NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT]Repeal Defending Rights of Sexual & Gender Minorities

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:15 pm

THX1138 wrote:the obvious need to repeal the target before that patch to GAR#035 can be legally created.

OOC: You don't need to repeal anything to legislate on church inequality.
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
THX1138
Secretary
 
Posts: 27
Founded: Dec 15, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby THX1138 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:26 pm

Araraukar wrote:
THX1138 wrote:the obvious need to repeal the target before that patch to GAR#035 can be legally created.

OOC: You don't need to repeal anything to legislate on church inequality.


This was never specifically about religion. It's about accommodation of any ideology over the principle of equality under the law.The problem that 457 establishes, is that any group or organization can be exempted from any future law simply by including a similar clause.This has the potential to lead to a multi-tiered system of justice, where any number of future laws can be arbitrarily tailored to any number of groups simply by saying 'this group isn't covered by this proposal.' Boutique laws that undermine the notion that all citizens are equal under the law.

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 553
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:31 pm

Repealing it won't remove that. If it passes, that precedent stays in place even if the resolution is repealed (It stays on the books as well, just crossed out).

Also the idea of forcing religions to act against their code in this manner is tyranny of the majority. Presumably those who are members of the faith (religions tend not to hold ceremonies for anyone who is not a member) would not engage or openly engage in activities that are so frowned upon by the church. Certainly it would be strange of them to make such a public spectacle about it.
Last edited by Arasi Luvasa on Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
THX1138
Secretary
 
Posts: 27
Founded: Dec 15, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby THX1138 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:38 pm

Arasi Luvasa wrote:Repealing it won't remove that. If it passes, that precedent stays in place even if the resolution is repealed (It stays on the books as well, just crossed out)


Until this is repealed, any attempt to repair GAR#035 will be HM. A simple clause in that repair nullifying precedent set by any previously repealed law, closes that loop.

User avatar
Arasi Luvasa
Diplomat
 
Posts: 553
Founded: Aug 29, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Arasi Luvasa » Mon Feb 11, 2019 5:50 pm

THX1138 wrote:
Arasi Luvasa wrote:Repealing it won't remove that. If it passes, that precedent stays in place even if the resolution is repealed (It stays on the books as well, just crossed out)


Until this is repealed, any attempt to repair GAR#035 will be HM. A simple clause in that repair nullifying precedent set by any previously repealed law, closes that loop.


Ok walk me through your thought processes here slowly. Also regardless removing the protections for highly religious nations would likely just end in those nations abandoning the WA altogether, there is no reason for a theocracy to remain part of an organisation that prevents it from practicing it's religion in any meaningful way. That is why resolutions attempt to try and find a compromise where one exists, otherwise you end up just preaching to the choir as those who would actually be affected are simply no longer bound by those rules. Essentially to enact the change you want, you need to get the religions to buy into what you believe otherwise you will simply lose any of the progress you ended up making with theocracies along with whatever changes you hoped to impose upon them. IC my nation would definitely leave if it felt to many restrictions were placed upon religions for them to practice their faith in any meaningful way (i.e. forcing them to adhere to morals that go against the faith), but accepts limits (and barely accepts the total ban) on abortion. Try to muscle to far and abortion becomes illegal along with possibly gay marriage both as a civil and religious institution within said countries. Much of politics is about compromise.
Ambassador Ariela Galadriel Maria Mirase
37 year old Arch-bishop of the Arasi Christian Church (also the youngest ever arch-bishop and fifth woman in the church hierarchy). An attractive but stern woman with a strict adherence to religious and moral ethical codes, also somewhat of an optimist. She was recently appointed to the position following the election of Adrian Midnight to the position of Patriarch.

User avatar
Aexnidaral
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 25, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aexnidaral » Mon Feb 11, 2019 6:06 pm

Europeia will be opposing this vociferously.
Europeia's World Assembly Delegate and Minister of World Assembly

User avatar
Kranostav
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:11 pm

Aexnidaral wrote:Europeia will be opposing this vociferously.

Whipped out the thesaurus for this one huh :p
The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The Constitutional Monarchy of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423

User avatar
Aexnidaral
Attaché
 
Posts: 99
Founded: Aug 25, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Aexnidaral » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:40 pm

Kranostav wrote:
Aexnidaral wrote:Europeia will be opposing this vociferously.

Whipped out the thesaurus for this one huh :p


Vociferous isn't even that rare or particularly big of a word, if I was gonna use a thesaurus I would've gone with a synonym way more cringe inducing.
Europeia's World Assembly Delegate and Minister of World Assembly

User avatar
Kranostav
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:49 pm

Aexnidaral wrote:
Kranostav wrote:Whipped out the thesaurus for this one huh :p


Vociferous isn't even that rare or particularly big of a word, if I was gonna use a thesaurus I would've gone with a synonym way more cringe inducing.

Is the first time I've heard it used on the forums :bow:
The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The Constitutional Monarchy of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12351
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Feb 12, 2019 6:40 am

Kranostav wrote:
Aexnidaral wrote:Vociferous isn't even that rare or particularly big of a word, if I was gonna use a thesaurus I would've gone with a synonym way more cringe inducing.

Is the first time I've heard it used on the forums :bow:

OOC: Well...
"I've come to appreciate boring bureaucracy much more after my official execution..." - Johan Milkus, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.

User avatar
Sheitstormia
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Nov 04, 2018
New York Times Democracy

Additional note

Postby Sheitstormia » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:46 am

To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature on a national level.

User avatar
The New Nordic Union
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 120
Founded: Jul 08, 2016
Left-wing Utopia

Postby The New Nordic Union » Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:59 am

Sheitstormia wrote:To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature on a national level.


OOC:
No, it does not.
MANDATES 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. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.
Emphasis mine. This shows that you can set age limits; they just have to apply to everyone.

Also
REQUIRES all member nations which allow civil marriages between individuals of a certain sexuality or gender to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions.

GAR#160 forbids marriages without the informed consent of all participants. Since children cannot legally consent to marriage, this would not apply.
Permanent Representative of the Nordic Union to the World Assembly: Katrin við Keldu

User avatar
Falcania
Diplomat
 
Posts: 968
Founded: Sep 25, 2004
Anarchy

Postby Falcania » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:00 am

Sheitstormia wrote:To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature o9n a national level.


Catastrophically inaccurate nonsense.
II & Sports: The Free Kingdom of Falcania, Jayla, New Nestia, and Realms Otherwise Beneath the Skies

World Assembly: Ser Jeine Wilhelmsen on behalf of Queen Falcon IV, representing the Free Kingdom and the ancient and great region of Atlantian Oceania

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 17664
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:04 am

The New Nordic Union wrote:
Sheitstormia wrote:To add, this legislation also does not contain any restrictions on the age of the potential spouse. It opens up so many loopholes on the topic of pedophilia, which I personally stand firmly against.
By the wording of the legislation you are compelled to sanction any organization that discriminates based on sexuality or other attributes, and then it lists AGE as an example of said attributes. Which means that if someone identifies as the sexuality of "pedosexual" it now requires the state to sanction itself as it is, in some cases, required to prosecute pedophiles. This legislation now protects these sexual predators indirectly and can contradict with previously passed legislature on a national level.


OOC:
No, it does not.
MANDATES 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. Such conditions may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.
Emphasis mine. This shows that you can set age limits; they just have to apply to everyone.
OOC: That's right.[/one-sixth of GenSec].
Last edited by Bears Armed on Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Butwan
Civilian
 
Posts: 1
Founded: Oct 24, 2018
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Butwan » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:04 am

IC: The Republic of Butwan shall fully support this move to repeal this one-sided law.

OOC: Fairly new to the whole RP in this game. But, I can't get over how some of the resolutions here discriminates or totally denies the RP on a nation's policy gathered through issue-answering. For example, my nation has the Permanent Marriage Policy where it makes all divorce illegal. So section 1.d. of DRSGM breaks that policy. Are we really going to implement a resolution that would harm autonomy of a nation to create it's own laws and policies.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19496
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:18 am

Butwan wrote:IC: The Republic of Butwan shall fully support this move to repeal this one-sided law.

OOC: Fairly new to the whole RP in this game. But, I can't get over how some of the resolutions here discriminates or totally denies the RP on a nation's policy gathered through issue-answering. For example, my nation has the Permanent Marriage Policy where it makes all divorce illegal. So section 1.d. of DRSGM breaks that policy. Are we really going to implement a resolution that would harm autonomy of a nation to create it's own laws and policies.

Issues and WA resolutions are two entirely separate game elements. Neither can affect the other.
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
The Sheika
Diplomat
 
Posts: 636
Founded: Jul 27, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby The Sheika » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:22 am

Butwan wrote:IC: The Republic of Butwan shall fully support this move to repeal this one-sided law.

OOC: Fairly new to the whole RP in this game. But, I can't get over how some of the resolutions here discriminates or totally denies the RP on a nation's policy gathered through issue-answering. For example, my nation has the Permanent Marriage Policy where it makes all divorce illegal. So section 1.d. of DRSGM breaks that policy. Are we really going to implement a resolution that would harm autonomy of a nation to create it's own laws and policies.

OOC: By joining the World Assembly, your nation becomes subject to the standing resolutions that have not been repealed. That's part of how the game is played; you join the international organization to create legislation for others to follow while also following the legislation that has been voted on and passed. There's two options from there; you can continue to be part of the Assembly and follow the resolutions that are in effect or you can resign and your nation's laws are your own. I wouldn't advise "just ignoring" the resolutions you dislike as many consider that poor role playing behavior.
If would also advise that you check out Resolution #39 which covers the topic of the right to a lawful divorce.
You may also wish to consider checking out the list of Passed Resolutions https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30.
Left-Leaning Independent, Agnostic, Operation Iraqi Freedom Veteran, Cook by trade, writer as a hobby.
Delegate to the World Assembly from Absolution
Colonel Jack Austin, Militaristic Federation of the Sheika

User avatar
Kranostav
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 172
Founded: Apr 01, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kranostav » Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:37 am

Araraukar wrote:
Kranostav wrote:Is the first time I've heard it used on the forums :bow:

OOC: Well...

Didn't go through all of it but it seems to be quite some time since it was used in GA. Used only about 600 times in the last 10ish years.
The North Pacific Minister of World Assembly Affairs
The Constitutional Monarchy of Kranostav
Author of GAR #423

User avatar
Firstaria
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8406
Founded: Jun 29, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Firstaria » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:25 am

" To be frankly honest, although we do not stay under the WA, some of our sister nations are and so we must raise some objections that may help this repeal.

MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.


Is in this point any limitation to the gender chosen? Is the individual pretty much to decide a gender exist? Couldn't this be used in order to create "nominative" problems like calling your gender "not-x" or "superior-than-x" to cause the same discrimination that this law is trying to avoid?

CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation.

We also find the term "should" a grossly oversight. This resolution is in some sort trying to ask the WA to address something the WA may not want to address or has already addressed. No resolution should do such thing in our opinion. "
OVERLORD Daniel Mercury of Firstaria
Original Author of SC #5 and SC #30

User avatar
Libervalley
Secretary
 
Posts: 28
Founded: May 05, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Libervalley » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:36 am

I appreciate the effort to repeal this resolution however it should be repealed on other grounds as well. The loopholes, contradictions, ambiguity and absolute administrative chaos that will ensue from the passage of this resolution should be addressed. The World Assembly has passed this resolution without even defining what this actually means. Please consider another repeal option once it is assembled.
WA Delegate, Senator

Wiki Page
Legislation
FCN Conservative Party
Pro: Life, Free Markets, Liberty, Religious Freedom, Law & Order, Environmental Conservation, Limited Government, Low Taxes, Civil Society & Family Culture

Anti: Central Planning, Socialism, Radical Islam, Religious Oppression, Communism, Marxism, Abortion, Environmental Statism, Fascism & Open Borders

User avatar
Maowi
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 197
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:41 am

Firstaria wrote:" To be frankly honest, although we do not stay under the WA, some of our sister nations are and so we must raise some objections that may help this repeal.

MANDATES that all member nations must allow each of their citizens to choose or change their own gender, and that member nations must officially recognise and accept the individual's chosen gender.


Is in this point any limitation to the gender chosen? Is the individual pretty much to decide a gender exist? Couldn't this be used in order to create "nominative" problems like calling your gender "not-x" or "superior-than-x" to cause the same discrimination that this law is trying to avoid?


Although it is possible to be recognised as, say, 'not male' or 'superior than male', first of all, nobody is going to take you seriously if you call yourself 'superior than male', and also how exactly is that doing harm to male people? Who would actually want to do that anyway? I really don't think this is an issue.

Firstaria wrote:
CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation.

We also find the term "should" a grossly oversight. This resolution is in some sort trying to ask the WA to address something the WA may not want to address or has already addressed. No resolution should do such thing in our opinion. "


"Should" is not "must". It is not forcing the WA to do anything, and repealing this resolution is not going to change anything in this sense. The implication was that if the WA wants to do something about the internal discrimination of religious organisations, it should do that in a different resolution.

(although in my opinion it would be good to have some legislation on discrimination within religious institutions.)
Only dead fish go with the flow
(mostly assume OOC unless otherwise stated)

Policies of Maowi
Maowese News
The Monthly Humbug

Sloths (yay!)
Maowi does use NS stats gasp (unless they contradict the factbooks)

User avatar
THX1138
Secretary
 
Posts: 27
Founded: Dec 15, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby THX1138 » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:15 pm

A revised version of this repeal has been submitted for review and to ensure legality.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19496
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:33 pm

THX1138 wrote:A revised version of this repeal has been submitted for review and to ensure legality.

Why are you in such a rush?
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

User avatar
THX1138
Secretary
 
Posts: 27
Founded: Dec 15, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby THX1138 » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:40 pm

Wallenburg wrote:Why are you in such a rush?


No rush. I'm just not sure as to protocol when submitting revisions. I also don't see any point in engaging in too much debate on the revision if it isn't legal.
Last edited by THX1138 on Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Wallenburg
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 19496
Founded: Jan 30, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wallenburg » Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:45 pm

THX1138 wrote:
Wallenburg wrote:Why are you in such a rush?


No rush. I'm just not sure as to protocol when submitting revisions. I also don't see any point in engaging in too much debate on the revision if it isn't legal.

You can ask if it is legal, instead of pushing it to the submission queue immediately upon revision...
PROFESSIONAL CRITIC OF ALL THINGS GENSEC
There never has been, nor will there ever be, such thing as a wallenburger.
grestin went through the MKULTRA program and he has more of a free will than wallenburg does - Imperial Idaho
PRO: GOOD || ANTI: BAD

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bananaistan

Advertisement

Remove ads