[Abandoned] On the Structure of Legislative Exemptions

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: If you want to neuter an existing resolution, repeal it. Hatzisland is right, this is a lot like trying to amend past resolutions, and not for their improvement.

[Wallenburg]

What statement?

In the thread for the repeal of 457, SL stated the following:

OOC: I see this clause as an Honest Mistake. The target does not block further WA action to deal with discrimination by religious organizations; in fact it invites it. "This resolution is silent as to X" is explicitly a notice that future legislation regarding "X" shall neither duplicate nor contradict the resolution in question...

To which I replied (same thread):

I see your perspective on it, but remain uneasy with the result. The 'silence as to X' still results in an exemption from this proposal's mandates, for one identified group: "...religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution." Granted, that can be addressed in future, but in the interim, there remains an imbalance.While I see your point that clause 5 doesn't necessarily entrench a right for that group, that silence in this proposal relating to that group also fails to hold them to the same standard of law as all other groups...

So, that's the context.

All that is is a single member of GenSec properly identifying an exemption as an exemption. I don't see how it makes pure blockers such as this anything other than pure blockers, or how it establishes two different tiers of exemption.

[Wallenburg]

Ah, and with the most recent edit, this does indeed also violate the Amendments rule.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Yeah, I really don't see a way to salvage this. This is a pure blocker, and as Wallenburg points out seems to amend existing legislation (or even repeal it by fiat instead of the game repeal function, which is also illegal). If you want to make a discrete piece of legislation moot, repeal it directly. Exemptions for considered reasons are legal under the proposal rules, as long as they don't render an entire resolution optional. You can't change that by any means short of changing the game rules.

[THX1138]

OOC: Yeah, I really don't see a way to salvage this. This is a pure blocker, and as Wallenburg points out seems to amend existing legislation (or even repeal it by fiat instead of the game repeal function, which is also illegal). If you want to make a discrete piece of legislation moot, repeal it directly. Exemptions for considered reasons are legal under the proposal rules, as long as they don't render an entire resolution optional. You can't change that by any means short of changing the game rules.

The solution that I'm considering is to place the emphasis on nations, mandating that they neither pass nor enforce any legislation that does not apply equally across the spectrum of their society. Obviously that'll involve a full retool, but it does bring it back within the civil rights category, and has a similar result as a ban on exemptions at the WA level.
It also resolves the lion's share of my concern with what comes of legislative exemption as we see in 457, in terms of conflicts for nations. Obviously, I'd make it a 'from this point forward' kind of thing, so that it wouldn't create chaos.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Yeah, I really don't see a way to salvage this. This is a pure blocker, and as Wallenburg points out seems to amend existing legislation (or even repeal it by fiat instead of the game repeal function, which is also illegal). If you want to make a discrete piece of legislation moot, repeal it directly. Exemptions for considered reasons are legal under the proposal rules, as long as they don't render an entire resolution optional. You can't change that by any means short of changing the game rules.

The solution that I'm considering is to place the emphasis on nations, mandating that they neither pass nor enforce any legislation that does not apply equally across the spectrum of their society. Obviously that'll involve a full retool, but it does bring it back within the civil rights category, and has a similar result as a ban on exemptions at the WA level.
It also resolves the lion's share of my concern with what comes of 457, in terms of conflicts for nations.

Such an approach would only make it more illegal, causing it to violate further existing resolutions and to serve as a non-repeal repeal of that lengthened list of resolutions.

[THX1138]

Such an approach would only make it more illegal, causing it to violate further existing resolutions and to serve as a non-repeal repeal of that lengthened list of resolutions.

You made this post before I edited mine. I'd have to apply it 'moving forward' so that it wouldn't upset the status quo, but it would keep nations out of the sort of jeopardy we are currently seeing.

Edit: catching up on the other comments, and seeing why this might not work.

[THX1138]

OOC: Yeah, I really don't see a way to salvage this. This is a pure blocker, and as Wallenburg points out seems to amend existing legislation (or even repeal it by fiat instead of the game repeal function, which is also illegal). If you want to make a discrete piece of legislation moot, repeal it directly. Exemptions for considered reasons are legal under the proposal rules, as long as they don't render an entire resolution optional. You can't change that by any means short of changing the game rules.

OOC: One final consideration: What if this resolution provided nations with a right, to immediately apply to everyone, equally and without any caveat, any WA regulation that contained this type of sweeping ideological exemption for a social group?
Instead of regulating, enhance the rights of nations to preserve the spirit of the charter around equality under the law, in an unfettered way?
They'd be obliged to the legislation and it's mandates as usual, but they would have the ability to ignore the exemption, and apply the law equally , without being in a position of non-compliance.
- It would only apply to an exemption that challenged a nations understanding of Charter rights to equal treatment under law (on which, we have to assume, many of their laws are already built)
- Categorically, I believe that would fall within an enhancement of civil rights, since it would theoretically be reducing discrimination (esp in a case like 457)
- It would eliminate, for nations, any complicated legal wrangling in trying to create patches around WA imposed ideological exemptions, so that burden is removed
- Nations don't have to struggle with imposed WA laws that apply to some, but not others

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In other words you want to amend any and all resolutions containing such exemptions.

Or contradict them. Either way, it's still illegal. If you want to remove a specific exemption from WA law, repeal the resolution in which it is contained and replace it with something else.

[Arasi Luvasa]

If the exemption is that a resolution simply does not apply it's legislation to a specific group (in other words the entire reason you are bringing up this issue), then nations are free to apply those standards to the exempt group. If a resolution doesn't say you can't, then you can do said thing. If the resolution specifically protects said group from regulations, then it is a different story and you have to repeal it. Correct me if I am wrong but I am fairly certain that this is not going to change.