[PASSED] Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons

[Picairn]

"Anti-slavery is the liberal agenda, and the WA banning it is tyranny by majority"

Hilarious.

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

Yes.

[Marenmia-Ocasia]

Well, this seems like a good, well written proposal.
My vote has been casted in for this.

[Gibbzarj]

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

Yes.

Your kind has no regard for other member states, only pushing your agenda. Shameful.

[Kurgao]

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

Look, I'm not a huge fan of liberals, but this is just ridiculous. There are legitimate reasons to oppose this proposal, without being cartoonishly evil.

[Picairn]

Yes.

Your kind has no regard for other member states, only pushing your agenda. Shameful.

[Gibbzarj]

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

Look, I'm not a huge fan of liberals, but this is just ridiculous. There are legitimate reasons to oppose this proposal, without being cartoonishly evil.

I am called "cartoonishly evil" for having a backbone. This is a circus.

[Kurgao]

I am called "cartoonishly evil" for having a backbone. This is a circus.

The backbone is fine, It's the supporting legal ownership of people that I have an issue with.

[Gibbzarj]

I am called "cartoonishly evil" for having a backbone. This is a circus.

The backbone is fine, It's the supporting legal ownership of people that I have an issue with.

Your nation banned religion and you say slavery is bad?

[Saphran republic]

It's me again! Second post-reset draft. This was written with heavy consideration for the repeal draft of GA#23, although by its very nature some of these issues are difficult or impossible to remedy. I personally don't think this is ready for submission at all which is why I decided to just throw it at the forums and hope someone smart will help me out here!

Notes:
1. The exceptions under the definition of "forced labour" are a major concern, I want to balance being broad with being precise.
2. I am assuming the authors of Proclamation of Universal Rights will take my feedback and their proposal will pass. If not, I'll be sure to modify my definition of "person"

Major thanks to Kenmoria and Mar Teret for helping me refine the current draft! I have also added Picairn as a co-author.

Before I submit, if I could get an opinion on the current state of subclause (a) in the forced labour definition, including if the punctuation is done correctly, that'd be awesome.

Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons
Authored by Islandwalk, Co-authored by Picairn

---

The World Assembly,

Seeing that slavery and the trade of sapient beings is a significant threat to the well-being of individuals, communities, and worlds throughout the multiverse,

Recognizing that noble efforts were undertaken in outlawing these barbaric practices since nearly the beginning of the historic General Assembly,

Now hoping to follow in those footsteps and ban such practices once more in a concise and straightforward manner,

Definitions:

1. “Slavery” is a state of servitude in which a natural person or other entity exercises the powers of ownership over another person;
2. “Forced labour” is a system of labour which is forced upon a natural person under threat of harm or penalty and against the will of the labourer, excluding the following cases:
   
   1. National service applying to a large fraction of the national population, using conscription based on objective factors, and limited in period to at most half of an individual's life expectancy;
   2. Dire and particular circumstances, where not working significantly risks danger to others;
   3. If the labourer agrees with informed and prior consent to labour for a fixed and finite term or quantity
3. “Trafficking” as the sale or transfer of persons for the purpose of forced or slave labour, or the facilitation of such a transfer;

Mandates:

1. Slavery, trafficking, and forced labour are prohibited in all member states;
2. Ownership of any person is not legally recognized in member states;
3. Member nations shall facilitate the consensual repatriation of trafficked persons to other member nations;
4. The World Assembly is to impose comprehensive sanctions against states recognizing legal slavery and trafficking.

Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons
Authored by Islandwalk | Category: ???

---

The World Assembly,

Seeing that slavery and the trade of sapient beings is a significant threat to the well-being of individuals, communities, and worlds throughout the multiverse,

Recognizing the noble efforts of GA#23 in outlawing these barbaric practices for nearly the entire history of the General Assembly,

Now hoping to follow in those footsteps and ban such practices once more in a concise and straightforward manner,

Definitions:

1. “Person” is defined as it is in “Proclamation of Universal Rights”;
2. “Slavery” is a state of servitude in which a person or other entity exercises the powers of ownership over another person;
3. “Forced labour” is a system of labour which is forced upon a person under threat of harm or penalty and against the will of the labourer, excluding the following cases:
   
   1. Compulsory military service where service is mandatory among a general cohort of the population and the work is military in nature;
   2. Exceptional dire and particular circumstances, where not working significantly risks danger to others;
4. “Trafficking” as the sale or transfer of persons for the purpose of forced or slave labour, or the facilitation of such a transfer;

Mandates:

1. Slavery, trafficking, and forced labour are prohibited in all member states;
2. Ownership of any person is not legally recognized in member states;
3. Member nations shall facilitate the consensual repatriation of trafficked persons to other member nations;
4. The World Assembly is to impose comprehensive sanctions against states recognizing legal slavery and trafficking.

Insanity. the WA should have 0 right to dictate what independent states do with their labor laws, it should be up too each nation to choose their laws regarding slavery, it is a shame and embarrassing that such a bill even reached the floor of such a prestigious and well respected institution like the World Assembly.

[Cawn]

It's me again! Second post-reset draft. This was written with heavy consideration for the repeal draft of GA#23, although by its very nature some of these issues are difficult or impossible to remedy. I personally don't think this is ready for submission at all which is why I decided to just throw it at the forums and hope someone smart will help me out here!

Notes:
1. The exceptions under the definition of "forced labour" are a major concern, I want to balance being broad with being precise.
2. I am assuming the authors of Proclamation of Universal Rights will take my feedback and their proposal will pass. If not, I'll be sure to modify my definition of "person"

Major thanks to Kenmoria and Mar Teret for helping me refine the current draft! I have also added Picairn as a co-author.

Before I submit, if I could get an opinion on the current state of subclause (a) in the forced labour definition, including if the punctuation is done correctly, that'd be awesome.

Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons
Authored by Islandwalk, Co-authored by Picairn

---

The World Assembly,

Seeing that slavery and the trade of sapient beings is a significant threat to the well-being of individuals, communities, and worlds throughout the multiverse,

Recognizing that noble efforts were undertaken in outlawing these barbaric practices since nearly the beginning of the historic General Assembly,

Now hoping to follow in those footsteps and ban such practices once more in a concise and straightforward manner,

Definitions:

1. “Slavery” is a state of servitude in which a natural person or other entity exercises the powers of ownership over another person;
2. “Forced labour” is a system of labour which is forced upon a natural person under threat of harm or penalty and against the will of the labourer, excluding the following cases:
   
   1. National service applying to a large fraction of the national population, using conscription based on objective factors, and limited in period to at most half of an individual's life expectancy;
   2. Dire and particular circumstances, where not working significantly risks danger to others;
   3. If the labourer agrees with informed and prior consent to labour for a fixed and finite term or quantity
3. “Trafficking” as the sale or transfer of persons for the purpose of forced or slave labour, or the facilitation of such a transfer;

Mandates:

1. Slavery, trafficking, and forced labour are prohibited in all member states;
2. Ownership of any person is not legally recognized in member states;
3. Member nations shall facilitate the consensual repatriation of trafficked persons to other member nations;
4. The World Assembly is to impose comprehensive sanctions against states recognizing legal slavery and trafficking.

Eliminating Slavery and Trafficking of Persons
Authored by Islandwalk | Category: ???

---

The World Assembly,

Seeing that slavery and the trade of sapient beings is a significant threat to the well-being of individuals, communities, and worlds throughout the multiverse,

Recognizing the noble efforts of GA#23 in outlawing these barbaric practices for nearly the entire history of the General Assembly,

Now hoping to follow in those footsteps and ban such practices once more in a concise and straightforward manner,

Definitions:

1. “Person” is defined as it is in “Proclamation of Universal Rights”;
2. “Slavery” is a state of servitude in which a person or other entity exercises the powers of ownership over another person;
3. “Forced labour” is a system of labour which is forced upon a person under threat of harm or penalty and against the will of the labourer, excluding the following cases:
   
   1. Compulsory military service where service is mandatory among a general cohort of the population and the work is military in nature;
   2. Exceptional dire and particular circumstances, where not working significantly risks danger to others;
4. “Trafficking” as the sale or transfer of persons for the purpose of forced or slave labour, or the facilitation of such a transfer;

Mandates:

1. Slavery, trafficking, and forced labour are prohibited in all member states;
2. Ownership of any person is not legally recognized in member states;
3. Member nations shall facilitate the consensual repatriation of trafficked persons to other member nations;
4. The World Assembly is to impose comprehensive sanctions against states recognizing legal slavery and trafficking.

Insanity. the WA should have 0 right to dictate what independent states do with their labor laws, it should be up too each nation to choose their laws regarding slavery, it is a shame and embarrassing that such a bill even reached the floor of such a prestigious and well respected institution like the World Assembly.

Exactly, when it is against our policies, we vote nay because owning people is the right of- *checking notes* my friends! We’ll need to rally some more people but we’ll defeat this bill just one second before it can succeed.

[Balkanic Federation]

"Anti-slavery is the liberal agenda, and the WA banning it is tyranny by majority"

Hilarious.

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

What kind of culture is owning people, Ambassador? Lena Shpresa, WA Ambassador from Federal People's Republic of Balkania, interjects In our nation, we have a lot of minorities with different cultures and values tied to their cultures but neither of them considers owning people as "cultural", even the most conservative of them all. It's nothing more than a barbaric practice of forced hierarchy and war trophies. Her voice raising, as she stood up from her chair, her hands gripping the table in front of her

We are not fond of liberals as much as we aren't fond of conservatives, in my eyes you all are the same wing of oppressive capitalist perversion just as the whole so-called institution of slavery is. Look around in the animal kingdom, no other animal species own others. We are supposed to be these pinnacle of evolution, the smartest animal... And instead of using that to make this world a more equal, more representative and safer place for not just humans but animals and plants alike, you, Ambassador argue for the human disgrace, racism, xenophobia and outright crimes against humanity as something cultural to your nation? If something so barbaric and backwards is what your culture is.... She sighed, trying her best not to say the words "then your culture should not exist" .... Then that culture needs to change.

[Caldrune]

You actually have more sovereignty now and you can just leave and be rogue.

The typical WA-goer tells me to leave as soon as I disagree with the WA. Like I said, tyranny by majority.

No, but we should acknowledge that you don't have to adopt every single resolution and that nobody is forcing you to be here. I think it is in your best interest to make nice with the international community, though.

[Gibbzarj]

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

What kind of culture is owning people, Ambassador? Lena Shpresa, WA Ambassador from Federal People's Republic of Balkania, interjects In our nation, we have a lot of minorities with different cultures and values tied to their cultures but neither of them considers owning people as "cultural", even the most conservative of them all. It's nothing more than a barbaric practice of forced hierarchy and war trophies. Her voice raising, as she stood up from her chair, her hands gripping the table in front of her

We are not fond of liberals as much as we aren't fond of conservatives, in my eyes you all are the same wing of oppressive capitalist perversion just as the whole so-called institution of slavery is. Look around in the animal kingdom, no other animal species own others. We are supposed to be these pinnacle of evolution, the smartest animal... And instead of using that to make this world a more equal, more representative and safer place for not just humans but animals and plants alike, you, Ambassador argue for the human disgrace, racism, xenophobia and outright crimes against humanity as something cultural to your nation? If something so barbaric and backwards is what your culture is.... She sighed, trying her best not to say the words "then your culture should not exist" .... Then that culture needs to change.

Just because your culture doesn't practice slavery, that does not mean that others do not. It would certainly sound silly if I said sarmas aren't culture because we do not make them in Gibbzarj.
And on your point that no animals own slaves, no animals bake bread either. Does this make bread unnatural and evil?
Calling us barbaric for practicing slavery would be like calling you barbaric for being communist, while voting for a resolution banning communism.

[Gibbzarj]

I also have trouble taking a scolding about human rights from a psychotic dictatorship.

[Derthalen]

"Anti-slavery is the liberal agenda, and the WA banning it is tyranny by majority"

Hilarious.

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

All right, so why not make resolutions which the liberals will not be able to abide by then?

If both sides are able to agree to some and disagree with others, it is not that big of an issue. If the international community is overwhelmingly opposed to certain nations on sundry issues, then why even engage with them?

I have made my argument for why we should vote against this bill, but it is not the end of the world if this passes.

[Grenartia]

Look, I'm not a huge fan of liberals, but this is just ridiculous. There are legitimate reasons to oppose this proposal, without being cartoonishly evil.

I am called "cartoonishly evil" for having a backbone. This is a circus.

Just refuse to adopt the resolution if you don't like it, m80.

[Caldrune]

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

All right, so why not make resolutions which the liberals will not be able to abide by then?

If both sides are able to agree to some and disagree with others, it is not that big of an issue. If the international community is overwhelmingly opposed to certain nations on sundry issues, then why even engage with them?

I have made my argument for why we should vote against this bill, but it is not the end of the world if this passes.

This as well. I voted AGAINST because the bill makes concessions for conscription, a sort of forced labor (ironically), and indentured servitude, all of which are massive overreaches of governmental authority and effectively adjacent to slavery.

However, if it does pass, a condemnation of slavery isn't a bad thing. Worse resolutions have been passed.

[Flydale North]

"Anti-slavery is the liberal agenda, and the WA banning it is tyranny by majority"

Hilarious.

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

If you don't want to be a part of a world order based on shared values, that's your choice.

[Meraud]

If you don't want to be a part of a world order based on shared values, that's your choice.

It is not supposed to be a "World Order" that is what Regions are for. It is supposed to be an international organization not a misguided utopia.

[Flydale North]

If you don't want to be a part of a world order based on shared values, that's your choice.

It is not supposed to be a "World Order" that is what Regions are for. It is supposed to be an international organization not a misguided utopia.

world or·der
/ˌwərld ˈôrdər/
noun
a system controlling events in the world, especially a set of arrangements governing relations between the powerful countries of the world.

[Islandwalk]

This as well. I voted AGAINST because the bill makes concessions for conscription, a sort of forced labor (ironically), and indentured servitude, all of which are massive overreaches of governmental authority and effectively adjacent to slavery.

However, if it does pass, a condemnation of slavery isn't a bad thing. Worse resolutions have been passed.

There's nothing stopping the WA from passing a resolution outlawing these practices in the future. They are more contentious issues, so it would be better to separate them to ensure the basic slavery and forced labour ban does not get repealed (or stomped at vote) because of its limiting of conscription

I also have trouble taking a scolding about human rights from a psychotic dictatorship.

I don't answer issues very much on this nation

[Balkanic Federation]

Just because your culture doesn't practice slavery, that does not mean that others do not. It would certainly sound silly if I said sarmas aren't culture because we do not make them in Gibbzarj.
And on your point that no animals own slaves, no animals bake bread either. Does this make bread unnatural and evil?
Calling us barbaric for practicing slavery would be like calling you barbaric for being communist, while voting for a resolution banning communism.

I will ask you again, Ambassador... What kinda culture is owning people? Cultures change, evolve and adapt. Just because it's part of a "culture" doesn't make it good or acceptable. Its the ill of society to be eradicated by all means necessary. ALL means necessary, Ambassador.

[Gibbzarj]

Western liberal such as yourself have no regard for higher cultures such as Gibbzarj, where slavery is deeply ingrained in our culture. By making a member states get a lower loyalty score to the WA overlords, only those who agree with the liberals in charge get to vote. This is not a democracy anymore, it is an oligarchy. First it is slavery, but whats next, trout fishing?

If you don't want to be a part of a world order based on shared values, that's your choice.

0 Days since last "if you dont agree with the majority just leave"
This is exactly what I meant when I said this is tyranny by majority.

[Gibbzarj]

Just because your culture doesn't practice slavery, that does not mean that others do not. It would certainly sound silly if I said sarmas aren't culture because we do not make them in Gibbzarj.
And on your point that no animals own slaves, no animals bake bread either. Does this make bread unnatural and evil?
Calling us barbaric for practicing slavery would be like calling you barbaric for being communist, while voting for a resolution banning communism.

I will ask you again, Ambassador... What kinda culture is owning people? Cultures change, evolve and adapt. Just because it's part of a "culture" doesn't make it good or acceptable. Its the ill of society to be eradicated by all means necessary. ALL means necessary, Ambassador.

This whole argument seems to be "this is bad because it's bad". If you do not have any meat to your stance, you aren't debating, you are just arguing.

[Heavens Reach]

I will ask you again, Ambassador... What kinda culture is owning people? Cultures change, evolve and adapt. Just because it's part of a "culture" doesn't make it good or acceptable. Its the ill of society to be eradicated by all means necessary. ALL means necessary, Ambassador.

This whole argument seems to be "this is bad because it's bad". If you do not have any meat to your stance, you aren't debating, you are just arguing.

Do you mean why is slavery bad? It violates rights, like freedom of movement, and freedom from forced labor. You can, abstractly, ask why we consider those to be rights or why we should subscribe to a rights-based ethics in policymaking but, suffice it to say that, per the vote, there is an overwhelming consensus on their importance and applicability.