[ReDRAFT] Repeal Permit Male Circumcision

[Wrapper]

Okay folks, any discussion that has nothing to do with the contents or the legality of the draft itself, take it to TGs. Thank you.

[The American Union of Fascists]

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.

Really appreciate it.

[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.

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.

Violating bodily autonomy of a minor is not justified by brushing aside my arguments, claiming that nobody has to join the WA, etc.
If I don't like a particular law I'll work to repeal it with the popular vote of the nation's in my region. I am theirs to use to alter the WA legislation is disagrees with.

>violating bodily autonomy
>for the greater good

[The American Union of Fascists]

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

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.

The rules actually state natsov can be used as an argument to preserve religious or cultural sovereignty or id3ntiy, from my understanding. I referenced then numerous times.

[Jebslund]

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.

Violating bodily autonomy of a minor is not justified by brushing aside my arguments, claiming that nobody has to join the WA, etc.
If I don't like a particular law I'll work to repeal it with the popular vote of the nation's in my region. I am theirs to use to alter the WA legislation is disagrees with.

>violating bodily autonomy
>for the greater good

OOC: See my previous posts for my stance on the repeal. TLDR: It's not what you think. I agree, both IC and OOC, that circumcision without consent is wrong, and should not be legal. But that, at present, isn't the point.

The fact remains that you have yet to present any arguments other than National/Cultural Sovereignty for repealing the target resolution. *That* is what I'm trying to get you to realize. In its current state, this repeal will not even make it to vote. It is in the rules RE: Repeals that a repeal cannot be solely based on those arguments. As I've pointed out several times, that the WA even has the power to set international law throws the concept of National Sovereignty as a sole argument out the window. Monetillia put forth a few

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.

you could use in your repeal. Until arguments that don't fall under NatSov are presented, this repeal has no chance. *That* is what I'm trying to get across here.

[shnip]
The rules actually state natsov can be used as an argument to preserve religious or cultural sovereignty or id3ntiy, from my understanding. I referenced then numerous times.

NatSov can be used as an argument, but it cannot be the *sole* argument. In other words, NatSov can be one of the arguments you make, but there have to be other arguments that aren't related to it, such as human rights arguments, contradictions with previous legislation not noticed on the first go around, etc.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm not sure that this is still legal under the Honest Mistake rule.

The last clause opposes legislative action that unfairly affects minority groups. In this context, it would seem to argue that a permissive rule on circumcision unfairly affects groups that elect not to circumcise their male infants. However, I don't see how it is possible for a minority group to have this issue, as the rule leaves choice in the hands of the parents or individuals. Nations simply cannot ban it. Minority groups can still require or reject circumcision. So this clause seems, on it's face, to misinterpret the target resolution, which is an Honest Mistake violation.

The author should address this by clarifying or editing before submission. As it stands, this also flies dangerously close to the NatSov Only repeal rule, and I'm concerned that the invalidation of the above clause will take away the only clause not related to affirming national sovereignty.

The Affirming clause could be read as legislating in a repeal, but I'm on the line on that one. I hope a colleague can weigh in to help clarify.

EDIT: As this was submitted, I have marked it illegal in concurrence with the rest of GenSec.

[The American Union of Fascists]

OOC: I'm not sure that this is still legal under the Honest Mistake rule.

The last clause opposes legislative action that unfairly affects minority groups. In this context, it would seem to argue that a permissive rule on circumcision unfairly affects groups that elect not to circumcise their male infants. However, I don't see how it is possible for a minority group to have this issue, as the rule leaves choice in the hands of the parents or individuals. Nations simply cannot ban it. Minority groups can still require or reject circumcision. So this clause seems, on it's face, to misinterpret the target resolution, which is an Honest Mistake violation.

The author should address this by clarifying or editing before submission. As it stands, this also flies dangerously close to the NatSov Only repeal rule, and I'm concerned that the invalidation of the above clause will take away the only clause not related to affirming national sovereignty.

The Affirming clause could be read as legislating in a repeal, but I'm on the line on that one. I hope a colleague can weigh in to help clarify.

EDIT: As this was submitted, I have marked it illegal in concurrence with the rest of GenSec.

The intent was never to legislate in the repeal. We will take the advice of the representatives present, withdraw the legislation and begin drafting anew. Am I needed to clarify any specific points for gensec or may I withdraw it?

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I'm not sure that this is still legal under the Honest Mistake rule.

The last clause opposes legislative action that unfairly affects minority groups. In this context, it would seem to argue that a permissive rule on circumcision unfairly affects groups that elect not to circumcise their male infants. However, I don't see how it is possible for a minority group to have this issue, as the rule leaves choice in the hands of the parents or individuals. Nations simply cannot ban it. Minority groups can still require or reject circumcision. So this clause seems, on it's face, to misinterpret the target resolution, which is an Honest Mistake violation.

The author should address this by clarifying or editing before submission. As it stands, this also flies dangerously close to the NatSov Only repeal rule, and I'm concerned that the invalidation of the above clause will take away the only clause not related to affirming national sovereignty.

The Affirming clause could be read as legislating in a repeal, but I'm on the line on that one. I hope a colleague can weigh in to help clarify.

EDIT: As this was submitted, I have marked it illegal in concurrence with the rest of GenSec.

The intent was never to legislate in the repeal. We will take the advice of the representatives present, withdraw the legislation and begin drafting anew. Am I needed to clarify any specific points for gensec or may I withdraw it?

No need for elaboration. You can withdraw it. You should edit on the forum and refrain from submission until you've eliminated all illegalities.

[Monetillia]

It is our perspective that the modification of body parts that relate to sexuality, a subset of personal identity that is core to how one perceives him- or herself, is something that requires great care and attention to detail in the crafting of a bill if we expect it to apply to all peoples and their cultures. We are concerned that the open language of the bill, while clearly intended not to infringe upon NatSov, leaves room for Civil Rights exploitation, something we, a civilized culture, find sub-par. We are now working with The American Union of Fascists to generate a more comprehensive repeal that addresses more issues than NatSov. We look forward to a productive result, and it will be our pleasure to see this repeal to fruition and then further generate a bill with languaging that addresses all the issues around circumcision that were not addressed in GAR#141.

[Prydania]

It is our perspective that the modification of body parts that relate to sexuality, a subset of personal identity that is core to how one perceives him- or herself, is something that requires great care and attention to detail in the crafting of a bill if we expect it to apply to all peoples and their cultures.

"And how, pray tell, do you intend to apply this to Jewish people and culture?"

[Jabberwocky]

If repealed, will it be enforced retroactively?

[Jebslund]

Ambassador Sofia Kerman rises.

"Good to see that the proposing delegation is willing to consider providing a legal resolution for the consideration of the World Assembly. Should one be produced as promised, Jebslund would be happy to support said repeal proposal, provided one which defends the bodily autonomy of minors and requires informed consent to perform such a procedure except in cases of clear and imminent danger or other urgent or emergency medical need, without banning the practice entirely."

If repealed, will it be enforced retroactively?

OOC: A repeal simply leaves the decision to the various WA nations. It's basically the same as the WA deciding not to decide on the issue. A separate resolution would need to be passed in order to actually *ban* circumcision. The current stance of the WA is that circumcision is an individual decision, and therefore cannot be banned by WA member nations. Repealing the target resolution would simply shift that stance to WA member nations being permitted to decide at the national level whether or not circumcision is allowable. Passing a new resolution to actually institute a ban would forbid any WA member nation from allowing circumcision.

[Jabberwocky]

In truth, my comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek. I mean, how do you rescind a circumcision?

[Jebslund]

In truth, my comment was made with tongue firmly in cheek. I mean, how do you rescind a circumcision?

OOC: I figured you meant punishments for carrying out/allowing circumcisions. As in Ex Post Facto consequences. The US Constitution actually specifically mentions that as illegal in real life because there was a time when, in some countries, if a law was made that declared something previously legal to be illegal, it was possible to be tried and found guilty for doing that thing even if the incident occurred before the law was written (and therefore before it was illegal).

Please direct any further responses to TG's.

[Prydania]

If repealed, will it be enforced retroactively?

OOC: A repeal simply leaves the decision to the various WA nations. It's basically the same as the WA deciding not to decide on the issue. A separate resolution would need to be passed in order to actually *ban* circumcision. The current stance of the WA is that circumcision is an individual decision, and therefore cannot be banned by WA member nations. Repealing the target resolution would simply shift that stance to WA member nations being permitted to decide at the national level whether or not circumcision is allowable. Passing a new resolution to actually institute a ban would forbid any WA member nation from allowing circumcision.

OOC:
And see, that's my worry. I believe that male circumcision is a important religious ritual to certain faiths. I plan to continue to allow those minority religions the right to practice their faith as they see fit in my own nation.

Now that being said...I have no issue with the idea of giving each state the right to rule on this decision as they see fit. My concerns are two-fold...

First, the present Permit Male Circumcision resolution does not mandate it. It merely states that the option must be allowed. Parents who find the act abhorrent are under no obligation to subject their sons to it. So from a purely GenSec rules standpoint...any repeal that simply shifts the decision to individual nations is a NatSov only repeal. And thus illegal.

Secondly, I look at the player who is pushing this repeal attempt. The dude is an open fascist, National Socialist, and white nationalist. A look at his nation and his region tells you pretty much everything.
So given that Permit Male Circumcision merely protects the rights of people to have their sons circumcised if they see fit? And seeing as Permit Male Circumcision in no way forces the procedure on any parent who does not wish it? I have to conclude that the American Union of Fascists is only pushing this in an attempt to both shame the Jewish and Muslim communities within the game and to open a way up for an outright ban on male circumcision in an attempt to further degrade Jews and Muslims, both IC and OOC, by codifying into law a WA resolution meant to demean sacred rites of their faith.

Look. If someone wishes to try and repeal Permit Male Circumcision because they feel the procedure is harmful or if they have ideological objections to it based on the principals of bodily autonomy? I'll have that debate in good faith. I will disagree with those people on both points, but I at least respect the arguments.

American Union of Fascists though? This is them simply trying to get the WA to formally demean Jews and Muslims. It's barely dogwhistle antisemitism. Hell, check his post history. He has a history of ridiculing and denying the Holocaust. This person is not pushing for this with the best of intentions.

So to all of you decent folks who wish to repeal Permit Male Circumcision? I'm asking you, from an OOC perspective, to please consider the source of this particular effort.

[Monetillia]

"And how, pray tell, do you intend to apply this to Jewish people and culture?"

Don't worry, Your Majesty. We haven't forgotten Hitler's sins, and refining this legislation is not going to result in a repeat of World War II. There might be some languaging you find unacceptable, but I will remind you that Abraham, the first recorded worshipper of Jehova to be circumcised, was circumcised as an adult. That's something to consider.

If repealed, will it be enforced retroactively?

The repeal would go into effect upon approval, but beyond that, we aren't sure we understand the question. Since we are not permitted to create legislation in the process of a repeal, there's nothing to enforce... so... yes? Yes! There would be an immediate enforcement of nothing! Until such time as this honored assembly creates adequate legislation on the issue, each nation's laws would be the sole governance regarding circumcision. Ideally, we believe that is how it should remain, but there are those who wish to see universal legislation in play. As a result, we are prepared to work with them to generate a bill that leaves room for NatSov while creating a worldwide culture that doesn't use barbaric forms of mutilation on those who have no means of speaking for themselves.

[Imperial Polk County]

"Doesn't this body have anything to debate about other than baby penises? Opposed."

[The American Union of Fascists]

"Doesn't this body have anything to debate about other than baby penises? Opposed."

*mutilating baby penises.

[The American Union of Fascists]

OOC: A repeal simply leaves the decision to the various WA nations. It's basically the same as the WA deciding not to decide on the issue. A separate resolution would need to be passed in order to actually *ban* circumcision. The current stance of the WA is that circumcision is an individual decision, and therefore cannot be banned by WA member nations. Repealing the target resolution would simply shift that stance to WA member nations being permitted to decide at the national level whether or not circumcision is allowable. Passing a new resolution to actually institute a ban would forbid any WA member nation from allowing circumcision.

OOC:
And see, that's my worry. I believe that male circumcision is a important religious ritual to certain faiths. I plan to continue to allow those minority religions the right to practice their faith as they see fit in my own nation.

Now that being said...I have no issue with the idea of giving each state the right to rule on this decision as they see fit. My concerns are two-fold...

First, the present Permit Male Circumcision resolution does not mandate it. It merely states that the option must be allowed. Parents who find the act abhorrent are under no obligation to subject their sons to it. So from a purely GenSec rules standpoint...any repeal that simply shifts the decision to individual nations is a NatSov only repeal. And thus illegal.

Secondly, I look at the player who is pushing this repeal attempt. The dude is an open fascist, National Socialist, and white nationalist. A look at his nation and his region tells you pretty much everything.
So given that Permit Male Circumcision merely protects the rights of people to have their sons circumcised if they see fit? And seeing as Permit Male Circumcision in no way forces the procedure on any parent who does not wish it? I have to conclude that the American Union of Fascists is only pushing this in an attempt to both shame the Jewish and Muslim communities within the game and to open a way up for an outright ban on male circumcision in an attempt to further degrade Jews and Muslims, both IC and OOC, by codifying into law a WA resolution meant to demean sacred rites of their faith.

Look. If someone wishes to try and repeal Permit Male Circumcision because they feel the procedure is harmful or if they have ideological objections to it based on the principals of bodily autonomy? I'll have that debate in good faith. I will disagree with those people on both points, but I at least respect the arguments.

American Union of Fascists though? This is them simply trying to get the WA to formally demean Jews and Muslims. It's barely dogwhistle antisemitism. Hell, check his post history. He has a history of ridiculing and denying the Holocaust. This person is not pushing for this with the best of intentions.

So to all of you decent folks who wish to repeal Permit Male Circumcision? I'm asking you, from an OOC perspective, to please consider the source of this particular effort.

OOC: DOPE STRAWMAN BRO

[The American Union of Fascists]

OOC: A repeal simply leaves the decision to the various WA nations. It's basically the same as the WA deciding not to decide on the issue. A separate resolution would need to be passed in order to actually *ban* circumcision. The current stance of the WA is that circumcision is an individual decision, and therefore cannot be banned by WA member nations. Repealing the target resolution would simply shift that stance to WA member nations being permitted to decide at the national level whether or not circumcision is allowable. Passing a new resolution to actually institute a ban would forbid any WA member nation from allowing circumcision.

OOC:
And see, that's my worry. I believe that male circumcision is a important religious ritual to certain faiths. I plan to continue to allow those minority religions the right to practice their faith as they see fit in my own nation.

Now that being said...I have no issue with the idea of giving each state the right to rule on this decision as they see fit. My concerns are two-fold...

First, the present Permit Male Circumcision resolution does not mandate it. It merely states that the option must be allowed. Parents who find the act abhorrent are under no obligation to subject their sons to it. So from a purely GenSec rules standpoint...any repeal that simply shifts the decision to individual nations is a NatSov only repeal. And thus illegal.

Secondly, I look at the player who is pushing this repeal attempt. The dude is an open fascist, National Socialist, and white nationalist. A look at his nation and his region tells you pretty much everything.
So given that Permit Male Circumcision merely protects the rights of people to have their sons circumcised if they see fit? And seeing as Permit Male Circumcision in no way forces the procedure on any parent who does not wish it? I have to conclude that the American Union of Fascists is only pushing this in an attempt to both shame the Jewish and Muslim communities within the game and to open a way up for an outright ban on male circumcision in an attempt to further degrade Jews and Muslims, both IC and OOC, by codifying into law a WA resolution meant to demean sacred rites of their faith.

Look. If someone wishes to try and repeal Permit Male Circumcision because they feel the procedure is harmful or if they have ideological objections to it based on the principals of bodily autonomy? I'll have that debate in good faith. I will disagree with those people on both points, but I at least respect the arguments.

American Union of Fascists though? This is them simply trying to get the WA to formally demean Jews and Muslims. It's barely dogwhistle antisemitism. Hell, check his post history. He has a history of ridiculing and denying the Holocaust. This person is not pushing for this with the best of intentions.

So to all of you decent folks who wish to repeal Permit Male Circumcision? I'm asking you, from an OOC perspective, to please consider the source of this particular effort.

You are welcome as a respected guest in the server for my region. You are welcome to debate the issue in good faith with me. Or with my turkish vice chancellor. Or with Kuwait, of our foreign ministry.

[Jebslund]

OOC:
And see, that's my worry. I believe that male circumcision is a important religious ritual to certain faiths. I plan to continue to allow those minority religions the right to practice their faith as they see fit in my own nation.

Now that being said...I have no issue with the idea of giving each state the right to rule on this decision as they see fit. My concerns are two-fold...

First, the present Permit Male Circumcision resolution does not mandate it. It merely states that the option must be allowed. Parents who find the act abhorrent are under no obligation to subject their sons to it. So from a purely GenSec rules standpoint...any repeal that simply shifts the decision to individual nations is a NatSov only repeal. And thus illegal.

Secondly, I look at the player who is pushing this repeal attempt. The dude is an open fascist, National Socialist, and white nationalist. A look at his nation and his region tells you pretty much everything.
So given that Permit Male Circumcision merely protects the rights of people to have their sons circumcised if they see fit? And seeing as Permit Male Circumcision in no way forces the procedure on any parent who does not wish it? I have to conclude that the American Union of Fascists is only pushing this in an attempt to both shame the Jewish and Muslim communities within the game and to open a way up for an outright ban on male circumcision in an attempt to further degrade Jews and Muslims, both IC and OOC, by codifying into law a WA resolution meant to demean sacred rites of their faith.

Look. If someone wishes to try and repeal Permit Male Circumcision because they feel the procedure is harmful or if they have ideological objections to it based on the principals of bodily autonomy? I'll have that debate in good faith. I will disagree with those people on both points, but I at least respect the arguments.

American Union of Fascists though? This is them simply trying to get the WA to formally demean Jews and Muslims. It's barely dogwhistle antisemitism. Hell, check his post history. He has a history of ridiculing and denying the Holocaust. This person is not pushing for this with the best of intentions.

So to all of you decent folks who wish to repeal Permit Male Circumcision? I'm asking you, from an OOC perspective, to please consider the source of this particular effort.

You are welcome as a respected guest in the server for my region. You are welcome to debate the issue in good faith with me. Or with my turkish vice chancellor. Or with Kuwait, of our foreign ministry.

OOC:
And see, that's my worry. I believe that male circumcision is a important religious ritual to certain faiths. I plan to continue to allow those minority religions the right to practice their faith as they see fit in my own nation.

Now that being said...I have no issue with the idea of giving each state the right to rule on this decision as they see fit. My concerns are two-fold...

First, the present Permit Male Circumcision resolution does not mandate it. It merely states that the option must be allowed. Parents who find the act abhorrent are under no obligation to subject their sons to it. So from a purely GenSec rules standpoint...any repeal that simply shifts the decision to individual nations is a NatSov only repeal. And thus illegal.

Secondly, I look at the player who is pushing this repeal attempt. The dude is an open fascist, National Socialist, and white nationalist. A look at his nation and his region tells you pretty much everything.
So given that Permit Male Circumcision merely protects the rights of people to have their sons circumcised if they see fit? And seeing as Permit Male Circumcision in no way forces the procedure on any parent who does not wish it? I have to conclude that the American Union of Fascists is only pushing this in an attempt to both shame the Jewish and Muslim communities within the game and to open a way up for an outright ban on male circumcision in an attempt to further degrade Jews and Muslims, both IC and OOC, by codifying into law a WA resolution meant to demean sacred rites of their faith.

Look. If someone wishes to try and repeal Permit Male Circumcision because they feel the procedure is harmful or if they have ideological objections to it based on the principals of bodily autonomy? I'll have that debate in good faith. I will disagree with those people on both points, but I at least respect the arguments.

American Union of Fascists though? This is them simply trying to get the WA to formally demean Jews and Muslims. It's barely dogwhistle antisemitism. Hell, check his post history. He has a history of ridiculing and denying the Holocaust. This person is not pushing for this with the best of intentions.

So to all of you decent folks who wish to repeal Permit Male Circumcision? I'm asking you, from an OOC perspective, to please consider the source of this particular effort.

OOC: DOPE STRAWMAN BRO

"Doesn't this body have anything to debate about other than baby penises? Opposed."

*mutilating baby penises.

OOC: Did you know that you can quote more than one post, reply to more than one point, and make edits to include points you forgot to make, all in a single post?

[Araraukar]

OOC: And see, that's my worry. I believe that male circumcision is a important religious ritual to certain faiths.

OOC: ...carried out on children too young to understand language, nevermind faith or religion or rituals. If it was done on people above the age of consent, who were free to decline (with the understanding that they would then be cast out of their religion, which is a whole 'nother level of coercion, but not the point here), I - and, I daresay, most people opposing baby circumscision - wouldn't have any complaints.

IC:

"Doesn't this body have anything to debate about other than baby penises? Opposed."

"Apparently not," Johan said, "given that the target resolution actually passed."

[Prydania]

OOC: DOPE STRAWMAN BRO

You are welcome as a respected guest in the server for my region. You are welcome to debate the issue in good faith with me. Or with my turkish vice chancellor. Or with Kuwait, of our foreign ministry.

OOC:
I appreciate the invitation. That being said? I will respectfully decline. For a number of reasons. I hope to detail them all here, in full view of the public, so you cannot accuse of anything.

First-
From a purely practical standpoint? It's a wasted effort. You've made your position, and the position of your region, quite clear. I would much rather spend my time debating issues in a forum where I have the opportunity to maybe change someone's mind.
If you, personally, wish to have a more one-on-one conversation away from prying eyes of the GA? My TG inbox is always open. I can promise you, I don't make a habit of sharing my private correspondence.

Secondly-
Between your collective post history under the "American Fascist Union" and "Greater Kascadia" accounts? You have made it very clear that you have a deep-seeded hatred for the Jewish people, and wish to use a repeal and inevitable ban to use the WA to degrade Jews and Muslims by rendering an aspect of their religions "immoral."
In effect? You want to use the WA to promote your own moral imperialism, where religions and ethnicities that don't conform to your white nationalist outlook are disparaged.
I can, and will, debate this issue with people in good faith. I though Arakaukar was one such person, but apparently they're willing to ally with white nationalists and fascists, so I'm not so sure.
Regardless? I don't believe this to be anything but you attempting to hijack the male circumcision discussion to further your own antisemitic agenda, both IC and OOC.
If you believe I have gravely misjudged you, American Union of Fascists/Greater Kascadia? Like I said, my TG inbox is open. Again, nothing on my end will be leaked should you choose to reach out.


Thirdly-
Prydania is not a Jewish nation. It's actually, despite having a Welsh-based name, more Nordic now than anything else. Mostly this stems from my heritage on my mother's side, who despite having converted to Judaism? Has Norman and Scandinavian heritage. I've always found that fascinating, and so I'm running with it from an IC lore and RP perspective.
That being said? OOC? I am Jewish. And given your collective posting history as both American Union of Fascists and Greater Kascadia? I see that you've mocked and denied the Holocaust and have made many disparaging statements about Semitic peoples (not just Jews).
I have a personal dislike of ideological bubbles, and I hate propaganda. Even when it conforms to my world-view. That being said? I will not deal with people like yourself who view me as sub-human and worthy of contempt as a result of my ethnic background.
Nor will I put myself in a position where I'm at the mercy of people who, like you, consider me sub-human.

Finally-
Since your return from hiatus as American Union of Fascists? You've shown a rather volatile temperament. You reacted to GenSec implementing the rules in an objective manner with a tantrum, only to collect yourself and and adopt a more productive approach.
Here, you accuse me of attacking a strawman (in call caps to boot) when all I did was explain your posting history to the GA.
Then you, very politely, invite me to your Discord. You seem to be all over the place, swinging from angry, entitled troll to someone who wishes to be a productive member of this community.
I'm not interested in accepting an invitation made while you were in one state of mind, only to show up and get you on the other end of things, where you're aggressive and insulting.

So for this reason, I again have to say I will respectfully decline your invitation. Again, if you want a more personal conversation with me? I have an inbox here. I'm even willing to share my Discord handle if you would rather talk one-on-one in that setting.
I will not be joining your Discord, however.

[The American Union of Fascists]

OOC: DOPE STRAWMAN BRO

You are welcome as a respected guest in the server for my region. You are welcome to debate the issue in good faith with me. Or with my turkish vice chancellor. Or with Kuwait, of our foreign ministry.

OOC:
I appreciate the invitation. That being said? I will respectfully decline. For a number of reasons. I hope to detail them all here, in full view of the public, so you cannot accuse of anything.

First-
From a purely practical standpoint? It's a wasted effort. You've made your position, and the position of your region, quite clear. I would much rather spend my time debating issues in a forum where I have the opportunity to maybe change someone's mind.
If you, personally, wish to have a more one-on-one conversation away from prying eyes of the GA? My TG inbox is always open. I can promise you, I don't make a habit of sharing my private correspondence.

Secondly-
Between your collective post history under the "American Fascist Union" and "Greater Kascadia" accounts? You have made it very clear that you have a deep-seeded hatred for the Jewish people, and wish to use a repeal and inevitable ban to use the WA to degrade Jews and Muslims by rendering an aspect of their religions "immoral."
In effect? You want to use the WA to promote your own moral imperialism, where religions and ethnicities that don't conform to your white nationalist outlook are disparaged.
I can, and will, debate this issue with people in good faith. I though Arakaukar was one such person, but apparently they're willing to ally with white nationalists and fascists, so I'm not so sure.
Regardless? I don't believe this to be anything but you attempting to hijack the male circumcision discussion to further your own antisemitic agenda, both IC and OOC.
If you believe I have gravely misjudged you, American Union of Fascists/Greater Kascadia? Like I said, my TG inbox is open. Again, nothing on my end will be leaked should you choose to reach out.


Thirdly-
Prydania is not a Jewish nation. It's actually, despite having a Welsh-based name, more Nordic now than anything else. Mostly this stems from my heritage on my mother's side, who despite having converted to Judaism? Has Norman and Scandinavian heritage. I've always found that fascinating, and so I'm running with it from an IC lore and RP perspective.
That being said? OOC? I am Jewish. And given your collective posting history as both American Union of Fascists and Greater Kascadia? I see that you've mocked and denied the Holocaust and have made many disparaging statements about Semitic peoples (not just Jews).
I have a personal dislike of ideological bubbles, and I hate propaganda. Even when it conforms to my world-view. That being said? I will not deal with people like yourself who view me as sub-human and worthy of contempt as a result of my ethnic background.
Nor will I put myself in a position where I'm at the mercy of people who, like you, consider me sub-human.

Finally-
Since your return from hiatus as American Union of Fascists? You've shown a rather volatile temperament. You reacted to GenSec implementing the rules in an objective manner with a tantrum, only to collect yourself and and adopt a more productive approach.
Here, you accuse me of attacking a strawman (in call caps to boot) when all I did was explain your posting history to the GA.
Then you, very politely, invite me to your Discord. You seem to be all over the place, swinging from angry, entitled troll to someone who wishes to be a productive member of this community.
I'm not interested in accepting an invitation made while you were in one state of mind, only to show up and get you on the other end of things, where you're aggressive and insulting.

So for this reason, I again have to say I will respectfully decline your invitation. Again, if you want a more personal conversation with me? I have an inbox here. I'm even willing to share my Discord handle if you would rather talk one-on-one in that setting.
I will not be joining your Discord, however.

Ooc: the entire purpose of debating in discord is to debate via voice chat, so that we are better able to have a flowing conversation. Anyone here is welcome to join. It exists for the region members to gather, and we welcome anybody at any time to debate. Im more than willing to set up a server solely for a debate so you feel more comfortable? It's regrettable we couldn't get someone from gensec to moderate a debate between us, as typing entire paragraphs is time consuming and voice chat enables- qualitatively -better conversation overall.
You're conflating me (ooc) as kascadia. We share views, and we share an irl friendship. We are not the same person. He introduced me to the game last year.
My position on Arab culture is wholly different than kascadias PM. There is no way a ban would pass. This is about the repeal of the resolution and nothing more. Jewish regions should be welcome to circumcise their children. However, if my nation or our region votes to ban it or otherwise restrict it pending qualification, it should be of no concern to the Assembly, as an example. That is the entire argument.
With regard to the claim the current legislation oppressed minorities, it does. If a religion, ethnic population has as part of its culture something like forbidding circumcision, you should respect that. However, you (the rest of the assembly) have decided to require nations to permit it for an even smaller minority (abrahamics), which impedes upon the wishes of the majority of some nations, including governments and delegates.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I don't know a single member of GenSec who communicates via voice chat and not text. The GA discord, which has the lions share of GA regulars, does not ever use voice chat, but typed word.