NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT]Limitiations On Conscription

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Remove ads

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:55 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

OOC: Is it possible I should open a challenge to see what the rest of GenSec says?

I suppose you could. In my view, a resolution against conscription could legislate, if at all, only on the matter of combat roles.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 3568
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Fauxia » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:57 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Fauxia wrote:OOC: Is it possible I should open a challenge to see what the rest of GenSec says?

I suppose you could. In my view, a resolution against conscription could legislate, if at all, only on the matter of combat roles.
OOC: I think I will, tomorrow. Thanks for the information, CD, even if I don’t like it.
The (Dis)Honorable Benedict Corwin, Fauxian ambassador to the globalist bureaucracy that shall not be named.
Speaker of the Assembly, Deputy Officer of WA Affairs in the Rejected Realms. Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens. Author of Issues #872, #909, #915, and #927.
Not the similarly named Feux.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.

United Massachusetts wrote:my god, you have a good memory
it scares me sometimes

User avatar
States of Glory WA Office
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1921
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby States of Glory WA Office » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:58 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:I...really don't get this argument. Please could you elaborate?

Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

Yes, but what about compelling practical purposes? What if a nation says 'There is a compelling practical purpose to conscripting conscientious objectors but not anyone else because conscription is a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription'? Unusual, yes, but it seems to me to hold up. If nations can claim 'compelling practical purpose', so too could the WA, presumably. The WA could therefore ban conscription provided that it argues 'compelling practical purpose' and that it includes 'subject to previous legislation'.

Alternatively, one could claim that the status of conscientious objection is not an arbitrary characteristic, though I'm not sure how it would be argued.
Ambassador: Bartholomew Harper Fairburn Rowan Flowerhaze Souldream Bartholomew Harper Fairburn
Assistant: Neville Lynn Robert
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain

Other ambassadorial staff include but are not limited to Barbera Warner and Harold "The Clown" Johnson.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:58 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I suppose you could. In my view, a resolution against conscription could legislate, if at all, only on the matter of combat roles.

OOC: I think I will, tomorrow. Thanks for the information, CD, even if I don’t like it.

Anytime.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:00 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Resolution 132 protects the practice of conscripting conscientious objectors for non-combative military duties (about 80% of military roles). Together with Resolution 35, this exact same practice must be protected with regard to other individuals. Otherwise, there would be unlawful discrimination against conscientious objectors.

Yes, but what about compelling practical purposes? What if a nation says 'There is a compelling practical purpose to conscripting conscientious objectors but not anyone else because conscription is a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription'? Unusual, yes, but it seems to me to hold up. If nations can claim 'compelling practical purpose', so too could the WA, presumably. The WA could therefore ban conscription provided that it argues 'compelling practical purpose' and that it includes 'subject to previous legislation'.

Alternatively, one could claim that the status of conscientious objection is not an arbitrary characteristic, though I'm not sure how it would be argued.

That doesn't make sense because "a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription" would also be illegal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
States of Glory WA Office
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1921
Founded: Jul 26, 2016
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby States of Glory WA Office » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:00 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:Yes, but what about compelling practical purposes? What if a nation says 'There is a compelling practical purpose to conscripting conscientious objectors but not anyone else because conscription is a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription'? Unusual, yes, but it seems to me to hold up. If nations can claim 'compelling practical purpose', so too could the WA, presumably. The WA could therefore ban conscription provided that it argues 'compelling practical purpose' and that it includes 'subject to previous legislation'.

Alternatively, one could claim that the status of conscientious objection is not an arbitrary characteristic, though I'm not sure how it would be argued.

That doesn't make sense because "a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription" would also be illegal.

In what way?
Ambassador: Bartholomew Harper Fairburn Rowan Flowerhaze Souldream Bartholomew Harper Fairburn
Assistant: Neville Lynn Robert
#MakeLegislationFunnyAgain

Other ambassadorial staff include but are not limited to Barbera Warner and Harold "The Clown" Johnson.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:02 pm

States of Glory WA Office wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:That doesn't make sense because "a punishment for conscientiously objecting to conscription" would also be illegal.

In what way?

Nations can't punish people for their beliefs.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Separatist Peoples
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 12498
Founded: Feb 17, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Separatist Peoples » Tue Jan 02, 2018 8:03 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
States of Glory WA Office wrote:In what way?

Nations can't punish people for their beliefs.

OOC: I believe the argument being made is that the belief isn't being punished, but the refusal to fight based on that belief. The mental state is effectively incidental.

Purveyor of contracts so one-sided, you'll be surprised there's text on the back of the page!

Second year law student, homebrewer, and cat worshiper

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 16481
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:30 am

Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934.

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2667
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 11:31 am

Bears Armed wrote:Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...


This is how I read it as well.
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 3568
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Fauxia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 1:55 pm

Bears Armed wrote:Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...
OOC: So you say it's legal?
The (Dis)Honorable Benedict Corwin, Fauxian ambassador to the globalist bureaucracy that shall not be named.
Speaker of the Assembly, Deputy Officer of WA Affairs in the Rejected Realms. Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens. Author of Issues #872, #909, #915, and #927.
Not the similarly named Feux.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.

United Massachusetts wrote:my god, you have a good memory
it scares me sometimes

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:13 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Bears Armed wrote:Military Freedom Act, Article III, part 5 says that "This resolution shall not be construed to prohibit nor require the establishment of compulsory military service", so apparently the bit in III/2a about assigning objectors to non-combatant roles only applies while you have conscription and so a subsequent ban on conscription as a whole should be legal...

This is how I read it as well.

That's not how I read that clause at all. There's a much simpler reading. The Military Freedom Act neither requires nations to use military conscription nor prohibits nations from using military conscription. The clause says nothing about the ability of the GA to legislate in the future.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 3568
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Fauxia » Wed Jan 03, 2018 4:14 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This is how I read it as well.

That's not how I read that clause at all. There's a much simpler reading. The Military Freedom Act neither requires nations to use military conscription nor prohibits nations from using military conscription. The clause says nothing about the ability of the GA to legislate in the future.
OOC: I think it depends, and in this case, it's okay. Why besides my obvious bias? It's only a clarification clause, saying that it shall not be construed to do such a thing. It does not reserve the right of nations to choose their own conscriptions, it just doesn't do it itself, and it wants to clarify that. It's a courtesy clause.
The (Dis)Honorable Benedict Corwin, Fauxian ambassador to the globalist bureaucracy that shall not be named.
Speaker of the Assembly, Deputy Officer of WA Affairs in the Rejected Realms. Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens. Author of Issues #872, #909, #915, and #927.
Not the similarly named Feux.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.

United Massachusetts wrote:my god, you have a good memory
it scares me sometimes

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2667
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:04 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:
Sierra Lyricalia wrote:This is how I read it as well.

That's not how I read that clause at all. There's a much simpler reading. The Military Freedom Act neither requires nations to use military conscription nor prohibits nations from using military conscription. The clause says nothing about the ability of the GA to legislate in the future.


Right. So how can that rule out a subsequent ban on conscription?
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7546
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:11 pm

I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 3568
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Fauxia » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:37 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.
OOC: He clearly thinks it does, as if it was a “reserves the rights” clause
The (Dis)Honorable Benedict Corwin, Fauxian ambassador to the globalist bureaucracy that shall not be named.
Speaker of the Assembly, Deputy Officer of WA Affairs in the Rejected Realms. Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens. Author of Issues #872, #909, #915, and #927.
Not the similarly named Feux.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.

United Massachusetts wrote:my god, you have a good memory
it scares me sometimes

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Thu Jan 04, 2018 9:49 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 3568
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Fauxia » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:43 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.
Does it outlaw it?
The (Dis)Honorable Benedict Corwin, Fauxian ambassador to the globalist bureaucracy that shall not be named.
Speaker of the Assembly, Deputy Officer of WA Affairs in the Rejected Realms. Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens. Author of Issues #872, #909, #915, and #927.
Not the similarly named Feux.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.

United Massachusetts wrote:my god, you have a good memory
it scares me sometimes

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2667
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:36 am

Christian Democrats wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:I think CD's (correct) point is that it doesn't.

Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.


Ah. I took it (both the text and BA's post) as meaning that subsequent action by the GA in either direction was being allowed for future resolutions, not necessarily a ban specifically. Cl. 5 protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription insofar as someone might otherwise interpret GAR #132 to mean that the GA was forbidden from subsequently outlawing conscription, but it doesn't protect that ability on an absolute basis (i.e. against future resolutions). We could still go the other direction and pass a resolution requiring a draft in all member states.

Carry on.
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Desmosthenes and Burke
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 143
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:09 am

Fauxia wrote:Does it outlaw it?


As best as I can tell, everyone who is not CD thinks you can at least attempt it. I am unsure if one should read their comments as saying your specific proposal is fine. That said, I cannot see the problem that CD thinks to exist at all, and cannot come up with a single argument for his position that does not do horrific violence to my (admittedly limited) understanding of what the English words being used mean.
.

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jan 05, 2018 2:54 pm

Fauxia wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:Yes, but it seems that BA is saying that the clause protects the GA's ability to outlaw conscription. It does not do that.

Does it outlaw it?
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:
Fauxia wrote:Does it outlaw it?

As best as I can tell, everyone who is not CD thinks you can at least attempt it. I am unsure if one should read their comments as saying your specific proposal is fine. That said, I cannot see the problem that CD thinks to exist at all, and cannot come up with a single argument for his position that does not do horrific violence to my (admittedly limited) understanding of what the English words being used mean.

I feel like I'm repeating myself now. See Resolution 132, Article III, Section 2(a):

Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties.

Any restrictions on conscription that apply to "non-combative military or non-military duties" are illegal.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Sierra Lyricalia
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2667
Founded: Nov 29, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Sierra Lyricalia » Fri Jan 05, 2018 6:42 pm

Christian Democrats wrote:I feel like I'm repeating myself now. See Resolution 132, Article III, Section 2(a):

Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties.

Any restrictions on conscription that apply to "non-combative military or non-military duties" are illegal.


FWIW, while the author of GAR #132 clearly did not intend to block a future total ban on conscription, the law does in fact do what the law says, and I have to agree that that clause stands in the way of a total ban. Clause 5 is irrelevant, I now see, because 2a is neither a requirement nor a prohibition, but rather specifically permits nations to conscript CO's (and presumably by extension everybody else subject to the draft) into non-combat roles.

The most you could do without repealing #132 is to ban conscription into combat roles without regard to CO status.
Principal-Agent & Master of Duck Recipes, Anarchy
The Mostly Alright Steph Zakalwe *
Author: 354 GA / Issues 436, 451, 724
S.L. Ambassador to the World Assembly
Tech Level: Complicated (or not: 7/0/6 i.e. 12) / RP Details
The Semi-Honorable Leonid Berkman Pavonis,
Ambassador-At-Large
Illustrious Bum #279
Pol. Compass: Econ. -5 to -8, Soc. -8 to -9 (depending), 8values: LibSoc
"When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People’s Stick.'" -Mikhail Bakunin (to Karl Marx)


User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:49 pm

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:
Christian Democrats wrote:I feel like I'm repeating myself now. See Resolution 132, Article III, Section 2(a):

Nations may compel conscientious objectors to serve in non-combative military or non-military duties.

Any restrictions on conscription that apply to "non-combative military or non-military duties" are illegal.

FWIW, while the author of GAR #132 clearly did not intend to block a future total ban on conscription, the law does in fact do what the law says, and I have to agree that that clause stands in the way of a total ban. Clause 5 is irrelevant, I now see, because 2a is neither a requirement nor a prohibition, but rather specifically permits nations to conscript CO's (and presumably by extension everybody else subject to the draft) into non-combat roles.

The most you could do without repealing #132 is to ban conscription into combat roles without regard to CO status.

Yes, the part in red is exactly my position.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

User avatar
Fauxia
Senator
 
Posts: 3568
Founded: Dec 22, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Fauxia » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:49 pm

So this is the thing here- this is not an outright ban of conscription. Is there any precedent on the matter that “if it says you can’t ban it, you can’t restrict it?” If there is not, is the issue with the “age of majority” line?
The (Dis)Honorable Benedict Corwin, Fauxian ambassador to the globalist bureaucracy that shall not be named.
Speaker of the Assembly, Deputy Officer of WA Affairs in the Rejected Realms. Warden in The Order of the Grey Wardens. Author of Issues #872, #909, #915, and #927.
Not the similarly named Feux.
Reploid Productions wrote:Unfortunately, Max still won't buy the mods elite ninja assassin squads to use, so... no such luck.

United Massachusetts wrote:my god, you have a good memory
it scares me sometimes

User avatar
Christian Democrats
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 9764
Founded: Jul 29, 2009
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Christian Democrats » Fri Jan 05, 2018 7:59 pm

Fauxia wrote:So this is the thing here- this is not an outright ban of conscription. Is there any precedent on the matter that “if it says you can’t ban it, you can’t restrict it?” If there is not, is the issue with the “age of majority” line?

Imagine a Venn diagram with two circles. One circle is the jurisdiction of member states, the other circle is the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, and the area where the circles intersect is where member states and the World Assembly have concurrent jurisdiction. In my view, the "may compel" clause of Resolution 132, in conjunction with the non-discrimination provision of Resolution 35, places non-combat military conscription and non-military conscription in the first circle, beyond the reach of the World Assembly.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
GA#160: Forced Marriages Ban Act (79%)
GA#175: Organ and Blood Donations Act (68%)^
SC#082: Repeal "Liberate Catholic" (80%)
GA#200: Foreign Marriage Recognition (54%)
GA#213: Privacy Protection Act (70%)
GA#231: Marital Rape Justice Act (81%)^
GA#233: Ban Profits on Workers' Deaths (80%)*
GA#249: Stopping Suicide Seeds (70%)^
GA#253: Repeal "Freedom in Medical Research" (76%)
GA#285: Assisted Suicide Act (70%)
GA#310: Disabled Voters Act (81%)
GA#373: Repeal "Convention on Execution" (54%)

* denotes coauthorship
^ repealed resolution
#360: Electile Dysfunction
#452: Foetal Furore
#560: Bicameral Backlash
#570: Clerical Errors

PreviousNext

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Remove ads