[REVISED][DRAFT] Anti-Discriminatory Act

[Araraukar]

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?

OOC: In my opinion? No. But others may have less strict opinions.

[The New European Order]

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

OOC: In my opinion? No. But others may have less strict opinions.

Alright, that makes sense. This will be like a back-up proposal then.

[Grays Harbor]

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

OOC: In my opinion? No. But others may have less strict opinions.

Concur. This is covered by CoCR.

I would like to congratulate the author of this one, though, for being willing to listen to take advise and make changes. A trait far too rare in the GA these days.

[The New European Order]

OOC: In my opinion? No. But others may have less strict opinions.

Concur. This is covered by CoCR.

I would like to congratulate the author of this one, though, for being willing to listen to advise and make changes. A trait far too rare in the GA these days.

Thank you sir! That means a lot

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Thanks to Clause One, buses can no longer prioritise the disabled and the elderly in seating while children with developmental disabilities have to be treated the same as neurotypical children in education. We refuse to support this blatantly ableist proposal.

Harold: (rapidly shakes his head and rubs his eyes) Am I seeing double or does Clause Two do the exact same thing as Clause One?

Barbera: I am more concerned about Clause Three, personally. If a nation does not wish to require foreign nationals to take a test then that is their own prerogative. The World Assembly should not force member states to establish a mandatory test for foreign nationals.

Fairburn: And another thing. Apart from Clause Four forbidding sex segregation in the military, it also forbids member states from banning gays from the military. That is indeed very commendable, I'll admit, but it doesn't go far enough, in my view. Member states are still allowed to implement 'don't ask, don't tell' policies and if we are to assume that Clause Two is the binding active clause then I have to say that the military is not covered by Clause Two so 'don't ask, don't tell' policies would be a-OK. We implore, request, recommend, demand, require and beg that the author rectify this.

Barbera: It is worth noting nonetheless that this proposal is, as it stands, very well-written and with some improvement could be a worthy successor to the Charter of Civil Rights.

[The New European Order]

Fairburn: Thanks to Clause One, buses can no longer prioritise the disabled and the elderly in seating while children with developmental disabilities have to be treated the same as neurotypical children in education. We refuse to support this blatantly ableist proposal.

Harold: (rapidly shakes his head and rubs his eyes) Am I seeing double or does Clause Two do the exact same thing as Clause One?

Barbera: I am more concerned about Clause Three, personally. If a nation does not wish to require foreign nationals to take a test then that is their own prerogative. The World Assembly should not force member states to establish a mandatory test for foreign nationals.

Fairburn: And another thing. Apart from Clause Four forbidding sex segregation in the military, it also forbids member states from banning gays from the military. That is indeed very commendable, I'll admit, but it doesn't go far enough, in my view. Member states are still allowed to implement 'don't ask, don't tell' policies and if we are to assume that Clause Two is the binding active clause then I have to say that the military is not covered by Clause Two so 'don't ask, don't tell' policies would be a-OK. We implore, request, recommend, demand, require and beg that the author rectify this.

Barbera: It is worth noting nonetheless that this proposal is, as it stands, very well-written and with some improvement could be a worthy successor to the Charter of Civil Rights.

Wow, these are some interesting points. I will try to specify these things! Thanks for the feedback, although however, I must make an argument for clause two, which states at the beginning "Unfair and Unreasonable" discrimination is to be outlawed. This clause specifically outlaws the unnecessary discrimination in society, leaving the legislature open for the exceptions states in Article II.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Thanks to Clause One, buses can no longer prioritise the disabled and the elderly in seating while children with developmental disabilities have to be treated the same as neurotypical children in education. We refuse to support this blatantly ableist proposal.

Harold: (rapidly shakes his head and rubs his eyes) Am I seeing double or does Clause Two do the exact same thing as Clause One?

Barbera: I am more concerned about Clause Three, personally. If a nation does not wish to require foreign nationals to take a test then that is their own prerogative. The World Assembly should not force member states to establish a mandatory test for foreign nationals.

Fairburn: And another thing. Apart from Clause Four forbidding sex segregation in the military, it also forbids member states from banning gays from the military. That is indeed very commendable, I'll admit, but it doesn't go far enough, in my view. Member states are still allowed to implement 'don't ask, don't tell' policies and if we are to assume that Clause Two is the binding active clause then I have to say that the military is not covered by Clause Two so 'don't ask, don't tell' policies would be a-OK. We implore, request, recommend, demand, require and beg that the author rectify this.

Barbera: It is worth noting nonetheless that this proposal is, as it stands, very well-written and with some improvement could be a worthy successor to the Charter of Civil Rights.

Wow, these are some interesting points. I will try to specify these things! Thanks for the feedback, although however, I must make an argument for clause two, which states at the beginning "Unfair and Unreasonable" discrimination is to be outlawed. This clause specifically outlaws the unnecessary discrimination in society, leaving the legislature open for the exceptions states in Article II.

Fairburn: Except Clause One precludes those exceptions. As long as Clause One exists in its current form, all discrimination is forbidden.

Also, it's spelt 'buses', not 'busses'. You'd expect Ambassadors to have a basic sense of literacy, would you not?

Harold: I'd not. After all, the WA will allow anyone in these days.

Fairburn: Fair point. I mean, they did allow you in, so it could be worse.

[The New European Order]

Wow, these are some interesting points. I will try to specify these things! Thanks for the feedback, although however, I must make an argument for clause two, which states at the beginning "Unfair and Unreasonable" discrimination is to be outlawed. This clause specifically outlaws the unnecessary discrimination in society, leaving the legislature open for the exceptions states in Article II.

Fairburn: Except Clause One precludes those exceptions. As long as Clause One exists in its current form, all discrimination is forbidden.

Also, it's spelt 'buses', not 'busses'. You'd expect Ambassadors to have a basic sense of literacy, would you not?

Harold: I'd not. After all, the WA will allow anyone in these days.

Fairburn: Fair point. I mean, they did allow you in, so it could be worse.

Interesting. I'll see if I can reformat clause 1) a little bit, that should fix up any issues

[Bears Armed]

Also, it's spelt 'buses', not 'busses'.

OOC: "busses" = "kisses", although admittedly that's a slightly archaic term.

[Aclion]

OOC: is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” not a RL reference?

[States of Glory WA Office]

Also, it's spelt 'buses', not 'busses'.

OOC: "busses" = "kisses", although admittedly that's a slightly archaic term.

Basically, we have to accommodate for disabled people who try to kiss each other. Would this interpretation violate the absurdity doctrine?

OOC: is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” not a RL reference?

That could easily be fixed thus:

The discharging of soldiers in the military based on their disclosed sexual orientation shall be prohibited by all member states.

[The New European Order]

Alright, this is good input. I'll make changes immediately. I have news that the repeal for the CoCR is coming soon, so I need to have this ready soon. Any other issues?

[Araraukar]

I have news that the repeal for the CoCR is coming soon

OOC: It's been attempted many times.

[The New European Order]

I have news that the repeal for the CoCR is coming soon

OOC: It's been attempted many times.

I'd imagine so. Auralia has some interesting points though. I've talked to him and he plans to issue the proposal soon. I'd imagine when the proposal madness in the GA dies down... They've lost it over there.

[Araraukar]

They've lost it over there.

OOC: "Over there"? This is GA. If you mean the submissions list, that's fairly normal. You'll notice that all but one of them have been declared illegal by GenSec, and the last one hasn't been declared anything yet, which probably means the GenSec members haven't yet had a look at it.

[The New European Order]

They've lost it over there.

OOC: "Over there"? This is GA. If you mean the submissions list, that's fairly normal. You'll notice that all but one of them have been declared illegal by GenSec, and the last one hasn't been declared anything yet, which probably means the GenSec members haven't yet had a look at it.

OOC: Yeah, thats what I meant. I never noticed the proposal list being like that before?

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: "Over there"? This is GA. If you mean the submissions list, that's fairly normal. You'll notice that all but one of them have been declared illegal by GenSec, and the last one hasn't been declared anything yet, which probably means the GenSec members haven't yet had a look at it.

OOC: Yeah, thats what I meant. I never noticed the proposal list being like that before?

OOC: Yeah, the proposal list is unusual right now. There are normally far more illegal proposals.

[The New European Order]

This proposal is to be submitted in the case that The Charter on Civil Rights is repealed.

---

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.

---

I have gotten very constructive criticism for a while, but the chatter has stopped due to this draft's fade from the top. This is a way for me to continue with my help.

OOC: I find it quite funny that the original draft of this was as below

BELIEVING that people love each other
ANGERED that people like discrimination
HEREBY legalizes gay marriage

This has come quite a long way, yeah?

[Araraukar]

OOC: At a quick glance, delete the horizontal lines from the draft itself, and stop referring to clause 1 and instead use the definition in clause 1, fairly sure clause 2 in Article 1 (why does the article structure need to be used anyway? just write down enough numbers and use lists) is missing a comma between "public" and "shall", clause 3 seems to force nations to let anyone to become a citizen (which I'm sure a lot of people will protest against, cue SP ), clause 4 seems to forbid multilanguage/species nations from creating military units where all the soldiers have the same language/are the same species (which, for the sake of the efficiency of the unit, would actually make more sense than having to have everything translated and don't even get me started on multispecies stuff), clause 4a is unnecessary, integrate it into the main clause (and the wording "units on the grounds" keeps making me read that as only referring to the army and not navy/air forces ), and clause 5 at least partially duplicates existing resolution(s)...

...and Article 2 makes me feel like I'm trying to learn German again. "Here are the grammar rules, and here are the fifty thousand exceptions to the rules..." I think you should work on combining these two sections by taking apart the first clause 2 into its parts.

And I only now realize that starting the list in the first clause 2 with "private employment" makes the rest read as though it also had "private" at the front. You don't really need to separate private employment from general employment if the same ban on discrimination is going to apply anyway.

Also, with all that's currently in it (which is wider-reaching than CoCR) it should probably be Strong, not Significant.

[The New European Order]

OOC: At a quick glance, delete the horizontal lines from the draft itself, and stop referring to clause 1 and instead use the definition in clause 1, fairly sure clause 2 in Article 1 (why does the article structure need to be used anyway? just write down enough numbers and use lists) is missing a comma between "public" and "shall", clause 3 seems to force nations to let anyone to become a citizen (which I'm sure a lot of people will protest against, cue SP ), clause 4 seems to forbid multilanguage/species nations from creating military units where all the soldiers have the same language/are the same species (which, for the sake of the efficiency of the unit, would actually make more sense than having to have everything translated and don't even get me started on multispecies stuff), clause 4a is unnecessary, integrate it into the main clause (and the wording "units on the grounds" keeps making me read that as only referring to the army and not navy/air forces ), and clause 5 at least partially duplicates existing resolution(s)...

...and Article 2 makes me feel like I'm trying to learn German again. "Here are the grammar rules, and here are the fifty thousand exceptions to the rules..." I think you should work on combining these two sections by taking apart the first clause 2 into its parts.

And I only now realize that starting the list in the first clause 2 with "private employment" makes the rest read as though it also had "private" at the front. You don't really need to separate private employment from general employment if the same ban on discrimination is going to apply anyway.

Also, with all that's currently in it (which is wider-reaching than CoCR) it should probably be Strong, not Significant.

OOC: I'll start working on this as soon as I have more time to process what you've mentioned. Some strong points in here. Most likely, I'll start changing stuff right after I get back from my musical set tear-down today.

[Frisbeeteria]

One thread per topic, please. Merged. Edit the current draft into the OP.