[ditched]

[Covenstone]

There's no such category as "civil rights." Besides, this seems like a Moral Decency proposal to me.

Ooops. I think I got it mixed up with The Charter of Civil Rights and had a copy/paste issue. I will correct in the next draft

1. Defines for the purposes of this resolution,
a) "The State" as the government of a nation, and any person carrying out their duties while acting as an employee or representative of said government,
b) "Private Sector" as any employee, owner or representative of a business or non-for-profit group, including charities, religions and religious groups and any other commercial or non-for-profit group that is not part of "The State" while interacting with a member of the public on behalf of said group,
c) "Citizen" as any citizen or long term resident of a member nation of The World Assembly,
d) "Visitor" as a tourist, foreign diplomat, refugee or other visitor within the borders of a member nation of The World Assembly.
e) "Hate Speech" as material (written or spoken) that call for or incite acts of violence, or the extermination, of Citizens or Visitors of a given sex, sexuality or gender. Exceptions may be made by the government of the member state for historical documents, providing they are not used to call for current acts.

OOC: When your definitions make up nearly 60% of your entire proposal, you may want to reconsider what you are focusing on, and whether you need all or even any of those definitions.

I might be able to lose "Citizens" and "Visitors" now that the discrimination clause has gone. But the rest stay.

2. Mandates that,
a. All Citizens and Visitors have the right to determin their own sexuality, sex and gender throughout their life, without the unwanted influence (either direct or indirect) of any State or Private Sector group,

OOC: You can't choose sexuality or sex. You don't choose to be heterosexual/homosexual. You don't choose to be born biologically male/female.

Someone can be married with children, and then realise they are gay. This is what I mean by "determine their own sexuality." In addition, a child growing up has a right to work out whether they are gay, straight, bi-sexual or whatever without the interference of the state or other groups. This is also what I mean by "determine their own sexuality." I mean that they get to work through it on their own, without having any preconceived notions forced down their throats by the state, by the church, by ANTI-PRIDE or by PRIDE (because the self-determination applies to children growing up straight as well as children growing up gay.)

Ditto with boys who feel they are trapped inside a girls body, and girls who are trapped inside a boys body. No unwanted interference, from anyone.

[Separatist Peoples]

"What is meant by direct or indirect influence? Is a church not allowed to preach it's word in it's own church if a closeted member of the LGBT community is there? Are people not allowed to protest the morality of transgender identification in a public area if a transgender person happens to walk by? Can conservative radio hosts not discuss the point on the airwaves for fear of somebody considering transition tuning in? The degree of ambiguity here is concerning."

[Excidium Planetis]

"Upon review, my delegation withdraws its support of this proposal." Blackbourne announces. "The definition of citizen is recursive, defining citizens as citizens and long term residents. This definition also defines those who are clearly non-citizens as citizens, which will create problems with our legal system, I am sure."

[Bakhton]

"Upon review, my delegation withdraws its support of this proposal." Blackbourne announces. "The definition of citizen is recursive, defining citizens as citizens and long term residents. This definition also defines those who are clearly non-citizens as citizens, which will create problems with our legal system, I am sure."

"Well not that it matters much, since the chance of a repeal of CoCR has drastically decreased."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: You can't choose sexuality or sex. You don't choose to be heterosexual/homosexual. You don't choose to be born biologically male/female.

Someone can be married with children, and then realise they are gay. This is what I mean by "determine their own sexuality."

That doesn't really happen.

In addition, a child growing up has a right to work out whether they are gay, straight, bi-sexual or whatever without the interference of the state or other groups. This is also what I mean by "determine their own sexuality."

That isn't very clear. Even so, you haven't addressed biological sex.

[Christian Democrats]

Someone can be married with children, and then realise they are gay. This is what I mean by "determine their own sexuality."

That doesn't really happen.

It happens from time to time, except I wouldn't use the word "realise" because it wrongly implies immutability.

http://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1153.pdf (see p. 6, table 2)

[Araraukar]

Someone can be married with children, and then realise they are gay. This is what I mean by "determine their own sexuality."

That doesn't really happen.

OOC: Does (I personally know someone who is a living example of this), but more in the sense CD mentioned, where it's merely "coming out of the closet", after acting heterosexual usually due to societal/religious/social coercion. Basically why I was objecting to that "encourage to stay heterosexual" thing in the dead proposal.

[Covenstone]

An updated version, to deal with some of the comments raised.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad believes clause 2b is a violation of fundamental human rights and will vote against this proposal."

[Covenstone]

"Sciongrad believes clause 2b is a violation of fundamental human rights and will vote against this proposal."

Just so I am clear, this is a World Assembly vote and not a GenSec vote, yes?

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad believes clause 2b is a violation of fundamental human rights and will vote against this proposal."

Just so I am clear, this is a World Assembly vote and not a GenSec vote, yes?

OOC: Absolutely. If it's GenSec related, it'll always be OOC and I'll always make it clear. I think the adjustment you made makes the clause legal, with my GenSec hat on.

[Covenstone]

Just so I am clear, this is a World Assembly vote and not a GenSec vote, yes?

OOC: Absolutely. If it's GenSec related, it'll always be OOC and I'll always make it clear. I think the adjustment you made makes the clause legal, with my GenSec hat on.

<ooc>Just checking In which case I will come back and argue about it in character in a moment </ooc>

[Attempted Socialism]

Draft 4 (1:07pm@18th of July)

c) "Hate Speech" as material (written or spoken) that call for or incite acts of violence, or the extermination, of people of a given sex, sexuality or gender. Exceptions may be made by the government of the member state for historical documents, providing they are not used to call for current acts.

b. No State or Private Sector group may publish or present "Hate Speech", except where it can be shown to be protected by existing international law.

"May we suggest moving the exception down to the mandate? Right now, it reads like hate speech can be excepted from being hate speech, while if it is moved, it is an exception to the mandate."
"We would also hope that non-government organisations be allowed to publish historical documents, while media and researchers should be allowed to reproduce in part or whole e.g. statements for which someone was convicted, or documentation for research on hate groups. While this expands the exceptions, and we understand if that is undesired, we find that a narrow exception will not be enough to keep open the public debate, enable research and preserve historical documents for posterity. We are also concerned that governments that rule very little would be unable to keep a repository of historical documents, in which case it would fall to private organisations."

[Covenstone]

Draft 4 (1:07pm@18th of July)

c) "Hate Speech" as material (written or spoken) that call for or incite acts of violence, or the extermination, of people of a given sex, sexuality or gender. Exceptions may be made by the government of the member state for historical documents, providing they are not used to call for current acts.

b. No State or Private Sector group may publish or present "Hate Speech", except where it can be shown to be protected by existing international law.

"May we suggest moving the exception down to the mandate? Right now, it reads like hate speech can be excepted from being hate speech, while if it is moved, it is an exception to the mandate."
"We would also hope that non-government organisations be allowed to publish historical documents, while media and researchers should be allowed to reproduce in part or whole e.g. statements for which someone was convicted, or documentation for research on hate groups. While this expands the exceptions, and we understand if that is undesired, we find that a narrow exception will not be enough to keep open the public debate, enable research and preserve historical documents for posterity. We are also concerned that governments that rule very little would be unable to keep a repository of historical documents, in which case it would fall to private organisations."

While I admit it took me four attempts to understand what you are trying to get across, I finally figured it out.

I supposed it would depend on your point of view of "historical", and I do take your point that if someone is convicted of walking down main street yelling "ALL GAYS MUST DIE" then, arguably, no newspapers would be able to report that fact because it could be construed as publishing hate speech.

Except the papers are not the ones calling for the violence or extermination, they are merely reporting what has been said. But I can understand that the law, as written, does not make a distinction (and it is a fine line.)

"..... may produce material (written or spoken) where the author/speaker calls for act(s) of violence or extermination against people......"

This would ensure that a) the substantive protection remains the same (in that you cannot call for someone to be hurt or killed just for being gay/female/etc), b) you cannot write an article or give a speech saying such things but c) you can report when other people have said such things (because the person doing the reporting is not the author.

The exemption for historical documents remains the same, as long as they are not being use for calls for current acts ("Zarathustra said women are evil so I say to you we must KILL ALL WOMEN!" as opposed to ("In this passage it is clear that Zarathustra said all women are evil and thought they should be cleansed from the earth")

And as for moving the exemption, I will give it some thought after I have eaten some food and had some sleep, because given it took four attempts to understand what you were saying, I think I have reached the limit of my mental agility with this piece of glory and wonder

"Sciongrad believes clause 2b is a violation of fundamental human rights and will vote against this proposal."

While I fully respect your position, I don't actually respect it at all. Because I think that while marching down the street with signs saying "GOD HATES FAGS" is offensive, it is a valid part of free speech. But sending a letter to someone saying "God hates you and we are going to come and kill you because we are the arm of the Lord" is not an acceptable use of free speech. And sending people with signs saying "WE ARE GOING TO KILL ALL HOMOS" to a gay person's funeral is so far beyond an acceptable use of free speech that there are no words to describe how far beyond it is.

This is not targeting people's right to express their dislike of gay men and women, and of men, women or anyone else. It is a very specific clause that says you are not allowed to advocate violence against people because of their gender, sexuality or sex, and you are certainly not allowed to advocate the extermination of a group or entire sex, sexuality or gender. And even then, if the group who is engaging in such...... interesting activity can show that this speech is protected under GAR #30 (or whatever other provision of international law protects such..... novel expression) then they are free to continue their sick and vile abuse.

I am all for freedom of expression and human rights, but I am not for the advocating of violence, murder, mass murder and genocide masquerading as free speech.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Because I think that while marching down the street with signs saying "GOD HATES FAGS" is offensive, it is a valid part of free speech.

Fairburn: I don't see how that phrase is offensive unless you're part of the pro-tobacco lobby.

Neville: I don't think that's what they meant.

Fairburn: What are you talking about? Aren't fags cigarettes?

Neville: Well, yes, but...you know what? We'll have this discussion about outdated slang later.

Fairburn: I'm sure that it'll be a gay and jolly discussion.

[Zepel]

All this fuss is pure nonsense, this bill is great, my only corrections would be to define more words so that there are no legality issues. Aside from that, great job.

[Covenstone]

All this fuss is pure nonsense, this bill is great, my only corrections would be to define more words so that there are no legality issues. Aside from that, great job.

Would you care to explain which words you find unclear and in further need of definition?

[Covenstone]

Apparently not.

So, if no one else can find any reasons to take issue with this, I will move on to my next major problem. Which is that I am the only WA member in my region. No doubt I will figure out how to solve that shortly

[Imperium Anglorum]

So, if no one else can find any reasons to take issue with this, I will move on to my next major problem. Which is that I am the only WA member in my region. No doubt I will figure out how to solve that shortly

Getting two endorsements is not hard. Move into a feeder, post in the RMB, and you will have many endorsements in a couple of minutes. You could do a similar thing in Europe's RMB too (but that's because we play the endorsement game in expert mode).

[Covenstone]

So, if no one else can find any reasons to take issue with this, I will move on to my next major problem. Which is that I am the only WA member in my region. No doubt I will figure out how to solve that shortly

Getting two endorsements is not hard. Move into a feeder, post in the RMB, and you will have many endorsements in a couple of minutes. You could do a similar thing in Europe's RMB too (but that's because we play the endorsement game in expert mode).

I might have to persuade a friend of mine, because I don't want to move out of my region (raiders, founders and bears, oh my!). But I will give it a few days, just in case someone comes up with legality issues and the like

[Imperium Anglorum]

I might have to persuade a friend of mine, because I don't want to move out of my region (raiders, founders and bears, oh my!). But I will give it a few days, just in case someone comes up with legality issues and the like

Password it.

[Bears Armed]

I might have to persuade a friend of mine, because I don't want to move out of my region (raiders, founders and bears[, oh my!).

[Covenstone]

I might have to persuade a friend of mine, because I don't want to move out of my region (raiders, founders and bears[, oh my!).

My apologies. I couldn't think of a third thing for the list, so I regressed to childhood and the time that I, the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and this girl in a gingham dress were walking along a road made out of yellow bricks.....

[Araraukar]

OOC: By the way, since the current draft is the 4th one already, wouldn't it be more appropriate if the title was no longer "rough draft"?

[Bears Armed]

My apologies. I couldn't think of a third thing for the list, so I regressed to childhood and the time that I, the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and this girl in a gingham dress were walking along a road made out of yellow bricks.....

Apologies accepted.
(OOC: among my nations...)