NationStates

---

IC: Please take up your quibbles with Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador.

OOC1: This was written last summer but has only now been published. I do, however, urge you to look hither and thither.
OOC2: I would assume that a mask mandate (as we know it) would fall under the exemption/s in Article b(iii).

Freedom of dress
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Aware that clothing - as well as occasionally serving to express one's beliefs - can also sometimes function simply as items of personal convenience, and

Condemning the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. reserves to the individual member states the matter of whether to permit the wearing of clothes, and
2. requires those member states choosing to allow clothing to also forbid the imposition of any restriction on what clothing any of their inhabitants may wear, unless doing so is:
   
   1. a requirement of prior and standing international law, or of future international law regarding hate speech,
   2. to provide for the covering of any part of a sapient's body that a reasonable member of that sapient being's species would expect a great level of privacy in relation to, or anything naturally released by those body parts, in any area that can be accessed by the public,
   3. necessary to preserve the health of its wearer or of the general public,
   4. necessary to ensure that members of the general public do not wilfully impersonate on-duty members of militaries or national emergency services, or
   5. a result of an employer prescribing a uniform for their employees or a school prescribing a uniform for their pupils; so as long as such restrictions do not forbid individuals from wearing, nor require individuals to wear, any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic.

Draft 2b (1,391ch, 217w): exactly as Draft 2c, except without Article b(ii).

Draft 2a (897ch, 140w): mostly as Draft 2b, except without Articles b(iii-iv).

First, this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem. Second, I don’t know why you would even bother. People are going to vote it down, based upon you being the author, and I can assure you, I am not an exception to that.

“This appears to ban, among other things, schools having a set uniform policy for students. People have disagreements over this regularly, but I don’t think the long arm of the WA needs to wade in. In fact, I’m not certain this is an issue requiring the WA at all.”

This resolution is as offensive and unnecessary as it is toothless.

OOC:

Article b(iii) is worded in such a way as to render the resolution entirely incapable of addressing:

the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states

Specifically "public morals" is a very loaded term that can and does mean drastically different things to otherwise reasonable people and is entirely meaningless without being tied to some system of morality. Something tells me what I consider appropriate restrictions in the name of "public morals" is going to be VERY drastically different from yours.

"The exceptions in this resolution are quite poorly defined, meaning that there are plenty of loopholes which member states could exploit. For example, it is unclear what constitutes a national security threat with respect to clothing. For example, could a country not claim that hoodies are a national security threat because a criminal could conceal their identity from cameras using such clothing? Or, would it not be simple for clothing from cultural and religious minorities groups to be banned on the basis of public morals and social cohesion?"

"The inclusion of 'public morals' exception entirely declaws the resolution when it comes to serving the purpose you expressed in the preamble."

"Totalitarian nations can use the "national security" clause to justify banning clothing items critical to them."

Obvious bump is obvious. Draft #2, (i.e. Draft #1 Jr.) is now up, which should address at least some of the above concerns.

OOC: I dunno if it's just unavoidable or if it's even an issue in the first place, but I can see nations that subscribe to the theory of 'revealing clothes "invite" rape' forcing modesty on people, especially women, in the name of preserving the health of the wearer from rape.

"Would this apply to just the state or organizations within the state? The former wouldn't do anything to prevent the sexist corporate dress code policies mentioned, and if it's the latter (as much as we'd find it funny) we can see there being some problems. Maybe just prohibit discriminating dress codes?

For that matter, I don't see why you aren't just straight up banning forced nudity. Seems eminently reasonable to ban such a draconian policy which borders on state-enforced sexual harrassment."

"This legislation continues to prevent the Imperium from imposing proper uniform standards of Imperial personnel, or of students in higher educational facilities, or... any manner of things. We expect this to change if this legislation is to be moved forward."

Tinhampton wrote:Obvious bump is obvious. Draft #2, (i.e. Draft #1 Jr.) is now up, which should address at least some of the above concerns.

So what's next? Hair styles? Moustaches?

Let us recall the great oppressive empires of old, such as the Roman Empire who looked with scorn on any barbarian who wore pants.
Or, for that matter, those wild men of the Middle Ages, who wore short tunics with nothing underneath (a strong wind or getting on a horse revealed far too much information).
Or those youths who wear their pants far too low to cover anything.
Or ...
Oh sod this, we're the The Totally Naked Fraternity of Retired WerePenguins. It's bad enough I have to wear clothing to debate in these halls. Let's do away with these false stereotypes of clothing alltogether!

"The Shazbotdom Empire is officially opposed to this Proposal. Micromanaging if Nation can or cannot have Dress Codes is something that we in the Empire cannot get behind"

OOC- To ban school dress codes, and to specifically choose to allow nudity, should a nation choose to do so, is not something I will support.

OOC: Too lazy to put this in IC, but should definitely have an exception made for law enforcement and military uniforms, given it's harder to claim to be a cop (even if one is) without a uniform, and not requiring uniform of cops in active duty would open the door to various scams. And as for military, there are several resolutions about the conduct of war and separating civilians, even armed civilians, from combatants, which would be much harder (if not impossible) if military personnel cannot be required to wear military uniforms or at least clothing not normally worn by civilians.

"While we understand and respect the right of individuals to freely express themselves through clothing, we do not believe this to be an issue of international concern. But should this proposal pass, well, it's not like our nation isn't already in compliance."

I have lazily slapped on Articles b(iii) and b(iv) for your consideration

Tinhampton wrote:I have lazily slapped on Articles b(iii) and b(iv) for your consideration

Huh... my proposal's that good now? (This post also serves as a bump ;P)

If I don't abandon this, this will likely be submitted before 11th May 2021, the fifth anniversary of the Nicola Thorp controversy being publicised.

Opposed

This may increase black market trade in endangered species. It is our right to ban the wearing of endangered furs and to prohibit the production of environmentally damaging pigments and materials.

Then there is an issue of transferring wealth. With these laws someone could go from one country to another wearing suits made with actual cash to dodge taxes and duties. The taxation of such garments could be seen as a loophole which countries could use to circomvent the laws you have presented with excessive taxation on undesirable dress.

While it may sound silly, the consequences of not including amendments for these situations would be a huge oversight with immeasurable consequences.

Stevanastardustia wrote:Opposed

This may increase black market trade in endangered species. It is our right to ban the wearing of endangered furs [...]

Article a of this proposal would allow Stevanastardustia to decide "whether to permit the wearing of clothes" - any clothes, including "endangered furs" - for itself without WA interference.

Stevanastardustia wrote:Then there is an issue of transferring wealth. With these laws someone could go from one country to another wearing suits made with actual cash to dodge taxes and duties. The taxation of such garments could be seen as a loophole which countries could use to circomvent the laws you have presented with excessive taxation on undesirable dress.

Firstly, I cannot require member states to impose a wealth tax on clothes made out of banknotes in this proposal without contradicting GA#17, Section 8 - and even if I could, it would be Pork Spending(TM) . Secondly, I've never seen anybody in the real world "wear [a] suit made with actual cash" at any point in the past 45 years.

I feel like clause "A" then nullifies any intent in this document. I suppose you could have freedom of dress on international flights but if any country has the freedom to ban clothing they desire than what is this even for?

Tinhampton wrote:

Stevanastardustia wrote:Opposed

This may increase black market trade in endangered species. It is our right to ban the wearing of endangered furs [...]

Article a of this proposal would allow Stevanastardustia to decide "whether to permit the wearing of clothes" - any clothes, including "endangered furs" - for itself without WA interference.

Stevanastardustia wrote:Then there is an issue of transferring wealth. With these laws someone could go from one country to another wearing suits made with actual cash to dodge taxes and duties. The taxation of such garments could be seen as a loophole which countries could use to circomvent the laws you have presented with excessive taxation on undesirable dress.

Firstly, I cannot require member states to impose a wealth tax on clothes made out of banknotes in this proposal without contradicting GA#17, Section 8 - and even if I could, it would be Pork Spending(TM) . Secondly, I've never seen anybody in the real world "wear [a] suit made with actual cash" at any point in the past 45 years.

Stevanastardustia wrote:I feel like clause "A" then nullifies any intent in this document. I suppose you could have freedom of dress on international flights but if any country has the freedom to ban clothing they desire than what is this even for?

To prevent non-nudist member states from imposing unreasonable restrictions on clothing (and I have thankfully not used the word "reasonable" in this draft )

Tinhampton wrote:

Stevanastardustia wrote:I feel like clause "A" then nullifies any intent in this document. I suppose you could have freedom of dress on international flights but if any country has the freedom to ban clothing they desire than what is this even for?

To prevent non-nudist member states from imposing unreasonable restrictions on clothing (and I have thankfully not used the word "reasonable" in this draft )

Would the Stevanastardustia law stating that all pockets deeper than 15mm require a concealed carry permit violate this rule? Concealed carry permits are limited to military and special agent police.

Tinfect wrote:"This legislation continues to prevent the Imperium from imposing proper uniform standards of Imperial personnel, or of students in higher educational facilities, or... any manner of things. We expect this to change if this legislation is to be moved forward."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We concur.