[DRAFT] Repeal "Charter of Civil Rights"

[Auralia]

This post is OOC.

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.

Why shouldn't they impact roleplay insofar as rejecting these interpretations constitutes non-compliance? How can two interpretations of the same resolution exist simultaneously? One of them is necessarily wrong.

[Bakhton]

This post is OOC.

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.

Why shouldn't they impact roleplay insofar as rejecting these interpretations constitutes non-compliance? How can two interpretations of the same resolution exist simultaneously? One of them is necessarily wrong.

OOC: As far as I am aware, GenSec make rulings when their arm is forced and are not effective on rp. The fact that this has so quickly devolved into Out of Character discussions shows that this law has been written based off of things outside of IC rp which is not a strong foundation to base your repeal off of, especially since the majority of members do not actually know about the GenSec's rulings.

[States of Glory WA Office]

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.

Barbera: Nationality and citizenship are distinct, Ambassador Blackbourne.

Harold: I thought we established that after weeks of petty argumentation. That reminds me, though; I've got to revive BanBan!

Barbera: (confused) BanBan?

Harold: Yes, BanBan! I've got to go now! Bye! (rushes out of the chamber)

[Aclion]

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.

Then the Gensec is really nothing more then a few nations with the power to veto legislation as they see fit, and any facade of legitimacy behind it should be discouraged.

[Excidium Planetis]

Barbera: Nationality and citizenship are distinct, Ambassador Blackbourne.

"I believe they are too, Missus Barbera. Unfortunately, international law treats them the same."

[Bears Armed]

Barbera: Nationality and citizenship are distinct, Ambassador Blackbourne.

"I believe they are too, Missus Barbera. Unfortunately, international law treats them the same."

OOC: At least one previous Modly ruling declared discrimination on the basis of citizenship, rather than of nationality, to be legal (on the basis that it isn't an "arbitrary" categorization). I’m fairly sure that it was in the debate about ‘World Assembly Resolution #80 ‘A Promotion of Basic Education’.

[Excidium Planetis]

"I believe they are too, Missus Barbera. Unfortunately, international law treats them the same."

OOC: At least one previous Modly ruling declared discrimination on the basis of citizenship, rather than of nationality, to be legal (on the basis that it isn't an "arbitrary" categorization). I’m fairly sure that it was in the debate about ‘World Assembly Resolution #80 ‘A Promotion of Basic Education’.

OOC: Regardless of what the mods ruled, citizens are always nationals of the state [that they possess citizenship in] and in most countries, all nationals are citizens. Nationality as the legal term used in Reduction of Statelessness is distinguished from citizenship mainly in that citizens have the right to political participation while nationals might not.

Nationality as a colloquial term is unrelated to how it is used currently in WA law.

As for how this is relevant to the discussion at hand, Discrimination against to me one because they are citizens, a class which necessarily is 100% nationals of a specific state, is clearly discrimination based on nationality. Take the immigration scenario:
"People who are nationals of Nation X may not enter our grear nation of Y because they are nationals of X."
Versus
"People who are citizens of Nation X may not enter Nation Y because they are nationals of X who happen to also be able to participate politically."

How is the latter less discriminatory? And if the latter is allowed, how is the latest ruling not entirely toothless? "Oh, nations can't turn people away at the border because they are nationals of Nation X, but they can turn people away at the border because they are citizens of Nation X! Feel free to exclude anyone you want simply because they happen to be citizens of a nation you don't like!"

[Christian Democrats]

A better question: If COCR prohibits discrimination based on nationality and if COCR protects not only domestic inhabitants but also foreign inhabitants, are national laws that grant jus soli citizenship prima facie violations of COCR?

[Sciongrad]

A better question: If COCR prohibits discrimination based on nationality and if COCR protects not only domestic inhabitants but also foreign inhabitants, are national laws that grant jus soli citizenship prima facie violations of COCR?

I think there's been a pretty colossal misunderstanding of the majority opinion that you, EP, and Auralia seem to share. The opinion does not hold that presence in a nation cannot serve as the basis for discrimination. In other words, denying all non-inhabitants something arbitrarily does not constitute discrimination based on a reductive categorization. Our ruling states that the inhabitants of all member nations are guaranteed protection against discrimination based on the reductive categorizations in clause 1c. In other words: denying individuals that live in other member nations the right to vote in one's country is not even prima facie discrimination according to CoCR or our ruling. However, if your country only allows Hindus in other nations to vote and excludes other foreigners based on some reductive categorization, then that is illegal.

EP tried to frame a gotcha by asking why immigration is affected and other services aren't, but they only made that argument because they misunderstand our ruling. Immigration is not a special issue. Our ruling also applies to healthcare, and schools, and other social services, but most states don't provide these services to inhabitants of other nations in the first place. If a resolution tried to guarantee member nations the right to deny healthcare services to all inhabitants of other member nations, that too would be illegal because it would theoretically allow member nations to discriminate with impunity based on reductive categorizations. The only reason immigration seems special is because it is one of very few issues that inherently involves dealing with the inhabitants of foreign nations.

[Christian Democrats]

A better question: If COCR prohibits discrimination based on nationality and if COCR protects not only domestic inhabitants but also foreign inhabitants, are national laws that grant jus soli citizenship prima facie violations of COCR?

I think there's been a pretty colossal misunderstanding of the majority opinion that you, EP, and Auralia seem to share. The opinion does not hold that presence in a nation cannot serve as the basis for discrimination. In other words, denying all non-inhabitants something arbitrarily does not constitute discrimination based on a reductive categorization. Our ruling states that the inhabitants of all member nations are guaranteed protection against discrimination based on the reductive categorizations in clause 1c. In other words: denying individuals that live in other member nations the right to vote in one's country is not even prima facie discrimination according to CoCR or our ruling. However, if your country only allows Hindus in other nations to vote and excludes other foreigners based on some reductive categorization, then that is illegal.

EP tried to frame a gotcha by asking why immigration is affected and other services aren't, but they only made that argument because they misunderstand our ruling. Immigration is not a special issue. Our ruling also applies to healthcare, and schools, and other social services, but most states don't provide these services to inhabitants of other nations in the first place. If a resolution tried to guarantee member nations the right to deny healthcare services to all inhabitants of other member nations, that too would be illegal because it would theoretically allow member nations to discriminate with impunity based on reductive categorizations. The only reason immigration seems special is because it is one of very few issues that inherently involves dealing with the inhabitants of foreign nations.

You appear to be backtracking from your opinion, which said:

A plain reading of the language [of COCR] 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.

Now, you seem to be saying that COCR essentially establishes two classes of persons: domestic inhabitants and foreign inhabitants. All domestic inhabitants must be treated equally with all other domestic inhabitants, and all foreign inhabitants must be treated equally with all other foreign inhabitants, but member states are not required to treat domestic inhabitants and foreign inhabitants equally.

As a matter of political theory, this might be a good rule. But it's nowhere to be found in COCR.

[Sciongrad]

I think there's been a pretty colossal misunderstanding of the majority opinion that you, EP, and Auralia seem to share. The opinion does not hold that presence in a nation cannot serve as the basis for discrimination. In other words, denying all non-inhabitants something arbitrarily does not constitute discrimination based on a reductive categorization. Our ruling states that the inhabitants of all member nations are guaranteed protection against discrimination based on the reductive categorizations in clause 1c. In other words: denying individuals that live in other member nations the right to vote in one's country is not even prima facie discrimination according to CoCR or our ruling. However, if your country only allows Hindus in other nations to vote and excludes other foreigners based on some reductive categorization, then that is illegal.

EP tried to frame a gotcha by asking why immigration is affected and other services aren't, but they only made that argument because they misunderstand our ruling. Immigration is not a special issue. Our ruling also applies to healthcare, and schools, and other social services, but most states don't provide these services to inhabitants of other nations in the first place. If a resolution tried to guarantee member nations the right to deny healthcare services to all inhabitants of other member nations, that too would be illegal because it would theoretically allow member nations to discriminate with impunity based on reductive categorizations. The only reason immigration seems special is because it is one of very few issues that inherently involves dealing with the inhabitants of foreign nations.

You appear to be backtracking from your opinion, which said:

A plain reading of the language [of COCR] 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.

Now, you seem to be saying that COCR essentially establishes two classes of persons: domestic inhabitants and foreign inhabitants. All domestic inhabitants must be treated equally with all other domestic inhabitants, and all foreign inhabitants must be treated equally with all other foreign inhabitants, but member states are not required to treat domestic inhabitants and foreign inhabitants equally.

As a matter of political theory, this might be a good rule. But it's nowhere to be found in COCR.

I'm saying, and I intended for the majority opinion to convey, that CoCR contemplates one class of individuals: inhabitants of all member nations. A government cannot discriminate against any of them on the basis of reductive categorization. It just so happens that because immigration, unlike most other issues, involves a government of one nation interacting with individuals present in another nation. In other words, a member nation can't discriminate on the basis of any reductive categorization -- this does not include one's presence in a nation (e.g., member nations can arbitrarily ban all immigration, it can deny all individuals outside of their nation the right to vote in election, receive healthcare, public goods, etc) -- against any individual in any member nation.

[Christian Democrats]

You appear to be backtracking from your opinion, which said:

A plain reading of the language [of COCR] 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.

Now, you seem to be saying that COCR essentially establishes two classes of persons: domestic inhabitants and foreign inhabitants. All domestic inhabitants must be treated equally with all other domestic inhabitants, and all foreign inhabitants must be treated equally with all other foreign inhabitants, but member states are not required to treat domestic inhabitants and foreign inhabitants equally.

As a matter of political theory, this might be a good rule. But it's nowhere to be found in COCR.

I'm saying, and I intended for the majority opinion to convey, that CoCR contemplates one class of individuals: inhabitants of all member nations. A government cannot discriminate against any of them on the basis of reductive categorization. It just so happens that because immigration, unlike most other issues, involves a government of one nation interacting with individuals present in another nation. In other words, a member nation can't discriminate on the basis of any reductive categorization -- this does not include one's presence in a nation (e.g., member nations can arbitrarily ban all immigration, it can deny all individuals outside of their nation the right to vote in election, receive healthcare, public goods, etc) -- against any individual in any member nation.

According to COCR, nationality is a "reductive categorization." In your view, what does nationality mean?

[Excidium Planetis]

I'm saying, and I intended for the majority opinion to convey, that CoCR contemplates one class of individuals: inhabitants of all member nations. A government cannot discriminate against any of them on the basis of reductive categorization. It just so happens that because immigration, unlike most other issues, involves a government of one nation interacting with individuals present in another nation. In other words, a member nation can't discriminate on the basis of any reductive categorization -- this does not include one's presence in a nation (e.g., member nations can arbitrarily ban all immigration, it can deny all individuals outside of their nation the right to vote in election, receive healthcare, public goods, etc) -- against any individual in any member nation.

You accuse me of misunderstanding your ruling, but then you turn around and , as you explain it, dig your own grave.

The scenario CD presented to Calladan was this:
Nation X citizens travel to Nation Y. They are present in Nation Y, same as Nation Y citizens, so presence in a nation cannot be used to discriminate. Nation Y offers universal healthcare to its inhabitants, however, it now also has to offer that healthcare to any foreigners who just show up, because nationality cannot be used to exclude them (being a reductive categorization) and those foreigners are inhabitants of member nations... just not Nation Y. As I argued, being a taxpayer cannot be grounds for exclusion, because Nation Y's healthcare system covers even non-taxpayers. Therefore there is no legal basis for discrimination.

Now then, do you agree, or would you care to explain why Nation Y is allowed to not offer Nation X visitors free healthcare?

---

Unrelated addendum: If presence in a nation is legal grounds for exclusion, is the following therefore legal:

Allows nations to deny immigrants present in any nation without any reason, save for their presence in those nations.

[Sciongrad]

The scenario CD presented to Calladan was this:
Nation X citizens travel to Nation Y. They are present in Nation Y, same as Nation Y citizens, so presence in a nation cannot be used to discriminate. Nation Y offers universal healthcare to its inhabitants, however, it now also has to offer that healthcare to any foreigners who just show up, because nationality cannot be used to exclude them (being a reductive categorization) and those foreigners are inhabitants of member nations... just not Nation Y. As I argued, being a taxpayer cannot be grounds for exclusion, because Nation Y's healthcare system covers even non-taxpayers. Therefore there is no legal basis for discrimination.

Now then, do you agree, or would you care to explain why Nation Y is allowed to not offer Nation X visitors free healthcare?

This example only demonstrates how little you understand the ruling. The GenSec opinion would have absolutely no effect on this scenario. CoCR explicitly includes nationality as a type of reductive categorization. There are only two ways for someone from Nation X to expect healthcare from Nation Y: they could emigrate to Nation Y. If they emigrate according to Nation Y's immigration standards, then obviously, they are legally entitled to any healthcare rights citizens of Nation Y are entitled to -- this would be the case even in the absence of our recent ruling. If they emigrate illegally, then Nation Y obviously has a compelling practical reason to exclude that person on the basis of nationality. The other way would be for person X to expect Nation Y pay for their healthcare abroad, which is so patently absurd that I won't even explain to you why the compelling practical purposes exemption applies.

Our ruling has no bearing on this situation because, according to CD's interpretation of CoCR, member nations would still be legally obligated to offer legal immigrants healthcare coverage because CoCR explicitly lists nationality as a reductive categorization.

---

Unrelated addendum: If presence in a nation is legal grounds for exclusion, is the following therefore legal:

Allows nations to deny immigrants present in any nation without any reason, save for their presence in those nations.

No, it would not. That still allows member nations to discriminate against immigrants on the basis of some reductive categorization. The only thing this ruling does is extend the protections of clause 1c to inhabitants in all member nations, it does not create a new type of reductive categorization.

[Christian Democrats]

So Maxtopia can treat Maxtopians and Bigtopians differently based on the fact that Maxtopians are inhabitants of Maxtopia and that Bigtopians are inhabitants of Bigtopia, but Maxtopia cannot treat Bigtopians and Marche Noirians differently based on the fact that Maxtopians are inhabitants of Maxtopia and that Marche Noirians are inhabitants of Marche Noir?

[Excidium Planetis]

This example only demonstrates how little you understand the ruling.

I will proceed to demonstrate how little you understood the question.

CoCR explicitly includes nationality as a type of reductive categorization.

I think we all know this. The problem is that CD, Auralia, and I all agree, more or less, that
1) CoCR only requires nations to prohibit discrimination between their inhabitants, while
2) Your ruling interprets CoCR to require nations to prohibit discrimination against any member nation's inhabitants.

There are only two ways for someone from Nation X to expect healthcare from Nation Y: they could emigrate to Nation Y.

Or they could just go there on vacation? Or a missions trip? Or study abroad? There are a whole host of reasons why a Nation X citizen would be in Nation Y legally, without emigrating.

If they emigrate illegally, then Nation Y obviously has a compelling practical reason to exclude that person on the basis of nationality. The other way would be for person X to expect Nation Y pay for their healthcare abroad, which is so patently absurd that I won't even explain to you why the compelling practical purposes exemption applies.

Of course. But why is there compelling practical purpose to exclude tourists, foreign exchange students, and foreign missionaries from free healthcare, on the basis of nationality?

Our ruling has no bearing on this situation because, according to CD's interpretation of CoCR, member nations would still be legally obligated to offer legal immigrants healthcare coverage because CoCR explicitly lists nationality as a reductive categorization.

I'm not talking about immigrants. I think we all agree immigrants, once inside the nation in question, are clearly inhabitants of that nation. I'm talking about people who are clearly not inhabitants of Nation Y, but are inhabitants of Nation X and thus are protected from discrimination (according to your ruling).

Allows nations to deny immigrants present in any nation without any reason, save for their presence in those nations.

No, it would not. That still allows member nations to discriminate against immigrants on the basis of some reductive categorization.

Wait, what? You literally just said:

In other words, a member nation can't discriminate on the basis of any reductive categorization -- this does not include one's presence in a nation

Now you turn around and immediately claim that presence in a nation is reductive categorization.

Just answer this simple question: is presence (or lack thereof) in ANY given nation a valid reason for exclusion from certain rights, or not?

[Aclion]

The only thing this ruling does is extend the protections of clause 1c to inhabitants in all member nations, it does not create a new type of reductive categorization.

It's good to see you admit you amended the law in that ruling.

[Sciongrad]

-- This Entire Post is OOC --

The only thing this ruling does is extend the protections of clause 1c to inhabitants in all member nations, it does not create a new type of reductive categorization.

It's good to see you admit you amended the law in that ruling.

No, we didn't. Cute pedantry isn't really helpful.

1) CoCR only requires nations to prohibit discrimination between their inhabitants, while
2) Your ruling interprets CoCR to require nations to prohibit discrimination against any member nation's inhabitants.

No, CoCR requires that nations prohibit discrimination again any member nation's inhabitants. That's clearly in the language of clause 1c.

Or they could just go there on vacation? Or a missions trip? Or study abroad? There are a whole host of reasons why a Nation X citizen would be in Nation Y legally, without emigrating.

Right, in which case our ruling still has no effect. If someone is vacationing or passing through a country, they are "a person [...] that [...] occupies a space" -- i.e., an inhabitant (OED) and subject to clause 1c in the absence of our ruling. Our ruling only states that people that are physically outside of a country cannot be discriminated again, and the only policy realm in which this is really possible is immigration. Prior to our ruling, passersby could not be discriminated against under clause 1c. Our ruling doesn't have any bearing on the situation you've detailed.

Of course. But why is there compelling practical purpose to exclude tourists, foreign exchange students, and foreign missionaries from free healthcare, on the basis of nationality?

It depends on the context, obviously. If a tourist is dying on the streets and you're refusing them healthcare on the basis of their nationality, that's pretty obviously a violation of CoCR, just like denying them service at restaurants would be. Preventing foreign peripatetics from voting in your election obviously presents a compelling practical purpose that denying them basic services wouldn't. You're trying to argue that you should be able to exclude foreigners on the basis of nationality should either also involve a compelling practical purpose or never involve one. It isn't that simple and individual nations will make case-by-case decisions based on their particular circumstances.

I'm talking about people who are clearly not inhabitants of Nation Y, but are inhabitants of Nation X and thus are protected from discrimination (according to your ruling).

Our ruling doesn't affect this population. If they are physically within the nation that's trying to deny them some service, then discrimination against them is prima facie illegal. But not because of our ruling -- our ruling only affects individuals physically outside of the nation trying to discriminate against them.

Just answer this simple question: is presence (or lack thereof) in ANY given nation a valid reason for exclusion from certain rights, or not?

Like I said, it depends on the circumstances. Presence in one's nation is not a reductive categorization. But discrimination on any of the enumerated types of reductive categorization in clause 1c is prima facie illegal.

[Sciongrad]

So Maxtopia can treat Maxtopians and Bigtopians differently based on the fact that Maxtopians are inhabitants of Maxtopia and that Bigtopians are inhabitants of Bigtopia, but Maxtopia cannot treat Bigtopians and Marche Noirians differently based on the fact that Maxtopians are inhabitants of Maxtopia and that Marche Noirians are inhabitants of Marche Noir?

Maxtopia can only treat Maxtopians and non-citizen Bigtopians that are physically present in Maxtopia if there is a compelling practical purpose for doing so, like limiting their right to vote or buy a home.

[Excidium Planetis]

No, CoCR requires that nations prohibit discrimination again any member nation's inhabitants. That's clearly in the language of clause 1c.

CD, Auralia, and I all disagree. That is, at vest, the primary interpretation of clause 1c. An alternate interpretation, that clause 1c only prohibits discrimination against your nation's inhabitants, exists.

Right, in which case our ruling still has no effect. If someone is vacationing or passing through a country, they are "a person [...] that [...] occupies a space" -- i.e., an inhabitant (OED) and subject to clause 1c in the absence of our ruling.

Oxford Dictionaries also lists the US legal definition of inhabitant, which is "A person who fulfils the residential or legal requirements for being a member of a state or parish." Tourists and foreign exchange students do not meet the legal requirements for being members of the state, therefore they are not inhabitants. Once again, an alternative interpretation exists. In fact, the US legal definition is the far more reasonable one, as your definition puts literally any sapient that walks into a nation as being an "inhabitant of member nations", even if they came from a non-member nation and are present illegally.

Excidium Planetis will continue to interpret inhabitants as those who meet the legal requirements as residents of Excidium Planetis.

Our ruling only states that people that are physically outside of a country cannot be discriminated again, and the only policy realm in which this is really possible is immigration.

Then why can nations discriminate against people outside their nation for voting? You are saying that democratic nations which do not open up voting to all sapients that happen to be currently present in all member nations are assumed to be illegally discriminating in violation if CoCR until they can prove that they have compelling practical purposes for doing so. That's messed up.

Prior to our ruling, passersby could not be discriminated against under clause 1c. Our ruling doesn't have any bearing on the situation you've detailed.

I don't think there are any reasonable people who, prior to this ruling, believed that all nations with universal healthcare had to provide it to tourists visiting their country or be in non-compliance with CoCR. But that's what you are saying here, that even in the absence of the ruling, CoCR requires everyone present in a nation to receives the same exact treatment, free from discrimination. Including voting, healthcare, etc.

It depends on the context, obviously. If a tourist is dying on the streets and you're refusing them healthcare on the basis of their nationality, that's pretty obviously a violation of CoCR, just like denying them service at restaurants would be.

We have compelling practical purpose not to provide free healthcare to non-residents. Doing so would strain the healthcare system and result in lower quality care for people who actually live in our country.

The alternative is millions of dying Excidians spending their last days on "vacation" in Nation Y to obtain free chemotherapy and painkillers. Not giving us free stuff is discrimination!

Preventing foreign peripatetics from voting in your election obviously presents a compelling practical purpose that denying them basic services wouldn't.

You know, some people in the USA prior to 1964 said that there was compelling practical purpose for denying poor blacks the right to vote, too. You are saying that nations can deny the right to vote to people on the basis of a specifically listed reductive categorization, when they would otherwise receive that right, because of a compelling practical purpose that you have not even explained. Please, explain exactly what compelling practical purpose exists to deny people the right to vote because they happen to be a different nationality. I will proceed to, with the best of my ability, use that exact same justification to deny racial minorities, gays, and Communists the right to vote. Compelling practical purposes for these things exist.

[Sciongrad]

Oxford Dictionaries also lists the US legal definition of inhabitant, which is "A person who fulfils the residential or legal requirements for being a member of a state or parish." Tourists and foreign exchange students do not meet the legal requirements for being members of the state, therefore they are not inhabitants. Once again, an alternative interpretation exists. In fact, the US legal definition is the far more reasonable one, as your definition puts literally any sapient that walks into a nation as being an "inhabitant of member nations", even if they came from a non-member nation and are present illegally.

That definition would undermine the intent of the resolution. Member nations could just as easily declare certain populations partial legal residents or whatever, and ta-dah, blacks are now not inhabitants and can be discriminated against. The definition you provide might be one that reasonable nations would use, but certainly not one contemplated by a good faith reading of CoCR.

Then why can nations discriminate against people outside their nation for voting? You are saying that democratic nations which do not open up voting to all sapients that happen to be currently present in all member nations are assumed to be illegally discriminating in violation if CoCR until they can prove that they have compelling practical purposes for doing so. That's messed up.

Any type of discrimination against any inhabitant of a member nation is, on its face, illegal. Only a compelling practical reason can exempt certain types of discrimination. That's not messed up. And it's so obvious that allowing foreigners to vote in a domestic election would be considered a compelling practical purpose -- being forced to allow foreigners to vote would literally obliterate the very idea of sovereignty.

I don't think there are any reasonable people who, prior to this ruling, believed that all nations with universal healthcare had to provide it to tourists visiting their country or be in non-compliance with CoCR. But that's what you are saying here, that even in the absence of the ruling, CoCR requires everyone present in a nation to receives the same exact treatment, free from discrimination. Including voting, healthcare, etc.

You have a bad habit of taking an interpretation and then expecting your opponents to defend the most extreme, warped version of that interpretation. In fact, a system where all discrimination against inhabitants of all member nations is prima facie illegal and one where foreign non-inhabitants and foreign peripatetics are prohibited from voting, buying homes, receiving government entitlements are not mutually exclusive. It's absolutely reconcilable with CoCR to prohibit foreign passersby from voting.

You know, some people in the USA prior to 1964 said that there was compelling practical purpose for denying poor blacks the right to vote, too. You are saying that nations can deny the right to vote to people on the basis of a specifically listed reductive categorization, when they would otherwise receive that right, because of a compelling practical purpose that you have not even explained. Please, explain exactly what compelling practical purpose exists to deny people the right to vote because they happen to be a different nationality. I will proceed to, with the best of my ability, use that exact same justification to deny racial minorities, gays, and Communists the right to vote. Compelling practical purposes for these things exist.

That is the tiredest, most annoying argument in the book. "Reasonable means whatever I want it to mean, sufficient means literally anything, etc." No, you can't demonstrate a compelling practical reason to deny blacks civil rights and I'd strongly advise you not to make that argument on this forum.

[Excidium Planetis]

That definition would undermine the intent of the resolution.

As CD pointed out several times, we have the author's stated intent. And the author's stated intent is that CoCR is not supposed to force nations to treat all inhabitants of all nations equally, just the ones in your nation.

Member nations could just as easily declare certain populations partial legal residents or whatever, and ta-dah, blacks are now not inhabitants and can be discriminated against. The definition you provide might be one that reasonable nations would use, but certainly not one contemplated by a good faith reading of CoCR.

Clause 1a requires equal treatment by the law for all those currently present in a nation. Thus, the law must treat blacks and other races equally. That would include residency status. So we are back in equal footing again.

The tourists, however, would still be subject to equal treatment under the law... but because the law allows discrimination against non-inhabitants, and they fail to meet the equally applied requirements for that status, they can be excluded from healthcare.

Any type of discrimination against any inhabitant of a member nation is, on its face, illegal. Only a compelling practical reason can exempt certain types of discrimination. That's not messed up. And it's so obvious that allowing foreigners to vote in a domestic election would be considered a compelling practical purpose -- being forced to allow foreigners to vote would literally obliterate the very idea of sovereignty.

It's so obvious that [not? I think you messes uo in your original statement] allowing black people to vote would be considered a compelling practical purpose. Being forced to allow blacks to vote would literally obliterate the idea of sovereignty.

You have a bad habit of taking an interpretation and then expecting your opponents to defend the most extreme, warped version of that interpretation.

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid line of argument, and not a fallacy. It is similar to a strawman, but unlike the strawman where one claims the opponent supports a position that they don't and then attacks that position, the reductio ad absurdum looks at the argument an opponent is making, and then attacks the extreme result of that argument. In this case, requiring nations to treat all inhabitants of all nations equally naturally results in the extreme of allowing foreigners to vote and receive healthcare.

In fact, a system where all discrimination against inhabitants of all member nations is prima facie illegal and one where foreign non-inhabitants and foreign peripatetics are prohibited from voting, buying homes, receiving government entitlements are not mutually exclusive. It's absolutely reconcilable with CoCR to prohibit foreign passersby from voting.

Only with compelling practical purpose. Once agaon, the problem is that nations which don't allow foreigners to vote are guilty of illegal discrimination until proven innocent by compelling purposes.

That is the tiredest, most annoying argument in the book. "Reasonable means whatever I want it to mean, sufficient means literally anything, etc." No, you can't demonstrate a compelling practical reason to deny blacks civil rights and I'd strongly advise you not to make that argument on this forum.

You can't demonstrate a compelling practical purpose why foreigners can't vote. You have proven it in your response, which is clearly lacking in any explanation of what compelling practical purpose for denying foreigners the right to vote exists. I specifically challenged you to provide one, and you instead resorted to a strawman argument (I never claimed "Reasonable means whatever I want it to mean, sufficient means literally anything, etc.", and certainly was not making that argument). Please, explain why foreigners should not be able to vote. You earlier mentioned national sovereignty. The same justification can be used to deny blacks the right to vote, after all, it is the sovereign right of democratic nations to decide who can vote and who can't, and forcing them to accept minority votes necessarily removes some of that sovereignty.

[Christian Democrats]

So Maxtopia can treat Maxtopians and Bigtopians differently based on the fact that Maxtopians are inhabitants of Maxtopia and that Bigtopians are inhabitants of Bigtopia, but Maxtopia cannot treat Bigtopians and Marche Noirians differently based on the fact that Maxtopians are inhabitants of Maxtopia and that Marche Noirians are inhabitants of Marche Noir?

Maxtopia can only treat Maxtopians and non-citizen Bigtopians that are physically present in Maxtopia if there is a compelling practical purpose for doing so, like limiting their right to vote or buy a home.

That's not what I asked.

[Bears Armed]

Any type of discrimination against any inhabitant of a member nation is, on its face, illegal. Only a compelling practical reason can exempt certain types of discrimination. That's not messed up. And it's so obvious that allowing foreigners to vote in a domestic election would be considered a compelling practical purpose -- being forced to allow foreigners to vote would literally obliterate the very idea of sovereignty.

It's so obvious that [not? I think you messes uo in your original statement] allowing black people to vote would be considered a compelling practical purpose. Being forced to allow blacks to vote would literally obliterate the idea of sovereignty.

OOC: The author actually said during drafting, when I questioned the point, that CoCr was not supposed to have any effect on political rights.
Otherwise, it would logically apply not only to voting rights but also to the right to hold public office: No limiting that to the heads of certain families for example (Ideological Ban: Monarchy, Aristocracy), or to members of a single party (Ideological Ban: single-party government), or to members of a specific religion's hierarchy (Ideological Ban: Theocracy)... and the CoCR would therefore be so 'illegal' that it should never have been allowed to go to vote...

[Sciongrad]

Clause 1a requires equal treatment by the law for all those currently present in a nation. Thus, the law must treat blacks and other races equally. That would include residency status. So we are back in equal footing again.

OOC: No, it wouldn't! At least not under your argument it wouldn't. If an inhabitant is someone that is strictly fulfilling " the residential or legal requirements for being a member of a state," then any modification to who is considered an inhabitant would equally affect the provisions of clause 1a and clause 1c. Unless you consider inhabitant, which is used in clause 1a and clause 1c without the explicit qualification in clause 1b of physical presence, to mean individuals physically present within a nation, in which case, yes, they would be guaranteed equal protection but they would also be protected by clause 1c.

The tourists, however, would still be subject to equal treatment under the law... but because the law allows discrimination against non-inhabitants, and they fail to meet the equally applied requirements for that status, they can be excluded from healthcare.

OOC: Inhabitant cannot mean different things in two different clauses. Either it suggests physical presence or it doesn't. If it does, tourists are included. If it doesn't, and instead requires fulfilling legal requirements for residence, then member nations can redefine which groups are entitled to full legal residence and simply deny them the protections of clause 1a and 1c, which is a subversion of the intent of the resolution.

It's so obvious that [not? I think you messes uo in your original statement] allowing black people to vote would be considered a compelling practical purpose. Being forced to allow blacks to vote would literally obliterate the idea of sovereignty.

OOC: I am not being hyperbolic. Sovereignty, by its definition, requires that there are boundaries between one state and another. Allowing others to vote in one's nation would endanger national security and literally strip a nation of its sovereignty. That is a compelling practical purpose. That argument cannot be reasonably made against domestic marginalized groups. You can't make that argument without sounding either ridiculous or racist -- a reasonable interpretation of the resolution does not lend itself to marginalizing gays or blacks or any other marginalized group. Sorry if that's a shocker to you.

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid line of argument, and not a fallacy. It is similar to a strawman, but unlike the strawman where one claims the opponent supports a position that they don't and then attacks that position, the reductio ad absurdum looks at the argument an opponent is making, and then attacks the extreme result of that argument. In this case, requiring nations to treat all inhabitants of all nations equally naturally results in the extreme of allowing foreigners to vote and receive healthcare.

OOC: Reductio ad absurdum is only a compelling argument if the interpretation in question must necessarily lead to the most extreme case. It doesn't in this case. Nothing in our ruling requires nations to allow foreigners to vote. You are trying to argue that our ruling either allows nations to use the compelling practical purposes exemption to justify all discrimination which is, no offense, stupid, or that the ruling requires member nations to forfeit their sovereignty and become one super-state where everyone can vote, receive government benefits, and live. Our ruling not only doesn't require either of those two interpretations, but the text of the resolution itself actually prohibits either of those interpretations from being valid.

Only with compelling practical purpose. Once agaon, the problem is that nations which don't allow foreigners to vote are guilty of illegal discrimination until proven innocent by compelling purposes.

OOC: That's hyperbolic. All discrimination based on any enumerated reductive categorization is prima facie illegal, but that doesn't mean states need to go to some international court and prove their case. A good faith interpretation of the resolution obviously contemplates regular exceptions. This whole line of reasoning is really just semantic because it doesn't disrupt how nations can go about legislating on areas clearly covered by the exemption language.

You can't demonstrate a compelling practical purpose why foreigners can't vote. You have proven it in your response, which is clearly lacking in any explanation of what compelling practical purpose for denying foreigners the right to vote exists. I specifically challenged you to provide one, and you instead resorted to a strawman argument (I never claimed "Reasonable means whatever I want it to mean, sufficient means literally anything, etc.", and certainly was not making that argument). Please, explain why foreigners should not be able to vote. You earlier mentioned national sovereignty. The same justification can be used to deny blacks the right to vote, after all, it is the sovereign right of democratic nations to decide who can vote and who can't, and forcing them to accept minority votes necessarily removes some of that sovereignty.

OOC: I can and I have and no one is seriously convinced that foreigners are able to vote except a few of you guys.

Re: the reasonable means whatever argument. By arguing that you can argue for discrimination against any group based on some other type of reductive categorization simply because one genuinely does involve a compelling practical reason is a type of language-defying argument. You're not going to convince anyone that you can ban blacks from voting without violating CoCR.

There's really not much point in discussing this further. Any repeal that attempts to include some list of horribles obviously covered by CoCR's compelling practical purpose exemption is, in my opinion, illegal for violating the honest mistake rule.