[Draft]REPEAL DTROSAGM (OH version)

[Old Hope]

Link to the original resolution:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=457/council=1

Lauding the good intention of General Assembly Resolution 457 to reduce unfair discrimination,

Declaring that forcing absolute mandatory sentencing on discrimination cases is unwise and unjust; a willful breach of discrimination laws should not be treated the same as unconscious bias,

Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:

-Offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from post-traumatic mental problems related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,
-Offering reasonably different education and/or psychological services based upon a person's gender and/or sexuality, which is especially problematic for people with a sexual orientation that cannot be legally pursued,

Offended by the equal sanctions and punishments clause which forces member states to enforce the law on some types of discrimination with absolute mandatory sentencing,

The World Assembly repeals General Assembly Resolution 457.

[Marxist Germany]

Link to the original resolution:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=457/council=1

The World Assembly,

Lauding the good intention of General Assembly Resolution 457 to reduce unfair discrimination,
Declaring that forcing absolute mandatory sentencing on discrimination cases is unwise and unjust,
Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,
-offering reasonably different education services based upon a person's gender and/or sexuality,
Offended by the equal sanctions and punishments clause which forces member states to enforce the law on some types of discrimination with absolute mandatory sentencing,
Repeals General Assembly Resolution 457.

"I'm voting against this, not because i like the target resolution but because its just really bad, Mr Ambassador"

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:This is probably illegal for Honest Mistake

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Though I am in favour of the resolution until I am certain that the proposal which intends to block the exemption will fail I will be supporting this repeal. I wish you luck ambassador, I will pray for your success in this endevour."

[Old Hope]

Link to the original resolution:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=457/council=1

"I'm voting against this, not because i like the target resolution but because its just really bad, Mr Ambassador"

"Why do you believe this repeal attempt to be really bad, ambassador?
OOC: and why do you believe that it is a Honest Mistake?

[Marxist Germany]

"I'm voting against this, not because i like the target resolution but because its just really bad, Mr Ambassador"

"Why do you believe this repeal attempt to be really bad, ambassador?
OOC: and why do you believe that it is a Honest Mistake?

OOC:after thinking about it, i dont think it's really an honest mistake.

"I believe it is bad because it doesn't address the main issues of the resolution and the examples given for exemptions are just really dumb, i will support if you bring up better examples for exemptions"

[Old Hope]

"Why do you believe this repeal attempt to be really bad, ambassador?
OOC: and why do you believe that it is a Honest Mistake?

OOC:after thinking about it, i dont think it's really an honest mistake.

"I believe it is bad because it doesn't address the main issues of the resolution and the examples given for exemptions are just really dumb, i will support if you bring up better examples for exemptions"

What are the issues that you have with the resolution(your main issues) and why aren't they being addressed here? Why do you think that the examples(they aren't really examples but the - in our current opinion - most problematic results of the strict mandates of the resolution) are dumb?

[Marxist Germany]

Link to the original resolution:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=457/council=1

The World Assembly,

Lauding the good intention of General Assembly Resolution 457 to reduce unfair discrimination,
Declaring that forcing absolute mandatory sentencing on discrimination cases is unwise and unjust,Why?
Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,This is ridiculous
-offering reasonably different education services based upon a person's gender and/or sexuality,I do agree with this
Offended by the equal sanctions and punishments clause which forces member states to enforce the law on some types of discrimination with absolute mandatory sentencing,Absolute mandatory sentencing isn't mentioned in the resolution (i think this counts as HM)
Repeals General Assembly Resolution 457.

[Arasi Luvasa]

-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,This is ridiculous

Honestly, it isn't. Helping someone through their fear of dogs is not going to happen if you can't set up a facility where they are removed from dogs. Same applies for a woman with a deep-seated fear of men (in an arachnophobia sense where she reacts to men like arachnids for example).

[Old Hope]

Link to the original resolution:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=457/council=1

The World Assembly,

Lauding the good intention of General Assembly Resolution 457 to reduce unfair discrimination,
Declaring that forcing absolute mandatory sentencing on discrimination cases is unwise and unjust,Why? Expanded, good point.
Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,This is ridiculous Is it? People subject to sexual violence frequently develop multiple mental problems, and gender-related phobias can be part of these mental problems. And even if there are different reasons it is still a valid problem.
-offering reasonably different education services based upon a person's gender and/or sexuality,I do agree with this
Offended by the equal sanctions and punishments clause which forces member states to enforce the law on some types of discrimination with absolute mandatory sentencing,Absolute mandatory sentencing isn't mentioned in the resolution (i think this counts as HM) Look at clause 3 again - is basically forcing absolute mandatory sentencing.
Repeals General Assembly Resolution 457.

The red edits are edits by Marxist Germany.

[Battlion]

Ok, so we’ve had over 20 repeal attempts... most failed to reach quorum and the one that did was crushed at vote. I really think there’s a lesson there to be taken in, not me saying you shouldn’t attempt a repeal but maybe not right now.

Although, I’m dead against repealing this anyway.

[Kenmoria]

“Stop doing this. We are at least in the high twenties, possibly the low thirties, of repeal attempts. Only one of them has reached quorum, and it was crushed at vote. Don’t you have better things to be doing? Also, this repeal proposal in particular has some quite weak reasoning, as you only actually mention just two flaws.”

[Imperium Anglorum]

You win the counting game: My archive counts 29 repeals submitted total.

I'm exceptionally fine with few "flaws" (or rather, repeal arguments) as long as they are impacted to the proper degree. An excellent example of this was back when Gruen repealed Sexual Privacy Act using just the argument that it permitted incest and that doing permitting incest would be bad.

[Old Hope]

You win the counting game: My archive counts 29 repeals submitted total.

I'm exceptionally fine with few "flaws" (or rather, repeal arguments) as long as they are impacted to the proper degree. An excellent example of this was back when Gruen repealed Sexual Privacy Act using just the argument that it permitted incest and that doing permitting incest would be bad.

I think that this problem:

Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,

should be significant enough to warrant a repeal.
And yes, there was a repeal attempt that failed at vote. It used totally different reasoning, however(and in our opinion, bad reasoning).

[Bears Armed]

“Stop doing this. We are at least in the high twenties, possibly the low thirties, of repeal attempts. Only one of them has reached quorum, and it was crushed at vote.”

OOC
Almost all of those failed to reach quorum because they were actually illegal. The ratio for legal attempts has therefore been significantly higher.

[Kenmoria]

“Stop doing this. We are at least in the high twenties, possibly the low thirties, of repeal attempts. Only one of them has reached quorum, and it was crushed at vote.”

OOC
Almost all of those failed to reach quorum because they were actually illegal. The ratio for legal attempts has therefore been significantly higher.

(OOC: There have still been a lot of legal, and indeed forum-drafted, repeal attempts for DRSGM compared with the average GA resolution.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC
Almost all of those failed to reach quorum because they were actually illegal. The ratio for legal attempts has therefore been significantly higher.

(OOC: There have still been a lot of legal, and indeed forum-drafted, repeal attempts for DRSGM compared with the average GA resolution.)

OOC:Because it is extremely controversial

[Battlion]

(OOC: There have still been a lot of legal, and indeed forum-drafted, repeal attempts for DRSGM compared with the average GA resolution.)

OOC:Because it is extremely controversial

OOC: Clearly not that controversial considering the margin at which the best drafted repeal we’d seen of it was defeated.

[Maowi]

Link to the original resolution:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=457/council=1

The World Assembly,

Lauding the good intention of General Assembly Resolution 457 to reduce unfair discrimination,
Declaring that forcing absolute mandatory sentencing on discrimination cases is unwise and unjust; a willful breach of discrimination laws should not be treated the same as unconscious bias,
Disgusted by the lack of good exemptions banning nations from:
-offering reasonable care conditions for people suffering from phobias related to gender by not exposing them to people of that gender,
-offering reasonably different education services based upon a person's gender and/or sexuality,
Offended by the equal sanctions and punishments clause which forces member states to enforce the law on some types of discrimination with absolute mandatory sentencing,
Repeals General Assembly Resolution 457.

Sentencing is not absolutely mandatory. It is only required to the same extent as it is required for other types of discrimination.

Your point on care for people with gender related phobias is null when you consider the situation probably. Say the patient has a phobia of male people. Who's going to be the better candidate for the job of caring for them: this male person, or this female person? Evidently the female person, because the male person will hinder the treatment of the patient. If you look at the situation, taking out the genders, it boils down to: one person will help them get better, one won't. That's not discrimination based on gender. That's selection based on ability.

[Old Hope]

Link to the original resolution:https://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_past_resolution/id=457/council=1

Sentencing is not absolutely mandatory. It is only required to the same extent as it is required for other types of discrimination.

To the EXACT same extent - that's the problem. It's literally impossible to gurantee this if you don't use mandatory sentencing - and with absolute I mean in both ways. Not more, not less.

Your point on care for people with gender related phobias is null when you consider the situation probably. Say the patient has a phobia of male people. Who's going to be the better candidate for the job of caring for them: this male person, or this female person? Evidently the female person, because the male person will hinder the treatment of the patient. If you look at the situation, taking out the genders, it boils down to: one person will help them get better, one won't. That's not discrimination based on gender. That's selection based on ability.

You are wrong:

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.

If you permit people to care for others who have phobia, then you may not invoke gender for anything related to these permissions. If you offer services to people suffering from gender-related phobias then you can't discriminate against people based on gender when you hire them. Which becomes an obvious problem if there is... let's say equal distribution of gender in staff and highly unequal distribution in people with phobias. Then you couldn't even discriminate based on the subject's reaction - it would be simply impossible to find the right person for everyone. Additionally, you still have to evaluate the person's response before deciding not to allow access, each time, for every qualified person, which is obviously harmful for the patient!

[Kenmoria]

Sentencing is not absolutely mandatory. It is only required to the same extent as it is required for other types of discrimination.

To the EXACT same extent - that's the problem. It's literally impossible to gurantee this if you don't use mandatory sentencing - and with absolute I mean in both ways. Not more, not less.

(OOC: Not necessarily, there is a good argument to be made that having the same penalties with the same guidelines for judges would fulfill that clause. I think it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation for a nation to merely have the same sentencing rules rather than having to put the exact same penalties for every crime.

Your point on care for people with gender related phobias is null when you consider the situation probably. Say the patient has a phobia of male people. Who's going to be the better candidate for the job of caring for them: this male person, or this female person? Evidently the female person, because the male person will hinder the treatment of the patient. If you look at the situation, taking out the genders, it boils down to: one person will help them get better, one won't. That's not discrimination based on gender. That's selection based on ability.

You are wrong:

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.

If you permit people to care for others who have phobia, then you may not invoke gender for anything related to these permissions. If you offer services to people suffering from gender-related phobias then you can't discriminate against people based on gender when you hire them. Which becomes an obvious problem if there is... let's say equal distribution of gender in staff and highly unequal distribution in people with phobias. Then you couldn't even discriminate based on the subject's reaction - it would be simply impossible to find the right person for everyone. Additionally, you still have to evaluate the person's response before deciding not to allow access, each time, for every qualified person, which is obviously harmful for the patient!

The important words there were, ‘subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions’, of which causing distress to the patient would be one.)

[Old Hope]

To the EXACT same extent - that's the problem. It's literally impossible to gurantee this if you don't use mandatory sentencing - and with absolute I mean in both ways. Not more, not less.

(OOC: Not necessarily, there is a good argument to be made that having the same penalties with the same guidelines for judges would fulfill that clause. I think it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation for a nation to merely have the same sentencing rules rather than having to put the exact same penalties for every crime.

"exactly the same" means absolutely no differences. And exactly the same punishments means that you, every time, order one specific punishment for that crime. Everything else is not exactly the same punishment.

You are wrong:
If you permit people to care for others who have phobia, then you may not invoke gender for anything related to these permissions. If you offer services to people suffering from gender-related phobias then you can't discriminate against people based on gender when you hire them. Which becomes an obvious problem if there is... let's say equal distribution of gender in staff and highly unequal distribution in people with phobias. Then you couldn't even discriminate based on the subject's reaction - it would be simply impossible to find the right person for everyone. Additionally, you still have to evaluate the person's response before deciding not to allow access, each time, for every qualified person, which is obviously harmful for the patient!

The important words there were, ‘subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions’, of which causing distress to the patient would be one.)

....Yes. But by causing distress to the patient, the harm has been already done.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Not necessarily, there is a good argument to be made that having the same penalties with the same guidelines for judges would fulfill that clause. I think it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation for a nation to merely have the same sentencing rules rather than having to put the exact same penalties for every crime.

"exactly the same" means absolutely no differences. And exactly the same punishments means that you, every time, order one specific punishment for that crime. Everything else is not exactly the same punishment.
The important words there were, ‘subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions’, of which causing distress to the patient would be one.)

....Yes. But by causing distress to the patient, the harm has been already done.

(OOC: No, causing potential distress to the patient would be a qualifying condition, as would having the likelihood of causing distress. No actual distress needs to be caused.)

[Bears Armed]

OOC
See GA Resolution #35 'The Charter of Civil Rights', which explicitly gives hiring only women to work in shelters for battered women as an example of allowable discrimination. The same principle would seem applicable in the situations being discussed here.

[Old Hope]

OOC
See GA Resolution #35 'The Charter of Civil Rights', which explicitly gives hiring only women to work in shelters for battered women as an example of allowable discrimination. The same principle would seem applicable in the situations being discussed here.

OOC:No. It would not be applicable because unlike The Charter of Civil Rights, the target resolution does not allow ANY exceptions(COCR does not prevent hiring only women to work in shelters for battered women, but that does not prevent the resolution to repeal from banning it - which is the central point of this repeal proposal - inflexible one-size-fits-it-all clauses.).

....Yes. But by causing distress to the patient, the harm has been already done.

(OOC: No, causing potential distress to the patient would be a qualifying condition, as would having the likelihood of causing distress. No actual distress needs to be caused.)

OOC:Yeah but on what do you base the likelyhood of a person causing distress? On them being of the wrong gender? Because that's not allowed by the very resolution I am trying to repeal!