NationStates

"Ambassador, forgive me. But I cannot help to think that this resolution is -uhh.... a bit one sided for my view. Well, what I mean to say is that what about 'conversion therapy' conducted by LGBT individuals or persons on heterosexuals and the like?"

The Holy Cee wrote:"Ambassador, forgive me. But I cannot help to think that this resolution is -uhh.... a bit one sided for my view. Well, what I mean to say is that what about 'conversion therapy' conducted by LGBT individuals or persons on heterosexuals and the like?"

*Cricket noises*

"Are you being serious, ambassador?"

Zone 71 wrote:

The Holy Cee wrote:"Ambassador, forgive me. But I cannot help to think that this resolution is -uhh.... a bit one sided for my view. Well, what I mean to say is that what about 'conversion therapy' conducted by LGBT individuals or persons on heterosexuals and the like?"

*Cricket noises*

"Are you being serious, ambassador?"

"Why yes, the Holy Ceean Inquisitorial Office has numerous cases and reports of abused minors who are being 'influenced' by LGBT individuals. We are merely clarifying if the proposed resolution tackles or would care to tackle this other side of the fence. The stance of the Holy Cee is FOR the proposed resolution in it's current form. The proposed resolution is in line with our government's policy. We do not force people to undergo 'conversion therapy'. Ceeans do so on their own.", he adjusts his spetacles a bit. "Perhaps I am applying the wrong terminology to what I am pointing out."

The Holy Cee wrote:

Zone 71 wrote:*Cricket noises*

"Are you being serious, ambassador?"

"Why yes, the Holy Ceean Inquisitorial Office has numerous cases and reports of abused minors who are being 'influenced' by LGBT individuals. We are merely clarifying if the proposed resolution tackles or would care to tackle this other side of the fence. The stance of the Holy Cee is FOR the proposed resolution in it's current form. The proposed resolution is in line with our government's policy. We do not force people to undergo 'conversion therapy'. Ceeans do so on their own.", he adjusts his spetacles a bit. "Perhaps I am applying the wrong terminology to what I am pointing out."

Ambassador Crane looks at the Ceean ambassador with a shocked expression. "So you would have me believe that homosexuals oppress heterosexuals with some form of 'conversion therapy' or through other behavioral influences, as a homophobic organization would with conventional conversion therapy towards the LGBT community? Ridiculous," he says in a spiteful, dismissive tone towards the Ceean ambassador.

Zone 71 wrote:

The Holy Cee wrote:
"Why yes, the Holy Ceean Inquisitorial Office has numerous cases and reports of abused minors who are being 'influenced' by LGBT individuals. We are merely clarifying if the proposed resolution tackles or would care to tackle this other side of the fence. The stance of the Holy Cee is FOR the proposed resolution in it's current form. The proposed resolution is in line with our government's policy. We do not force people to undergo 'conversion therapy'. Ceeans do so on their own.", he adjusts his spetacles a bit. "Perhaps I am applying the wrong terminology to what I am pointing out."

Ambassador Crane looks at the Ceean ambassador with a shocked expression. "So you would have me believe that homosexuals oppress heterosexuals with some form of 'conversion therapy' or through other behavioral influences, as a homophobic organization would with conventional conversion therapy towards the LGBT community? Ridiculous," he says in a spiteful, dismissive tone towards the Ceean ambassador.

Slightly surprised at the whole conversation, Ambassador Lewitt interjects, "I do feel obligated to point out that the resolution as written would prohibit coercing heterosexuals into homosexuals, as that still results in a change in sexual orientation. Despite the preamble mentioning LGBT youth undergoing conversion “therapy”, being LGBT isn't in the active clauses."

"Pardon me, I'm well acquainted with these sorts of individuals. I believe the 'conversion therapy' that the ambassador from the "Holy" Cee refers to is some conspiracy of a homosexual agenda taking over civilization. In other words, nonsense.

Furthermore, I will note that the actual operative clauses outlaw any attempts to forcibly change the sexual orientation of an individual, regardless of which way this applies. In short, actual cases of LGBT individuals trying to pressure heterosexual individuals to change their sexuality would be covered as well under the actual text of the resolution."

"Furthermore, are there any other comments, or may I prepare for submission?"

"Nonsense?!", the Holy Ceean ambassador expresses his disbelief. "I would not cite the aforementioned scenario if it were not occurring in our nation. *coughs* I would assume such scenario has not happened in your respective nations?", he raises an eyebrow to this. "Nonetheless, I thank you for clearing our nation's concern. We will support your proposed resolution." He hurriedly leaves the room.

"I hope you'll pardon the ignorance of certain members of my faith. Rest assured, their misinterpretations of doctrine do not reflect United Massachusetts or its values."

OOC: I'm just kidding, Holy See. I like your religious wars draft.

The Holy Cee wrote:"Nonsense?!", the Holy Ceean ambassador expresses his disbelief. "I would not cite the aforementioned scenario if it were not occurring in our nation. *coughs* I would assume such scenario has not happened in your respective nations?", he raises an eyebrow to this. "Nonetheless, I thank you for clearing our nation's concern. We will support your proposed resolution." He hurriedly leaves the room.

Iulia turned her head to the side. "Pardon, Ambassador," she said as the man made to leave. "Is this conversion to homosexuality showing any signs of effectiveness? If it could somehow compel bisexuality for my husbands, we might have to look into booking a holiday."

Shrugging, she turned back. "We have no further commentary on the draft. We hope to see it at vote in the near future."

"In the noting clause, I would add something about sexual orientation being unchangable, make conversion “therapy” useless."

Kenmoria wrote:"In the noting clause, I would add something about sexual orientation being unchangabe, make conversion “therapy” useless."

"Consider it done."

"Barring further comment, this will be submitted in the next 24 hours."

United Massachusetts wrote:"I hope you'll pardon the ignorance of certain members of my faith. Rest assured, their misinterpretations of doctrine do not reflect United Massachusetts or its values."

OOC: I'm just kidding, Holy See. I like your religious wars draft.

OOC: Yeah no offense taken. It was fun roleplaying with you people. I'm a bit fairly new to this conversion therapy concept as it is not common here in our country and your draft forced me to research about the topic. Thanks, I'd like a comment or two on the draft if you'd oblige.

I like the intent behind this-- it's not perfect but I support it.

United Massachusetts wrote:"Barring further comment, this will be submitted in the next 24 hours."

"You have this delagation's support FOR this proposal."

United Massachusetts wrote:"Barring further comment, this will be submitted in the next 24 hours."

I don't see how this proposal complies with this Assembly's resolutions on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. How can you prohibit people from "recommending" conversion therapy without running afoul of free speech and free exercise rights?

EDIT: Also, what's the rationale for your choice of category?

Christian Democrats wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:"Barring further comment, this will be submitted in the next 24 hours."

I don't see how this proposal complies with this Assembly's resolutions on freedom of speech and freedom of religion. How can you prohibit people from "recommending" conversion therapy without running afoul of free speech and free exercise rights?

OOC: The recommendation ban for private persons/organizations is limited to recommending the practice to minors, who are protected in several other resolutions from the effects of certain rights and freedoms. GAR #30 itself allows for explicit restrictions on expression "in order to prevent... violence against any individual..." Considering how these conversion "therapies" are performed, that alone is sufficient to ban [recommending] the practice even for "consenting" adults as far as I'm concerned, though this proposal doesn't go that far. Clauses 3 and 7 of GAR #430 "Freedom of Religion" likewise allow for the suppression of harmful practices "to advance a compelling, practical public interest." TL;dr I don't see a contradiction issue here.

EDIT: Also, what's the rationale for your choice of category?

This is a good question. I'm curious as well.

I don't see how the GA or a member state could ban the recommendation of anything. By the logic of this proposal, a person posting on an internet forum would be hauled off to prison if he told homosexual users that they should consider religious counseling.

Polarisium strongly supports the criticism of this document. The author fails to notice that his resolution does not have any mechanisms for making sure it is followed in every individual WA member state. For example, The wording of this document strongly suggests that it is organizations that recommend anything to individuals, when in fact individuals may be used by organizations to circumvent this resolution. Moreover, should an oversight mechanism ever come into existance, it will pave way for abuses of power and endless problems for private counseling establishments.

Thus the document is effectively useless as circumventing it is easy and impossible to prove in court, and if it ever tries to become relevant, attacks on the freedom of speech of individuals will be guaranteed to follow which is unacceptable for not only Polarisium but indeed the majority of the World Assembly.

The North Pacific is having a lot of trouble with this “recommendation” thing as well. We would be okay with this restriction if the recommendations being referenced were binding on the people receiving them, or were taken as some kind of authoritative diagnosis, but restriction of opinions doesn’t seem enforceable. Perhaps that should be reworded or clarified so it doesn’t appear to be restricting free speech or thought.

Polarisium wrote:Polarisium strongly supports the criticism of this document. The author fails to notice that his resolution does not have any mechanisms for making sure it is followed in every individual WA member state.

(OOC: It is generally assumed by resolutions that all their mandates will be followed by default, so a resolution doesn't have to say how its clauses would be enforced.)

Christian Democrats wrote:I don't see how the GA or a member state could ban the recommendation of anything. By the logic of this proposal, a person posting on an internet forum would be hauled off to prison if he told homosexual users that they should consider religious counseling.

OOC: recommendation of religious counseling is a far cry from recommendation of conversion therapy. The latter is much closer to recommending self-mutilation or even suicide (which is definitively punishable by law in some jurisdictions). The right to freedom of expression has never been absolute, and as far as I know has never included the right to tell someone to hurt themselves. Considering the methods and common outcomes of conversion therapy, there's no conflict with high principles in forbidding its advocacy to minors.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:I don't see how the GA or a member state could ban the recommendation of anything. By the logic of this proposal, a person posting on an internet forum would be hauled off to prison if he told homosexual users that they should consider religious counseling.

OOC: recommendation of religious counseling is a far cry from recommendation of conversion therapy. The latter is much closer to recommending self-mutilation or even suicide (which is definitively punishable by law in some jurisdictions). The right to freedom of expression has never been absolute, and as far as I know has never included the right to tell someone to hurt themselves. Considering the methods and common outcomes of conversion therapy, there's no conflict with high principles in forbidding its advocacy to minors.

The definition of conversion therapy in this proposal is very broad: "any attempt to change the sexual orientation of an individual through psychological, spiritual, or physical intervention." If a teenager recommended that a homosexual friend attend a Theology of the Body class, for example, he could very well face prison time under this proposal. That's not consistent with this Assembly's resolutions on freedom of speech and religion. Using the GenSec panel, I voted that an earlier conversion therapy proposal was legal because its scope was limited to coercive attempts to change a person's sexual orientation. It did not include a ban on recommendations either.

United Massachusetts wrote:Noting that countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation is not a choice, thus rendering conversion therapy useless,

That sexual orientation is not a choice, or that existing methods that purport to change sexual orientation are harmful and ineffective, does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden.

We would support a change to this proposal to limit it to coercive attempts to change a person's sexual orientation, or to attempts to change a person's sexual orientation that are known to be harmful and ineffective.

We would also like this proposal to clarify that encouraging persons with same-sex attraction to live in chastity does not constitute an attempt to change a person's sexual orientation.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Auralia wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:Noting that countless analyses, studies, and evidenced-based tests have conclusively shown what already makes intuitive sense, that sexual orientation is not a choice, thus rendering conversion therapy useless,

That sexual orientation is not a choice, or that existing methods that purport to change sexual orientation are harmful and ineffective, does not mean that sexual orientation cannot in principle be changed or that any attempt to do so should be categorically forbidden.

We would support a change to this proposal to limit it to coercive attempts to change a person's sexual orientation, or to attempts to change a person's sexual orientation that are known to be harmful and ineffective.

We would also like this proposal to clarify that encouraging persons with same-sex attraction to live in chastity does not constitute an attempt to change a person's sexual orientation.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

I tend to agree with most of this statement, while I have my own opinions on conversion therapy and the lot, I believe that one should have the ability to willingly subject themselves to it if they really want to. Of course they should not be misled into this choice but rather shown relevant data to help them make the decision that is best for them. However under no circumstances should people be forced to endure this conversion therapy.

As for your second point Auralia, I would argue that promoting chastity for heterosexual people doesn't render them not heterosexual, so the same logic should apply for homosexuals