NationStates

It would make sense to use the category "Moral Decency", in this case.

Old Hope wrote:It would make sense to use the category "Moral Decency", in this case.

OOC: I would go with Legal Reform myself, as it directly alters the criminal procedures of member nations, but I defer to people who have been here longer and are more familiar with category choices.

I believe Legal Reform fits this proposed resolution well. However it's not an option for me to use, so I will stick with this civil rights plank until I hear stronger arguments as to why it fits a different category better.

Crowheim wrote:I believe Legal Reform fits this proposed resolution well. However it's not an option for me to use...

Why not?

Tinhampton wrote:

Crowheim wrote:I believe Legal Reform fits this proposed resolution well. However it's not an option for me to use...

Why not?

Oh my, I missed looking in the regulation category!

You probably should not include specifically saying "gay man" and "transgender woman,"

Any other comments/concerns/edits right now?

"We are in support of the enactment of these measures - extant World Assembly resolutions may potentially have some impact on the subject matter, already, but should this pass I firmly believe the worst-case scenario would be no harm done, and the best-case scenario the implementation of highly important protections.

"I suggest changing the "clarifying" line in the preamble into an active clause, perhaps to be inserted between clauses IV) and V). It currently reads as a further explanation of the authorship's thoughts about the issue, rather than a substantive caveat to the restrictions imposed by the proposal - and I believe the latter is both preferable and necessary.

"Further, I do not think the creation of a commission in clause V) is optimal use of World Assembly resources. Surely the compensation should come from those member states allowing these horrific practices in the first place? I believe it should not be too complicated to require member states to organise this for themselves, instead of an external, World Assembly-run commission."

Maowi wrote:"We are in support of the enactment of these measures - extant World Assembly resolutions may potentially have some impact on the subject matter, already, but should this pass I firmly believe the worst-case scenario would be no harm done, and the best-case scenario the implementation of highly important protections.

"I suggest changing the "clarifying" line in the preamble into an active clause, perhaps to be inserted between clauses IV) and V). It currently reads as a further explanation of the authorship's thoughts about the issue, rather than a substantive caveat to the restrictions imposed by the proposal - and I believe the latter is both preferable and necessary.

"Further, I do not think the creation of a commission in clause V) is optimal use of World Assembly resources. Surely the compensation should come from those member states allowing these horrific practices in the first place? I believe it should not be too complicated to require member states to organise this for themselves, instead of an external, World Assembly-run commission."

"Thank you for your support. We have replaced the original clause V with a clause containing the bulk of your clarifying suggestion, to appease concerns about the restrictions."

OOC: Some grammatical advice: add "and" at the end of clause IV and replace the comma at the end of clause V with a period.

OOC:
Why is there a clause defining sexual assault? The term is not used in the resolution.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Why is there a clause defining sexual assault? The term is not used in the resolution.

OOC: Clause V allows sexual assault to be used as a valid legal defense.

Crowheim wrote:"Thank you for your support. We have replaced the original clause V with a clause containing the bulk of your clarifying suggestion, to appease concerns about the restrictions."

"I believe that should resolve my concerns. However, what was your reason for outright removing the clause regarding compensation for those against whom the defence has been used? I thought the underlying idea was good, and merely disagreed with executing it via WA committee."

Barfleur wrote:OOC: Some grammatical advice: add "and" at the end of clause IV and replace the comma at the end of clause V with a period.

Edited.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Why is there a clause defining sexual assault? The term is not used in the resolution.

Barfleur wrote:

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Why is there a clause defining sexual assault? The term is not used in the resolution.

OOC: Clause V allows sexual assault to be used as a valid legal defense.

That's correct.

Maowi wrote:

Crowheim wrote:"Thank you for your support. We have replaced the original clause V with a clause containing the bulk of your clarifying suggestion, to appease concerns about the restrictions."

"I believe that should resolve my concerns. However, what was your reason for outright removing the clause regarding compensation for those against whom the defence has been used? I thought the underlying idea was good, and merely disagreed with executing it via WA committee."

"I've redrafted in a less strongly worded version of the idea, instead encouraging member states to do so on their own, as you suggested."

Planning on submitting this on Sunday, probably. Looking for any more feedback.

As for content, I think it's ready to go. In terms of formatting, I would suggest you change the listing from I) and II) to 1. and 2. Also, I think you could do away with the "generally a gay man" and "generally a transgender woman" parts, even though they don't affect the actual content.

Jedinsto wrote:As for content, I think it's ready to go. In terms of formatting, I would suggest you change the listing from I) and II) to 1. and 2. Also, I think you could do away with the "generally a gay man" and "generally a transgender woman" parts, even though they don't affect the actual content.

Thanks for the vote of confidence in content, have edited to both of your formatting suggestions.

You define "sexual assault" in Article 3 but refer to all forms of "assault" in the first two articles.

OOC: Clause 6 reads like "the general assembly hereby mandates the World assembly should encourage..." which sounds weird. Mayhe this would be more appropriate:

Hereby encourages:

6. member states to provide compensation to the victims of Gay Panic Defense, or their families in cases where the victim is not able to receive compensation.

Well at that point just abandon the UN style and move over to statute style writing.

OOC: In clause 5, I would recommend replacing "should" with "shall" to avoid ambiguity as to whether it is a recommendation or a requirement.

What is a legal strategy surrounding self defence? Wouldn't that just be a claim of self defence?

Tinhampton wrote:You define "sexual assault" in Article 3 but refer to all forms of "assault" in the first two articles.

The assault mentioned in the first two articles refers to the crime the defendant is on trial for, not the perceived behavior of the victim. The definition of sexual assault is for the exception clause.

Addressed IA and Maori’s points, though.

OOC: It still says "should" in clause 5, and another thing I noticed, you have this listed as significant strength, I would advise you change to mild.