[PROPOSAL] Repeal "Don't Kill The Poor Act"

[Peacockastan]

OOC: I would respectfully disagree. In real life, brutal regimes are eager to use anything at their disposal to muddy the waters and change the subject from their own crimes. Russia uses the imperialist history of the United States to justify its actions in Crimea, African dictatorships use the faults of the West to justify their own actions, and much more. A resolution like this may not legally allow leaders that kill millions of people in an ethnic group to avoid being tried, but it is most certainly a weapon in terms of the discourse around the crime being committed. Trying world leaders is all about political will, not law, and the clause in the Don't Kill The Poor Act is a huge tool of brutal regimes to sap the right side of political will

OOC: The argument that a regime may use misdirection to cover their wrongdoing is sound. The argument that this resolution permits effective use of misdirection is not. It is your decision to persevere with this interpretation, but do know that it is the Secretariat's interpretation that will carry the day when two interpretations conflict.

It doesn't say that, read the updated version at the top it says that it enables nations to distract authorities with trivial claims of genocide. It does not say that it permits anything of any kind so I'm confused by your reasoning.
If it's really still a problem then would it be better if I changed it to "unintentionally enables" instead of just "enables"

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The argument that a regime may use misdirection to cover their wrongdoing is sound. The argument that this resolution permits effective use of misdirection is not. It is your decision to persevere with this interpretation, but do know that it is the Secretariat's interpretation that will carry the day when two interpretations conflict.

It doesn't say that, read the updated version at the top it says that it enables nations to distract authorities with trivial claims of genocide. It does not say that it permits anything of any kind so I'm confused by your reasoning.
If it's really still a problem then would it be better if I changed it to "unintentionally enables" instead of just "enables"

OOC: The standard for Honest Mistake is that there needs to be a colorable argument that the statement in the repeal is true in regard to the passed resolution. Any potentially possible failing is considered. The goal is to prevent people from repealing resolutions on obviously spurious or unrealistic arguments.

Here, your argument is that the resolution enables genocide perpetrators to point the finger at regimes who are merely moving populations to cover their own actions. This is an untenable argument. For one, pointing the finger will have no actual bearing on whether the perpetrator will be found in violation of World Assembly law. Suggesting that this resolution does so misrepresents what the resolution does or is meant to do by imputing an unrealistic scenario. The WA is presumed to be appropriately staffed to function properly, so there is little risk of the WA being unable to sift through spurious claims to reach meritorious claims.

As such, this is a clear Honest Mistake violation. You don't have to remove or change the clause, but you run the risk that a majority of GenSec agrees with my analysis and marks your submission illegal. I'm telling you now that you have at least one vote for Illegal as this is written. What you do with that information is your choice. I just want to give you all the information you need to move forward.

[Peacockastan]

It doesn't say that, read the updated version at the top it says that it enables nations to distract authorities with trivial claims of genocide. It does not say that it permits anything of any kind so I'm confused by your reasoning.
If it's really still a problem then would it be better if I changed it to "unintentionally enables" instead of just "enables"

OOC: The standard for Honest Mistake is that there needs to be a colorable argument that the statement in the repeal is true in regard to the passed resolution. Any potentially possible failing is considered. The goal is to prevent people from repealing resolutions on obviously spurious or unrealistic arguments.

Here, your argument is that the resolution enables genocide perpetrators to point the finger at regimes who are merely moving populations to cover their own actions. This is an untenable argument. For one, pointing the finger will have no actual bearing on whether the perpetrator will be found in violation of World Assembly law. Suggesting that this resolution does so misrepresents what the resolution does or is meant to do by imputing an unrealistic scenario. The WA is presumed to be appropriately staffed to function properly, so there is little risk of the WA being unable to sift through spurious claims to reach meritorious claims.

As such, this is a clear Honest Mistake violation. You don't have to remove or change the clause, but you run the risk that a majority of GenSec agrees with my analysis and marks your submission illegal. I'm telling you now that you have at least one vote for Illegal as this is written. What you do with that information is your choice. I just want to give you all the information you need to move forward.

Okay, thank you for the clear response, I'll look over it and then decide either how to fix it or to just remove it.

[Peacockastan]

It doesn't say that, read the updated version at the top it says that it enables nations to distract authorities with trivial claims of genocide. It does not say that it permits anything of any kind so I'm confused by your reasoning.
If it's really still a problem then would it be better if I changed it to "unintentionally enables" instead of just "enables"

OOC: The standard for Honest Mistake is that there needs to be a colorable argument that the statement in the repeal is true in regard to the passed resolution. Any potentially possible failing is considered. The goal is to prevent people from repealing resolutions on obviously spurious or unrealistic arguments.

Here, your argument is that the resolution enables genocide perpetrators to point the finger at regimes who are merely moving populations to cover their own actions. This is an untenable argument. For one, pointing the finger will have no actual bearing on whether the perpetrator will be found in violation of World Assembly law. Suggesting that this resolution does so misrepresents what the resolution does or is meant to do by imputing an unrealistic scenario. The WA is presumed to be appropriately staffed to function properly, so there is little risk of the WA being unable to sift through spurious claims to reach meritorious claims.

As such, this is a clear Honest Mistake violation. You don't have to remove or change the clause, but you run the risk that a majority of GenSec agrees with my analysis and marks your submission illegal. I'm telling you now that you have at least one vote for Illegal as this is written. What you do with that information is your choice. I just want to give you all the information you need to move forward.

Okay I have decided to delete that clause so take a look at it now and see if there are any other errors, Thanks!

[Arasi Luvasa]

Probably too late for this, regardless my input.

Recognizing that killing the poor is a terrible thing to do;

Knowing that an increase in the being provided aid by a nation will put extreme strain on a nations economy;

Convinced that the Don't Kill The Poor Act is an attack on national sovereignty by dictating that nations must render aid to refugees;

Deeply concerned that under the Don't Kill The Poor Act, simply relocating a group because of their economic status or enacting a policy of segregation alone is considered to be an act of genocide; So you want countries to discriminate against people on this basis? Individuals can still be relocated after all, on a case by case basis (see thread of initial proposal).


Keeping in mind that genocide is an act of great terror which should not be thrown around lightly;

Confident that "genocide" was redefined to be overly broad which will flood courts and distract authorities with trivial claims of genocide that distract from real issues, If it did this, then there are more serious issues that need to be dealt with. Repealing the legislation merely serves to deny people their basic humanity.

Deeply disturbed that "Render aid" is far too vague a phrase as used in the Don't kill The Poor Act and an ill-intentioned government could consider "aid" for refugees as holding them in camp cities indefinitely, providing minimal amounts of food and water, separating children from parents indefinitely to protect from human trafficking, or even invading and/or bombing the country the refugees come from under the guise of "promoting regional stability," Already addressed elsewhere in this thread. The actions you mentioned are likely already illegal under WA law (and some I believe explicitly illegal).

Overall I will be opposed, segregation was the preferred method of genocide in my country (called Apartheid). Calling it genocide is quite appropriate, just because the system is part of a slower process of wiping out a group does not mean that it is not still a system to do exactly that. Honestly I think it is worth looking into how these processes played out and why they are labeled as acts of genocide rather than immediately rallying against it as "trivial". My country would like to disagree.

[Peacockastan]

Probably too late for this, regardless my input.

Recognizing that killing the poor is a terrible thing to do;

Knowing that an increase in the being provided aid by a nation will put extreme strain on a nations economy;

Convinced that the Don't Kill The Poor Act is an attack on national sovereignty by dictating that nations must render aid to refugees;

Deeply concerned that under the Don't Kill The Poor Act, simply relocating a group because of their economic status or enacting a policy of segregation alone is considered to be an act of genocide; So you want countries to discriminate against people on this basis? Individuals can still be relocated after all, on a case by case basis (see thread of initial proposal).


Keeping in mind that genocide is an act of great terror which should not be thrown around lightly;

Confident that "genocide" was redefined to be overly broad which will flood courts and distract authorities with trivial claims of genocide that distract from real issues, If it did this, then there are more serious issues that need to be dealt with. Repealing the legislation merely serves to deny people their basic humanity.

Deeply disturbed that "Render aid" is far too vague a phrase as used in the Don't kill The Poor Act and an ill-intentioned government could consider "aid" for refugees as holding them in camp cities indefinitely, providing minimal amounts of food and water, separating children from parents indefinitely to protect from human trafficking, or even invading and/or bombing the country the refugees come from under the guise of "promoting regional stability," Already addressed elsewhere in this thread. The actions you mentioned are likely already illegal under WA law (and some I believe explicitly illegal).

Overall I will be opposed, segregation was the preferred method of genocide in my country (called Apartheid). Calling it genocide is quite appropriate, just because the system is part of a slower process of wiping out a group does not mean that it is not still a system to do exactly that. Honestly I think it is worth looking into how these processes played out and why they are labeled as acts of genocide rather than immediately rallying against it as "trivial". My country would like to disagree.

It doesn't matter if it is mentioned under other WA resolutions, resolutions are all meant to stand on their own as law so the "aid" should have been clarified further. Also I disagree with you on the segregation thing, I understand that under some circumstances that it could be considered genocide, however there are also other instances where it isn't genocide.

[Arasi Luvasa]

I don't think it is necessary for every law to stand so entirely on it's own that it duplicates already existing features of other laws. This law adds primarily exists to extend protections from one law onto a group which was previously ignored. If state sanctioned mass killings are already illegal, we don't need every other legislation that vaguely touches on that subject to also legislate that said mass killings are illegal.

No it is genocide under any circumstance. Name one example of segregation that was not a system of prolonged genocide. Groups are segregated to create an other- an enemy or lower class to be put down. If segregation is necessary, there is provision for that under the DKTP Act (again see the initial thread). Again there are reasons that these things have been listed as genocide, why do you believe that they should not be considered acts of genocide.

[Peacockastan]

I don't think it is necessary for every law to stand so entirely on it's own that it duplicates already existing features of other laws. This law adds primarily exists to extend protections from one law onto a group which was previously ignored. If state sanctioned mass killings are already illegal, we don't need every other legislation that vaguely touches on that subject to also legislate that said mass killings are illegal.

No it is genocide under any circumstance. Name one example of segregation that was not a system of prolonged genocide. Groups are segregated to create an other- an enemy or lower class to be put down. If segregation is necessary, there is provision for that under the DKTP Act (again see the initial thread). Again there are reasons that these things have been listed as genocide, why do you believe that they should not be considered acts of genocide.

It doesn't need to list every illegal thing ever, it just needs to provide a reasonable definition of "aid." Also not all instances of segregation are caused by trying to destroy a whole group of people, sometimes segregation can just be in place to separate two groups of people for any reason whether it be for aggressive reasons or even for the reason of protecting that very group that they are trying to separate. There are more than one reasons for segregation to be implemented.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Those are covered by case-by-case basis. Just going African's here and Poor white people her and coloured people here is a bad idea. I still would classify it as genocide unless otherwise convinced. The Apartheid government said it had it's own moral, non-violent reasons for the segregation as well. How did that turn out again?

[Peacockastan]

Those are covered by case-by-case basis. Just going African's here and Poor white people her and coloured people here is a bad idea. I still would classify it as genocide unless otherwise convinced. The Apartheid government said it had it's own moral, non-violent reasons for the segregation as well. How did that turn out again?

I'm not saying that the Apartheid was good. I am however saying that there are good and bad reasons for segregation and outright calling every instance of it genocide, I just can't agree with that. I'm not okay with putting mass murders in the same group as segregation, they just aren't the same in some instances.

[Nonchiptopia]

I would like to point out that:
* yes, whether or not all the actions detailed in GA#450 are to be strictly considered genocide is questionable
* though they've historically been at least strong warning signs of it, and also, no matter if they're to be classified with that exact word, still crimes against essential sapient rights.
* the currently proposed repeal seems to warn about "ill-intentioned governments" enacting exactly those kinds of policies or actions that Peakockastan describes as "overly broad and [...] trivial" as well as seems "deeply concerned" to be outlawed.

Overall this proposal, to me, does not feel like a "fix" of a simple definition, but a way to legalize their own private border walls, drug wars and child prisons, the very thing they claim to be warning about.

After all, they do already enact questionable policies like capital punishment instead of prisons; child labour; and complete isolation by not just censoring but outlawing the internet and barring both im- and emigration to only list a few.

Looking at this matter (not the proposal itself but the fact who proposed it with not very clearly stated and still contradicting claimed motives) I'm wondering if it might not be worth being brought to SC's attention...

[Wallenburg]

I would like to point out that:
* yes, whether or not all the actions detailed in GA#450 are to be strictly considered genocide is questionable
* though they've historically been at least strong warning signs of it, and also, no matter if they're to be classified with that exact word, still crimes against essential sapient rights.
* the currently proposed repeal seems to warn about "ill-intentioned governments" enacting exactly those kinds of policies or actions that Peakockastan describes as "overly broad and [...] trivial" as well as seems "deeply concerned" to be outlawed.

Overall this proposal, to me, does not feel like a "fix" of a simple definition, but a way to legalize their own private border walls, drug wars and child prisons, the very thing they claim to be warning about.

After all, they do already enact questionable policies like capital punishment instead of prisons; child labour; and complete isolation by not just censoring but outlawing the internet and barring both im- and emigration to only list a few.

"Drug wars and child prisons" and bans on free speech and emigration already violate existing resolutions, so I don't see how repealing my resolution would affect those.

Looking at this matter (not the proposal itself but the fact who proposed it with not very clearly stated and still contradicting claimed motives) I'm wondering if it might not be worth being brought to SC's attention...

The Security Council has no involvement in General Assembly policy.