[ReDRAFT] Repeal Permit Male Circumcision

[The American Union of Fascists]

Acknowledging that the Assembly has recognized the definition of male circumcision as the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis as part of a medical procedure per GAR #141,

Recognizing that male circumcision is often medically necessary,

Desiring nations to maintain their sovereignty be it religiously or culturally,

Believing that the vast majority of member nations currently provide adequate healthcare to their citizens without legislative oversight,

Affirming the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate,

Fundamentally Opposing legislative overreach that may curtail the freedom of persecuted minority groups,

Hereby Repeals GAR #141

Edits will be made.
This is not even it's final form.

[Araraukar]

Edits will be made.
This is not even it's final form.

OOC: I suggest making the edits and posting the final form, then.

[Kenmoria]

"There is no need to embolden, italicise and capitalise the first word of ever sentence, just capitals will do."

[The American Union of Fascists]

Edits will be made.
This is not even it's final form.

OOC: I suggest making the edits and posting the final form, then.

Posting the draft here allows for feedback and edits. That's the only reason I posted it rather than just repealing.

[The American Union of Fascists]

"There is no need to embolden, italicise and capitalise the first word of ever sentence, just capitals will do."

Can't a guy do something just for the aesthetics? Lol

[Separatist Peoples]

"There is no need to embolden, italicise and capitalise the first word of ever sentence, just capitals will do."

Can't a guy do something just for the aesthetics? Lol

OOC: It isn't really that aesthetically pleasing, and it will probably draw the ire of certain influential delegates who prefer a different stylistic approach.

Edits will be made.
This is not even it's final form.

OOC: I suggest making the edits and posting the final form, then.

OOC: That defeats the point of drafting on the forum...

[The American Union of Fascists]

Can't a guy do something just for the aesthetics? Lol

OOC: It isn't really that aesthetically pleasing, and it will probably draw the ire of certain influential delegates who prefer a different stylistic approach.

OOC: I suggest making the edits and posting the final form, then.

OOC: That defeats the point of drafting on the forum...

Noted. Ill leave it out in the actual repeal if we go forward with it.

[The American Union of Fascists]

Im very curious as to an explanation of why this legislation was deemed illegal. I commented once about the perceived partisan bias and my requests as to amn explanation were unanswered

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Im very curious as to an explanation of why this legislation was deemed illegal. I commented once about the perceived partisan bias and my requests as to amn explanation were unanswered

If your intent is for the WA to "Affirm[...] the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate," then why bother repealing the resolution? The target resolution doesn't mandate circumcision for all baby boys, it mandates the legality of circumcision in all WA nations. One member of GenSec took your repeal to be based on the assertion that all boys must undergo circumcision, which is factually wrong, and therefore an illegal Honest Mistake. Given how you wrote this, I have to say I'm leaning that way myself.

As an aside, this was very much not yet ready for submission. If you withdraw and stick around here for a couple of weeks (yes, weeks), people around here can help you get it whipped into better shape. Impatience doth make fools of us all. Someone famous must have said something like that sometime, right? It's a marathon, not a sprint.

[The American Union of Fascists]

Im very curious as to an explanation of why this legislation was deemed illegal. I commented once about the perceived partisan bias and my requests as to amn explanation were unanswered

If your intent is for the WA to "Affirm[...] the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate," then why bother repealing the resolution? The target resolution doesn't mandate circumcision for all baby boys, it mandates the legality of circumcision in all WA nations. One member of GenSec took your repeal to be based on the assertion that all boys must undergo circumcision, which is factually wrong, and therefore an illegal Honest Mistake. Given how you wrote this, I have to say I'm leaning that way myself.

As an aside, this was very much not yet ready for submission. If you withdraw and stick around here for a couple of weeks (yes, weeks), people around here can help you get it whipped into better shape. Impatience doth make fools of us all. Someone famous must have said something like that sometime, right? It's a marathon, not a sprint.

The point of DESIRING to repeal the bill is that international government overreach in matters of religious or cultural sovereignty. The bill should not be a mandate for membership in the WA. AFFIRMING the necessity is clarifying that rather than hinting at a later ban, rather, we respect the right of people to have children circumcised, but not in a way that requires it for membership.
Make more sense now? I was trying to be generous with those clauses.

[Jebslund]

If your intent is for the WA to "Affirm[...] the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate," then why bother repealing the resolution? The target resolution doesn't mandate circumcision for all baby boys, it mandates the legality of circumcision in all WA nations. One member of GenSec took your repeal to be based on the assertion that all boys must undergo circumcision, which is factually wrong, and therefore an illegal Honest Mistake. Given how you wrote this, I have to say I'm leaning that way myself.

As an aside, this was very much not yet ready for submission. If you withdraw and stick around here for a couple of weeks (yes, weeks), people around here can help you get it whipped into better shape. Impatience doth make fools of us all. Someone famous must have said something like that sometime, right? It's a marathon, not a sprint.

The point of DESIRING to repeal the bill is that international government overreach in matters of religious or cultural sovereignty. The bill should not be a mandate for membership in the WA. AFFIRMING the necessity is clarifying that rather than hinting at a later ban, rather, we respect the right of people to have children circumcised, but not in a way that requires it for membership.
Make more sense now? I was trying to be generous with those clauses.

OOC: Why, aside from NatSov and Cultural Sovereignty, do you think the resolution should be repealed? As has already been pointed out, the resolution you're trying to repeal doesn't require circumcision, it merely mandates that the option exist. The WA as a whole has taken the position that it is the right of parents to, should they so desire, get a circumcision, not that every parent must go out and get their boys circumcised. The point is that nations are required to leave the option open. In essence, the resolution you're targeting with this proposal already does what you want it to do (protect persecuted religious minorities and the choice of whether or not to circumcise children) What non-NatSov reason do you consider grounds for repealing the target?

[The American Union of Fascists]

It legislates what a nation must do, for a nation. If a religious nation desires to prohibit it by popular vote, they have to choose between being members of the WA or honoring their democratic or representative process.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Have a look at some of the previous attempts to repeal the target: https://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?keywords=repeal+permit+male+circumcision&terms=all&author=&fid%5B%5D=8&sc=1&sf=firstpost&sr=topics&sk=t&sd=d&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search. You can see how and why those failed which might help you in drafting here.

[Attempted Socialism]

It legislates what a nation must do, for a nation. If a religious nation desires to prohibit it by popular vote, they have to choose between being members of the WA or honoring their democratic or representative process.

That is true for all WA resolutions, and all resolutions could be repealed if we simply accepted national, religious or cultural sovereignty to be an argument for repealing. That's why we don't, and the rules stipulate that NatSov only repeals are illegal.
As for bias, I don't think GenSec has shown any bias here. You did two quick drafts on a resolution without properly reading the rules, submitted, and was shown why longer drafting periods are sensible. The only bias I think I've seen, consistently, from GenSec is towards a laissez faire reading of the rules that allows more borderline proposals to come up for a vote - this especially favours active drafters here, who can participate in legal challenges.

If you want this draft to be succesful, give it time during drafting.

[Monetillia]

We favor repeal for the following reasons:

Aesthetic arguments: Personal views on how a penis looks are subjective and carry no objective weight in the discussion. Furthermore, when we consider all the nudity laws existing which prohibit people from showing their private parts in public, no one outside the proverbial bedroom or locker room is ever going to see whether a penis is circumcised or uncircumcised, and arguments regarding aesthetics then become entirely specious. Should the male in question not like the appearance of his own foreskin and be of the age of majority, he should be allowed to seek out circumcision as a form of cosmetic surgery from a qualified medical practitioner.

Religious arguments: If circumcision is to be protected for the sake of religion, there should be a clause that only a consenting male of the age of majority who is making a conscious decision to perform a circumcision rite as a confirmation of his faith may be circumcised, and for the sake of safety, it should still only be performed by a qualified medical professional. Parents making a decision so permanent for a child who cannot consent based on a religious assertion is inappropriate.

Medical arguments: There are many men whose foreskins are still intact who have learned basic hygiene and do not have *any* medical problems as a result of their foreskins. Until such time as there is a clear and significant medical risk to the health of the male in question, no one who is not a qualified medical professional should be making a decision for him to modify his body in such a very personal way.

Clitoral circumcision: On a worldwide level, most of humanity has decided that it is barbarism as a cultural standard to circumcise a woman for any reason unless she makes that decision for herself or some medical need arises. It is most certainly inappropriate by that standard to make that decision for her when she is unable to consent to the procedure. It seems, therefore, rationally inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy and sexism to say that penile circumcision is acceptable in situations wherein clitoral circumcision would be unacceptable.

Our bottom line: Circumcision of any kind without the consent of the person being circumcised outside the demands of a significant health risk is inappropriate for *anyone*, male or female. Circumcision should then be regulated as a medical procedure strictly under those conditions, and the only exception to this should be for the religious purposes of a consenting adult seeking to be circumcised. If the original legislation is inadequate, it is on the grounds that it has missed these very fine points, and we feel they need to be addressed further and are thus in fervent favor of repeal.

[House Mar]

Acknowledging that the Assembly has recognized the definition of male circumcision as the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis as part of a medical procedure per GAR #141,

Recognizing that male circumcision is often medically necessary,

Desiring nations to maintain their sovereignty be it religiously or culturally,

Affirming the right of parents in consultation with a medical professional to determine when male circumcision is appropriate,

Fundamentally Opposing legislative overreach that may curtail the freedom of persecuted minority groups,

Hereby Repeals GAR #141

A recent convert to the Goo-isim sets an article down atop the desk of Queen of House Mar herself thereby bringing the international bill to her attention. "Circumcision is the right of all this nation's citizenry," the man says as he pulls down his pants, "It is for my faith that I gave a little of myself to the Collective Goo in the Sky and so too will my children, and their children."

After immediately being tackled by the Sin Sister's royal military Yonda Mir issues a pointed stare. "You've undermined your own argument," she says while sliding her mug of coffee off her desk and into the waste basket. Having thoroughly lost her appetite after seeing a batched mutilation designed to dispel debauchery, she stood and continued "setting aside that all the world over has decided that it is morally contemptuous to suggest forced mutilation of female children, your argument is the permanency religious commitments that you yourself did not keep."

The Head Sin Sister steps sideways around her desk and her head protector twists the man's arm out of socket. "There is but one exception to abide: personal anatomical autonomy. Personal choice of one's self. To force this choice on another is the same as raping and mutilating a child. An infant no-less."

The leader of House Mar slowly crouches down and forces her hand down the pants of her citizen and brings all the strength of her conviction to bear on the subject at hand. "Is this what you had in mind for your sons? Your son's sons?" As the man crumples in pain while Yonda Mir circles again around to her desk and begins drafting a letter to the World Assembly.

"The treatment of others," she begins, before biting her lip to give some consideration to what may come next, "That is what is labeled as humane or inhumane. It is the fundamental basis of human interaction by which we measure society. That which is not governed by such things is the manner in which we treat our selves."

She briefly glances up to see her guardswomen drag the man out of her office and returns to place quill to parchment. "There is only one conceivable exception to societal expectations: that which is the manner in which one sees themselves. That the master of ones own destiny, and that which is their anatomy, is their soul discretion alone."

Yonda Mir dips her quill in an inkwell to refresh its load before finishing with her central conceit: "Regardless of the consensus of this Assembly, it shall forever remain the imperative of all societies--no matter how primitive or civilized--to prevent one human being from infringing upon the rights of another. This is what we define 'Human Rights' to be."

A moment of hesitation lingers on the page as the quill is lifted to her lips to take on a tint of her lipstick as to sign. Having punctured the surface she returns the quill to the page to write in the crimson of her own blood "To allow a religious conviction to justify the superceeding of the law in this regard, is to say that the ability to rationalize monstrous behavior, is the same as justify behavior unbefitting of our species." The quill runs dry and she dips it once more.

"Ultimately, the question of what constitutes humane behavior in the context of human rights, is not what we do to ourselves but what we do to others." Yonda Mir presses the quill even harder, stressing its substantive structure, as if to emphasize the point in her mind through her actions. "To suggest this law is intended for the humane treatment of people requires us to make only the exceptions for individual safety and autonomy, and no other exceptions."

[Jebslund]

It legislates what a nation must do, for a nation. If a religious nation desires to prohibit it by popular vote, they have to choose between being members of the WA or honoring their democratic or representative process.

OOC: You haven't answered the question. Do you have any arguments aside from cultural or national sovereignty? The fact that the WA *exists* as an organisation with the power to set international law throws those notions out the window. Nobody is forcing any nation to be part of the WA. If you don't like a particular law, you're free to leave, and, by joining, you agree to give up some of your NatSov for the greater good.

[House Mar]

The fact that the WA *exists* as an organisation with the power to set international law throws those notions out the window. Nobody is forcing any nation to be part of the WA. If you don't like a particular law, you're free to leave, and, by joining, you agree to give up some of your NatSov for the greater good.

OOC: Ultimately the power and authority associated with governance of a people comes from the people. Either willingly, or through coercion, or force. Whether complicit, or in revolt, a government has only the power the people allow, and in that regard the WA functions and is beholden to the societies that make up its membership.

In this regard the WA is as beholden to him as it is to you. To give a blanket "my way or the highway" retort is not an argument. It's not a meaningful statement, and does not address either the merit of the law, nor the merits of any counter position. If you'd like to engage in any form of relevant, on-topic discussion, than I invite you to do so and so assume others will happily debate points with you.

This "we do things this way and if you don't like it you can GTFO" mentality is generally non-conducive to discussion.

[Monetillia]

OOC: You haven't answered the question. Do you have any arguments aside from cultural or national sovereignty?

OOC

Even if he doesn't, there are others here who have taken the time to proffer them... like me... and I even took the time to participate in the discussion in character. I'm a helper, so I'll give you this link for ease of reference: {https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=434891&p=33369906#p33369694}. Would you care to respond to them in character? I'd like to see if your nation's leader can offer a more compelling argument than the idea that participation is blanket consent. The post I've quoted left me feeling like there were no more in character responses sufficient to the task within reach.

[Jebslund]

OOC: Ultimately the power and authority associated with governance of a people comes from the people. Either willingly, or through coercion, or force. Whether complicit, or in revolt, a government has only the power the people allow, and in that regard the WA functions and is beholden to the societies that make up its membership.

In this regard the WA is as beholden to him as it is to you. To give a blanket "my way or the highway" retort is not an argument. It's not a meaningful statement, and does not address either the merit of the law, nor the merits of any counter position. If you'd like to engage in any form of relevant, on-topic discussion, than I invite you to do so and so assume others will happily debate points with you.

This "we do things this way and if you don't like it you can GTFO" mentality is generally non-conducive to discussion.

OOC: First off, I have not attempted to argue one way or another with regards to this repeal. I am arguing strictly that, as written, it is not *legal*. You cannot make a repeal based solely on national sovereignty for the same reason "I don't wanna!" doesn't get you out of following laws in the real world: If National Sovereignty was a valid argument, the WA wouldn't exist, because the fact that the WA exists is an infringement upon national sovereignty in that nations agree to give up certain rights and privileges, as a condition of membership, for the good of the WA member nations as a whole. I'm not saying 'my way or the highway' or anything of the sort (the post you are partially quoting needs to be taken in context with the one I made before it.). I'm merely pointing out that, if a resolution is to be repealed, it needs to be for reasons other than NatSov. Personally, I think the targeted proposal should be repealed, as well, simply on the basis that children cannot consent and there are next to no valid medical reasons for the practice (much of the 'hygiene' arguments have either been debunked or are easily countered by education, and are like saying if you don't know how to properly blow your nose, it ought to be cut off), but I'd be hard put to put forth a legal repeal attempt simply on the basis that I can't really put forth any arguments that don't either rely on previous legislation or on NatSov-type arguments.

Second, Where did I say that the WA was beholden to me?

Third, discussing the legality of the repeal as written, and the arguments put forth, is *entirely* relevant and on topic. The repeal won't even go to vote if it's not legal, and won't succeed if not clearly written, and the proposal rules are clear: You cannot rely solely on NatSov-only arguments as the basis for a repeal.

Fourth, lose the condescension.

OOC: You haven't answered the question. Do you have any arguments aside from cultural or national sovereignty?

OOC

Even if he doesn't, there are others here who have taken the time to proffer them... like me... and I even took the time to participate in the discussion in character. I'm a helper, so I'll give you this link for ease of reference: {https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?ns=1&f=9&t=434891&p=33369906#p33369694}. Would you care to respond to them in character? I'd like to see if your nation's leader can offer a more compelling argument than the idea that participation is blanket consent. The post I've quoted left me feeling like there were no more in character responses sufficient to the task within reach.

... Okay, first, it may be bad phrasing on my part, or it may be misinterpretation on yours, but I am not saying no resolutions should *ever* be repealed because participation. I'm saying, "But people should have the right to do what they want!", is not a valid counter because being part of an organisation requires following the rules of said organisation. Therefore, any repeal of any said rule must be done on grounds other than National Sovereignty.

Second, I usually don't argue legality in-character. In fact, I very rarely argue legality in-character. Arguments for or against a resolution at vote, I do in character (said character being the ambassador to my nation, not its leader. Jebediah has too much to do as leader to sit around in a WA chamber all day debating resolutions.), but arguments regarding mechanics and legalities are done OOC because the good ambassador tends to run a bit sarcastic for my tastes regarding helping people as opposed to debating a topic.

Final note: I was asking because, if he does, they should be included in the proposal. I'm also going to ask that you reconsider your tone.

[House Mar]

OOC: First off, I have not attempted to argue one way or another with regards to this repeal.

OOC: I have no desire to continue an OOC debate when I have gone through all the trouble of presenting my argument in character. I expect you to respect that and engage me accordingly. The fact that we even say "OOC" is an acknowledgement that cross-talk like this is a fundamental disrespect of the established system, and I am not going to continue engaging in OOC, especially when it can be discussed IC.

[Jebslund]

OOC: First off, I have not attempted to argue one way or another with regards to this repeal.

OOC: I have no desire to continue an OOC debate when I have gone through all the trouble of presenting my argument in character. I expect you to respect that and engage me accordingly. The fact that we even say "OOC" is an acknowledgement that cross-talk like this is a fundamental disrespect of the established system, and I am not going to continue engaging in OOC, especially when it can be discussed IC.

OOC: The fact that we say "OOC" is a clarification, not a disrespect, and the reason I do so OOC is because my IC ambassador tends to run sarcastic, and is pretty much a stuffed shirt, which is why I only do debates of subject matter (where the opinions of my nation (as opposed to my OOC opinions) are the only ones needing to be expressed, and can be freely done in line with her nature) in character and debates of legality and grammar/mechanics (where the goal is helping a player shape up and polish their submission, and, therefore, the opinions of my nation are neither necessary nor necessarily helpful) out of character. Even beyond that, you chewed me out out of character, requiring an out of character response to said chewing out. I will happily discuss the merits in-character once the resolution is legal. Until then, if you intend to disengage, fine, but don't chew me out and then expect me not to respond.

[Monetillia]

OOC

...must be done on grounds other than National Sovereignty.

The arguments I've provided IC are grounds other than NatSov, and I was looking forward to a productive and intelligent discussion (debate would have been excellent!) on the points I raised; however, as the next quote highlights for me...

...but arguments regarding mechanics and legalities are done OOC

...you're more concerned with the brute force underscoring that the OP violated OOC rules. I will not debate with you that the original draft of the repeal itself violates rules. Before I walked in here to offer my support to what I think is a necessary repeal, I took the time to review why NatSov is an insufficient argument, and that was preceded by seeing that this draft was in the "illegal" section of the proposals. In fact, that's how I found this issue at the outset. I'm working to bring this into a legal drafting, and in the process of doing so, I'm looking for feedback on the points I raised. That way, when I assist the drafter in creating a proposal, it can have languaging that considers the views of all in the discussion. If you are keen to lend assistance beyond overemphasizing the illegality of the draft, I am keen to have it. Until then, thank you for showing us all that this is illegal... something we could see from the section of proposals in which the draft is documented and stored.

I'm also going to ask that you reconsider your tone.

I edited my post five times. My tone was duly considered.

[Jebslund]

...must be done on grounds other than National Sovereignty.

The arguments I've provided IC are grounds other than NatSov, and I was looking forward to a productive and intelligent discussion (debate would have been excellent!) on the points I raised, however, as the next quote highlights for me...

...but arguments regarding mechanics and legalities are done OOC

...you're more concerned with the brute force underscoring that the OP violated OOC rules. I will not debate with you that the original draft of the repeal itself violates rules. Before I walked in here to offer my support to what I think is a necessary repeal, I took the time to review why NatSov is an insufficient argument, and that was preceded by seeing that this draft was in the "illegal" section of the proposals. In fact, that's how I found this issue at the outset. I'm working to bring this into a legal drafting, and in the process of doing so, I'm looking for feedback on the points I raised. That way, when I assist the drafter in creating a proposal, it can have languaging that considers the views of all in the discussion. If you are keen to lend assistance beyond overemphasizing the illegality of the draft, I am keen to have it. Until then, thank you for showing us all that this is illegal... something we could see from the section of proposals in which the draft is documented and stored.

I'm also going to ask that you reconsider your tone.

I edited my post five times. My tone was duly considered.

OOC: I think where we're at odds is different styles. I prefer to ask the person I'm helping to come up with other reasons, and explain why the ones given are insufficient, you prefer to say, "Hey, add this, this, and this to your arguments!". Neither is necessarily wrong. As to a debate, if my nation disagreed with you, you'd get that. Probably with a dose of sarcasm, but you'd get your intelligent debate. Neither my nation nor I disagree with you in that this repeal is a good idea, and, FWIW, a human-rights-based argument and an argument that circumcision is inhumane sound like good arguments to me, and you've explained them decently and effectively enough that I saw no reason to reinvent the wheel.

My only concern, by the way, isn't just brute-force underscoring. That's just me (possibly ineptly) explaining why additional arguments are needed. The main thing is that I'm asking what other arguments The American Union of Fascists can come up with as a way of getting them to think about why they want to propose this repeal beyond, "People should be able to do what they want!". Assistance isn't just telling someone what they should do. That can be helpful, yes, but getting someone to think about that for themselves and explaining the whys as needed is another way of assisting someone.

Also, on the note of 'emphasising the illegality', I not so much showing *that* is is as explaining *why* it is, namely, trying to explain why the NatSov-only rule exists. Understanding *why* you're breaking the rules and *why* the rules are there can help steer someone in the right direction as well.

As to your tone, I asked you to reconsider because your reply was rather condescending.

[Monetillia]

OOC

...you prefer to say, "Hey, add this, this, and this to your arguments!" [...] The main thing is that I'm asking what other arguments The American Union of Fascists can come up with as a way of getting them to think about why they want to propose this repeal beyond, "People should be able to do what they want!"

Here, I feel I've found the miscommunication. It seems like you perceive my initial reply to be doing all the heavy lifting for him in the thinking department when, in fact, I am very passionate in character about seeing this repealed. My participation here is not intended to be a crutch; it is borne of my nation's leader's interest in seeing the repeal succeed. Please, don't misunderstand my intent. You're here in an effort to lend OOC assistance while I'm here with in-character discussion toward the same end. Also, thank you for clarifying your goal here.

As to a debate, if my nation disagreed with you, you'd get that. Probably with a dose of sarcasm, but you'd get your intelligent debate.

I would have valued that greatly, and I am moderately disappointed to not have experienced it, sarcasm and all (because perceived tone over the internet between strangers does not offend me). I look forward to enjoying your sarcasm in the event that we disagree about something in character.

...you've explained them decently and effectively enough that I saw no reason to reinvent the wheel.

I appreciate the validation. It wasn't my goal, but I'm glad you found my arguments edifying. Thank you.

As to your tone, I asked you to reconsider because your reply was rather condescending.

Both IRL and over text-based communications, I have a bad case of resting bitch face. I've had to make peace with the fact that very little of what I say will be taken for its face value because I am just a very Seven-of-Nine kind of communicator. I will ask that you not perceive condescension where none was intended. Rest assured that when I want to be... rude... the intent will be in no way ambiguous, and I will not stoop to petty condescension — I will be downright inflammatory.