[DRAFT] Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual gender mino"

[The Canadian Republic Colonies]

To repeal this act is inhumane. To assert yourself above others rights is not tolerable. Scientific fact triumphs over belief every time. Science supports the passage of the original bill passed in the assembly. This proposal to repeal is an inherently self serving agenda that will not be tolerated by The Canadian Republic Colonies.

[East Kirea]

To repeal this act is inhumane. To assert yourself above others rights is not tolerable. Scientific fact triumphs over belief every time. Science supports the passage of the original bill passed in the assembly. This proposal to repeal is an inherently self-serving agenda that will not be tolerated by The Canadian Republic Colonies.

I agree, To assert yourself above other rights is not tolerable and Scientific fact triumphs over belief every time. but this doesn't change the fact of the resolutions unclear goal and poor writing.

[Elyreia]

Vehemently opposed.

If you do not want to adhere to World Assembly resolutions because of your own volition, you may leave the World Assembly and vacate this building.

[East Kirea]

To repeal this act is inhumane. To assert yourself above others rights is not tolerable. Scientific fact triumphs over belief every time. Science supports the passage of the original bill passed in the assembly. This proposal to repeal is an inherently self serving agenda that will not be tolerated by The Canadian Republic Colonies.

also, nothing can be considered inherently self-serving without confirmation that something is as such.

[East Kirea]

Vehemently opposed.

If you do not want to adhere to World Assembly resolutions because of your own volition, you may leave the World Assembly and vacate this building.

?

[Sierra Lyricalia]

All OOC:

REALISING the many hypocrisies of the Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities resolution including the fact that within the game secular nations may not allow marriage equality meaning the resolution in question would contradict these game mechanics, and

Illegal, Metagaming

NOTING many nations failed to understand the extremities and implications of this resolution, those being secular nations, which make up the majority of nations no longer be allowed to host non-religious marriages without unwillingly allowing people of all sexuality and gender to marry,

National Sovereignty (NatSov) argument #1. If all arguments are NatSov-oriented, that makes the repeal illegal. Repeals must address the contents of their targets with more than just "countries shouldn't have to follow this" - you have to say why. Are there unintended consequences? Is the resolution ineffective? Are the side effects worse than the solution? Etc.

The resolution in question:

A) DEFINED, "civil marriage" as a legally recognized union of two or more people as partners in a personal relationship, solemnized as a civil contract with or without religious ceremony.

B) FURTHER DEFINED, for the purposes of that resolution, "marriage rights" as privileges granted to an individual solely or in part as a consequence of their civil marriage.

MEANING as the resolution went on to define the marriage rights as for all member nations to allow civil marriages between individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to previously passed extant World Assembly resolutions, all nations that allowed civil marriage would have to unwillingly allow civil marriage between partners of all genders and sexualities and therefore traditionalist and religious and some secular nations would have to go against their moral code in compliance of this resolution,

NatSov argument #2.

THEREFORE all secular nations that do not allow marriages of nontraditional gender and sexuality would be unwillingly forced to align their nations with something they do not agree with due to the poor writing of the resolution in question and religious nations that allowed non-religious marriage would also be forced to allow marriages of all genders.

NatSov argument #3; and I see no more arguments. That's the ballgame, I'm afraid.

Please have a look through the proposal rules (see my signature below) to get a sense of how resolutions should be written to maximize your chances of success. Good luck!

[Araraukar]

Vehemently opposed.

If you do not want to adhere to World Assembly resolutions because of your own volition, you may leave the World Assembly and vacate this building.

?

OOC: They mean that if you hate the WA dictating stuff to your nation so much, you can leave the WA. And your ambassador can leave the WAHQ (the in-character location of the GA forum).

[East Kirea]

?

OOC: They mean that if you hate the WA dictating stuff to your nation so much, you can leave the WA. And your ambassador can leave the WAHQ (the in-character location of the GA forum).

I'm not questioning the meaning of there comment but the relevance.

[Gudmund]

Overall I disagree with the original resolution entirely, just for a few different reasons. Considering the very first line disregards the physical differences between male and female, I already thought it was pretty stupid. My nation does not have marriage, so #1 (a, b, c, d) of the original resolution does not apply to me. However, I'm more concerned with the original resolution's explanation of #2 and #3:

2. 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.

3. ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion).

This means services/businesses like Boy or Girl scouts will practically not exist due to the enforcement of these 2 rules. For example, the resolution forces nations to punish such organisations if they don't allow any gender except male from joining the boy scouts. Neither will there be separation between sports, since qualifying conditions '...may not include the sexuality or gender of the individual(s) concerned.'

This also prevents businesses from hiring only male or female workers for specific roles. Contracting/building companies usually hire all-male since they're often better suited for heavy lifting and dangerous work. I'm not even going to get into the many issues with healthcare that this brings forth.

How this resolution even managed to pass in the first place honestly astounds me.

(OOC: That is true. However, luckily, there is a loophole. Although it has to be technically illegal under the law, it only has to be punished ‘as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria’. The punishments for those conditions are grouped under CoCR, GA #35, which does have an exception for compelling practical purposes. Therefore, the fines a nation would have to impose on a business could be lessened to token amounts via this loophole, if the member state claimed a compelling practical purpose, although the actions themselves would still have to be illegal.)

OOC: Just reposting this here since everyone seems to skip over it, despite how many nations this affects.

[Araraukar]

I'm not questioning the meaning of there comment but the relevance.

OOC: Your arguments are NatSov - that is, they boil down to "I think that nations should be able to decide for themselves" - thus, to reach that aim, leaving the WA would solve the issue.

[Samaster]

I'm not questioning the meaning of there comment but the relevance.

OOC: Your arguments are NatSov - that is, they boil down to "I think that nations should be able to decide for themselves" - thus, to reach that aim, leaving the WA would solve the issue.

There are things that should be regulated in the WA, mainly international right, and then there are things that just go a bit too far. This one is too far. Just because we allow this in our nations doesn't mean we should force others to allow this too.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: Your arguments are NatSov - that is, they boil down to "I think that nations should be able to decide for themselves" - thus, to reach that aim, leaving the WA would solve the issue.

There are things that should be regulated in the WA, mainly international right, and then there are things that just go a bit too far. This one is too far. Just because we allow this in our nations doesn't mean we should force others to allow this too.

OOC:
That might be your stance, it is, however, not a valid argument to repeal a resolution.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: Your arguments are NatSov - that is, they boil down to "I think that nations should be able to decide for themselves" - thus, to reach that aim, leaving the WA would solve the issue.

There are things that should be regulated in the WA, mainly international right, and then there are things that just go a bit too far. This one is too far. Just because we allow this in our nations doesn't mean we should force others to allow this too.

(OOC: Whilst that may be considered a good reason, it is illegal to repeal a resolution solely for the reason of national sovereignty. You need at least one non-NatSov clause for your proposal to be legal. However, I recommend pursuing a goal of having the majority of your clauses not be national sovereignty based, since those arguments are disliked.)

[Samaster]

There are things that should be regulated in the WA, mainly international right, and then there are things that just go a bit too far. This one is too far. Just because we allow this in our nations doesn't mean we should force others to allow this too.

(OOC: Whilst that may be considered a good reason, it is illegal to repeal a resolution solely for the reason of national sovereignty. You need at least one non-NatSov clause for your proposal to be legal. However, I recommend pursuing a goal of having the majority of your clauses not be national sovereignty based, since those arguments are disliked.)

OOC: I'm not proposing a repeal though. I am merely talking about personal opinion.

The NatSov argument was the main reason people stated for opposing the right to self defense. If it was brought up there, why not now?

[The New Nordic Union]

(OOC: Whilst that may be considered a good reason, it is illegal to repeal a resolution solely for the reason of national sovereignty. You need at least one non-NatSov clause for your proposal to be legal. However, I recommend pursuing a goal of having the majority of your clauses not be national sovereignty based, since those arguments are disliked.)

OOC: I'm not proposing a repeal though. I am merely talking about personal opinion.

The NatSov argument was the main reason people stated for opposing the right to self defense. If it was brought up there, why not now?

OOC:
Because this is a repeal, not a proposal for new legislation. It is one thing to say 'We do not think this is a matter of inter-national import and therefore we oppose the proposal', it is another thing to say 'The proposal does impose on my national sovereignty' when such a proposal was adopted, because obviously the WA as a whole deemed the issues to be inter-national, which is why the vote was in favour in the first place.

[Arasi Luvasa]

OOC: Your arguments are NatSov - that is, they boil down to "I think that nations should be able to decide for themselves" - thus, to reach that aim, leaving the WA would solve the issue.

There are things that should be regulated in the WA, mainly international right, and then there are things that just go a bit too far. This one is too far. Just because we allow this in our nations doesn't mean we should force others to allow this too.

What then should the WA regulate? this is clearly in the human rights category and something that will be infringed on should culture dictate how it is addressed. Most, if not all, cultures accept the concept of self-defence but have different understandings of family and responsibility to defend others. What self-defence entails may also differ, i.e. one's name may be as vital as one's life in a culture and losing it (or having it trod into the mud) is as bad if not worse than death. These cultural nuances cannot be adequately addressed by a blanket resolution from the WA, however, the resolution at hand is specifically written to protect one's rights from local culture.

[Wrapper]

Also why have you made a new thread for a new draft of the same proposal?

Indeed, one thread per proposal, please. And, edit the original post so it has your most recent draft.

[Elyreia]

The resolution has been passed. Opponents of the resolution had their chance. The resolution is now passed, and the national sovereignty argument is voided, because obviously a majority of the World Assembly believes it is not a national sovereignty issue.

All repeals will need to address issues with the resolution itself. Not with "I don't like/believe in/agree with this resolution" arguments.

[East Kirea]

I dont stand by this anymore