[DEFEATED] Repeal Defending Rights Sexual Gender Minorities

[United States of Americanas]

What I mean is that you cannot amend legislation, therefore any resolution passed must be repealed before a revised version can be submitted. Since you agree that the resolution should "cover churches and religious organizations", you should vote 'For' this repeal in order for a new version to be submitted.

It is perfectly legal to write a new proposal which bans discrimination within churches and religious organisations on the basis of sexuality or gender, without repealing the target resolution. That was an option purposefully left available during the drafting of that resolution.

I feel we should leave the existing resolution in place as it provides quite a deal of protections that are already effective. A simple resolution barring churches from discrimination in addition to the existing law would seem optimal in my eyes rather than repealing a well written piece of law and then having to re-draft the entire thing just to fix one clause.

[Uan aa Boa]

Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of DRSGM, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”

This repeal proposal has failed to grasp the difference between (a) the government providing exactly the same rights, powers etc to all individuals and (b) the government ensuring that everybody provides exactly the same rights, powers etc to all individuals. It's like the difference between (a) the public sector treating its employees in a certain way (b) the government making it mandatory for all employers to treat their employees in a certain way. It's not all unusual for governments to hold themselves to a higher standard than they require of everyone else.

[Aclion]

Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of DRSGM, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”

This repeal proposal has failed to grasp the difference between (a) the government providing exactly the same rights, powers etc to all individuals and (b) the government ensuring that everybody provides exactly the same rights, powers etc to all individuals. It's like the difference between (a) the public sector treating its employees in a certain way (b) the government making it mandatory for all employers to treat their employees in a certain way. It's not all unusual for governments to hold themselves to a higher standard than they require of everyone else.

ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion

Clause 3 extends the mandate of clause 2 to cover private parties.

[Lynn Nation]

Rather than an appeal, could an amendment not be made that states ALL members of ALL nations will be held to the same standards? I think it would be a bad idea to appeal it entirely, but a case definitely needs to be made for the religious side of things here.

[Maowi]

Rather than an appeal, could an amendment not be made that states ALL members of ALL nations will be held to the same standards? I think it would be a bad idea to appeal it entirely, but a case definitely needs to be made for the religious side of things here.

(I think you mean a 'repeal' not an 'appeal')
Amendments are illegal in the WA, simply because that would require an enormous amount of coding changes to accommodate that. It is possible to write a new resolution about the religious side of things without it contradicting or duplicating the target resolution.

That was an option purposefully left available during the drafting of that resolution.

I'd call that badge hunting if I was just a little more cynical.

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but how is that badge hunting?

[Marxist Germany]

Rather than an appeal, could an amendment not be made that states ALL members of ALL nations will be held to the same standards? I think it would be a bad idea to appeal it entirely, but a case definitely needs to be made for the religious side of things here.

(I think you mean a 'repeal' not an 'appeal')
Amendments are illegal in the WA, simply because that would require an enormous amount of coding changes to accommodate that. It is possible to write a new resolution about the religious side of things without it contradicting or duplicating the target resolution.

I'd call that badge hunting if I was just a little more cynical.

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but how is that badge hunting?

Because I believe GA#35 covers this topic, just not in detail

[Kenmoria]

(I think you mean a 'repeal' not an 'appeal')
Amendments are illegal in the WA, simply because that would require an enormous amount of coding changes to accommodate that. It is possible to write a new resolution about the religious side of things without it contradicting or duplicating the target resolution.



Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, but how is that badge hunting?

Because I believe GA#35 covers this topic, just not in detail

(OOC: Indeed, GA #035 leaves open a very large loophole based on supposed practical purposes, so DRSGM was designed to cover that exemption.)

[Marxist Germany]

Because I believe GA#35 covers this topic, just not in detail

(OOC: Indeed, GA #035 leaves open a very large loophole based on supposed practical purposes, so DRSGM was designed to cover that exemption.)

Article 1 clause C

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

[Maowi]

(OOC: Indeed, GA #035 leaves open a very large loophole based on supposed practical purposes, so DRSGM was designed to cover that exemption.)

Article 1 clause C

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

This is the loophole being pointed out.

[Dontriptia]

[.

[Otaku Stratus]

It's about time.
Wait, where's... why aren't the votes coming in to repeal it?

[Columbia-Washingtonia]

Summary here is that the target has some critical flaws in construction, and has the potential to create paradoxical conflicts within itself and with standing law (mainly GAR#035). Happy to answer any questions, explain my rationale, etc. It should be noted that without the flaws, I would have been in support.

Revised: Feb 28, 2019 - Final Submitted

The General Assembly:

Fully acknowledging the importance of providing specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities,

Asserts that recently passed legislation GA #457 (DRSGM) must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant legal paradoxes for nations.

Of specific concern is DRSGM’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This Assembly believes that the silence from this legislation, as it relates to this ideological group, can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of this legislation, while all others must comply.

This is alarming, given previous World Assembly law requiring, as a cornerstone of human rights, that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law.

Noting several troubling and untenable paradoxes for nations, that result from DRSGM:

• Nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while provided no strength through this law to apply those rules and penalties, equally, to others.

• Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of DRSGM, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

This Assembly acknowledges the potential for these inequities under law to lead to civil unrest within nations, and to create an untenable burden on nations to both uphold DRSGM and simultaneously preserve the intended human right to civil equality under law.

Further, due to the precedent set by DRSGM, it is understood that any future legislation can now be tailored, through silence on specific ideological groups, to target some and not others, leaving open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

The Assembly concludes that the passage of DRSGM has revealed a critical flaw in WA jurisprudence that requires clarification, and

Understands that, due to precedent, those clarifications can not legally be applied while DRSGM stands.

For these reasons, The General Assembly hereby repeals GA #457.

Repeal Draft 3

The General Assembly:

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights for all.

This Assembly asserts, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant paradoxes for nations, and inadvertently undermines the noble cause of equality to which it aspires.

The Assembly expresses deep concern regarding the GAR#457’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This silence from the legislation as it relates to this ideological group can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of GAR#457, while all others must comply. While the clause does not limit the possibility of future legislation on the matter, until such legislation is passed, this de facto exemption creates several untenable paradoxes, all with troubling consequences:

1. Under GAR#457 nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while providing no strength of law to apply those same rules and penalties on exempted neighbouring organizations within their borders. This brings about great potential for civil unrest, and, for any nation that champions the principle of universal civil equity under law, a tearing at the very fabric of their justice system and understanding of human rights.

2. Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of GAR#457, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

3. Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by GAR#457, paving the way for any future legislation to permit a de facto exemption to any ideological group, without reasonable grounds, simply by including a similar clause. Any number of future legislations can now be tailored, through silence pertaining to their application to specific ideological groups, to target some and not others. This leaves open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

This is alarming, given previous World Assembly law requiring that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law.

The Assembly concludes that the passage of GAR#457 has revealed a critical flaw in WA jurisprudence that requires clarification, to prevent the current, and any future paradoxes of this nature, and, to bolster the intended principle of civil equality under the law.

Understands that, due to precedent, those clarifications can not legally be applied while GAR#457 stands.

For these reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals GAR#457.

Repeal Draft 2

The General Assembly:

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights for all.

Asserts, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant paradoxes for nations, and inadvertently undermines the noble cause of equality to which it aspires.

Expresses deep concern regarding the GAR#457’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This silence from the legislation as it relates to this ideological group can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of GAR#457, while all others must comply. While the clause does not limit the possibility of future legislation on the matter, until such legislation is passed, this de facto exemption creates several untenable paradoxes, all with troubling consequences:

1. Under GAR#457 nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while providing no strength of law to apply those same rules and penalties on exempted neighbouring organizations within their borders. This brings about great potential for civil unrest, and, for any nation that champions the principle of universal civil equity under law, a tearing at the very fabric of their justice system and understanding of human rights.

2. Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of GAR#457, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

3. Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by GAR#457, paving the way for any future legislation to permit a de facto exemption to any ideological group, without reasonable grounds, simply by including a similar clause. Any number of future legislations can now be tailored, through silence pertaining to their application to specific groups, to target some and not others. This leaves open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

That such imbalances can legally exist is alarming, given provisions set out in GAR#035 The Charter of Civil Rights (The Charter), which states “All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions and have the right to equal treatment…”.

This Assembly concludes that the passage of GAR#457 has revealed a critical flaw in the language of The Charter that requires clarification through enhancing legislation, to prevent the current, and any future paradoxes of this nature, and, to preserve the intended principle of civil equality and equal treatment under the law.

Due to precedent, those enhancements to the Charter can not legally be applied while GAR#457 stands.

For these reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals GAR#457.

Repeal Draft 1

The General Assembly

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights to all.

Notes, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities (DRSGM) must be repealed, due to critical flaws in language and construction that, while well-intentioned, have the potential to bring about significant legal paradoxes that will have far-reaching, unintended consequences, and may inadvertently undermine the noble cause of greater civil rights to which the proposal aspires.

Cites two significant issues and their consequences:

1. The combined clauses 2 and 3 of DRSMG “MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals…” then “ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organizations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual…”

As written, this objective is impossible to achieve, yet absolutely required. Any service organization can fall out of exact parity with others through the regular flow of human resources, or finances, at any time. Under DRSMG, nations have no choice but to impose punishments on those organizations, even though they may be in a period of temporary transition to exact parity. Absolutely no reasonable discretion is allowed to nations under DRSMG. This also has the unintended consequence of placing so many groups and organizations in violation at any given time, that there would be no reasonable legal grounds by which to prosecute the groups or organizations that blatantly disregard the mandate. There are a variety of other problems and unintended consequences with this portion of the legislation. This is but one example.

2. Clause 5 of the proposal inexplicably entrenches a legal right for religious organizations to continue to discriminate as they see fit. This hardly complies with the above-mentioned clauses 2 and 3, creating an internal paradox within the proposal itself. Furthermore, this clause stands in direct contradiction to GAR#035 Section 1 almost in its entirety. The precedent set by this exemption from the rule of law on ideological grounds has potentially catastrophic implications throughout the WA and gives cause to all groups to argue any other legislation because it conflicts with their ideological beliefs.

Summarizes that DRSGM is a paradoxical piece of legislation and its poor construction potentially threatens the legitimacy of entrenched civil rights throughout the WA.

Hereby repeals GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities in hopes that a more thoughtful replacement can be created.

The United States has decided to vote [NO].

[Marxist Germany]

I believe GA#437 has banned conversion therapy which renders clause 4 illegal as it contradicts that resolution. Someone really should've done a legality challenge before DRSGM passed

[Separatist Peoples]

I believe GA#437 has banned conversion therapy which renders clause 4 illegal as it contradicts that resolution. Someone really should've done a legality challenge before DRSGM passed

Ooc: that does not contradict GAR#437.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I believe GA#437 has banned conversion therapy which renders clause 4 illegal as it contradicts that resolution. Someone really should've done a legality challenge before DRSGM passed

Uhh... No. I see no contradiction between #437 and #457.

[Marxist Germany]

DRGSM clause 4

MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.

GA#437

Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual

[Sierra Lyricalia]

DRGSM clause 4

MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.

GA#437

Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual

OOC: What on Earth do you think conversion therapy is? There is no possible reading where that's a contradiction.

[Separatist Peoples]

DRGSM clause 4

MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.

GA#437

Prohibits any public or governmental body in a World Assembly member-state from recommending or performing conversion therapy on any individual

Ooc: choosing to change your own gender is not gender conversion therapy.

[Marxist Germany]

DRGSM clause 4

GA#437

OOC: What on Earth do you think conversion therapy is? There is no possible reading where that's a contradiction.

I highlighted the word which is "change". changing ones gender must involve conversion therapy

[Marxist Germany]

DRGSM clause 4

GA#437

Ooc: choosing to change your own gender is not gender conversion therapy.

how?

[Hijlistan Arg]

I'm so glad this repeal is losing.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

The General Assembly, therefore:

Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

Nothing in there has anything to do with an individual's actions with regard to their gender. This digression is way off base as well as off topic.

[Marxist Germany]

The General Assembly, therefore:

Defines, for the sake of this resolution, "conversion therapy" as any attempt to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of an individual through psychological, physical, or coercive spiritual intervention,

Nothing in there has anything to do with an individual's actions with regard to their gender. This digression is way off base as well as off topic.

Alright then

[Battlion]

For.

While the way this is worded is not optimal, getting rid of this resolution is still positive.

Of course we will oppose any future resolution to require churches to comply with mandates against "discrimination" and will not comply with it if passed.

Then you get sanctioned or Leave the WA.

[Marxist Germany]

For.

While the way this is worded is not optimal, getting rid of this resolution is still positive.

Of course we will oppose any future resolution to require churches to comply with mandates against "discrimination" and will not comply with it if passed.

Then you get sanctioned or Leave the WA.

What he means is that you'll just be ignored in the WA forums