[DRAFT] Assisting the Bereaved

[Erithaca]

In my opinion, this is partially an international issue. Regardless, it has my support. Defining immediate family member might help. In 2.d, I might add an "if possible": not all WA nations will have the infrastructure to provide counselling.

[Forensatha]

Against

"Care to state why?"

I simply disagree that this issue should be internationalized. It's something that can be done with effectively by most national governments.

I'm worried it simply creates an international piece of legislation just for the sake of doing so.
I sympathize with it's basic principle but I don't think this should be a WA issue.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

What about prior oral objections from the deceased in clause two section a?

Unless it’s on tape or otherwise recorded, can you prove they said it? Eyewitnesses? I somehow doubt most people are going to go around saying “Man, I hope X doesn’t come to my funeral.” However, a written document is verifiable. At least, much more than hearsay and gossip.

Okay I see. So written is good as is.

[Linux and the X]

What about prior oral objections from the deceased in clause two section a?

Unless it’s on tape or otherwise recorded, can you prove they said it? Eyewitnesses? I somehow doubt most people are going to go around saying “Man, I hope X doesn’t come to my funeral.” However, a written document is verifiable. At least, much more than hearsay and gossip.

Presumably it would be handled in a manner similar to oral contracts.

[Sougra]

Aritcle I, Section 2 has some logistical issues, some of which have been mention by Bears Armed's Ambassador. I wish to mention a situation in which someone is, for example, an enemy of the state in their respective country. For example, a known capitalist in a socialist or communist nation, a fascist, a racist, an atheist, a theist, etc. Or, those who are seen as national security threats or.

Basically, if the bereaved individual is someone the state itself is against in some way, most likely an activist for something the state does not like, this proposal would make it seem as if this WA law applies to them as well.

"United Massachusetts is committed to defending the rights of dissidents and of their relatives. We believe that everyone deserves the right to grieve, regardless of who they are."

I have don't have much of an issue with that in and of itself, but I was speaking from the perspective of nations in which enemies of the state would not have such rights. Should those nations realize this specific situation is not addressed they may see this as infringing on national matters, and this would prevent the proposal itself from getting passed, or be used as part of a cause for a repeal in the future should it be passed.

"Sometimes, Ambassador, you must compromise with those whom you do not agree with in order for what you want to be accomplished, as I'm sure you know by now."

[Kenmoria]

“I believe there should be a more inclusive definition of ‘Bereaved Individual’ as different cultures could have bonds much stronger than familial ones, which should be respected. Also, non-immediate family like cousins can be very close and should be covered under this proposal.”

[United Massachusetts]

"United Massachusetts is committed to defending the rights of dissidents and of their relatives. We believe that everyone deserves the right to grieve, regardless of who they are."

I have don't have much of an issue with that in and of itself, but I was speaking from the perspective of nations in which enemies of the state would not have such rights. Should those nations realize this specific situation is not addressed they may see this as infringing on national matters, and this would prevent the proposal itself from getting passed, or be used as part of a cause for a repeal in the future should it be passed.

"Sometimes, Ambassador, you must compromise with those whom you do not agree with in order for what you want to be accomplished, as I'm sure you know by now."

"Enemies of the state still have fundamental rights, including in grief. There has only been one person angry about this so far, and I'm not seeing the reason to cave on this point."

“I believe there should be a more inclusive definition of ‘Bereaved Individual’ as different cultures could have bonds much stronger than familial ones, which should be respected. Also, non-immediate family like cousins can be very close and should be covered under this proposal.”

"The question is more of a how. Perhaps the following:"

Defines "bereaved individual" as any person who has experienced a traumatic death loss, especially of an immediate family member,

[Bears Armed]

Defines "bereaved individual" as any person who has experienced a traumatic death loss, especially of an immediate family member,

OOC
Famous pop star is murdered.
Millions of fans, from across the world[s], claim the right to attend their funeral.

[Consular]

c. be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state,

"Surely you can imagine circumstances where this would be wholly inappropriate... Not to mention potentially unnecessarily traumatizing for the bereaved individual.

The truth isn't always what people need to hear."

[Linux and the X]

c. be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state,

"Surely you can imagine circumstances where this would be wholly inappropriate... Not to mention potentially unnecessarily traumatizing for the bereaved individual.

The truth isn't always what people need to hear."

A right does not imply an obligation to exercise that right.

[Kenmoria]

c. be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state,

"Surely you can imagine circumstances where this would be wholly inappropriate... Not to mention potentially unnecessarily traumatizing for the bereaved individual.

The truth isn't always what people need to hear."

“I can imagine such a scenario, and it is irrelevant to the proposal. People simply have a right to know what their deceased did and how they died; it is their choice to exercise said right, though I can’t imagine why one wouldn't.”

Defines "bereaved individual" as any person who has experienced a traumatic death loss, especially of an immediate family member,

“This seems a bit too inclusive, as it can be traumatic, especially at a young age, to simply know of the death of someone that was once met, even if there was no real connection. I suggest the following:”

Defines "bereaved individual" as any person who has experienced the loss of a person with which there was a strong interpersonal relationship, especially one familial in nature,

[Sougra]

I have don't have much of an issue with that in and of itself, but I was speaking from the perspective of nations in which enemies of the state would not have such rights. Should those nations realize this specific situation is not addressed they may see this as infringing on national matters, and this would prevent the proposal itself from getting passed, or be used as part of a cause for a repeal in the future should it be passed.

"Sometimes, Ambassador, you must compromise with those whom you do not agree with in order for what you want to be accomplished, as I'm sure you know by now."

"Enemies of the state still have fundamental rights, including in grief. There has only been one person angry about this so far, and I'm not seeing the reason to cave on this point."

I think I should clarify that I was not angry about this, as stated in my sig, I often say things under the pretense of playing devil's advocate or the Socratic Method. In fact, I even explicitly stated that I don't have an issue with the clause being applied to my own nation, I'm speaking from the perspective of nations who are not so accepting of said people. I'm going to bold it, so there's no mistake. Often, I do not support what I am saying, I say it in order for people to take said thing into account and understand how, in your case, that someone may not vote for this because of that. I laid out what I meant, and so long as you understand what I'm saying, my job is done, since it's not my proposal so I can't decide what should and shouldn't be included. I assume that my IC quote, which I don't do a lot of, gave the impression that I in fact am against said clause, when I'm not. I was merely pointing out a potential flaw that could hinder the ability of this proposal to be passed, nothing more.

Now, this is entirely unrelated to the conversation, so I will point out that Article II, Section 1 states that "Member states shall take any steps necessary for the protection of the physical safety of bereaved minors, including the provision of sufficient foster care and adoption services." (devil's advocate warning) Unfortunately, while I don't at all disagree with the spirit of this, the bolded term could theoretically support giving guns to said children because it protects their physical safety, giving them self-defense lessons, making them have police or military escorts accompany them, putting trackers in their necks in order to make sure that people where they are so they don't get hurt, or any number of things, many potentially radical to you or some other person reading this proposal. Instead, I'd like to make a minor edit and make it "any reasonable steps necessary", although that then opens another can of worms namely "what is reasonable?", and I'll leave that one up to you. Or, you could just make it "comprehensive services" or "services necessary", as alluded to in Section 2.

[Consular]

"Surely you can imagine circumstances where this would be wholly inappropriate... Not to mention potentially unnecessarily traumatizing for the bereaved individual.

The truth isn't always what people need to hear."

“I can imagine such a scenario, and it is irrelevant to the proposal. People simply have a right to know what their deceased did and how they died; it is their choice to exercise said right, though I can’t imagine why one wouldn't.”

"I'm afraid I disagree that they have any such right. You have no right to know all the details of your brother's life while they are alive. I am unsure why you should suddenly have access to everything about them when they die. This is another problem, you see -- the draft states that one should be provided the truthful circumstances of the deceased individual's life by the state, but that is enormously imprecise.

Regardless of all that, the circumstances I was imagining where this is inappropriate is where the deceased person is an agent of the state and the particulars of their death, nevermind their life, are classified."

[Araraukar]

Each bereaved individual shall be entitled to:
a. be involved in and present at funeral or other final rites barring prior written objection from the deceased individual,

OOC: I'd put some exception there for when the bereaved individual is, say, in maximum security prison for a good reason and for the rest of their life. Especially if they're in because of something like gang-related drug trade or something else, where them being moved to and fro a graveside would be a huge risk of 1. attack from their enemies, putting civilians at risk, or 2. attack by their allies to bust them free.

And I'd also put in exceptions where the right can be denied if retrieving the individual from, say, a nuclear submarine that's trying to stay unnoticed by enemies, would cause serious issues with national security or military operations, or, for example, not sending up a rocket just to bring an astronaut back for the funeral and then another to send them back up again. Basically exceptions for security risks or huge costs.

I could see them being allowed to, when feasible (which wouldn't happen in the case of the sub), view the funeral via video transmission of some kind.

access or visit the remains of the deceased individual, except where doing so is infeasible, dangerous, or poses a public health risk,

I'd also add "or is against national law" (for when the person dies abroad or even in a non-WA nation) and definitely add "or when the remains are part of an ongoing criminal investigation". Don't you watch CSI?

be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state,

...isn't such a thing usually worded as "life and death"? Though I don't think it's at all necessary to let the remaining spouse to know that their deceased spouse had an affair with someone, or had once belonged to a criminal organization but had changed identity as part of witness protection program, or that they stepped onto a landmine and [gory details excised to preserve forum's PG13 rating] and still lived for three hours, before [more censoring, but it involves scavenging animals].

So what exactly did you mean with that?

and access counseling or guidance services at low, non-prohibitive cost.

Member states shall make available the relevant counseling or guidance services to bereaved individuals at low, non-prohibitive cost.

Why do you repeat yourself? Why do you repeat yourself?

Member states shall take any steps necessary for the protection of the physical safety of bereaved minors, including the provision of sufficient foster care and adoption services.

So one parent dies in a plane crash somewhere in a foreign land, and the state can take the kids away from the remaining parent? Cool. Except even Araraukar, that I intentionally have looking for those kinds of loopholes to keep bad parents from having children, wouldn't take children away from the surviving family member. Or, if it was a sibling who died, again, unrelated to the family, take the kids away from both parents...

Member states shall provide other services necessary to protect their emotional well-being, especially through state schools, and shall take action to ensure that school officials are capable of providing help to said bereaved minors.

...so the state can also force the kids to drop out of a private school to attend state school instead? Cool beans.

Member states are urged to provide financial assistance towards efforts to bring together bereaved minors for healing in camps, bereavement groups, and similar services.

I read "camps" and my mind adds "concentration" to the front, which I'm quite sure wasn't your intention. Also, what "healing"? Normal grieving doesn't need healing.

[Linux and the X]

Member states shall take any steps necessary for the protection of the physical safety of bereaved minors, including the provision of sufficient foster care and adoption services.

So one parent dies in a plane crash somewhere in a foreign land, and the state can take the kids away from the remaining parent? Cool. Except even Araraukar, that I intentionally have looking for those kinds of loopholes to keep bad parents from having children, wouldn't take children away from the surviving family member. Or, if it was a sibling who died, again, unrelated to the family, take the kids away from both parents...

To be fair, it does say "sufficient foster care and adoption services". Assuming there remains one or more surviving parent or parents, "none at all" would be a sufficient quantity.

[Bears Armed]

What if the bereaved person actually killed the person whose death they're now grieving over? Allowing them to attend the funeral would probably be very upsetting to the other mourners...

[Araraukar]

What if the bereaved person actually killed the person whose death they're now grieving over? Allowing them to attend the funeral would probably be very upsetting to the other mourners...

OOC: Or at least has been formally accused of, and detained as the suspect for that.

EDIT: I'd also suggest that when a person in witness protection program dies, their actual relatives are not informed of their death and certainly not told details of their life. A new identity is a new identity for a reason.

To be fair, it does say "sufficient foster care and adoption services". Assuming there remains one or more surviving parent or parents, "none at all" would be a sufficient quantity.

Also OOC: It doesn't say you can't take kids off of a surviving parent, though.

Instead of "protection of the physical safety", it should perhaps rather go for something like "to remove minors who are in imminent danger, to be cared by the state while their home environment and the circumstances of their everyday life are rearranged to be safe for them". That's clumsy wording and I'm sure UM can put it better, but points being that 1. "imminent danger" of any kind should in any case lead to children being taken to somewhere safe until the danger passes, 2. if the circumstances of their home life can be made better, the kids could be returned there, with the implication that, 3. if their life at home can't be made safe, they won't be returned.

Using just physical safety or imminent danger is problematic, though, if there are several children out of whom the eldest can technically at least step into the mom/dad role, even if both parents have died.

[Grenartia]

Out of curiousity, how is "immediate family" defined? Also, why not close friends and romantic partners, as well?

I'd also suggest that when a person in witness protection program dies, their actual relatives are not informed of their death and certainly not told details of their life. A new identity is a new identity for a reason.

I don't think you properly understand what Witness Protection is, and why the new identity is taken on. The only reason that the new identity is taken on is for the protection of the individual from harm so they can testify on behalf of the state in a court of law. If they die, there is literally no reason to keep up the charade, and thus, there is no reason to not inform their relatives.

[Araraukar]

I don't think you properly understand what Witness Protection is, and why the new identity is taken on. The only reason that the new identity is taken on is for the protection of the individual from harm so they can testify on behalf of the state in a court of law. If they die, there is literally no reason to keep up the charade, and thus, there is no reason to not inform their relatives.

OOC: I know what it is, how it works and why it exists. But considering "they would likely hunt you down to kill you in revenge" is a legitimate reason to end up in the program, I really don't see why a possible spouse or children of said person should be exposed to the same threat. Revenge killings aren't restricted to the individual theirself.

[Kenmoria]

I don't think you properly understand what Witness Protection is, and why the new identity is taken on. The only reason that the new identity is taken on is for the protection of the individual from harm so they can testify on behalf of the state in a court of law. If they die, there is literally no reason to keep up the charade, and thus, there is no reason to not inform their relatives.

OOC: I know what it is, how it works and why it exists. But considering "they would likely hunt you down to kill you in revenge" is a legitimate reason to end up in the program, I really don't see why a possible spouse or children of said person should be exposed to the same threat. Revenge killings aren't restricted to the individual theirself.

(OOC: This proposal only mandates the immediate family attending the funeral be made aware of the deceased’s identity, not the wider public. Whilst someone might accidentally spill the beans and reveal something, the onus should be on them not to do so, not the WA. I don’t believe that criminals would be able to kill a spouse or child in a revenge killing if only the spouse and the child knew the witness.)

[Grenartia]

I don't think you properly understand what Witness Protection is, and why the new identity is taken on. The only reason that the new identity is taken on is for the protection of the individual from harm so they can testify on behalf of the state in a court of law. If they die, there is literally no reason to keep up the charade, and thus, there is no reason to not inform their relatives.

OOC: I know what it is, how it works and why it exists. But considering "they would likely hunt you down to kill you in revenge" is a legitimate reason to end up in the program, I really don't see why a possible spouse or children of said person should be exposed to the same threat. Revenge killings aren't restricted to the individual theirself.

Can't get revenge against an individual who is already dead, not even revenge by proxy.

[Araraukar]

(OOC: This proposal only mandates the immediate family attending the funeral be made aware of the deceased’s identity)

OOC: No it doesn't. It says "any individual having recently experienced the death of an immediate family member" (which, last I checked, your adult children and siblings still count as) "shall be entitled to a. be involved in and present at funeral or other final rites barring prior written objection from the deceased individual, b. access or visit the remains of the deceased individual, except where doing so is infeasible, dangerous, or poses a public health risk, c. be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state". It says nothing about limiting that to people at the funeral.

Can't get revenge against an individual who is already dead, not even revenge by proxy.

OOC: And violent gangs have cared about that since when? "Making a warning example of what happens to anyone - and anyone they hold dear - who messes with us."

[Wallenburg]

OOC: I know what it is, how it works and why it exists. But considering "they would likely hunt you down to kill you in revenge" is a legitimate reason to end up in the program, I really don't see why a possible spouse or children of said person should be exposed to the same threat. Revenge killings aren't restricted to the individual theirself.

Can't get revenge against an individual who is already dead, not even revenge by proxy.

You can go after their friends and family. That's a form of revenge.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: This proposal only mandates the immediate family attending the funeral be made aware of the deceased’s identity)

OOC: No it doesn't. It says "any individual having recently experienced the death of an immediate family member" (which, last I checked, your adult children and siblings still count as) "shall be entitled to a. be involved in and present at funeral or other final rites barring prior written objection from the deceased individual, b. access or visit the remains of the deceased individual, except where doing so is infeasible, dangerous, or poses a public health risk, c. be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state". It says nothing about limiting that to people at the funeral.

(OOC: That still means that any criminal group will not be made aware of the identity of the individual unless they happen to be an immediate family member of the deceased, which would be ironic. It is impossible to enact revenge if you don’t know who you are enacting revenge against.)

[Consular]

OOC: No it doesn't. It says "any individual having recently experienced the death of an immediate family member" (which, last I checked, your adult children and siblings still count as) "shall be entitled to a. be involved in and present at funeral or other final rites barring prior written objection from the deceased individual, b. access or visit the remains of the deceased individual, except where doing so is infeasible, dangerous, or poses a public health risk, c. be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state". It says nothing about limiting that to people at the funeral.

(OOC: That still means that any criminal group will not be made aware of the identity of the individual unless they happen to be an immediate family member of the deceased, which would be ironic. It is impossible to enact revenge if you don’t know who you are enacting revenge against.)

"Ironic, perhaps, but also not impossible."