[Legality Challenge] "Against Political Discrimination"

[Excidium Planetis]

Link

Against Political Discrimination

Category: Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

1. Declares that personal matters such as sexuality, religion and religious belief are to be held purely private personal matters entitled to all the protections set by previous international legislation,

2. Declares that purely private, personal matters must not be used against an individual by any political entity, governmental or otherwise, to prevent the individual's participation in democracy,

3. Mandates that using private, personal matters to prevent an individual's full and fair participation in a democratic system must be criminalized.

I argue that the proposal in question is complete duplication of CoCR. Yes, CoCR is broad... but so is this proposal. And it is not just partial duplication, the proposal adds nothing that is already done by CoCR in its first three clauses:

a) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

So we see CoCR already prevents discrimination on the grounds covered by Against Political Discrimination, which covers any personal matters (which would be arbitrary and reductive categorizations), including sexuality and religion which are specifically mentions in CoCR. Against Political Discrimination does not add anything new to International Legislation, and should it be held legal it would open the door for a million CoCR clones: "Against Hiring Discrimination", " Against Discrimination Against Racial Minorities", "Against Arbitrary and Reductive Categorizations", etc.

Additionally, I also argue that Against Political Discrimination contradicts CoCR, which explictly allows discrimination for compelling practical purposes, while Against Political Discrimination prhobits discrimination totally, not allowing for compelling practical purposes.

[Separatist Peoples]

It looks like it fits in the realm of acceptable minor duplication to further address a more specific area. This closes the loophole that would allow states to consider religious belief for government office a compelling reason, as you note. That seems reasonable to me.

And we have allowed more specific proposals to duplicate broad legislation, so I don't see the proposals you list as being specifically illegal provided they're narrow enough in scope on their own.

[Nessuna-Arma]

The game tracks civil rights and political freedom separately. I don't know where it draws the line, but, I don't see anything in the existing resolution that says anything about political freedom. The proposed resolution does, explicitly.

[Separatist Peoples]

The game tracks civil rights and political freedom separately. I don't know where it draws the line, but, I don't see anything in the existing resolution that says anything about political freedom. The proposed resolution does, explicitly.

A point I had not considered.

[Nessuna-Arma]

You mean I got one right? KEWL!

[Aclion]

In addition it contradicts protections in World Assembly Resolution #30 Freedom of Expression by criminalizing political criticism of a person's beliefs with the intention of damaging their political candidacy. Their " full and fair participation in a democratic system"

#30

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal

It looks like it fits in the realm of acceptable minor duplication to further address a more specific area. This closes the loophole that would allow states to consider religious belief for government office a compelling reason, as you note. That seems reasonable to me.

And we have allowed more specific proposals to duplicate broad legislation, so I don't see the proposals you list as being specifically illegal provided they're narrow enough in scope on their own.

You've ignored the contradiction.

[Separatist Peoples]

In addition it contradicts protections in World Assembly Resolution #30 Freedom of Expression by criminalizing political criticism of a person's beliefs with the intention of damaging their political candidacy. Their " full and fair participation in a democratic system"

#30

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal

It looks like it fits in the realm of acceptable minor duplication to further address a more specific area. This closes the loophole that would allow states to consider religious belief for government office a compelling reason, as you note. That seems reasonable to me.

And we have allowed more specific proposals to duplicate broad legislation, so I don't see the proposals you list as being specifically illegal provided they're narrow enough in scope on their own.

You've ignored the contradiction.

Reprisal is a reactive punishment. Being generally barred from participation is not a reprisal. And I don't see that it is a contradiciton. Discrimination for a Compelling Practical Purpose (CPP) is allowed. This ensures that a particular form of discrimination is, in effect, not a CPP.

Between the narrow goal of the current proposal and the broad effects of CoCR, it doesn't seem like sufficient overlap to cause a legality issue. We have precedent regarding CoCR that allows resolutions expand upon CoCR in particular circumstances, and a plausible interpretation of the target proposal that is legal. Other GenSec members are more than welcome to weigh in, but thats how I'm seeing it barring a convincing argument otherwise.

[Araraukar]

In addition it contradicts protections in World Assembly Resolution #30 Freedom of Expression by criminalizing political criticism of a person's beliefs with the intention of damaging their political candidacy. Their " full and fair participation in a democratic system"

#30

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal

The right to express something and the right to not be attacked/discriminated against because of the same something, are not contradictory. RL non-political example of the rights involved: I am transgender, I have the right to speak about it and express my true gender, and I also have the right to not be attacked and harassed (or shut out of the democratic system) because I am transgender. One right does not contradict the other.

EDIT: I'm sure you know the saying "Your right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins."

[Aclion]

Between the narrow goal of the current proposal and the broad effects of CoCR, it doesn't seem like sufficient overlap to cause a legality issue. We have precedent regarding CoCR that allows resolutions expand upon CoCR in particular circumstances, and a plausible interpretation of the target proposal that is legal. Other GenSec members are more than welcome to weigh in, but thats how I'm seeing it barring a convincing argument otherwise.

You are again speaking in terms of duplication. While minor duplication is acceptable and inevitable no amount of contradiction is acceptable, because any contradiction forces nations to roleplay noncompliance with at least one resolution.

In addition it contradicts protections in World Assembly Resolution #30 Freedom of Expression by criminalizing political criticism of a person's beliefs with the intention of damaging their political candidacy. Their " full and fair participation in a democratic system"


#30

Affirms the right of all people to express their personal, moral, political, cultural, religious and ideological views freely and openly, without fear of reprisal

The right to express something and the right to not be attacked/discriminated against because of the same something, are not contradictory. RL non-political example of the rights involved: I am transgender, I have the right to speak about it and express my true gender, and I also have the right to not be attacked and harassed (or shut out of the democratic system) because I am transgender. One right does not contradict the other.

You're limiting the scope of the offending proposal. Yes it criminalizes attacks and discrimination, but not specificly. It criminalizes any action that prevents "full and fair participation in a democratic system".

[Separatist Peoples]

Between the narrow goal of the current proposal and the broad effects of CoCR, it doesn't seem like sufficient overlap to cause a legality issue. We have precedent regarding CoCR that allows resolutions expand upon CoCR in particular circumstances, and a plausible interpretation of the target proposal that is legal. Other GenSec members are more than welcome to weigh in, but thats how I'm seeing it barring a convincing argument otherwise.

You are again speaking in terms of duplication. While minor duplication is acceptable and inevitable no amount of contradiction is acceptable, because any contradiction forces nations to roleplay noncompliance with at least one resolution.

There isn't a contradiction. There is a reasonable interpretation that allows for both to exist, which is a strong argument in favor of legality. It requires states to consider the above mentioned forms of discrimination as those which are not compelling practical purposes. You can still find CPPs elsewhere. Simply not here. That isn't a contradiction, that's threading the eye of a legal needle. The way nations have to consider certain actions is altered, but the requirements under CoCR haven't changed. That's how I read it the first time around, and that's still how I'm reading it. That it has the same practical effect is irrelevant when the mechanism is different.

[Excidium Planetis]

It looks like it fits in the realm of acceptable minor duplication to further address a more specific area.

The entirety of the proposal is duplication. That's not minor.

Furthermore, "private personal matters" can be interpreted so broadly that I argue this is not a more specific area. It isn't singling out a specific group for special protections, or clarifying a certain right or compelling purpose... it is merely repeating what CoCR already says.

This closes the loophole that would allow states to consider religious belief for government office a compelling reason, as you note. That seems reasonable to me.

That's blatant contradiction. CoCR allows religious discrimination for compelling purposes, this resolution outlaws it.

And we have allowed more specific proposals to duplicate broad legislation, so I don't see the proposals you list as being specifically illegal provided they're narrow enough in scope on their own.

We have allowed proposals to partially duplicate. I am not aware of a resolution which fully duplicates CoCR. If so, I would argue that it is illegal.

[Aclion]

You are again speaking in terms of duplication. While minor duplication is acceptable and inevitable no amount of contradiction is acceptable, because any contradiction forces nations to roleplay noncompliance with at least one resolution.

There isn't a contradiction. There is a reasonable interpretation that allows for both to exist, which is a strong argument in favor of legality. It requires states to consider the above mentioned forms of discrimination as those which are not compelling practical purposes. You can still find CPPs elsewhere. Simply not here. That isn't a contradiction, that's threading the eye of a legal needle. The way nations have to consider certain actions is altered, but the requirements under CoCR haven't changed. That's how I read it the first time around, and that's still how I'm reading it. That it has the same practical effect is irrelevant when the mechanism is different.

Your reasonable interpretation is to treat the resolution as an amendment, barring specific classes from CoCR's Compelling purposes protections. That is still an illegality.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Your reasonable interpretation is to treat the resolution as an amendment, barring specific classes from CoCR's Compelling purposes protections. That is still an illegality.

That's obviously not an amendment, it doesn't change the text of a past resolution.

[Separatist Peoples]

The standard is not how much of the proposal covers extant legislation for that test, its how much of the extant legislation is covered. If one line of a proposal duplicated ALL of CoCR, that wouldn't be minor, even if it was only a single line. I think you're measuring the wrong thing here.

Furthermore, "private personal matters" can be interpreted so broadly that I argue this is not a more specific area. It isn't singling out a specific group for special protections, or clarifying a certain right or compelling purpose... it is merely repeating what CoCR already says.

It can be. It doesn't have to be. There are interpretations of "private personal matters" that would not be so broad as that, which means there is sufficient ambiguity to merit a decision. Specifically, the interpretation that the category leads me to accept is that the proposal seeks to deal with private personal matters in the context of political rights and not civil rights.

That's blatant contradiction. CoCR allows religious discrimination for compelling purposes, this resolution outlaws it.

This shifts the interpretation of compelling practical purposes to necessarily include those private matters in the context of political participation in democracies.

We have allowed proposals to partially duplicate. I am not aware of a resolution which fully duplicates CoCR. If so, I would argue that it is illegal.

Again, I believe the "Minor" part deals specifically with the amount of resolution covered, and not the percentage of the proposal. Otherwise, the old Freedom of Marriage Act wouldn't have been legal, as it dealt with civil rights and sexual orientation in it's entirety, yet wasn't a Duplicate of CoCR.

Your reasonable interpretation is to treat the resolution as an amendment, barring specific classes from CoCR's Compelling purposes protections. That is still an illegality.

I truly cannot help you if you are incapable of understanding the nuance here. It isn't an amendment. Otherwise, Reproductive Freedoms would have been an Illegal Amendment of On Abortion for expanding the circumstances for which OA allowed abortion.

[Araraukar]

That's blatant contradiction. CoCR allows religious discrimination for compelling purposes, this resolution outlaws it.

CoCR allows any discrimination for compelling purposes, yet there are a lot of other resolutions in the books banning certain kinds of discrimination.

[Aclion]

I truly cannot help you if you are incapable of understanding the nuance here. It isn't an amendment. Otherwise, Reproductive Freedoms would have been an Illegal Amendment of On Abortion for expanding the circumstances for which OA allowed abortion.

Utterly different. Reproductive Freedoms did not necessitate a change in On Abortion.

APD requires a change in CoCR, specifically the interpretation of the compelling practical purposes clause must be narrowed to exclude discrimination on the basis of sexuality, religion and religious belief, as this is the only way to avoid contradictions in cases where there is a compelling practical purpose to keep an office open only to members of that group.

[Separatist Peoples]

I truly cannot help you if you are incapable of understanding the nuance here. It isn't an amendment. Otherwise, Reproductive Freedoms would have been an Illegal Amendment of On Abortion for expanding the circumstances for which OA allowed abortion.

Utterly different. Reproductive Freedoms did not necessitate a change in On Abortion.

APD requires a change in CoCR, specifically the interpretation of the compelling practical purposes clause must be narrowed to exclude discrimination on the basis of sexuality, religion and religious belief, as this is the only way to avoid contradictions in cases where there is a compelling practical purpose to keep an office open only to members of that group.

OOC: which is not an amendment or a contradiction. Legal interpretation often changed as new laws alternate paradigm of policy. Again, I cannot help you if you don't see the difference. I have articulated my reasoning pretty clearly.

[Mitch01]

It baffles me how anyone could vote against this bill. I fail to see any problems with it, and I agree with it entirely. Can a member of the majority please inform me of why they voted against?
I refer you to section 1 of "Against Political Discrimination", where it is clearly stated that sexuality, religion, and religious belief are EXAMPLES of personal matters. Note the use of the phrase 'such as' to inform the reader that MANY MORE things are declared personal matters for the purposes of the bill, not just those 3 things as everyone seems to think.

[Bananaistan]

It baffles me how anyone could vote against this bill. I fail to see any problems with it, and I agree with it entirely. Can a member of the majority please inform me of why they voted against?

You want the debate thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=421381

This is the legality challenge thread.

[Mitch01]

It baffles me how anyone could vote against this bill. I fail to see any problems with it, and I agree with it entirely. Can a member of the majority please inform me of why they voted against?

You want the debate thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=421381

This is the legality challenge thread.

I accidentally clicked submit before I was done typing. I have since edited my post.

[Excidium Planetis]

That's blatant contradiction. CoCR allows religious discrimination for compelling purposes, this resolution outlaws it.

CoCR allows any discrimination for compelling purposes, yet there are a lot of other resolutions in the books banning certain kinds of discrimination.

Certain kinds of discrimination, perhaps. Not a wholesale ban on discrimination for any reason.

[Araraukar]

Certain kinds of discrimination, perhaps. Not a wholesale ban on discrimination for any reason.

I'd say that using private matters to stop someone from voting is a pretty precise reason.

[Bears Armed]

The game tracks civil rights and political freedom separately. I don't know where it draws the line, but, I don't see anything in the existing resolution that says anything about political freedom. The proposed resolution does, explicitly.

That was an important part of my reasoning, too. Applying the CoCR's protections to political rights as well to non-political ones would effectively make it 'Significant' in two categories at once, which is more of an overlap than has previously been considered acceptable... and would also have banned a number of government types (because it would prevent the selection of national governments from having a requirement on the basis of party membership, religion, heredity, wealth, or various other factors) which would mean that it should have been declared illegal rather than allowed to the voting stage.
(Also, although of course authors' intentions aren't legally binding on us, the CoCR's author did say -- when I questioned him on the latter point during the drafting stage -- that he didn't mean it to apply to political matters...)

[Excidium Planetis]

Certain kinds of discrimination, perhaps. Not a wholesale ban on discrimination for any reason.

I'd say that using private matters to stop someone from voting is a pretty precise reason.

No, it is not. Past resolutions have prohibited discrimination for specific reasons. This still allows discrimination for compelling purposes.

This proposal prohibits discrimination for ANY reason. That does not allow discrimination for compelling practical purposes.

This creates contradiction.

That was an important part of my reasoning, too. Applying the CoCR's protections to political rights as well to non-political ones would effectively make it 'Significant' in two categories at once, which is more of an overlap than has previously been considered acceptable... and would also have banned a number of government types (because it would prevent the selection of national governments from having a requirement on the basis of party membership, religion, heredity, wealth, or various other factors) which would mean that it should have been declared illegal rather than allowed to the voting stage.
(Also, although of course authors' intentions aren't legally binding on us, the CoCR's author did say -- when I questioned him on the latter point during the drafting stage -- that he didn't mean it to apply to political matters...)

Whatever happened to the law does what the law says? Categories do not determine what resolutions do: their text does. CoCR prohibits discrimination... that includes political discrimination.

And it would not be declared illegal for banning government types. GenSec has upheld the longtime precedent that banning certain practices central to ideologies is legal, only directly banning ideologies is illegal. Any number of government types cannot operate in the usual fashion under CoCR, but that does not make what it does illegal.

[Sciongrad]

1. I think this proposal duplicates CoCR. The only argument against duplication is that CoCR protects civil rights, not political rights, but precedent suggests that isn't the case. Ard has previously ruled that voting -- a political right -- is included under the protections of CoCR

On duplication of CoCR: Resolution #35, Charter of Civil Rights, protects inhabitants of WA member nations from discrimination based on reductive categories such as age, sex, religion, creed etc. But democratic rights have been refused on other grounds that were not "arbitrarily assigned and reductive", or for categories that authorities believed were for a "compelling practical purpose", eg, land ownership, literacy. This proposal attempts to deal with that.

I think EP is right, then, that CoCR covers more than just civil rights, despite the category. Of course, moderator precedent is not dispositive, but Ard's ruling suggests that the WA has not historically considered CoCR to cover only civil rights. In it's current form, I would consider this proposal illegal for violating the duplication rule.