NationStates

The Great Boom wrote:Also, 3.a now reads "carry out thorough investigations into their criminal and medical services..."

What is a criminal service? Seems like "criminal and medical services" should just be "sterilizations" unless I'm missing something.

OOC: Criminal service sounds like some kind of criminals-for-hire hotline you can call...

The Great Boom wrote:In response to Araraukar, I think your arguments take my points out of context. My argument revolves only around the question: "is it redundant to specify decriminalization AND punishment?" The only response I've gotten on that issue is that it's to prevent creative compliance, but it obviously doesn't prevent that.

OOC:My most recent proposal that went to vote was defeated because people didn't like being told how to punish criminals.

But that's all irrelevant now. My complaint about redundancy has been addressed by the recent formatting edits. Clause 3 no longer even uses the word criminalize, so this stupid argument is over.

Clause 3 doesn't need to use the word criminalise because it's addressed in a previous clause.

Even after the edits, I think clause 3 is flawed, just for different reasons: 3.a and 3.b aren't related in a satisfactory way.

They are related, 3a requires member states carry thorough investigations whilst 3b requires them to reasonably punish people who carry out illegal sterilisation.

It's not clear if 3.b implies extrajudicial punishment, or can only be applied as a result of the investigations entailed in 3.a.

That's 2b not 3b

Anytime you use subclauses, most reasonable nations will assume that they lead into one another, but since this entire bill is a creative compliance nightmare just by the subject matter, I think it's pretty important to specify that the 3.b punishments are the result of a conviction which stems from the investigations in 3.a

I don't see how this is a creative compliance nightmare. Extradition is a clear term, "don't send your criminals to a country where they do X" is what 2b is saying.

Also, 3.a now reads "carry out thorough investigations into their criminal and medical services..."

What is a criminal service? Seems like "criminal and medical services" should just be "sterilizations" unless I'm missing something.

I will work to fix that issue.

OOC:Bumping this, I'll submit next Friday.

“In clause 2a there should be the word ‘to’ after ‘able’. Also, in clause 2b, ‘convicted of any crime’ is unnecessary, since ‘criminals’ applies to all relevant situations by itself.”

Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 2a there should be the word ‘to’ after ‘able’. Also, in clause 2b, ‘convicted of any crime’ is unnecessary, since ‘criminals’ applies to all relevant situations by itself.”

"This has been fixed, ambassador."

OOC: Definition does not actually include medications altering the physiological processes necessary for breeding, such as the release of ovum or the production of semen, because they don't alter the genitals, merely their functioning. Such changes can be permanent with continuous enforced medications such as subcutaneous implants or regular injections or whatever similar. Is that intentional?

(OOC: For clause 3a, I recommend extending this to all sterilisation services within member states, not just governmental ones.)

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Definition does not actually include medications altering the physiological processes necessary for breeding, such as the release of ovum or the production of semen, because they don't alter the genitals, merely their functioning. Such changes can be permanent with continuous enforced medications such as subcutaneous implants or regular injections or whatever similar. Is that intentional?

OOC: Not intentional and hopefully fixed now.

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: For clause 3a, I recommend extending this to all sterilisation services within member states, not just governmental ones.)

Fixed that as well.

Marxist Germany wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Definition does not actually include medications altering the physiological processes necessary for breeding, such as the release of ovum or the production of semen, because they don't alter the genitals, merely their functioning. Such changes can be permanent with continuous enforced medications such as subcutaneous implants or regular injections or whatever similar. Is that intentional?

OOC: Not intentional and hopefully fixed now.

OOC: Should have "the" before the physiological processes, but otherwise my tired brain at least says it looks ok now.

OOC:Submitting on the next minor update.

Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Submitting on the next minor update.

(OOC: Good luck. Before you do, you might want to expand on the ‘recognising’ clause, namely what these negative effects are.)

OOC: In the preamble, "depression and long term psychological effects" should probably read "depression and other long term negative psychological effects".

Araraukar wrote:OOC: In the preamble, "depression and long term psychological effects" should probably read "depression and other long term negative psychological effects".

OOC:Unfortunately Ive already sent out campaign TGs...

The Most Serene Republic cannot in good conscience support a ban on forced sterilization, especially considering that we have a long history of opposing murder.

Kaiserholt wrote:The Most Serene Republic cannot in good conscience support a ban on forced sterilization, especially considering that we have a long history of opposing murder.

“Those two statements seem rather unrelated, ambassador. What does opposing murder, which I’m fairly certain every country does, have to do with a prohibition on forced sterilisation?”

Gardavasque opposes forced sterilization in all cases as we find the practice barbaric and inhumane. Nevertheless we oppose the current resolution at vote because it grants parents authority to consent to sterilizing their children. We believe this resolution fails to protect the rights of minors. The Gardavascan Medical Establishment has strict consent laws regarding medical procedures; sterilization may only be performed with consent of an adult patient in our country. We therefore vote against the resolution.

The United Kingdom will be voting against the current resolution to maintain the rights of UK minors.

"Prohibits:

The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;"

Do you realize the way that this is worded it allows the parent or guardian to sterilize their child? Is it your intention to allow this? The rest of the bill seems acceptable, but as it is written Mendevia must vote against this bill.

The Federal Republic of Laka Strolistandiler heavily disagrees with this proposition- we need the right to forcefully sterilize the most inferior of society members in order to improve genetic poole-that’s just how Eugenicd work and Eugenics is fundamental for our country.

Protecting these who by definition do not deserve to be protected is a real waste of both human and financial resources and should not be allowed in our Federal Republic. Even if it was allowed by The Assistance Council it would’ve been banned by the IBM-3000.

Despite concerns regarding this proposition's approach to the rights of minors, the Flimxanthian delegation have voted in favor, with the specific intent to spite eugenisists.
In future, we hope that the rights of an individual may be respected regardless of age or status, but see this proposition as being too important to let fail.

Jastimir Telgrein, Flimxanthian Ambassador, 2017-Present

Mendevia wrote:"Prohibits:

The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;"

Do you realize the way that this is worded it allows the parent or guardian to sterilize their child? Is it your intention to allow this? The rest of the bill seems acceptable, but as it is written Mendevia must vote against this bill.

Gardavasque wrote:Gardavasque opposes forced sterilization in all cases as we find the practice barbaric and inhumane. Nevertheless we oppose the current resolution at vote because it grants parents authority to consent to sterilizing their children. We believe this resolution fails to protect the rights of minors. The Gardavascan Medical Establishment has strict consent laws regarding medical procedures; sterilization may only be performed with consent of an adult patient in our country. We therefore vote against the resolution.

"This is unfortunately out of my control, the Patients Rights Act includes this exception. However, your nation can ban it entirely, since this is merely an exception and not a mandate."

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:The Federal Republic of Laka Strolistandiler heavily disagrees with this proposition- we need the right to forcefully sterilize the most inferior of society members in order to improve genetic poole-that’s just how Eugenicd work and Eugenics is fundamental for our country.

"I am absolutely appalled, ambassador. Eugenics are basically a form of genocide and your nation should be ashamed of using them."

Marxist Germany wrote:

Mendevia wrote:"Prohibits:

The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;"

Do you realize the way that this is worded it allows the parent or guardian to sterilize their child? Is it your intention to allow this? The rest of the bill seems acceptable, but as it is written Mendevia must vote against this bill.

Gardavasque wrote:Gardavasque opposes forced sterilization in all cases as we find the practice barbaric and inhumane. Nevertheless we oppose the current resolution at vote because it grants parents authority to consent to sterilizing their children. We believe this resolution fails to protect the rights of minors. The Gardavascan Medical Establishment has strict consent laws regarding medical procedures; sterilization may only be performed with consent of an adult patient in our country. We therefore vote against the resolution.

"This is unfortunately out of my control, the Patients Rights Act includes this exception. However, your nation can ban it entirely, since this is merely an exception and not a mandate."

Laka Strolistandiler wrote:The Federal Republic of Laka Strolistandiler heavily disagrees with this proposition- we need the right to forcefully sterilize the most inferior of society members in order to improve genetic poole-that’s just how Eugenicd work and Eugenics is fundamental for our country.

"I am absolutely appalled, ambassador. Eugenics are basically a form of genocide and your nation should be ashamed of using them."

"Not under WA law, which defines genocide as :"any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation."

"Strictly speaking, many genetic defects are not perceived, but actual and identifiable. They are not beliefs, ethnicities, nationalities, or cultures. Thus, a government campaign to limit genetic maladies isn't genocide, except insofar as you use it to curry emotional support.

"The C.D.S.P. is opposed. There are, frankly, compelling government interests in limiting the propagation of certain genetic maladies, and the existing protections for genocide and patient's medical rights are adequate to protect unethical use of this system."

"The People's Commissariat for WA Affairs has elected to throw its full support behind this resolution. Castration, whether physical or chemical, is both cruel and generally ineffective compared to more humane punishments. We no longer cut the hands off thieves to keep them from stealing; how is this any different from that?"

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Marxist Germany wrote:
"This is unfortunately out of my control, the Patients Rights Act includes this exception. However, your nation can ban it entirely, since this is merely an exception and not a mandate."


"I am absolutely appalled, ambassador. Eugenics are basically a form of genocide and your nation should be ashamed of using them."

"Not under WA law, which defines genocide as :"any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation."

"Strictly speaking, many genetic defects are not perceived, but actual and identifiable. They are not beliefs, ethnicities, nationalities, or cultures. Thus, a government campaign to limit genetic maladies isn't genocide, except insofar as you use it to curry emotional support.

"The C.D.S.P. is opposed. There are, frankly, compelling government interests in limiting the propagation of certain genetic maladies, and the existing protections for genocide and patient's medical rights are adequate to protect unethical use of this system."

“If you perceive a characteristic, then it is a perceived characteristic. I just perceived the fact that you exist, but that does not mean that I cannot identify this as being certainly true. The compelling interest in prohibiting genetic conditions does not outweigh the far more compelling interest in not committing genocide.”