NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Repeal Conscientious Objectors Act

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

[PASSED] Repeal Conscientious Objectors Act

Postby Cardoness » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:00 pm

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #127: Conscientious Objector Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Proposed by: Diogenes Epicurius

Argument: RECOGNIZING that there are many religious, philosophical and ethical systems that forbid violence.

UNDERSTANDING that many individuals who object to violence are at risk for punishment from their government and fellow citizens for failing to perform in military duties.

RECOGNIZING that the rights of these individuals should be protected.

PRAISING the attention that GA Resolution #127 has brought to this issue.

CONCERNED that under the current language of the "Conscientious Objector Act," active military personnel may falsely develop "objections" when faced with performing as prescribed in a legal contract which includes combat duties.

CONCERNED that such an act creates a dangerous precedent in countries in adherence to international law of soldiers signing up for combat positions and then being able to break their contract when called upon to do their duty.

CONCERNED that such efforts could cripple nations of the World Assembly if they engage in combat with a state not in adherence to international law.

CONCERNED that such precedent threatens all contracts made with a government by proxy.

RESOLVES that General Assembly Resolution #127, "Conscientious Objector Act" should be repealed immediately.

REQUESTS that should the "Conscientious Objector Act" be repealed all member nations should do their utmost to abide by the rest of the motion until a better worded act may be presented to this Assembly.


The above repeal was submitted by Diogenes Epicurius and reached quorum. It did not have its own thread and as people were already discussing the repeal here I posted the text of their repeal proposal here. My own draft is below but is not up for a vote.

The World Assembly

RECOGNIZING the importance of protecting the rights of individuals

REGRETTING that this resolution was rushed to a vote without any consideration, collaboration, or general discussion

DISMAYED that a person may avoid military service of any kind including non combat support service roles

APPALLED that one may refuse military duty for the reason of not liking the style of the uniform, the way drill instructors talk, distasteful orders received, or other reason

HORRIFIED that military personnel may refuse to obey any order without consequence

BELIEVING that this will lead to the complete breakdown of good order and discipline in the armed forces of the world

CONCERNED at the advantage this gives the armed forces of non-member states in a contest of arms

ENCOURAGES the passage of a more detailed and better written resolution on this issue

HEREBY Conscientiously Objects to and REPEALS Resolution 127 “Conscientious Objectors Act.”
Last edited by Sedgistan on Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:41 am, edited 10 times in total.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Otrenia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 749
Founded: Dec 21, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Otrenia » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:01 pm

Is it necessary to add "Conscientiously Objects to" :eyebrow:
The Empire of Otrenia
FT
Factbook

User avatar
Mousebumples
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 8443
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Mousebumples » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:02 pm

I believe your "CALLS" section should perhaps be reworded to be "ENCOURAGES" ... I don't know if CALLS is action-y enough to be viewed as stipulating a future action beyond repeal, but I'd err on the side of caution and switch it out.
Leader of the Mouse-a-rific Mousetastic Moderator Mousedom of Mousebumples
Past WA Delegate for Europeia & Monkey Island
Proud Member of UNOG
I'm an "adorably marvelous NatSov" - Mallorea and Riva
GA Resolutions (sorted by category) | Why Repeal? | Reppy's Sig Workshop

User avatar
Tsim Sha Tsui
Attaché
 
Posts: 90
Founded: Dec 01, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Tsim Sha Tsui » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:03 pm

Otrenia wrote:Is it necessary to add "Conscientiously Objects to" :eyebrow:


Isn't that the best part?
:rofl:
Last edited by Tsim Sha Tsui on Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Honourable Samuel Hung Kam Po, GSM
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Republic of Tsim Sha Tsui
The Republic of Tsim Sha Tsui
Chief Executive: Christopher Pang Ting Hong
President of the Legislative Council: Margaret Cheung Man Yuk
Secretary for Foreign Affairs: Jackson Chan Kong Sang
"Prosperity Through Freedom"

User avatar
Garvug
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 53
Founded: Jan 06, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Garvug » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:05 pm

This has got my vote. I honestly wasn't too opposed to the Conscientious Objectors Act except for the bit mandating that people already in the military be allowed to declare themselves conscientious objectors. WTF? But yeah, I'll happily vote to repeal.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Mousebumples wrote:I believe your "CALLS" section should perhaps be reworded to be "ENCOURAGES" ... I don't know if CALLS is action-y enough to be viewed as stipulating a future action beyond repeal, but I'd err on the side of caution and switch it out.


Done.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36293
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:00 pm

Is it ever a good idea to put "INSTA-REPEAL" on the thread title? It just reeks of... Well, something.
Pronouns: If you want me to feel pretty and extraordinary, call me she. If you want me to feel handsome and masculine, call me he.
NOW WITH SUPER SECRET VIP CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION DISCORD. INQUIRE VIA TELEGRAM.

LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO BURN.
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO LEARN.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE DONE.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE BECOME.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS.
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Quailtopia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 465
Founded: Oct 04, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Quailtopia » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:06 pm

Garvug wrote:I honestly wasn't too opposed to the Conscientious Objectors Act except for the bit mandating that people already in the military be allowed to declare themselves conscientious objectors.


Same. I'm in favor of this.
Probably a Stalinist
Sibirsky wrote:(about the WHO)The Cuban government is not a source.
New Hampshyre wrote:Exceptionally rational poor people will quickly rise out of their poor status

User avatar
Awkies
Secretary
 
Posts: 29
Founded: Dec 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Awkies » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:32 pm

The margin by which this resolution passed is undoubtedly one of the smallest in the history of the GA. Awkies opposed it for two key reasons.

The first:
Garvug wrote: the bit mandating that people already in the military be allowed to declare themselves conscientious objectors.


If a person is in military service for a particular period of time, they should be at the service of the military. That is what they volunteered for. Conscription is a different issue entirely - you're forcing people to join the military - but volunteers should do what the state wants them to, particularly if they are being paid for it.

The second was that a conscientious objector could be forced into supporting the military effort in non-combat means. This defeats the purpose of conscientiously objecting to a conflict in the first place. If I oppose a war, should I be forced to help the country win that war? I disagree.

If a well-written appeal arrives at quorum in the GA, our tentative declaration is that Awkies will SUPPORT such a repeal.

User avatar
Vinage
Attaché
 
Posts: 75
Founded: Dec 11, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Vinage » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:02 am

We are also against the part which allows military personal to declare they are an Objector. This - could - work, but only before a 3 panel tribunal assessing said persons claims of being an objector. We can never rule out the chance of people lying to avoid service and to bask in the good pay we provide our soldiers with no hard work.

We are also against the Act as it does not take into account the chance that Total War maybe enforces in order to save the nations very existence. Therefore we are against because we believe the state superceeds people in some cases.

Advocate-Speaker of Vinage

User avatar
NewCalifornia-Republic
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 55
Founded: Dec 09, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby NewCalifornia-Republic » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:25 am

this is the best bill ever
John Geary,
Leader of the General Assembly
The NewCalifornia-Republic

User avatar
Sionis Prioratus
Senator
 
Posts: 3537
Founded: Feb 07, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Sionis Prioratus » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:35 am

Otrenia wrote:Is it necessary to add "Conscientiously Objects to" :eyebrow:


Oh, I see you've learned how to use the forums. Good for you.
Cathérine Victoire de Saint-Clair
Haute Ambassadrice for the WA for
✡ The Jewish Kingdom of Sionis Prioratus
Daughter of The Late King Adrian the First
In the Name of
Sa Majesté Impériale Dagobert VI de Saint-Clair
A simple truth

User avatar
Embolalia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1670
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Embolalia » Tue Jan 11, 2011 7:59 am

Would it be illegal to note that a replacement proposal is not only in drafting, but was at the time of passage?
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Bible quote? No, that's just common sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/
The United Commonwealth of Embolalia

Gafin Gower, Prime minister
E. Rory Hywel, Ambassador to the World Assembly
Gwaredd LLwyd, Lieutenant Ambassador to the World Assembly
Author: GA#95, GA#107, GA#132, GA#185
Philimbesi wrote:Repeal, resign, or relax.

Embassy Exchange
EBC News
My mostly worthless blog
Economic Left/Right: -5.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51
Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
@marcmack wrote:I believe we can build a better world! Of course, it'll take a whole lot of rock, water & dirt. Also, not sure where to put it."

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Meekinos » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:01 am

Embolalia wrote:Would it be illegal to note that a replacement proposal is not only in drafting, but was at the time of passage?

Would such a thing even be necessary?
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Umbra Ac Silentium
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11722
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Umbra Ac Silentium » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:03 am

I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

Economic Left/Right: -0.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97
Other Compass
The Holy Therns wrote:Your thought pattern is so bizarre I can't even be offended anymore.

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Postby Meekinos » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:04 am

Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

Even if the replacement was a reasonable compromise?
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Umbra Ac Silentium
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11722
Founded: Aug 03, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Umbra Ac Silentium » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:06 am

Meekinos wrote:
Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.

Even if the replacement was a reasonable compromise?

Even so. If it is repealed successfully, I shall support the new Conscientious Objectors Act.

Economic Left/Right: -0.63 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.97
Other Compass
The Holy Therns wrote:Your thought pattern is so bizarre I can't even be offended anymore.

User avatar
Eireann Fae
Minister
 
Posts: 3422
Founded: Oct 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Eireann Fae » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:21 am

"Our position is as the UAS's," says Rowan, nodding in the direction of the Ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium. "We would oppose any repeal of the current resolution, primarily because of the great odds replacement legislation would face in actually getting passed again - never mind allowing people to object to any war for any reason." The girl smiles. Indeed, the recently passed legislation on the matter is a treat as far as Eireann Fae is concerned. "Should the repeal go through, however, we would of course support a suitable replacement."

"Which the Military Freedom Act is not..." mutters Alexandra, setting down the codex.

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:54 am

An act to protect the right of conscientious objectors to refuse military service for moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs

A good and worthy goal.

DEFINING a conscientious objector as an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion


This is taken from “Wikipedia” which in turn took it from Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The article in question did not address conscientious objection but rather ensuring the universal rights of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. I looked in both an English and a legal dictionary and both provided the same definition of a CO: objection on moral or religious grounds (as to military service or bearing arms). It may not seem like much of a difference but the hitch is the “freedom of thought” clause. Someone who doesn’t have a moral or religious issue with serving in the military but simply doesn’t want to will be able to avoid military duty by saying “I think I will object to serving.” This effectively bans conscription as only those who want to serve will.

DECLARES that a person may claim the right to be a conscientious objector because of their moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs


I have no problem with this clause.

DECLARES that a person may claim the right to be a conscientious objector because they are pacifist, non-interventionist, non-resistant, antimilitarist, or other reason


I am uncomfortable with some of the stated reasons but will forgo discussion those and jump right to the end, “or other reason.” I don’t like the color green. Camouflage makes my butt look big. I don’t want to cut my hair. Following orders sucks. I have better things to do with my time. They don’t serve good food. I don’t want to stand guard in the middle of the night. I don’t anyone telling me what to do. I don’t want to show an asshole of an officer respect. These are other reasons. Military life sucks in peacetime. The officers suck, the food sucks, the beds suck, the jobs suck. You are away from your family for extended periods of time. In wartime you get all of that while someone is shooting at you. There is not a person who has ever served in the military who did not wish at some point that they were not in the military. And that’s the people who volunteered to join. Those who were drafted already don’t want to be there. The pacifist here are saying “yeah, what’s the problem?” Are your enemies in the WA? Are they subject to this resolution? If not, then they don’t have to worry about conscientious objectors while you have no way to defend yourselves. There is a difference between someone who objects to service on principle, and those who object just because they don’t want to. The former should be protected, the latter need to get off their ass.

DECLARES that a person may not be punished in any way due to their refusal to perform military service for moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs


In battle, if an order doesn’t get followed people die. There can be no hesitation, no second guessing, no debate. Do it some people may die, don’t do it more people will die. That is why refusing to obey an order is one of the gravest crimes in the military. I don’t want the pilot flying a Combat Air Patrol to object to the order to shoot down the bomber inbound to a major metro area.

DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections


Very true, then what?

REALIZING that different nations have differing views on conscription and military service


Yes, not that it matters anymore.

THEREFORE DECLARING that each nation has the right to question those persons seeking conscientious objector status, however these questions may, in no way, be deliberately misleading, confusing, or self-incriminating


Why question them? This resolution gives a person the right to object for any reason, what difference does it make what the reason is?

FURTHER authorizing nations, at their discretion, to require conscientious objectors to fill non-combatant roles, or civilian service roles for an equal amount of time as those who perform the involuntary military service the conscientious objectors have objected to


Well thank you. Our nation just got overrun because we didn’t have a military, but we had the best damn merchant marine in the universe for all of a week.

DECLARES that this resolution does not prevent further regulation, by member nations or the World Assembly, to protect conscientious objectors.


How? This resolution has legalized conscientious objection for any reason and forbidden anyone from prosecution who objects to military service.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Cardoness
Diplomat
 
Posts: 782
Founded: Sep 13, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Cardoness » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:20 am

I guess I will submit this in three days should the repeal draft that has already been submitted by someone else fail to reach quorum. What is it with people not using the forum anyway?
Last edited by Cardoness on Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Speaker Andreas, Ambassador to the World Assembly, Founder of the United League of Nations.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...

User avatar
Cabanastan
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 2
Founded: Oct 01, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Cabanastan » Tue Jan 11, 2011 9:43 am

In light of the wave of resentment among our people, Cabanastan must voice its wholehearted support for this resolution.

User avatar
Ossitania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1804
Founded: Feb 19, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Ossitania » Tue Jan 11, 2011 10:19 am

Umbra Ac Silentium wrote:I must say, I am against repealing it. I could care less how it may cripple armies.


I find the comment made by the honourable ambassador from Umbra Ac Silentium to be extremely cavalier and thoughtless. National defense forces are exactly that; forces of defense. If a country is invaded by a hostile force, who is supposed to defend the people if not the army? I'm a strong proponent of individual freedoms and human rights, ambassador, but I'm also a strong proponent of the idea that people generally need to be alive to exercise those rights.

Ossitania offers its full support so that Embolalia's superior resolution may be brought in.
Guy in the Boat,
GA #146 (Co-authored)
GA #177 (Co-authored)
GA #183(Authored)
GA #198 (Co-authored)
GA #202 (Authored)
GA #206 (Authored)
GA #212 (Co-authored)
GA #238 (Authored)
GA #240 (Authored)

President and Sole Resident of Ossitania

Member of UNOG
Ideological Bulwark #265

User avatar
Jedi Utopians
Envoy
 
Posts: 281
Founded: Dec 28, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Jedi Utopians » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:38 am

Ossitania offers its full support so that Embolalia's superior resolution may be brought in.


I agree with this notion. Others may object, but hopefully their objections are in the right forum so that they may be addressed to their satisfaction.

I had the rather unpleasant task of resigning last night, minutes before this resolution passed, and then asking for reinstatement. Today, I have the tedious work of regaining endorsements lost because of this unfortunate action. As this is the only way to prevent the resolution from affecting my nation, I did it, but I don't wish to make a habit of what must appear to my fellow nations as "spurious" unilateral action.
The honorable Son Rai, envoy of the Republic Council
Economic Left/Right: -4.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10
"Think: Christ, Gandhi, or Mr. Rogers."
--
Me: You're funny. Naive, but funny.
Jedi8246: I fail to see the humor. Or how I am naive.
--

User avatar
Keronians
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 18231
Founded: Oct 15, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Keronians » Tue Jan 11, 2011 11:58 am

The nation shall support this resolution if (sorry, I meant WHEN) it reaches the GA. Not to mention the fact that it is very humourous.

Our reasons:

1) People serving in the military could conscientiously deny to serve and so effectively refuse to abide by their contracts.

2) It states "any other reason". I could object to going to war because I like to stay in my bed.

3) It then goes on to say that they musn't be punished if their decision is based on moral, religious or philosophical beliefs. Doesn't cite "any other reason".

And the list continues.

Anyway, you have the full approval of our nation. How this ever passed is beyond me.
Proud Indian. Spanish citizen. European federalist.
Political compass
Awarded the Bronze Medal for General Debating at the 11th Annual Posters' Awards. Awarded Best New Poster at the 11th Annual Posters' Awards.
It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it; consequently, the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.
George Orwell
· Private property
· Free foreign trade
· Exchange of goods and services
· Free formation of prices

· Market regulation
· Social security
· Universal healthcare
· Unemployment insurance

This is a capitalist model.

User avatar
Attalahonia
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 115
Founded: Dec 20, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Attalahonia » Thu Jan 13, 2011 3:42 pm

I would just like to point out that the Concientious Objector Act should never have even been brought to vote.

Rights and Duties of WA States wrote:Section 1, Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Section 2, Article 4 § Every WA Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Section 3, Article 10 § Whilst WA Member States may engage in wars, the World Assembly as a body maintains neutrality in matters of civil and international strife. As such, the WA will not engage in commanding, organising, ratifying, denouncing, or otherwise participating in armed conflicts, police actions, or military activities under the WA banner.


The Concientious Objector Act broke 1,1, in that in took the legal power to maintain a proper military from its member states. It broke 2,4, in that it prohibits a proper method to maintain a force for self-defense, by allowing anybody, under any circumstance, to refuse military service. It broke 3,10, in that military recruitment is a military activity, so that the passing of this resolution is the organising of a military activity.
Attalania
Kilmner
Kranthum
Hunthrean
Fresherland
Southatala
Port-o-Dukes
Intrensia
Skaarbung
Fishtail Islands
Masskreek Island
The World Organization for the Proliferation of Nuclear Arms

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads