[DRAFT] Repeal "Charter of Civil Rights"

[Calladan]

I'm sorry, but most of the cases listed in here are so incredibly unlikely as to be laughable, and those that are not are never going to happen anyway.

So far, the non-discrimination clauses have only been seen to apply when someone is trying to write new legislation that wants to apply arbitrary discrimination against people entering their country. Not against existing legislation, or against stuff that is outside the purview of The WA.

And given the amount that The WA covers - the protections it provides to the citizens of The WA - I am not willing to see it repealed because of a paranoid view that "this might do something that might be possibly bad".

Plus if it is repealed I am slightly terrified it would allow The WA to descend into a bigoted, discriminatory hell-version of itself. But that's just me.

[Bakhton]

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

viewtopic.php?p=31105420#p31105420

OOC: that's OOC my character has no knowledge of that

[Wallenburg]

viewtopic.php?p=31105420#p31105420

OOC: that's OOC my character has no knowledge of that

OOC: Proposal rules and their interpretations are, generally, considered to have some sort of IC equivalent so that ambassadors have a good idea as to what is legal and what is not. At least, that's how I see it.

[Araraukar]

OOC: that's OOC my character has no knowledge of that

OOC: Proposal rules and their interpretations are, generally, considered to have some sort of IC equivalent so that ambassadors have a good idea as to what is legal and what is not. At least, that's how I see it.

OOC: I think that's the most common view of it, yes. And if your ambassador doesn't know them, Bakhton, I suggest one of their aides have a hurried whispered discussion with them.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This post is OOC.

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.

Either you got CD's dissent, or he based his dissent on your posts, considering the very similar (almost identical, really) arguments & language. Either way, it's simply an untrue statement that CoCR would prohibit the litany of things you're saying it does. The logic your using is found nowhere in the majority opinion. Until GenSec says that CoCR prohibits limiting the right to vote to domestic nationals, you can't use it as a basis for your repeal. That's a classic violation of Honest Mistakes.

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

Either you got CD's dissent, or he based his dissent on your posts, considering the very similar (almost identical, really) arguments & language.

There is another possibility: the arguments in my repeal and CD's dissent are simply the logical conclusion of the reasoning in the majority opinion, such that any two people could come to them independently. As I've already said, I didn't see CD's dissent before drafting this repeal, although I did look at his other posts in the public legality thread and (obviously) found them convincing. I've also revised the repeal since reading the dissent.

Either way, it's simply an untrue statement that CoCR would prohibit the litany of things you're saying it does.

I never said that it did, I said that it might, depending on whether they are "practical purposes" that are sufficiently "compelling". My argument is that we don't know for sure, and that it is dangerous for standard governmental functions to be possibly illegal.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Either you got CD's dissent, or he based his dissent on your posts, considering the very similar (almost identical, really) arguments & language.

A conspiracy? That's the Opp?

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

So far, the non-discrimination clauses have only been seen to apply when someone is trying to write new legislation that wants to apply arbitrary discrimination against people entering their country. Not against existing legislation, or against stuff that is outside the purview of The WA.

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.

That makes no sense. On what grounds can you justify using one interpretation of a resolution for deciding the legality of resolutions and another interpretation for use in deciding the legality of member state legislation? A resolution is what it is and says what it says; one cannot substitute one interpretation for another for the sake of political convenience.

[Calladan]

This post is OOC.

So far, the non-discrimination clauses have only been seen to apply when someone is trying to write new legislation that wants to apply arbitrary discrimination against people entering their country. Not against existing legislation, or against stuff that is outside the purview of The WA.

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.

That makes no sense. On what grounds can you justify using one interpretation of a resolution for deciding the legality of resolutions and another interpretation for use in deciding the legality of member state legislation? A resolution is what it is and says what it says; one cannot substitute one interpretation for another for the sake of political convenience.

I am just that talented?

But seriously - I can't see any reason why the interpretation of CoCR given to declare the bilious swill that was The Immigration Standard Act (or whatever the hell it was called) this would be required (for example) for me to educate people from another nation. If we refuse to pay for the education of someone in Misthaven, it is not because we are discriminating against them on an arbitrary basis (we are not saying "We are refusing to pay because you are an elf, or because you are from Misthaven, or because you are a follower of Zorp") but because they do not attend a school in Calladan - which is what our education department funds.

This is not arbitrary discrimination by any sense of the term that I can see being used in any nation in The WA. And I can not think of a single example where someone from another nation, who wants to stay IN that nation (and does not want to come to Calladan) can claim Calladan is discriminating against them.

My major objection to the crap that was The International Standardisation of Immigration Standards (I admit - I am just making names up now) was that it was discriminating on a completely arbitrary and clearly bigoted/racist/religious basis against people who wanted to come to a nation. Which was clearly against what I perceived to the point of The CoCR (and apparently - based on the outcome of the challenge - I was right).

However to try to apply that to the idea that my nation can discriminate against people who are not in my nation, have no desire to come to my nation and are never going to be in my nation seems a little over the top and more than a little nonsensical.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Either way, it's simply an untrue statement that CoCR would prohibit the litany of things you're saying it does.

I never said that it did, I said that it might, depending on whether they are "practical purposes" that are sufficiently "compelling". My argument is that we don't know for sure, and that it is dangerous for standard governmental functions to be possibly illegal.

And, still, saying a resolution "might" do things that it doesn't do, is an Honest Mistake.

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

I never said that it did, I said that it might, depending on whether they are "practical purposes" that are sufficiently "compelling". My argument is that we don't know for sure, and that it is dangerous for standard governmental functions to be possibly illegal.

And, still, saying a resolution "might" do things that it doesn't do, is an Honest Mistake.

How do you know it doesn't do what I claim it might? Where does CoCR say that the examples I listed in the proposal constitute "compelling practical purposes" for discrimination on the basis of nationality? Why do you think it's obvious that they meet what you described as the equivalent of strict scrutiny? (Frankly, my experience with American constitutional law suggests it's pretty much never obvious whether or not a law passes strict scrutiny.)

[States of Glory WA Office]

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

Fairburn: Absolutely not. If you desire a replacement then you can draft one yourself. Until then, we refuse to support this repeal.

[Auralia]

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

Fairburn: Absolutely not. If you desire a replacement then you can draft one yourself. Until then, we refuse to support this repeal.

I'm not planning to submit it without replacement legislation ready (either authored by me or someone else).

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Absolutely not. If you desire a replacement then you can draft one yourself. Until then, we refuse to support this repeal.

I'm not planning to submit it without replacement legislation ready (either authored by me or someone else).

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

Fairburn: That is all well and good, but I hope you appreciate that until we see such a replacement, we can not and will not support this.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: No replacement is necessary. Each major factor can be covered separately. Opens lots of things to cover in the GA.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: No replacement is necessary. Each major factor can be covered separately. Opens lots of things to cover in the GA.

OOC: 100% this.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: No replacement is necessary. Each major factor can be covered separately. Opens lots of things to cover in the GA.

Ooc: this, people. PLEASE.


- regular player, not GenSec

[Excidium Planetis]

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.

That makes no sense. On what grounds can you justify using one interpretation of a resolution for deciding the legality of resolutions and another interpretation for use in deciding the legality of member state legislation? A resolution is what it is and says what it says; one cannot substitute one interpretation for another for the sake of political convenience.

OOC
The Secretariat only has, ICly, the authority to rule resolutions legal or illegal. It does not have the authority to force nations to act a certain way, nor does it have the authority to rule that nations are in non-compliance.

The WA has no police, no law enforcement, no military, and no court system to rule on compliance. Therefore, even if GenSec's interpretation is the "official" one, no one can officially claim that Excidium's practices are non-compliance, and no one can force Excidium Planetis to act a certain way. While other nations may claim that EP is in non-compliance with CoCR based on the Secretariat interpretation, EP can simply argue that it is making a good faith effort to comply with CoCR, and because no one can officially rule otherwise, the matter ends there. As such, ICly, EP sees no need to worry about the Secretariat interpretation.

You may say that this is roleplayed non-compliance or creative compliance. That simply isn't the case, in my opinion. Roleplayed non-compliance has either an intent to not comply (which EP does not have) or blatant non-compliance without intent (such as holding slaves out of ignorance of WA law). Creative compliance involves interpreting resolutions in vague or odd ways to avoid complying as intended. While one can make the case that EP, by using an interpretation other than the GenSec one, is using a creative interpretation to avoid compliance as intended, EP's interpretation is neither creative nor done to avoid the intent of CoCR. It is an interpretation that even the author of CoCR in the original debate argued.

---

I will also jump on the "^this" train.

[Bears Armed]

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.

OOC: Agreed.

_________________________________________________________

OOC: Personally, I've thought for a long time that those of the rules that can be read IC should be considered to exist IC, and that reference to those rules should therefore be legal. That hasn't been how the Mods interpreted the situation, but maybe now that responsibility for such matters is being passed to GenSec it might -- if the GA community also supports this -- be possible to make a change?

[Christian Democrats]

I'm sorry, but most of the cases listed in here are so incredibly unlikely as to be laughable, and those that are not are never going to happen anyway.

Really?

You're a citizen of Nation X, and you want a medical operation, but the hospitals in Nation X are terrible. Therefore, you travel to Nation Y and seek medical care there. Is Nation Y, which has a state-funded healthcare system, obliged to provide you the operation on the same terms as its own citizens -- that is, for free?

Either you got CD's dissent, or he based his dissent on your posts

Again, how? You saw my dissent before Auralia posted, and Auralia posted before he saw my dissent.

If we refuse to pay for the education of someone in Misthaven, it is not because we are discriminating against them on an arbitrary basis (we are not saying "We are refusing to pay because you are an elf, or because you are from Misthaven, or because you are a follower of Zorp") but because they do not attend a school in Calladan - which is what our education department funds.

According to the majority opinion, all WA states have an obligation to treat foreign citizens equally. They may violate this obligation if and only if they have a compelling reason for doing so. In any case, they're engaging in discrimination.

EDIT: What if a Misthaven citizen living in Misthaven tries to send his children to a public school in Calladan?

My major objection to the crap that was The International Standardisation of Immigration Standards (I admit - I am just making names up now) was that it was discriminating on a completely arbitrary and clearly bigoted/racist/religious basis against people who wanted to come to a nation.

But this is the thing. Why do nations have an obligation to let foreigners come?

[Calladan]

I'm sorry, but most of the cases listed in here are so incredibly unlikely as to be laughable, and those that are not are never going to happen anyway.

Really?

You're a citizen of Nation X, and you want a medical operation, but the hospitals in Nation X are terrible. Therefore, you travel to Nation Y and seek medical care there. Is Nation Y, which has a state-funded healthcare system, obliged to provide you the operation on the same terms as its own citizens -- that is, for free?

That depends on how the state-funded healthcare system works. Is it funded by tax-payers of Nation Y? Is the citizen from Nation X a tax-payer in Nation Y?

Because while turning her down because she is from Nation X is I agree somewhat arbitrary and could be a violation, rejecting her because she is not a tax-payer of Nation X (and rejecting just her for one specific case for that specific reason) is anything but.

If we refuse to pay for the education of someone in Misthaven, it is not because we are discriminating against them on an arbitrary basis (we are not saying "We are refusing to pay because you are an elf, or because you are from Misthaven, or because you are a follower of Zorp") but because they do not attend a school in Calladan - which is what our education department funds.

According to the majority opinion, all WA states have an obligation to treat foreign citizens equally. They may violate this obligation if and only if they have a compelling reason for doing so. In any case, they're engaging in discrimination.

EDIT: What if a Misthaven citizen living in Misthaven tries to send his children to a public school in Calladan?

Assuming "public schools" are "state schools" (there is, on occasion, confusion about this) then they only accept schools from their own educational district. Which I know you are going to tell me is discriminatory and biased, but it's not. We aren't turning people away because of religious or moral or national or any other reasons - we are doing it for specific administrative reasons. Schools can only take in a given number of students before they become untenable, and so they are set up to ensure that number is never exceeded.

Accepting students from outside their educational district is not allowed under any circumstances. Which we view as non-discriminatory because it is applied equally to every race, creed and colour. (And yes - from a certain point of view it could be INCREDIBLY discriminatory because it is applied to EVERY race, creed and colour, but we think that point of view is kind of silly).

My major objection to the crap that was The International Standardisation of Immigration Standards (I admit - I am just making names up now) was that it was discriminating on a completely arbitrary and clearly bigoted/racist/religious basis against people who wanted to come to a nation.

But this is the thing. Why do nations have an obligation to let foreigners come?

See above regarding our educational policy. If you want to shut your borders down completely, feel free. But if you are going to shut your borders down to Zorpists, just because they are Zorpists, that is inherently wrong and not something that should be done in the name of The WA.

[Excidium Planetis]

Really?

You're a citizen of Nation X, and you want a medical operation, but the hospitals in Nation X are terrible. Therefore, you travel to Nation Y and seek medical care there. Is Nation Y, which has a state-funded healthcare system, obliged to provide you the operation on the same terms as its own citizens -- that is, for free?

That depends on how the state-funded healthcare system works. Is it funded by tax-payers of Nation Y? Is the citizen from Nation X a tax-payer in Nation Y?

Because while turning her down because she is from Nation X is I agree somewhat arbitrary and could be a violation, rejecting her because she is not a tax-payer of Nation X (and rejecting just her for one specific case for that specific reason) is anything but.

OOC:
Then Nation Y must also deny health care to Nation Y citizens who don't pay taxes. After all, if being a taxpayer is the qualification, only taxpayers in Nation Y can get free Nation Y healthcare.

Edit: I also believe that such denial would be a violation of GA#97, which seems to require that national health systems cover those who cannot afford to pay. However, GA#97 is not the clearest resolution on the books.

Assuming "public schools" are "state schools" (there is, on occasion, confusion about this) then they only accept schools from their own educational district. Which I know you are going to tell me is discriminatory and biased, but it's not. We aren't turning people away because of religious or moral or national or any other reasons - we are doing it for specific administrative reasons. Schools can only take in a given number of students before they become untenable, and so they are set up to ensure that number is never exceeded.

Accepting students from outside their educational district is not allowed under any circumstances. Which we view as non-discriminatory because it is applied equally to every race, creed and colour. (And yes - from a certain point of view it could be INCREDIBLY discriminatory because it is applied to EVERY race, creed and colour, but we think that point of view is kind of silly).

What about the at least one university required by WA law to accept foreign students?

[Calladan]

That depends on how the state-funded healthcare system works. Is it funded by tax-payers of Nation Y? Is the citizen from Nation X a tax-payer in Nation Y?

Because while turning her down because she is from Nation X is I agree somewhat arbitrary and could be a violation, rejecting her because she is not a tax-payer of Nation X (and rejecting just her for one specific case for that specific reason) is anything but.

OOC:
Then Nation Y must also deny health care to Nation Y citizens who don't pay taxes. After all, if being a taxpayer is the qualification, only taxpayers in Nation Y can get free Nation Y healthcare.

Edit: I also believe that such denial would be a violation of GA#97, which seems to require that national health systems cover those who cannot afford to pay. However, GA#97 is not the clearest resolution on the books

It was somewhat hypothetical and I did not entirely think it through The term "citizen" or "resident" would have been better. My central point being health care systems are free to those who reside in the country, and not to those who aren't. And again - I would not consider that an "arbitrary or reductive" distinction" for the purposes of CoCR. I realise it is debatable as to whether or not it is, but that's just my view.

Assuming "public schools" are "state schools" (there is, on occasion, confusion about this) then they only accept schools from their own educational district. Which I know you are going to tell me is discriminatory and biased, but it's not. We aren't turning people away because of religious or moral or national or any other reasons - we are doing it for specific administrative reasons. Schools can only take in a given number of students before they become untenable, and so they are set up to ensure that number is never exceeded.

Accepting students from outside their educational district is not allowed under any circumstances. Which we view as non-discriminatory because it is applied equally to every race, creed and colour. (And yes - from a certain point of view it could be INCREDIBLY discriminatory because it is applied to EVERY race, creed and colour, but we think that point of view is kind of silly).

What about the at least one university required by WA law to accept foreign students?

Universities aren't schools. At least that is not what I understand by the term "school" when it is used in an educational term. Schools are for standard education through to the age of 15 (in Calladan). Then you have higher education colleges (through to the age of 18) and universities (through to the age of whatever age it takes to finish the course). And to answer your question, universities are not bound by the rules that bind schools. They can take students from anywhere - any educational district, any District and any country.

[Excidium Planetis]

It was somewhat hypothetical and I did not entirely think it through The term "citizen" or "resident" would have been better. My central point being health care systems are free to those who reside in the country, and not to those who aren't. And again - I would not consider that an "arbitrary or reductive" distinction" for the purposes of CoCR. I realise it is debatable as to whether or not it is, but that's just my view.

Discrimination based on citizenship is discrimination on the basis of nationality.

Discrimination on the basis of residence is more complicated. If someone is an inhabitant of your nation or is currently present there, are they a resident? If someone lived there for 5 months, do they count as residing in Calladan?

Universities aren't schools. At least that is not what I understand by the term "school" when it is used in an educational term. Schools are for standard education through to the age of 15 (in Calladan). Then you have higher education colleges (through to the age of 18) and universities (through to the age of whatever age it takes to finish the course). And to answer your question, universities are not bound by the rules that bind schools. They can take students from anywhere - any educational district, any District and any country.

Do you have state provided colleges and universities, then? And if they take in foreigners, those foreigners get free education, do they not?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

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,

This is bullshit. Mod (or GenSec) interpretations of the law only apply to whether a proposal contradicts or duplicates standing legislation. Such interpretations have no force of law whatsoever in roleplay, meaning nations can still interpret the law as they see fit. This argument is nitpicky and asinine and as such we will not support this repeal.