NationStates

The World Assembly,

Affirming its stalwart commitment to protecting marginalised communities from discrimination via World Assembly legislation, such as through “Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities”, “Access to Transgender Hormone Therapy”, and “Ending School Segregation”,

Embarrassed, however, by the numerous flaws present within General Assembly Resolution #603 “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act”,

Lambasting the overly broad definition of “school” within GA#603, as “an institution designed for the organised education of students by providing learning spaces and environments”, which includes many entities such as junior football academies, martial arts dojos, and online coding courses,

Understanding that these “schools” consequently have to teach, along with their main educational purpose, a plethora of material concerning sexual orientation, romantic orientation, and gender identity, as well as provide resources to help minors question and accept their identities, even if these are already being provided by the main educational institutions that these students attend, thereby straining vital resources and almost certainly detracting from the primary educational function of these “schools” due to having to provide resources and lessons to all of the minors enrolled therein, hindering the holistic development of said students,

Disappointed that GA#603 requires that “schools” “otherwise support the mental health of students with diverse sexual or romantic orientations or gender identity”, which includes students’ mental health issues beyond being unable to cope with their sexual orientation, romantic orientation or gender identity (and “diverse” would easily cover many people, leaving no doubt as to what the consequences of this are), thus creating more inexcusable costs for these “schools”, as they may need to hire full-time counsellors or take less time covering core material and instead set time aside for therapy (for example), not to mention the inefficiency of it, since all of this would had already been provided in schools,

Stressing that these mandates not only detract from the primary educational function of these more specialized institutions, but in some cases also stop them from serving the primary educational purpose entirely, because running the normal operation as well as managing a system to identify minors using the learning space or environment, teaching them gender and sexual or romantic orientation material, and providing and funding resources to help every single user, (which may be thousands or even millions of people) come to terms with their gender identity, sexual orientation, or romantic orientation is simply financially impossible in the overwhelming majority of instances,

Concluding that GA#603 is an unmistakably flawed and poorly constructed piece of legislation, and that there is little reason for it to continue to be enforced as international law, and

Hoping that in the future, the World Assembly stops passing haphazardly written resolutions on the sole basis that they grant rights to certain marginalised groups, and instead consider the technical merit of a proposal before rushing to vote in favour based on premise alone, hereby:

Repeals General Assembly Resolution #603, “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act”.

Co-author: Minskiev, Dokansia
Target: https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pa ... /council=1

LISA? why, i hardly know 'ah

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Support in principle to a repeal. We would like to see examples for the claim in 'Observing', however; for example, GA#35 does nothing in regard to actual non-discrimination outside of banning assault and harassment. Is there also a replacement proposal?'

''Disappointed', as written, also seems like a misreading. GA#603 says that schools must 'offer resources to their students' to support mental health as said, and the word 'resources' does not mean only 'therapy'. The point that this mandate does not limit its scope to support mental health issues based on sexual orientation or gender identity is certainly concerning, but as written the clause is, in our opinion, false.'

Mr Russell is planning on passing the replacement that will be the [insert resolution here] before this is submitted. Therapy is only an example to illustrate the point, I will make that clearer in an edit.

-Benji

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Support in principle to a repeal. We would like to see examples for the claim in 'Observing', however; for example, GA#35 does nothing in regard to actual non-discrimination outside of banning assault and harassment. Is there also a replacement proposal?'

''Disappointed', as written, also seems like a misreading. GA#603 says that schools must 'offer resources to their students' to support mental health as said, and the word 'resources' does not mean only 'therapy'. The point that this mandate does not limit its scope to support mental health issues based on sexual orientation or gender identity is certainly concerning, but as written the clause is, in our opinion, false.'

Notice the "may" in "may need". Those were two (perfectly valid, as a counselor or therapist would be a resource that supports the mental health of students) examples. It was never stated that's *only* what it meant.

Minskiev wrote:

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Support in principle to a repeal. We would like to see examples for the claim in 'Observing', however; for example, GA#35 does nothing in regard to actual non-discrimination outside of banning assault and harassment. Is there also a replacement proposal?'

''Disappointed', as written, also seems like a misreading. GA#603 says that schools must 'offer resources to their students' to support mental health as said, and the word 'resources' does not mean only 'therapy'. The point that this mandate does not limit its scope to support mental health issues based on sexual orientation or gender identity is certainly concerning, but as written the clause is, in our opinion, false.'

Notice the "may" in "may need". Those were two (perfectly valid, as a counselor or therapist would be a resource that supports the mental health of students) examples. It was never stated that's *only* what it meant.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Would they ever 'need' to, though? A school can perfectly provide 'resources' to do so without those 'resources' including therapy.'

The Forest of Aeneas wrote:

Minskiev wrote:Notice the "may" in "may need". Those were two (perfectly valid, as a counselor or therapist would be a resource that supports the mental health of students) examples. It was never stated that's *only* what it meant.

Ambassador Cecilia Maro. 'Would they ever 'need' to, though? A school can perfectly provide 'resources' to do so without those 'resources' including therapy.'

That varies by interpretation, and that exact same argument goes for every single resource a "school" may interpret GA#603 to require them to provide.

While i agree with a few points outlined, especially the broad definitions used which forms the core of this repeal's argument, so while i am tempted to support i just have a couple of issues.
One is the line "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" which obviously has been inserted for a laugh and secondly the line "Observing that all of the actually beneficial provisions mandated by GA#603, however few, are also being currently enforced by [insert resolution here], leaving GA#603 entirely redundant" which has a [insert resolution here] that i think is a typo you've missed (funny that i of all people point that out) or you are going to put a nice list of resolutions in which would help (in my own opinion that is and we all know what that's worth).
Oh and above all, if i recall correctly, this author has an outstanding feud with the author of the target resolution, so obviously this isn't just an attempt to undermine the legislative legacy of that individual...

Firstly, the dismayed line was indeed, a haha funny joke. It will be removed before submissions. The [insert resolution here], which I already explained to Ms Maro, is reserved for the replacement that will be passed before this.

-Benji

OOC: From the day I realised this was being drafted, I have been opposed to this. My "feud" (if you can even call it that) is completely unrelated. If anyone else had authored this, I would be writing the same repeal.

Honeydewistania wrote:Firstly, the dismayed line was indeed, a haha funny joke. It will be removed before submissions. The [insert resolution here], which I already explained to Ms Maro, is reserved for the replacement that will be passed before this.

-Benji

OOC: From the day I realised this was being drafted, I have been opposed to this. My "feud" (if you can even call it that) is completely unrelated. If anyone else had authored this, I would be writing the same repeal.

Oh yes i see it now, Thankyou for answering my comments and sorry for my abysmal use of bb code (or lack of) because while i have been giving terrible opinions on site for 3 years now, I've only been giving them on forums since may and i look forward to seeing the replacement with better definitions.

This seems really, super petty. But……. The repeal makes a pretty decent case for a repeal, so I will support.

The amount of times this has had an repeal attempt really makes me think you are just badge hunting here, but it is well written so I will give you that

Trivalve wrote:The amount of times this has had an repeal attempt really makes me think you are just badge hunting here, but it is well written so I will give you that

OOC: The amount of serious times: 1

Also, attempts on a proposal doesn’t mean it’s any more or less badge hunting. If anything, trying something that’s failed multiple times and already has a large barrier to success is not something I would call badge hunting (not that there’s anything wrong with that in the first place)

Wayneactia wrote:This seems really, super petty. But……. The repeal makes a pretty decent case for a repeal, so I will support.

Thanks Wayne!

Where's the replacement?

Madjack wrote:Where's the replacement?

Walrus is working on a new draft on it- don’t worry. This won’t be submitted until a replacement is passed

just because of the extreme authoritarianism in clause 2d of the target resolution I think its repeal worthy I dont even need to read your proposal to come to that conclusion, I support a repeal (note that I may disagree with the reasons given for the repeal by the author of the repeal, I simply want a repeal, if a replacement comes thats similar to the original legislation in it´s intended goals (like political indoctrination in schools and especially the ban on free speech) there is a good chance I will want the replacement to fail)

Seems like repealing LGBTQ+ Inclusiveness in Education will be GA tradition just how condemning Communist Bloc is to SC. That being said, opposed.

Equai wrote:Seems like repealing LGBTQ+ Inclusiveness in Education will be GA tradition just how condemning Communist Bloc is to SC. That being said, opposed.

Did you even read the proposal?

Picked some month to do this.

We are not a member of the World Assembly, but however, the King would like to congratulate the WA in a resolution that brings common sense to this international forum and brings it back into the right path, by Allah, may it continue like that. Altough we think it is still a too soft proposal.

Equai wrote:Seems like repealing LGBTQ+ Inclusiveness in Education will be GA tradition just how condemning Communist Bloc is to SC. That being said, opposed.

You seem awfully up to date on WA tradition for someone that has only been around for a couple of months. Seeing as how this had only been on the books for a couple of months, I wouldn’t exactly call it “tradition” trying to repeal this. Now if this was a NAPA repeal, you could make this assertion. Before making yourself look silly again, I would suggest research first…

OOC: Hot topic issues de jour from RL always make for bad resolutions. The target here is no exception. Between the totality of existing legislation, children are adequately protected from discrimination by people in authority. After that, I'm incredibly reluctant to turn other children who might engage in bullying, for whatever reason, into international criminals. Repeal, don't replace IMO. If you lot really feel you have to replace, have a generic anti-bullying thing and avoid the bigotry in the debate which is already raising its head here.

Also, x is equal to y, or one is superior to the other, is grossly over simplifying the whole thing. Equality is about far more than making such utterly useless blanket statements.

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Hot topic issues de jour from RL always make for bad resolutions. The target here is no exception. Between the totality of existing legislation, children are adequately protected from discrimination by people in authority. After that, I'm incredibly reluctant to turn other children who might engage in bullying, for whatever reason, into international criminals. Repeal, don't replace IMO. If you lot really feel you have to replace, have a generic anti-bullying thing and avoid the bigotry in the debate which is already raising its head here.

Also, x is equal to y, or one is superior to the other, is grossly over simplifying the whole thing. Equality is about far more than making such utterly useless blanket statements.

OOC: I agree with everything here. Personally - I’m not fully convinced that the target should be replaced, for the reasons that you have stated. However, based on the previous attempt, it’s highly unlikely that this will pass without one. I think repealing then replacing this would be better than keeping this one and having more repeals flop. I do agree that a more generic resolution would be best, and that’s what I suggested.

“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

Honeydewistania wrote:I think repealing then replacing this would be better than keeping this one and having more repeals flop. I do agree that a more generic resolution would be best, and that’s what I suggested.

All someone has to do is lie their ass off in the title and "make" it seem like it deals with some LGBTQ issue, and all should be golden....