[DRAFT] Repeal "Charter of Civil Rights"

[Auralia]

Repeal "Charter of Civil Rights"
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #35

Strongly affirming the World Assembly's commitment to the protection and promotion of civil liberties in all member states,

Asserting the importance of a document such as GAR #35, "Charter of Civil Rights", which guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms to the inhabitants of all member states,

Supporting in particular the resolution's declaration in clause 1(c) that "all inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against" on the basis of any "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination,"

Calling attention to the fact that it has been definitively established by relevant authorities that this clause of the resolution must be interpreted so as to require member states to refrain from discriminating between all inhabitants of member states everywhere, not merely between inhabitants of that member state,

Strongly concerned that, under this interpretation, member states are prima facie engaged in illegal discrimination on the basis of nationality against the inhabitants of other member states when they grant any preferential treatment towards their own nationals,

Alarmed in particular that this interpretation may prohibit a number of forms of differential treatment between domestic and foreign nationals that are widely considered to be legitimate and are commonplace among numerous member states, including but not limited to:
a. limiting the right to vote to domestic nationals,
b. restricting access to education, public health care, welfare, or other social services to domestic nationals,
c. providing access to consular protection abroad solely to domestic nationals, or
d. applying different vetting procedures or entry restrictions to domestic nationals versus foreign nationals at their respective borders,

Acknowledging that such practices may be permitted by the "compelling practical purposes" exception to the aforementioned clause, whilst cautioning that this is a narrow exception and there is no guarantee that the aforementioned relevant authorities shall interpret the resolution to permit these forms of differential treatment,

Emphasizing that such practices are critical to the democratic legitimacy, public safety, and financial stability of numerous member states,

Convinced therefore that it is dangerous for such practices to only perhaps be permitted by a vague and ill-defined narrow exception in the resolution, and accordingly of the need for the resolution's repeal,

Strongly desiring that replacement legislation be passed as soon as possible,

The General Assembly,

Repeals GAR #35, "The Charter of Civil Rights".

[Imperium Anglorum]

Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".
Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?
Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!

NORTH: Courageous. If I am around to cast my vote as Lieutenant Representative, I'll see to it that we vote in favour.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Support. Compelling Practical Purposes carry too large a job to make this effective."

[Glen-Rhodes]

On its face, I would probably say that this repeal would be illegal under the Honest Mistakes rule. There is no mod or GenSec ruling stating that it is prima facie discrimination -- ie, no exception can be argued -- to have laws that treat domestic nationals different from foreign nationals. Your a-b-c is predicated upon that false characterization of GenSec's latest ruling. And finally, you undermine the whole argument of your repeal -- and thus engage in Honest Mistakes -- by pointing out that everything you've described CoCR does isn't necessarily true, as the resolution has a pretty damn big exception built into it.

Lastly, I don't think it's appropriate,m and perhaps might even be illegal outright, to talk about GenSec in a proposal, no matter how obliquely you word it.

[Separatist Peoples]

Lastly, I don't think it's appropriate,m and perhaps might even be illegal outright, to talk about GenSec in a proposal, no matter how obliquely you word it.

OOC: Hullup now. Is that an issue with the interpretation itself, or just the source?

If GenSec comes down with an interpretation of a resolution to make a rule determination, that basically becomes the controlling interpretation of that resolution. It should absolutely be acceptable to put forward that interpretation in a repeal, and it would possibly even make sense to allow oblique references to where that interpretation comes from. Otherwise it looks unsubstantiated.

If GenSec affects how the existing resolutions are viewed, there has to be some kind of flexibility on their incorporation even minutely.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Given our controlling precedent on metagaming is "is the thing being mentioned OOC?" and that GenSec is decidedly OOC, it seems like a clear cut case of metagaming. We are not a roleplaying body. We're an OOC rule-making body. Authors shouldn't be able to mention GenSec in proposals any more than they can mention the rules.

Auralia is quite literally saying "I don't trust members of GenSec to maintain a consistent opinion on what CoCR means, so we should repeal it."

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

On its face, I would probably say that this repeal would be illegal under the Honest Mistakes rule. There is no mod or GenSec ruling stating that it is prima facie discrimination -- ie, no exception can be argued -- to have laws that treat domestic nationals different from foreign nationals. Your a-b-c is predicated upon that false characterization of GenSec's latest ruling.

I don't see how it's a false characterization:

The second, and more nuanced, question is whether "all inhabitants of member nations" refers to individuals outside of a member nation's territory. We believe it does. A plain reading of the language would seem to suggest that every single inhabitant of all member nations is guaranteed equal treatment by the governments of member nations, not that the governments of member nations must provide equal treatment solely to the inhabitants of their nation.

Per the above, GenSec has interpreted CoCR as prohibiting discrimination on the basis of the classes listed in the resolution between all inhabitants in all member states, not just between the inhabitants of a particular member state.

Nationality is one of those classes. Therefore, a member state engages in prima facie discrimination on the basis of nationality when they discriminate between nationals and non-nationals anywhere in the World Assembly, even if said non-nationals are not inhabitants of that member state -- in other words, between domestic nationals and foreign nationals.

And finally, you undermine the whole argument of your repeal -- and thus engage in Honest Mistakes -- by pointing out that everything you've described CoCR does isn't necessarily true, as the resolution has a pretty damn big exception built into it.

All I said in the earlier clauses was that the conduct listed is prima facie discrimination under CoCR -- I didn't say that CoCR necessarily prohibited it. The concern is that there's a significant chance that it might because it's not really clear what the "compelling practical purposes" exception encompasses, which is why I called it vague. My argument is that ordinary state behaviour shouldn't have a big question mark over it because it is only (perhaps) permitted by a poorly defined exception in a resolution.

Incidentally, I'm not sure why you think the exception is "pretty damn big" -- you likened the requirements of that clause to strict scrutiny in the legality thread, and not many laws survive strict scrutiny.

Lastly, I don't think it's appropriate,m and perhaps might even be illegal outright, to talk about GenSec in a proposal, no matter how obliquely you word it.

What SP said. If GenSec is going to rule on the interpretation of resolutions, I need to be able to state that those interpretations are definitive in repeals. Otherwise less informed people are just going to argue that the resolution doesn't have to be interpreted that way and vote against.

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

Given our controlling precedent on metagaming is "is the thing being mentioned OOC?" and that GenSec is decidedly OOC, it seems like a clear cut case of metagaming. We are not a roleplaying body. We're an OOC rule-making body. Authors shouldn't be able to mention GenSec in proposals any more than they can mention the rules.

The issue is that while GenSec as such might not exist IC, the interpretations you create certainly do. How can I reference those interpretations (and claim that they are definitive and not subject to debate) without referencing the institution that created them?

Auralia is quite literally saying "I don't trust members of GenSec to maintain a consistent opinion on what CoCR means, so we should repeal it."

You haven't ruled whether any of the things listed in the repeal are "compelling practical purpose[s]" for the purposes of clause 1(c), so this isn't a question of consistency.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?

I would also maintain that the council's interpretation of extant resolutions is only binding on future authors and does not effect a player's RPed creative compliance. In character, how would any ruling impact on a nation's own judicial system? Why should the OOC council impact on the IC Bananamen Supreme Court which has already interpreted COCR to mean that only legally present inhabitants of Bananaistan, and citizens and long standing non-national residents are eligible for Bananamen social assistance? Fair enough that if, OOC, I wanted to propose a resolution which contradicts this ruling, it impacts on OOC me. But I just don't see that the IC RP compliance of (theoretically) thousands of players is automatically invalid because 4 players decide otherwise.

Nonetheless, I support this repeal for the OOC reason that if COCR is repealed, the automatic response to many new players will no longer be "COCR already did it."

[Separatist Peoples]

Given our controlling precedent on metagaming is "is the thing being mentioned OOC?" and that GenSec is decidedly OOC, it seems like a clear cut case of metagaming. We are not a roleplaying body. We're an OOC rule-making body. Authors shouldn't be able to mention GenSec in proposals any more than they can mention the rules.

Auralia is quite literally saying "I don't trust members of GenSec to maintain a consistent opinion on what CoCR means, so we should repeal it."

OOC: That didn't answer my leading question, though. Do you take issue with this:

Recalling that the institution responsible for interpreting General Assembly resolutions has ruled

or this:

this clause of the resolution must be interpreted so as to require member states to refrain from discriminating between all inhabitants of member states everywhere, not merely between inhabitants of that member state

The former is questionable, but the latter is essential to the entire premise of the repeal. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the proposal not illegal for Honest Mistake, how can we make rulings that necessarily change the lens through which proposals are interpreted and then deny players that argument in repeals? Our interpretation is clearly important to the context in which the resolution ICly operates. Excluding that avenue of attack entirely, and not just the reference to the interpretive source, would create an unreasonable burden to an otherwise reasonable check on our authority.

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?

Maybe? The problem is that it seems that "compelling practical purposes" exception isn't meant to be used very often -- GR already likened it to strict scrutiny -- but I would guess that 95%+ of the discrimination practiced by member states between domestic vs. foreign nationals is in my view legitimate. As I said, it's dangerous when normal state behaviour is prima facie illegal and only saved by an vague exception.

I would also maintain that the council's interpretation of extant resolutions is only binding on future authors and does not effect a player's RPed creative compliance. In character, how would any ruling impact on a nation's own judicial system? Why should the OOC council impact on the IC Bananamen Supreme Court which has already interpreted COCR to mean that only legally present inhabitants of Bananaistan, and citizens and long standing non-national residents are eligible for Bananamen social assistance? Fair enough that if, OOC, I wanted to propose a resolution which contradicts this ruling, it impacts on OOC me. But I just don't see that the IC RP compliance of (theoretically) thousands of players is automatically invalid because 4 players decide otherwise.

Doesn't that divergence bother you, though? When you as a player submit a resolution, your nation is submitting it for consideration IC. But if the OOC council rulings don't exist IC, then that means there are constraints on what you can do IC that nonetheless don't actually exist IC. It seems to me that it's in the best interests of the game to have as few such discrepancies as possible, which is why I think the OOC rulings should exist IC.

[Glen-Rhodes]

OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?

Maybe? The problem is that it seems that "compelling practical purposes" exception isn't meant to be used very often -- GR already likened it to strict scrutiny -- but I would guess that 95%+ of the discrimination practiced by member states between domestic vs. foreign nationals is in my view legitimate. As I said, it's dangerous when normal state behaviour is prima facie illegal and only saved by an vague exception.

The issue here is that you're using CD's dissent as the basis of your arguments, and not the actual majority opinion. Because the majority opinion doesn't say anywhere that it is prima facie illegal to discriminate between domestic vs foreign nationals. It says it's illegal to discriminate, in your immigration policy, against people based on their race, ethnicity, etc.

Doesn't that divergence bother you, though? When you as a player submit a resolution, your nation is submitting it for consideration IC. But if the OOC council rulings don't exist IC, then that means there are constraints on what you can do IC that nonetheless don't actually exist IC. It seems to me that it's in the best interests of the game to have as few such discrepancies as possible, which is why I think the OOC rulings should exist IC.

We've gone a decade so far without needing to say "mods interpret it this way" in our proposals. There are others ways to get your points across!

[Imperium Anglorum]

Doesn't that divergence bother you, though? When you as a player submit a resolution, your nation is submitting it for consideration IC. But if the OOC council rulings don't exist IC, then that means there are constraints on what you can do IC that nonetheless don't actually exist IC. It seems to me that it's in the best interests of the game to have as few such discrepancies as possible, which is why I think the OOC rulings should exist IC.

We've gone a decade so far without needing to say "mods interpret it this way" in our proposals. There are others ways to get your points across!

We've always done it this way!

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?

OOC: Agreed. In my eyes, the argument behind this repeal, including that parade of horribles, constitutes an honest mistake.

Nonetheless, I support this repeal for the OOC reason that if COCR is repealed, the automatic response to many new players will no longer be "COCR already did it."

OOC: Also agreed!

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

The issue here is that you're using CD's dissent as the basis of your arguments, and not the actual majority opinion. Because the majority opinion doesn't say anywhere that it is prima facie illegal to discriminate between domestic vs foreign nationals. It says it's illegal to discriminate, in your immigration policy, against people based on their race, ethnicity, etc.

I am using the majority opinion; I quoted from it above. The majority opinion says explicitly that clause 1(c) prohibits member states from discriminating on the listed grounds between any two World Assembly inhabitants. "Nationality" is listed as a protected grounds in clause 1(c). Therefore, it is prima facie discrimination under clause 1(c) to discriminate between any two World Assembly inhabitants on the basis of nationality, including between domestic and foreign nationals.

Note that I didn't say it was necessarily illegal to discriminate between domestic and foreign nationals under clause 1(c). I said it was prima facie discrimination under clause 1(c). Maybe the exception in clause 1(c) covers it and makes it legal, maybe it doesn't. We won't know definitively unless and until GenSec rules on it. My argument is that there's too much uncertainty there, so CoCR should be replaced with something with less ambiguity.

We've gone a decade so far without needing to say "mods interpret it this way" in our proposals. There are others ways to get your points across!

Not really, in this case. I'm repealing CoCR solely because of how GenSec has decided to interpret it. How do you suggest I word my repeal argument without making reference to the definitive nature of that interpretation?

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

OOC: I would maintain that the recent ruling does not mean that the correct interpretation of COCR is that all services and rights granted within a nation to its own citizens must also be granted to all inhabitants of all member states. But even so, if it did, surely each of the examples listed would fall within the "compelling, practical purposes" exemption?

Agreed. In my eyes, the argument behind this repeal, including that parade of horribles, constitutes an honest mistake.

Would you not agree that the logic of your majority opinion would prohibit certain kinds of discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals if such discrimination is not for a "compelling practical purpose"?

[Sciongrad]

This post is OOC.

Agreed. In my eyes, the argument behind this repeal, including that parade of horribles, constitutes an honest mistake.

Would you not agree that the logic of your majority opinion would prohibit certain kinds of discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals if such discrimination is not for a "compelling practical purpose"?

OOC: I would agree, discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals would be proscribed by clause 1c of CoCR. But, like you've noted, basically any instance where such a proscription would be problematic would almost certainly be covered by the compelling practical purposes exemption. CoCR clearly doesn't prohibit limiting immigration, voting regulations based on nationality, etc.

[Wallenburg]

Ogenbond leans forward in his chair and pulls his microphone slightly closer to his mouth. "Wrong."

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

This post is OOC.


Would you not agree that the logic of your majority opinion would prohibit certain kinds of discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals if such discrimination is not for a "compelling practical purpose"?

OOC: I would agree, discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals would be proscribed by clause 1c of CoCR. But, like you've noted, basically any instance where such a proscription would be problematic would almost certainly be covered by the compelling practical purposes exemption. CoCR clearly doesn't prohibit limiting immigration, voting regulations based on nationality, etc.

On what basis can you claim that CoCR "clearly" permits discrimination in those cases? How can anyone know with any certainty what constitutes a "compelling practical purpose" under CoCR?

Before your ruling, I didn't consider this uncertainty to be such a big deal, but only because discrimination on the grounds listed in the resolution isn't (or wasn't) the norm. But it is the norm with respect to domestic versus foreign nationals. Your recent ruling effectively rendered a large swath of ordinary governmental practices prima facie illegal unless they can be demonstrated to have a "compelling practical purpose". There's just way too much uncertainty in this area now.

[Separatist Peoples]

This post is OOC.

OOC: I would agree, discrimination on the basis of nationality between domestic and foreign nationals would be proscribed by clause 1c of CoCR. But, like you've noted, basically any instance where such a proscription would be problematic would almost certainly be covered by the compelling practical purposes exemption. CoCR clearly doesn't prohibit limiting immigration, voting regulations based on nationality, etc.

On what basis can you claim that CoCR "clearly" permits discrimination in those cases? How can anyone know with any certainty what constitutes a "compelling practical purpose" under CoCR?

Before your ruling, I didn't consider this uncertainty to be such a big deal, but only because discrimination on the grounds listed in the resolution isn't (or wasn't) the norm. But it is the norm with respect to domestic versus foreign nationals. Your recent ruling effectively rendered a large swath of ordinary governmental practices prima facie illegal unless they can be demonstrated to have a "compelling practical purpose". There's just way too much uncertainty in this area now.

OOC: Since there exists no IC WA entity that rules on interpretations and compliance, what determines "compelling practical purposes" is really up to the IC individual member state. No other entity can make that interpretive determination.

Which is why I want to see CoCR repealed: it needs tightened up. I see this as the opposite problem, that the only way to reasonably read CPP is to essentially overbroaden it.

[Christian Democrats]

The issue here is that you're using CD's dissent as the basis of your arguments

That's not possible. Auralia doesn't have access to GenSec's private forum, and my opinion hadn't been posted publicly yet.

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

The issue here is that you're using CD's dissent as the basis of your arguments

That's not possible. Auralia doesn't have access to GenSec's private forum, and my opinion hadn't been posted publicly yet.

This is quite true. I figured GR was referring to the posts you made in the legality thread.

[Bakhton]

"No, no, no. It has never been officially interpreted that way, nor is it enough to warrant a repeal."

[Imperium Anglorum]

"No, no, no. It has never been officially interpreted that way, nor is it enough to warrant a repeal."

viewtopic.php?p=31105420#p31105420

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: As much as I would like to simultaneously stick it to the Secretariat and participate in one of the biggest shake ups and activity generators in recent times with a fun repeal and replace of a major human rights resolution, I cannot conceivably support this repeal ICly. And thus cannot possibly support it OOCly.

While Excidium Planetis recognizes the Secretariat and its rulings in character, the Secretariat has neither the IC nor OOC authority to dictate how nations must comply with existing resolutions. Thus, ICly, Excidium will continue to grant equal rights and protection only to those within its jurisdiction, and will remain, as far as I am concerned, in good faith compliance while doing so. There is therefore no reason to repeal CoCR from the perspective of my nation's Ambassador and WA Office.