[PASSED] Repeal "LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act"

[Honeydewistania]

“It is well-written, but I am very concerned on the ‘Understanding’ and ‘Disappointment’ clauses. Those clauses essentially put the ‘primary functions of schools’ as being just as important, if not more important than LGBTQ+ rights, which I highly doubt would be supported by a majority of the universe. Due to this potentially-controversial nature, I am doubting the objectivity of those clauses. Can you please clarify those clauses?”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Firstly, the Understanding and Disappointed clauses do not refer to any clause regarding ‘LGBTQ+ rights’. Do they support and help LGBTQ people? Yes, but they’re not fundamental rights. Anyways, the thing is, most students who are minors would already be enrolled in schools which they spend most of their day in, and would already have access to these. Forcing supplementary institutions to expend resources on functions already provided by mainstream schools will ruin them financially.

-Benji

[Tinhampton]

Support, especially given Ambassador Hepperle's clarification about DISMAYED.

There is no "Clause 4d)" in GA#603.

I'd add that Article 2c requires schools to "actively and continuously work to prevent and take action against all forms of harassment of their students based on their" sexual orientation, romantic orientation, or gender identity, even if this harassment is being perpetuated by (for example) inhabitants of non-WA member states which are not subject to LISA or students at other schools that already have anti-harassment policies.

[WayNeacTia]

Support, especially given Ambassador Hepperle's clarification about DISMAYED.

There is no "Clause 4d)" in GA#603.

I'd add that Article 2c requires schools to "actively and continuously work to prevent and take action against all forms of harassment of their students based on their" sexual orientation, romantic orientation, or gender identity, even if this harassment is being perpetuated by (for example) inhabitants of non-WA member states which are not subject to LISA or students at other schools that already have anti-harassment policies.

It really is a shame that a child can become a criminal for merely calling someone a synonym of a cigarette, simply because they heard it somewhere else and decided to use the word.....

[Wallenburg]

"I appreciate the attempts at humor, but I caution the author against language which is indistinguishable from actual prejudice against any given sexual orientation. Given your experience in this chamber, I am certain you can muster a similar tone of voice without 'ironically' engaging in bigotry."

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

“It is well-written, but I am very concerned on the ‘Understanding’ and ‘Disappointment’ clauses. Those clauses essentially put the ‘primary functions of schools’ as being just as important, if not more important than LGBTQ+ rights, which I highly doubt would be supported by a majority of the universe. Due to this potentially-controversial nature, I am doubting the objectivity of those clauses. Can you please clarify those clauses?”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Firstly, the Understanding and Disappointed clauses do not refer to any clause regarding ‘LGBTQ+ rights’. Do they support and help LGBTQ people? Yes, but they’re not fundamental rights. Anyways, the thing is, most students who are minors would already be enrolled in schools which they spend most of their day in, and would already have access to these. Forcing supplementary institutions to expend resources on functions already provided by mainstream schools will ruin them financially.

-Benji

“I see your point now, the main schools will already have the necessary support resources, but it would do be more of a burden on supplementary ‘schools’. I can also see how this would bd a concern under the broad definition. Thank you for clarifying, the Clevesian Empire will support for now.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

To the Honeydew Government et al:

The Princess will support the repeal of the target law, but she formally requests minor amendments.

Embarrassed, however, by the numerous flaws present within General Assembly Resolution #603 “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act”, that disservice gender, sexual, and romantic minorities internationally by leaving them with a shoddy, loophole-filled resolution that does little in reasonable moderation on such an important topic that undoubtedly warrants a resolute civil rights resolution,

Our delegation questions the need for this provision. We recognize a single line of the repeal - the one beginning "distressed" two-thirds of the way down - registers a complaint about the provisions being arguably easy to bypass. But the main thrust of the repeal is clearly about how the LGBTIQA+ Inclusiveness in Education Act (hereinafter the LIE Act) imposes absurd requirements on all education services within member nations; ones which presumably are not loophole-filled or easy to bypass.

There is more than a bit of dissonance in simultaneously claiming that a law creates unavoidable negative consequences and also that it is too flimsy to be enforced properly.

We found the main thrust argument most persuasive. We believe leading with the assertion that the LIE Act is loophole-filled creates a misleading impression about the primary and best basis for repeal and also somewhat undercuts the point that the Act's provisions force member nations to do absurd things they ought not be required to do.

In short, we move the authoring delegations to reconsider inclusion of the "Embarrassed" provision.

Distressed that on the flip side, many of the other mandates in GA#603 are ridiculously easy to essentially bypass and render the entire resolution almost useless, such as Clause 4d), as “tak[ing] action” against a bigoted student could be as simple as giving them the metaphorical slap on the wrist, which ironically is “lip service” and almost completely useless in preventing queerphobic bullies from continuing their harassment,

We have already said our piece on this. We move to reconsider its inclusion as well. If the authoring delegations ultimately wish to keep it, we recommend changing the word "wrist" to the word "lip." A slap on the wrist is not "lip service" whereas a slap on the lip... well, honesty in repeals and all that.

Dismayed that GA#603 wishes to peddle blatant misinformation to children by declaring homosexual relationships to be equal to heterosexual relationships, when in fact homosexual relationships are objectively superior,

Here we must move to strike. The Princess cannot vote in support of a bill which approves of treating some relationships as superior to others. We assume some well-meaning intern included this somewhat humorous but ultimately wholly-inappropriate line, and we expect its removal prior to submission.

We have no further commentary at this time. Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters.

Yours Truly,
Roweina of Prancerville
International Liaison, Class Five
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Separatist Peoples]

To the Honeydew Government et al:

The Princess will support the repeal of the target law, but she formally requests minor amendments.

Embarrassed, however, by the numerous flaws present within General Assembly Resolution #603 “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act”, that disservice gender, sexual, and romantic minorities internationally by leaving them with a shoddy, loophole-filled resolution that does little in reasonable moderation on such an important topic that undoubtedly warrants a resolute civil rights resolution,

Our delegation questions the need for this provision. We recognize a single line of the repeal - the one beginning "distressed" two-thirds of the way down - registers a complaint about the provisions being arguably easy to bypass. But the main thrust of the repeal is clearly about how the LGBTIQA+ Inclusiveness in Education Act (hereinafter the LIE Act) imposes absurd requirements on all education services within member nations; ones which presumably are not loophole-filled or easy to bypass.

There is more than a bit of dissonance in simultaneously claiming that a law creates unavoidable negative consequences and also that it is too flimsy to be enforced properly.

We found the main thrust argument most persuasive. We believe leading with the assertion that the LIE Act is loophole-filled creates a misleading impression about the primary and best basis for repeal and also somewhat undercuts the point that the Act's provisions force member nations to do absurd things they ought not be required to do.

In short, we move the authoring delegations to reconsider inclusion of the "Embarrassed" provision.

Distressed that on the flip side, many of the other mandates in GA#603 are ridiculously easy to essentially bypass and render the entire resolution almost useless, such as Clause 4d), as “tak[ing] action” against a bigoted student could be as simple as giving them the metaphorical slap on the wrist, which ironically is “lip service” and almost completely useless in preventing queerphobic bullies from continuing their harassment,

We have already said our piece on this. We move to reconsider its inclusion as well. If the authoring delegations ultimately wish to keep it, we recommend changing the word "wrist" to the word "lip." A slap on the wrist is not "lip service" whereas a slap on the lip... well, honesty in repeals and all that.

Dismayed that GA#603 wishes to peddle blatant misinformation to children by declaring homosexual relationships to be equal to heterosexual relationships, when in fact homosexual relationships are objectively superior,

Here we must move to strike. The Princess cannot vote in support of a bill which approves of treating some relationships as superior to others. We assume some well-meaning intern included this somewhat humorous but ultimately wholly-inappropriate line, and we expect its removal prior to submission.

We have no further commentary at this time. Thank you for your prompt attention to these matters.

Yours Truly,
Roweina of Prancerville
International Liaison, Class Five
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly

"Ambassador Roweina has summed up the C.D.S.P.'s position better than we could have with regard to the Dismayed clause."

[Honeydewistania]

Thank you... Ambassador Roweina. The well-meaning intern who inserted the dismayed clause for a laugh has been fired. Out of a cannon. Into the Sun. We've also amended the resolution to excise the section on the slap on wrist/lips/whatever clause. We hope the proposal text is more palatable now.

-Benji

[Fachumonn]

Not again… this loop is soo annoying.

[Honeydewistania]

Not again… this loop is soo annoying.

OOC: Do you have any issues on the merits of this repeal though?

[Lile Ulie Islands]

The Office of the Ambassador to the General Assembly from the Lile Ulie Islands

"Do you believe that the resolution is poorly written and does not voice the issue of the topic, or do you not believe in the rights of LGBTQIAA+ people?"

###

Jill Tapana, Amb. GA from LUI

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

The Office of the Ambassador to the General Assembly from the Lile Ulie Islands

"Do you believe that the resolution is poorly written and does not voice the issue of the topic, or do you not believe in the rights of LGBTQIAA+ people?"

###

Jill Tapana, Amb. GA from LUI

“We may all safely reason from the preambulatory remarks,” says Roweina, “that these authors are not anti-LGBTQIA+, simply pro-best legislation. Further proof may be found in the initial inclusion of excessively positive remarks about homosexual relationships. Even if by popular demand that language was removed and the authoring intern fired into the sun.”

[Sylh Alanor]

The Office of the Ambassador to the General Assembly from the Lile Ulie Islands

"Do you believe that the resolution is poorly written and does not voice the issue of the topic, or do you not believe in the rights of LGBTQIAA+ people?"

###

Jill Tapana, Amb. GA from LUI

What if we don't start this again?

Every time this comes up, the people (who, by the way, are openly LGBT themselves) who oppose shoddy legislation that does more harm than good to the community are inundated with this sort of gotcha bullshit from people who don't actually read their arguments. I'd strongly suggest and hope that anyone participating in this thread, for once, engage with other people in a reasonable manner and avoid assuming that being against a resolution that does nothing positive for the LGBT community equates to not caring about the LGBT community.

[Wallenburg]

Not again… this loop is soo annoying.

Getting rid of bad legislation can be annoying.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

In my personal opinion: As a strong ally and member of the LGBTQIAA+ community, I would not support a proposal that would get rid of projects to help include everyone in schools. I have witnessed this personally (being left out for my identity), and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I don’t care if the legislation is poorly written or not. It is a important topic. Opposed.

[Fachumonn]

Not again… this loop is soo annoying.

OOC: Do you have any issues on the merits of this repeal though?

Your merits no...
The other people that have tried (except Wallenburg) yes.

[Honeydewistania]

OOC: Do you have any issues on the merits of this repeal though?

Your merits no...
The other people that have tried (except Wallenburg) yes.

So you have no issues? So you support, right?

[Fachumonn]

Your merits no...
The other people that have tried (except Wallenburg) yes.

So you have no issues? So you support, right?

Merit, as defined in the verb section of the word in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is:
"; to be worthy of or entitled or liable to."

I find you to be worthy of pursuing such a repeal. I [tentatively, it's an ok proposal] do not support it yet, although if it becomes good enough, I may.

[WayNeacTia]

I find you to be worthy of pursuing such a repeal. I [tentatively, it's an ok proposal] do not support it yet, although if it becomes good enough, I may.

It is a repeal…. What exactly do you expect is going to improve? You either support repealing the legislation or your don’t.

[Fachumonn]

I find you to be worthy of pursuing such a repeal. I [tentatively, it's an ok proposal] do not support it yet, although if it becomes good enough, I may.

It is a repeal…. What exactly do you expect is going to improve? You either support repealing the legislation or your don’t.

I don't really like all the arguments.

[Separatist Peoples]

It is a repeal…. What exactly do you expect is going to improve? You either support repealing the legislation or your don’t.

I don't really like all the arguments.

"This is a fair and reasonable approach to repeals. Not everybody can support a repeal on somebody else's terms, even when they claim to be open to such repeals. I always admire principled approaches to repeals."

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I don't really like all the arguments.

"This is a fair and reasonable approach to repeals. Not everybody can support a repeal on somebody else's terms, even when they claim to be open to such repeals. I always admire principled approaches to repeals."

OOC: My opinion is that if you cannot agree with every provision in a repeal (or, at least, if you cannot accept and live with the WA's adoption of every provision) you are justified in voting against. Repeal provisions are eternal. We can never "get back" a clause we endorse in a repeal. While repeal clauses do not and cannot have a gameside stat effect (other than partially countering or 'wiping out' the stat effect of the target resolution), we should be very careful about what arguments and positions we approve of as a basis for repeal.

[Lile Ulie Islands]

In my personal opinion: As a strong ally and member of the LGBTQIAA+ community, I would not support a proposal that would get rid of projects to help include everyone in schools. I have witnessed this personally (being left out for my identity), and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I don’t care if the legislation is poorly written or not. It is a important topic. Opposed.

this got buried, but I believe is important.

[Separatist Peoples]

In my personal opinion: As a strong ally and member of the LGBTQIAA+ community, I would not support a proposal that would get rid of projects to help include everyone in schools. I have witnessed this personally (being left out for my identity), and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I don’t care if the legislation is poorly written or not. It is a important topic. Opposed.

this got buried, but I believe is important.

"Bad policy on an important topic is worse than no policy."

[Comfed]

In my personal opinion: As a strong ally and member of the LGBTQIAA+ community, I would not support a proposal that would get rid of projects to help include everyone in schools. I have witnessed this personally (being left out for my identity), and I don’t want this to happen to anyone else. I don’t care if the legislation is poorly written or not. It is a important topic. Opposed.

this got buried, but I believe is important.

Have you read the arguments on why the implementation of the policy is bad?