NationStates

This is the proposed draft of the "Civil Rights and Anti-Discrimination Act" a mild in strength plan intended to expand civil rights. We'd like to thank every nation that has given feedback on the plan, as a lot of changes have been made since the first draft. We hope you will sponsor it on the floor, and hope that you vote for it if it gets to the GA. Also, spoilers=previous draft.

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

SEEKING to expand these rights,

DEFINING affirmative action as applying a minimum or maximum percentage of acceptance based on sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, and sexual orientation or sexual identity,

RECOGNIZING racial quotas and affirmative action in some cases as discrimination,

The World Assembly,

OUTLAWS the use of quotas both in the public and private sector,

RESTRICTS the use of affirmative action to only when there is a clear, very compelling, and practical reason to do so,

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.

Honorable Ambassador, as you might not be aware, the government of Nyasantara performs a raft of affirmative action policies for women and groups that were marginalised in the colonial era such as certain indigenous groups and LGBTI society. Why is that? We see that left unchecked, these groups would be left in a precarious state, with no advancement or development. Under Nyasantara's affirmative action policies, we ensure that marginalised groups have a real voice in matters of administration and economic affairs by encouraging the appointment of qualified peoples from marginalised backgrounds to fill up the roles of leadership and administration in government, economic and political affairs. Our government is now moving swiftly to combat ableism and other forms of discriminatory practices towards the disabled and those with mental illness with a new raft of policies that will be put up for debate in our Assembly very soon.

Some might argue that this gets in the way of some mythic "meritocracy" but we argue that such a meritocracy does not exist. In no country we have surveyed does this ideal selection method exist. We see, far too often, that the dominant group of people, who hold the most power, be it politically or economically, have the most sway. Their standards are deemed "objective" and worthy of merit. They are able to accrue for themselves vast amounts of power, wealth and prestige while marginalised groups are cast as having some sort of moral, personal failing. A reading of the basics of this proposition, at least to our eyes, appears to cement this reality. A world where the already powerful keep their power while any attempt to assist the disadvantaged and downtrodden is cast as "discrimination". This does nothing to expand anti-discrimination laws but instead, it protects groups that are already powerful and who already hold power.

The government of the People's Republic of Nyasantara humbly rejects this proposal and we hope that in the future, the language of civil rights and anti-discrimination will be used to further the cause of the suffering and disenfranchised peoples everywhere.

"'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."

OOC: You should determine the category and strength of this proposal (probably Civil Rights and Significant, respectively). I'm not too familiar about past resolutions to determine legality, but make sure to check Passed GA Resolutions for any potential contradictions. You even mention a previous resolution in the preamble, so I'm sure you're familiar.

“This is a nice idea, but it has already been done by the Charter of Civil Rights, GA #35, which bans discrimination generally.”

(OOC: See here.)

Hatzisland wrote: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 practical reason to do so.

CLARIFIES that religious organizations and schools, hard labor jobs, along with other organizations and employers, will be considered to have practical reasons to discriminate.[/box]

"Reducing old-boy groupthink is an extremely necessary practical process that no modern organization can live without. We find this proposal acceptable, if pointless."

OOC: It's hard to tell if this actually does anything based on the highlighted portions. On the other hand, the CLARIFIES clause, if you insist on couching diversity-in-hiring initiatives as "discrimination," might render this illegal for contradicting GAR #35. You might wish to rephrase.

The relevant World Assembly office receives a secure electronic message. It reads:

"The National Government of the Union of Virtual States (please ignore our misclassification as a Federation) will not be supporting this proposal or voting for it should it come to a vote. The proposal is clearly trying to further the proposing nation's agenda, which we believe is a fair goal for WA proposals and resolutions, however we do not share this particular agenda, which we view as an attempt to undermine civil rights and work against equitability and certainly the removal of barriers causing inequality.

World Assembly Liason Office, Department of Foreign Relations, National Government of the Union of Virtual States"

"Thank you for your proposal, Ambassador. My Empress has instructed me not to support this proposal, but I am not so firmly decided myself. If I could clarify with you, I believe your proposal intends to expand on GAR#35 The Charter of Civil Rights, in particular its nondiscrimination clause under Article 1(c). However, both your proposal and GAR#35 mention exemptions to discrimination on the grounds of practicality. Is there a difference in effect between GAR#35 and your proposal, Ambassador, and if so, what would this difference entail?

"Thank you for your time."

Karteria wrote:"'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."

OOC: You should determine the category and strength of this proposal (probably Civil Rights and Significant, respectively). I'm not too familiar about past resolutions to determine legality, but make sure to check Passed GA Resolutions for any potential contradictions. You even mention a previous resolution in the preamble, so I'm sure you're familiar.

Yes I am. The main inspiration for this plan was to expand on the rights granted in "The Charter of Civil Rights". If there are any other plans setting precedent for our plan, please don't hesitate to inform us.

“I have now realised that this does not in fact duplicate CocR, since it outlwars affirmative action. In that case, I fully oppose this piece of legislation, since businesses are free to discriminate almost any way they please, regardless of whether it is against the minority or the majority.”

Kenmoria wrote:“This is a nice idea, but it has already been done by the Charter of Civil Rights, GA #35, which bans discrimination generally.”

(OOC: See here.)

As stated by another nation above, the wording of the Charter For Civil Rights could allow for loopholes on issues such as affirmative action(though I don't think it does, those nations are still getting away with it.) This plan clarifies that affirmative action, quotas, and discriminatory hirings and firings are prohibited.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Hatzisland wrote: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 practical reason to do so.

CLARIFIES that religious organizations and schools, hard labor jobs, along with other organizations and employers, will be considered to have practical reasons to discriminate.[/box]

"Reducing old-boy groupthink is an extremely necessary practical process that no modern organization can live without. We find this proposal acceptable, if pointless."

OOC: It's hard to tell if this actually does anything based on the highlighted portions. On the other hand, the CLARIFIES clause, if you insist on couching diversity-in-hiring initiatives as "discrimination," might render this illegal for contradicting GAR #35. You might wish to rephrase.

We have analyzed the plan, and found no legal challenge. As for affirmative action, if anything it should be pointless because Article 1A of GAR #35 states that discrimination is illegal, but as I have stated before, nations are getting away with discriminatory quotas and affirmative action. This plan puts that battle to rest.

Kenmoria wrote:“I have now realised that this does not in fact duplicate CocR, since it outlwars affirmative action. In that case, I fully oppose this piece of legislation, since businesses are free to discriminate almost any way they please, regardless of whether it is against the minority or the majority.”

I don't believe you have read the Charter For Civil Rights. It clerkly states "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 categorization which may be used for the purposes of discrimination". This clause applies to both the public and private sector. Companies can not discriminate. If they are in your nation(and you are a WA member) you must order them to stop immediately, or face international sanctions.

OCC: Also, ignoring GA Resolutions is a form of meta-gaming. I don't know if that is a punishable offense, but it most certainly is wrong.

Iciaros wrote:"Thank you for your proposal, Ambassador. My Empress has instructed me not to support this proposal, but I am not so firmly decided myself. If I could clarify with you, I believe your proposal intends to expand on GAR#35 The Charter of Civil Rights, in particular its nondiscrimination clause under Article 1(c). However, both your proposal and GAR#35 mention exemptions to discrimination on the grounds of practicality. Is there a difference in effect between GAR#35 and your proposal, Ambassador, and if so, what would this difference entail?

"Thank you for your time."

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.

Hatzisland wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“I have now realised that this does not in fact duplicate CocR, since it outlwars affirmative action. In that case, I fully oppose this piece of legislation, since businesses are free to discriminate almost any way they please, regardless of whether it is against the minority or the majority.”

I don't believe you have read the Charter For Civil Rights. It clerkly states "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 categorization which may be used for the purposes of discrimination". This clause applies to both the public and private sector. Companies can not discriminate. If they are in your nation(and you are a WA member) you must order them to stop immediately, or face international sanctions.

OCC: Also, ignoring GA Resolutions is a form of meta-gaming. I don't know if that is a punishable offense, but it most certainly is wrong.

(OOC: I’m not in the WA. The Kenmoria WA Mission is, but Kenmoria isn’t.)

Hatzisland wrote:We have analyzed the plan, and found no legal challenge. As for affirmative action, if anything it should be pointless because Article 1A of GAR #35 states that discrimination is illegal, but as I have stated before, nations are getting away with discriminatory quotas and affirmative action. This plan puts that battle to rest.

I'm informing you that defining a positive hiring decision ("Our company's culture is uncompetitive or otherwise bad because all our white male executives think alike, let's hire some folks who aren't white males to shake things up") as discrimination per se, and then claiming that some organizations shall have the right to discriminate without any elaboration (e.g. to further a compelling practical purpose), is a contradiction of GAR #35. It is not hard for you to add some language addressing this and fixing the problem. But if you submit this as it is now, I will have to mark it illegal. Just add a few things as I've described here, or stop defining positive demographic hiring decisions as "discrimination," and this problem will vanish.

Kenmoria wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:
I don't believe you have read the Charter For Civil Rights. It clerkly states "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 categorization which may be used for the purposes of discrimination". This clause applies to both the public and private sector. Companies can not discriminate. If they are in your nation(and you are a WA member) you must order them to stop immediately, or face international sanctions.

OCC: Also, ignoring GA Resolutions is a form of meta-gaming. I don't know if that is a punishable offense, but it most certainly is wrong.

(OOC: I’m not in the WA. The Kenmoria WA Mission is, but Kenmoria isn’t.)

Then why are you saying you are opposed to my plan if A) it doesn't affect you and B) you can't even vote on it?

Hatzisland wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I’m not in the WA. The Kenmoria WA Mission is, but Kenmoria isn’t.)

Then why are you saying you are opposed to my plan if A) it doesn't affect you and B) you can't even vote on it?

(OOC: Lots of nations comments in proposals and aren’t in the WA. For example, Araraukar and Bears Armed. However, both Bears Armed and I, along with many other players, have WA Missions, which are puppet nations for the sake of voting on proposals. Also, I should point out that Kenmoria still follows almost all resolutions, and doesn’t really want to add one to the list of the five that is doesn’t.

On the actual proposal, it would still be annoying for the WA Mission to have to host only businesses compliant with these rules, which wouldn’t be all of the major ones. I also can’t see why religious organisations are exempted, as they are often the most discriminatory type of business.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:
Then why are you saying you are opposed to my plan if A) it doesn't affect you and B) you can't even vote on it?

(OOC: Lots of nations comments in proposals and aren’t in the WA. For example, Araraukar and Bears Armed. However, both Bears Armed and I, along with many other players, have WA Missions, which are puppet nations for the sake of voting on proposals. Also, I should point out that Kenmoria still follows almost all resolutions, and doesn’t really want to add one to the list of the five that is doesn’t.

On the actual proposal, it would still be annoying for the WA Mission to have to host only businesses compliant with these rules, which wouldn’t be all of the major ones. I also can’t see why religious organisations are exempted, as they are often the most discriminatory type of business.)

They would be allowed to "discriminate" against non-religious people. You wouldn't want an atheist as a member of a Bible study club, at least if they were only there to ruin things.

OOC: I personally believe puppet nations are wrong. You either comply with WA laws, or you don't. Because of that, your point about compliance without laws really doesn't matter.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Hatzisland wrote:We have analyzed the plan, and found no legal challenge. As for affirmative action, if anything it should be pointless because Article 1A of GAR #35 states that discrimination is illegal, but as I have stated before, nations are getting away with discriminatory quotas and affirmative action. This plan puts that battle to rest.

I'm informing you that defining a positive hiring decision ("Our company's culture is uncompetitive or otherwise bad because all our white male executives think alike, let's hire some folks who aren't white males to shake things up") as discrimination per se, and then claiming that some organizations shall have the right to discriminate without any elaboration (e.g. to further a compelling practical purpose), is a contradiction of GAR #35. It is not hard for you to add some language addressing this and fixing the problem. But if you submit this as it is now, I will have to mark it illegal. Just add a few things as I've described here, or stop defining positive demographic hiring decisions as "discrimination," and this problem will vanish.

Is the problem fixed now? I have edited the plan.

Jakker wrote:Hatzisland, there is no reason for you to post 4 times in a row. It is borderline spam. In the future, please work on incorporating multiple replies in one post.

Will do.

Can you give a compelling reason that affirmative action is bad but discrimination in religion, physical labour and gender segregation is good?

Falcania wrote:Can you give a compelling reason that affirmative action is bad but discrimination in religion, physical labour and gender segregation is good?

I have already given a religious example above, physical labor would have to "discriminate" against people who are disabled, and boy scouts and girl scouts do technically "discriminate" against the other gender. I subscribe to the belief that we should use a dictionary definition in my resolution's. I used the textbook definition of discrimination, not the public's general interpretation of the word.

Hatzisland wrote:
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?"

Hatzisland wrote:

Falcania wrote:Can you give a compelling reason that affirmative action is bad but discrimination in religion, physical labour and gender segregation is good?

I have already given a religious example above, physical labor would have to "discriminate" against people who are disabled, and boy scouts and girl scouts do technically "discriminate" against the other gender. I subscribe to the belief that we should use a dictionary definition in my resolution's. I used the textbook definition of discrimination, not the public's general interpretation of the word.

I'll rephrase my question in a simpler fashion in the hope you might actually answer it.

Why is affirmative action bad?