[DRAFT] Personhood Clarification Act

[Emberland]

Personhood Clarification Act
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Mild

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

RECOGNIZING that certain General Assembly resolutions use speciesist language that may unintentionally deny fundamental rights and freedoms to non-human sapients and non-human entities with the inherent capacity for sapience,

FURTHER RECOGNIZING that the General Assembly has established no clear definition of personhood, allowing World Assembly member states to deny the aforementioned rights and freedoms to certain sapients and certain entities with the inherent capacity for sapience,

DEFINES "sapient entity" as a living entity who possesses consciousness, self-awareness and the capacity for rational judgement,

FURTHER DEFINES "entity with the inherent capacity for sapience" as a living entity who is a member of a species with at least one sapient entity, and who has not suffered a completely irreversible loss of sapience such as brain death,

REQUIRES that member nations refrain from unfair and unreasonable discrimination between sapient entities and entities with the inherent capacity for sapience,

DECLARES that, for the purposes of all General Assembly resolutions, the following terms refer to all sapient entities and all entities with the inherent capacity for sapience, except where the context clearly dictates otherwise: "human being", "human individual", "individual", "human person", and "person".

[Capitalist Producers]

You've got be kidding, right? The way you wrote that, my dogs and cats qualify.

No way, this one needs to go back for a reality check and some rework.

[Bazileum]

Bazileum is a firm believer in animal welfare and would like to see this be extended to all chordates, but views this as an improvement over the current situation, and will vote in favour.

[Emberland]

You've got be kidding, right? The way you wrote that, my dogs and cats qualify.

No way, this one needs to go back for a reality check and some rework.

Dogs and cats are not sapient, unless you're willing to argue that they possess the capacity for sound judgement.

Bazileum is a firm believer in animal welfare and would like to see this be extended to all chordates, but views this as an improvement over the current situation, and will vote in favour.

This proposal has nothing to do with animal welfare. Animals are not persons, nor should they be granted the same rights as persons.

[Bears Armed]

Has to actually tell (or, at least, urge) the WA's member nations to do something, otherwise illegal.

[Nalt]

DEFINES "sapient entity" as a living entity

So we can recognize a race of centaurs as deserving rights but not vampires. Where is the justice in that?

Bigot.

[The Great Leap Forward]

Comrades!

Promotion of the concept of personhood or criticism of the concept of speciesism is bourgeois intellectualist thinking! Under the Marxist-Maoist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-Chiangist-Maoist Communist Party, all incorrect definitions of personhood must be swept away for the creation of the new socialist republic. Furthermore, animals are the property of the State and the promotion of their careful treatment is incorrect thinking requiring re-education by labor. Any cadres reporting rumors of support for such rightist thinking must detain those enemies of the state for a public struggle session to educate the masses.

Following Chairman Mao and following the Party, the shining star passes on for thousands of generations! Follow strictly the Leninist-Marxist-Maoist-Maoist-Maoist Party line.

[Kerethia]

Interesting Act, but the draft is lacking.

For one imagine a, say, dolphin, that is somehow able to communicate with humans. That's still a dolphin, not a human. And what about Artificial Intelligence, does that count as "living"? Can a machine live? And would you call a combination of various hardware and software a human being? I would not.

And what about intelligent or sentient beings that can only sustain themselves by, say, preying upon other "individuals", would we have to legalise their existence? Or criminalise them for preying upon others, therefore due to their nature make their existence a crime?

This draft does not address any of these issues and shall therefore not have our support. Right now it would be a waste of time for the World Assembly.

[Araraukar]

FURTHER DEFINES "entity with the inherent capacity for sapience" as a living entity who is a member of a species whose members are generally sapient, and who has not suffered a completely irreversible loss of sapience such as brain death,

I see instant issues with that, especially considering how we have nations of bears and weasels and plants and whatnot, whose species might not generally speaking be sapient.

[The Evil Kitten Killing Realm]

This would count kittens as people! Kittens are evil demons! AGAINST!

[Three Weasels]

FURTHER DEFINES "entity with the inherent capacity for sapience" as a living entity who is a member of a species whose members are generally sapient, and who has not suffered a completely irreversible loss of sapience such as brain death,

I see instant issues with that, especially considering how we have nations of bears and weasels and plants and whatnot, whose species might not generally speaking be sapient.

If only middle part was removed. This is otherwise a decent attempt that we could support, but not as long as that middle portion exists.

[Nattt]

let me be the one to say, if this gets a quorrum it will most likely end up like the last two proposals, defeated

[Hirota]

FURTHER DEFINES "entity with the inherent capacity for sapience" as a living entity who is a member of a species whose members are generally sapient, and who has not suffered a completely irreversible loss of sapience such as brain death,

I see instant issues with that, especially considering how we have nations of bears and weasels and plants and whatnot, whose species might not generally speaking be sapient.

In this instance, you could make the argument that whilst all bears or weasels are of the same genus, they are not all of the same species.

[Weemike]

All you've done is "define" and "clarify"; you're not actually mandating that member nations do anything, therefore this is illegal. Read the rules http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

[Hirota]

All you've done is "define" and "clarify"; you're not actually mandating that member nations do anything, therefore this is illegal. Read the rules http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

I agree.

OP, you need to legislate something. Something along the lines of:

MANDATES that where physically possible, all sapient entities be extended the same rights, protections and liberties under national and international legislation, .

(Rough, but at least then you'll be legislating on something, and I hope that's the purpose of this whole draft in the first place?)

[The Akashic Records]

All you've done is "define" and "clarify"; you're not actually mandating that member nations do anything, therefore this is illegal. Read the rules http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

I agree.

OP, you need to legislate something. Something along the lines of:

MANDATES that where physically possible, all sapient entities be extended the same rights, protections and liberties under national and international legislation, .

(Rough, but at least then you'll be legislating on something, and I hope that's the purpose of this whole draft in the first place?)

Aren't those already covered by The Charter of Civil Rights? The use of the word inhabitants is already vague and ambiguous enough so as to cover sapient beings, in my insignificant opinion.

[Hirota]

I agree.

OP, you need to legislate something. Something along the lines of:

MANDATES that where physically possible, all sapient entities be extended the same rights, protections and liberties under national and international legislation, .

(Rough, but at least then you'll be legislating on something, and I hope that's the purpose of this whole draft in the first place?)

Aren't those already covered by The Charter of Civil Rights? The use of the word inhabitants is already vague and ambiguous enough so as to cover sapient beings, in my insignificant opinion.

Sure would - but then I'm assuming that's what this draft is looking to legislate on.

[Bears Armed]

Aren't those already covered by The Charter of Civil Rights? The use of the word inhabitants is already vague and ambiguous enough so as to cover sapient beings, in my insignificant opinion.

Unfortunately some national governments claim that as the CoCR is classified as a 'Human Rights' resolution and does not specifically state that its scope extends to non-human sapients it can be taken as applying only to Human inhabitants...

[Emberland]

Has to actually tell (or, at least, urge) the WA's member nations to do something, otherwise illegal.

All you've done is "define" and "clarify"; you're not actually mandating that member nations do anything, therefore this is illegal. Read the rules http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=159348

OP, you need to legislate something.

Good point. I added the following clause:

REQUIRES that member nations refrain from unjust discrimination between sapient entities and entities with the inherent capacity for sapience,

DEFINES "sapient entity" as a living entity

So we can recognize a race of centaurs as deserving rights but not vampires. Where is the justice in that?

Bigot.

Vampires are clearly alive.

Furthermore, animals are the property of the State and the promotion of their careful treatment is incorrect thinking requiring re-education by labor.

This would count kittens as people! Kittens are evil demons! AGAINST!

For one imagine a, say, dolphin, that is somehow able to communicate with humans. That's still a dolphin, not a human.

This proposal would not grant any rights to non-sapient animals.

FURTHER DEFINES "entity with the inherent capacity for sapience" as a living entity who is a member of a species whose members are generally sapient, and who has not suffered a completely irreversible loss of sapience such as brain death,

I see instant issues with that, especially considering how we have nations of bears and weasels and plants and whatnot, whose species might not generally speaking be sapient.

A sapient bear or weasel is not a member of the same species as a non-sapient bear or weasel.

And what about Artificial Intelligence, does that count as "living"? Can a machine live? And would you call a combination of various hardware and software a human being? I would not.

I would argue that no computer can truly possess consciousness or self-awareness.

And what about intelligent or sentient beings that can only sustain themselves by, say, preying upon other "individuals", would we have to legalise their existence? Or criminalise them for preying upon others, therefore due to their nature make their existence a crime?

This proposal would not affect laws against murder.

I see instant issues with that, especially considering how we have nations of bears and weasels and plants and whatnot, whose species might not generally speaking be sapient.

If only middle part was removed. This is otherwise a decent attempt that we could support, but not as long as that middle portion exists.

That clause was changed to:

FURTHER DEFINES "entity with the inherent capacity for sapience" as a living entity who is a member of a species with at least one sapient entity, and who has not suffered a completely irreversible loss of sapience such as brain death,

[Dellin]

REQUIRES that member nations refrain from unjust discrimination between sapient entities and entities with the inherent capacity for sapience,

I don't understand at all what you mean, but this would probably still be illegal for duplicating WAR #35:

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.

[Emberland]

REQUIRES that member nations refrain from unjust discrimination between sapient entities and entities with the inherent capacity for sapience,

I don't understand at all what you mean, but this would probably still be illegal for duplicating WAR #35:

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.

CoCR does not necessarily apply to non-human sapients, as discussed by others above.

[Dellin]

I don't understand at all what you mean, but this would probably still be illegal for duplicating WAR #35:

CoCR does not necessarily apply to non-human sapients, as discussed by others above.

That doesn't seem to be at all what people said. All as I see is a bunch of people saying that WAR35 does, and should, apply to non-human sapients. Also, I think in its scope it does, since it specifically says: "or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination"

[Weemike]

OOC: If I were you I'd seek modly ruling on the legality of this. If, as you say, CoCR only applies to humans, then you certainly you have a worthwile cause in extending it. If it applies to all sapient beings, then in my opinion this is illegal for duplication.

[Emberland]

Bump for comments.

[Araraukar]

I still don't see how this is an issue, considering that CoCR bans discrimination already, and the vast majority (can't think of anyone who would've, outside of joke context, taken it as a serious loophole) of ambassadors are of the opinion that "human rights" concerns all sapient species already.