[DEFEATED] Repeal Defending Rights Sexual Gender Minorities

[THX1138]

Which, I feel needs pointing out - GenSec marked it legal and there wasn’t any legality challenge where it failed to meet the legal standards.
So, it was never and is not illegal.

Sure, but what's been revealed here is that it is possible to pass a legislation like this:
GAR#XXX
Reason: yada yada
Rules: yada yada
Penalties: yada yada
Clausex: This law doesn't address anyone living on a Clark Street within their nation and that can be dealt with in future legislation.

Result is a legal legislation, that applies to everyone, with penalties that apply to everyone, except those living on Clark Street. While the Clark Street people might see a legislation covering them in future, until that legislation is passed, you've got a group operating under a different set of rules than their neighbours. It's pretty obvious why that might cause some complications for nations.

[Kenmoria]

Which, I feel needs pointing out - GenSec marked it legal and there wasn’t any legality challenge where it failed to meet the legal standards.
So, it was never and is not illegal.

Sure, but what's been revealed here is that it is possible to pass a legislation like this:
GAR#XXX
Reason: yada yada
Rules: yada yada
Penalties: yada yada
Clausex: This law doesn't address anyone living on a Clark Street within their nation and that can be dealt with in future legislation.

Result is a legal legislation, that applies to everyone, with penalties that apply to everyone, except those living on Clark Street. While the Clark Street people might see a legislation covering them in future, until that legislation is passed, you've got a group operating under a different set of rules than their neighbours. It's pretty obvious why that might cause some complications for nations.

(OOC: The big difference between the situation you have described and the current one is that DRSGM has an exception for a good reason, since religions have objections to homosexuality and other LGBTI+ groups that might make legislation. What would be more apt would be if the areas called Clark Street ran off of civil law, whilst everywhere else used common law, then it would be entirely justified to pass a law that dealt with everywhere other than street.)

[Maowi]

That something of this nature can be legal, while simultaneously creating the undeniable paradoxes for nations, and the undeniable social inequities 'under the law and its actions' that occur, reveals that there is a critical flaw in jurisprudence.

These paradoxes that you mention are most definitely deniable.

[THX1138]

(OOC: The big difference between the situation you have described and the current one is that DRSGM has an exception for a good reason, since religions have objections to homosexuality and other LGBTI+ groups that might make legislation. What would be more apt would be if the areas called Clark Street ran off of civil law, whilst everywhere else used common law, then it would be entirely justified to pass a law that dealt with everywhere other than street.)

OOC And where, in the target is any of that stated? Essentially, what you're doing here is rationalizing as a means to justify the shape of GAR#457.
Who knows, maybe the author of GAR#XXX did some heavy polling and found out ahead of time that the majority of people living on Clark Streets throughout the multiverse would likely be opposed to GAR#XXX. That might well have been their rationale for including clasuex, but it really doesn't change the resulting problems for nations, does it?

[THX1138]

These paradoxes that you mention are most definitely deniable.

If I was in a group within a nation, and I got a de facto exemption from a WA law that I was happy with, and my nation sought to close the gap by by passing something locally, I would certainly point to the exemption precedent set by the WA, to prevent that from happening. Downloading that burden onto nations is patently unfair.

[Maowi]

These paradoxes that you mention are most definitely deniable.

If I was in a group within a nation, and I got a de facto exemption from a WA law that I was happy with, and my nation sought to close the gap by by passing something locally, I would certainly point to the exemption precedent set by the WA, to prevent that from happening. Downloading that burden onto nations is patently unfair.

I personally don't think it should be up to the WA to base legislation on whether its member nations have the organisation and strength of will to exert authority over their citizens.

[THX1138]

This is the link to the preliminary draft that aims to address some of he issues raised in the repeal.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=460656

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is the link to the preliminary draft that aims to address some of he issues raised in the repeal.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=460656

Don't pimp your drafts in other people's threads.

[Maowi]

This is the link to the preliminary draft that aims to address some of he issues raised in the repeal.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=460656

Don't pimp your drafts in other people's threads.

This is their thread.

[BILLYSANDS]

this whole gender disforia crap has got this old man bugged, its too much, leave kids alone, let them grow up before they mutilate themselves, this is an adult issue, leave kids out of it.. i'm disgusted by all this nonsense.. its attention seeking by sick peoole who need a shrink not surgery, i'm tempted but, i think denying people any rights is wrong, we have to put the breaks on all this crazy stuff , but denying anyone basic rights is wrong

[Battlion]

I was already opposed to the repeal and the proposed alternative isn't really even an alternative so I'm not seeing any argument to repeal.

I fundamentally disagree that there's a problem here, just seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Furry Things]

We don't see how an exemption, with an invitation for further legislation, does much of anything to create a contradiction here, and we don't see it giving religions any special new powers that they didn't have before.We don't know why, instead of a repeal, this isn't just a new resolution that addresses the lack of religious reform in the original, since that would accomplish exactly what you want to accomplish in the first place. This repeal only seems to serve the purpose of reducing civil rights rather than addressing any sort of inequity. We vote against this measure.

[Imperium Anglorum]

There's a nice schema for an argument. I've got two versions of it: Sexi and CWI. Statement, explanation, illustration. Or claim, warrant, impact. But they really mean the same thing (although the former is more designed for BP-like activities where compelling examples are impacts in of themselves).

I'm just massively unclear what the warrant and impacts are to this claim of internal contradiction. Repeatedly in the repeal, we constantly hear about this internal contradiction. Having read the whole thing, I still have no idea why it in fact exists and why its existence is important. Conflicts of laws are regularly resolved in courts or administrative bodies. And there isn't a conflict of laws here, because the resolution simply exempts religious organisations from its requirements, equivalent to saying "Do X, but not if you are Y".

If the author means something along the lines of "This creates an exception for religious organisations", he cannot then say "This Assembly believes that the silence from this legislation, as it relates to this ideological group". If the author wants to tie this in to his separate (probably illegal) proposal to regulate exceptions, I am also massively unclear on what the warrants and impacts are to that claim as well. The warrant for why that other proposal is necessary doesn't seem to make any sense, since this created "de facto exception" concept doesn't apply, because it's pretty obviously explicit in this target resolution here.

With specificity, the relevant clause is:

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.

I'm not sure why the author believes that precedent in fact matters insofar as people can write proposals differently and rules precedent has nothing to do with it, because there is no explicit ruling on the matter. Nor am I clear why the author believes that repeal of this legislation will have any solvency at correcting this alleged problem.

I invite the author to respond to clarify some of these fundamental conceptual problems.

[Verdant Haven]

"A thinly-veiled effort to reintroduce widespread discrimination, by espousing concern for some false 'precedent' issue. Clearly any concerns would be most appropriately addressed by filling the gap the author cites, thus extending protections via the further legislation called for in the original resolution. A repeal is completely unnecessary, detrimental, and represents a gross misunderstanding of the legal process."

[Slackertown]

This proposal is a great example of the hypocrisy of the WA. We have to defend minorities, but only the right minorities. All nations should be forced to protect the minorities the WA deems worthy, and disregard the ones the WA deems insignificant.

Disgusting.

The current law is fine. It ensures true equality for all people.

[United States of Americanas]

Rather than repeal perhaps a proposal should be made to amend the existing law to make it cover churches and religious organizations.

Opposed.

[Old Hope]

Rather than repeal perhaps a proposal should be made to amend the existing law to make it cover churches and religious organizations.

Opposed.

OOC:
You can't amend resolutions.You can only repeal them.

[Greater Slavil]

Greater Slavil firstly finds it troubling that so many nations are voting for this resolution purely on the moral principle of this as opposed to the legitimate issues that this repeal rightfully brings up. Greater Slavil will vote against regardless, if only with the hope that later resolutions address the outstanding issues with the resolution.

[Vrama]

Vrama supports the repeal of the illegal and absurd resolution.

GAR 457:

4. 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.

Resolution doesn't define gender.

Further, the GA doesn't have the authority to pass laws contrary to reality. So it is illegal and null and void. No nation could actually be in full compliance with this resolution.

[Lynwood]

Rather than repeal perhaps a proposal should be made to amend the existing law to make it cover churches and religious organizations.

Opposed.

The Empire of Lynwood fully agree therefore will be amending my vote to oppose

[Central Asian Republics]

Rather than repeal perhaps a proposal should be made to amend the existing law to make it cover churches and religious organizations.

Opposed.

The Empire of Lynwood fully agree therefore will be amending my vote to oppose

Amending is impossible under current WA rules, it can only be repealed first and then a revised version can be submitted.

[Lynwood]

Ok i'll rephrase we change our vote to against

[Central Asian Republics]

Ok i'll rephrase we change our vote to against

What I mean is that you cannot amend legislation, therefore any resolution passed must be repealed before a revised version can be submitted. Since you agree that the resolution should "cover churches and religious organizations", you should vote 'For' this repeal in order for a new version to be submitted.

[Maowi]

Ok i'll rephrase we change our vote to against

What I mean is that you cannot amend legislation, therefore any resolution passed must be repealed before a revised version can be submitted. Since you agree that the resolution should "cover churches and religious organizations", you should vote 'For' this repeal in order for a new version to be submitted.

It is perfectly legal to write a new proposal which bans discrimination within churches and religious organisations on the basis of sexuality or gender, without repealing the target resolution. That was an option purposefully left available during the drafting of that resolution.

[Central Asian Republics]

That was an option purposefully left available during the drafting of that resolution.

I'd call that badge hunting if I was just a little more cynical.