[Legality Challenge] "Against Political Discrimination"

[Araraukar]

The only argument against duplication is that CoCR protects civil rights, not political rights, but precedent suggests that isn't the case.

To be fair, that's not my argument. My argument is that duplication of CoCR is allowed when it is used to make anti-discriminatory policy more clear in a narrow area.

Examples:
GA #57, Refugee Protection, clause 3. GA #104, Institutional Psychiatry Act, clause 5. GA #159, Promotion of Intl Education, clause III 2. GA #297, Child Welfare in Adoption, the Forbids clause. GA #299, Legal Competence, 2 iii. GA #310, Disabled Voters Act, clause 1. (Which, btw, is the only resolution I could find that protected someone's right to vote.) GA #354, AI Coexistence Protocol, clause 2. GA #355, Rights of Sapient Species, pretty much the whole resolution, but especially the Hereby Declares clause.

And I didn't even bother to include all the ones that duplicate CoCR's 1 a and b.

[Excidium Planetis]

GA #57, Refugee Protection, clause 3. GA #104, Institutional Psychiatry Act, clause 5. GA #159, Promotion of Intl Education, clause III 2. GA #297, Child Welfare in Adoption, the Forbids clause. GA #299, Legal Competence, 2 iii. GA #310, Disabled Voters Act, clause 1. (Which, btw, is the only resolution I could find that protected someone's right to vote.) GA #354, AI Coexistence Protocol, clause 2.

Those are all parts of resolutions which do other things besides duplicate CoCR. Disabled Voters Act, for example, helps to provide voter assistance for those who require it.

If your resolution did literally anything else besides duplicate/contradict CoCR, I think there could be an argument for saving it. But it doesn't.

GA #355, Rights of Sapient Species, pretty much the whole resolution, but especially the Hereby Declares clause.

RoSS sets guidelines for determining age of consent and age of majority. No other resolution, as far as I know, does that.

RoSS also defines sapience and sets guidelines for determining sapience. No other resolution (except maybe GA#354) does that.

RoSS declares that sapient beings are to be considered living beings, thus defining artificial and mechanical beings as life. No other resolution does that.

What does your proposal do that CoCR does not do (other than contradict it by removing any compelling purpose exemptions)?

If you wanted to call GA#355 duplication, the only plausible grounds in my opinion would be duplication/contradiction of GA#354, I think, not GA#35. AI Coexistence Protocol has different standards than RoSS, does, after all.

[Araraukar]

RoSS sets guidelines for determining age of consent and age of majority. No other resolution, as far as I know, does that.

There's at least one other that talks about it, I ran into it when searching for those I linked to, but that's not really important for this thread.

I have given my own arguments, the rest is up to GenSec.

Although, if you really think mine is in trouble with CoCR, go have a look at this and this.

[Excidium Planetis]

I have given my own arguments, the rest is up to GenSec.

Although, if you really think mine is in trouble with CoCR, go have a look at this and this.

IA's is questionable, but I think Auralia's does a sufficient number of other things to count as only partial and minor duplication.

[Araraukar]

Auralia's does a sufficient number of other things to count as only partial and minor duplication.

Oh I wasn't thinking about duplication with his thread...

[Excidium Planetis]

@GenSec update on challenge status? Araraukar is going to try again, it would probably be in everyone's best interests for a ruling to be made before that.

[Bears Armed]

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.

But if the CoCR did protect political rights as well as civil ones then wouldn't it bar member nations from requiring that members of their governments belong to specific political parties (thus banning single-party regimes) or religions (thus banning theocracies) or families (thus banning government by hereditary monarchs or aristocracies), or be wealthy (thus banning plutocracies)... and bar government selection on any other restricted basis, too... thus meaning that at the 'proposal' stage it should have been considered illegal on multiple counts under the rule against ideological bans?
I know that all passed resolutions are considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, but where a passed resolution can be interpreted both in a way that means it would have been legal all along and in a way that means it only counts as legal because it got passed I'd rather stick with the first of those interpretations.

[Aclion]

But if the CoCR did protect political rights as well as civil ones then wouldn't it bar member nations from requiring that members of their governments belong to specific political parties (thus banning single-party regimes) or religions (thus banning theocracies) or families (thus banning government by hereditary monarchs or aristocracies), or be wealthy (thus banning plutocracies)... and bar government selection on any other restricted basis, too... thus meaning that at the 'proposal' stage it should have been considered illegal on multiple counts under the rule against ideological bans?
I know that all passed resolutions are considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, but where a passed resolution can be interpreted both in a way that means it would have been legal all along and in a way that means it only counts as legal because it got passed I'd rather stick with the first of those interpretations.

I think the compelling practical purpose exception protects it from this objection.

[Bears Armed]

But if the CoCR did protect political rights as well as civil ones then wouldn't it bar member nations from requiring that members of their governments belong to specific political parties (thus banning single-party regimes) or religions (thus banning theocracies) or families (thus banning government by hereditary monarchs or aristocracies), or be wealthy (thus banning plutocracies)... and bar government selection on any other restricted basis, too... thus meaning that at the 'proposal' stage it should have been considered illegal on multiple counts under the rule against ideological bans?
I know that all passed resolutions are considered legal simply by virtue of having passed, but where a passed resolution can be interpreted both in a way that means it would have been legal all along and in a way that means it only counts as legal because it got passed I'd rather stick with the first of those interpretations.

I think the compelling practical purpose exception protects it from this objection.

I think the "compelling practical purpose" exception is so vaguely defined that nations could use it to get around almost anything else in the CoCR: After all, "maintaining social stability" and "averting the wrath of God" are both compelling practical purposes, aren't they?
^_^

[Aclion]

I think the compelling practical purpose exception protects it from this objection.

I think the "compelling practical purpose" exception is so vaguely defined that nations could use it to get around almost anything else in the CoCR: After all, "maintaining social stability" and "averting the wrath of God" are both compelling practical purposes, aren't they?
^_^

I think that is true

[Bears Armed]

Also, let's consider 'reasonable nation theory' here: If a resolution can be interpreted reasonably either as banning discrimination in politics or as not doing so -- which I think, as the CoCr not only is classified as 'Human Rights' rather than as 'Furtherment of Democracy' but doesn't explicitly say that it does, is the case here -- then a 'reasonable' government (i.e. one that isn't self-destructive) will interpret it as not doing so: Thus, there's no protection from the CoCR for these rights in the nations that don't want to grant such rights, and this proposal is therefore not duplication.

[Separatist Peoples]

This has been pretty hotly discussed by most of GenSec. Don't think that we're ignoring it, we just have a lot of different views and nobody wants a plurality decision that doesn't solve the issue. This is a question of almost unprecedented complexity. I myself had to reread a book written by a political theorist of whom I am fond to reach a coherent decision.

I believe there is plenty of reason to limit CoCR to civil rights rather than political participation rights, only one of which is the category itself. CoCR is overly broad, and there's an interest in construing it as narrowly as we can manage so as to limit conflict with existing laws (note, conflict is not an illegality, as it has passed) and to encourage, rather than prevent, additional drafting.

As BA says, CoCR can be interpreted as ambiguous as to the extent of the nondiscriminatory rights. Certainly, the category suggests that civil rights are those affected. But this is not itself dispositive. The intent of the law, which is made clear in the preambulatory clauses, seems to limit the actions.

Hailing the work in furtherance of personal freedom already achieved by the World Assembly and [. . . ] [s]eeking to augment this,

The preambulatory clauses demonstrate that the goal of the legislation is to further personal freedoms. Personal freedoms are not political freedoms, and we can draw a distinction between the two. Personal freedoms are the Liberty of the Moderns, which is based on the rule of law, civil freedoms, and freedom from invasive state interference in the same. Political freedoms are better describes as the Liberty of the Ancients, which give citizens the right to directly influence politics through debates and votes in the public assembly. Thank you Benjamin Constant, for separating the two more eloquently than I could.

Based on the preambulatory clauses of CoCR, it seems clear that the resolution itself purports to only address the Liberty of the Moderns by supporting the rule of law and ensuring that the private freedoms of the day to day life are not impeded by people who bear different skin tones or religious beliefs, and not the idea of participation in political action. While it cannot be said that the two are always distinct in all circumstances, it is important to make a distinction at all when we have categories that deal with these two concepts of liberty independently.

So, in addition to what BA has said, I add my own, mostly unsolicited analysis for why APD isn't illegal, caveating that this is my own belief and in no way a ruling.

[Excidium Planetis]

But if the CoCR did protect political rights as well as civil ones then wouldn't it bar member nations from requiring that members of their governments belong to specific political parties (thus banning single-party regimes)

Maybe. Why does it matter? Single party regimes are not an ideology.

or religions (thus banning theocracies)

Yes. This is exactly my argument. What Ara seeks to do is already done.

And this is not an ideological ban. GenSec has ruled that prohibiting specific practices is not an ideological ban.

or families (thus banning government by hereditary monarchs or aristocracies)

I think it is a stretch to say nominating an heir is discrimination. Otherwise writing a will and giving all you own to your kid would be "discriminating" against everyone in the world.

or be wealthy (thus banning plutocracies)

I don't think that counts as an actual ideology, and even if it did, the resolution does not say "bans plutocracies"... it is not an ideological ban.

... and bar government selection on any other restricted basis, too...

Well, there are always compelling practical purposes, but yes.

thus meaning that at the 'proposal' stage it should have been considered illegal on multiple counts under the rule against ideological bans?

No. Half of what you named is not even an ideology in the usual sense, and none of the rest is an ideological ban.

Also, let's consider 'reasonable nation theory' here: If a resolution can be interpreted reasonably either as banning discrimination in politics or as not doing so -- which I think, as the CoCr not only is classified as 'Human Rights' rather than as 'Furtherment of Democracy' but doesn't explicitly say that it does, is the case here -- then a 'reasonable' government (i.e. one that isn't self-destructive) will interpret it as not doing so: Thus, there's no protection from the CoCR for these rights in the nations that don't want to grant such rights, and this proposal is therefore not duplication.

Why do you assume no reasonable nation would want to accept the broader interpretation? Certainly nations whose citizens emigrate to other country or hold dual citizenship would not want their people discriminated against politically in foreign countries, and would want a broader interpretation to be followed.

Finally, Reasonable Nation Theory should never be used to contradict the text of the resolution. CoCR quite plainly bans discrimination. Any interpretation that allows arbitrary discrimination without practical purpose contradicts the text.

Personal freedoms are the Liberty of the Moderns, which is based on the rule of law, civil freedoms, and freedom from invasive state interference in the same. Political freedoms are better describes as the Liberty of the Ancients, which give citizens the right to directly influence politics through debates and votes in the public assembly. Thank you Benjamin Constant, for separating the two more eloquently than I could.

Based on the preambulatory clauses of CoCR, it seems clear that the resolution itself purports to only address the Liberty of the Moderns by supporting the rule of law and ensuring that the private freedoms of the day to day life are not impeded by people who bear different skin tones or religious beliefs, and not the idea of participation in political action. While it cannot be said that the two are always distinct in all circumstances, it is important to make a distinction at all when we have categories that deal with these two concepts of liberty independently.

So, in addition to what BA has said, I add my own, mostly unsolicited analysis for why APD isn't illegal, caveating that this is my own belief and in no way a ruling.

Separatist Peoples, are you then saying that WA member nations can discriminate in the right to vote for any reason (save perhaps any covered in Disabled Voters Act)? Do you believe that policies which prohibit voting to minorities are legal? Does CoCR not even protect the right of, as an example, blacks to vote?

I strongly disagree. It makes no sense that CoCR would fail to proscribe the stereotypical example of arbitrary and reductive discrimination.

And if GenSec really decides that it does fail to do so, I have a resolution to write.

[Potted Plants United]

Does CoCR not even protect the right of, as an example, blacks to vote?

No. Hence why attempts to fix the situation.

[Separatist Peoples]

Separatist Peoples, are you then saying that WA member nations can discriminate in the right to vote for any reason (save perhaps any covered in Disabled Voters Act)? Do you believe that policies which prohibit voting to minorities are legal? Does CoCR not even protect the right of, as an example, blacks to vote?

In light of the way I've had to look at CoCR, yes.

I strongly disagree. It makes no sense that CoCR would fail to proscribe the stereotypical example of arbitrary and reductive discrimination.

I agree. But this is why omnibus resolutions are no good.

And if GenSec really decides that it does fail to do so, I have a resolution to write.

Hopefully several. That is the best possible response to this issue.

[Aclion]

Okay I have to ask; SP, do you take these legally challenges seriously, as someone in an arbitration position should, or are you simply using them as an opportunity to practice debate?

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay I have to ask; SP, do you take these legally challenges seriously, as someone in an arbitration position should, or are you simply using them as an opportunity to practice debate?

I take this Challenge seriously, as I take all of my duties seriously. That said, my job is not to arbitrate.

[Sciongrad]

As I've stated, I believe that CoCR affects political rights because I believe operative text is always dispositive if there is no ambiguity. The text clearly and unambiguously prevents all discrimination, not just discrimination in civil rights. In my opinion, the only way one can interpret CoCR as having no effect on political rights is if we determine a resolution's effects solely on the basis of its category and not its text. In other words, if a resolution has effects that spill into several categories, the only effects that are legally binding are those that match the category. For example, GAR#161 is a human rights resolution but has several effects that would better fit under the health category. Under such a ruling, the health category effects would take no effect.

I don't buy SP's argument that we can rule very narrowly that CoCR only applies to civil rights based on the preamble because the operative text is so explicit. As of right now, I believe this proposal is illegal for duplication. All of the examples Ara provided are legal because they significantly expand on the CoCR. If CoCR protects political rights, this proposal does absolutely nothing.

[Excidium Planetis]

As stated elsewhere and evidenced by my arguments in this thread, I am (shockingly) in complete agreement with Sciongrad here.

Separatist Peoples has argued elsewhere that CoCR's operative clauses are ambiguous and thus should be interpreted based on the preamble. I do not believe this is the case. CoCR has never before been interpreted, as far as I am aware, as allowing racial discrimination in voting. I believe that the average viewer almost certainly would read CoCR as preventing all discrimination. That is unambiguous.

[The Gracchi Brothers]

Is it possible to simeotaneously duplicate and contradict an existing resolution?

[Aclion]

Okay I have to ask; SP, do you take these legally challenges seriously, as someone in an arbitration position should, or are you simply using them as an opportunity to practice debate?

I take this Challenge seriously, as I take all of my duties seriously. That said, my job is not to arbitrate.

Well then what is your job? Because my understanding is that it is to "reach an authoritative judgement" on issues of WA rules and proposal interpretation, not to practice your debating skills, such as they are.

Is it possible to simultaneously duplicate and contradict an existing resolution?

Yes. A proposal can replicate an existing policy in an an existing proposal while contradicting other policies in that proposal. This is especially easy in cases like this where exceptions to policy exist. For example;

Waste Management shall collect trash from residential neighborhoods every Tuesday; except on Tuesdays which are holidays, in which case collection shall happen on Wednesday.

is both contrdicted and duplicated by

Waste Management shall collect trash from residential neighborhoods every Tuesday

[Separatist Peoples]

I take this Challenge seriously, as I take all of my duties seriously. That said, my job is not to arbitrate.

Well then what is your job? Because my understanding is that it is to "reach an authoritative judgement" on issues of WA rules and proposal interpretation, not to practice your debating skills, such as they are.

Arbitration is not judgment. Arbitration has a very specific meaning attached to it. I am not an arbitrator. I am more akin to a judge. One who is engaging with the community regarding my opinion, as the community has specifically requested of GenSec.

That you disagree with my perception of my duties and how I execute them is not a concern of interest. I do not serve on GenSec at your pleasure. If you wish to see a change in GenSec policy, you may advocate so here.

[Aclion]

I do not serve on GenSec at your pleasure. If you wish to see a change in GenSec policy, you may advocate so here.

Change? You are already required to be impartial and act in good faith. Are you not? I am simply asking for you assurance that you are doing so.

[Separatist Peoples]

I do not serve on GenSec at your pleasure. If you wish to see a change in GenSec policy, you may advocate so here.

Change? You are already required to be impartial and act in good faith. Are you not? I am simply asking for you assurance that you are doing so.

An assurance I do not need to give upon demand. If you believe I am not acting in good faith, take it up in Moderation. If you do not so believe, don't derail the conversation. My objectivity is not the question at hand, and I see no need to address the issue here.

[Auralia]

Against Political Discrimination creates an unqualified right against political discrimination. It states 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." Full stop, no exceptions. The Charter of Civil Rights, on the other hand, does not create an unqualified right against any form of discrimination. Any instance of discrimination is legal if done for "compelling practical purposes". As such, I think it's pretty clear that the proposal goes further than CoCR and therefore can't be illegal for duplicating CoCR.

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.

You're effectively contradicting your earlier argument that the proposal "does not add anything new to International Legislation" here by acknowledging that Against Political Discrimination goes further than CoCR. Clearly, then, it is adding something new.

I don't think your contradiction analysis is correct. CoCR does not "explicitly allow discrimination for compelling practical purposes". It merely refrains from prohibiting such discrimination, which leaves open the possibility that such discrimination could be prohibited by member states or a future World Assembly resolution.

***

A brief aside: In general, I find that GenSec takes an excessively broad view of what CoCR prohibits. That immigration ruling from a while back is one example. Another example is the spoilered same-sex marriage proposal below. This proposal was marked by four members of GenSec as illegal for duplicating CoCR, but it's not really clear why. CoCR does not compel member states to legalize same-sex marriage. If you accept Christian teaching and beliefs on the purpose of human sexuality, there are certainly compelling practical reasons not to provide state recognition and support for same-sex relationships. (That's what Auralia argues IC.) As such, urging member states to legalize same-sex marriage -- notwithstanding those reasons -- is not a duplication of CoCR.

General Assembly Proposal
ID: galskia_1504006783
Same Sex Marriages

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Galskia

The World Assembly,

Aware that two from the same gender can also have important feelings for eachother,

Understanding that humans should have the absolute right to marry the same sex as themselves,

Wishing to allow more people to have the right to marry the people they love (same sex or not),

Hereby,

1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution,

a. Starting a debate over legalising same-sex marriage,

b. On attitudes to marriage and children, it measured data and found most attitudes had become more progressive.,

c. URGING that countries who agree with this proposal to legalise homosexuality and lesbianism in their countries (including gay and lesbian marriages)

Approvals: 3 (Vaplania, Arouna, Tyrone GAA)
GenSec Status: ILLEGAL — HELD
Info

Illegal (4): Bananaistan, Bears Armed, Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricalia

1 day 11 hours ago: Sierra Lyricalia: Illegal — Duplicates GAR#35
1 day 12 hours ago: Separatist Peoples: Illegal — Duplicates GAR#35
1 day 16 hours ago: Bears Armed: Illegal — Duplication of GAR#35 The Charter of Civil Rights
2 days 5 hours ago: Bananaistan: Illegal — Duplication of GAR#35 The Charter of Civil Rights