NationStates

THX1138 wrote:the obvious need to repeal the target before that patch to GAR#035 can be legally created.

OOC: You don't need to repeal anything to legislate on church inequality.

Araraukar wrote:

THX1138 wrote:the obvious need to repeal the target before that patch to GAR#035 can be legally created.

OOC: You don't need to repeal anything to legislate on church inequality.

This was never specifically about religion. It's about accommodation of any ideology over the principle of equality under the law.The problem that 457 establishes, is that any group or organization can be exempted from any future law simply by including a similar clause.This has the potential to lead to a multi-tiered system of justice, where any number of future laws can be arbitrarily tailored to any number of groups simply by saying 'this group isn't covered by this proposal.' Boutique laws that undermine the notion that all citizens are equal under the law.

Repealing it won't remove that. If it passes, that precedent stays in place even if the resolution is repealed (It stays on the books as well, just crossed out).

Also the idea of forcing religions to act against their code in this manner is tyranny of the majority. Presumably those who are members of the faith (religions tend not to hold ceremonies for anyone who is not a member) would not engage or openly engage in activities that are so frowned upon by the church. Certainly it would be strange of them to make such a public spectacle about it.

Arasi Luvasa wrote:Repealing it won't remove that. If it passes, that precedent stays in place even if the resolution is repealed (It stays on the books as well, just crossed out)

Until this is repealed, any attempt to repair GAR#035 will be HM. A simple clause in that repair nullifying precedent set by any previously repealed law, closes that loop.

THX1138 wrote:

Arasi Luvasa wrote:Repealing it won't remove that. If it passes, that precedent stays in place even if the resolution is repealed (It stays on the books as well, just crossed out)

Until this is repealed, any attempt to repair GAR#035 will be HM. A simple clause in that repair nullifying precedent set by any previously repealed law, closes that loop.

Ok walk me through your thought processes here slowly. Also regardless removing the protections for highly religious nations would likely just end in those nations abandoning the WA altogether, there is no reason for a theocracy to remain part of an organisation that prevents it from practicing it's religion in any meaningful way. That is why resolutions attempt to try and find a compromise where one exists, otherwise you end up just preaching to the choir as those who would actually be affected are simply no longer bound by those rules. Essentially to enact the change you want, you need to get the religions to buy into what you believe otherwise you will simply lose any of the progress you ended up making with theocracies along with whatever changes you hoped to impose upon them. IC my nation would definitely leave if it felt to many restrictions were placed upon religions for them to practice their faith in any meaningful way (i.e. forcing them to adhere to morals that go against the faith), but accepts limits (and barely accepts the total ban) on abortion. Try to muscle to far and abortion becomes illegal along with possibly gay marriage both as a civil and religious institution within said countries. Much of politics is about compromise.

Europeia will be opposing this vociferously.

Aexnidaral wrote:Europeia will be opposing this vociferously.

Whipped out the thesaurus for this one huh

Kranostav wrote:

Aexnidaral wrote:Europeia will be opposing this vociferously.

Whipped out the thesaurus for this one huh

Vociferous isn't even that rare or particularly big of a word, if I was gonna use a thesaurus I would've gone with a synonym way more cringe inducing.

Aexnidaral wrote:

Kranostav wrote:Whipped out the thesaurus for this one huh

Vociferous isn't even that rare or particularly big of a word, if I was gonna use a thesaurus I would've gone with a synonym way more cringe inducing.

Is the first time I've heard it used on the forums

Kranostav wrote:

Aexnidaral wrote:Vociferous isn't even that rare or particularly big of a word, if I was gonna use a thesaurus I would've gone with a synonym way more cringe inducing.

Is the first time I've heard it used on the forums

OOC: Well...

To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature on a national level.

Sheitstormia wrote:To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature on a national level.

OOC:
No, it does not.

MANDATES 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. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

Emphasis mine. This shows that you can set age limits; they just have to apply to everyone.

Also

REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.

GAR#160 forbids marriages without the informed consent of all participants. Since children cannot legally consent to marriage, this would not apply.

Sheitstormia wrote:To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature o9n a national level.

Catastrophically inaccurate nonsense.

The New Nordic Union wrote:

Sheitstormia wrote:To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature on a national level.

OOC:
No, it does not.

MANDATES 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. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.

Emphasis mine. This shows that you can set age limits; they just have to apply to everyone.

OOC: That's right.[/one-sixth of GenSec].

IC: The Republic of Butwan shall fully support this move to repeal this one-sided law.

OOC: Fairly new to the whole RP in this game. But, I can't get over how some of the resolutions here discriminates or totally denies the RP on a nation's policy gathered through issue-answering. For example, my nation has the Permanent Marriage Policy where it makes all divorce illegal. So section 1.d. of DRSGM breaks that policy. Are we really going to implement a resolution that would harm autonomy of a nation to create it's own laws and policies.

Butwan wrote:IC: The Republic of Butwan shall fully support this move to repeal this one-sided law.

OOC: Fairly new to the whole RP in this game. But, I can't get over how some of the resolutions here discriminates or totally denies the RP on a nation's policy gathered through issue-answering. For example, my nation has the Permanent Marriage Policy where it makes all divorce illegal. So section 1.d. of DRSGM breaks that policy. Are we really going to implement a resolution that would harm autonomy of a nation to create it's own laws and policies.

Issues and WA resolutions are two entirely separate game elements. Neither can affect the other.

Butwan wrote:IC: The Republic of Butwan shall fully support this move to repeal this one-sided law.

OOC: Fairly new to the whole RP in this game. But, I can't get over how some of the resolutions here discriminates or totally denies the RP on a nation's policy gathered through issue-answering. For example, my nation has the Permanent Marriage Policy where it makes all divorce illegal. So section 1.d. of DRSGM breaks that policy. Are we really going to implement a resolution that would harm autonomy of a nation to create it's own laws and policies.

OOC: By joining the World Assembly, your nation becomes subject to the standing resolutions that have not been repealed. That's part of how the game is played; you join the international organization to create legislation for others to follow while also following the legislation that has been voted on and passed. There's two options from there; you can continue to be part of the Assembly and follow the resolutions that are in effect or you can resign and your nation's laws are your own. I wouldn't advise "just ignoring" the resolutions you dislike as many consider that poor role playing behavior.
If would also advise that you check out Resolution #39 which covers the topic of the right to a lawful divorce.
You may also wish to consider checking out the list of Passed Resolutions https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30.

Araraukar wrote:

Kranostav wrote:Is the first time I've heard it used on the forums

OOC: Well...

Didn't go through all of it but it seems to be quite some time since it was used in GA. Used only about 600 times in the last 10ish years.

" To be frankly honest, although we do not stay under the WA, some of our sister nations are and so we must raise some objections that may help this repeal.

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.

Is in this point any limitation to the gender chosen? Is the individual pretty much to decide a gender exist? Couldn't this be used in order to create "nominative" problems like calling your gender "not-x" or "superior-than-x" to cause the same discrimination that this law is trying to avoid?

CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation.

We also find the term "should" a grossly oversight. This resolution is in some sort trying to ask the WA to address something the WA may not want to address or has already addressed. No resolution should do such thing in our opinion. "

I appreciate the effort to repeal this resolution however it should be repealed on other grounds as well. The loopholes, contradictions, ambiguity and absolute administrative chaos that will ensue from the passage of this resolution should be addressed. The World Assembly has passed this resolution without even defining what this actually means. Please consider another repeal option once it is assembled.

Firstaria wrote:" To be frankly honest, although we do not stay under the WA, some of our sister nations are and so we must raise some objections that may help this repeal.

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.

Is in this point any limitation to the gender chosen? Is the individual pretty much to decide a gender exist? Couldn't this be used in order to create "nominative" problems like calling your gender "not-x" or "superior-than-x" to cause the same discrimination that this law is trying to avoid?

Although it is possible to be recognised as, say, 'not male' or 'superior than male', first of all, nobody is going to take you seriously if you call yourself 'superior than male', and also how exactly is that doing harm to male people? Who would actually want to do that anyway? I really don't think this is an issue.

Firstaria wrote:

CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation.

We also find the term "should" a grossly oversight. This resolution is in some sort trying to ask the WA to address something the WA may not want to address or has already addressed. No resolution should do such thing in our opinion. "

"Should" is not "must". It is not forcing the WA to do anything, and repealing this resolution is not going to change anything in this sense. The implication was that if the WA wants to do something about the internal discrimination of religious organisations, it should do that in a different resolution.

(although in my opinion it would be good to have some legislation on discrimination within religious institutions.)

A revised version of this repeal has been submitted for review and to ensure legality.

THX1138 wrote:A revised version of this repeal has been submitted for review and to ensure legality.

Why are you in such a rush?

Wallenburg wrote:Why are you in such a rush?

No rush. I'm just not sure as to protocol when submitting revisions. I also don't see any point in engaging in too much debate on the revision if it isn't legal.

THX1138 wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:Why are you in such a rush?

No rush. I'm just not sure as to protocol when submitting revisions. I also don't see any point in engaging in too much debate on the revision if it isn't legal.

You can ask if it is legal, instead of pushing it to the submission queue immediately upon revision...