OOC post. And sorry it took me a while to get back to you on this. Friday basically disappeared into some kind of black hole and ceased to exist. To make up for it, wrote a full proposal shredding instead of just a couple of pointers. ^_^
Cardoness wrote:Believing
I would suggest not using italics at all. IA no longer stomps his Delegate votes against you for doing so, but they're really unnecessary anyway.
Believing in the vast potential of the individual,
Elaborate on this. Vast potential to what? Vast potential to cause suffering and misery?
Understanding that possessing an avenue to pursue ones personal life goals is essential for physical and mental wellbeing,
I'd more say that having life goals itself depends on your socio-economical status, but that's perhaps semantics. Still, this looks weird, and at the very least doesn't look like an argument for a civil right. Instead of going for some vague "wellbeing", you should have arguments for why you think caste systems are so oppressive that they need international legislation to do away with.
Dismayed that many governments stifle the individual in the name of the greater good,
Another odd one, given that criminals can be imprisoned for this exact purpose. "Stifling an individual in the name of the greater good" is why laws exist, as well. You're not free to do as you want, if you would violate the rights of others.
Condemning such a cover to keep the powerful in power at the expense of others,
Again, strange and doesn't really address the issue you're writing the proposal for. I have a feeling these lines were preamble to some previous version and were left in accidentally. Also, remember that some positions of power are inherited, and that you're not allowed to ban monarchies.
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,
Why does it start with "whereas"? Usually that means "in contrast to" something. And yes, it's got a different meaning in Legalese, but the majority of voters won't be well-versed in Legalese, and will just feel that this is an incomplete sentence. In any case this should be part of the definition, or given as an extreme example of one such system.
Defining
Should come after the Hereby, as an active clause, rather than as part of the preamble. Also you should number your main clauses in the active clause section.
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,
You only use the term you define, once. You then use undefined terms (mostly "socio-religious class") for the rest of the proposal, which leave them open to unimaginative creative compliance.
Also, the definition uses "socio-religious". If the caste system is like India's, based on what caste parents you're born to, it wouldn't be caught in this. And neither would anything non-religious, given how "religious" is integral in the definition and the terms you use. I would suggest figuring out some words that are less specific. You could, for example, just define "caste" with all the qualities you want to ban discrimination with (in an "or" list), and then use that for the rest of the proposal.
Abolishes all forms of Rigid Social Stratification within WA member states,
I suggest making that "within the jurisdiction of the WA member states", so that it applies everywhere the member nation's laws are in effect, such as planes or ships that might be in international airspace/waters. Also, given that you abolish "all forms" of it, why are any of the rest of the clauses even necessary?
Affirms the right of each individual:
1) To exercise control over their own life and to pursue their own happiness through basic life choices,
I think "basic life choices" is so incredibly vague that it does more damage than good, here. 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.
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,
The "governmental restrictions" looks odd here. Are you saying it's totally fine for, say, restaurants to ban people of certain caste from entering, simply because they are that particular caste, or making them sit at the back of the bus so they're out of sight of the higher caste people? Or that schools - even government-funded ones - can turn away students of the wrong kind of caste?
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,
I would add the words "knowledge" and "skill" in there, to make it clear that that's what you're actually talking about, here.
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,
Again, I know that "domicile" has a Legalese meaning, but I'd guess that most people casting votes in NS won't even know the non-Legalese meaning. So I would suggest opening it up into actual words that explain what you mean with it. (Especially as the Legalese term speaks only of residence for "unlimited time", which presumably would mean that this part of the proposal wouldn't apply to residences rented out for a predetermined period of time.)
Declares that no law may be made or enforced which limits marriage between individuals based solely on the grounds of different socio-religious classes.
...why's the word "enforced" there? If you can't make a law, and pre-existing ones have been abolished, to discriminate in this manner, then you can't enforce a law that doesn't exist, anyway? All in all, this and the previous one should likely be bundled together, and made subclause points of one clause. And yes the previous one should be split in two.
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. Also, if you're abolishing the social classes (another undefined term, btw), then, again, why mandate something you've already made so?
Exempts cards issued by an employer for job related identification purposes,
Only job-related identification purposes? They can't take the ID cards outside of their workplace?
Urges all governments to pass laws and fund education initiatives to quickly end socio-religious discrimination,
Again, if you want to ban the discrimination, actually ban the discrimination. Why is this only an urges to begin with, given you're otherwise very strict with the topic?
Encourages members states to engage with nonmembers and work to end rigid social stratification.
Deeeeefinitely needs the word "peacefully" to go with "engage", and changing "and work to end" into "to work to end".
Posted: Sat Sep 07, 2019 6:24 am