[DEFEATED] Repeal Defending Rights Sexual Gender Minorities

[THX1138]

Summary here is that the target has some critical flaws in construction, and has the potential to create paradoxical conflicts within itself and with standing law (mainly GAR#035). Happy to answer any questions, explain my rationale, etc. It should be noted that without the flaws, I would have been in support.

Revised: Feb 28, 2019 - Final Submitted

The General Assembly:

Fully acknowledging the importance of providing specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities,

Asserts that recently passed legislation GA #457 (DRSGM) must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant legal paradoxes for nations.

Of specific concern is DRSGM’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This Assembly believes that the silence from this legislation, as it relates to this ideological group, can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of this legislation, while all others must comply.

This is alarming, given previous World Assembly law requiring, as a cornerstone of human rights, that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law.

Noting several troubling and untenable paradoxes for nations, that result from DRSGM:

• Nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while provided no strength through this law to apply those rules and penalties, equally, to others.

• Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of DRSGM, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

This Assembly acknowledges the potential for these inequities under law to lead to civil unrest within nations, and to create an untenable burden on nations to both uphold DRSGM and simultaneously preserve the intended human right to civil equality under law.

Further, due to the precedent set by DRSGM, it is understood that any future legislation can now be tailored, through silence on specific ideological groups, to target some and not others, leaving open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

The Assembly concludes that the passage of DRSGM has revealed a critical flaw in WA jurisprudence that requires clarification, and

Understands that, due to precedent, those clarifications can not legally be applied while DRSGM stands.

For these reasons, The General Assembly hereby repeals GA #457.

Repeal Draft 3

The General Assembly:

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights for all.

This Assembly asserts, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant paradoxes for nations, and inadvertently undermines the noble cause of equality to which it aspires.

The Assembly expresses deep concern regarding the GAR#457’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This silence from the legislation as it relates to this ideological group can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of GAR#457, while all others must comply. While the clause does not limit the possibility of future legislation on the matter, until such legislation is passed, this de facto exemption creates several untenable paradoxes, all with troubling consequences:

1. Under GAR#457 nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while providing no strength of law to apply those same rules and penalties on exempted neighbouring organizations within their borders. This brings about great potential for civil unrest, and, for any nation that champions the principle of universal civil equity under law, a tearing at the very fabric of their justice system and understanding of human rights.

2. Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of GAR#457, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

3. Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by GAR#457, paving the way for any future legislation to permit a de facto exemption to any ideological group, without reasonable grounds, simply by including a similar clause. Any number of future legislations can now be tailored, through silence pertaining to their application to specific ideological groups, to target some and not others. This leaves open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

This is alarming, given previous World Assembly law requiring that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law.

The Assembly concludes that the passage of GAR#457 has revealed a critical flaw in WA jurisprudence that requires clarification, to prevent the current, and any future paradoxes of this nature, and, to bolster the intended principle of civil equality under the law.

Understands that, due to precedent, those clarifications can not legally be applied while GAR#457 stands.

For these reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals GAR#457.

Repeal Draft 2

The General Assembly:

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights for all.

Asserts, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant paradoxes for nations, and inadvertently undermines the noble cause of equality to which it aspires.

Expresses deep concern regarding the GAR#457’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This silence from the legislation as it relates to this ideological group can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of GAR#457, while all others must comply. While the clause does not limit the possibility of future legislation on the matter, until such legislation is passed, this de facto exemption creates several untenable paradoxes, all with troubling consequences:

1. Under GAR#457 nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while providing no strength of law to apply those same rules and penalties on exempted neighbouring organizations within their borders. This brings about great potential for civil unrest, and, for any nation that champions the principle of universal civil equity under law, a tearing at the very fabric of their justice system and understanding of human rights.

2. Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of GAR#457, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

3. Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by GAR#457, paving the way for any future legislation to permit a de facto exemption to any ideological group, without reasonable grounds, simply by including a similar clause. Any number of future legislations can now be tailored, through silence pertaining to their application to specific groups, to target some and not others. This leaves open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

That such imbalances can legally exist is alarming, given provisions set out in GAR#035 The Charter of Civil Rights (The Charter), which states “All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions and have the right to equal treatment…”.

This Assembly concludes that the passage of GAR#457 has revealed a critical flaw in the language of The Charter that requires clarification through enhancing legislation, to prevent the current, and any future paradoxes of this nature, and, to preserve the intended principle of civil equality and equal treatment under the law.

Due to precedent, those enhancements to the Charter can not legally be applied while GAR#457 stands.

For these reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals GAR#457.

Repeal Draft 1

The General Assembly

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights to all.

Notes, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities (DRSGM) must be repealed, due to critical flaws in language and construction that, while well-intentioned, have the potential to bring about significant legal paradoxes that will have far-reaching, unintended consequences, and may inadvertently undermine the noble cause of greater civil rights to which the proposal aspires.

Cites two significant issues and their consequences:

1. The combined clauses 2 and 3 of DRSMG “MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals…” then “ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organizations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual…”

As written, this objective is impossible to achieve, yet absolutely required. Any service organization can fall out of exact parity with others through the regular flow of human resources, or finances, at any time. Under DRSMG, nations have no choice but to impose punishments on those organizations, even though they may be in a period of temporary transition to exact parity. Absolutely no reasonable discretion is allowed to nations under DRSMG. This also has the unintended consequence of placing so many groups and organizations in violation at any given time, that there would be no reasonable legal grounds by which to prosecute the groups or organizations that blatantly disregard the mandate. There are a variety of other problems and unintended consequences with this portion of the legislation. This is but one example.

2. Clause 5 of the proposal inexplicably entrenches a legal right for religious organizations to continue to discriminate as they see fit. This hardly complies with the above-mentioned clauses 2 and 3, creating an internal paradox within the proposal itself. Furthermore, this clause stands in direct contradiction to GAR#035 Section 1 almost in its entirety. The precedent set by this exemption from the rule of law on ideological grounds has potentially catastrophic implications throughout the WA and gives cause to all groups to argue any other legislation because it conflicts with their ideological beliefs.

Summarizes that DRSGM is a paradoxical piece of legislation and its poor construction potentially threatens the legitimacy of entrenched civil rights throughout the WA.

Hereby repeals GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities in hopes that a more thoughtful replacement can be created.

[Kranostav]

Be careful on your second point in suggesting "Direct Contradiction" as that may be an HM due to suggesting illegality where the proposal is still marked as legal.

Besides that, I like this. It exemplifies the impossibility to require all member nations to act in the exact same way and the burden of policing those who don't, even on private levels.

Support

[THX1138]

Be careful on your second point in suggesting "Direct Contradiction" as that may be an HM due to suggesting illegality where the proposal is still marked as legal.

Right, we'll see if that's deemed legal. I'm of the mind that the two ideas can be both legal while still in conflict, and that that's part of the problem. Easy fix to the language if it's deemed an HM.

[Marxist Germany]

Be careful on your second point in suggesting "Direct Contradiction" as that may be an HM due to suggesting illegality where the proposal is still marked as legal.

Right, we'll see if that's deemed legal. I'm of the mind that the two ideas can be both legal while still in conflict, and that that's part of the problem. Easy fix to the language if it's deemed an HM.

Use [Draft] in title

[Maowi]

Regarding part 2, clause 5 of DRSGM doesn't say that religious organisations are allowed to discriminate; merely that this resolution does not apply to them. This does not bar the CoCR from coming into effect.

Part 1 doesn't really work either. Under clause 2, member nations must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to everyone; that's government services and legal rights, powers and permissions. But then under clause 3, organisations that deny rights, powers, permissions or services must be punished. The two are completely unrelated.

[THX1138]

Use [Draft] in title

I've squeezed it in. The title hits the character max.

[THX1138]

Regarding part 2, clause 5 of DRSGM doesn't say that religious organisations are allowed to discriminate; merely that this resolution does not apply to them. This does not bar the CoCR from coming into effect.

Passing laws that apply only to some and not others, is the very essence of discrimination.

Part 1 doesn't really work either. Under clause 2, member nations must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to everyone; that's government services and legal rights, powers and permissions. But then under clause 3, organisations that deny rights, powers, permissions or services must be punished. The two are completely unrelated.

Your choice to use the operative term 'exactly' is the core of the problem here. This section, as written, is also highly open to interpretation.

[Falcania]

Regarding part 2, clause 5 of DRSGM doesn't say that religious organisations are allowed to discriminate; merely that this resolution does not apply to them. This does not bar the CoCR from coming into effect.

Passing laws that apply only to some and not others, is the very essence of discrimination.

I wouldn't be being discriminated against by laws forbidding me from having an abortion, because I can't get pregnant.

[Battlion]

As I said in the other, insta-repeals are abhorrent and especially so on this resolution.

Opposed.

[Kranostav]

As I said in the other, insta-repeals are abhorrent and especially so on this resolution.

Opposed.

What is so special about this resolution? You seem vehemently opposed by havent contextualized any argument on any of the posts Ive seen you make

[Aenglaland]

As I said in the other, insta-repeals are abhorrent and especially so on this resolution.

Opposed.

Insta-repeals aren't abhorrent, they are needed. Specially on this one

[THX1138]

I wouldn't be being discriminated against by laws forbidding me from having an abortion, because I can't get pregnant.

That doesn't occur as a result of the law not applying as equally to you as it does to everyone else. It occurs because of your situation. Should some advanced medicine create the ability for you to get pregnant in future, you would still be forbidden under that theoretical, existing law.

GAR#035 clearly states:
Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.
...
c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system

To discriminate not only means that a group is receiving a detrimental treatment compared to everyone else, but also includes certain groups receiving preferential treatment, as compared to everyone else.

At this moment, I suspect that this proposal is in violation of GAR#035. Should this pass, then both will be legal, but the conflicting precedent will put this at direct odds with GAR#035 meaning one or the other must be repealed to alleviate that conflict. Easy choice which.

[THX1138]

As I said in the other, insta-repeals are abhorrent and especially so on this resolution.

A significant problem with this proposal has been identified. Whether it is identified now or 6 months from now has zero bearing on the content or validity of the repeal. This conflict came up in the normal course of debate around this proposal, and warranted quick action to avoid or address the potential conflicts in law.

[Kenmoria]

Regarding part 2, clause 5 of DRSGM doesn't say that religious organisations are allowed to discriminate; merely that this resolution does not apply to them. This does not bar the CoCR from coming into effect.

Passing laws that apply only to some and not others, is the very essence of discrimination.

(OOC: I believe what Maowi was saying was that member nations who are religious or theocratic in nature still have to follow CoCR, just not DRSGM as well. This is true, as CoCR has no such exceptions and the two pieces of legislation do not contradict each other. Also, mentioning a contradiction is illegal unless worded carefully, as there is a rule stating that all passed resolutions are considered legal by virtue of their passage.)

[Maowi]

GAR#035 clearly states:
Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.
...
c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system

To discriminate not only means that a group is receiving a detrimental treatment compared to everyone else, but also includes certain groups receiving preferential treatment, as compared to everyone else.

At this moment, I suspect that this proposal is in violation of GAR#035. Should this pass, then both will be legal, but the conflicting precedent will put this at direct odds with GAR#035 meaning one or the other must be repealed to alleviate that conflict. Easy choice which.

Kenmoria interpreted me correctly: clause 5 does not mean that religious organisations may discriminate, just that my proposal does not cover them. GAR 35 does still cover them, my proposal wouldn't stop that.

[THX1138]

(OOC: I believe what Maowi was saying was that member nations who are religious or theocratic in nature still have to follow CoCR, just not DRSGM as well. This is true, as CoCR has no such exceptions and the two pieces of legislation do not contradict each other. Also, mentioning a contradiction is illegal unless worded carefully, as there is a rule stating that all passed resolutions are considered legal by virtue of their passage.)

Thanks for your feedback.

Specifically, what the target proposal says is: "...that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution." In other words, this law doesn't apply to this group.

I can only interpret that as a free pass for religious organizations to continue to discriminate, while everyone else is prohibited from doing so. It's a sentiment that is completely incongruous with the rest of the proposal. If this passes, what you end up with is one standard of law for most everyone, and a second standard of law for religious groups. Not only is that absurd and discriminates against everyone that didn't get the exemption, but it sets a troubling precedent. Any future group can say 'Hey, religious organizations don't have to abide by GAR457 for ideological reasons, so why do we have to abide by GARx if we are ideologically opposed to it?'

I'm waiting for some feedback on legality of language, and can make any adjustments in the next draft.

[Old Hope]

Specifically, what the target proposal says is: "...that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution." In other words, this law doesn't apply to this group.

I can only interpret that as a free pass for religious organizations to continue to discriminate, while everyone else is prohibited from doing so. It's a sentiment that is completely incongruous with the rest of the proposal. If this passes, what you end up with is one standard of law for most everyone, and a second standard of law for religious groups. Not only is that absurd and discriminates against everyone that didn't get the exemption, but it sets a troubling precedent. Any future group can say 'Hey, religious organizations don't have to abide by GAR457 for ideological reasons, so why do we have to abide by GARx if we are ideologically opposed to it?'

I'm waiting for some feedback on legality of language, and can make any adjustments in the next draft.

If the it would have included religious organizations then it might have been discarded for contradiction of Freedom of Religion.

[Karteria]

"Wholeheartedly opposed. We have no doubt in our minds about this one."

[THX1138]

If the it would have included religious organizations then it might have been discarded for contradiction of Freedom of Religion.

Not entirely sure it's a good idea to attempt to use FoR as justification for discriminating against others.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If the it would have included religious organizations then it might have been discarded for contradiction of Freedom of Religion.

OOC: Highly unlikely.

...2. Clause 5 of the proposal inexplicably entrenches a legal right for religious organizations to continue to discriminate as they see fit. This hardly complies with the above-mentioned clauses 2 and 3, creating an internal paradox within the proposal itself. Furthermore, this clause stands in direct contradiction to GAR#035 Section 1 almost in its entirety. The precedent set by this exemption from the rule of law on ideological grounds has potentially catastrophic implications throughout the WA and gives cause to all groups to argue any other legislation because it conflicts with their ideological beliefs.

OOC: I see this clause as an Honest Mistake. The target does not block further WA action to deal with discrimination by religious organizations; in fact it invites it. "This resolution is silent as to X" is explicitly a notice that future legislation regarding "X" shall neither duplicate nor contradict the resolution in question. While it's possible that the target could have been slightly clearer (e.g. by adding "non-religious" to the phrase "organisations" in its Clause 3), I don't believe this repeal's interpretation is a reasonable one.

[THX1138]

...2. Clause 5 of the proposal inexplicably entrenches a legal right for religious organizations to continue to discriminate as they see fit. This hardly complies with the above-mentioned clauses 2 and 3, creating an internal paradox within the proposal itself. Furthermore, this clause stands in direct contradiction to GAR#035 Section 1 almost in its entirety. The precedent set by this exemption from the rule of law on ideological grounds has potentially catastrophic implications throughout the WA and gives cause to all groups to argue any other legislation because it conflicts with their ideological beliefs.

OOC: I see this clause as an Honest Mistake. The target does not block further WA action to deal with discrimination by religious organizations; in fact it invites it. "This resolution is silent as to X" is explicitly a notice that future legislation regarding "X" shall neither duplicate nor contradict the resolution in question. While it's possible that the target could have been slightly clearer (e.g. by adding "non-religious" to the phrase "organisations" in its Clause 3), I don't believe this repeal's interpretation is a reasonable one.

Thanks for your input. I see your perspective on it, but remain uneasy with the result. The 'silence as to X' still results in an exemption from this proposal's mandates, for one identified group: "...religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution." Granted, that can be addressed in future, but in the interim, there remains an imbalance.
While I see your point that clause 5 doesn't necessarily entrench a right for that group, that silence in this proposal relating to that group also fails to hold them to the same standard of law as all other groups. This brings me back to CoCR. If this proposal passes, we are still left with a legislation that does not meet the standards set out in CoCR 1(a) "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions". The paradox remains.

OOC: I work all day tomorrow, but intend to retool this section of my repeal, citing the above. If you feel that would also constitute HM, please let me know.

[Arasi Luvasa]

OOC: I see this clause as an Honest Mistake. The target does not block further WA action to deal with discrimination by religious organizations; in fact it invites it. "This resolution is silent as to X" is explicitly a notice that future legislation regarding "X" shall neither duplicate nor contradict the resolution in question. While it's possible that the target could have been slightly clearer (e.g. by adding "non-religious" to the phrase "organisations" in its Clause 3), I don't believe this repeal's interpretation is a reasonable one.

Thanks for your input. I see your perspective on it, but remain uneasy with the result. The 'silence as to X' still results in an exemption from this proposal's mandates, for one identified group: "...religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution." Granted, that can be addressed in future, but in the interim, there remains an imbalance.
While I see your point that clause 5 doesn't necessarily entrench a right for that group, that silence in this proposal relating to that group also fails to hold them to the same standard of law as all other groups. This brings me back to CoCR. If this proposal passes, we are still left with a legislation that does not meet the standards set out in CoCR 1(a) "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions". The paradox remains.

OOC: I work all day tomorrow, but intend to retool this section of my repeal, citing the above. If you feel that would also constitute HM, please let me know.

I fail to see why religious organisation should be forced to act against their moral values. Yes they won't marry a certain group, but by their very nature that group would likely not be affiliated with the religious organisation anyway. Religions generally are also not state entities, and I don't believe any resolution thus far forces religions into behavioure that undermines said religion from being a secular organisation in all but name (forcing a religious organisation to discard it's morals would essentially be changing it into a secular organisation).

[Kenmoria]

OOC: I see this clause as an Honest Mistake. The target does not block further WA action to deal with discrimination by religious organizations; in fact it invites it. "This resolution is silent as to X" is explicitly a notice that future legislation regarding "X" shall neither duplicate nor contradict the resolution in question. While it's possible that the target could have been slightly clearer (e.g. by adding "non-religious" to the phrase "organisations" in its Clause 3), I don't believe this repeal's interpretation is a reasonable one.

Thanks for your input. I see your perspective on it, but remain uneasy with the result. The 'silence as to X' still results in an exemption from this proposal's mandates, for one identified group: "...religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution." Granted, that can be addressed in future, but in the interim, there remains an imbalance.
While I see your point that clause 5 doesn't necessarily entrench a right for that group, that silence in this proposal relating to that group also fails to hold them to the same standard of law as all other groups. This brings me back to CoCR. If this proposal passes, we are still left with a legislation that does not meet the standards set out in CoCR 1(a) "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions". The paradox remains.

OOC: I work all day tomorrow, but intend to retool this section of my repeal, citing the above. If you feel that would also constitute HM, please let me know.

(OOC: I don’t see it that way, but I believe it is an interpretation plausible enough for it to not count as an honest mistake. As long as it is an at least sensible way of interpreting the target resolution that is used, it is legal.)

[Maowi]

...2. Clause 5 of the proposal inexplicably entrenches a legal right for religious organizations to continue to discriminate as they see fit. This hardly complies with the above-mentioned clauses 2 and 3, creating an internal paradox within the proposal itself. Furthermore, this clause stands in direct contradiction to GAR#035 Section 1 almost in its entirety. The precedent set by this exemption from the rule of law on ideological grounds has potentially catastrophic implications throughout the WA and gives cause to all groups to argue any other legislation because it conflicts with their ideological beliefs.

I might be really wrong on this, but GAR#035 doesn't say that future GA Resolutions can't, as you call it, "discriminate". It says that the Governments of member nations must ensure that all of their citizens are equal under the law. My proposal doesn't contradict this: it makes it perfectly possible for individual member nations to apply more stringent legislation in terms of discrimination within religious organisations. It doesn't actively discriminate, it just allows member nations to legislate as they see fit on this topic, and also allows future GA resolutions to be passed on this topic.

[THX1138]

(OOC: I don’t see it that way, but I believe it is an interpretation plausible enough for it to not count as an honest mistake. As long as it is an at least sensible way of interpreting the target resolution that is used, it is legal.)

Thank you. The nature of the repeal will be changed tonight, focusing more on the loophole in GAR#035 through which this one was able to pass by simply exempting a whole segment of the population, the need to address that loophole so that it doesn't get exploited in future, and the obvious need to repeal the target before that patch to GAR#035 can be legally created.