[DEFEATED] Repeal Defending Rights Sexual Gender Minorities

[THX1138]

You can ask if it is legal, instead of pushing it to the submission queue immediately upon revision...

Not entirely sure what you're getting at, but I thought that's what I did. If I've broken some rule here, please explain.

[Reichsstaaten von Germania]

I agree it should be repealed, I have no power over the church and certainly cannot punish them.

[Maowi]

I agree it should be repealed, I have no power over the church and certainly cannot punish them.

The resolution doesn't ask you to punish the church. See clause 5.

[Fecaw]

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.

Even insta-repeals require some patience, but you have not broken a rule by submitting quickly.

[THX1138]

I am requesting a legality check from the Secretariat, for this repeal. While I have received some feedback outside of this forum, I have yet to get a definitive decision.

OOC: While I understand the sections relating to GAR#035 may be in question, I do not think they have crossed into the realm of Honest Mistake. I have identified a weakness in the language of 035 that has allowed for the sort of de facto exemptions from law, for certain groups, to occur.This is a situation where the law in 035 doesn't specifically say you can't do this, so it's being done.
I've acknowledged the legality of that, but maintain that it's probably not in the spirit of clause 1. Thus a need for clearer language.
While I understand that, on occasion, certain reasonable suspensions of equal rights are necessary (for those incarcerated, for example), I am fairly certain that it was never intended for broad social law that applies to everyone except *insert group here*. The sort of problems for nations, that arise from that kind of legislation, are made evident in the body of the repeal. Furthering the rights of some, while curtailing the rights of others to ensure that can happen, is the wrong approach to law.
None of this prevents 457 from being resubmitted without clause 5, and, it would have my support.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Should the target be resubmitted without clause five, Arasi Luvasa will be against."

[THX1138]

"Should the target be resubmitted without clause five, Arasi Luvasa will be against."

There's nothing in WA law that provides anyone a right to non-compliance. All nations are held to the same account unless otherwise indicated in law. Repealing this legislation doesn't prevent future legislation from being submitted to gain an exemption from certain laws on ideological grounds, and ideally, it would be at the discretion of the Assembly to make those decisions on a case by case basis.

OOC: There is legislation that I don't agree with idoeologically, but I still comply, and have learned to live with that over 6 years in the WA.

[Maowi]

There's nothing in WA law that provides anyone a right to non-compliance. All nations are held to the same account unless otherwise indicated in law. Repealing this legislation doesn't prevent future legislation from being submitted to gain an exemption from certain laws on ideological grounds, and ideally, it would be at the discretion of the Assembly to make those decisions on a case by case basis.

OOC: There is legislation that I don't agree with idoeologically, but I still comply, and have learned to live with that over 6 years in the WA.

Under GAR#035, the Governments of member nations must ensure that all of their citizens are equal under the law. DtRoSaGM 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 just allows member nations to legislate as appropriate to them on this topic, and also allows future GA resolutions to be passed on this topic. I have said this before in this thread, and you didn't really respond in any way other than reiterating your claim that DtRoSaGM 'discriminates'.

[THX1138]

Under GAR#035, the Governments of member nations must ensure that all of their citizens are equal under the law. DtRoSaGM 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 just allows member nations to legislate as appropriate to them on this topic, and also allows future GA resolutions to be passed on this topic. I have said this before in this thread, and you didn't really respond in any way other than reiterating your claim that DtRoSaGM 'discriminates'.

OOC: I genuinely feel you continue to miss the point of this repeal. What nations may or may not do isn't the issue here. It's not about the content, or how nations deal with that content. It's about the presentation of a structurally inequitable legislation in the first place, the precedent that sets, and the potential for that precedent to be exploited in future.

[WA Kitty Kops]

OOC: It's about the presentation of a structurally inequitable legislation in the first place, the precedent that sets, and the potential for that precedent to be exploited in future.

OOC: If you want to write a resolution banning discriminatory practices in religious rituals, then write a resolution banning discriminatory practices in religious rituals and don't moan about a resolution not doing what it's deliberately not doing.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Should the target be resubmitted without clause five, Arasi Luvasa will be against."

There's nothing in WA law that provides anyone a right to non-compliance. All nations are held to the same account unless otherwise indicated in law. Repealing this legislation doesn't prevent future legislation from being submitted to gain an exemption from certain laws on ideological grounds, and ideally, it would be at the discretion of the Assembly to make those decisions on a case by case basis.

OOC: There is legislation that I don't agree with idoeologically, but I still comply and have learned to live with that over 6 years in the WA.

did you read my post. Voting against a proposal is not non-compliance. Should the burden of WA legislation become too heavy for my theocratic nation to justify then I will have it withdraw from the WA and a new nation join that is less likely to be opposed. Also just because it is resubmitted does not mean my nation must abide by it, it must first pass the vote before any nation is expected to comply.

OOC: I genuinely feel you continue to miss the point of this repeal. What nations may or may not do isn't the issue here. It's not about the content, or how nations deal with that content. It's about the presentation of a structurally inequitable legislation in the first place, the precedent that sets, and the potential for that precedent to be exploited in future.

It isn't really that inequitable. Religious institutions fail to be that if they cannot practice their religion in any meaningful way. You are advocating to silence religion because it makes you feel squeamish. Besides that, it would likely not help the plight of anyone who doesn't conform because you cannot change a culture by making new laws. If you truly believe religions should allow gay marriage, you need to convince them of that, telling them to do so or else just does not work. I would site the academic text to show this but I can't remember what it is. Regardless I will tell you that similar attempts have been tried in South Africa regarding witch-hunts by the apartheid government, it did nothing despite all attempts from the government. Deeply held beliefs cannot just be legislated away but requires an actual mental shift. That mental shift will be harder should people be forced to act against their beliefs. Peoplemay be entitled to have any faith they want, that does not give them the right to force that faith to associate with them. Legislating that without clause 5 is would only make tensions higher and increase the likelihood of hate crimes as well as people being rude to said individuals on a day to day basis. One should ensure that in trying to extend rights for one group,that they aren't taking rights away from another (in this case the right to choose who to associate with and who to not associate with).

Also forcing religion to associate with someone that faith discriminates against is an act of tyranny of the majority, as presumably no one who is part of the discriminated against group would be a die-hard member of said group. Yet you are forcing this group that specifically wants nothing to do with them to accept them? Lets say the belief is a paint colour. All the The religions are the two African people in the room (why African? because Africans still tends to be highly religious" and the rest are five European's. The Africans want their roompainted white while the Europeans want to paint all the rooms black, despite never entering the room of the far right which the Africans frequent (except maybe one European). what is morally/socially just? Painting everything black or leaving the far right room to be painted white?

IC:

There's nothing in WA law that provides anyone a right to non-compliance. All nations are held to the same account unless otherwise indicated in law. Repealing this legislation doesn't prevent future legislation from being submitted to gain an exemption from certain laws on ideological grounds, and ideally, it would be at the discretion of the Assembly to make those decisions on a case by case basis.

"Are you an imbecile? If the legislation passed Arasi Luvasa would resign from the assembly. We will be voting against should the legislation this is attempting to repeal be resubmitted without clause five. That is what it means to be against a propossed resolution, though I suppose you are too stupid to understand the concept of legislations in effect and legislation which is possibly going to be voted into effect. Also if legislation passes effectively preventing religious organisations from practicing their values, we cannot in propose legislation that would contradict said legislation. We cannot even amend it for some God-forsaken reason, therefore to protect our citizens right to practice any religion they should choose to Arasi Luvasa will withdraw from the World Assembly."

[Maowi]

OOC: It's about the presentation of a structurally inequitable legislation in the first place, the precedent that sets, and the potential for that precedent to be exploited in future.

OOC: If you want to write a resolution banning discriminatory practices in religious rituals, then write a resolution banning discriminatory practices in religious rituals and don't moan about a resolution not doing what it's deliberately not doing.

This. I purposefully allowed further legislation on the issue.

[Battlion]

OOC: If you want to write a resolution banning discriminatory practices in religious rituals, then write a resolution banning discriminatory practices in religious rituals and don't moan about a resolution not doing what it's deliberately not doing.

This. I purposefully allowed further legislation on the issue.

HOW DARE YOU! [/sarcasm]

[Kenmoria]

“I will mention that your repeal’s formatting it at odds with what is normally expected. It is usual to write in clauses rather than in paragraphs, to present a clear line of reasoning without too much reading being requied. Although there is nothing wrong per se with how you are presenting your repeal, putting it more conventionally could aid it by encouraging delegations to listen to its arguements.”

[THX1138]

“I will mention that your repeal’s formatting it at odds with what is normally expected. It is usual to write in clauses rather than in paragraphs, to present a clear line of reasoning without too much reading being requied. Although there is nothing wrong per se with how you are presenting your repeal, putting it more conventionally could aid it by encouraging delegations to listen to its arguements.”

Thanks. I realize it's fairly text heavy. I'll take a look at some other repeals and see how I can harmonize it.

[THX1138]

"Are you an imbecile?

I think I'm done responding to you.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Are you an imbecile?

I think I'm done responding to you.

Just IC or OOC as well? Most of that post is OOC (and an actual discussion) and really what did you expect my ambassador to respond with.

[THX1138]

This repeal has been submitted.

I hope for the support of Delegates, and have a draft prepared for enhancements to GAR#035 to close the loophole on de facto exemptions through silence in future legislation. I will submit a draft for discussion in the next days.

OOC: Quite busy with work

The end goal would be that any exemptions from law that apply to groups within WA nations should be dealt with directly, and determined by the Assembly as a whole, rather than through any given legislation's silence as to whom the law applies across the spectrum of society.

[Battlion]

This repeal has been submitted.

I hope for the support of Delegates, and have a draft prepared for enhancements to GAR#035 to close the loophole on de facto exemptions through silence in future legislation. I will submit a draft for discussion in the next days.

OOC: Quite busy with work

The end goal would be that any exemptions from law that apply to groups within WA nations should be dealt with directly, and determined by the Assembly as a whole, rather than through any given legislation's silence as to whom the law applies across the spectrum of society.

Oh god really, every single proposal for a repeal has been rejected. People are tired of this, I think you should consider whether this will go anywhere. Some legal repeals haven’t reached quorum, I don’t think this one will either.

[Kenmoria]

This repeal has been submitted.

I hope for the support of Delegates, and have a draft prepared for enhancements to GAR#035 to close the loophole on de facto exemptions through silence in future legislation. I will submit a draft for discussion in the next days.

OOC: Quite busy with work

The end goal would be that any exemptions from law that apply to groups within WA nations should be dealt with directly, and determined by the Assembly as a whole, rather than through any given legislation's silence as to whom the law applies across the spectrum of society.

(OOC: You can’t ‘enhance’ legislation without repealing and then replacing it and the chances of repealing GA #035 are extremely remote, even less likely than repealing Defending the Rgiths of Sexual and Gender Minorities.)

[THX1138]

(OOC: You can’t ‘enhance’ legislation without repealing and then replacing it and the chances of repealing GA #035 are extremely remote, even less likely than repealing Defending the Rgiths of Sexual and Gender Minorities.)

It is possible to create a patch, as we've seen recently, provided it doesn't tread on ground already covered. There is nothing in GAR#035 relating to exemption of rights to equality under law, for groups, through legislative silence.
The goal will be to simply bring forth a proposal that prohibits future legislation from using this kind of workaround (remaining silent about any given group) to avoid equality under law /human rights. No repeal of GAR#035 required.

[THX1138]

Oh god really, every single proposal for a repeal has been rejected. People are tired of this, I think you should consider whether this will go anywhere. Some legal repeals haven’t reached quorum, I don’t think this one will either.

OOC: Understood. It's unfortunate that there were so many frivolous attempts at repeal, because I think the target sets a very bad precedent, and while legal, goes against the spirit of GAR#035 Clause 1-2, which is fundamental human rights.
I put the work into the repeal, and hope the fatigue won't prevent people from giving it fair consideration on those grounds.

[Maowi]

• 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.

This whole chunk is incorrect. DRSGM doesn't say that religious organisations can't be punished; and if they do have to be punished in order for your nation to comply with the rest of the resolution, so be it. Silence on that topic does not mean that religious organisations are enshrined in some sort of protection.

[Marxist Germany]

• 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.

This whole chunk is incorrect. DRSGM doesn't say that religious organisations can't be punished; and if they do have to be punished in order for your nation to comply with the rest of the resolution, so be it. Silence on that topic does not mean that religious organisations are enshrined in some sort of protection.

You didnt punish religious organisations in your resolution so i don't see why you're bringing that point up

[Maowi]

You didnt punish religious organisations in your resolution so i don't see why you're bringing that point up

That makes zilch sense. Please explain what you mean.