[PASSED] Defending Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities

[American Pere Housh]

President Jones looks at this draft and says to his Secretary of State Ryan Michaels, "What the hell is this garbage that I am lookin at?" Secretary Michaels responds "Its a proposal that defends the rights of the LGBTQ community and gender minorities." The President studies the document some more before telling his Secretary of State, "Tell Ambassador Williams that American Pere Housh opposes this proposal because we recognize marriage as only between a man and woman and their are only two genders: Male and female." "It will be as you said Mr. President." Affirmed Secretary Michaels

HAIL THE CONFEDERATION

[Separatist Peoples]

President Jones looks at this draft and says to his Secretary of State Ryan Michaels, "What the hell is this garbage that I am lookin at?" Secretary Michaels responds "Its a proposal that defends the rights of the LGBTQ community and gender minorities." The President studies the document some more before telling his Secretary of State, "Tell Ambassador Williams that American Pere Housh opposes this proposal because we recognize marriage as only between a man and woman and their are only two genders: Male and female." "It will be as you said Mr. President." Affirmed Secretary Michaels

HAIL THE CONFEDERATION

"Then you're in violation of WA law. As such, why should we care about your opposition?"

[The United Universe]

United Universe’s leader doesn’t even have representation in the WA. There’ll be a revolt when the Flying Eagle international rep votes in favor

[The Grand Holy Australian Empire]

Members of the World Assembly,

The passage of this controversial resolution must be blocked at all costs. It is an extremely oppressive and controlling resolution which would see nations with strong religious beliefs against such sinners forced to accept the sodomites. Who but the nation themselves can make this call on whether people who are mentally impaired and go against basic biology should be treated as equal to normal, heterosexual people?

I implore you all to block the passage of this resolution and protect your independence from this controlling enforcement of global governance.

[Araraukar]

forced to accept the sodomites.

"You have a problem with buttsex, but lesbians are okay? What about heterosexual couples who have buttsex? Do you discriminate against them too?"

[Maowi]

Members of the World Assembly,

The passage of this controversial resolution must be blocked at all costs. It is an extremely oppressive and controlling resolution which would see nations with strong religious beliefs against such sinners forced to accept the sodomites. Who but the nation themselves can make this call on whether people who are mentally impaired and go against basic biology should be treated as equal to normal, heterosexual people?

I implore you all to block the passage of this resolution and protect your independence from this controlling enforcement of global governance.

"It is exactly because of Governments like yours that this proposal has been put forward. Just because a nation is religious does not mean that its citizens can be discriminated against on non-religious matters, and this resolution would put an end to this unfair mistreatment. People who are not heterosexual are not mentally ill; just because the people in power in your nation are not able to accept people with different views and opinions to yours, there is no justification for discrimination."

OOC: unless you can come up with some contorted 'compelling practical purpose' for discrimination, you are violating GAR #35 anyway. If you can, this proposal better pass.

[The New Nordic Union]

Who but the nation themselves can make this call on whether people who are mentally impaired and go against basic biology should be treated as equal to normal, heterosexual people?

'You must be aware of the significant protections and rights for all individuals, and therefore those of all sexualities and genders, already in place in World Assembly legislation, surely?'

— Katrin við Keldu, Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly

[American Pere Housh]

President Jones looks at this draft and says to his Secretary of State Ryan Michaels, "What the hell is this garbage that I am lookin at?" Secretary Michaels responds "Its a proposal that defends the rights of the LGBTQ community and gender minorities." The President studies the document some more before telling his Secretary of State, "Tell Ambassador Williams that American Pere Housh opposes this proposal because we recognize marriage as only between a man and woman and their are only two genders: Male and female." "It will be as you said Mr. President." Affirmed Secretary Michaels

HAIL THE CONFEDERATION

"Then you're in violation of WA law. As such, why should we care about your opposition?"

Tell me why my country would support something like this when my citizens support heterosexual marriage. I oppose it because my citizens oppose it. So don't tell my opposition doesn't matter.

[Maowi]

Tell me why my country would support something like this when my citizens support heterosexual marriage. I oppose it because my citizens oppose it. So don't tell my opposition doesn't matter.

You're allowed to oppose this if you want, but because of this you're going to have to think of a pretty good reason to impose heterosexuality on your citizens, or you will be violating GAR 35. And as above: if you can, then good thing I'm proposing this, eh?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Then you're in violation of WA law. As such, why should we care about your opposition?"

Tell me why my country would support something like this when my citizens support heterosexual marriage. I oppose it because my citizens oppose it. So don't tell my opposition doesn't matter.

"Your opposition does not matter. Nobody here will consider your opposition relevant if you are not in compliance with WA law, even if your people support noncompliance. When your government joined the WA, it agreed to follow its laws. If your government cannot, then you're just oathbreakers, no more worthy of our attention than a lying toddler.

"That is just how it works here. You don't like it? Comply or resign. Nobody here is going to coddle your feelings because you want to have your cake and eat it, too."

[American Pere Housh]

Tell me why my country would support something like this when my citizens support heterosexual marriage. I oppose it because my citizens oppose it. So don't tell my opposition doesn't matter.

You're allowed to oppose this if you want, but because of this you're going to have to think of a pretty good reason to impose heterosexuality on your citizens, or you will be violating GAR 35. And as above: if you can, then good thing I'm proposing this, eh?

They can be whatever they want to be but a vast majority supporrt heterosexuality

[American Pere Housh]

I will follow rules very reluctantly

Hail the Confederation

[Separatist Peoples]

I will follow rules very reluctantly

Hail the Confederation

"Excellent. Glad to hear that homosexual marriage is getting such enthusiastic government support in American Pere Housh, as is abortion, free expression, and general civil rights."

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm shocked, shocked, at the scrivener's error in the titling of this proposal. http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/maowi_1549478478/

[Aclion]

"So, it looks like besides the duplications of the charter of civil rights this isn't doing much other then mandating an institution of civil marriage and banning affirmative action. Did I miss anything?"

[Araraukar]

"So, it looks like besides the duplications of the charter of civil rights this isn't doing much other then mandating an institution of civil marriage and banning affirmative action. Did I miss anything?"

"Don't forget the duplication of Convention on Gender, or whatever the exact name of the relevant resolution. However, given the comments from some nations around here, just getting the civil marriage thing into a resolution would be worth it."

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Just to clarify my opinion on this, and why I didn't mark this illegal (it looks like there was some confusion with it), the proposal's main thrust is the civil union approach. Its technically possible for nations, under CoCR, to limit marriage to heterosexual couples for a compelling purpose. This limits that ability. The rest, I thought, was minor duplication, since it tread on a pretty specific area of CoCR in an attempt to create more specific policy.

I'll admit, it was close. I almost marked it illegal on the control panel. But I defer, in close cases, to legal. That's 1/6th of GenSec, of course.

[Bears Armed]

Who but the nation themselves can make this call on whether people who are mentally impaired

OOC
See also GA Resolution #299 'Legal Competence': Decisions about mental impairment have to be made by appropriate experts, acting (and allowed by the authorities to act) without fear or favour, not by ideologically-motivated government decree.

OOC: Just to clarify my opinion on this, and why I didn't mark this illegal (it looks like there was some confusion with it), the proposal's main thrust is the civil union approach. Its technically possible for nations, under CoCR, to limit marriage to heterosexual couples for a compelling purpose. This limits that ability. The rest, I thought, was minor duplication, since it tread on a pretty specific area of CoCR in an attempt to create more specific policy.

I'll admit, it was close. I almost marked it illegal on the control panel. But I defer, in close cases, to legal. That's 1/6th of GenSec, of course.

OOC
Given the limited extent to which this actually increases people's rights [on average], I'd have been happier with it defined as 'Mild' rather than as 'Significant'.... and suggest that if it doesn't reach the floor this time around then it should be re-leveled accordingly before re-submission.[one-sixth of GenSec]

[Kenmoria]

"So, it looks like besides the duplications of the charter of civil rights this isn't doing much other then mandating an institution of civil marriage and banning affirmative action. Did I miss anything?"

“It does close a certain loophole with regards to a nation claiming a ‘compelling practical puprose’ to enact discrimination based in gender, when the purpose is some religious or otherwise shaky nonsense. Other than that, yes that’s all the proposal does.

Seeing as this has been submitted, I may as well re-iterate my support for the bill, even more so now that I’ve realised it also prohibits affirmative action.”

[Kranostav]

So CoCR and aCoG covers all the discrimination, gender, and potentially marriage bits, rendering the vast majority of the proposal redundant.

I'm for addressing marriage and permitting civil union of any two humans even though I was under the impression that CoCR covered that implicitly.

Edit, does this actually ban affirmative action too? As well as government benefit programs restricted to certain groups? If so that would add to my opposition.

[Bears Armed]

I'm for addressing marriage and permitting civil union of any two humans even though I was under the impression that CoCR covered that implicitly.

OOC
The COCR requires that member nations give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
A nation would technically be in compliance with that if it said that marriage had to be [one man + one woman] regardless of the participants' sexual orientations. That's equal treatment, right?

[Kranostav]

I'm for addressing marriage and permitting civil union of any two humans even though I was under the impression that CoCR covered that implicitly.

OOC
The COCR requires that member nations give homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
A nation would technically be in compliance with that if it said that marriage had to be [one man + one woman] regardless of the participants' sexual orientations. That's equal treatment, right?

Yeah potentially, seems fairly creative. Regardless this proposal has way too many problems to address this.

I'd be happy to address one regarding marriage exclusively.

[Snoburg]

If citizens had the right to choose their gender, Couldn't that make cataloging files and the like very difficult? It would no longer be a male or a female, the concept I agree with, but choice of any gender? That would muck things up quite a lot.

[Falcania]

If citizens had the right to choose their gender, Couldn't that make cataloging files and the like very difficult? It would no longer be a male or a female, the concept I agree with, but choice of any gender? That would muck things up quite a lot.

What do you mean, 'if' ?

[Maowi]

I'm shocked, shocked, at the scrivener's error in the titling of this proposal. http://ifly6.no-ip.org/wa-proposal/maowi_1549478478/

Please forgive me if I am being incredibly ignorant, but what error is this? Nobody else has pointed anything out...

"So, it looks like besides the duplications of the charter of civil rights this isn't doing much other then mandating an institution of civil marriage and banning affirmative action. Did I miss anything?"

This proposal is also effectively preventing discrimination (based on sexual orientation or gender) within all organisations in a member state. The CoCR bans 'unfair and unreasonable discrimination ... in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public' but this is easily circumventable. It also ensures that nations punish sexual or gender discrimination as heavily as any other form of discrimination, so that companies can't get away with a light punishment.

OOC
Given the limited extent to which this actually increases people's rights [on average], I'd have been happier with it defined as 'Mild' rather than as 'Significant'.... and suggest that if it doesn't reach the floor this time around then it should be re-leveled accordingly before re-submission.[one-sixth of GenSec]

Noted, if this needs to be re-submitted I will do that

Edit, does this actually ban affirmative action too? As well as government benefit programs restricted to certain groups? If so that would add to my opposition.

Yes, this does ban affirmative action. I believe affirmative action - and the quotas that often come with it - are not necessary for nations where nobody is considered inferior or superior solely based on an arbitrarily assigned reductive category, and for nations where that does happen, they are not the way around it. The way around it is educating people to be more open-minded, inclusive and accepting. It does also ban government benefit programs restricted to certain groups, but not aimed at certain groups. So if you had a program aimed at helping gay people become comfortable with their sexuality and identity, you couldn't stop a straight person asking for help, although what straight person would want help from such a program? You would also have to provide an exactly equivalent program helping straight people, and people of any other sexuality, become comfortable with their sexuality and identity.