[DEFEATED] Civil Rights And Anti-Discrimination Act

[Araraukar]

Why is affirmative action bad?

OOC: When discrimination is already not allowed, affirmative action is 1) unnecessary, and 2) giving a certain group more rights than other groups, which is the definition of discrimination.

Don't think in terms of RL, because RL doesn't abide by CoCR.

[Falcania]

Why is affirmative action bad?

OOC: When discrimination is already not allowed, affirmative action is 1) unnecessary, and 2) giving a certain group more rights than other groups, which is the definition of discrimination.

Don't think in terms of RL, because RL doesn't abide by CoCR.

((I'm not talking in terms of legal or illegal, I'm talking about good or bad))

[Greifenburg]

OOC: When discrimination is already not allowed, affirmative action is 1) unnecessary, and 2) giving a certain group more rights than other groups, which is the definition of discrimination.

Don't think in terms of RL, because RL doesn't abide by CoCR.

((I'm not talking in terms of legal or illegal, I'm talking about good or bad))

OOC: I think what Araraukar is getting at is, that if discrimination is already outlawed (and that fact accepted/endorsed by the populace), then only the skills and abilities of a person play a role in hiring them. Any affirmative action is hence unnecessary - everyone has the same chance to get the position, only their merit decides whether they get it - and potentially distorts the labor market by assuming that different demographics within a nation all follow the same distribution of interests in terms of the search of job opportunities.

I think that I'm going to oppose this proposal nonetheless, since the argument revolves around a near-perfect meritocratic society. Since we can't assume that every society in the WA operates as such, affirmative action can be useful/necessary on a national basis, so I'd argue that this is not an international issue.

[Maowi]

I don't like affirmative action, but the exceptions in the final clause are both unexplained and sweepingly broad. I think I'd have to vote against if it came to vote as it currently stands.

[The New Nordic Union]

I don't like affirmative action, but the exceptions in the final clause are both unexplained and sweepingly broad. I think I'd have to vote against if it came to vote as it currently stands.

OOC:
I agree, especially as the clause does not mention on which grounds people can be discriminated against. Since this last clause just gives the mentioned organisations a free pass, as they are meant to have 'compelling practical reasons' to discriminate without further qualification, one could argue that for example a hard labour employer (I take it that basically means "Men are better lumberjacks then women"?) could exclude gay people, even though they would fulfil all other requirements, without their sexual orientation having to do anything with their job.

The same applies to the 'gender-based clubs'; while it might be argued that these kinds of clubs should be allowed to discriminate on the base of gender, the current phrasing gives them the power to discriminate on every other base as well. So, no gay Boy Scouts and no black Girl Scouts? I do not think that this should be allowed.

(Also, on a side-note: Are the mentions of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts enough to make that illegal for RL references?)

[Araraukar]

So, no gay Boy Scouts and no black Girl Scouts? I do not think that this should be allowed.

OOC: Agreed. Banning affirmative action is not worth it when it opens the door to all other kinds of discriminations as well.

(Also, on a side-note: Are the mentions of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts enough to make that illegal for RL references?)

I'd say yes, given that it's a specific RL organization. A general term would be "youth organization".

[Hatzisland]

No. In fact, the clause in this plan was heavily inspired by GAR #35. We just felt that the rights needed to be clarified, and in the eyes of our government, slightly expanded, due to the closing of loopholes in the resolution.

"Thank you for your clarification, Ambassador. If I may further query, how would you (and this proposal) define affirmative action? My understanding of affirmative action primarily stems from studies of other cultures, as we have typically not favoured classes on bases besides economic status. Perhaps the specific ambit of a ban on affirmative action could be defined within this proposal?"

Affirmative action, in the eyes of our government and this resolution(as we firmly believe that intent of the writer and originalism is important in making precedent), is applying a minimum(or maximum) percentage of acceptance based on someone's race, gender, nationality, etc(really everything listed in our plan.) We disagree firmly with this because it can be used to discriminate against both a minority and a majority, depending on the government. We strongly believe that people should be chosen for jobs, clubs, and organizations based on skill, not based on quota, whether it is self-imposed or forced upon by the government.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Thank you for your clarification, Ambassador. If I may further query, how would you (and this proposal) define affirmative action? My understanding of affirmative action primarily stems from studies of other cultures, as we have typically not favoured classes on bases besides economic status. Perhaps the specific ambit of a ban on affirmative action could be defined within this proposal?"

Affirmative action, in the eyes of our government and this resolution(as we firmly believe that intent of the writer and originalism is important in making precedent), is applying a minimum(or maximum) percentage of acceptance based on someone's race, gender, nationality, etc(really everything listed in our plan.) We disagree firmly with this because it can be used to discriminate against both a minority and a majority, depending on the government. We strongly believe that people should be chosen for jobs, clubs, and organizations based on skill, not based on quota, whether it is self-imposed or forced upon by the government.

"Ambassador, intent is irrelevant under international law. WA Resolutions are interpreted on the basis of pure textualism."

[Hatzisland]

I don't like affirmative action, but the exceptions in the final clause are both unexplained and sweepingly broad. I think I'd have to vote against if it came to vote as it currently stands.

OOC:
I agree, especially as the clause does not mention on which grounds people can be discriminated against. Since this last clause just gives the mentioned organisations a free pass, as they are meant to have 'compelling practical reasons' to discriminate without further qualification, one could argue that for example a hard labour employer (I take it that basically means "Men are better lumberjacks then women"?) could exclude gay people, even though they would fulfil all other requirements, without their sexual orientation having to do anything with their job.

The same applies to the 'gender-based clubs'; while it might be argued that these kinds of clubs should be allowed to discriminate on the base of gender, the current phrasing gives them the power to discriminate on every other base as well. So, no gay Boy Scouts and no black Girl Scouts? I do not think that this should be allowed.

(Also, on a side-note: Are the mentions of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts enough to make that illegal for RL references?)

How do you think I could edit the plan? We are more than happy to accept recommendations.

[Hatzisland]

Affirmative action, in the eyes of our government and this resolution(as we firmly believe that intent of the writer and originalism is important in making precedent), is applying a minimum(or maximum) percentage of acceptance based on someone's race, gender, nationality, etc(really everything listed in our plan.) We disagree firmly with this because it can be used to discriminate against both a minority and a majority, depending on the government. We strongly believe that people should be chosen for jobs, clubs, and organizations based on skill, not based on quota, whether it is self-imposed or forced upon by the government.

"Ambassador, intent is irrelevant under international law. WA Resolutions are interpreted on the basis of pure textualism."

I still think my definition applies.

OOC: Really? But what would happen in areas of debate of what the text means? I think intent should be the tie-breaker there.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Ambassador, intent is irrelevant under international law. WA Resolutions are interpreted on the basis of pure textualism."

I still think my definition applies.

OOC: Really? But what would happen in areas of debate of what the text means? I think intent should be the tie-breaker there.

OOC: GenSec applies canons of construction to settle ambiguities. Your desire for intent isn't going to change that.

[Maowi]

I still think my definition applies.

If you want a specific aspect of your definition to apply which isn't really included in the standard, dictionary definition of the term 'affirmative action', then put in your proposal 'DEFINES "affirmative action" as ...'
But I think for your definition, you're good.

[Hatzisland]

OOC: When discrimination is already not allowed, affirmative action is 1) unnecessary, and 2) giving a certain group more rights than other groups, which is the definition of discrimination.

Don't think in terms of RL, because RL doesn't abide by CoCR.

((I'm not talking in terms of legal or illegal, I'm talking about good or bad))

We entirely agree with the arguments stated above, and would like to thank those nations for sharing their thoughts.

OOC: And we'd also like to thank them for saving us time.

[Kenmoria]

“I’ve put some feedback in red.”

UNDERSTANDING that the World Assembly has outlawed discrimination based on race, gender, economic status, religion, nationality, and more,

SEEKING to expand those rights, It should be ‘these’ rather than ‘those’ in this clause. Also, this is quite a generic clause and symptomatic of a generally short preamble overall. You don’t actually have any substance here, just a recognition of past legislation.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZES affirmative action and quotas as discrimination, This should go in the preamble, since you are recognising something.

OUTLAWS the use of affirmative action and quotas both in the public and private sector, Outlawing these things in government I can support; I can also support banning governments from forcing businesses to employ affirmative action or quotas, but I cannot support forcing businesses to potentially change their hiring practices.

MANDATES that both governments and companies not use 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 as a factor in hiring, firing, or accepting into organizations and schools, unless there is a compelling practical reason to do so. Once again, I can fully support this in schools, but not in private businesses.

CLARIFIES that religious organizations and schools, hard labor jobs, gender based clubs(i.e Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts), and political organizations will be considered to have practical reasons to discriminate. So a gender based club could ban gay people from attending? Or a political organisation could ban ethnic minorities from joining? You need much more clarification on these clauses.

[Hatzisland]

“I’ve put some feedback in red.”

UNDERSTANDING that the World Assembly has outlawed discrimination based on race, gender, economic status, religion, nationality, and more,

SEEKING to expand those rights, It should be ‘these’ rather than ‘those’ in this clause. Also, this is quite a generic clause and symptomatic of a generally short preamble overall. You don’t actually have any substance here, just a recognition of past legislation.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZES affirmative action and quotas as discrimination, This should go in the preamble, since you are recognising something.

OUTLAWS the use of affirmative action and quotas both in the public and private sector, Outlawing these things in government I can support; I can also support banning governments from forcing businesses to employ affirmative action or quotas, but I cannot support forcing businesses to potentially change their hiring practices.

MANDATES that both governments and companies not use 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 as a factor in hiring, firing, or accepting into organizations and schools, unless there is a compelling practical reason to do so. Once again, I can fully support this in schools, but not in private businesses.

CLARIFIES that religious organizations and schools, hard labor jobs, gender based clubs(i.e Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts), and political organizations will be considered to have practical reasons to discriminate. So a gender based club could ban gay people from attending? Or a political organisation could ban ethnic minorities from joining? You need much more clarification on these clauses.

Thank you for stating your concerns with the plan. We will continue to make changes as we go.

[Iciaros]

Affirmative action, in the eyes of our government and this resolution(as we firmly believe that intent of the writer and originalism is important in making precedent), is applying a minimum(or maximum) percentage of acceptance based on someone's race, gender, nationality, etc(really everything listed in our plan.) We disagree firmly with this because it can be used to discriminate against both a minority and a majority, depending on the government. We strongly believe that people should be chosen for jobs, clubs, and organizations based on skill, not based on quota, whether it is self-imposed or forced upon by the government.

"Thank you for clarifying, Ambassador. To further clarify, given that there is no 'compelling practical reason' exemption for the clause outlawing affirmative action and quotas, creating said quotas for the reason of, say, creating employment for the lower economic classes to defeat the cycle of poverty would be disallowed under your proposal? My understanding also is that this would tighten the allowances made by The Charter of Civil Rights, which does allow practical discrimination such as the choosing of only female staff to work with battered women. Is this correct?"

[Karteria]

"'Along with other organizations and employers' does little to specify and basically nullifies the clause before it. As for the idea, we are still debating its merits and will come to a conclusion soon."

"We've come to the conclusion that affirmative action should not be completely outlawed and, if anything, should only be somewhat limited. Additionally, the exemptions in the last clause are too open-ended as of now. Opposed."

[Hatzisland]

Affirmative action, in the eyes of our government and this resolution(as we firmly believe that intent of the writer and originalism is important in making precedent), is applying a minimum(or maximum) percentage of acceptance based on someone's race, gender, nationality, etc(really everything listed in our plan.) We disagree firmly with this because it can be used to discriminate against both a minority and a majority, depending on the government. We strongly believe that people should be chosen for jobs, clubs, and organizations based on skill, not based on quota, whether it is self-imposed or forced upon by the government.

"Thank you for clarifying, Ambassador. To further clarify, given that there is no 'compelling practical reason' exemption for the clause outlawing affirmative action and quotas, creating said quotas for the reason of, say, creating employment for the lower economic classes to defeat the cycle of poverty would be disallowed under your proposal? My understanding also is that this would tighten the allowances made by The Charter of Civil Rights, which does allow practical discrimination such as the choosing of only female staff to work with battered women. Is this correct?"

Under the current plan, it probably would. However, there is an intense debate, both among our advisors and on these forums, of whether affirmative action should be outlawed or be given a "compelling practical reason" exemption, and how that would be clarified. We would like to hear your thoughts on that. And as for tightening the allowances, not necessarily, but it does expand the rights to the hiring and firing of workers, along with acceptance into clubs and organizations. And the case you mentioned would most certainly be protected by this plan.

[Hatzisland]

I don't like affirmative action, but the exceptions in the final clause are both unexplained and sweepingly broad. I think I'd have to vote against if it came to vote as it currently stands.

We've made the necessary changes.

[Maowi]

We've made the necessary changes.

Perhaps it might be better phrased as "MANDATES that both governments and companies may only use 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 as a factor in hiring, firing, or accepting into organizations and schools if there is a compelling practical reason to do so"? Just a suggestion

[Hatzisland]

We've made the necessary changes.

Perhaps it might be better phrased as "MANDATES that both governments and companies may only use 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 as a factor in hiring, firing, or accepting into organizations and schools if there is a compelling practical reason to do so"? Just a suggestion

I think you miswrote. If I copied and pasted what you wrote, those things would be the only factor used in hiring, firing, and accepting people.

Edit: Sorry, I misread. We will make the edit.

[The New Nordic Union]

Perhaps it might be better phrased as "MANDATES that both governments and companies may only use 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 as a factor in hiring, firing, or accepting into organizations and schools if there is a compelling practical reason to do so"? Just a suggestion

I think you miswrote. If I copied and pasted what you wrote, those things would be the only factor used in hiring, firing, and accepting people.

'The conditional clause in the last part of the proposed wording by the Honourable Representative from Maowi ensures that exactly that is not the case.'

[Hatzisland]

I think you miswrote. If I copied and pasted what you wrote, those things would be the only factor used in hiring, firing, and accepting people.

'The conditional clause in the last part of the proposed wording by the Honourable Representative from Maowi ensures that exactly that is not the case.'

Sorry. You're right. I misread. Thanks.

[Araraukar]

OOC: If you're moaning about the "compelling reasons" excuse in CoCR on other threads, why are you leaving the same loophole into yours?

[Iciaros]

Under the current plan, it probably would. However, there is an intense debate, both among our advisors and on these forums, of whether affirmative action should be outlawed or be given a "compelling practical reason" exemption, and how that would be clarified. We would like to hear your thoughts on that. And as for tightening the allowances, not necessarily, but it does expand the rights to the hiring and firing of workers, along with acceptance into clubs and organizations. And the case you mentioned would most certainly be protected by this plan.

"To be frank, Ambassador, I believe a compelling practical reason exemption would be key to persuading my Empress to allow me to endorse your proposal, as we do have welfare employment programmes that, by necessity, distinguish between different economic classes in their operation. However, if you incorporate a 'compelling practical reason' exception, it seems to me that this proposal may fail to be distinguished from the Charter of Civil Rights, and further it may not achieve the purpose you intend it to. It is an unenviable problem. The best I could advise is to qualify the potential practical reasons you would accept as reasonable justifications for discrimination, such as the relief of poverty. That said, that would likely involve the creation of a complete list of potential exceptions, which may be troublesome and potentially inflexible. Nonetheless, that is the only solution I can come up with at this time.

"I must also note that other ambassadors have expressed reservations on the legality of your proposal. I have no such opinions, as I have not examined the resolutions closely enough to come to a conclusion at the moment. However, depending on how further amendments may make this proposal further resemble or contradict the Charter of Civil Rights, there may be a further legality problem to contend with.

"I am sorry for my unhelpfulness, Ambassador, but I do hope you will manage to put forth an impressive proposal in the end. Best of luck to you."