NationStates

At what point did we have the right to initially take life now we are trying to prevent it what does this have to do with the price of tea in China we are talking about oranges and tomatoes here brothers and sisters in charge we should vote to ban this type of preventive murder that is trying to take place here to allow the permanent castration of men and women for any reason outside of medical reasons is an abomination at best I typically don’t speak on such matters but in this case I want to weigh my options and I asked the members of this union to take a gander at this and I hope you will make appropriate actions in the favor of banning forced sterilization I am voting in favor of this and I hope that the members of the council will take the time and do the same thing I will extend an olive branch and do more research to a sure that our nation is making the best decision

Newam wrote:At what point did we have the right to initially take life now we are trying to prevent it what does this have to do with the price of tea in China we are talking about oranges and tomatoes here brothers and sisters in charge we should vote to ban this type of preventive murder that is trying to take place here to allow the permanent castration of men and women for any reason outside of medical reasons is an abomination at best I typically don’t speak on such matters but in this case I want to weigh my options and I asked the members of this union to take a gander at this and I hope you will make appropriate actions in the favor of banning forced sterilization I am voting in favor of this and I hope that the members of the council will take the time and do the same thing I will extend an olive branch and do more research to a sure that our nation is making the best decision

"I appreciate your vote ambassador, however, I suggest you talk slower and take breaks between sentences and clauses."

PotatoFarmers' official view on the issue.

PotatoFarmers' Ambassador to the WA, Mr Kishat, came up to the microphone to speak to the delegates present. "Seriously, why is there opposition to such a proposal? I must really applaud Marxist Germany for such a resolution. Banning forced sterilisation is something PotatoFarmers have always believe in, as the right to decide to embark on sterilisation, abortion and all other similar procedures is a basic right we believe everyone should have."

"To that delegate there who claimed that animals can be considered individuals, I believe your conern doesn't exist because you could redefine Clause 2a in your laws to permit owners of pets (which you called individuals) to approve sterilisation procedures."

"To all those people who chose to vote against simply because the Delegate tabling the resolution comes from a nation which allow such acts to occur, you do realise that the nation will be affected by the resolution if it passes? Why would they propose such a resolution if they are not looking to repeal such an act? Really, I must say that all of you are finding random excuses to vote against such a good resolution."

"I know there are also delegates who come from nations that utilise sterilisation as a form of punishment. To convince your nation to change that policy today will be close to impossible, but I must say that such a punishment method is outdated. We previously had such punishment but promptly chose to replace it with other punishment methods a few years back, such as longer jail terms, provision of upkeep to the victims of such sex crimes, as well as utilising the capital punishment or life imprisonment for really severe cases. Maybe these alternatives could be considered."

As he leaves the podium stand, he walks to the delegate from Marxist Germany. "Really, I approve of your proposal. Personally, I think it is quite fair as it provides member nations with some 'breathing space' in terms of the measures that would be taken to prevent forced sterilisation and the punishment meted out to offenders. The Clause 2a is also quite fair in my opinion, and is not as bad as what others may say. My nation does, however, have a concern with Clause 4 as we do not think that the state should be providing reparations to acts of forced sterilisation by non-state actors. We did intend to fufill the requirement in the Clause as stated in our proposal, though we aren't sure if that is an appropriate way to do so for now. Nevertheless, we hope that in the event this proposal gets voted down, this could be a concern that you may want to address for a future redraft. I do wish you all the best for this proposal, and hopefully we will be able to convince all these people that they are wrong in voting against."

(OOC: In fact, what I am more interested in is whether such an interpretation provided in my dispatch is actually okay. The usage of "urges member states to provide reparations" almost tilted me the other way because it is unresonable to expect the state to do so if they are not at fault. To reconcile with myself, I chose to utilise such a different interpretation, by saying that the state should be in charge of the provision of reparations. I feel, however, that I am at risk of not being in compliance of the resolution. If my interpretation is "non-compliant", then I guess I have no choice but to vote against.)

PotatoFarmers wrote:PotatoFarmers' official view on the issue.

PotatoFarmers' Ambassador to the WA, Mr Kishat, came up to the microphone to speak to the delegates present. "Seriously, why is there opposition to such a proposal? I must really applaud Marxist Germany for such a resolution. Banning forced sterilisation is something PotatoFarmers have always believe in, as the right to decide to embark on sterilisation, abortion and all other similar procedures is a basic right we believe everyone should have."

"Thank you ambassador."

"To all those people who chose to vote against simply because the Delegate tabling the resolution comes from a nation which allow such acts to occur, you do realise that the nation will be affected by the resolution if it passes? Why would they propose such a resolution if they are not looking to repeal such an act? Really, I must say that all of you are finding random excuses to vote against such a good resolution."

"I must correct you here, my nation does not practice forced sterilisation and we oppose such barbaric practices, what the ambassador from bananaistan is referring to is our previous attempts at creatively complying with GA#286, we have since stopped and will try to repeal the resolution instead."

"Really, I approve of your proposal. Personally, I think it is quite fair as it provides member nations with some 'breathing space' in terms of the measures that would be taken to prevent forced sterilisation and the punishment meted out to offenders. The Clause 2a is also quite fair in my opinion, and is not as bad as what others may say. My nation does, however, have a concern with Clause 4 as we do not think that the state should be providing reparations to acts of forced sterilisation by non-state actors. We did intend to fufill the requirement in the Clause as stated in our proposal, though we aren't sure if that is an appropriate way to do so for now. Nevertheless, we hope that in the event this proposal gets voted down, this could be a concern that you may want to address for a future redraft. I do wish you all the best for this proposal, and hopefully we will be able to convince all these people that they are wrong in voting against."

"Your concerns with clause 4 are understandable, this is why we decided to only urge nations to do so rather than mandating them."

I feel as long as it is used for criminals (rapists).

Onikella wrote:I feel as long as it is used for criminals (rapists).

What would that achieve? So you make someone undergo a vasectomy because they raped someone? Great, now they can rape more people, and hey no kids! Maybe actually try reading the proposal first, then commenting?

Kenmoria wrote:

United Massachusetts wrote:"Oh, I'm sorry. I just recalled something about hearing that reproductive rights being universally agreed upon. And, if I recall correctly, I think you said something to that end. As did several other people.

Now, my memory may be failing, but I recall the phrase of choice being "reproductive rights are non negotiable.""

“I would love for reproductive rights to being universally agreed upon within the WA. Luckily, this has already partially happened with the apssing fo strong legislation. It does seem, however, that the member states draw the line at banning sterilisation of people. Why this has happened is a mystery to me, though I don’t rule out the possibility that people are voting against because this doesn’t ban child sterilisation. If this is correct, then it would be because of a belief in reproductive freedoms that this is failing.”

The United Separatist Empire wrote:
You can’t stop me from castrating minorities! How else can I control my population?! If they don’t wanna be oppressed they should get their shit together and start oppressing people themselves!

(OOC: Castrating solely minorities would probably fall afoul of GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights.)

I have not read whatever this GA #035 is, so I will simply come to the conclusion that whatever I haven’t read yet doesn’t exist. My country will no longer recognize the WA and the laws passed under it as any form of authority over us, and I will continue to commit war crimes and atrocities for the sole purpose of pissing you guys off. Checkmate motherfuckers!

The United Separatist Empire wrote:

Kenmoria wrote: “I would love for reproductive rights to being universally agreed upon within the WA. Luckily, this has already partially happened with the apssing fo strong legislation. It does seem, however, that the member states draw the line at banning sterilisation of people. Why this has happened is a mystery to me, though I don’t rule out the possibility that people are voting against because this doesn’t ban child sterilisation. If this is correct, then it would be because of a belief in reproductive freedoms that this is failing.”
(OOC: Castrating solely minorities would probably fall afoul of GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights.)

I have not read whatever this GA #035 is, so I will simply come to the conclusion that whatever I haven’t read yet doesn’t exist. My country will no longer recognize the WA and the laws passed under it as any form of authority over us, and I will continue to commit war crimes and atrocities for the sole purpose of pissing you guys off. Checkmate motherfuckers!

"Ambassador, that's the dumbest interpretation of how law works that I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and I have heard arguments from the delegations of Keshiland, Old Hope, and Bitely. Your statement should be considered an assault on the intelligence of every single ambassador who actually understands law.

"The WACC ensures compliance. Those nations that do not comply are subject to coercive fines. Those nations that do not pay the fines are subject to WA-wide embargo and the stiffest sanctions nations can otherwise come up with. Probably worse, nobody in this Assembly is going to pay you a goddamn bit of attention, ambassador. We've no reason to bother listening to your positions if your nation isn't going to comply in good faith."

Absentia wrote:Absentia votes AGAINST this proposal, because of the confluence of several other issues - which is to say, if the national animal is granted personhood, then this resolution would make criminals of all the people who take the 'have your pet spayed or neutered' advice, and as such is not a trans-national issue, but one rightly addressed at the national level. A malicious regime could remain in compliance with this resolution by declaring that various classes of people are 'subhuman' in the first place and therefore not subject to it's provisions.

“This proposal mentions individuals, not persons. Animals, unless they are sapient such as humans, some bears, some cats and a few other species, are not individuals. Besides, even if this did refer to persons, I don’t think a member nation would adopt an interpretation so contrary to their interests.

Likewise, the idea of a dictator reducing citizens to mere resources, though abhorrent in its own right, would not pose an issue for this proposal. I strongly doubt that the World Assembly Compliance Commission will fall for the rhetoric of an authoritarian autocrat.”

The United Separatist Empire wrote:

Kenmoria wrote: “I would love for reproductive rights to being universally agreed upon within the WA. Luckily, this has already partially happened with the apssing fo strong legislation. It does seem, however, that the member states draw the line at banning sterilisation of people. Why this has happened is a mystery to me, though I don’t rule out the possibility that people are voting against because this doesn’t ban child sterilisation. If this is correct, then it would be because of a belief in reproductive freedoms that this is failing.”
(OOC: Castrating solely minorities would probably fall afoul of GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights.)

I have not read whatever this GA #035 is, so I will simply come to the conclusion that whatever I haven’t read yet doesn’t exist. My country will no longer recognize the WA and the laws passed under it as any form of authority over us, and I will continue to commit war crimes and atrocities for the sole purpose of pissing you guys off. Checkmate motherfuckers!

(OOC: Don’t do that. Noncompliance without proper understanding of its effects is godmodding, which is a form of poor roleplaying.)

Per section 2a of this resolution, would unwilling minors be unable to refuse sterilization should their parents advocate for it? The parent or guardian may consent to their sterilization, but the child or minor may not. The ambiguity of the wording means that we may have to vote against this resolution, unless there is something that I have overlooked.

Pazano wrote:Per section 2a of this resolution, would unwilling minors be unable to refuse sterilization should their parents advocate for it? The parent or guardian may consent to their sterilization, but the child or minor may not. The ambiguity of the wording means that we may have to vote against this resolution, unless there is something that I have overlooked.

"Yes, however, it is only an exception added to avoid contradiction with previous international law. Shall that law be repealed, your nation will be able to enact laws to ban it."

"Yes, however, it is only an exception added to avoid contradiction with previous international law. Shall that law be repealed, your nation will be able to enact laws to ban it."

I see. In that case, we shall not let perfect be the enemy of good, and we shall vote FOR this resolution for its efforts to halt these violations of human rights. While human suffering will persist so long as births continue, it is still not right to force an inability to reproduce onto beings which exist for that sole purpose in this universe.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

The United Separatist Empire wrote:I have not read whatever this GA #035 is, so I will simply come to the conclusion that whatever I haven’t read yet doesn’t exist. My country will no longer recognize the WA and the laws passed under it as any form of authority over us, and I will continue to commit war crimes and atrocities for the sole purpose of pissing you guys off. Checkmate motherfuckers!

"Ambassador, that's the dumbest interpretation of how law works that I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and I have heard arguments from the delegations of Keshiland, Old Hope, and Bitely. Your statement should be considered an assault on the intelligence of every single ambassador who actually understands law.

"The WACC ensures compliance. Those nations that do not comply are subject to coercive fines. Those nations that do not pay the fines are subject to WA-wide embargo and the stiffest sanctions nations can otherwise come up with. Probably worse, nobody in this Assembly is going to pay you a goddamn bit of attention, ambassador. We've no reason to bother listening to your positions if your nation isn't going to comply in good faith."

Look at you! Whoring yourself to the likes of ambassadors and aristocrats! I pity you!

Marxist Germany wrote:

Pazano wrote:Per section 2a of this resolution, would unwilling minors be unable to refuse sterilization should their parents advocate for it? The parent or guardian may consent to their sterilization, but the child or minor may not. The ambiguity of the wording means that we may have to vote against this resolution, unless there is something that I have overlooked.

"Yes, however, it is only an exception added to avoid contradiction with previous international law. Shall that law be repealed, your nation will be able to enact laws to ban it."

What previous international law would that be?

Waffia wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"Yes, however, it is only an exception added to avoid contradiction with previous international law. Shall that law be repealed, your nation will be able to enact laws to ban it."

What previous international law would that be?

"I refer you to GA#29 Patients Rights Act." he hands the ambassador a copy

Marxist Germany wrote:

Waffia wrote:
What previous international law would that be?

"I refer you to GA#29 Patients Rights Act." he hands the ambassador a copy

Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?

"The Government of Pharexia, as well as the Ilyçian Church of Pharexia, are pleased to support this proposed bill banning forced sterilisation in all WA nations. We cannot justify, especially in cases of physical and cognitive disability, sterilizing people who have done nothing to offend society and the state. They deserve to live their lives as they see fit. It is not the role of the government to take away the power of procreation, for it is ordained by God."

Waffia wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"I refer you to GA#29 Patients Rights Act." he hands the ambassador a copy

Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?

"(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed" ~ GA#29

Technically you could even bypass GA#29 by making illegal for minors to undergo sterilisation. Given that Clause II states that it is only for legal procedures, by carefully wording your laws, you could comply with this law. For us, we made it real simple by banning minors from undergoing such a procedure.

And if you are thinking about Clause 2a of this resolution, yes you could word your laws to ban adults from giving the permission as the clause states that the adult must be legally allowed to give the permission.

Waffia wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:"I refer you to GA#29 Patients Rights Act." he hands the ambassador a copy

Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?

“I do not believe so, ambassador. This proposal never explicitly legalises forced sterilisation of children; all that it does is clarify that children, if they have consent given on their behalf, aren’t affected by this.”

There are some who are concerned that the passing of this resolution would allow for guardians of minors to approve sterilization against the minor's wishes; however, wouldn't this be abuse since the act of sterilizing the minor would be a deliberate act to cause mental and/or emotional trauma? Assuming of course the parents have ill intent. If so, I believe it would deem that action as child abuse under GA#222 and therefore the child should already be protected by laws set in place by member nations.

PotatoFarmers wrote:

Waffia wrote:
Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?

"(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed" ~ GA#29

Technically you could even bypass GA#29 by making illegal for minors to undergo sterilisation. Given that Clause II states that it is only for legal procedures, by carefully wording your laws, you could comply with this law. For us, we made it real simple by banning minors from undergoing such a procedure.

And if you are thinking about Clause 2a of this resolution, yes you could word your laws to ban adults from giving the permission as the clause states that the adult must be legally allowed to give the permission.

Kenmoria wrote:

Waffia wrote:
Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?

“I do not believe so, ambassador. This proposal never explicitly legalises forced sterilisation of children; all that it does is clarify that children, if they have consent given on their behalf, aren’t affected by this.”

Thank you for the clarification, ambassadors. Waffia have changed their vote to support the proposed resolution.

OOC: Response to TNP
https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1258939

OOC: Voted against for IC reasons - though I notice it doesn't actually ban sterilization of criminals as a punishment, merely extraditing them to nations where they could face that punishment.

And before anyone says "rapist" or "child molester", those are not actually the crimes that sterilization is the optional punishment (to very long prison sentence) for. And it's done so that it's reversable, if necessary. More to do with population control than eugenics.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Voted against for IC reasons - though I notice it doesn't actually ban sterilization of criminals as a punishment, merely extraditing them to nations where they could face that punishment.

(OOC: To me, ‘Prohibits: the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent’ seems as though it would ban sterilisation as punishment, unless the criminal consented to the punishment for some reason.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Voted against for IC reasons - though I notice it doesn't actually ban sterilization of criminals as a punishment, merely extraditing them to nations where they could face that punishment.

(OOC: To me, ‘Prohibits: the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent’ seems as though it would ban sterilisation as punishment, unless the criminal consented to the punishment for some reason.)

OOC: Perhaps (depends largely on how the parental consent is counted as - there's a word I can't remember, that means you basically signing a document that gives another person (usually a parent) the right to act on legal matters on your behalf, because you're unable), but, like I said, in Araraukar it's a "get out of jail" card for certain very particular offences, if you'd prefer to avoid a lengthy imprisonment period. So would necessarily be done with the person's consent, as it's just an option, not mandated as a punishment at sentencing.