[REVISED][DRAFT] Anti-Discriminatory Act

[The New European Order]

Anti-Discrimination Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

---

AFFIRMING that the legal populace of a nation should be treated equally

APPALLED that some nations allow, and even support, discrimination.

ACCEPTING that members have the right to an opinion

HOPING to establish a healthy, inclusive system

REALIZING that all people wish to be equal
________________________________________


Article I.

Hereby enacts the following...


1. Defines discrimination as the unjust or prejudicial treatment of anyone on grounds including sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or identity, or any other reductive category.

2. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause 1) of this resolution, in private employment, military, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the public shall be prohibited by all member states. (See exceptions)

3. In the instance of immigration, discrimination by disallowing foreign nationals that fall into any of the groups covered in clause 1) to become citizens, apply, or test for citizenship, depending on national policy shall be prohibited by all member states.

4. Segregation in the military, or the separation of units on the grounds of any of the means stated in clause 1), as well as barring these groups from joining the military, shall be prohibited by all member states.

4a. The concept, and policy of discharging soldiers in the military based on their disclosed sexual orientation shall be prohibited by all member states.

5. Interracial relationships between two individuals, as well as relationships between two of the same sex, shall be legalized by all member states.

________________________________________


Article II- Exceptions

1. In accordance with clause 1) of Article I., the following exceptions must be made of the specific discrimination factor of “Language”

a. The discrimination between one that can speak the same language as the consensus of the workforce, and one that cannot, will remain legal, due to possible workforce complications.

b. In the occupation of education in a foreign language, it would be appropriate that a person who can speak the language being taught fluently, will be put higher than one who cannot speak said language, or can speak it minimally.

2. In accordance with clause 1) of Article I., the following exceptions must be made of the specific discrimination factor of “Physical and Mental Disabilities or condition”

a. If a person’s disability or condition impairs one’s ability to work in a specific job, then said person does not have to be hired for that specific occupation.

b. Certain accommodations must still be made for the handicapped in public places, such as buses, movie theaters, and parking spaces, in order to continue convenience, and safety with the disabled population, as well as special education programs in schools may still be constructed for the developmentally disabled.

3. In accordance with clause 1) of Article I., the following exceptions must be made of the specific discrimination factor of “Religion or Belief System”

a. In the career field of religious practices, such as ministries, and churches, followers of one religion should not be considered viable candidates to practice, preach, or teach another religion, due to a difference in beliefs.

---

If anyone can inform me of possible holes, or illegalities in this draft, I would be much obliged

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Did you have to post it four times?

[The New European Order]

Sorry, the site was doing weird things, and posted it more than i wanted to. How do I get rid of them?

[Tinfect]

Sorry, the site was doing weird things, and posted it more than i wanted to. How do I get rid of them?

As they're new threads without posts, you may just be able to delete them. Failing that, hit up the Moderation Subforum and ask them to delete the spare threads.

[Kitzerland]

Aw, half of the reason for the repeal is to clear up all the yummy resolution topics!

[The New European Order]

Aw, half of the reason for the repeal is to clear up all the yummy resolution topics!

Elaborate?

[Kitzerland]

Aw, half of the reason for the repeal is to clear up all the yummy resolution topics!

Elaborate?

Well, charter of civil rights is a pretty broad resolution. A lot of people would prefer if there was no immediate replacement so there's more subject matter for new resolutions. That, and, clause two is redundant, as forbidding same sex marriage is quite clearly a form of discrimination covered under the first clause. Although the preamble is nice.

[The New European Order]

Elaborate?

Well, charter of civil rights is a pretty broad resolution. A lot of people would prefer if there was no immediate replacement so there's more subject matter for new resolutions. That, and, clause two is redundant, as forbidding same sex marriage is quite clearly a form of discrimination covered under the first clause. Although the preamble is nice.

Are you refering to my proposal? Clause two Leaglizes gay marriage, it doesnt make it illegal...

[Kitzerland]

Well, charter of civil rights is a pretty broad resolution. A lot of people would prefer if there was no immediate replacement so there's more subject matter for new resolutions. That, and, clause two is redundant, as forbidding same sex marriage is quite clearly a form of discrimination covered under the first clause. Although the preamble is nice.

Are you refering to my proposal? Clause two Leaglizes gay marriage, it doesnt make it illegal...

I know, but gay marriage is already legalized by the first clause. You can cut out the second.

[The New European Order]

Ah okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the input

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'm not sure that referring to past resolutions, even ones that have been repealed, is legal in a proposal. I remember there was a fight about that, but can't remember what the end result was.

Also, I'm fairly sure you can't directly quote any previous resolution as their text is "copyrighted" to their writer.

[The New European Order]

I changed it, what about now?

[Imperium Anglorum]

Also, I'm fairly sure you can't directly quote any previous resolution as their text is "copyrighted" to their writer.

It's been done in repeals all the time.

[Bressen]

How would this act respond to the use of positive discrimination in the name of wider representation in the work force?

[The New European Order]

How would this act respond to the use of positive discrimination in the name of wider representation in the work force?

Hmmmm... Interesting issue. How do you suggest I carry that out?

[Bressen]

How would this act respond to the use of positive discrimination in the name of wider representation in the work force?

Hmmmm... Interesting issue. How do you suggest I carry that out?

Personally, I'm against positive discrimination so I'd find it difficult to present a workaround clause.

A few other points for contention;


"[...] sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or identity [...]"

These categories are fine on their own, but when they're applied to this portion of the next clause:

" [...] in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states."

I'd imagine this would raise some issues in the private employment sector. What if the candidate for employment only speaks, say, French, but your workforce speaks English? You wouldn't, under these rulings, be able to deny them employment based on this factor even though this factor is crucial for the workplace. The same principle goes for physical and mental disability; e.g a contracting company for buildings couldn't deny someone with a physical disability from employment, even though it's obvious that they shouldn't be working in that field. Finally, for religion - assuming that Church employees are classified as under private employment (or even public employment), wouldn't this clause make it difficult for a Catholic Church to deny a Protestant priest from preaching?

Granted, these are fringe examples that are unlikely to occur, but you should always make provisions to ensure that if they did occur, the clauses in question don't allow people to take advantage of them. You could, in theory, state that the phrase "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" goes against these criticisms, but then you get into the realm of 'what kinds of discrimination is fair/unfair and reasonable/unreasonable', which sounds like an inbound slippery slope to me.

[The New European Order]

Hmmmm... Interesting issue. How do you suggest I carry that out?

Personally, I'm against positive discrimination so I'd find it difficult to present a workaround clause.

A few other points for contention;


"[...] sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or identity [...]"

These categories are fine on their own, but when they're applied to this portion of the next clause:

" [...] in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states."

I'd imagine this would raise some issues in the private employment sector. What if the candidate for employment only speaks, say, French, but your workforce speaks English? You wouldn't, under these rulings, be able to deny them employment based on this factor even though this factor is crucial for the workplace. The same principle goes for physical and mental disability; e.g a contracting company for buildings couldn't deny someone with a physical disability from employment, even though it's obvious that they shouldn't be working in that field. Finally, for religion - assuming that Church employees are classified as under private employment (or even public employment), wouldn't this clause make it difficult for a Catholic Church to deny a Protestant priest from preaching?

Granted, these are fringe examples that are unlikely to occur, but you should always make provisions to ensure that if they did occur, the clauses in question don't allow people to take advantage of them. You could, in theory, state that the phrase "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" goes against these criticisms, but then you get into the realm of 'what kinds of discrimination is fair/unfair and reasonable/unreasonable', which sounds like an inbound slippery slope to me.

Amazing point. I'll have to fix that.

[The New European Order]

Fixed it again, hope that this patches up most of the holes. I was hoping some GenSec members would tell me if this is legal, so I can branch from there

[Merni]

OOC:

CONSIDERING that all men, and women should be treated equaly

1. The word "considering" doesn't seem to fit here.
2. The comma after "men" shouldn't be there.
3. What about other species (that may or may not have gender)? Struggling to think of a better word though.

ASSUMING That all people wish to be equal

Contentious issue? Also, "that" shouldn't be capitalised.

Article I.
The following policies will be put into effect-
Resolution would HEREBY

Replace with something like "Hereby enacts the following", since the majority of your clauses don't begin with operative verbs.

1. Prohibits the discrimination of any means based on grounds including sex, race, nationality, ethnicity, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or identity, or any other reductive categorization which could be used for discrimination.

Discrimination of any means? I think you mean "[...]discrimination between (word that includes all species) based on grounds including [...]"
Also, format needs to change since there isn't a "hereby" any more. Maybe:

1. Discrimination between (word) based on sex, race, nationality [...] or any other reductive categorisation which could be used for discrimination shall be prohibited by all member states.

Article II.
Understanding that a small percentage of the population will try to take advantage of this resolution, the following exceptions will be made. It must be recognized that most of these exceptions will contribute to healthy, harmless, and factual discrimination in the workforce, mainly established because of job requirements.

This whole thing is not required, just start it as "Article II — Exceptions".

1. In accordance with clause 1) of Article I., the following exceptions must be made by the specific discrimination factor of “Language”
a. The discrimination between one that can speak the same language as the consensus of the workforce, and one that cannot, will remain legal, due to possible workforce complications.
b. In the occupation of education in a foreign language, it would be appropriate that a person who can speak the language being taught fluently, will be put higher than one who cannot, or speak said language minimally.

2. In accordance with clause 1) of Article I., the following exceptions must be made by the specific discrimination factor of “Physical and Mental Disabilities or condition”
a. If a person’s disability or condition impairs one’s ability to work in a specific job, then said person does not have to be hired for that specific occupation.

3. In accordance with clause 1) of Article I., the following exceptions must be made by the specific discrimination factor of “Religion or Belief System”
a. In the career field of religious practices, such as ministries, and churches, followers of one religion, should not be considered viable candidates to practice, preach, or teach another religion, due to a difference in beliefs.

Bold: Change all the instances of "by" to "to".
Underlined: That's a clunky clause. Change to "one who cannot speak said language, or can speak it minimally."
Remove the comma after "followers of one religion".

Edits: I've gotten rusty with BBCode tags.
Also, you can use the hr tags to get a horizontal line, like so:

Code: Select all

[hr][/hr]


Which produces this:

---

That is, the thing above this line of text.

[The New European Order]

Alright, hopefully, I fixed all the problems

[Araraukar]

Also, I'm fairly sure you can't directly quote any previous resolution as their text is "copyrighted" to their writer.

It's been done in repeals all the time.

OOC: And if this was a repeal, I wouldn't have pointed it out, duh.

---

3. What about other species (that may or may not have gender)?

Still OOC: Or even humans... Intersex people exist and there are plenty of transgender people whose gender identity isn't binary.

---

AFFIRMING all human beings should be treated equal

And yet again OOC: I'd drop "human" from that, since there are a lot of WA nations whose population isn't fully or even in part human. You could just say "everyone should be treated equal" instead.

My concern is that the majority of it now doesn't read so much as a general antidiscriminatory act, but rather a "who you can discriminate against when hiring people". If the latter is the intention, then it should be rewritten for that, if the former, then the majority of the latter should be left out.

[Bressen]

AFFIRMING all human beings should be treated equal

OOC: To avoid missing out some non-human groups, this could be changed to ''AFFIRMING that the legal populace of a nation should be treated equally'', which is a nice one-fits-all category in my opinion. Semantically, this could be changed as you see fit - my main recommendation is the use of ''populace''.

---

3. The difference in domestic, and foreign nationals will no longer be a form of discrimination. Restricting the right to vote, the right to an education, or the right to be heard in the government shall be prohibited by all member states.

OOC: This seems like it could cause some domestic issues. For example, I imagine many (including myself) would argue that foreign nationals should be required to take citizenship tests and/or be naturalised in the nation for X amount of time before being allowed to vote. An exception could be made for this, or the clause could be reworded, to permit nations to make legislation implementing citizenship tests/naturalisation if they so desire, but with the affirmation that if said nation wishes to do this, it must be reasonable and readily available to all foreign nationals regardless of race/ethnicity/culture/religion etc, etc.

---

4. Segregation in the military, or the separation of units on the grounds of any of the means stated in clause 1), as well as issuing some units less supplies and arms, or supplies of a lower quality based on any of the means stated in clause 1), shall be prohibited by all member states.

OOC: Immediately raises red flags. A nation should not be forced to permit same-sex units, based solely on the principal that studies show that it reduces combat performance on accounts for the differences in male and female anatomy. This shouldn't be classed as sexism, as it is merely a factual matter of national defense - men are, overwhelming, better fitted to this role and should not be forcefully hindered by women who are not as well adapted to this role in a combat zone.

I don't see a need for this kind of clause, as the internal organisation of a military shouldn't be the concern of the WA. I would, however, support a clause that prohibited nations from barring women ENTERING the military in the first place on the basis of sex - a nice dose of equality of opportunity, some may say.

---

5. Interracial marriage, as well as same-sex marriage, shall be legalized by all member states

OOC: What are the governments of nations that choose to remove the state from the process of marriage to do about this clause?

However, if you're determined to keep this in, I'd suggest broadly defining what you mean by marriage in this clause, to prevent nations from using the workaround of ''but we don't have marriages, we have civil unions/state partnerships'' or whatever alternative name they so use.

[The New European Order]

Alright, I fixed things. When do you think would be the appropriate time to propse this?

[Araraukar]

When do you think would be the appropriate time to propse this?

OOC: Well if you submitted it now, it'd be illegal for duplication of CoCR.

[The New European Order]

When do you think would be the appropriate time to propse this?

OOC: Well if you submitted it now, it'd be illegal for duplication of CoCR.

Understandable... Is there any part of the draft NOT covered by the CoCR?