WA Nondiscrimination Act

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Another ruling brought to my attention, killing an "extraterrestrial rights" proposal based on COCR's protection of all "inhabitants" of nations: viewtopic.php?p=20145770#p20145770

Not exactly parallel to this proposal, however, as that proposal was rather silly, and not in line with a good-faith attempt to clarify perceived gaps in WA law.

Hat tip: Alchemic Queendom.

[Ardchoille]

This is a reply posted in utmost sobriety: the Hive Mind RESCINDS the ruling that CoCR doesn't cover non-humans. It does, if they're "inhabitants of member states". I'll post more on this when mods've kicked the wording around a bit, but this should give you enough to be going on with.

That isn't to say that your proposal doesn't have a future, Kenny. Personally, I think it would be worth getting a definition of "person" on the books.

[Defwa]

That isn't to say that your proposal doesn't have a future, Kenny. Personally, I think it would be worth getting a definition of "person" on the books.

I would watch that debate

...
































From a distance

[Chester Pearson]

This is a reply posted in utmost sobriety: the Hive Mind RESCINDS the ruling that CoCR doesn't cover non-humans. It does, if they're "inhabitants of member states". I'll post more on this when mods've kicked the wording around a bit, but this should give you enough to be going on with.

That isn't to say that your proposal doesn't have a future, Kenny. Personally, I think it would be worth getting a definition of "person" on the books.

Well I'll be damned....

An actual sane ruling was made by the Secretariat? I had heard rumours of things like that happening, but thought they were just legend. The things you see around these halls are truly amazing....

OOC: All in good fun Ard

[SchutteGod]

Speaking on behalf of the Autocratic Freak Show of SchutteGod, and of our Glorious Leader, Mrs Schutte, I would like to thank the Secretariat for the prompt and courteous reply to the psychotic Kennyites' impatient and (characteristically) impertinent demands for a ruling. We are heartened that the Secretariat still finds value in this proposal, and will await further findings from them before moving forward with our proposition.

We thank all of those who have participated in this discussion thus far.

~ Dora Lee
Head of Mission to the World Assembly

[Hirota]

This is a reply posted in utmost sobriety: the Hive Mind RESCINDS the ruling that CoCR doesn't cover non-humans. It does, if they're "inhabitants of member states". I'll post more on this when mods've kicked the wording around a bit, but this should give you enough to be going on with.

Quite right too - that old ruling was just plain silly.

[Gruenberg]

That isn't to say that your proposal doesn't have a future, Kenny. Personally, I think it would be worth getting a definition of "person" on the books.

Aww, just when Auralia left...

[Hakio]

That isn't to say that your proposal doesn't have a future, Kenny. Personally, I think it would be worth getting a definition of "person" on the books.

Aww, just when Auralia left...

Sia Hedishi's mouth turns to an triumphant smile at the fact that she has outlasted her biggest rival, Auralia from just a year ago and subsequently leaked to the presses his attempt at a comeback nation hence thwarting his plans. "I'm sorry is there a proposal we're talking about?"

[Ardchoilleans]

That isn't to say that your proposal doesn't have a future, Kenny. Personally, I think it would be worth getting a definition of "person" on the books.

I would watch that debate

...
































From a distance

Aww, just when Auralia left...

I hate you, I hate you all, you have crushed my girlish hopes and dreams!
-- Dicey Reilly, leaping into the flagship Petulant Snit and zooming off in it.

OOC: You're both right, dammit. And I had such hopes of, at last, a First Contact Protocol, the safe return of the word "person" to WA legislation, and a massive amendment (which Kenny's seductive prose would somehow sneak past me and my colleagues) that would retrospectively fix every loophole re "citizen" and "resident" and bring Hack's fiat "human=@@species@@" into WA law.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Auralia? OK, I missed something. I was tuned out for a term of months. Someone care to fill me in?

[Hakio]

Auralia? OK, I missed something. I was tuned out for a term of months. Someone care to fill me in?

Auralia attempted to use a puppet to commend himself and got ejected from the WA. He came back with a puppet which we exposed (Railana). We haven't heard from him since.

[Chester Pearson]

Auralia? OK, I missed something. I was tuned out for a term of months. Someone care to fill me in?

You didn't miss much. He tried to repeal Rights and Duties, got booted out for trying to commend himself with a second WA puppet, was royally fucked over by Douria....

You know, the usual stuff.....

[Defwa]

OOC It was actually really dramatic and exciting it you ask me. Befitting of the name snake pit and what you would expect from international diplomacy rather than these barely literate middle schoolers

[Ardchoille]

... info --> gossip

Let's drop this sidetrack before it turns into gloating over another player's misfortunes, m'kay?

Kenny, I took both posts I quoted as a reference to events in the many abortion debates, Auralia being opposed to abortion.

At one stage, a player (not sure whether it was Auralia or CD) made a legality challenge on the basis that a proposal that allowed abortion was a contradiction violation, as foetuses, being "inhabitants", came under the aegis of CoCR.

The challenge was rejected. CoCR's drafting debate, Reasonable Nation convention, and subsequent mod decisions had all treated "inhabitants" as referring to "people" within WA nations. The mods felt that accepting the challenge would mean that mods would be the ones making the decision that foetuses were separate entities having legal "personhood". We considered that this was not a legality question, but a policy matter that should be decided by the WA, in a Resolution directed specifically to that question. The precedent was the now-repealed "clones" Resolution, which had survived a CoCR-duplication challenge because it was written as if clones were not already under the aegis of CoCR.

At present the WA has no laws on when or to what the legal state "personhood" applies, whether for clones, foetuses or corporations.

I may have misunderstood both Gruenberg and Defwa, but I took their comments to be cautions against venturing into the minefield of defining "person" in WA legislation.

(BTW, I've switched to Ardchoille to post this because Ardchoilleans isn't supposed to have access to the Mind of Mod, so couldn't write "The mods felt ...". It's not a ruling, as such, it's a comment.)

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

OK, so whether or not it's a "minefield" or an unhappy memory of Auralia or previous mod decisions which have now been overturned -- would a proposal defining "personhood" for purposes of WA legislation be legal?

Not to press you on what is obviously quite a delicate matter, but still.

[Chester Pearson]

I agree with Ard's earlier suggestion Kenny,

A first contact proposal would garner significant support from me....

[Defwa]

I agree with Ard's earlier suggestion Kenny,

A first contact proposal would garner significant support from me....

I've heard that mentioned frequently but what would one contain?

[Chester Pearson]

I agree with Ard's earlier suggestion Kenny,

A first contact proposal would garner significant support from me....

I've heard that mentioned frequently but what would one contain?

There inlays the problem....

Scion has something similar in his anti-imperialism draft, but I am firmly against that draft, as The Federation is imperialistic by nature.

[Ardchoille]

OK, so whether or not it's a "minefield" or an unhappy memory of Auralia or previous mod decisions which have now been overturned -- would a proposal defining "personhood" for purposes of WA legislation be legal?

Not to press you on what is obviously quite a delicate matter, but still.

Typical mod reply: it depends how you do it ...

Theoretically, I can't see conceptual problems, if you can surmount any legal ones posed by category limits and existing Resolutions. But, hey, you've done that before.

[Gruenberg]

If people want to talk about the Security Council, there's a whole forum for that.

Kenny, I took both posts I quoted as a reference to events in the many abortion debates, Auralia being opposed to abortion.
...
I may have misunderstood both Gruenberg and Defwa, but I took their comments to be cautions against venturing into the minefield of defining "person" in WA legislation.

Yes, that was my point.

[Bears Armed]

This is a reply posted in utmost sobriety: the Hive Mind RESCINDS the ruling that CoCR doesn't cover non-humans. It does, if they're "inhabitants of member states".

So, does this mean that all member nations now actually -- by Modly ruling -- have to count any non-human sapients who live within their territories as “inhabitants” and grant them equal rights? They can’t legally define [for example] sapient Bears as “wildlife” or [for another example] sapient Ponies as “livestock” instead and thus deny them this equality?

[Araraukar]

They can’t legally define [for example] sapient Bears as “wildlife” or [for another example] sapient Ponies as “livestock” instead and thus deny them this equality?

Don't mention the war ponies! They'll rethink it! XD

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

See, this is why I have problems with this ruling. It is compounded with reams of uncertainty. It tries to declare that all "inhabitants" of member countries are equal according to COCR, yet "inhabitants" is ill-defined in COCR, and the resolution only lists certain human factors of discrimination (gender, race, skin color, etc.), and tacks on other "reductive categorizations," but fails to specify "species" in particular. We have operated over five years under the assumption that additional protections are needed for non-human sapients -- having voted on (and unfortunately, rejected) multiple resolutions to clarify that rights are meant for all sapient beings -- but now years' worth of precedent has been unceremoniously swept away, and it's very uncertain if a simple clarification of COCR's inadequate definitions and vaguely determined protections would even be legal. Surely it would be better to pass a separate law so that there is no question as to whether WA rights and responsibilities apply to all sapient beings, instead of relying on a resolution that clearly was not written with non-humans in mind.

[The Dark Star Republic]

But it was always Urgench's intention that the resolution be interpreted that way. I actually thought the ruling saying that the CoCR did only apply to humans was the one that upturned the apple cart. I asked at the time about the exclusion of species. Both posts were "in character":

Though I do not personally take issue with it, others might note your exclusion of 'species'. As I have stated in past discussions on issues of this nature, I remain unconvinced that this is the optimal way to approach the subject.

...The list of criteria is included ( and probably will remain so ) as a fail safe. It insures that in the event of nations attempting clever evasions of the rest of the statute the named will still be able to site their inclusion on this list for protection of their equality. This list stresses that it is inclusive and we intend that nations should feel free to add whatever other criteria they see fit once it is written into their legal codes.
...
The matter of species was we hoped solved by making this resolution apply to "all inhabitants of W.A. member states" the term "inhabitant" referring to an individual who consciously intends to inhabit a location, as opposed to someone, or rather something, which merely lives or exists in that location. This conscious intent could really only be the action of a sapient being rather than one which is only motivated by less complicated forms of instinct.

You can also read an exchange with Cobdenia, who was suggesting using neutral language for this reason, so as to covertly sneak a sapient rights proposal into law, though Urgench didn't end up using his definitions.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Somehow I doubt that author intent alone is sufficient for a universally applicable definition. The WA has considered two or three resolutions to extend rights to sapient beings since COCR passed; I'm pretty sure the "status quo" (for want of a better word) indicated that additional clarification was needed. Ard's ruling just moments ago implied none was needed. Besides, the author's definition of "inhabitant" is plainly ridiculous. A dog can consciously choose to "inhabit" a chair, or your lap, just as it can hide under the bed (and "inhabit" the space there) because it knows it's done something wrong and will get in trouble for it; it can learn to "inhabit" the yard when doing its business or not to "inhabit" the furniture; it can make conscious decisions to defy these rules that they've learned, and "inhabit" or refuse to "inhabit" certain places out of turn, just like a child can -- that does not mean dogs are a sapient species capable of rational or intelligent thought.