NationStates

Lydia Anderson, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: Following some earlier... setbacks, I have obtained the support of Dame Maria vyn Nysen - mastermind of the recently proposed, if ill-fated, declaration on LGBTQ+ equality - for this Declaration on Equality and Diversity. I hope it will enjoy your support, too.

Declaration on Equality and Inclusion
A resolution to express a position on international affairs.

Category: Declaration

Type: Declare

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

THE SECURITY COUNCIL:

AWARE that every day, many individuals (including national leaders) face persecution from higher authorities simply because of their circumstances of birth and life; and

BELIEVING that such individuals and the nations they represent should be treated with respect, not shame:

HEREBY:

1. DECLARES that sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, financial or property-owning status are never acceptable grounds for discrimination;
2. RECOMMENDS that nations and regions oppose discrimination on the grounds listed in Article a;
3. EXHORTS leaders of invasions of regions which engage in discrimination on the grounds listed in Article a to prominently include pink, light blue, and white (the colours adopted by many trans leaders across NationStates) on the new regional flag they choose to hoist over those regions, to show their support for the targets of such discrimination;
4. URGES nations not to discriminate against their inhabitants for possessing the characteristics listed in Article a, but instead to accept them for who they are and what they can contribute; and
5. FURTHER URGES regions not to ban, eject, or otherwise discriminate against nations simply because their leadership (or a substantial part of their population) possesses the characteristics listed in Article a, but instead to celebrate their existence, promote their full inclusion in regional communities, and recognise their potential to lead and contribute to the region.

This reads like something that a) belongs in the GA and b) is probably already covered by various GA resolutions.

The scope of this proposal covers regions and their governments as well as nations - which would make it illegal were it to be submitted to the GA.

"We're not supporting any proposals by the likes of this. Equality? Diversity? Reads like leftist bullshit to me. At the very least, let us segregate based on financial status. If the ghettos gain too much power, they will revolt."

~Admiral-Ambassador Alec Ainsworth.

Looks like a GA proposal to me, which you only make more evident in your use of the in-character ambassador.

Comfed wrote:Looks like a GA proposal to me, which you only make more evident in your use of the in-character ambassador.

This proposal will be argued mainly - if not entirely - OOCly.

RE GA: see my response to Nepleslia above.

Nepleslia wrote:This reads like something that a) belongs in the GA and b) is probably already covered by various GA resolutions.

Comfed wrote:Looks like a GA proposal to me, which you only make more evident in your use of the in-character ambassador.

Make that three who think this looks like something that belongs in the GA.

Tinhampton wrote:

Comfed wrote:Looks like a GA proposal to me, which you only make more evident in your use of the in-character ambassador.

This proposal will be argued mainly - if not entirely - OOCly.

RE GA: see my response to Nepleslia above.

Are you in possession of some super secret ruling where is was declared that declarations are now OOC?

Wayneactia wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:This proposal will be argued mainly - if not entirely - OOCly.

RE GA: see my response to Nepleslia above.

Are you in possession of some super secret ruling where is was declared that declarations are now OOC?

Yes. I'm just waiting for my friend to submit To Commemorate Sarah Harper, which should be some time in March 2023, before it can be published. :P

I strongly oppose this proposal.

I actually think this is something that would fit in with the Security Council perfectly, especially as a declaration. I see no reason why a proposal like this couldn't be a declaration: it deals with regional affairs, it involves gameplay elements, and it expresses a viewpoint every region should frankly espouse.

All the comments saying "this doesn't belong in the SC", that claim is rendered invalid by the fact that the SC passed a declaration on Hippopotamuses. If that proposal was passed then "this belongs in the GA" has absolutely no ground to stand on.

I sincerely hope Tinhampton will continue drafting this proposal and bring it to a vote!

Thanks, Daarwyrth. This will likely be submitted on September 16th... especially if people have more to say about which chamber is appropriate for this proposal rather than what its text should include or omit.

Will still be submitting this soon-ish.

why tho

No support from me, obviously.

If you're going to make a sunshine and rainbows resolution that says "discrimination bad", at least make an effort to fill it with more than fifty characters. This doesn't really have anything to do with the GP sphere, and the nature and theming of the topic is more appropriate to the General Assembly. You could make a declaration of a canonical position of every basic human rights proposal from the GA and attach it here and it would add no additional value or content to this game, with scant relevance at best. Your proposal doesn't support "Equality and Diversity" as much as it supports your ego, as so many of your attention-seeking threads have been of late.

There is a rule against spamming the queue with illegal proposals, the response to which is ejecting the offending nation from the World Assembly.

At some point, and a string of failures which will reach the double-digits by years end, perhaps it should be considered an equivalent offence to spam the queue with legal proposals.

Refuge Isle wrote:There is a rule against spamming the queue with illegal proposals, the response to which is ejecting the offending nation from the World Assembly.

At some point, and a string of failures which will reach the double-digits by years end, perhaps it should be considered an equivalent offence to spam the queue with legal proposals.

Full support - and why wait to implement such a rule?

Refuge Isle wrote:There is a rule against spamming the queue with illegal proposals, the response to which is ejecting the offending nation from the World Assembly.

At some point, and a string of failures which will reach the double-digits by years end, perhaps it should be considered an equivalent offence to spam the queue with legal proposals.

If wishing only made it so……..

Refuge Isle wrote:At some point, and a string of failures which will reach the double-digits by years end, perhaps it should be considered an equivalent offence to spam the queue with legal proposals.

Right, because nevermind that this is a game people play to have fun in their free time and to try their hand at new things, and so obviously will not always be successful. No, let us instead punish everyone we don't like and because they don't display excellence and perfection right from the start. You accuse Tinhampton of posting this with egotistical motives, yet you forgot to look in the mirror when writing this part of your post.

Refuge Isle wrote:There is a rule against spamming the queue with illegal proposals, the response to which is ejecting the offending nation from the World Assembly.

At some point, and a string of failures which will reach the double-digits by years end, perhaps it should be considered an equivalent offence to spam the queue with legal proposals.

What a totally disgusting suggestion. Sorry people play this game.

Going to be recommending an “Against” vote to TWP’s Delegate.

Oh and personally I fully support Refuge Isle’s comments.

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Oh and personally I fully support Refuge Isle’s comments.

Which is honestly sad, because it perpetuates everything that is wrong with the WA. It's intentionally creating a hostile environment where people snipe at one another to score imaginary points and pat themselves on the back on what a hardass they are. This is a game, not your schoolyard.

Summerforest wrote:

Bhang Bhang Duc wrote:Oh and personally I fully support Refuge Isle’s comments.

Which is honestly sad, because it perpetuates everything that is wrong with the WA. It's intentionally creating a hostile environment where people snipe at one another to score imaginary points and pat themselves on the back on what a hardass they are. This is a game, not your schoolyard.

I left the schoolyard long before you were born. This is not point scoring, it’s a genuine frustration with another player’s behaviour within the WA.

Is it really necessary to have it here as opposed to the GA? This reads as some kind of company declaration that reads "we care about equality and LGBT rights" while covertly donating funds to politicians who oppose that. Sure, declarations only declare, but the content itself is not really there.

I am Tinhampton. To clarify that I will be using this nation to participate in the World Assembly should Tinhampton ever be ejected from it.

---

Outer Sparta wrote:Is it really necessary to have it here as opposed to the GA? This reads as some kind of company declaration that reads "we care about equality and LGBT rights" while covertly donating funds to politicians who oppose that. Sure, declarations only declare, but the content itself is not really there.

Now I'm wondering if I should add an Article "e. CLARIFIES that this Declaration encourages regions as well as nations to act, and would be illegal if submitted to the General Assembly for that reason"

The Tinhamptonian Empire wrote:I am Tinhampton. To clarify that I will be using this nation to participate in the World Assembly should Tinhampton ever be ejected from it.

---

Outer Sparta wrote:Is it really necessary to have it here as opposed to the GA? This reads as some kind of company declaration that reads "we care about equality and LGBT rights" while covertly donating funds to politicians who oppose that. Sure, declarations only declare, but the content itself is not really there.

Now I'm wondering if I should add an Article "e. CLARIFIES that this Declaration encourages regions as well as nations to act, and would be illegal if submitted to the General Assembly for that reason"

Do you really think your main nation will be ejected?