[PASSED] Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc

[The Angel of Charity]

I have to say I oppose this resolution, because I believe minors should be germ free, whether they like it or not.

[Marxist Germany]

I have to say I oppose this resolution, because I believe minors should be germ free, whether they like it or not.

OOC: Holy shit I just realised there is no way to distinguish between the two in this proposal. I need to write up a repeal immediately.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

I have to say I oppose this resolution, because I believe minors should be germ free, whether they like it or not.

OOC: Holy shit I just realised there is no way to distinguish between the two in this proposal. I need to write up a repeal immediately.

And this is why we don't write vague proposals!

[Refuge Isle]

Alas, the death of classic civil liberties: the systematic removal of all bacteria from a minor.

[Imperium Anglorum]

> Sterilization is distinct from disinfection, sanitization, and pasteurization, in that those methods reduce rather than eliminate all forms of life and biological agents present. After sterilization, an object is referred to as being sterile or aseptic.

I'd imagine a board would take a dim view of killing the patient. However that is,

[Kenmoria]

I have to say I oppose this resolution, because I believe minors should be germ free, whether they like it or not.

(OOC: If your government wants to interpret the legislation in that way, then your state must have some very strange priorities. That is technically in compliance, but is in no way good-faith.)

[Marxist Germany]

I have to say I oppose this resolution, because I believe minors should be germ free, whether they like it or not.

(OOC: If your government wants to interpret the legislation in that way, then your state must have some very strange priorities. That is technically in compliance, but is in no way good-faith.)

OOC: IRBs arent required to comply in good faith.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: If your government wants to interpret the legislation in that way, then your state must have some very strange priorities. That is technically in compliance, but is in no way good-faith.)

OOC: IRBs arent required to comply in good faith.

(OOC: I was talking more about OOC good-faith than any IC organisation. However, I do question what kind of independent board would follow Angel of Charity’s interpretation.)

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: IRBs arent required to comply in good faith.

(OOC: I was talking more about OOC good-faith than any IC organisation. However, I do question what kind of independent board would follow Angel of Charity’s interpretation.)

OOC: Independent can be anything a member-state declares independent.

[The Angel of Charity]

(OOC: I was talking more about OOC good-faith than any IC organisation. However, I do question what kind of independent board would follow Angel of Charity’s interpretation.)

OOC: Independent can be anything a member-state declares independent.

My independent boards are independent of reason or logic, I wouldn't trust them with ensuring minors stay clean.

[Pharexia]

The Pharexian delegation raises concerns with the usage of "etc" in a title, as it creates an inappropriate degree of ambiguity. We also believe that forced sterilisation of a child is prohibited under the pre-existing prevention of child abuse law. We will therefore be voting against this proposal.

[Sodoran Alesia]

> Sterilization is distinct from disinfection, sanitization, and pasteurization, in that those methods reduce rather than eliminate all forms of life and biological agents present. After sterilization, an object is referred to as being sterile or aseptic.

I'd imagine a board would take a dim view of killing the patient. However that is,

(Image)

This proposal is too vague man, sterilization needs to be defined. Also incompetent person needs to be defined as well. Like what does that mean? I know you probably mean a person who can't make that decision for themselves because of mental illness or something, but still, every time I see it, I keep on thinking of a guy who sucks at his job!

Also, how exactly will the WACC ensure the IRBs are independent? And given the lack of a definition for incompetent person, what's to stop a corrupt IRB in a country from using their own definition and sterilizing ethnic groups? Will there be a WA organization set up to review and ensure the IRBs are indeed independent and compliant?

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This proposal is not useless, nor does it achieve what it is supposed to. Rather, it is worse than useless.

The only restriction placed on these IRBs is that they are independent, mandating no restriction on composition, no provision for the minor or their advocate to be present, no compulsion that the board act with the best interests of the minor in mind. This act enables those who wish to engage in this vile practise and does absolutely nothing to stop them; by forcing these people to act through WA-mandated boards, it offers them a veneer of respectability. This veneer I must stress will only last as long as the WA maintains a good reputation for justice and enforcement of human rights; which, if proposals such as this are allowed to become law I believe it will soon lose.

[Bears Armed]

Also incompetent person needs to be defined as well. Like what does that mean? I know you probably mean a person who can't make that decision for themselves because of mental illness or something, but still, every time I see it, I keep on thinking of a guy who sucks at his job!

__________________________

Also, how exactly will the WACC ensure the IRBs are independent? And given the lack of a definition for incompetent person, what's to stop a corrupt IRB in a country from using their own definition and sterilizing ethnic groups?

GA Resolution #299, 'Legal Competence'.

GA Resolution #38, 'Convention on Genocide', clause 2..

[Kenmoria]

The Pharexian delegation raises concerns with the usage of "etc" in a title, as it creates an inappropriate degree of ambiguity. We also believe that forced sterilisation of a child is prohibited under the pre-existing prevention of child abuse law. We will therefore be voting against this proposal.

“Titles can be safely ignored, ambassador, as it is only the actual content that has an effect.”

[Sodoran Alesia]

Also incompetent person needs to be defined as well. Like what does that mean? I know you probably mean a person who can't make that decision for themselves because of mental illness or something, but still, every time I see it, I keep on thinking of a guy who sucks at his job!

__________________________

Also, how exactly will the WACC ensure the IRBs are independent? And given the lack of a definition for incompetent person, what's to stop a corrupt IRB in a country from using their own definition and sterilizing ethnic groups?

GA Resolution #299, 'Legal Competence'.

GA Resolution #38, 'Convention on Genocide', clause 2..

I'm an idiot, I should have done my research before making such brazen statements. I apologize. Still, there is a lot of potential corruption with these IRBs, this resolution has no teeth to enforce independence or even make sure the IRBs are composed of medical professionals. There is too much ambiguity in this proposal to the point of enabling member nations to sterilize people rather than banning and regulating it on a case by case basis in terms of long term health.

[Kenmoria]

GA Resolution #299, 'Legal Competence'.

GA Resolution #38, 'Convention on Genocide', clause 2..

I'm an idiot, I should have done my research before making such brazen statements. I apologize. Still, there is a lot of potential corruption with these IRBs, this resolution has no teeth to enforce independence or even make sure the IRBs are composed of medical professionals. There is too much ambiguity in this proposal to the point of enabling member nations to sterilize people rather than banning and regulating it on a case by case basis in terms of long term health.

(OOC: Insofar as compliance on the member nations’ part is concerned, there is the Administrative Compliance Act. Therefore, if the member nations are knowingly breaking the rules by having an IRB which does not fit the specified criteria, they will be given the according punishments.)

[Candlewhisper Archive]

About 'etc' and how it's never appeared in any law and how it's use is to unprofessional and how it's shocking for people to use Latin abbreviations when Germanic ones will do, see http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/38/contents.

In fact, it's so shocking, http://legislation.gov.uk/ukpga?title=etc, since the start of the digital age, we have published 36 acts with it. Given that the site started in 1988, that's over one a year! The UK Parliament is defamed by such activity!

We thank you for the citations, especially when referencing the legislative framework on which Archivian law was historically derived. However, we stand by our dislike for the term beinhg used in this context.

We acknowledge that the word "etc" is often used in legal documentation is many jurisdictions, but note also that in these circumstances are usually accompanied by a separate document defining what "etc" means within that specific context. Specifically, in the legislatures you mention where acts have "etc" in the title, there is always a formally recorded full title.

For example, in the UK parliament legislation Health and safety at work etc Act, 1974 there exists separate clarification to indicate that this is an abbreviated form of Health, safety and welfare in connection with work, and control of dangerous substances and certain emissions into the atmosphere.

Noting that other legislations have used "etc" in titles in an entirely proper way does not excuse using it here in an improper way, where the undefined term "etc" serves only to produce legal ambiguity in the nature of this resolution.

[Aplan]

I am against this resolution.
There is absolutely no need to include some bureaucratic assembly in these events. Sterilizing someone for the sake of health, competence, etc, is something that should be determined on a case-to-case basis by independent governments only. It should be adjudicated, overseen and performed by local law enforcement and medical authorities in each individual nation, by each individual case, alone.

[Plaskagar Tusdeta]

Voting is nearly over with an overwhelming for vote; Plaskagar is withdrawing in protest before this actually goes into effect.

[Araraukar]

Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc was passed 10,312 votes to 3,139.