DRAFT: Protection Against Zombies

[Bears Armed]

Hahahaha! Very funny! Maybe now you can write a proposal called "Realizing the tooth fairy exists"?

Do you have actual proof that she doesn't?

OOC: There's an issue about plagues of zombies...

Well, do you have any proof that she does exist?

OOC: They are both mythical creatures, so before long maybe the author of this draft will write proposals named "Making a Tooth Fairy Organization" or "Ban of Fairy Godmother Belief".

OOC: Some nations that were around here in the past had actual deities who manifested within the (as it was then) 'NSUN Headquarters', and compared to that, why not a 'Tooth Fairy'?
After all, there's actually nothing to keep anybody from creating a whole "nation" of 'Tooth Fairies', is there? *(resists temptation)*
Bah, you'll probably be saying that you don't believe in sapient Bears next!

[Flibbleites]

After all, there's actually nothing to keep anybody from creating a whole "nation" of 'Tooth Fairies', is there? *(resists temptation)*

To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has yet.

[Meekinos]

After all, there's actually nothing to keep anybody from creating a whole "nation" of 'Tooth Fairies', is there? *(resists temptation)*

To be honest, I'm surprised nobody has yet.

There probably is.

As for a nation of zombies, no one has considered our enquiry yet as to how this proposal would deal with nations that have zombie-only populations. After all, it's not too far fetched. We have a nation of sapient bears amongst other things in our ranks, or did at one point. It has also been pointed out that not all nations are controlled by humans.

[The Palentine]

You do realize that this will most likely get deleted when you submit it.

[Georgetpwn]

You do realize that this will most likely get deleted when you submit it.

such as the Mad Sheep Railgun...

[Stash Kroh]

Ambassador Gliemann wiped a single tear running down her cheek,
" Mass Zombie Killing has been, I'm afraid already banned, I think... *sob* "

"As such you might want to take familarize yourself with GA Resolution #38 : Convention Against Genocide. Which inconveniently states in bold clear lettering for you...

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

The bolded part is your possible loophole. Is a zombie a person?

Or as its later states,

The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

Is a zombie a sapient being?

___________

Then there is the Charter of Civil Rights which clearly states,

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Is potential infection and cannibalism grounds for discrimination ? I don't know, in fact, thats a good point to bring up with its Author, particularly the potential infection part, which is actually a common source of discrimination and isolation in many cases. "

[Bears Armed]

Then there is the Charter of Civil Rights which clearly states,

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

Is potential infection and cannibalism grounds for discrimination ? I don't know, in fact, thats a good point to bring up with its Author, particularly the potential infection part, which is actually a common source of discrimination and isolation in many cases. "

OOC: Consider the clause that I've highlighted ("highlit"?), and its shortage of defined limitations...

[Stash Kroh]

OOC: True, true. I think this actually 'highlights' an interesting dilemma though. One can find numerous examples of people being adversely discriminated against because of medical conditions like leprosy, sexually transmitted diseases and dangerous flus even. But when does discrimination end and practical medical routines like compulsory isolation begin?

[Meekinos]

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

The bolded part is your possible loophole. Is a zombie a person?

Or as its later states,

The final goal of action against genocide is to uphold the rights of sapient beings, and actions taken against genocide should be consistent with this higher goal.

Is a zombie a sapient being?

It could be. If we use the example of Bears Armed, a former member of the World Assembly but still active in the committee stage. They are noted as not being humans. They are bears. Previously they have stated that they are at minimum sapient beings; persons in a sense. If bears are granted this status, why shouldn't those who are Living Impaired (consulting the Meekinosian Capitalist Manifests suggests that the term zombie is racially derogatory and outdated and for practical reasons we should refer to these individuals as "Living Impaired"), be granted the same rights and protects as sapient bears, such as those who make up the clans that rule Bears Armed?

[Bears Armed]

OOC: True, true. I think this actually 'highlights' an interesting dilemma though. One can find numerous examples of people being adversely discriminated against because of medical conditions like leprosy, sexually transmitted diseases and dangerous flus even. But when does discrimination end and practical medical routines like compulsory isolation begin?

OOC: As the CoCR desn't include any right of appeal to any WA tribunal (despite my advice during the drafting stage), that would seem to be a matter for the separate member-nations' courts to determine within their own jurisdictions...

If we use the example of Bears Armed, a former member of the World Assembly but still active in the committee stage. They are noted as not being humans. They are bears. Previously they have stated that they are at minimum sapient beings; persons in a sense. If bears are granted this status, why shouldn't those who are Living Impaired (consulting the Meekinosian Capitalist Manifests suggests that the term zombie is racially derogatory and outdated and for practical reasons we should refer to these individuals as "Living Impaired"), be granted the same rights and protects as sapient bears, such as those who make up the clans that rule Bears Armed?

Maybe because we (usually) don't go around trying to devour other sapient beings? We object to this comparison!

[Meekinos]

If we use the example of Bears Armed, a former member of the World Assembly but still active in the committee stage. They are noted as not being humans. They are bears. Previously they have stated that they are at minimum sapient beings; persons in a sense. If bears are granted this status, why shouldn't those who are Living Impaired (consulting the Meekinosian Capitalist Manifests suggests that the term zombie is racially derogatory and outdated and for practical reasons we should refer to these individuals as "Living Impaired"), be granted the same rights and protects as sapient bears, such as those who make up the clans that rule Bears Armed?

Maybe because we (usually) don't go around trying to devour other sapient beings? We object to this comparison!

We realise that, delegate. However, it is a fair comparison in that most would not typically consider bears to be of the sapient variety. For practical reasons we have used your nation to highlight this point. We are by no means suggesting your citizens would happily go devour other sapient beings.

[Malikov]

O.K, this draft is to protect all non-zombies against zombies right? Well here's a grand idea, boost Military/Law and Order spending and relax gun laws. Problem solved.