Advertisement
by Kenmoria » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:24 am
by Cardoness » Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:59 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:Declares that no law may be made or enforced which limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes.
OOC: This should, in my opinion, be re-phrased to something like '...limits marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class', as any law restricting marriage, e.g., one prohibiting underage marriage, also limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes (whatever this is).
Kenmoria wrote:“I recommend numbering all of your active clauses so they are easier to reference. You could make the affirmation clauses subclauses or just use a different verb for them.”
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:29 am
Cardoness wrote:The New Nordic Union wrote:
OOC: This should, in my opinion, be re-phrased to something like '...limits marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class', as any law restricting marriage, e.g., one prohibiting underage marriage, also limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes (whatever this is).
I don't think so. Even before it was clarified it really couldn't have been argued that children and adults belong to different social or religious classes. I also fail to see how your wording substantially differs from the current language.
by Cardoness » Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:44 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:Cardoness wrote:I don't think so. Even before it was clarified it really couldn't have been argued that children and adults belong to different social or religious classes. I also fail to see how your wording substantially differs from the current language.
OOC:
And I have never argued that adults and children are different social or religious classes. What I mean is that a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibits marriage between an adult from socio-religious class A and a child from socio-religious class B. Under the current wording, this is a 'law [...] which limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes', and would therefore be forbidden should this proposal become a resolution.
My re-wording avoids this by making clear that no law should be passed that limits marriage between individuals of different social-religious classes because of them belonging to different classes.
The exact wording is up to you as the author, of course.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Sep 07, 2019 7:50 am
Cardoness wrote:How does a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibit marriage between different socio-religious classes?
Cardoness wrote:And how exactly is
No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes
fundamentally different from
No law may limit marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class?
by Cardoness » Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:01 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:Cardoness wrote:How does a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibit marriage between different socio-religious classes?
All OOC:
Because this is not the way your clause is worded; it focuses on individuals. And as I said, a ban on child marriage also forbids Adult from SRC A to marry Child from SRC B, therefore limiting individuals from different SRCs to marry.
Cardoness wrote:And how exactly is
No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes
fundamentally different from
No law may limit marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class?
It is different in that the original prohibits any law that limits marriage in any way possible, whereas the second only prohibits such laws as say, explicitly or implicitly, 'you cannot marry anyone from another SRC'.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:12 am
Cardoness wrote:The New Nordic Union wrote:
All OOC:
Because this is not the way your clause is worded; it focuses on individuals. And as I said, a ban on child marriage also forbids Adult from SRC A to marry Child from SRC B, therefore limiting individuals from different SRCs to marry.
Yeah, I understand that's what you said. What I don't understand is how. I don't know of any wording of any law dealing with child marriage that would be construed to also ban inter-class marriage. You saying it does doesn't make it so. Can you give me an example please?
by Kenmoria » Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:17 am
Cardoness wrote:The New Nordic Union wrote:
All OOC:
Because this is not the way your clause is worded; it focuses on individuals. And as I said, a ban on child marriage also forbids Adult from SRC A to marry Child from SRC B, therefore limiting individuals from different SRCs to marry.
Yeah, I understand that's what you said. What I don't understand is how. I don't know of any wording of any law dealing with child marriage that would be construed to also ban inter-class marriage. You saying it does doesn't make it so. Can you give me an example please?
It is different in that the original prohibits any law that limits marriage in any way possible, whereas the second only prohibits such laws as say, explicitly or implicitly, 'you cannot marry anyone from another SRC'.
No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes
by Cardoness » Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:18 am
The New Nordic Union wrote:Cardoness wrote:Yeah, I understand that's what you said. What I don't understand is how. I don't know of any wording of any law dealing with child marriage that would be construed to also ban inter-class marriage. You saying it does doesn't make it so. Can you give me an example please?
OOC:
It has nothing to do with the wording of the chil-marriage law, but rather with your proposed clause. By the simple fact that the law prohibits two individuals from different soci-religious classes to marry, it runs afoul your provision.
This is because your provison is simply 'no law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes'.
The example again:
Adult A from SRC A wants to marry Child B from SRC B. There is a law that forbids child marriage.
We have here
1. Two individuals
2. of different socio-religious classes
who are
3. limited in marrying each other by a law.
Under your provision, this is enough for the child marriage law to contradict this proposal.
What I want is that a law that prohibits marriage is only forbidden under this proposal if and only if 3 follows from 2.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by The New Nordic Union » Sat Sep 07, 2019 8:19 am
Cardoness wrote:I still don't think that it does, but it's an easy enough change to make. I will do so on my next update.
by Araraukar » Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:31 pm
Cardoness wrote:I still don't think that it does, but it's an easy enough change to make. I will do so on my next update.
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 Cardoness » Sat Sep 07, 2019 4:32 pm
Araraukar wrote:Cardoness wrote:I still don't think that it does, but it's an easy enough change to make. I will do so on my next update.
OOC: To be fair, such clauses need to be worded very carefully in general so that you don't step on the toes (aka contradict) all the existing resolutions... With the given example on marriage, you'd have run afoul of GA #160, Forced Marriages Ban Act, because children can't consent, and thus any marriage with a child as one of the participants would violate that resolution. At the best case, you would have tried to amend it instead, but that's also a proposal rules violation.
The only numbered clause 2 still has the same issue (not a marriage one, obviously), by the way, and needs the same addition. It has two parts, separated by comma and "nor", and the first part (you really should break the clause into two separate ones) doesn't have the same restriction.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by Kenmoria » Sun Sep 08, 2019 2:00 am
Cardoness wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: To be fair, such clauses need to be worded very carefully in general so that you don't step on the toes (aka contradict) all the existing resolutions... With the given example on marriage, you'd have run afoul of GA #160, Forced Marriages Ban Act, because children can't consent, and thus any marriage with a child as one of the participants would violate that resolution. At the best case, you would have tried to amend it instead, but that's also a proposal rules violation.
The only numbered clause 2 still has the same issue (not a marriage one, obviously), by the way, and needs the same addition. It has two parts, separated by comma and "nor", and the first part (you really should break the clause into two separate ones) doesn't have the same restriction.
Would the removal of the comma resolve the issue? I would really rather keep the career/work related directives together. I fear separating them will make it rather clunky. All I really need is for the last bit to apply to the whole clause.
by Araraukar » Sun Sep 08, 2019 5:16 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Try this: ‘To pursue, without governmental restrictions based solely on socio-religious class, the career of their choice, including both where they may work and the type of work being performed.’)
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 Cardoness » Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:12 pm
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by Cardoness » Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:04 am
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by Araraukar » Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:22 am
Cardoness wrote:Any other issue which need to be addressed? I would like to submit this next week if it’s ready.
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 Cardoness » Wed Sep 11, 2019 9:52 am
Araraukar wrote:Cardoness wrote:Any other issue which need to be addressed? I would like to submit this next week if it’s ready.
OOC: Spotted a couple, but on mobile device so typing is a pain. Can you wait a day or two? Would in any case suggest waiting until after weekend, since not everyone logs in during working week.
Frustrated Franciscans wrote:We are firmly against the godless, utopian, progressive overreach that a small number of nations in the World Assembly want to impose upon the multiverse...
by Kaiserholt » Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:13 pm
by Araraukar » Sat Sep 14, 2019 11:32 am
Cardoness wrote:Believing
Believing in the vast potential of the individual,
Understanding that possessing an avenue to pursue ones personal life goals is essential for physical and mental wellbeing,
Dismayed that many governments stifle the individual in the name of the greater good,
Condemning such a cover to keep the powerful in power at the expense of others,
Whereas most systems of rigid social stratification limit an individual as to where they may seek employment, the types of jobs they may work, where they may reside, whom they may interact with,
Defining
Defining “Rigid Social Stratification” as the socio-religious subdivision of society into a hierarchy differentiated on the basis of power, prestige, religion or wealth with limited or no movement between the social classes and which is determined upon ones birth based upon the social class or occupation of ones parents, or determined by the government or other agency for its people,
Abolishes all forms of Rigid Social Stratification within WA member states,
Affirms the right of each individual:
1) To exercise control over their own life and to pursue their own happiness through basic life choices,
2) To pursue, without governmental restrictions based solely on socio-religious class, the career of their choice, including both where they may work and the type of work being performed,
Recognizes the right of governments or other entities to place restrictions on employment as necessary for the safe and successful completion of the required tasks,
Forbids any law be made or enforced which limits the right of travel or domicile on any legal resident solely on account of socio-religious class,
Declares that no law may be made or enforced which limits marriage between individuals based solely on the grounds of different socio-religious classes.
Requires that identity cards refrain from containing any reference to the social class or occupation of the card holder,
Exempts cards issued by an employer for job related identification purposes,
Urges all governments to pass laws and fund education initiatives to quickly end socio-religious discrimination,
Encourages members states to engage with nonmembers and work to end rigid social stratification.
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 Bears Armed » Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:56 am
"legally-competent person" might be better,Araraukar wrote:Also, rather than using "individual", I'd use "person over the age of majority", because children shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want, given that they rarely understand the consequences of important life-altering decisions.
Araraukar wrote:Requires that identity cards refrain from containing any reference to the social class or occupation of the card holder,
Say goodbye to business cards. And pensioner/student benefit cards, and probably other benefit cards of similar nature.
The maximum strength of the House allotted by the Constitution of India is 552. Currently, the house has 545 seats which is made up by the election of up to 543 elected members and at a maximum, 2 nominated members of the Anglo-Indian Community by the President of India. A total of 131 seats (24.03%) are reserved for representatives of Scheduled Castes (84) and Scheduled Tribes (47).
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Maximum Imperium Rex
Advertisement