NationStates

Challenging: Defending the Rights of Gender and Sexual Minorities

Rule Violated: Honest Mistake

Noting that clause 5 of this proposal clearly states "... that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution, and should be addressed by future legislation."

Asserting that this results in an exemption from this proposal's mandates, for one specifically identified societal group, and fails to hold that group to the same standard of law as all other groups or individuals.

Citing GAR#035 CoCR 1(a) which states "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions".

The exemption resulting from the exclusion of religious groups from the scope of this legislation fails to maintain equality under the actions of the law, as required by CoCR.

Member states are not the religious organizations within their jurisdiction (at least, not in non-theocracies). I see no HM.

The Honest Mistake rule only applies to repeals.

Fair enough. I've struck the suggestion that it is an HM violation, but still maintain that the proposal is discriminatory, and in violation of CoCR section 1(a).

OOC: If this were a proposal to prevent specific forms of racial discrimination, but included a clause exempting white-supremacist organizations from its mandates, would we even be having this debate?

THX1138 wrote:Fair enough. I've struck the suggestion that it is an HM violation, but still maintain that the proposal is discriminatory, and in violation of CoCR section 1(a).

OOC: If this were a proposal to prevent specific forms of racial discrimination, but included a clause exempting white-supremacist organizations from its mandates, would we even be having this debate?

Legality challenge threads are always OOC.

And the one at vote specifically leaves religious stuff outside of its influence. If you want to write a proposal banning inequality in religious marriages, go for it.

Araraukar wrote:And the one at vote specifically leaves religious stuff outside of its influence. If you want to write a proposal banning inequality in religious marriages, go for it.

This exactly: I purposefully left space for future legislation on the issue.