[PASSED] Don't Kill the Poor Act

[Wallenburg]

I'm honored that you would try to withhold something about this proposal until after its submission. Even so, clause 3 quite clearly would not impose any limitations on military engagements, as enemy military forces are not a group defined by their economic status or employment status.

OOC
Re me "withholding" my comment: I didn't notice that detail earlier, and you submitting this after a gap of about six weeks since the most recent previous comment didn't help... If you'd given us a couple of days warning that submission was imminent then I'd have given it another look-over during that period.
Re clause 3; the members of those forces are being targeted because they're employed in those forces. That is an "employment status", isn't it? If you intend the cause to say that governments can't specifically target the unemployed then maybe this could have been worded more clearly... and in any case that still seems to leave clause 1 as applicable.

OOC: I thought it quite clear from the text that "basis of employment" refers to a distinction between the employed and unemployed. Perhaps the terminology could have used further clarification, but any member state with concerns that your interpretation would limit their ability to effectively wage war would simply adopt the intended interpretation. I really see no problem here.

[Promisit Dominus]

A government should not be executing anyone (with exception of Capital Punishment) soooo...

[New Bremerton]

Clause 1 is problematic in that it fails to adequately distinguish between genocide and ethnic/social cleansing. Statistically disproportionate violence short of actually killing or starving a group of people does not equate to genocide. Forceful isolation of a group constitutes, at worst, ethnic/social cleansing. Forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers to new housing for their own safety hardly constitutes genocide, or almost every nation would run afoul of this resolution. A compulsory one-child policy, while deplorable, does not constitute genocide. Genocide means mass murder. It means the deliberate extermination of an identifiable group of people, in whole or in part. This proposal, while well-intentioned, attempts to legally redefine the meaning of the term "genocide", thereby trivializing actual genocides.

Against.

[Wallenburg]

Clause 1 is problematic in that it fails to adequately distinguish between genocide and ethnic/social cleansing. Statistically disproportionate violence short of actually killing or starving a group of people does not equate to genocide.

I disagree.

Forceful isolation of a group constitutes, at worst, ethnic/social cleansing.

The UN disagrees.

Forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers to new housing for their own safety hardly constitutes genocide, or almost every nation would run afoul of this resolution.

It very well could, depending on the circumstances. Again, the UN disagrees with you.

A compulsory one-child policy, while deplorable, does not constitute genocide.

Targeted against a specific group? Yes, it absolutely does constitute genocide. Again, the UN disagrees with you.

Genocide means mass murder. It means the deliberate extermination of an identifiable group of people, in whole or in part. This proposal, while well-intentioned, attempts to legally redefine the meaning of the term "genocide", thereby trivializing actual genocides.

Against.

No, this does not "redefine" genocide. Your idea of the definition of genocide is totally misinformed.

[New Bremerton]

Clause 1 is problematic in that it fails to adequately distinguish between genocide and ethnic/social cleansing. Statistically disproportionate violence short of actually killing or starving a group of people does not equate to genocide.

I disagree.

Forceful isolation of a group constitutes, at worst, ethnic/social cleansing.

The UN disagrees.

Forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers to new housing for their own safety hardly constitutes genocide, or almost every nation would run afoul of this resolution.

It very well could, depending on the circumstances. Again, the UN disagrees with you.

A compulsory one-child policy, while deplorable, does not constitute genocide.

Targeted against a specific group? Yes, it absolutely does constitute genocide. Again, the UN disagrees with you.

Genocide means mass murder. It means the deliberate extermination of an identifiable group of people, in whole or in part. This proposal, while well-intentioned, attempts to legally redefine the meaning of the term "genocide", thereby trivializing actual genocides.

Against.

No, this does not "redefine" genocide. Your idea of the definition of genocide is totally misinformed.

OOC: Not sure whether to respond OOC or IC. The UN is an RL institution which I have personally lost all respect for, for various reasons. In the context of NS, one need not be confined to the UN's definition of genocide, although such a definition would no doubt be useful. This is the World Assembly, not the UN. To the average person, genocide is synonymous with mass murder.

Genocide according to Merriam-Webster: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group"

Genocide according to the UN: "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group..."

Also by the UN: "As ethnic cleansing has not been recognized as an independent crime under international law, there is no precise definition of this concept or the exact acts to be qualified as ethnic cleansing. A United Nations Commission of Experts mandated to look into violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia defined ethnic cleansing in its interim report S/25274 as "… rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area." In its final report S/1994/674, the same Commission described ethnic cleansing as “… a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas."

As you can see, there is a considerable degree of overlap between genocide and ethnic cleansing according to the UN, hence the need for further clarification.

Clause 1 makes no reference to an "intent to destroy, in whole or in part", an economic subgroup, else you might have a point. If poor people were repeatedly incited to riot and the police were forced to open fire on them in self-defense, whether with lethal or non-lethal ammunition, and this happens over and over again for a period of several months, the poor would be the victims of "intentional and statistically disproportionate violence", and the police would be guilty of "genocide", absent any deliberate intent to exterminate the poor. This is simply absurd. While clause 2 specifically excludes violence against individuals as genocide, when you have a disproportionately large number of working-class violent criminals being shot and killed by police over many years, that would constitute "intentional and statistically disproportionate violence" against a specific group, namely the working class, again short of an "intent to destroy". Again, this would be a quite a stretch.

The internment of the Japanese by the U.S. government during WWII, while deplorable, was hardly genocide, and it would be absurd to suggest that it was. The U.S. government had no "intent to destroy" the Japanese living on U.S. soil, merely detain them for a while. It doesn't even qualify as ethnic cleansing since the prisoners and their families were eventually released at the war's end. Forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers to temporary housing for their own safety, with no "intent to destroy" the group, is not genocide.

...the forceful institution of population controls...

I'll concede on this point. I will also concede that certain methods of eradicating a specific group of people need not be lethal i.e. the forcible transfer of children from one group to another, although this would strike me as extremely odd when taken in isolation, and the long-term result would more closely resemble the vaguely defined "cultural genocide" rather than an actual, physical one. This proposal could be better worded to clear up any confusion, specifically by incorporating an "intent to destroy, in whole or in part". If this is done, New Bremerton ICly will consider changing its vote.

[Wrapper]

This is now at vote.

[The Manticoran Empire]

"Is this a legitimate proposal? I ask simply because it appears to think that every nation is engaged in "Genocide" against the poor and the destitute. This proposal also fails to actually define anything. It doesn't define what constitutes Genocide. It doesn't define what actions would constitute genocide. Indeed, by its wording, arresting unemployed citizens for trespass could be construed as "genocide" under the terms of this resolution. Further, at least in the Empire, the poor have substantially higher rates of criminality than other parts of society. This legislation would make policing poor neighborhoods virtually impossible, as it could be construed as "genocide". Despite this proposal's good intentions, the Empire must vote against it. It is too general and, instead of making the lives of the poor better, will make them worse in the long run."

[Wallenburg]

"Is this a legitimate proposal? I ask simply because it appears to think that every nation is engaged in "Genocide" against the poor and the destitute.

No, it doesn't.

This proposal also fails to actually define anything. It doesn't define what constitutes Genocide. It doesn't define what actions would constitute genocide.

From the resolution text:

Recognizes systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group as acts of genocide,

Indeed, by its wording, arresting unemployed citizens for trespass could be construed as "genocide" under the terms of this resolution.

No, it couldn't. See clause two.

Further, at least in the Empire, the poor have substantially higher rates of criminality than other parts of society. This legislation would make policing poor neighborhoods virtually impossible, as it could be construed as "genocide".

No, it couldn't. Again, see clause two.

Despite this proposal's good intentions, the Empire must vote against it. It is too general and, instead of making the lives of the poor better, will make them worse in the long run."

I genuinely fail to see how prohibiting the extermination of impoverished classes makes their lives worse.

[The Manticoran Empire]

"Is this a legitimate proposal? I ask simply because it appears to think that every nation is engaged in "Genocide" against the poor and the destitute.

No, it doesn't.

This proposal also fails to actually define anything. It doesn't define what constitutes Genocide. It doesn't define what actions would constitute genocide.

From the resolution text:

Recognizes systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group as acts of genocide,

Indeed, by its wording, arresting unemployed citizens for trespass could be construed as "genocide" under the terms of this resolution.

No, it couldn't. See clause two.

Further, at least in the Empire, the poor have substantially higher rates of criminality than other parts of society. This legislation would make policing poor neighborhoods virtually impossible, as it could be construed as "genocide".

No, it couldn't. Again, see clause two.

Despite this proposal's good intentions, the Empire must vote against it. It is too general and, instead of making the lives of the poor better, will make them worse in the long run."

I genuinely fail to see how prohibiting the extermination of impoverished classes makes their lives worse.

Well policing is "removing a group from designated areas" and "forceful isolation of a group in designated areas." Policing poor neighborhoods, which are statistically disproportionately affected by crime, is "statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group." By the wording of this resolution, the mere act of policing poor neighborhoods is genocide. Since the mere act of policing poor neighborhoods is genocide, policing poor neighborhoods is impossible to accomplish, allowing crime in those neighborhoods to go on unchecked. As such, the lives of the poor become worse as crime rates soar, making the impoverished only more impoverished while the police are powerless to help without it being construed as "genocide" against the impoverished citizens of the Empire."

[Furry Things]

Does this also mean that nations in the WA will no longer be able to round up all the dwarves? For!

[Scherzinger]

Bloody Nora, now we are trying to be forced to spend our valuable income on refugees? I recall that our glorious nation has closed boarders. Thank Emperor it shall stay that way. So i suppose i dont see how it will change anything for our nation. Not really seeing a point that will be beneficial to my nation and her people's welfare

[Lost Brotherhood]

Clause 1 is problematic in that it fails to adequately distinguish between genocide and ethnic/social cleansing. Statistically disproportionate violence short of actually killing or starving a group of people does not equate to genocide. Forceful isolation of a group constitutes, at worst, ethnic/social cleansing. Forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers to new housing for their own safety hardly constitutes genocide, or almost every nation would run afoul of this resolution. A compulsory one-child policy, while deplorable, does not constitute genocide. Genocide means mass murder. It means the deliberate extermination of an identifiable group of people, in whole or in part. This proposal, while well-intentioned, attempts to legally redefine the meaning of the term "genocide", thereby trivializing actual genocides.

Against.

This. Was literally going to comment on the same misuse of the same word from the same clause. Took the words straight out of my mouth, sir/ma'am

[The Palentine]

Oh for F**k's sake! Against!

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

[Wallenburg]

Well policing is "removing a group from designated areas" and "forceful isolation of a group in designated areas." Policing poor neighborhoods, which are statistically disproportionately affected by crime, is "statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group." By the wording of this resolution, the mere act of policing poor neighborhoods is genocide. Since the mere act of policing poor neighborhoods is genocide, policing poor neighborhoods is impossible to accomplish, allowing crime in those neighborhoods to go on unchecked. As such, the lives of the poor become worse as crime rates soar, making the impoverished only more impoverished while the police are powerless to help without it being construed as "genocide" against the impoverished citizens of the Empire."

You either did not read my responses or are choosing to ignore them. In either case, I have little interest in talking to a brick wall.

Does this also mean that nations in the WA will no longer be able to round up all the dwarves? For!

As long as you shore up the pound and keep VAT steady, rounding up the dwarves should be fine.

[Caracasus]

No, it doesn't.

From the resolution text:

Recognizes systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group as acts of genocide,

No, it couldn't. See clause two.

No, it couldn't. Again, see clause two.

I genuinely fail to see how prohibiting the extermination of impoverished classes makes their lives worse.

Well policing is "removing a group from designated areas" and "forceful isolation of a group in designated areas." Policing poor neighborhoods, which are statistically disproportionately affected by crime, is "statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group." By the wording of this resolution, the mere act of policing poor neighborhoods is genocide. Since the mere act of policing poor neighborhoods is genocide, policing poor neighborhoods is impossible to accomplish, allowing crime in those neighborhoods to go on unchecked. As such, the lives of the poor become worse as crime rates soar, making the impoverished only more impoverished while the police are powerless to help without it being construed as "genocide" against the impoverished citizens of the Empire."

No ambassador. Policing poor areas would be OK.

Sending police death squads to gun down anyone who looks at them funny in the slums would not be OK. Rounding up people from poor areas en masse and demolishing their homes while they are imprisoned without charge would not be OK.

[Freedwanda]

Who would want to kill the poor anyway? There'd be no one to make the rich richer anymore.

[Kenmoria]

Bloody Nora, now we are trying to be forced to spend our valuable income on refugees? I recall that our glorious nation has closed boarders. Thank Emperor it shall stay that way. So i suppose i dont see how it will change anything for our nation. Not really seeing a point that will be beneficial to my nation and her people's welfare

“No, this proposal has nothing to do this refugees nor anything to do with the state of borders in your nation. It concerns only acts of genocide against groups of people, including groups based on economic status. Therefore, this delegation wishes to announce its vote FOR this proposal.”

[Gagium]

Against. Gagium wishes to reserve its right to deport illegal immigrants living within the country without it being considered an act of genocide.

I also don't like the whole clause 4 thing. Requires members to aid victims of genocide? By what means, invading countries that are committing so-called acts of genocide?

[Caldreania]

Against. Gagium wishes to reserve its right to deport illegal immigrants living within the country without it being considered an act of genocide.

I also don't like the whole clause 4 thing. Requires members to aid victims of genocide? By what means, invading countries that are committing so-called acts of genocide?

For. Since illegal immigrants have violated immigration laws, they are subject to the law-provisioned punishment for such a deed, put in place by each nation on their own accord.
Meaning that you will still be able to apply your laws against anyone, but that you will not be able to pass laws which strictly target people based on their wealth.

I'd argue that the law was badly named, because this does not just protect the poor, but the wealthy as well. As we have seen, throughout history, various regimes have committed classicide, against both wealthy and the poor, and walked away without the stigma and punishment they deserve. As it elevates classicide to an internationally equally punishable deed as genocide, and even placing it under the category of genocide, it will save countless lives and deliver justice to the wrong-doers.

As for the interventionism involved, I think that the mere provision of a punishment falling upon such regimes which might resolve to crimes against humanity, would be enough to deter such activity from taking place in most cases.

[Bears Armed Mission]

1. Recognizes systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group as acts of genocide,

"For the purpose of clause 1, I ask, what constitutes a 'group'? Without a definition included, that term seems so all-encompassing that it would have to apply to -- for example -- an invading army or a terrorist movement... but forbidding 'disprortionate' violence against groups such as those would be nonsensical.
"In the absence of a clearer and more acceptable definition for that term, I am unfortunately required to vote against this proposal."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

[Caldreania]

1. Recognizes systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group as acts of genocide,

"For the purpose of clause 1, I ask, what constitutes a 'group'? Without a definition included, that term seems so all-encompassing that it would have to apply to -- for example -- an invading army or a terrorist movement... but forbidding 'disprortionate' violence against groups such as those would be nonsensical.
"In the absence of a clearer and more acceptable definition for that term, I am unfortunately required to vote against this proposal."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

I agree with the vagueness written in the bill.
Might the writer address this issue for all to see?

Shall the term "group" be inherited from the term "identifiable group" in the Convention against genocide, hereby expanded to include socio-economic groups ?

[HerpDeDerp]

"We cannot believe how much the World Assembly is meddling in our affairs. This bill is unacceptable and we will infact be leaving the WA once it is passed." -Emperor Charles Nighteye

[Grater Tovakia]

Against on the grounds of NATSOV and the impossibility of enforcing this fairly.

[Gonadez]

Dear General Assembly,

As a progressive nation that promotes and embraces civil rights at its best, we totally agree with the ideas and the values of humanity posed in the at-vote legislation. However, after thorough consideration, Gonadez votes AGAINST this current bill due to vague terms discussed above by others members of the WA. And to someone who has written this bill, on behalf of the people of Gonadez and Dathar, we would like to send our sincerest insult to him/her.

Best regards,
Ambassador of the Federation of Gonadez, and its vassal, the Kingdom of Dathar.

[Wallenburg]

Against. Gagium wishes to reserve its right to deport illegal immigrants living within the country without it being considered an act of genocide.

If you had read the resolution, it would be clear that deporting illegal immigrants is completely unaffected by this resolution.

I also don't like the whole clause 4 thing. Requires members to aid victims of genocide? By what means, invading countries that are committing so-called acts of genocide?

If that was an attempt at a joke, I''m afraid it fell flat.