[PASSED] Prevention of Forced Sterilisation

[Araraukar]

OOC: Don't use "WACC" when you use it only once. Spell out the name instead. Also "permanent - whether reversible or not" doesn't really make sense. If it's permanent, it's not reversible. If it's reversible, it's not permanent.

I get that you mean like not removing the gonads but removing the tubing needed for reproduction, for example, but that doesn't make you unable to produce offsprings - though come to think of it, "producing offspring" seems to imply the person actually producing the offspring (in humans, you need a womb for that), not the person providing the necessary genetic material for it... so this would only apply to women in general?

I would suggest changing it to something like "removing the individual's ability to reproduce naturally, without extensive medical intervention".

Also, what does clause 3 actually do right now? Beyond "obey this", that is? And why are you involving the IRB when it doesn't actually do anything in the whole proposal? If you're trying to amend the resolution that actually creates the IRB, then it's an illegality. Clause 4 makes nations do all the work that's needed for this proposal, so clause 3 looks entirely like a separate amendment for something that passed before.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: Don't use "WACC" when you use it only once.

WACC is the name of the committee. Read my resolution.

amend the resolution that actually creates the IRB, then it's an illegality.

The GA Secretariat says:

There is a reason that Amendment violations are separate from Contradiction violations. An amendment contradicts the existing terms, but breaks the game specifically because previous legislation can't be modified. If it wasn't for this underlying difference, Amendment violations could otherwise fall under Contradiction violations. So there must be something substantively different between the two, and we believe it is that Amendment violations actively attempt to somehow alter the text of the extant legislation.

This clause—

identifying cases of Institutional Review Boards in member nations a) failing to approve sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having certified, after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person, or b) approving sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having failed to certify, after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person;

has no (1) active (2) attempt to (3) alter the (4) text of the extant legislation.

To the OP, presumably, for one to certify something to be true, one would have to first review it. Otherwise, there is no basis on which to swear to the truth of the matter (ie certify). The incidentals seem unnecessary.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Don't use "WACC" when you use it only once.

WACC is the name of the committee. Read my resolution.

OOC: So it doesn't stand for "World Assembly Compliance Committee"? Okay, I'll start referring to it as Wine And Crouton Confetti, then.

[Imperium Anglorum]

WACC is the name of the committee. Read my resolution.

OOC: So it doesn't stand for "World Assembly Compliance Committee"? Okay, I'll start referring to it as Wine And Crouton Confetti, then.

You made an argument on this premise in the thread! viewtopic.php?p=30574837#p30574837

[Maowi]

OOC:

To the OP, presumably, for one to certify something to be true, one would have to first review it. Otherwise, there is no basis on which to swear to the truth of the matter (ie certify). The incidentals seem unnecessary.

Removed.

Also "permanent - whether reversible or not" doesn't really make sense. If it's permanent, it's not reversible. If it's reversible, it's not permanent.

I get that you mean like not removing the gonads but removing the tubing needed for reproduction, for example, but that doesn't make you unable to produce offsprings - though come to think of it, "producing offspring" seems to imply the person actually producing the offspring (in humans, you need a womb for that), not the person providing the necessary genetic material for it... so this would only apply to women in general?

I would suggest changing it to something like "removing the individual's ability to reproduce naturally, without extensive medical intervention".

Changed to that, but without the comma. Otherwise it looks like the removal of the ability to reproduce is being done without extensive medical intervention

Also, what does clause 3 actually do right now? Beyond "obey this", that is? And why are you involving the IRB when it doesn't actually do anything in the whole proposal? If you're trying to amend the resolution that actually creates the IRB, then it's an illegality. Clause 4 makes nations do all the work that's needed for this proposal, so clause 3 looks entirely like a separate amendment for something that passed before.

It's supposed to be a clarification on IA's resolution. Yes, you could call it an "amendment" in terms of intention, vut practically it achieves the same effect simply considered as an additional piece of legislation.

[PotatoFarmers]

OOC:

To the OP, presumably, for one to certify something to be true, one would have to first review it. Otherwise, there is no basis on which to swear to the truth of the matter (ie certify). The incidentals seem unnecessary.

Removed.

Also "permanent - whether reversible or not" doesn't really make sense. If it's permanent, it's not reversible. If it's reversible, it's not permanent.

I get that you mean like not removing the gonads but removing the tubing needed for reproduction, for example, but that doesn't make you unable to produce offsprings - though come to think of it, "producing offspring" seems to imply the person actually producing the offspring (in humans, you need a womb for that), not the person providing the necessary genetic material for it... so this would only apply to women in general?

I would suggest changing it to something like "removing the individual's ability to reproduce naturally, without extensive medical intervention".

Changed to that, but without the comma. Otherwise it looks like the removal of the ability to reproduce is being done without extensive medical intervention

Also, what does clause 3 actually do right now? Beyond "obey this", that is? And why are you involving the IRB when it doesn't actually do anything in the whole proposal? If you're trying to amend the resolution that actually creates the IRB, then it's an illegality. Clause 4 makes nations do all the work that's needed for this proposal, so clause 3 looks entirely like a separate amendment for something that passed before.

It's supposed to be a clarification on IA's resolution. Yes, you could call it an "amendment" in terms of intention, vut practically it achieves the same effect simply considered as an additional piece of legislation.

So this is supposed to be a separate resolution on top of IA's? For the whole while I thought this intended to replace the resolution in conjunction with a repeal.
If this becomes a separate resolution "clarifying" the proposal, then I no longer see the purpose of such a resolution. It doesn't solve the issue of forced sterilisation, and in fact it seems to be rendering IA's revolution irrelevant.
I have issues with the first part of the resolution as below:

[align=center]
Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention; So you mean that sterilisation refers to natural loss of reproduction? I guess I am confused here, so there is a clarification required.
   
   
2. Prohibits the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly legislation; In short, this is supposed to mean that people are not allowed to be stabilised unless they volunteered for it. This would directly render the IRB in IA's resolution useless, as the young and people who are unable to give consent won't even be given the opportunity to undergo such a procedure.
   
   
3. Charges the WACC with:
   
   
   1. identifying cases of Institutional Review Boards in member nations a) failing to approve sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having certified the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person, or b) approving sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having failed to certify the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person;
      
   2. bringing all such cases to the Independent Adjudicative Office for hearings;

So now you are creating another board to oversee these independent boards? I was just thinking whether this is overdoing it, considering nations are required to comply in good faith.

Really, the reason why I am against the original resolution by IA is because a board isn't simply going to solve the issue. If you clarify it this way, I do not see how it can improve that resolution.

[Maowi]

So this is supposed to be a separate resolution on top of IA's? For the whole while I thought this intended to replace the resolution in conjunction with a repeal.

OOC: This is indeed a separate proposal. After MG's proposal banning forced sterilisation didn't make it, he gave me permission to use it to make my own proposal on forced sterilisation. There were one or two other similar proposals being drafted, iirc. Obviously one of the big issues that came up with all of these was what to do about legally incompetent individuals. So IA came up with that draft as a blocker on that aspect of it, revived it, and passed it. Whether or not his resolution is repealed, the plan is to go ahead with this, although if it is repealed I'll have to adapt it of course - because his resolution only covers forced sterilisation in terms of the legally incompetent.

If this becomes a separate resolution "clarifying" the proposal, then I no longer see the purpose of such a resolution. It doesn't solve the issue of forced sterilisation, and in fact it seems to be rendering IA's revolution irrelevant.

It should hopefully do more than just clarify IA's resolution. That bit's not the meat of the proposal. It is supposed to solve the issue of forced sterilisation ... if it doesn't, that's not intentional, and if you have more feedback in addition to that which you have posted below to that effect I would be very grateful to hear it. Otherwise, I hope I can address your criticisms below. As for rendering IA's resolution irrelevant - my impression, which could be incorrect, is that the purpose of that resolution was to be a blocker stopping future resolutions allowing the sterilisation of legally incompetent individuals in broader terms from passing. Isolating the problem would give the proposal better chances of passing then one also encumbered with debate about other aspects of forced sterilisation. So I don't think this would render IA's resolution useless.

I have issues with the first part of the resolution as below:

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention; So you mean that sterilisation refers to natural loss of reproduction? I guess I am confused here, so there is a clarification required.

Ah - the "naturally" here is supposed to describe "reproduce". Perhaps swapping the order of those two words would help?

Prohibits the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly legislation; In short, this is supposed to mean that people are not allowed to be stabilised unless they volunteered for it. This would directly render the IRB in IA's resolution useless, as the young and people who are unable to give consent won't even be given the opportunity to undergo such a procedure.

The "subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly legislation" would mean that the exception made in IA's resolution for the legally incompetent where necessary and beneficial for long-term health would still apply.

Charges the WACC with:

1. identifying cases of Institutional Review Boards in member nations a) failing to approve sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having certified the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person, or b) approving sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having failed to certify the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person;
   
2. bringing all such cases to the Independent Adjudicative Office for hearings;

So now you are creating another board to oversee these independent boards? I was just thinking whether this is overdoing it, considering nations are required to comply in good faith.

The WACC and the IAO are already extant GA committees and the tasks I have outlined here are already broadly within their mandate. I felt the need for more specificity in their duties so as to tighten the legislation.

Really, the reason why I am against the original resolution by IA is because a board isn't simply going to solve the issue. If you clarify it this way, I do not see how it can improve that resolution.

As I said; I have not created any new committees or boards. There is no way for me to remove the bureaucracy in place, barring a repeal, as that would indeed be a case of amending the original resolution and therefore illegal.

[Maowi]

OOC: Seeing as the repeal of IA's resolution got discarded, I'm bumping this.

[East Meranopirus]

OOC: Seeing as the repeal of IA's resolution got discarded, I'm bumping this.

In case there's any confusion about this, I'm re-drafting the repeal, pending GenSec's ruling details.

[Maowi]

OOC: Seeing as the repeal of IA's resolution got discarded, I'm bumping this.

In case there's any confusion about this, I'm re-drafting the repeal, pending GenSec's ruling details.

OOC: Ah, thank you for clarifying that.

[Salvation Foundation]

Our nation is utilitarian. We would go as far as to use engenics. We oppose this

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This act does not go far enough. The only legislative regime that could possibly protect the rights of vulnerable people would be a repeal of the previously passed resolution regarding the sterilisation of minors, and its replace with a resolution that states that, in all circumstances, such sterilisations are unlawful. In regards to the other points brought up in this resolution, regarding the inhumanity of sterilising sex offenders or as a method of population control, the Havenic delegation is in full agreement.

[Kenmoria]

This act does not go far enough. The only legislative regime that could possibly protect the rights of vulnerable people would be a repeal of the previously passed resolution regarding the sterilisation of minors, and its replace with a resolution that states that, in all circumstances, such sterilisations are unlawful. In regards to the other points brought up in this resolution, regarding the inhumanity of sterilising sex offenders or as a method of population control, the Havenic delegation is in full agreement.

“This piece of legislation currently bans all instances of sterilisation without consent, which would include sterilisation both as criminal punishment and as a method of population control.”

[Araraukar]

“This piece of legislation currently bans all instances of sterilisation without consent, which would include sterilisation both as criminal punishment and as a method of population.”

"Presumably unless the individual chose to be sterilized rather than stay in prison for ten years. Given that they would be consenting to the procedure, they wouldn't be affected by this proposal. Also, individuals should never be banned from choosing "permanent contraception" for controlling their own household's population via sterilization."

[Kenmoria]

“This piece of legislation currently bans all instances of sterilisation without consent, which would include sterilisation both as criminal punishment and as a method of population.”

"Presumably unless the individual chose to be sterilized rather than stay in prison for ten years. Given that they would be consenting to the procedure, they wouldn't be affected by this proposal. Also, individuals should never be banned from choosing "permanent contraception" for controlling their own household's population via sterilization."

“Of course, though in those instances it wouldn’t be a matter of involuntary sterilisation, which I think was the ambassador from the Haven’s concern.”

[Maowi]

This act does not go far enough. The only legislative regime that could possibly protect the rights of vulnerable people would be a repeal of the previously passed resolution regarding the sterilisation of minors, and its replace with a resolution that states that, in all circumstances, such sterilisations are unlawful. In regards to the other points brought up in this resolution, regarding the inhumanity of sterilising sex offenders or as a method of population control, the Havenic delegation is in full agreement.

"I assure you that should the repeal of GAR 472 authored by the delegation of East Meranopirus pass, suitable adjustments would be made in this proposal to encompass minors and the legally incompetent too."

[Maowi]

OOC: Unless people start trying to repeal IA's resolution on the sterilisation of minors, I'd like to submit this in the near future. I'd be grateful for more feedback.

[Tinhampton]

Article 4b: "the performance of" ---> "performing"

I thought you'd left forever and then this happens, just out of time for April Fools

[Maowi]

Article 4b: "the performance of" ---> "performing"

I thought you'd left forever and then this happens, just out of time for April Fools

OOC: OK SO I shall explain the torturous problem of that clause to which I have as yet been unable to find a satisfactory solution. I want to include within that clause not just the person physically carrying out the illegal sterilisation, but everyone who set about making it happen. To me at least, just using "performing" only refers to the medical professional physically sterilising the patient, which is why I tried to get around it with the admittedly odd phrasing I have now. I think it does translate the meaning of what I am trying to say though, so I'm leaving it like it is unless a better alternative is suggested or springs to mind.

Me leaving was all a very extended April Fools prank

[Maowi]

OOC: I tried to fix the phrasing in 4.b., I think this is better.

I plan on submitting in exactly two weeks unless any major not immediately solvable problem comes up.

[Kenmoria]

“In the ‘similarly determined clause’, given that it is the governments that are doing the targeting, ‘it targets’ should be ‘they target’.”

[Maowi]

“In the ‘similarly determined clause’, given that it is the governments that are doing the targeting, ‘it targets’ should be ‘they target’.”

"Thank you - the error has now been fixed."

[Rotenbergen]

Against. Generational cessation therapy is a critical tool in the state's ongoing strategy for community re-calibration, and boldly ingrained in our nations bylaws as a discretionary right of the government of Rotenbergen.

[Araraukar]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention;

OOC: Good, Araraukar's methods of doing so aren't affected.

Requires that member nations:

1. carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
   
2. reasonably punish individuals responsible for sterilisations illegal under World Assembly law;

This sounds like a possible violation of the post ex facto ban or whatever the resolution's name was - the resolution that makes you not able to punish people for things they did before there was a law against what they did. Replacing the wording with "for illegal sterilisations carried out after the passing of this resolution" should fix the issue.

[Maowi]

Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention;

OOC: Good, Araraukar's methods of doing so aren't affected.

OOC: It would be rude of me to leave Araraukar out. Hopefully the linguistical reshuffling I've edited in solves the problem

Requires that member nations:

1. carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
   
2. reasonably punish individuals responsible for sterilisations illegal under World Assembly law;

This sounds like a possible violation of the post ex facto ban or whatever the resolution's name was - the resolution that makes you not able to punish people for things they did before there was a law against what they did. Replacing the wording with "for illegal sterilisations carried out after the passing of this resolution" should fix the issue.

Good catch - I've changed my wording there, thanks!