NationStates

3.c seems redundant given 3.a.

The use of "ensure" in 3.b is inappropriate word choice and makes 3.a and 3.c redundant.

The wording of 2.a creates a loophole which allows governments to sterilize children in any situation. PRA says that parents are legally able to consent. 2.a says that bations can sterilize kids if parents ARE ABLE to consent, not when parents DO consent. Parents are always able to consent per PRA, which means 2.a says any kid can be sterilized even if parents don't consent.

The Great Boom wrote:3.c seems redundant given 3.a.

The use of "ensure" in 3.b is inappropriate word choice and makes 3.a and 3.c redundant.

The wording of 2.a creates a loophole which allows governments to sterilize children in any situation. PRA says that parents are legally able to consent. 2.a says that bations can sterilize kids if parents ARE ABLE to consent, not when parents DO consent. Parents are always able to consent per PRA, which means 2.a says any kid can be sterilized even if parents don't consent.

"3b ensures that 3a is being properly enforced so it is somewhat necessary, and 2a will be changed to remove this loophole. Thank you for your feedback."

Dreadton wrote:Mr/s. Ararukar

OOC: When it's "speaking like this", it's my IC ambassador, whose name is given in my forum siggy. She is going to call it a double standard when the same ambassador has one draft saying "whether people want to reproduce or not, is their own business, not something the state or WA can take away from them", and another saying "whether people want to reproduce or not, is something the state or WA should decide for them".

After rereading Prevention of torture, I believe this regulations purpose is duplication.
Torture includes:
"Attempts to reduce physical or mental capacity, even where not causing pain or severe discomfort or suffering."

And the preamble gives the following context, which informs my intepretation of reducing physical capacity,
"Recognising the universal right to freedom from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment"

IRL, sterilization is usually banned because it is considered cruel and unusual. One can debate whether sterilization reduces physical capacity. I believe strogly that it does, and therefore, it's already illegal.

I think that the preamble of PoT is basically instruction on how to interpret the edge cases of torture. Since sterilization is widely agreed to be cruel and inhumane, I believe it is covered under the language of PoT (physical capability to reproduce) and in intent (cruel and unusual punishment). The preamble certainly wouldn't be enough on its own... but using it as a guide to interpret the interaction between this and PoT makes me feel this will be challenged.

You're right. I misplaced a comma when reading PoT. I thought the physical harm was a distinct clause from intent to coerce, etc. I recall my complaint.

But I still feel section 3 is redundant for reasons mentioned previously. Criminalisation implies punishment, and it's absurd to say your resolution ensures sterilzation won't happen while laying out vague sentencing guidelines. It's like the finale of a few good men, "if your orders are always followed... then what happened to Santiago?"

The Great Boom wrote:Criminalisation implies punishment, and it's absurd to say your resolution ensures sterilzation won't happen while laying out vague sentencing guidelines. It's like the finale of a few good men, "if your orders are always followed... then what happened to Santiago?"

OOC: In GA that's because 1. sentencing should be up to a legal court, not some faceless international entity like the WA, 2. mandatory sentencing, even minimum sentencing, is a crappy system because life is rarely that simple, and 3. the compliance committee exists to cause bad things to happen to nations that ignore resolutions. If your nation simply signing the "we will obey" form when joining the WA is not enough for you (it is for me, hence ignoring that committee).

Araraukar wrote:

The Great Boom wrote:Criminalisation implies punishment, and it's absurd to say your resolution ensures sterilzation won't happen while laying out vague sentencing guidelines. It's like the finale of a few good men, "if your orders are always followed... then what happened to Santiago?"

OOC: In GA that's because 1. sentencing should be up to a legal court, not some faceless international entity like the WA, 2. mandatory sentencing, even minimum sentencing, is a crappy system because life is rarely that simple, and 3. the compliance committee exists to cause bad things to happen to nations that ignore resolutions. If your nation simply signing the "we will obey" form when joining the WA is not enough for you (it is for me, hence ignoring that committee).

Exactly, so why stipulate any of it? Aren't we saying the same thing here?

The Great Boom wrote:Exactly, so why stipulate any of it? Aren't we saying the same thing here?

OOC: Erm, no, we're saying the opposite. You're saying the proposal doesn't actually stop forced sterilizations if they're "only" criminalized but no mandatory punishments are set. I'm saying that there are resolutions that require people to have fair trials before guilt can be proven or any punishment is applied, and that there exist resolutions that do the enforcing of the mandates of other resolutions, so this particular ones doesn't need to spell the enforcement out.

Araraukar wrote:

The Great Boom wrote:Exactly, so why stipulate any of it? Aren't we saying the same thing here?

OOC: Erm, no, we're saying the opposite. You're saying the proposal doesn't actually stop forced sterilizations if they're "only" criminalized but no mandatory punishments are set. I'm saying that there are resolutions that require people to have fair trials before guilt can be proven or any punishment is applied, and that there exist resolutions that do the enforcing of the mandates of other resolutions, so this particular ones doesn't need to spell the enforcement out.

No, I don't feel that way about it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't adequately criminalize it unless there are specificed punishments. I was just pointing out that, in this case at least, it's redundant to criminalize something and then clarify that there needs to be a penalty.

The Great Boom wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Erm, no, we're saying the opposite. You're saying the proposal doesn't actually stop forced sterilizations if they're "only" criminalized but no mandatory punishments are set. I'm saying that there are resolutions that require people to have fair trials before guilt can be proven or any punishment is applied, and that there exist resolutions that do the enforcing of the mandates of other resolutions, so this particular ones doesn't need to spell the enforcement out.

No, I don't feel that way about it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't adequately criminalize it unless there are specificed punishments. I was just pointing out that, in this case at least, it's redundant to criminalize something and then clarify that there needs to be a penalty.

(OOC: This is to stop a member nations from saying that something is illegal, but then imposing no penalty upon violators of the law. Although contradictory, this scenario happens a lot around the world, and was used frequently as a means of creative compliance.)

Kenmoria wrote:

The Great Boom wrote:
No, I don't feel that way about it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't adequately criminalize it unless there are specificed punishments. I was just pointing out that, in this case at least, it's redundant to criminalize something and then clarify that there needs to be a penalty.

(OOC: This is to stop a member nations from saying that something is illegal, but then imposing no penalty upon violators of the law. Although contradictory, this scenario happens a lot around the world, and was used frequently as a means of creative compliance.)

But the resolution doesn't say illegal, it says criminalized. The definition of criminalized entails criminal penalty. And when the resolution doesnt spell out the penalty at all, nations could fine violators just $1 with or without the redundant language.

The Great Boom wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: This is to stop a member nations from saying that something is illegal, but then imposing no penalty upon violators of the law. Although contradictory, this scenario happens a lot around the world, and was used frequently as a means of creative compliance.)

But the resolution doesn't say illegal, it says criminalized. The definition of criminalized entails criminal penalty. And when the resolution doesnt spell out the penalty at all, nations could fine violators just $1 with or without the redundant language.

(OOC: It is impossible to stop all forms of creative compliance, but a £1 fine is still better than no punishment at all. Also, the definition of ‘criminalised’ only entails that it be made a criminal offence, not necessarily with criminal penalty. No reasonable nation would separate the two, but we aren’t always dealing with reasonable nations.)

Kenmoria wrote:

The Great Boom wrote:
But the resolution doesn't say illegal, it says criminalized. The definition of criminalized entails criminal penalty. And when the resolution doesnt spell out the penalty at all, nations could fine violators just $1 with or without the redundant language.

(OOC: It is impossible to stop all forms of creative compliance, but a £1 fine is still better than no punishment at all. Also, the definition of ‘criminalised’ only entails that it be made a criminal offence, not necessarily with criminal penalty. No reasonable nation would separate the two, but we aren’t always dealing with reasonable nations.)

I respectfully disagree with you on criminalization. If there's no penalty, then it's not criminalized. Name a crime without even the potential of a penalty. Because that's what we're talking about here.

The Great Boom wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is impossible to stop all forms of creative compliance, but a £1 fine is still better than no punishment at all. Also, the definition of ‘criminalised’ only entails that it be made a criminal offence, not necessarily with criminal penalty. No reasonable nation would separate the two, but we aren’t always dealing with reasonable nations.)

I respectfully disagree with you on criminalization. If there's no penalty, then it's not criminalized. Name a crime without even the potential of a penalty. Because that's what we're talking about here.

OOC:Some nations may claim that criminalising something does not entail a penalty in their Jurisdiction, which is a form of creative compliance.

Marxist Germany wrote:

The Great Boom wrote:
I respectfully disagree with you on criminalization. If there's no penalty, then it's not criminalized. Name a crime without even the potential of a penalty. Because that's what we're talking about here.

OOC:Some nations may claim that criminalising something does not entail a penalty in their Jurisdiction, which is a form of creative compliance.

That's a totally illegitimate claim. If they're going to that length of mental gymnastics, they're already in violation of the resolution.

The Great Boom wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Some nations may claim that criminalising something does not entail a penalty in their Jurisdiction, which is a form of creative compliance.

That's a totally illegitimate claim. If they're going to that length of mental gymnastics, they're already in violation of the resolution.

OOC: If RL has taught us anything, it is that things may still be criminal according to law, but nobody actually follows that law for various reasons. For example, not long since in RL, homosexuality was considered a crime (still is in some backwards nations), but in many of those it wasn't actually done anything about for the last several decades of the law still existing, unless the individuals were politically inflammatory as well.

Would chemical castration fall under this ban?

Thepeopl wrote:Would chemical castration fall under this ban?

OOC:It should fall under the current definition, however; for clarity I'll add "by chemical or physical means".

OOC:

Marxist Germany wrote: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;

Typo.

Defines, for the purpose of this resolution; "sterilisation" as the elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce permanently; by removing or altering their reproductive organs, through chemical or physical means, to stop the release of gametes for example;

Simply for clarity, I would edit this to read something like:

'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, through chemical or physical means;'

For me, the example is unnecessary and just makes the definition unnecessarily wordy. That's just a personal thing though so feel free to ignore it.

Prohibits member-states from:

1. The sterilisation of any individual without their consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able and does consent on their behalf;
2. Member-states from extraditing criminals to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;

Seeing as you define the noun 'sterilisation' rather than the verb 'to sterilise', I'd personally use the noun form in the active clauses, as suggested above. This edit would also mean you could remove 3.a. with its slightly awkward and potentially loophole-prone exception.
I'd also prefer the addition of 'informed' before 'consent'.

Requires that member states:

1. Criminalise the act of sterilising another individual against their will unless it falls under an exception mentioned within this resolution; (remove subject to edit above)
2. Carry out thorough investigations into their criminal and medical services, to ensure no illegal forced sterilisation is taking place;
3. Reasonably punish personnel who carry out illegal forced sterilisation;

I believe the use of 'forced' is superfluous here, given the existence of a definition for 'sterilisation' and the presence of the word 'illegal'.

Urges member states to provide reparations for victims of forced sterilisation.

Typo.

'With a little work, this proposal is certainly something I can get behind.'

OOC: Edit - typo
Edit 2 - aaaand another one

"Your feedback is very helpful, ambassador, I'll make sure to apply the changes soon."

Araraukar wrote:

The Great Boom wrote:That's a totally illegitimate claim. If they're going to that length of mental gymnastics, they're already in violation of the resolution.

OOC: If RL has taught us anything, it is that things may still be criminal according to law, but nobody actually follows that law for various reasons. For example, not long since in RL, homosexuality was considered a crime (still is in some backwards nations), but in many of those it wasn't actually done anything about for the last several decades of the law still existing, unless the individuals were politically inflammatory as well.

OOC
Although sometimes those old laws do get used, when it's seen as useful to the authorities... for example, to close a suspected security leak...

Araraukar wrote:

The Great Boom wrote:That's a totally illegitimate claim. If they're going to that length of mental gymnastics, they're already in violation of the resolution.

OOC: If RL has taught us anything, it is that things may still be criminal according to law, but nobody actually follows that law for various reasons. For example, not long since in RL, homosexuality was considered a crime (still is in some backwards nations), but in many of those it wasn't actually done anything about for the last several decades of the law still existing, unless the individuals were politically inflammatory as well.

Enforcement on banning homosexuality ranged anywhere from inconsistent to fervent, I agree. But that doesn't change the issue here, which is that criminalising something entails some form of consequence, by nature of the word criminalize.

If the resolution laid out specifc penalties, or even any form of guideline at all, then one could make the case it's getting around creative compliance. But as written, it's redundant and leaves the whole resolution up to an absurd degree of intepretation for no good reason. Ask yourself this, what is the harm in getting rid of all the redundant clauses? There's no harm, and it makes the resolution clear and concise to interpret for voters nad the nations enforcing it.

The Great Boom wrote:Enforcement on banning homosexuality ranged anywhere from inconsistent to fervent, I agree. But that doesn't change the issue here, which is that criminalising something entails some form of consequence, by nature of the word criminalize.

OOC: So you agree but don't agree at the same time? How does that work?

If the resolution laid out specifc penalties

Which are a freaking bad idea and would likely be enough to sink it at vote. Nations (aka people with WA nations) tend to not like being told exactly how they must punish their criminals.

or even any form of guideline at all, then one could make the case it's getting around creative compliance.

"Getting around creative compliance" sounds weird, given that creative compliance means reading the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law. You really can't make a resolution completely airtight as per creative compliance.

Ask yourself this, what is the harm in getting rid of all the redundant clauses? There's no harm, and it makes the resolution clear and concise to interpret for voters nad the nations enforcing it.

*shrug* It's not my proposal. Yet, if something criminalized but no punishment is required, that can also be problematic. Or are you asking for it to not be criminalized at all? If WA bans something and you do it anyway, you are still breaking a law (WA resolutions count above national ones) and thus a criminal, but might not get a criminal record.

Though, something better does come to mind as a possibility - banning the person from working in the healthcare system of WA nations. It might not be a matter of criminal record, but would presumably go in some national record somewhere, and would be a much more apt punishment than any fine or jailtime. Though then there should be some mention of intentionally performing an illegal sterilization, because if the person didn't know it was illegal (say, only one parent/guardian giving consent without the other's knowledge, or someone forging consent for someone already under anesthesia - weirder things have happened in RL) and acted in good faith, then they shouldn't be punished for malicious actions.

In response to Araraukar, I think your arguments take my points out of context. My argument revolves only around the question: "is it redundant to specify decriminalization AND punishment?" The only response I've gotten on that issue is that it's to prevent creative compliance, but it obviously doesn't prevent that.

But that's all irrelevant now. My complaint about redundancy has been addressed by the recent formatting edits. Clause 3 no longer even uses the word criminalize, so this stupid argument is over.

Even after the edits, I think clause 3 is flawed, just for different reasons: 3.a and 3.b aren't related in a satisfactory way. It's not clear if 3.b implies extrajudicial punishment, or can only be applied as a result of the investigations entailed in 3.a. Anytime you use subclauses, most reasonable nations will assume that they lead into one another, but since this entire bill is a creative compliance nightmare just by the subject matter, I think it's pretty important to specify that the 3.b punishments are the result of a conviction which stems from the investigations in 3.a

Also, 3.a now reads "carry out thorough investigations into their criminal and medical services..."

What is a criminal service? Seems like "criminal and medical services" should just be "sterilizations" unless I'm missing something.