[ditched]

[Bananaistan]

All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

OOC: Though there is an interesting discussion to be had on just how this interacts with clause 1c of COCR. Sex, religion and sexual orientation are three of the several grounds on which people can't be discriminated against, so, for example, is the Catholic Church in NS land forced to hire gay women buddhists as priests? Or perhaps it's up to the member states to adjudicate "compelling practical purposes" in which case COCR provides governments with the means to shut down organised religion if they so wish. What's to stop a member state from crippling, say, the Catholic Church through fines etc for breaches of equality in employment legislation if they decide that not being a man and not being a catholic is an insufficient "purpose" for discrimination in its hiring policies?

[Araraukar]

OOC: What's to stop a member state from crippling, say, the Catholic Church through fines etc for breaches of equality in employment legislation if they decide that not being a man and not being a catholic is an insufficient "purpose" for discrimination in its hiring policies?

OOC: And that's where it becomes obvious that you don't need to do creative compliance when the resolution itself gives you the right "weapons"...

[Christian Democrats]

All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

OOC: Though there is an interesting discussion to be had on just how this interacts with clause 1c of COCR. Sex, religion and sexual orientation are three of the several grounds on which people can't be discriminated against, so, for example, is the Catholic Church in NS land forced to hire gay women buddhists as priests? Or perhaps it's up to the member states to adjudicate "compelling practical purposes" in which case COCR provides governments with the means to shut down organised religion if they so wish.

COCR requires governmental discrimination to be "compelling." It requires private discrimination to be "reasonable" (a much lower standard). Since COCR's example of "compelling" governmental discrimination actually involves sex discrimination in employment, it'd surely be "reasonable" for private actors to discriminate based on sex in certain cases (e.g., hiring pastors).

What's to stop a member state from crippling, say, the Catholic Church through fines etc for breaches of equality in employment legislation if they decide that not being a man and not being a catholic is an insufficient "purpose" for discrimination in its hiring policies?

That's a much better and more difficult question!

[Covenstone]

It would appear the primary opposition to this (outside of women priests) seems to be objections to repealing the Charter of Civil Rights. Which would suggest I haven't made my case for the said repeal, but that is a whole different matter.

So, on the assumption that I continue to fail to make my case, it would appear this is never going to pass because it would be a gross duplication.

And while I still think there are serious flaws in CofCR, the primary proposal that triggered the repeal attempt was the goddess awful attempt to force every member of The World Assembly to become straight. Which was not ruled illegal, despite several apparently compelling arguments (none of which I wish to rehash here because it has been done to death, and lets face is there is a whole other thread in which you can go and argue about it should your heart desire.)

So, to avoid such a wonderful proposal being brought forward again, I have considered the following as a compromise, and was just wondering about the legality of such a compromise (not whether it would be supported or popular. That would come when I redraft it. I am just looking for opinions on whether it would duplicate an unrepealed CofCR. And I promise, I won't even hold people to the opinions they give, should they decide to change their minds in the future.)



If I remove Clause 2a (the discrimination rules), would that remove any duplication problems? Would Clauses 2b and 2c still stand on their own? It would prevent the state and other organisations from trying to "guide" or "help" (or "force") sexualities/genders on people (while allowing the people to seek help or guidance if they require it, and still allowing parents to inflict mental and emotional abuse on their children to their hearts' content), and provides a limited definition of hate speech to prevent incitement to violence and extermination (which I do not believe is unreasonable.)

And with CofCR in place, most of the discrimination laws would remain in place (as useless and ineffective as they apparently are), and this would (hopefully) prevent abominations like the recent proposal to "help" people stay straight.

[Christian Democrats]

If I remove Clause 2a (the discrimination rules), would that remove any duplication problems? Would Clauses 2b and 2c still stand on their own?

I don't see any duplication problems, but one or both subsections could raise contradiction concerns.

[Excidium Planetis]

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 for historical documents, providing they are not used to call for current acts.

"And not on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, or race... excellent." Blackbourne remarks. "This is precisely the kind of replacement I was instructed by my superiors to support. All we shall need after this is a repeal of Rights of Sapient Species."

[Tinfect Diplomatic Enclave]

All individuals shall have the right to peacefully assemble, associate, and protest to promote, pursue, and express any goal, cause, or view.

OOC: Though there is an interesting discussion to be had on just how this interacts with clause 1c of COCR. Sex, religion and sexual orientation are three of the several grounds on which people can't be discriminated against, so, for example, is the Catholic Church in NS land forced to hire gay women buddhists as priests? Or perhaps it's up to the member states to adjudicate "compelling practical purposes" in which case COCR provides governments with the means to shut down organised religion if they so wish. What's to stop a member state from crippling, say, the Catholic Church through fines etc for breaches of equality in employment legislation if they decide that not being a man and not being a catholic is an insufficient "purpose" for discrimination in its hiring policies?

OOC:
Well, if we assume Reasonable Nation Theory, rather than a room full of lunatics throwing darts at legislative options, one would come to the conclusion that it is practical for a religious organization to restrict its hiring to people who actually believe in the religion. There is absolutely no reason, on the other hand, to restrict women.

That's a much better and more difficult question!

Only if you abandon anything resembling reasonable thought.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC:
Well, if we assume Reasonable Nation Theory, rather than a room full of lunatics throwing darts at legislative options, one would come to the conclusion that it is practical for a religious organization to restrict its hiring to people who actually believe in the religion. There is absolutely no reason, on the other hand, to restrict women.

OOC:
Unless one of the beliefs of that religion is a restriction on women, in which case one can argue that hiring women would be hiring people who didn't actually believe in that religion.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Well, if we assume Reasonable Nation Theory, rather than a room full of lunatics throwing darts at legislative options, one would come to the conclusion that it is practical for a religious organization to restrict its hiring to people who actually believe in the religion. There is absolutely no reason, on the other hand, to restrict women.

OOC: Unless one of the beliefs of that religion is a restriction on women, in which case one can argue that hiring women would be hiring people who didn't actually believe in that religion.

OOC: Not Tinfect's argument, though. He's basically saying that christians don't have to ordain buddhists, but that among christians (or their own particular brand of them) they shouldn't discriminate, as further categorization is redundant. Presumably, if no woman believer ever wanted to be a priest on accord of believing what the church elders say she ought to believe or be excommunicated (coercion, anyone?), then the church would be fine with having only male priests. But if a woman wanted to be a priest (like in the early days of Christianity, they could; and there even were a couple of female Popes, though those were girls who for inheritance reasons were passed off as boys), and was told no, she could easily refer to CoCR to point out that the church was discriminating against her, and presumably the church would either need to pay a heavy fine or ordain her.

I am reminded of a further simile between women and black people, in that during the anti-slavery struggle blacks' rights struggle, before American civil war, some black people got together to make their own Christian church (which I think still exists), because they wouldn't be let to preach in the white people's churches, or partake most of the church functions. These days you'd likely be kicked out of any church if you tried to discriminate your listeners or boycotted preachers (likely with threats of violence to anyone who ignored your boycot) who were some other colour but Eurasian white...

[Covenstone]

If I remove Clause 2a (the discrimination rules), would that remove any duplication problems? Would Clauses 2b and 2c still stand on their own?

I don't see any duplication problems, but one or both subsections could raise contradiction concerns.

I laugh in the face of contradiction concerns! Mwahahahahaha!

But anyway, I will give it some thought and come back to a possible redraft after the weekend.

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 for historical documents, providing they are not used to call for current acts.

"And not on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, or race... excellent." Blackbourne remarks. "This is precisely the kind of replacement I was instructed by my superiors to support. All we shall need after this is a repeal of Rights of Sapient Species."

I thought if I suddenly threw in race and so forth in a proposal related to sex and sexuality, people would look at me funny. Well, more funny than they already do.

[Araraukar]

I thought if I suddenly threw in race and so forth in a proposal related to sex and sexuality, people would look at me funny. Well, more funny than they already do.

*gives you a funny look*

[States of Glory WA Office]

"All we shall need after this is a repeal of Rights of Sapient Species."

Barbera: Ambassador Blackbourne, if I may ask, why does your Delegation wish to repeal a resolution that it itself has authored?

Harold: To cause headaches, of course! We can't allow sanity into this place! What doesn't kill you only makes you madder!

[Araraukar]

"All we shall need after this is a repeal of Rights of Sapient Species."

Barbera: Ambassador Blackbourne, if I may ask, why does your Delegation wish to repeal a resolution that it itself has authored?

Janis: *starts shooting dried peas at Barbera*

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Ambassador Blackbourne, if I may ask, why does your Delegation wish to repeal a resolution that it itself has authored?

Janis: *starts shooting dried peas at Barbera*

Barbera: Ambassador Leveret, I must request that you refrain from attacking members of other Delegations. It is most inappropriate.

Harold: Do you request, though, or do you require? Or perhaps you demand, or recommend, or politely beg...

[Araraukar]

Barbera: Ambassador Leveret, I must request that you refrain from attacking members of other Delegations. It is most inappropriate.

*points to Harold* Remove that permanently from your ambassadorial team and then you can talk about inappropriate behaviour...

[States of Glory WA Office]

Barbera: Ambassador Leveret, I must request that you refrain from attacking members of other Delegations. It is most inappropriate.

*points to Harold* Remove that permanently from your ambassadorial team and then you can talk about inappropriate behaviour...

Fairburn: (with an evil grin) Oh, I'll certainly remove him permanently, all right...

Neville: Um...I'd advise you not to encourage Fairburn.

Harold proceeds to blow a raspberry at Janis before lobbing a cream pie in her direction.

[Araraukar]

Fairburn: (with an evil grin) Oh, I'll certainly remove him permanently, all right...

Neville: Um...I'd advise you not to encourage Fairburn.

*dodges the creampie, ignoring Ninja/the Chief Inshpekshuuner¹ slipping off her lap to pad over to lick the cream off of the fallen pie*

In this case I actually would be encouraging him. Perhaps the only time ever...

¹OOC: Janis named the cat "Ninja", but the name the cat chose for himself is "the Chief Inshpekshuuner", of the WA Kitty Kops. Janis doesn't know (nor will she believe any evidence to the contrary) that the cat is actually sapient.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Not Tinfect's argument, though. He's basically saying that christians don't have to ordain buddhists, but that among christians (or their own particular brand of them) they shouldn't discriminate, as further categorization is redundant.

OOC: My question is why a church shouldn't have to ordain Buddhists as well given that reasoning. After all, if lack of belief is enough to be a compelling practical purpose, why is it that those who refuse to accept church doctrines must be hired?

You cannot simultaneously say "Buddhists can be excluded because they do not practice your specific woman-excluding religion" but say "Women must not be excluded from your specific woman-hating religion because that is discrimination".

To explain better, imagine a religion with only one tenet: Women shall not be made priests. If a woman wanted to become a priest, would it be lawful to refuse her on the grounds that she did not hold to any church beliefs? Or unlawful because that was discrimination on the basis of sex?

Barbera: Ambassador Blackbourne, if I may ask, why does your Delegation wish to repeal a resolution that it itself has authored?

Harold: To cause headaches, of course! We can't allow sanity into this place! What doesn't kill you only makes you madder!

"If by 'your delegation' you mean myself and my staff, I am afraid that my delegation did not author Resolution 355. That was Madam Schultz' delegation." Blackbourne explains. "And by that I mean it was Madam Schultz, working alone and in contravention of government recommendation. Our government has long sought to reverse the damage she caused."

[Araraukar]

OOC: My question is why a church shouldn't have to ordain Buddhists as well given that reasoning. After all, if lack of belief is enough to be a compelling practical purpose, why is it that those who refuse to accept church doctrines must be hired?

OOC: Ask Tinfect. I was merely defending his position the way I understood it.

EDIT: And, presumably, with Christianity, you could require people to having been baptized and confirmed and gone through the other rituals required. As long as everyone's allowed to do those, it's not discrimination.

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: My question is why a church shouldn't have to ordain Buddhists as well given that reasoning. After all, if lack of belief is enough to be a compelling practical purpose, why is it that those who refuse to accept church doctrines must be hired?

You cannot simultaneously say "Buddhists can be excluded because they do not practice your specific woman-excluding religion" but say "Women must not be excluded from your specific woman-hating religion because that is discrimination".

To explain better, imagine a religion with only one tenet: Women shall not be made priests. If a woman wanted to become a priest, would it be lawful to refuse her on the grounds that she did not hold to any church beliefs? Or unlawful because that was discrimination on the basis of sex?

OOC: I would tentatively agree. 'Compelling practical' would to me indicate e.g. an ability to correctly perform job duties, such as preaching, planning performances or rites, and administrative duties. These abilities would likely be indicated by a degree (Such as a degree in theology), certificate or test, essentially the question "can you adequately preach the beliefs of our religion". However, the question of belief ("Do you believe in our religion") would be discriminatory.
As a practical, RL, example, the danish priest Thorkild Grosbøll said in an interview that he didn't believe in the protestant God. I seem to recall seeing him self-describe as an atheist, but may be wrong (It's been over a decade). Either way, in terms of his personal beliefs he didn't fit. However, he performed his job duties as required, and the people in his church were happy with him. The Church of Denmark suspended him, but had to reinstate after a while. In the words of David Mitchell: "You can't put in the contract 'also you have to seem like you give a shit', that's expecting too much."
Now, a religious organisation may think that e.g. a saved soul or whatever is a practical requirement, but any test for that would at bare minimum be discriminatory against other religions unless your test boils down to "what religion do you identify with?"
Attempted Socialism, as a decidedly secular country, would be unable to even recognise that any such test (Again, beyond asking) is possible, since it would require recognising that any of these religions are valid. Now, because AS is also an anti-theist country, it takes great pride in ensuring that religious arguments never creep into discourse, so outlawing every kind of religious test is a favourite pastime.

Edit: Fixed tags.

[Covenstone]

<ooc>I realise that cutting out Draft 2 without posting Draft 3 is probably a bad thing, but about five minutes ago real life intervened, so I will be back later to update Draft 3. I am truly sorry, but sometimes shit happens.

(It's nothing serious, but something I have to deal with now!) </ooc>

[Covenstone]

Draft 3

PRotection for Independent self Determination and Equality ACT

Category : Civil Rights
Strength : Significant

Understanding that civil rights are an important part of The World Assembly's mission,

However noting that in protecting rights in the area of sexuality, it is somewhat lacking,

The World Assembly hereby :-

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.

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,
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.

3. Allows that,
a. Nothing in this act prevents nations from enacting laws to further ensure equal rights for people of all sexes, genders and sexualities,

As has been mentioned elsewhere, The Charter of Civil Rights remains in place for the moment, so the original Article 2a has been removed from this proposal (because it would be somewhat problematic to leave it there.)

(The new) Clause 2a prevents the state or private organisations from forcing their opinions on people in regard to sex, sexuality or gender when not requested, however if a person goes to the state (or a private) organisation for help, that organisation is free to provide assistance and help.

Clause 2b prevents the defined version of Hate Speech from being published and circulated, and since the defined version excludes historical documents, religious texts may be exempted by the government of a member state should it so desire, so that these texts can continue to be used in day to day life, providing these texts are not then used by hate groups to call for current acts or extermination. It also prevents the banning of these materials should they already be banned by any existing international law (such as, for example, previous World Assembly Resolutions).

Clause 3a simply permits member states to provide tighter laws should it so desire.

We look forward to what will no doubt be spirited debate on the new draft.

Please note :- the previous drafts have been rescinded, so any discussion about duplicating The Charter of Civil Rights is hopefully done with. If you feel yourself wanting to point out that my drafts duplicate CofCR, please, please, please re-read the current draft (Draft 3) before posting

[Christian Democrats]

Draft 3

PRotection for Independent self Determination and Equality ACT

Category : Civil Rights
Strength : Significant

Understanding that civil rights are an important part of The World Assembly's mission,

However noting that in protecting rights in the area of sexuality, it is somewhat lacking,

The World Assembly hereby :-

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.

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,
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.

3. Allows that,
a. Nothing in this act prevents nations from enacting laws to further ensure equal rights for people of all sexes, genders and sexualities,

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

[Sciongrad]

OOC: Not Tinfect's argument, though. He's basically saying that christians don't have to ordain buddhists, but that among christians (or their own particular brand of them) they shouldn't discriminate, as further categorization is redundant.

OOC: My question is why a church shouldn't have to ordain Buddhists as well given that reasoning. After all, if lack of belief is enough to be a compelling practical purpose, why is it that those who refuse to accept church doctrines must be hired?

You cannot simultaneously say "Buddhists can be excluded because they do not practice your specific woman-excluding religion" but say "Women must not be excluded from your specific woman-hating religion because that is discrimination".

To explain better, imagine a religion with only one tenet: Women shall not be made priests. If a woman wanted to become a priest, would it be lawful to refuse her on the grounds that she did not hold to any church beliefs? Or unlawful because that was discrimination on the basis of sex?

Barbera: Ambassador Blackbourne, if I may ask, why does your Delegation wish to repeal a resolution that it itself has authored?

Harold: To cause headaches, of course! We can't allow sanity into this place! What doesn't kill you only makes you madder!

"If by 'your delegation' you mean myself and my staff, I am afraid that my delegation did not author Resolution 355. That was Madam Schultz' delegation." Blackbourne explains. "And by that I mean it was Madam Schultz, working alone and in contravention of government recommendation. Our government has long sought to reverse the damage she caused."

OOC: Well, that argument is a little simplistic. Buddhists can be excluded from serving in Catholic leadership roles because they don't have a bona fide interest in the religion. In the case of women seeking to serve in a Catholic leadership role, she would have a bona fide interest in the religion itself, notwithstanding the church doctrine. So in this case, religion is not a reductive categorization because it is fundamentally germane. Sex, however, is more complicated because women are not being denied equal treatment based on whether or not they have a bona fide interest in worshiping a Catholic god but solely based on their sex. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion would allow a theocracy to totally legalize and institutionalize discrimination based on any number of reductive categorizations so long as those categorizations are part of the religion's doctrine.

The example you gave is not compelling because a woman would never have a bona fide interest in serving in a leadership role for a religion whose only tenet is to deny her a leadership role.

[Wallenburg]

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.

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.