[DEFEATED] Repeal Defending Rights Sexual Gender Minorities

[Marxist Germany]

You didnt punish religious organisations in your resolution so i don't see why you're bringing that point up

That makes zilch sense. Please explain what you mean.

Your statement was an oxymoron, in the resolution you say that religious organisations are exempt, but in the post you say that they should be punished if the nation needs to abide but the resolution

[Maowi]

That makes zilch sense. Please explain what you mean.

Your statement was an oxymoron, in the resolution you say that religious organisations are exempt, but in the post you say that they should be punished if the nation needs to abide but the resolution

The resolution says that the internal discrimination of religious organisations is not affected by it, but if it turns out that your government, in order to themselves not discriminate against people of specific sexualities and genders, must punish religious organisations, they have to do that. But the point I wanted to make is that the author of this repeal apears to think that DRSGM bans nations from punishing religious organisations. Which it doesn't.

[Arasi Luvasa]

That makes zilch sense. Please explain what you mean.

Your statement was an oxymoron, in the resolution you say that religious organisations are exempt, but in the post you say that they should be punished if the nation needs to abide but the resolution

That is not an oxymoron. An oxymoron is the placement of two seemingly contradictory words next to each other, i.e. uncivilised gentleman.

[East Gondwana]

"We do not feel that the target resolution presents any legal contradictions. Clause 5 merely clarifies that religious organisations are still permitted to discriminate based on sexual and gender minorities. This does not conflict with Clauses 2 and 3 as these Clauses only require member nations to have uniform laws, provision of services, and discrimination penalties for sexual and gender minorites as with other minorites protected under a member nation's laws. That is to say, if a member nation has a specific set of laws relating to discrimination against certain minority groups, or equality policies relating to the whole population, there can be no discrepancy, difference, special treatment or exemption in the application of those laws to sexual and gender minorities.

Clause 5 does not allow religious organisations to be exempt from an indiviual member nation's laws (provided those laws are compliant with extant WA legislation), the resolution just compels member nations to ensure legal and policy uniformity in the treatment of sexual and gender minorities with regards to the rest of the population.

For example: if a member nation had laws that prevented discrimination by religious schools in enrolment based on ethnicity, but allowed it for sexuality, these laws would have to be changed to allow the school to discriminate for any reason or not allow discrimination at all.

GA#457 does not compel a religious community to allow a person of a sexual minority group in their congregation if they don't want them, only that if there are laws in that member nation that cover discrimination amongst religious congregations, those laws must be uniform with no special treatment or exemptions for sexual and gender minorities."

The Ambassador takes a deep breath and closes her eyes.

"It looks like a waffled on a bit there. Hopefully I made my point but I apologise if that was....utterly incoherent."

[THX1138]

"We do not feel that the target resolution presents any legal contradictions. Clause 5 merely clarifies that religious organisations are still permitted to discriminate based on sexual and gender minorities. This does not conflict with Clauses 2 and 3 as these Clauses only require member nations to have uniform laws, provision of services, and discrimination penalties for sexual and gender minorites as with other minorites protected under a member nation's laws. That is to say, if a member nation has a specific set of laws relating to discrimination against certain minority groups, or equality policies relating to the whole population, there can be no discrepancy, difference, special treatment or exemption in the application of those laws to sexual and gender minorities.

OOC: My first instinct in drafting this repeal was to think the same thing: That clause 5 served as an exemption from the law for religious groups, permitting them to continue to discriminate. The author, however, vehemently denies that (as can be viewed in this thread). My understanding of clause 5 comes from the Secretariat's interpretation of it, and it can also be viewed in this thread: This is why it is referred to as a de facto exemption in this repeal. End result is the same imo: One set of laws for everyone, different set of laws for the identified group.

The issue arises when that is juxtaposed with previous WA legislation that prohibits all forms of discrimination based on gender, mandates that all rights must be afforded equally to all citizens of nations throughout the Assembly, and mandates that all must be equal under the actions of the law. It's a bit of an elephant in the middle of your interpretation, and this is why the issue of jurisprudence is raised. Is it the intent of GAR#035 for these various tiers of legal rights and obligations under law when it comes to human rights, or was it about making sure they apply equally to everyone, without these kind of sneaky exceptions? I'm wagering on the latter.

If you are entrenching in legislation a legal right for any group to discriminate based on gender, then there are absolutely legal contradictions, and those contradictions absolutely place an unreasonable burden on nations, particularly if they are nations that champion the intended spirit of the Charter.

[United Massachusetts]

"The Delegation of United Massachusetts is frustrated that this repeal enshrines the infringement of religious marriage practices as a 'cornerstone' of World Assembly jurisprudence. We will vote against this repeal should it come to vote."

[Maowi]

OOC: My first instinct in drafting this repeal was to think the same thing: That clause 5 served as an exemption from the law for religious groups, permitting them to continue to discriminate. The author, however, vehemently denies that (as can be viewed in this thread). My understanding of clause 5 comes from the Secretariat's interpretation of it, and it can also be viewed in this thread: This is why it is referred to as a de facto exemption in this repeal. End result is the same imo: One set of laws for everyone, different set of laws for the identified group.

The issue arises when that is juxtaposed with previous WA legislation that prohibits all forms of discrimination based on gender, mandates that all rights must be afforded equally to all citizens of nations throughout the Assembly, and mandates that all must be equal under the actions of the law. It's a bit of an elephant in the middle of your interpretation, and this is why the issue of jurisprudence is raised. Is it the intent of GAR#035 for these various tiers of legal rights and obligations under law when it comes to human rights, or was it about making sure they apply equally to everyone, without these kind of sneaky exceptions? I'm wagering on the latter.

If you are entrenching in legislation a legal right for any group to discriminate based on gender, then there are absolutely legal contradictions, and those contradictions absolutely place an unreasonable burden on nations, particularly if they are nations that champion the intended spirit of the Charter.

Again: DRSGM doesn't say that religious organisations are not allowed to be punished; it just leaves the extent of that punishment to the discretion of the individual nation. Member nations can be as stringent - or not - as they want with religious organisations, as long as they're complying with extant GA resolutions - of which GAR 35 is an example. So GAR 457 doesn't prevent GAR 35 from coming into effect.

If you want to mandate a stringent stance on discrimination within religious organisations, write your own resolution on that. Just like GAR 457 closes loopholes in GAR 35, you are perfectly entitled to come up with a proposal that clarifies the religious side of the issues covered in GAR 457.

[THX1138]

If you want to mandate a stringent stance on discrimination within religious organisations, write your own resolution on that. Just like GAR 457 closes loopholes in GAR 35, you are perfectly entitled to come up with a proposal that clarifies the religious side of the issues covered in GAR 457.

OOC: This has never been my intent, and that's a straw man.

But, since you mention it, I think certain exemptions are fine if they're done right, and if the WA as a whole agrees with them. I just feel this legislation went about achieving its exemption in a way that wasn't forthright or immediately evident to many voters, nor were the repercussions for nations. I also feel that, to a certain extent, it misled voters by implying that there was a possibility of revisiting that exemption in future. The reality is that would be incredibly difficult to do while the target stands, given the rules governing proposals. Precedent is king.

As I have repeatedly stated, my goal in this repeal is to clear the way for a collaborative legislation that would prevent this specific type of exemption in future. Not exemptions as a whole.

To pick up on your argument, let's repeal the target, and if you wish to forward a proposal around exempting religious organizations from WA law, then do so, and let's deal with that in a direct and democratic manner, without the shenanigans. You do your thing and I'll do mine, and at the end of the day, we'll have a stronger democracy for it.

Also, your legislation is not a patch, it's a skin graft. You've taken flesh from one part of the law, weakening it, to make stronger another part of the law. That's a zero sum game.

[Arasi Luvasa]

I will oppose any attempt of the sort and do my utmost to convince others to do the same. The exemption here is just that, an exemption from this particular legislation. I will draft something specifically to make that exemption necessary if this repeal attempt is still pushed.

[Salcanceacy]

Well you can't discriminate someone if they and their group don't exist. Also who actually cares about gets forced through he WA. It's not gonna stop me from dealing with dissidents.

[Prydania]

Opposed.

[THX1138]

Opposed.

OOC: That's a bit surprising, given your normal passion for civil rights. Something better than nothing kind of thing?

[Prydania]

Opposed.

OOC: That's a bit surprising, given your normal passion for civil rights. Something better than nothing kind of thing?

OOC:
I feel as if the current resolution accomplishes the goal of protecting same-sex marriage rights throughout the WA. And seeing as a repeal in no way ensures a more comprehensive replacement? I'm inclined to view the current resolution as good enough.

[Maowi]

I also feel that, to a certain extent, it misled voters by implying that there was a possibility of revisiting that exemption in future. The reality is that would be incredibly difficult to do while the target stands, given the rules governing proposals. Precedent is king.

The thing is, DRSGM makes it very clear that discrimination in religious organisations is not included at all, so I don't see what proposal writing rules would cause problems with that. If you're talking about contradiction, there is nothing to contradict. If you're talking about amendment, there is nothing to amend. So I think it's perfectly possible to write legislation on discrimination in religious organisations with this resolution still standing.

[Kenmoria]

I also feel that, to a certain extent, it misled voters by implying that there was a possibility of revisiting that exemption in future. The reality is that would be incredibly difficult to do while the target stands, given the rules governing proposals. Precedent is king.

The thing is, DRSGM makes it very clear that discrimination in religious organisations is not included at all, so I don't see what proposal writing rules would cause problems with that. If you're talking about contradiction, there is nothing to contradict. If you're talking about amendment, there is nothing to amend. So I think it's perfectly possible to write legislation on discrimination in religious organisations with this resolution still standing.

(OOC: Exactly, there is a need for legislation covering religious discrimination against LGBTI+ minorities, but repealing DRSGM isn’t the way to accomplish this.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: That's a bit surprising, given your normal passion for civil rights. Something better than nothing kind of thing?

OOC:
I feel as if the current resolution accomplishes the goal of protecting same-sex marriage rights throughout the WA. And seeing as a repeal in no way ensures a more comprehensive replacement? I'm inclined to view the current resolution as good enough.

"You might want to familiarise yourself with GA#35, Mr ambassador"

[Kenmoria]

OOC:
I feel as if the current resolution accomplishes the goal of protecting same-sex marriage rights throughout the WA. And seeing as a repeal in no way ensures a more comprehensive replacement? I'm inclined to view the current resolution as good enough.

"You might want to familiarise yourself with GA#35, Mr ambassador"

(OOC: GA #35 allows for a very vague exception for ‘compelling practical purposes’, so a religious nation could claim that protection from eternal damnation, despite being unproven, counts as a compelling practical purpose and thus discriminate with impunity. That is why DRSGM was drafted.)

[THX1138]

(OOC: Exactly, there is a need for legislation covering religious discrimination against LGBTI+ minorities, but repealing DRSGM isn’t the way to accomplish this.)

First, we need to address how far outside of the intent of GAR#035 the target is, in giving an unjustified and unexplained exemption from law to a huge portion of the population, while all others must comply. That's the problem being addressed for now, and that can only be resolved by repealing GAR#457. I'd suggest the related issue here is how it can happen that legislation of this nature, with this sort of exemption, can legally pass given the mandates of GAR#035, and I'm drafting something around that problem currently.

A proposal around religious discrimination is a different issue, entirely.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Exactly, there is a need for legislation covering religious discrimination against LGBTI+ minorities, but repealing DRSGM isn’t the way to accomplish this.)

First, we need to address how far outside of the intent of GAR#035 the target is, in giving an unjustified and unexplained exemption from law to a huge portion of the population, while all others must comply. That's the problem being addressed for now, and that can only be resolved by repealing GAR#457. I'd suggest the related issue here is how it can happen that legislation of this nature, with this sort of exemption, can legally pass given the mandates of GAR#035, and I'm drafting something around that problem currently.

A proposal around religious discrimination is a different issue, entirely.

(OOC: The reason was logistical, in that there is a need to recognise the right of religions not to have to perform practices with which they disagree, while still protecting LGBTI+ rights. Having two different pieces of legislation in one would be unwieldy, so it was decided to have DRSGM deal only with secular discrimination. There is nothing wrong with doing that.)

[THX1138]

(OOC: The reason was logistical, in that there is a need to recognise the right of religions not to have to perform practices with which they disagree, while still protecting LGBTI+ rights. Having two different pieces of legislation in one would be unwieldy, so it was decided to have DRSGM deal only with secular discrimination. There is nothing wrong with doing that.)

OOC: If it contradicts existing WA law, and if it creates conflicts for nations, and if it leads to paradoxes whereby nations can't remain compliant, and if it's not made clear to nations why that is happening in the body of the legislation, then there most certainly is something wrong with that.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The reason was logistical, in that there is a need to recognise the right of religions not to have to perform practices with which they disagree, while still protecting LGBTI+ rights. Having two different pieces of legislation in one would be unwieldy, so it was decided to have DRSGM deal only with secular discrimination. There is nothing wrong with doing that.)

OOC: If it contradicts existing WA law, and if it creates conflicts for nations, and if it leads to paradoxes whereby nations can't remain compliant, and if it's not made clear to nations why that is happening in the body of the legislation, then there most certainly is something wrong with that.

(OOC: It doesn’t contradict GA #035, as the two resolutions merely just slightly duplicate each other. If there was any thought of contradiction, it would have been realised in the thread and Gensec would have marked it illegal.)

[Falcania]

(OOC: The reason was logistical, in that there is a need to recognise the right of religions not to have to perform practices with which they disagree, while still protecting LGBTI+ rights. Having two different pieces of legislation in one would be unwieldy, so it was decided to have DRSGM deal only with secular discrimination. There is nothing wrong with doing that.)

OOC: If it contradicts existing WA law, and if it creates conflicts for nations, and if it leads to paradoxes whereby nations can't remain compliant, and if it's not made clear to nations why that is happening in the body of the legislation, then there most certainly is something wrong with that.

((All passed resolutions are legal, even if they would have been illegal before they were passed.))

[THX1138]

(OOC: It doesn’t contradict GA #035, as the two resolutions merely just slightly duplicate each other. If there was any thought of contradiction, it would have been realised in the thread and Gensec would have marked it illegal.)

OOC: And therein lies the problem, and as I've mentioned, why the question of jurisprudence is raised in the repeal. That something of this nature can be legal, while simultaneously creating the undeniable paradoxes for nations, and the undeniable social inequities 'under the law and its actions' that occur, reveals that there is a critical flaw in jurisprudence.
The goal is to correct that flaw, not to eliminate the ability to grant exemptions entirely (because sometimes they make sense - suspending some of the rights of the incarcerated, for example), but to avoid the ability of legislation to become so highly tailored that it undermines the intent of the Charter. I don't really think a great many nations here want to see the Charter thrown out the window in the name of convenience of legislation. I could be wrong. Time will tell.

[THX1138]

(All passed resolutions are legal, even if they would have been illegal before they were passed.))

OOC: Right, which is why the repeal is worded as it is, and why I'm being a little more frank about it OOC than I am IC. Also, why GAR#457 needs to be repealed before we can address the paradoxes that come up as a result of its construction.

[Battlion]

OOC: If it contradicts existing WA law, and if it creates conflicts for nations, and if it leads to paradoxes whereby nations can't remain compliant, and if it's not made clear to nations why that is happening in the body of the legislation, then there most certainly is something wrong with that.

((All passed resolutions are legal, even if they would have been illegal before they were passed.))

Which, I feel needs pointing out - GenSec marked it legal and there wasn’t any legality challenge where it failed to meet the legal standards.

So, it was never and is not illegal.