Appalled at the unnecessary cruelty inherent in sterilising an individual against their will;
Shocked that forced sterilisation takes place nonetheless within the jurisdiction of several member nations;
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Similarly determined that, in addition to its inherent cruelty, forced sterilisation used for the reduction of population sizes of minorities or the disabled is a dangerous tool in the hands of despotic regimes that can lead to devastating consequences for the groups they target;
Resolving to abolish this abominable practice;
Hereby,
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "reproductive ability" as the ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention and "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's reproductive ability;
Prohibits the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent given free from external material incentives, subject to previous extant World Assembly legislation;
Requires that member nations:
carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
reasonably punish individuals responsible for any sterilisation illegal at the time of its occurrence under World Assembly law;
Tasks the WACC with overseeeing Institutional Review Board decisions to ensure that sterilisations of minors or other non-legally competent peope are approved if and only if the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person has been certified;
Urges member nations to offer and, where accepted, provide financial reparations or psychological therapy to victims of forced sterilisation.
Appalled at the unnecessary cruelty inherent in sterilising an individual against their will;
Shocked that forced sterilisation takes place nonetheless within the jurisdiction of several member nations;
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Similarly determined that, in addition to its inherent cruelty, forced sterilisation used for the reduction of population sizes of minorities or the disabled is a dangerous tool in the hands of despotic regimes that can lead to devastating consequences for the groups it targets;
Resolving to abolish this abominable practice;
Hereby,
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the permanent elimination of an individual's ability to produce offspring;
Prohibits:
the sterilisation of any legally competent individual without their informed consent;
the sterilisation of any individual classified as not legally competent unless the sterilisation is essential for preventing long-term damage to the individual's health, subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly legislation;
the extradition of any individual to a location in which they may be subject to sterilisation without their informed consent;
Requires that member nations:
Carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
Reasonably punish individuals responsible for the performing of illegal sterilisation;
Urges member nations to provide financial reparations for victims of forced sterilisation.
Appalled at the unnecessary cruelty inherent in sterilising an individual against their will;
Shocked that forced sterilisation takes place nonetheless within the jurisdiction of several member nations;
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Similarly determined that, in addition to its inherent cruelty, forced sterilisation used for the reduction of population sizes of minorities or the disabled is a dangerous tool in the hands of despotic regimes that can lead to devastating consequences for the groups it targets;
Resolving to abolish this abominable practice;
Hereby,
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the permanent elimination of an individual's ability to produce offspring;
Prohibits:
the sterilisation of any legally competent individual without their informed consent;
the sterilisation of any individual classified as not legally competent unless the sterilisation is essential for preventing long-term damage to the individual's health and their guardian gives their informed consent;
the extradition of any individual to a location in which they may be subject to sterilisation without their informed consent;
Requires that member nations:
Carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
Reasonably punish individuals responsible for the effecting of illegal sterilisation;
Urges member nations to provide financial reparations for victims of forced sterilisation.
Appalled at the unnecessary cruelty inherent in sterilising an individual against their will;
Shocked that forced sterilisation takes place nonetheless within the jurisdiction of several member nations;
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Similarly determined that, in addition to its inherent cruelty, forced sterilisation used for the reduction of population sizes of minorities or the disabled is a dangerous tool in the hands of despotic regimes that can lead to devastating consequences for the groups it targets;
Resolving to abolish this abominable practice;
Hereby,
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention;
Prohibits the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent given free from external material incentives, subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly legislation;
Charges the WACC with:
identifying cases of Institutional Review Boards in member nations a) failing to approve sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having certified the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person, or b) approving sterilisation of non-legally competent people, having failed to certify the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person;
bringing all such cases to the Independent Adjudicative Office for hearings;
Requires that member nations:
carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
reasonably punish individuals responsible for the performance of illegal sterilisation;
Urges member nations to offer and, where accepted, provide financial reparations or psychological therapy to victims of forced sterilisation.
Appalled at the unnecessary cruelty inherent in sterilising an individual against their will;
Shocked that forced sterilisation takes place nonetheless within the jurisdiction of several member nations;
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Similarly determined that, in addition to its inherent cruelty, forced sterilisation used for the reduction of population sizes of minorities or the disabled is a dangerous tool in the hands of despotic regimes that can lead to devastating consequences for the groups they target;
Resolving to abolish this abominable practice;
Hereby,
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention;
Prohibits the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent given free from external material incentives, subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly legislation;
Charges the WACC with:
identifying cases of regulatory bodies in member nations, upon being tasked with granting or withholding approval of the sterilisation of a minor or other non-legally competent person,
withholding approval, having certified the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person, or
granting approval, having failed to certify the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person;
bringing all such cases to the Independent Adjudicative Office for hearings;
Requires that member nations:
carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
reasonably punish individuals responsible for sterilisations illegal under World Assembly law;
Urges member nations to offer and, where accepted, provide financial reparations or psychological therapy to victims of forced sterilisation.
Appalled at the unnecessary cruelty inherent in sterilising an individual against their will;
Shocked that forced sterilisation takes place nonetheless within the jurisdiction of several member nations;
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Similarly determined that, in addition to its inherent cruelty, forced sterilisation used for the reduction of population sizes of minorities or the disabled is a dangerous tool in the hands of despotic regimes that can lead to devastating consequences for the groups they target;
Resolving to abolish this abominable practice;
Hereby,
Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "reproductive ability" as the ability to reproduce naturally without extensive medical intervention, and "sterilisation" as the removal of an individual's reproductive ability;
Prohibits the sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent given free from external material incentives, subject to previously passed, extant World Assembly legislation;
Requires that member nations:
carry out thorough and regular investigations into all sterilisation services within their jurisdiction to detect any instances of illegal sterilisation;
reasonably punish individuals responsible for all sterilisations illegal at the time of their occurrence under World Assembly law;
Charges the WACC with:
identifying cases of regulatory bodies in member nations, upon being tasked with granting or withholding approval of the sterilisation of a minor or other non-legally competent person,
withholding approval, having certified the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person, or
granting approval, having failed to certify the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person;
bringing all such cases, where appropriate legal action is not taken within the member nation, to the Independent Adjudicative Office for hearings;
Urges member nations to offer and, where accepted, provide financial reparations or psychological therapy to victims of forced sterilisation.
'Following the close failure of the German delegation's legislation on this topic to pass, we have decided to attempt to solve the stated issues on it, and are grateful to Germany for granting us permission to make use of their work. Hopefully a version of this draft is eventually passed by the World Assembly.'
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:16 am
by Catsfern
From what I observed the primary reason the prior resolution failed is due to nations not being able to use sterilization as a form of criminal punishment. This resolution would seem to do the same. if the resolution were changed to allow as a form of criminal punishment, but forbid its use as population control, on minors, or to prevent the mental ill or diseased form breading then I would honestly fully support the resolution. as it stands however, as long as the resolution would forbid the use of sterilization as criminal punishment I can not support it.
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:18 am
by Marxist Germany
"I support this redraft by the Maowese delegation. I have one note, however; in clause 3b, I suggest replacing "for the effecting of" with 'for carrying out' or 'for performing'."
OOC: It certainly did not fail due to nations wanting to punish criminals, it failed due to the minors issue. Read TNP's IFV dispatch.
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:44 am
by Kenmoria
Catsfern wrote:From what I observed the primary reason the prior resolution failed is due to nations not being able to use sterilization as a form of criminal punishment. This resolution would seem to do the same. if the resolution were changed to allow as a form of criminal punishment, but forbid its use as population control, on minors, or to prevent the mental ill or diseased form breading then I would honestly fully support the resolution. as it stands however, as long as the resolution would forbid the use of sterilization as criminal punishment I can not support it.
(OOC: As continued from the thread in the defeated proposal, one of the main purposes of the original legislation was to prohibited sterilisation as punishment. Sterilisation does not stop rape from being committed, and the torturous nature of the practice certainly does not aid sterilisation. All that remains is retribution, which is never something in which it is good idea to base a punishment
Even if one allows a punishment purely retributive in nature, sterilisation is permanent as defined in the proposal. There should never be a punishment that cannot be reversed, since there is always a non-negligible chance that the accused could be innocent. This has been seen with legalisation such as Preventing the Execution of Innocents.)
“In clause 2b, I do not see why the guardian’s consent is required if the child’s life is in danger. Denying necessary medical attention can never be justified, even if a parent has a misguided opposition thereto.”
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 3:24 pm
by Maowi
Marxist Germany wrote:"I support this redraft by the Maowese delegation. I have one note, however; in clause 3b, I suggest replacing "for the effecting of" with 'for carrying out' or 'for performing'."
'Thanks for the suggestion. I'll plug that into the next draft.
Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 2b, I do not see why the guardian’s consent is required if the child’s life is in danger. Denying necessary medical attention can never be justified, even if a parent has a misguided opposition thereto.”
'Agreed. I'll simply remove the phrase requiring the guardian's consent; that should fix the problem.'
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 8:07 pm
by Litauengrad
Comrade Ambassador,
It seems to us that the draft of clause 1 in the original draft was stronger, as it is more specific. We recommend that the original form of clause 1 be reinstated.
Otherwise, at this time this seems to be well drafted.
Kenmoria wrote:“In clause 2b, I do not see why the guardian’s consent is required if the child’s life is in danger. Denying necessary medical attention can never be justified, even if a parent has a misguided opposition thereto.”
'Agreed. I'll simply remove the phrase requiring the guardian's consent; that should fix the problem.'
Ambassadors, that ship has already sailed, so to speak. The wording of the Patient's Rights Act allows the guardian to refuse consent to treatment already. To wit:
(IV) Patients may refuse treatment...
and
(VIII) For the purposes of this legislation, "patient" may also refer to a legal guardian if the patient is under the age of majority[.]..
We believe it would raise a legitimate question of contradiction if this proposal purported to prevent the legal guardian from refusing treatment. The PRA contains no exceptions or limitation on why treatment may be refused.
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 9:00 am
by Marxist Germany
"Ambassador from Bananaistan pointed out that the operation had to be legal, so banning the sterilisation of minors except for emergencies should solve this."
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 2:36 pm
by Maowi
'The legality problem should be settled now ...
Litauengrad wrote:It seems to us that the draft of clause 1 in the original draft was stronger, as it is more specific.
'How so? My thought process was that a specific definition is easier to circumvent than a comprehensive one, as it requires the operation to tick more boxes in order to be classified as sterilisation.'
Posted: Tue Sep 17, 2019 3:33 pm
by Kenmoria
“Why does 2b now lack an exception for severe threats to the health of the individual in question?”
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 8:48 am
by Maowi
Kenmoria wrote:“Why does 2b now lack an exception for severe threats to the health of the individual in question?”
OOC: What's your ambassador talking about??
Posted: Wed Sep 18, 2019 12:08 pm
by Grays Harbor
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Given how rapists ruin lives and destroy families, their “anxiety” or “depression” is very low on the scale of concern. It is neither purposeless, nor is it immoral, to sterilize serial rapists.
Adamant that forced sterilisation as a punishment for sexual offenders is both purposeless and immoral, given the severe and long-term depression and anxiety it often causes;
Given how rapists ruin lives and destroy families, their “anxiety” or “depression” is very low on the scale of concern. It is neither purposeless, nor is it immoral, to sterilize serial rapists.
"It is, ambassador. Sterilized rapists can still rape. With their penises, too. Sterilization doesn't prevent sex or rape, it prevents conception. It is a poor, poor punishment."
Grays Harbor wrote:Given how rapists ruin lives and destroy families, their “anxiety” or “depression” is very low on the scale of concern. It is neither purposeless, nor is it immoral, to sterilize serial rapists.
"It is, ambassador. Sterilized rapists can still rape. With their penises, too. Sterilization doesn't prevent sex or rape, it prevents conception. It is a poor, poor punishment."
If it prevents a rape victim from carrying a rapists child, it is worth it.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"It is, ambassador. Sterilized rapists can still rape. With their penises, too. Sterilization doesn't prevent sex or rape, it prevents conception. It is a poor, poor punishment."
If it prevents a rape victim from carrying a rapists child, it is worth it.
"That has absolutely no deterrence value, and is therefore ineffective as a punishment under the most basic theories of criminal punishment, ambassador. There is no state interest in inflicting this punishment when it fails, in its most basic form, to do what criminal punishments are meant to do."
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:01 pm
by Maowi
'Should the proposal produced by the Anglicans pass, we would like to move forwards with this proposal. Feedback is much appreciated.'
OOC: As currently written, I'm using phrasing taken from the legislation IA's submitted. Permission to use this has been requested and is pending. If it is not granted I'll rephrase it.
Posted: Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:15 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
I give permission to use wording from my proposal.
Posted: Sat Oct 19, 2019 5:28 pm
by Morover
"Perhaps my mind is muddled, but it appears that the use of 'permanent' in the definition could lead to some technicalities. While I'm unsure if these technicalities could be exploited in good faith, I still feel it's worth addressing."
Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 4:47 am
by Kenmoria
“Clause 3a and 3b have no space betwixt them, whereas 4a and 4b do; this inconsistency ought to be addressed.”
Posted: Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:24 am
by Maowi
Morover wrote:"Perhaps my mind is muddled, but it appears that the use of 'permanent' in the definition could lead to some technicalities. While I'm unsure if these technicalities could be exploited in good faith, I still feel it's worth addressing."
"Could you possibly expand on what you mean by 'technicalities'? I will certainly give it due consideration. I am sure it is not merely your mind being muddled.
Kenmoria wrote:“Clause 3a and 3b have no space betwixt them, whereas 4a and 4b do; this inconsistency ought to be addressed.”
"This most grievous flaw has been fixed, ambassador. Thank you for pointing it out to me."
Morover wrote:"Perhaps my mind is muddled, but it appears that the use of 'permanent' in the definition could lead to some technicalities. While I'm unsure if these technicalities could be exploited in good faith, I still feel it's worth addressing."
"Could you possibly expand on what you mean by 'technicalities'? I will certainly give it due consideration. I am sure it is not merely your mind being muddled.
"I foresee arguments being made that any form of sterilization which uses a method which is able to be reversed is allowed, even if such reversal comes with undue hardship."
Maowi wrote:"Could you possibly expand on what you mean by 'technicalities'? I will certainly give it due consideration. I am sure it is not merely your mind being muddled.
"I foresee arguments being made that any form of sterilization which uses a method which is able to be reversed is allowed, even if such reversal comes with undue hardship."
"Oh, I see. That is a very valid point, as some surgical methods of sterilisation are indeed reversible, although at high difficulty and cost. I think the distinction ought to be made between permanent and irreversible, in that permanent sterilisation does not naturally over time end, whereas irreversible sterilisation has that quality but is also unchangeable through active intervention. Hopefully my edit to the definition of sterilisation fixes the problem."
Morover wrote:"I foresee arguments being made that any form of sterilization which uses a method which is able to be reversed is allowed, even if such reversal comes with undue hardship."
"Oh, I see. That is a very valid point, as some surgical methods of sterilisation are indeed reversible, although at high difficulty and cost. I think the distinction ought to be made between permanent and irreversible, in that permanent sterilisation does not naturally over time end, whereas irreversible sterilisation has that quality but is also unchangeable through active intervention. Hopefully my edit to the definition of sterilisation fixes the problem."
"It does, thank you. While I am only a substitute ambassador for the time, I think I can pledge my nation's support on this in good faith."
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:52 am
by East Meranopirus
"If the resolution authored by the Delegation from Imperium Anglorum is repealed in the future, would the author alter the wording of clause 3?"
Posted: Tue Oct 22, 2019 10:56 am
by Maowi
East Meranopirus wrote:"If the resolution authored by the Delegation from Imperium Anglorum is repealed in the future, would the author alter the wording of clause 3?"
"Yes, that would be adapted to reflect changes in extant, active legislation."
Posted: Mon Sep 16, 2019 9:05 am