens.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

67 minutes ago: The proposal "Repeal "Protection of Sapient Rights"" was removed from the floor.

OOC: Was this GHR'd or booted?

[Imperium Anglorum]

67 minutes ago: The proposal "Repeal "Protection of Sapient Rights"" was removed from the floor.

OOC: Was this GHR'd or booted?

It was GHR'd. It used the long-title and not the short title.

[The Global Republic]

It's back up again. http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal/council=1

[Excidium Planetis]

First of all, that's a false analogy. If Dogs are Humans, and Cats are non-human sapients, the repeal doesn't say that Dogs are not excluded... It says kittens (children of non-humans) are not covered.

Actually, no, read it again. It says that puppies are not covered, including kittens.

Puppies (humans) are not covered by Protection of Sapient Rights. They, however, are covered by any law dealing with puppies (humans), and thus do not necessarily need the protections of Proection of Sapient Rights... especially because PoSR merely extends the rights given humans to all sapient beings.

The core of that argument isn't that human children risk losing the rights given humans, but that adult non-humans may get rights but not their children.