NationStates

Posted: **Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:50 am**

Araraukar wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(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.

What possible purpose would be achieve by sterilizing someone as a criminal punishment. If we are referring to men, castration is not the same as sterilization. As for women, what possible outcome would you hope to achieve?

Posted: **Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:32 am**

Wayneactia wrote:What possible purpose would be achieve by sterilizing someone as a criminal punishment. If we are referring to men, castration is not the same as sterilization. As for women, what possible outcome would you hope to achieve?

OOC: Given the definition in the proposal, castration equals sterilization. And how is castration not sterilization anyway??? It removes your ability to breed.

And that would really be the reason it's used in Araraukar: to stop people being able to breed (without significant medical intervention anyway). Like I said, it's to do with population control. And ensuring all children have a good home.

Posted: **Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:24 pm**

Marxist Germany wrote:Strength: Mild

Acknowledging that each individual should have the right to choose to reproduce or not as long as it does not violate another individual's right to choose,

Hereby,
[list=1]

[*]Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the permanent elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce through the removal or alteration of their reproductive organs or the physiological processes that enable reproduction, through chemical or physical means;

[*]Prohibits:[list=a]
[*]The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;

Against.

I left the reasons for the vote against above:
1) This kind of a prohibition seems significant, not merely mild. I believe it is miscategorized.
2) It seems strange to suggest that one's decision about whether or not to reproduce would even be considered as something that could possibly result in a rights conflict with another. (Frankly, it doesn't. We acknowledge that everyone has a right to decide whether or not to reproduce, full stop.)
3) This definition of "sterilization" would include gender reassignment procedures, which is certainly unwarranted.
4) I don't know why the consent of a parent or guardian should be sufficient to sterilize a child. (It shouldn't.)

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:03 am**

Burninati0n wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:Strength: Mild

Acknowledging that each individual should have the right to choose to reproduce or not as long as it does not violate another individual's right to choose,

Hereby,
[list=1]

[*]Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the permanent elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce through the removal or alteration of their reproductive organs or the physiological processes that enable reproduction, through chemical or physical means;

[*]Prohibits:[list=a]
[*]The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;

Against.

I left the reasons for the vote against above:
1) This kind of a prohibition seems significant, not merely mild. I believe it is miscategorized.
2) It seems strange to suggest that one's decision about whether or not to reproduce would even be considered as something that could possibly result in a rights conflict with another. (Frankly, it doesn't. We acknowledge that everyone has a right to decide whether or not to reproduce, full stop.)
3) This definition of "sterilization" would include gender reassignment procedures, which is certainly unwarranted.
4) I don't know why the consent of a parent or guardian should be sufficient to sterilize a child. (It shouldn't.)

(OOC: For ‘1’, this is because forced sterilisation is, hopefully, quite a rare occurrence in member states. Therefore, most members won’t notice a change. On ‘2’, I suppose the clause was about forcing reproductive on someone else. It was a strange choice, but the preamble isn’t the most important thing in a proposal.

With ‘3’, I believe forced gender reassignment surgery should also be banned, though some procedures don’t cause sterilisation so wouldn’t fall under this proposal. Lastly, ‘4’ was added to avoid contradicting exact GA law.)

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:25 am**

Burninati0n wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:Strength: Mild

Acknowledging that each individual should have the right to choose to reproduce or not as long as it does not violate another individual's right to choose,

Hereby,

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the permanent elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce through the removal or alteration of their reproductive organs or the physiological processes that enable reproduction, through chemical or physical means;

Prohibits:

The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;

Against.

I left the reasons for the vote against above:
1) This kind of a prohibition seems significant, not merely mild. I believe it is miscategorized.
2) It seems strange to suggest that one's decision about whether or not to reproduce would even be considered as something that could possibly result in a rights conflict with another. (Frankly, it doesn't. We acknowledge that everyone has a right to decide whether or not to reproduce, full stop.)
3) This definition of "sterilization" would include gender reassignment procedures, which is certainly unwarranted.
4) I don't know why the consent of a parent or guardian should be sufficient to sterilize a child. (It shouldn't.)

The strength was determined by GenSec, not by the author of this resolution.
I too fail to see how this could infringe on another's right to reproduce, but I do not think that this weakens or invalidates the proposal in any way.
This definition of sterilisation applies to the proposed resolution only; the proposed resolution does not set out to define what sterilisation means in any other context.
The proposal notes that guardians can only consent to sterilisation of a minor if they are legally able to do so; the current proposal does not say when it is legal for a guardian to consent on behalf of a minor. It just so happens that they are currently legally able to do so because of GA#29.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:31 am**

Waffia wrote:
Burninati0n wrote:Against.

I left the reasons for the vote against above:
1) This kind of a prohibition seems significant, not merely mild. I believe it is miscategorized.
2) It seems strange to suggest that one's decision about whether or not to reproduce would even be considered as something that could possibly result in a rights conflict with another. (Frankly, it doesn't. We acknowledge that everyone has a right to decide whether or not to reproduce, full stop.)
3) This definition of "sterilization" would include gender reassignment procedures, which is certainly unwarranted.
4) I don't know why the consent of a parent or guardian should be sufficient to sterilize a child. (It shouldn't.)

The strength was determined by GenSec, not by the author of this resolution.

(OOC: Authors do determine the strength; it’s just that Gensec verify that the choice was legal.)

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:04 am**

Perhaps more importantly, in response to the ambassador from Burninati0n, but also to many of those who might share a similar line of thinking:

this resolution addresses forced sterilization. Yes, it could be construed as gender reassignment, which should be open to individuals in general, but part of the whole point of resolutions covering such procedures is that individuals are allowed to choose -- are not forced to do anything against their will -- and no one would want their gender reassigned against their will, now, would they?

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:19 am**

OOC: If this fails (very likely), I wont be further pursuing this. If someone would like to get permission to edit and submit this, send a TG to me.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:14 pm**

"Creslonia will be voting against this resolution. It is our choice how we penalise sexual offenders. If this act is reworked to be more specific regarding other contexts, we might reconsider."
- Alexander Finch, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:04 pm**

well it seems the time has come to change that [AT VOTE] to a [DEFEATED], I for one am glad to see this resolution defeated.

Posted: **Sun Sep 15, 2019 11:28 pm**

"Ban on Forced Sterilisation" was defeated 7,537 votes to 6,374.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:16 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Waffia wrote:
The strength was determined by GenSec, not by the author of this resolution.

(OOC: Authors do determine the strength; it’s just that Gensec verify that the choice was legal.)

OOC: My bad, I misunderstood. Thanks for the correction.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:49 am**

OOC: I have authorised Maowi to redraft this.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:52 am**

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I have authorised Maowi to redraft this.

A few reasonable restrictions on the practice would be honestly appreciated, but please let nations retain at least some right to use it as a criminal punishment.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:03 am**

Catsfern wrote:
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I have authorised Maowi to redraft this.

A few reasonable restrictions on the practice would be honestly appreciated, but please let nations retain at least some right to use it as a criminal punishment.

(OOC: Given that punishment is the most common use of forced sterilisation, I advise Maowi to keep that as an integral part of the legislation, along with looking into the sterilisation of children issue.)

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:06 am**

Kenmoria wrote:
Catsfern wrote:
A few reasonable restrictions on the practice would be honestly appreciated, but please let nations retain at least some right to use it as a criminal punishment.

(OOC: Given that punishment is the most common use of forced sterilisation, I advise Maowi to keep that as an integral part of the legislation, along with looking into the sterilisation of children issue.)

in my opinion criminal punishment should be the one reason forced sterilization should be allowed, if you outlaw it for racial control and illegalise it for minors these are both sensible restrictions that would still allow nations to use sterilization as a criminal punishment. which would make people like me quite happy.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:01 pm**

OOC: I feel sorry for the author, and all WA nations, that this proposal was defeated. This would have been one of the most obviously passed resolutions imho.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given that punishment is the most common use of forced sterilisation, I advise Maowi to keep that as an integral part of the legislation, along with looking into the sterilisation of children issue.)

The sterilisation of children issue has been answered multiple times in this topic. I guess a repeal of other resolutions is needed prior to putting something about it down in this proposal.

And why would anyone be in favour of forced sterilisation as a punishment? I don't get it.
It is like cutting of the hands of a shoplifter, pickpocket or burglar. Or like whipping students for not having their homework done. Or, well, you get the idea.
It is medieval. It is barbaric. We are far more evolved and sophisticated than that. Who, in their right mind, would be in favour of any form of physical punishment? I really don't get it.

Good luck to Maowi.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:06 pm**

VW53Aland wrote:OOC: I feel sorry for the author, and all WA nations, that this proposal was defeated. This would have been one of the most obviously passed resolutions imho.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Given that punishment is the most common use of forced sterilisation, I advise Maowi to keep that as an integral part of the legislation, along with looking into the sterilisation of children issue.)
The sterilisation of children issue has been answered multiple times in this topic. I guess a repeal of other resolutions is needed prior to putting something about it down in this proposal.

And why would anyone be in favour of forced sterilisation as a punishment? I don't get it.
It is like cutting of the hands of a shoplifter, pickpocket or burglar. Or like whipping students for not having their homework done. Or, well, you get the idea.
It is medieval. It is barbaric. We are far more evolved and sophisticated than that. Who, in their right mind, would be in favour of any form of physical punishment? I really don't get it.

Good luck to Maowi.

I fully believe in castration as a punishment especially for sexual based offences from what iv found its both symbolic and mostly effective, as for your analogy I dont think a whole hand is necessary for a thief, they still should be able to function in society, however a pinky removed would be appropriate.

and I also don't feel sorry for all WA nations for this resolution being defeated, mostly because it was the majority of nations that disagreed with it. thus its defeat.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 1:38 pm**

Catsfern wrote:and I also don't feel sorry for all WA nations for this resolution being defeated, mostly because it was the majority of nations that disagreed with it. thus its defeat.

OOC: That is false, according to Imperium Anglorums voting records, most nations voted for. The delegates swung the vote.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:03 pm**

Maybe next time the draft writer can be a little more considerate to long held customs of member nations. The General Assembly is a diverse and multicultural collection, and just because the bill is moral in the writer’s mind does not make the legislation correct.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:35 pm**

Kaiserholt wrote:Maybe next time the draft writer can be a little more considerate to long held customs of member nations. The General Assembly is a diverse and multicultural collection, and just because the bill is moral in the writer’s mind does not make the legislation correct.

(OOC: NatSov is never a good reason to oppose a bill. The World Assembly may be composed of varying cultures, but that doesn’t give them a free pass to do whatever practices may be convenient. Banning forced sterilisation should be opposed or supported depending on its own merits, not the relationship between the practice and some hypothetical cultures.)

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:36 pm**

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: NatSov is never a good reason to oppose a bill.)

In your opinion.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:38 pm**

IC: I recognize the council has made a decision, but given its a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:24 pm**

Holdac wrote:IC: I recognize the council has made a decision, but given its a stupid ass decision, I've elected to ignore it.

"Ambassador, you appear to be taking the idiotic position that the World Assembly not banning something means you can't ban it yourself.

That, or you seem to think you can mandate such in other member nations.

I'm not sure which is worse."

Posted: **Mon Sep 16, 2019 10:01 pm**

As a fighter for human rights, the VW53ALandian Government cannot neglect the rights of humans in other nations. VW53ALand will stand up against violations of such basic rights.
A proposal, as decent as the current one, should - no must - have our fullest support.

NationStates

[DEFEATED] Ban on Forced Sterilisation