Advertisement
by Newam » Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:58 am
by Marxist Germany » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:46 am
Newam wrote:At what point did we have the right to initially take life now we are trying to prevent it what does this have to do with the price of tea in China we are talking about oranges and tomatoes here brothers and sisters in charge we should vote to ban this type of preventive murder that is trying to take place here to allow the permanent castration of men and women for any reason outside of medical reasons is an abomination at best I typically don’t speak on such matters but in this case I want to weigh my options and I asked the members of this union to take a gander at this and I hope you will make appropriate actions in the favor of banning forced sterilization I am voting in favor of this and I hope that the members of the council will take the time and do the same thing I will extend an olive branch and do more research to a sure that our nation is making the best decision
by PotatoFarmers » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:06 am
by Marxist Germany » Fri Sep 13, 2019 2:17 am
PotatoFarmers wrote:PotatoFarmers' official view on the issue.
PotatoFarmers' Ambassador to the WA, Mr Kishat, came up to the microphone to speak to the delegates present. "Seriously, why is there opposition to such a proposal? I must really applaud Marxist Germany for such a resolution. Banning forced sterilisation is something PotatoFarmers have always believe in, as the right to decide to embark on sterilisation, abortion and all other similar procedures is a basic right we believe everyone should have."
"To all those people who chose to vote against simply because the Delegate tabling the resolution comes from a nation which allow such acts to occur, you do realise that the nation will be affected by the resolution if it passes? Why would they propose such a resolution if they are not looking to repeal such an act? Really, I must say that all of you are finding random excuses to vote against such a good resolution."
"Really, I approve of your proposal. Personally, I think it is quite fair as it provides member nations with some 'breathing space' in terms of the measures that would be taken to prevent forced sterilisation and the punishment meted out to offenders. The Clause 2a is also quite fair in my opinion, and is not as bad as what others may say. My nation does, however, have a concern with Clause 4 as we do not think that the state should be providing reparations to acts of forced sterilisation by non-state actors. We did intend to fufill the requirement in the Clause as stated in our proposal, though we aren't sure if that is an appropriate way to do so for now. Nevertheless, we hope that in the event this proposal gets voted down, this could be a concern that you may want to address for a future redraft. I do wish you all the best for this proposal, and hopefully we will be able to convince all these people that they are wrong in voting against."
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:47 am
Onikella wrote:I feel as long as it is used for criminals (rapists).
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by The United Separatist Empire » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:29 am
Kenmoria wrote:“I would love for reproductive rights to being universally agreed upon within the WA. Luckily, this has already partially happened with the apssing fo strong legislation. It does seem, however, that the member states draw the line at banning sterilisation of people. Why this has happened is a mystery to me, though I don’t rule out the possibility that people are voting against because this doesn’t ban child sterilisation. If this is correct, then it would be because of a belief in reproductive freedoms that this is failing.”United Massachusetts wrote:"Oh, I'm sorry. I just recalled something about hearing that reproductive rights being universally agreed upon. And, if I recall correctly, I think you said something to that end. As did several other people.
Now, my memory may be failing, but I recall the phrase of choice being "reproductive rights are non negotiable.""The United Separatist Empire wrote:
You can’t stop me from castrating minorities! How else can I control my population?! If they don’t wanna be oppressed they should get their shit together and start oppressing people themselves!
(OOC: Castrating solely minorities would probably fall afoul of GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights.)
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:58 am
The United Separatist Empire wrote:Kenmoria wrote: “I would love for reproductive rights to being universally agreed upon within the WA. Luckily, this has already partially happened with the apssing fo strong legislation. It does seem, however, that the member states draw the line at banning sterilisation of people. Why this has happened is a mystery to me, though I don’t rule out the possibility that people are voting against because this doesn’t ban child sterilisation. If this is correct, then it would be because of a belief in reproductive freedoms that this is failing.”
(OOC: Castrating solely minorities would probably fall afoul of GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights.)
I have not read whatever this GA #035 is, so I will simply come to the conclusion that whatever I haven’t read yet doesn’t exist. My country will no longer recognize the WA and the laws passed under it as any form of authority over us, and I will continue to commit war crimes and atrocities for the sole purpose of pissing you guys off. Checkmate motherfuckers!
by Kenmoria » Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:26 am
“This proposal mentions individuals, not persons. Animals, unless they are sapient such as humans, some bears, some cats and a few other species, are not individuals. Besides, even if this did refer to persons, I don’t think a member nation would adopt an interpretation so contrary to their interests.Absentia wrote:Absentia votes AGAINST this proposal, because of the confluence of several other issues - which is to say, if the national animal is granted personhood, then this resolution would make criminals of all the people who take the 'have your pet spayed or neutered' advice, and as such is not a trans-national issue, but one rightly addressed at the national level. A malicious regime could remain in compliance with this resolution by declaring that various classes of people are 'subhuman' in the first place and therefore not subject to it's provisions.
The United Separatist Empire wrote:Kenmoria wrote: “I would love for reproductive rights to being universally agreed upon within the WA. Luckily, this has already partially happened with the apssing fo strong legislation. It does seem, however, that the member states draw the line at banning sterilisation of people. Why this has happened is a mystery to me, though I don’t rule out the possibility that people are voting against because this doesn’t ban child sterilisation. If this is correct, then it would be because of a belief in reproductive freedoms that this is failing.”
(OOC: Castrating solely minorities would probably fall afoul of GA #035, Charter of Civil Rights.)
I have not read whatever this GA #035 is, so I will simply come to the conclusion that whatever I haven’t read yet doesn’t exist. My country will no longer recognize the WA and the laws passed under it as any form of authority over us, and I will continue to commit war crimes and atrocities for the sole purpose of pissing you guys off. Checkmate motherfuckers!
by Pazano » Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:33 am
by Marxist Germany » Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:56 am
Pazano wrote:Per section 2a of this resolution, would unwilling minors be unable to refuse sterilization should their parents advocate for it? The parent or guardian may consent to their sterilization, but the child or minor may not. The ambiguity of the wording means that we may have to vote against this resolution, unless there is something that I have overlooked.
by Pazano » Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:09 am
"Yes, however, it is only an exception added to avoid contradiction with previous international law. Shall that law be repealed, your nation will be able to enact laws to ban it."
by The United Separatist Empire » Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:55 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:The United Separatist Empire wrote:I have not read whatever this GA #035 is, so I will simply come to the conclusion that whatever I haven’t read yet doesn’t exist. My country will no longer recognize the WA and the laws passed under it as any form of authority over us, and I will continue to commit war crimes and atrocities for the sole purpose of pissing you guys off. Checkmate motherfuckers!
"Ambassador, that's the dumbest interpretation of how law works that I have ever had the misfortune of hearing, and I have heard arguments from the delegations of Keshiland, Old Hope, and Bitely. Your statement should be considered an assault on the intelligence of every single ambassador who actually understands law.
"The WACC ensures compliance. Those nations that do not comply are subject to coercive fines. Those nations that do not pay the fines are subject to WA-wide embargo and the stiffest sanctions nations can otherwise come up with. Probably worse, nobody in this Assembly is going to pay you a goddamn bit of attention, ambassador. We've no reason to bother listening to your positions if your nation isn't going to comply in good faith."
by Waffia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:25 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Pazano wrote:Per section 2a of this resolution, would unwilling minors be unable to refuse sterilization should their parents advocate for it? The parent or guardian may consent to their sterilization, but the child or minor may not. The ambiguity of the wording means that we may have to vote against this resolution, unless there is something that I have overlooked.
"Yes, however, it is only an exception added to avoid contradiction with previous international law. Shall that law be repealed, your nation will be able to enact laws to ban it."
by Marxist Germany » Fri Sep 13, 2019 1:54 pm
by Waffia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 4:08 pm
by Pharexia » Fri Sep 13, 2019 5:43 pm
by PotatoFarmers » Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:56 pm
Waffia wrote:
Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?
by Kenmoria » Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:16 am
Waffia wrote:
Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?
by Thetopia » Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:10 am
by Waffia » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:19 am
PotatoFarmers wrote:Waffia wrote:
Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?
"(II) All persons who are lawfully present within any WA member nation have the right to undergo any non-emergency medical procedure deemed necessary and beneficial to the patient by their physician or other medical professional, which is legal for that person in the nation where the procedure is performed" ~ GA#29
Technically you could even bypass GA#29 by making illegal for minors to undergo sterilisation. Given that Clause II states that it is only for legal procedures, by carefully wording your laws, you could comply with this law. For us, we made it real simple by banning minors from undergoing such a procedure.
And if you are thinking about Clause 2a of this resolution, yes you could word your laws to ban adults from giving the permission as the clause states that the adult must be legally allowed to give the permission.
Kenmoria wrote:Waffia wrote:
Thank you. You say that it will be possible for individual member nations to ban forced sterilisation by guardians if GA#29 were to be repealed, but would such a ban not contradict your proposed resolution, regardless of the status of GA#29?
“I do not believe so, ambassador. This proposal never explicitly legalises forced sterilisation of children; all that it does is clarify that children, if they have consent given on their behalf, aren’t affected by this.”
by Marxist Germany » Sat Sep 14, 2019 6:38 am
by Araraukar » Sat Sep 14, 2019 8:26 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kenmoria » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:07 am
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Voted against for IC reasons - though I notice it doesn't actually ban sterilization of criminals as a punishment, merely extraditing them to nations where they could face that punishment.
by Araraukar » Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:35 am
Kenmoria wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: Voted against for IC reasons - though I notice it doesn't actually ban sterilization of criminals as a punishment, merely extraditing them to nations where they could face that punishment.
(OOC: To me, ‘Prohibits: the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent’ seems as though it would ban sterilisation as punishment, unless the criminal consented to the punishment for some reason.)
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement