NationStates

Based on the discussion starting here. As mentioned in the Convinced clause, the replacement is in two parts -- one is a ban on hate crime, here, and the other is to prohibit racism and racially-motivated discrimination, here.

Reaffirming its long-held belief that minority groups ought not to be discriminated against based on arbitrary, reductive characteristics such as race, sexuality, religion, sedentary status or gender identity; and

Remembering the provisions of such resolutions as "Convention Against Genocide", "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities", "Language and Education Rights for Deaf Individuals", "Supporting People With Disabilities", "Protection of Apostates", "Freedom of Travel" and "Religious Freedom Protection", which establish strong protections against common forms of discrimination;

Believing, however, that "The Charter of Civil Rights" (hereinafter referred to as GA #35) fails to adequately protect minority groups against discrimination due to Article 1c, which exempts all discrimination from its protections should it be "for compelling practical purposes" without establishing any standard that it be essential for said purposes;

Recognising that this opens the doors to member nations claiming some "compelling practical purpose" and tangentially linking it to the discrimination in question, with some examples of potential discrimination which would thus be permissible under Article 1c cited below:

• The internment of individuals for belonging to a particular race or nationality on the grounds that their home nation is at war with the member nation in question, and that such internment would prevent espionage or other national security threats;
  
  
• Racially segregating public facilities based on the rationale it would deter said facilities' use for them to be shared with minority racial groups; or
  
  
• Denying housing to minorities during an economic recession on the grounds that it would result in the migration of existing homeowners in the area and therefore contribute to property value deflation;

Perplexed by the unclear standard of "unfair and unreasonable" established in Article 2a, either nullifying the compelling practical purpose exception when applying to eg private employment and housing, prohibiting such practices as businesses requiring translators and interpreters to be fluent in the relevant languages; or allowing a member nation to avoid the Article by claiming that such discrimination is in fact fair or reasonable;

Concerned by the frequent practice of citing GA #35 as a strong protection against discrimination when its provisions are in fact weak and exploitable, to the point that many members of the World Assembly have openly opposed anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that they are redundant under the ineffective, feel-good mandates of GA #35; and

Clarifying that nearly all of GA #35's intended effects not already mandated by World Assembly law would be effectively replaced by reinstating the protections against hate crime and discrimination based on race and related characteristics;

The World Assembly repeals the Charter of Civil Rights.

Drafts discriminated against based on the compelling practical purpose of maximising draft quality.

prohibiting such practices as businesses requiring translators to be fluent in the relevant languages

Can you elaborate on this?

Honeydewistania wrote:

prohibiting such practices as businesses requiring translators to be fluent in the relevant languages

Can you elaborate on this?

I think that is clearly discrimination "in private empoyment" based on language, a characteristic protected under Article 1c. The only possible interpretations of 2a are either that all discrimination "on the grounds outlined in [Article 1c]" is "unfair and unreasonable" (NB: 2a does not specify it does not fall under the CPP exception, simply that it be on the grounds of the relevant characteristics); or "unfair and unreasonable" are their own qualifiers open to member nation interpretation. I believe that the second interpretation is the only one likely to actually be used by a member nation, but I included the first interpretation in the repeal to preempt that being used as an argument against.

(OOC)

"Translators" are those that deal in written texts. "Interpreters" are those that deal with spoken words, such as "simultaneous interpreters" at (say) UN conferences.

I'd think about the rest later.

Simone Republic wrote:(OOC)

"Translators" are those that deal in written texts. "Interpreters" are those that deal with spoken words, such as "simultaneous interpreters" at (say) UN conferences.

I'd think about the rest later.

I don't think it matters which is used, apart from I guess it applying to both; here it's clearly used in the sense of language proficiency, not speech production per se. I've amended the wording accordingly.

Bump.

(OOC: There should be a comma between “recognising that’ and “after repeal”, since “after repeal of this resolution” is an embedded subordinate clause. I spent a while looking through this, and that was the only mistake that I could find. Repealing GA #035 will be an immense struggle, not to mention an historic legislative shift, so I wish you the best of luck with this. As for my support, that will be contingent on the replacement. I have no issues with this repeal.)

"Could you elaborate on the replacement resolution you foresee? Would it entail more than just removing the phrase 'for compelling practical purposes'?"

(Edit) "Aha, I found your partial-replacement draft."

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: There should be a comma between “recognising that’ and “after repeal”, since “after repeal of this resolution” is an embedded subordinate clause. I spent a while looking through this, and that was the only mistake that I could find. Repealing GA #035 will be an immense struggle, not to mention an historic legislative shift, so I wish you the best of luck with this. As for my support, that will be contingent on the replacement. I have no issues with this repeal.)

Ooc: This should be addressed -- thanks for the comment.

Submitting this next, after Whistleblowing Convention.

Concerned by the frequent practice of citing GA #35 as a strong protection against discrimination when its provisions are in fact weak and exploitable, such that repeal, by ending this practice, would facilitate the passage of stronger protections for minority groups down the line;

I think the wording could be a bit better here: Why is the passage of stronger protections down the line a concern?

That said, I think this is a very sound repeal in technical terms, and I like the replacement drafts, though I have not yet checked whether indeed all of GA#35 is covered by the resolutions you mentioned + your replacements.

As for how voters will respond, I think the name alone will garner a negative response. Personally, I would reorder your contents somewhat, so that the beginning emphasises much more clearly that this isn't as big a deal as it may seem at first. I would start with "Reaffirming its long-held [...] or gender identity" (without the "yet believing that [...] against such discrimination"), then "Remembering the provisions [...] via separate resolutions", and only then dropping "Concerned by the [...] down the line" and "Finding this to [...] fair or reasonable."

Waffia wrote:

Concerned by the frequent practice of citing GA #35 as a strong protection against discrimination when its provisions are in fact weak and exploitable, such that repeal, by ending this practice, would facilitate the passage of stronger protections for minority groups down the line;

I think the wording could be a bit better here: Why is the passage of stronger protections down the line a concern?

That said, I think this is a very sound repeal in technical terms, and I like the replacement drafts, though I have not yet checked whether indeed all of GA#35 is covered by the resolutions you mentioned + your replacements.

As for how voters will respond, I think the name alone will garner a negative response. Personally, I would reorder your contents somewhat, so that the beginning emphasises much more clearly that this isn't as big a deal as it may seem at first. I would start with "Reaffirming its long-held [...] or gender identity" (without the "yet believing that [...] against such discrimination"), then "Remembering the provisions [...] via separate resolutions", and only then dropping "Concerned by the [...] down the line" and "Finding this to [...] fair or reasonable."

Thanks for the comments; I've amended the draft to hopefully address this.

I oppose repeal of GA 35 "Charter of Civil Rights" and have held this position (with only minor wavering) consistently. I will campaign against this proposal if submitted and vote against this proposal if it comes to a vote.

The Ice States wrote:Thanks for the comments; I've amended the draft to hopefully address this.

I think the changed order of paragraphs increases its strength, but, in increasing order of importance:

• Why do only some paragraphs have an "and" at the end?
• I would split the "Concerned by the frequent practice [...]" paragraph into two: one for "Concerned by the [...] weak and exploitable", and another for "Concinved that repeal would facilitate the passage [...] down the line".
• I don't think "Providing some examples" really makes sense, since that is not a reflection of what the WA is doing in general. I think it'd be better incorporated into the previous paragraph, which would make it relatively long, but I think that'd be fine.
• I'm not convinced that existing legislation, even including your current replacement drafts, cover the scope currently covered by GA#35, especially concerning its Article 2. In fact, I'm not convinced in general that a repeal is necessary given that the cases you mention can be fixed by enacting new legislation.

Waffia wrote:

The Ice States wrote:Thanks for the comments; I've amended the draft to hopefully address this.

Why do only some paragraphs have an "and" at the end?

I believe it flows better to include an "and" before "however", as well as before ending the resolution.

I'm not convinced that existing legislation, even including your current replacement drafts, cover the scope currently covered by GA#35, especially concerning its Article 2. In fact, I'm not convinced in general that a repeal is necessary given that the cases you mention can be fixed by enacting new legislation.

In theory, I would agree, but the fact is that GA #35 does indeed make it harder to pass anti-discrimination laws as they will inevitably be subject to the argument of "redundant under GA #35!!!". The discussion I linked in the OP which inspired the repeal was specifically someone opposing anti-discrimination laws on that argument. I have amended the Concerned clause to make this more clear.

What provisions specifically of Article 2 are not covered by the replacements? Everything apart from 2a (which is really an extension of 1c) and 2d (a clarification) are meant to be covered by the hate crime resolution or good faith interpretation thereof.

On another note, I've effected some stylistic changes to reflect points raised above.

The Ice States wrote:Based on the discussion starting here. As mentioned in the Recognising clause, the replacement is in two parts -- one is a ban on hate crime, here, and the other is to prohibit racism and racially-motivated discrimination, here.

Reaffirming its long-held belief that minority groups ought not to be discriminated against based on arbitrary, reductive characteristics such as race, sexuality, religion, sedentary status or gender identity; and

Remembering the provisions of such resolutions as "Convention Against Genocide", "Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities", "Language and Education Rights for Deaf Individuals", "Supporting People With Disabilities", "Protection of Apostates", "Freedom of Travel" and "Religious Freedom Protection", which establish strong protections against common forms of discrimination;

Believing, however, that "The Charter of Civil Rights" (hereinafter referred to as GA #35) fails to adequately protect minority groups against discrimination due to Article 1c, which exempts all discrimination from its protections should it be "for compelling practical purposes" without establishing any standard that it be essential for said purposes, opening the doors to member nations claiming some "compelling practical purpose" and tangentially linking it to the discrimination in question, with some examples of potential discrimination which would thus be permissible under Article 1c cited below:

• The internment of individuals for belonging to a particular race or nationality on the grounds that their home nation is at war with the member nation in question, and that such internment would prevent espionage or other national security threats;
  
  
• Racially segregating public facilities based on the rationale it would deter said facilities' use for them to be shared with minority racial groups; or
  
  
• Denying housing to minorities during an economic recession on the grounds that it would result in the migration of existing homeowners in the area and therefore contribute to property value deflation;

Perplexed by the unclear standard of "unfair and unreasonable" established in Article 2a, either nullifying the compelling practical purpose exception when applying to eg private employment and housing, prohibiting such practices as businesses requiring translators and interpreters to be fluent in the relevant languages; or allowing a member nation to avoid the Article by claiming that such discrimination is in fact fair or reasonable;

Concerned by the frequent practice of citing GA #35 as a strong protection against discrimination when its provisions are in fact weak and exploitable, to the point that many members of the World Assembly have openly opposed anti-discrimination laws on the grounds that they are redundant under the ineffective, feel-good mandates of GA #35; and

Convinced that ending this practice would facilitate the passage of stronger, effective protections for minority groups down the line, especially given the fact that nearly all of GA #35's intended effects not already mandated by World Assembly law would be effectively replaced by reinstating the protections against hate crime and discrimination based on race and related characteristics;

The World Assembly repeals the Charter of Civil Rights.

If it were possible to amend an existing law instead of repealing it, it would be better, but if there is no other way, I would suggest that, if, and emphasizing this "if", this law is indeed repealed, you should propose a new Charter Civil Rights, because it is based on it that many groups have been protected since its promulgation, way back in 2009.

Alto Mare wrote:

The Ice States wrote:[Snip]

If it were possible to amend an existing law instead of repealing it, it would be better, but if there is no other way, I would suggest that, if, and emphasizing this "if", this law is indeed repealed, you should propose a new Charter Civil Rights, because it is based on it that many groups have been protected since its promulgation, way back in 2009.

Basically everything CoCR does that isn't already covered by other legislation is covered by the two replacements linked in the OP. Said replacements would be submitted upon the passage of this repeal.

Please don't quote the entire proposal when replying to the thread as that is a very long quote.

OOC: Against unless this is being replaced by another overarching civil rights resolution. I’m not persuaded by the argument that a bunch of piecemeal resolution would be sufficient replacement. I fear at least something will slip through the cracks.

"Though the proposed repeal is currently well-written, Waffia cannot support a repeal of the Charter without a full replacement. We are not entirely convinced that the existing resolutions, plus proposed resolutions, correspond exactly to the rights guaranteed by a good-faith interpretation of the Charter. Even if they did, we do not want to end up in a state where the World Assembly can repeal the rights of some but not others; civil rights will always be a package deal for all. Even if the bad-faith interpretation of the Charter, wherein it would virtually guarantee no rights, were correct, then this would mean the Charter has always been useless and we see no reason to repeal. Admittedly, a repeal might make future resolutions easier to campaign for, but if the author believes the replacement by piecemeal to be sufficient, then apparently it's not that hard to get new resolutions through.

"Waffia will not support this proposal until a full replacement Charter has been drafted."

Bump.

I'm pretty happy with how this has turned out -- I'd submit this next absent new major comments.

For the record I submitted this earlier and withdrew it -- I think there is still some time for comments and am therefore bumping this before I submit.

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “In the ‘recognising’ clause, I feel as though ‘could thus be permissible’ is preferable to ‘would thus be permissible’, for the permissibility depends on a member-nation’s interpretation of a ‘compelling, practical purpose’. On behalf of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria to the General Assembly, I am proud to support this proposal repeal.”

Kenmoria wrote:Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “In the ‘recognising’ clause, I feel as though ‘could thus be permissible’ is preferable to ‘would thus be permissible’, for the permissibility depends on a member-nation’s interpretation of a ‘compelling, practical purpose’. On behalf of the Delegation of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria to the General Assembly, I am proud to support this proposal repeal.”

"Thank you for the commentary and support, Ambassador. However, I would prefer to use the wording 'would' instead of 'could'. Even if it were up to each member nation's interpretation of 'compelling practical purpose', something is absolutely de facto permissible if a member nation can choose whether or not it doing something is prohibited. For moment the draft will remain as-is. Nonetheless, once again I appreciate your comments as well as your support."

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.