[DRAFT] The Destigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions

[Republic of Satherland]

Draft 3

The World Assembly,

Fully aware of the severity of mental health afflictions among people worldwide,

Recognising the risks of leaving mental health afflictions undiagnosed and untreated, including but not limited to social isolation, increased rates of violence by and towards sufferers of mental health afflictions and attempted suicide,

Alarmed by the ongoing stigmatisation of mental health afflictions in much of modern society, especially in and around adolescent communities worldwide,

Emphasising the need for an international campaign to raise awareness on this global pandemic,

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

Acknowledges the responsibility of certain segments of society in educating the populous by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

1. Defines mental health disorders, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses in this resolution as follows:
a. Health conditions which are characterised by alterations of behaviour or thinking, associated with stress or impaired functioning;
b. Mandates the use of the term “mental health afflictions” as the umbrella term for mental health disorders for this resolution;

2. Mandates that all WA member nations conduct a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities under their jurisdiction;
a. The inquiries are to be designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures and communities around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;
b. Proclaims the umbrella term of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);
c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;
d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but are not limited to:
i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the relevant health ministry of that region;
f. Confirms the commission of the International Mental Health Panel (IMHP) as the body of oversight for this inquiry;
g. Mandates that complete anonymity be given to participants and contributors of the IISMHA inquiry in all WA member nations if requested;

3. Mandates that WA member nations increase support for increasing awareness on mental health afflictions and to those suffering from mental health afflictions;
a. Urges the health ministries of WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to consider classifying mental health afflictions as a legitimate medical condition;
b. Mandates that WA member nations allocate government funds to the investment of public awareness campaigns on the subject of the destigmatisation of mental health afflictions;

The World Assembly,

Fully aware of the severity of mental illnesses among adolescents worldwide,

Recognising the risks of leaving mental health afflictions undiagnosed and untreated,

Alarmed by the ongoing stigmatisation of mental health afflictions in much of modern society, especially in and around adolescent communities,

Emphasising the need for an international campaign to raise awareness on mental health afflictions among the youth,

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

Acknowledges the responsibility of the media in educating segments of society by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

1. Defines mental health disorders, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses in this resolution as follows:
a. Health conditions which are often characterised by alterations of behaviour or thinking, associated with stress or impaired functioning;
b. Mandates the use of the term “mental health afflictions” as the umbrella term for mental health disorders for this resolution;

2. Authorises the commissioning of a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities worldwide;
a. The inquiries are designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;
b. Proclaims the name of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);
c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;
d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but are not limited to:
i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the World Assembly Associations of that region;
f. Confirms the commission of the International Mental Health Inquiry Panel (IMHIP) as the body of oversight for this inquiry;

3. Commissions the International Youth’s Mass Awareness for Mental Afflictions campaign to raise awareness on mental health issues and the issues surrounding mental health afflictions among adolescents;
a. Defines the nature of the campaign as a country-specific campaign tailored to the societal structures of their respective nations;
b. Mandates the use of the IISMHA as the foundations for the direction of the campaign;
c. Campaigns in individual nations are to primarily be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;

4. Mandates that WA member nations increase support for mental health issues and those suffering from mental health afflictions;
a. Requires WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to classify mental health afflictions as a legitimate health condition;
b. Mandates that WA member nations allocate government funds to the investment of public awareness campaigns on the subject of the destigmatisation of mental health afflictions;

The World Assembly,

Fully aware of the severity of mental illnesses among adolescents worldwide,

Recognising the risks of leaving mental health afflictions undiagnosed and untreated,

Alarmed by the ongoing stigmatisation of mental health afflictions in much of modern society, especially in and around adolescent communities,

Emphasising the need for an international campaign to raise awareness on mental health afflictions among the youth,

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

Acknowledges the responsibility of the media in educating segments of society by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

1. Defines mental health disorders, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses in this resolution as follows:
a. Health conditions which are often characterised by alterations of behaviour or thinking, associated with stress or impaired functioning;
b. Mandates the use of the term “mental health afflictions” as the umbrella term for mental health disorders for this resolution;

2. Authorises the commissioning of a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities worldwide;
a. The inquiries are designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;
b. Proclaims the name of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);
c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;
d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but is not limited to:
i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the World Assembly Associations of that region;
f. Confirms the forming of the International Mental Health Inquiry Panel (IMHIP) the body of oversight for this inquiry;

3. Approves the conducting of the International Youth’s Mass Awareness for Mental Afflictions campaign to raise awareness on mental health issues and the issues surrounding mental health afflictions among adolescents;
a. Defines the nature of the campaign as a country-specific campaign tailored to the societal structures of their respective nations;
b. Mandates the use of the IISMHA as the foundations for the direction of the campaign;
c. Campaigns in individual nations are to primarily be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;

4. Urges WA member nations to increase support for mental health issues and those suffering from mental health afflictions;
a. Further urges WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to do so;
b. Implores WA member nations to increase government funding for mental health care in their own capacity;

[Republic of Satherland]

Hey guys, I'm looking for feedback on this GA resolution (as advised by multiple GA sec-gens) to better improve it before I attempt to submit it to the GA. Please give your honest feedback on the proposal. Thanks in advance.

[Bruke]

Speaking OOC, this is a fantastic proposal that's very well-written and addresses a relatively niche but very important issue.

I'm no GA old-timer, so take this with salt, but most of the proposal is taken up by what the IISMHA will do. Perhaps it would be possible to use language binding states to follow IISMHA recommendations in their destigmatisation campaigns, should they choose to take them up?

IC-speaking, the Brukean delegation would have reservations about supporting the measure because of the country's history, dating back to medieval times at earliest, of deferring to religious institutions to treat the mentally ill with what is at best faith healing with holy water, prayer and such, and what is at worst an incitement to mob violence against "demons", "witches", etc.

[Kenmoria]

“This is a very good proposal. I recommend telling the IHMIP to actually distribute their findings, since currently all you mandate is the study itself as opposed to its distribution. Also, the category and strength of the proposal should be in the draft somewhere.”

[Republic of Satherland]

Speaking OOC, this is a fantastic proposal that's very well-written and addresses a relatively niche but very important issue.

I'm no GA old-timer, so take this with salt, but most of the proposal is taken up by what the IISMHA will do. Perhaps it would be possible to use language binding states to follow IISMHA recommendations in their destigmatisation campaigns, should they choose to take them up?

IC-speaking, the Brukean delegation would have reservations about supporting the measure because of the country's history, dating back to medieval times at earliest, of deferring to religious institutions to treat the mentally ill with what is at best faith healing with holy water, prayer and such, and what is at worst an incitement to mob violence against "demons", "witches", etc.

Hi, thanks for your feedback! I do have a question on using language binding states to follow IISMHA recommendations though. How should I put such a recommendation down on paper? I look forward to any suggestions you could provide.

About the part of the proposal that mandates the consideration of a nation's history in regards to the causes of the stigmatisation of mental health afflictions, this proposal simply urges nations to ascertain the relation that a nation's history may have in regards to any stigmatisation of mental health afflictions in said nation. Maybe the word "mandate" was too harsh. I'll seek to amend that soon.

[Republic of Satherland]

“This is a very good proposal. I recommend telling the IHMIP to actually distribute their findings, since currently all you mandate is the study itself as opposed to its distribution. Also, the category and strength of the proposal should be in the draft somewhere.”

Noted. I'll seek to amend that soon. Thanks for your feedback!

[Bananaistan]

OOC: Hello, welcome to the GA. I'm glad that you've posted this proposal for continued drafting. It's a good idea and well written so far and I'm sure it can be a very good proposal with further drafting based on advice here. I would caution not to rush to resubmission so as to get as many contributions as possible.

IIRC I thought that the correct Area of Effect of the most recent submission should be Healthcare based on the current non-committee operative clauses.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I'll give more detailed feedback after more sleep, for coherence's sake, but something that is one of the "unwritten rules"... given that the AoEs have the strength of significant or strong in terms of stat effects, to my knowledge the language of the proposal should reflect that - "urges" is not mandatory language and thus would count as "mild" instead. Also, "urges - implores" doesn't work grammatically.

[Republic of Satherland]

OOC: Hello, welcome to the GA. I'm glad that you've posted this proposal for continued drafting. It's a good idea and well written so far and I'm sure it can be a very good proposal with further drafting based on advice here. I would caution not to rush to resubmission so as to get as many contributions as possible.

IIRC I thought that the correct Area of Effect of the most recent submission should be Healthcare based on the current non-committee operative clauses.

Noted. I'll take as much feedback as I can. Thanks for the help!

[Republic of Satherland]

OOC: I'll give more detailed feedback after more sleep, for coherence's sake, but something that is one of the "unwritten rules"... given that the AoEs have the strength of significant or strong in terms of stat effects, to my knowledge the language of the proposal should reflect that - "urges" is not mandatory language and thus would count as "mild" instead. Also, "urges - implores" doesn't work grammatically.

Well, the goal of this proposal is to keep the overall effects of the resolution mild and leave WA member nations with greater autonomy with regards to the implementation of this resolution. On the the issue of grammar, I'll seek to amend that in the second draft that I'll attempt to unveil as soon as possible. Thanks for the feedback!

[Anglia-Saxia]

This is an amazing proposal,and would be passed if you din't commit minor errors. If this become an resolution,I will vote for!

[Republic of Satherland]

This is an amazing proposal,and would be passed if you din't commit minor errors. If this become an resolution,I will vote for!

Thanks so much for your support! Rest assured, I will seek to amend any and all errors I come across and will publish a second draft that hopefully fixes said errors and improves upon the resolution.

[Araraukar]

Well, the goal of this proposal is to keep the overall effects of the resolution mild

OOC: Then you'll need to write it to fit a category that has strengths, instead of one that has areas of effect. And speaking of, this sounds more like a human rights thing, in general, if the idea is to stop discrimination ("stigma") based on mental health status. Either the current Civil Rights category or the Moral Decency (depending on your angle) should be workable.

---

OOC post. The more thorough feedback promised.

Fully aware of the severity of mental illnesses among adolescents worldwide,

Why just adolescents? Your active clauses include stuff for all people with mental health issues, so singling out adolescents in the preamble doesn't make much sense. Also, you largely use mental health afflictions, so the use of "mental illnesses" here looks out of place.

Recognising the risks of leaving mental health afflictions undiagnosed and untreated,

Which do what? You need to spell out what the risks would be, and even more so, why they would be big enough an issue to require international laws to fix.

Alarmed by the ongoing stigmatisation of mental health afflictions in much of modern society, especially in and around adolescent communities,

...I'm trying to fight the urge to go "Source?" for much of this, but here I'm going to actually ask for an OOC source on it being a bigger issue among kids, than adults. And do note that while bullying can cause mental health issues, most mental health issues don't show outwards and are thus unlikely to be targeted by bullies.

Emphasising the need for an international campaign to raise awareness on mental health afflictions among the youth,

What is that need? Why does it need to be international? You need to use the preamble to convince voters that 1. this is an international issue and 2. that it's big enough an issue to need the WA to step in.

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

And yet you're going to trample over them with all the grace of a bulldozer (WA laws go over national laws and traditions).

Acknowledges the responsibility of the media in educating segments of society by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

The media is also largely to blame for spreading and even creating myths with sensationalist reporting practices. For this one I'd replace "media" with "society" and replacing "segments of society" with "people".

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

Hence the substitution suggestions for the above clause. You should have some kind of version of "Hereby" here, to mark the divide between the preamble and the active clauses.

1. Defines mental health disorders, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses in this resolution as follows:
a. Health conditions which are often characterised by alterations of behaviour or thinking, associated with stress or impaired functioning;

b. Mandates the use of the term “mental health afflictions” as the umbrella term for mental health disorders for this resolution;

Why? Actually, if you're only talking of this particular resolution, you get the effect simply by using only "mental health affliction" in the text. How people talk about it, you can't control, so the proposal text is up to you alone. Also, the inclusion of behaviour in the list is a bit problematic, given that it's separated from thinking with an "or". I recently hurt by back again (recurrent issue), and it certainly changed my behaviour and caused stress and impaired functioning, yet it was an entirely physical issue. This problem would largely be solved by changing " behaviour or thinking" into " behaviour and thinking".

2. Authorises the commissioning of a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities worldwide;

Okay, several problems with this one.

First of all, simply authorizing something can happen, does not actually make it happen. If you definitely want this to happen, you need to change this into something like "Mandates that member nations conduct a large-scale survey", and in any case I'd use survey rather than inquiry, because the latter creates the mental image of people being interrogated.

Secondly, the use of "worldwide" is a problem, because the WA can only affect member nations, and I'm fairly sure most non-members would object to WA nations asking sharp questions from their citizenry.

Thirdly, and this is important, you should absolutely mandate this to be conducted in some way that ensures the anonymity of people being interviewed/answering the survey. Given how personal and painful issue menthal health problems are, you're not going to get any useful data if one must tag their name to the answers. Filling out an anomymous survey is how these things are usually dealt with in RL.

a. The inquiries are designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;

The "around the world" thing was already highlighted as a problem, but "source of stigma of mental health issues" sounds weird, when the mental health issues are the source of the stigma. And the latter part is just... augh. Be very VERY careful how you word this and target this, because people - especially if we're talking of school kids - know stuff about each other, and if the campaign is too targeted, they'll be able to guess who is the root cause. If there's one quiet and sad kid in the class, and then the class gets a tailor-made education campaign about How We Must Be Supportive Of Depressed People, it won't take much to put two and two together and deduce that the quiet sad kid is depressed, and now her bullies can look up what exactly that means, and use it to bully her some more.

So, given that you talk about "cultures" and "communities" as if one was equivalent of other, I think you have some internal confusion in this clause. For instance, what do you mean by "culture"? Do you mean like (in RL terms) "western culture" or "Italian culture" or "Sicilian culture" or "school culture" or even the culture of a specific school? A "community" can be as small as one class of children, but if they get a campaign based on the general culture of the entire continent, that's not very "hand-tailored".

b. Proclaims the name of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);

You could just name it in the main clause. Also I think an inquiry is in something, while a survey is "on". And I still urge you to change this into a survey, not inquiry. You'll get better data that way, trust me.

c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;

What's a World Assembly Association?

d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but is not limited to:

"Are" instead of "is", and you really should use the list code. Say if you need help with it.

i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;

The "relevance of stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community" should be put in the preceding clause so you don't need to repeat it every time, and in any case that's more the kind of thing that only experts can really ascertain, not randomly interviewed people. Or you could have a survey with the "a lot", "quite a bit", "a bit", "not much" and "not at all" choices, and tailor the questions to match, and then the relevancy would show up in the number crunching phase, if there was statistical relevance to be found, that is.

e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the World Assembly Associations of that region;

Subjectiveness is a dangerous thing to include into something like this, because in a religious nation "people not in the state church" could be counted to automatically be insane and thus their answers invalid. (Again, an anonymous survey...) Or in any case to make belonging in the church be the requirement to be considered part of the community. Because, they, if the stigma of not belonging to the church being used to bully someone so much that they get depressed, then subjectively speaking it's their own fault for not belonging to the church, right? I'm sure you can see the issue.

f. Confirms the forming of the International Mental Health Inquiry Panel (IMHIP) the body of oversight for this inquiry;

...why? Also, you need to make this "forms" and not "confirms the forming", if you want it to actually materialize. But what is it for?

3. Approves the conducting of the International Youth’s Mass Awareness for Mental Afflictions campaign to raise awareness on mental health issues and the issues surrounding mental health afflictions among adolescents;

...so the above massive thing is just conducted for LOLs? Why again the weird narrowing-down into adolescents, when it's rarely the adolescent themselves that are the issue, but rather adult reactions to mental health issues of adolescents - like being told "it's just part of puberty to be moody" when actually clinically depressed, and thus denied any chance of having treatment or therapy - and I'm not sure that using "mass" in the name is going to be helpful.

Also, it might just be a language thing (English isn't my first language), but "afflictions" has an unpleasant echo to it. I'd prefer "issues" to be used instead. And I say this as someone with a mental disorder diagnosis.

a. Defines the nature of the campaign as a country-specific campaign tailored to the societal structures of their respective nations;

...that's not very "hand-tailored to community". And what the hell are "societal structures" in the context?

b. Mandates the use of the IISMHA as the foundations for the direction of the campaign;

...why? If it's conducted as an inquiry (interviews/interrogations) instead of an anonymous survey, and the nation in question has been doing anonymous surveys annually and thus knows helluva lot better what's going on inside its borders, why should they set up a massive misinformation campaign?

c. Campaigns in individual nations are to primarily be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;

What the hell is a World Assembly Association and why should they do the nation's job?

4. Urges WA member nations to increase support for mental health issues and those suffering from mental health afflictions;

Supporting mental health issues themselves makes no sense. Presumably you mean support for the people suffering from them.

a. Further urges WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to do so;

Given the very vague definition, a nation would itself have to be insane to medicalize the "afflictions". In any case this is the kind of thing that only medical experts should do, not some random committee-thingy that goes "rah! rah! mental illness!"

b. Implores WA member nations to increase government funding for mental health care in their own capacity;

Throwing money at something doesn't magically make things better.

[Republic of Satherland]

OOC post. The more thorough feedback promised.

Sorry for taking such a long time to reply. Wow, that's a lot to digest. Thanks for your critique though. I'll take what notes I can and write a second draft as soon as I can find the time to do so.

[Republic of Satherland]

I've finally found some time to release second draft of this resolution. It isn't much, I mostly just made some changes to Clause 4. Please provide any feedback if you have any.

[The Yellow Monkey]

I want to start by saying I support this endeavor in spirit.

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

I really don't know what you're referring to here. I don't know what it means for differences to be shared. I don't think this part of the preamble is meaningful. I think you should delete this part of the preamble. Or, reword it so it means something.

Then again, it's part of the preamble so you could also leave it in its current ambiguous form or go full on incoherent and write "Differences bearing shared cultures world around the mind heath of issue mental the" and it wouldn't effect my vote. Just a suggestion.

Acknowledges the responsibility of the media in educating segments of society by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

Just... in general make sure you are saying what you want to say. You switch to a weird tense with "Acknowledges" instead of "Acknowledging," and the word "while" is superfluous, and "helping to dispel myths" could be shorted to "dispelling myths." Saying you're "Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders" makes it sound like mentally ill people are mischaracterising something in a way that bothers you. Perhaps "Appalled/Troubled/Horrified/Terrified/Flabbergasted by media that misleadingly characterizes mentally ill individuals as dangerous and unpredictable."

Trying to help improve the writing here. Take it or leave it.

1. Defines mental health disorders, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses in this resolution as follows:
a. Health conditions which are often characterised by alterations of behaviour or thinking, associated with stress or impaired functioning;
b. Mandates the use of the term “mental health afflictions” as the umbrella term for mental health disorders for this resolution;

Okay, you're losing me a bit here with part (b), both with its awkward and needless attempt at political correctness and the fact that your definition of "mental health disorders" bizarrely contains a mandate that they be called "mental health afflictions" instead. That's weird. You should remove part (b).

I also don't think you need the word "often" in part (a); it creates unnecessary ambiguity without any discernible benefit. If I suffer from infrequent but severe bouts of schizophrenia, I should be covered by this law right? I think the definition needs more refining but lets start with that.

2. Authorises the commissioning of a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities worldwide;
a. The inquiries are designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;
b. Proclaims the name of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);
c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;
d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but is not limited to:
i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the World Assembly Associations of that region;
f. Confirms the commission of the International Mental Health Inquiry Panel (IMHIP) as the body of oversight for this inquiry;

Okay, a massive bureaucracy to "ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues." That's fine, I guess. It's more micromanage-y than I like but whatever floats your boat; there's nothing really objectionable here.

3. Commissions the International Youth’s Mass Awareness for Mental Afflictions campaign to raise awareness on mental health issues and the issues surrounding mental health afflictions among adolescents;
a. Defines the nature of the campaign as a country-specific campaign tailored to the societal structures of their respective nations;
b. Mandates the use of the IISMHA as the foundations for the direction of the campaign;
c. Campaigns in individual nations are to primarily be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;

Okay... more bureaucracy but this time to raise awareness on mental health issues specific to youths. Fine, okay, that's a lot of bureaucracy in one proposal but whatever. At least this one is less micromanage-y. The first bureaucracy could learn from this bureaucracy.

4. Mandates that WA member nations increase support for mental health issues and those suffering from mental health afflictions;
a. Requires WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to classify mental health afflictions as a legitimate health condition;
b. Mandates that WA member nations allocate government funds to the investment of public awareness campaigns on the subject of the destigmatisation of mental health afflictions;

Finally, we get to the part where Member Nations do something!! This is a good start! But it could be more clear and to the point. "Requires WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditionsto classify mental health afflictions as a legitimate health condition." That does EXACTLY the same thing you were going for but without an unnecessary conditional clause.

You might want to beef up your call for funding. Some nations will look at such a loose funding mandate, invest $1 to the cause, and smile as they proclaim their compliance with the plain requirements of the law.

That's enough for now. I look forward to seeing where you take this.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Most of this still applies: viewtopic.php?p=36373617#p36373617

[Republic of Satherland]

I admit that having to read through some of these responses again was thoroughly agonising at points, but I really thank you for taking the time to provide your opinion.

---

OOC post. The more thorough feedback promised.

Fully aware of the severity of mental illnesses among adolescents worldwide,

Why just adolescents? Your active clauses include stuff for all people with mental health issues, so singling out adolescents in the preamble doesn't make much sense. Also, you largely use mental health afflictions, so the use of "mental illnesses" here looks out of place.

A: Tbh I actually wrote this for the Youth Assembly council of a Model United Nations conference, hence the 'adolescents'. On the second matter, that was a mistake.

Recognising the risks of leaving mental health afflictions undiagnosed and untreated,

Which do what? You need to spell out what the risks would be, and even more so, why they would be big enough an issue to require international laws to fix.

A: Noted. I've listed down a few (which you'll probably ask the source for but I can't give any because NS is a game without any mental health research bodies so I have to use real world examples).

Alarmed by the ongoing stigmatisation of mental health afflictions in much of modern society, especially in and around adolescent communities,

...I'm trying to fight the urge to go "Source?" for much of this, but here I'm going to actually ask for an OOC source on it being a bigger issue among kids, than adults. And do note that while bullying can cause mental health issues, most mental health issues don't show outwards and are thus unlikely to be targeted by bullies.

A: Again, sorry.

Emphasising the need for an international campaign to raise awareness on mental health afflictions among the youth,

What is that need? Why does it need to be international? You need to use the preamble to convince voters that 1. this is an international issue and 2. that it's big enough an issue to need the WA to step in.

A: I made an attempt to do so in Draft 3. Feel free to provide any feedback.

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

And yet you're going to trample over them with all the grace of a bulldozer (WA laws go over national laws and traditions).

A: Can you like, read the whole draft res first before getting all sarcastic on me like that? Jesus.

Acknowledges the responsibility of the media in educating segments of society by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

The media is also largely to blame for spreading and even creating myths with sensationalist reporting practices. For this one I'd replace "media" with "society" and replacing "segments of society" with "people".

A: Done. Thanks for helping me out with this.

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

Hence the substitution suggestions for the above clause. You should have some kind of version of "Hereby" here, to mark the divide between the preamble and the active clauses.

A: Thanks.

2. Authorises the commissioning of a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities worldwide;

Okay, several problems with this one.

First of all, simply authorizing something can happen, does not actually make it happen. If you definitely want this to happen, you need to change this into something like "Mandates that member nations conduct a large-scale survey", and in any case I'd use survey rather than inquiry, because the latter creates the mental image of people being interrogated.

Secondly, the use of "worldwide" is a problem, because the WA can only affect member nations, and I'm fairly sure most non-members would object to WA nations asking sharp questions from their citizenry.

Thirdly, and this is important, you should absolutely mandate this to be conducted in some way that ensures the anonymity of people being interviewed/answering the survey. Given how personal and painful issue menthal health problems are, you're not going to get any useful data if one must tag their name to the answers. Filling out an anomymous survey is how these things are usually dealt with in RL.

A. Done and done. I've mandated the commission of the inquiries, and I hope Clause 2(g) who mend the latter.

a. The inquiries are designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;

The "around the world" thing was already highlighted as a problem, but "source of stigma of mental health issues" sounds weird, when the mental health issues are the source of the stigma. And the latter part is just... augh. Be very VERY careful how you word this and target this, because people - especially if we're talking of school kids - know stuff about each other, and if the campaign is too targeted, they'll be able to guess who is the root cause. If there's one quiet and sad kid in the class, and then the class gets a tailor-made education campaign about How We Must Be Supportive Of Depressed People, it won't take much to put two and two together and deduce that the quiet sad kid is depressed, and now her bullies can look up what exactly that means, and use it to bully her some more.

So, given that you talk about "cultures" and "communities" as if one was equivalent of other, I think you have some internal confusion in this clause. For instance, what do you mean by "culture"? Do you mean like (in RL terms) "western culture" or "Italian culture" or "Sicilian culture" or "school culture" or even the culture of a specific school? A "community" can be as small as one class of children, but if they get a campaign based on the general culture of the entire continent, that's not very "hand-tailored".

A: I'm sorry if "sources" sounds rather odd (I think so too), but I really have not other way to describe it with my vocabulary.

Amended 2(a) to solve the confusion on the "cultures and communities" matter.

b. Proclaims the name of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);

You could just name it in the main clause. Also I think an inquiry is in something, while a survey is "on". And I still urge you to change this into a survey, not inquiry. You'll get better data that way, trust me.

A: How?

c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;

What's a World Assembly Association?

A: Again, Model United Nations conference. The UN has UNA's in every UN member nation that oversee their operations in said country. I've amended this to make the overseers the relevant health ministries of each WA member nation conducting the IISMHA.

d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but is not limited to:

"Are" instead of "is", and you really should use the list code. Say if you need help with it.

A: Noted. Thanks.

i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;

The "relevance of stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community" should be put in the preceding clause so you don't need to repeat it every time, and in any case that's more the kind of thing that only experts can really ascertain, not randomly interviewed people. Or you could have a survey with the "a lot", "quite a bit", "a bit", "not much" and "not at all" choices, and tailor the questions to match, and then the relevancy would show up in the number crunching phase, if there was statistical relevance to be found, that is.

e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the World Assembly Associations of that region;

Subjectiveness is a dangerous thing to include into something like this, because in a religious nation "people not in the state church" could be counted to automatically be insane and thus their answers invalid. (Again, an anonymous survey...) Or in any case to make belonging in the church be the requirement to be considered part of the community. Because, they, if the stigma of not belonging to the church being used to bully someone so much that they get depressed, then subjectively speaking it's their own fault for not belonging to the church, right? I'm sure you can see the issue.

A: There are two ways this can go. 1. The WA forces every single WA member nation to comply with their word-for-word specific guidelines, reinforcing your "run those cultures over with a bulldozer" notion and completely defeating the purpose of painfully conducting inquiries on how the cultures, traditions, history and current political climate affects people; or 2. We give these nations some freedom to conduct these campaigns, so that the WA is NOT an authoritarian organisation that forcefully pushes its will on its hapless members. Yes, some more conservative nations will not conduct their campaigns in a manner that is befitting to your nation's moral standards, but that's a small price we'll have to pay.

3. Approves the conducting of the International Youth’s Mass Awareness for Mental Afflictions campaign to raise awareness on mental health issues and the issues surrounding mental health afflictions among adolescents;

...so the above massive thing is just conducted for LOLs? Why again the weird narrowing-down into adolescents, when it's rarely the adolescent themselves that are the issue, but rather adult reactions to mental health issues of adolescents - like being told "it's just part of puberty to be moody" when actually clinically depressed, and thus denied any chance of having treatment or therapy - and I'm not sure that using "mass" in the name is going to be helpful.

Also, it might just be a language thing (English isn't my first language), but "afflictions" has an unpleasant echo to it. I'd prefer "issues" to be used instead. And I say this as someone with a mental disorder diagnosis.

A: Come on man, that's not a very nice thing to say, even when critiquing someone. And I've removed Clause 3 for now while I try to think of something more effective.

4. Urges WA member nations to increase support for mental health issues and those suffering from mental health afflictions;

Supporting mental health issues themselves makes no sense. Presumably you mean support for the people suffering from them.

A: Mended.

a. Further urges WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to do so;

Given the very vague definition, a nation would itself have to be insane to medicalize the "afflictions". In any case this is the kind of thing that only medical experts should do, not some random committee-thingy that goes "rah! rah! mental illness!"

A: I've mended 3(a).

b. Implores WA member nations to increase government funding for mental health care in their own capacity;

Throwing money at something doesn't magically make things better.[/quote]

A: And not increasing government allocations for mental healthcare doesn't magically make things better either.

[Republic of Satherland]

Hi. Thanks for the feedback. I'm still working on this.

---

I want to start by saying I support this endeavor in spirit.

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

I really don't know what you're referring to here. I don't know what it means for differences to be shared. I don't think this part of the preamble is meaningful. I think you should delete this part of the preamble. Or, reword it so it means something.

Then again, it's part of the preamble so you could also leave it in its current ambiguous form or go full on incoherent and write "Differences bearing shared cultures world around the mind heath of issue mental the" and it wouldn't effect my vote. Just a suggestion.

A: I'm just gonna be frank and say that I've left a lot of things here ambiguous (like typical GA resoultions) so that fewer nations with have a reason to take offense in the clauses and directives laid out in this resolution.

Acknowledges the responsibility of the media in educating segments of society by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

Just... in general make sure you are saying what you want to say. You switch to a weird tense with "Acknowledges" instead of "Acknowledging," and the word "while" is superfluous, and "helping to dispel myths" could be shorted to "dispelling myths." Saying you're "Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders" makes it sound like mentally ill people are mischaracterising something in a way that bothers you. Perhaps "Appalled/Troubled/Horrified/Terrified/Flabbergasted by media that misleadingly characterizes mentally ill individuals as dangerous and unpredictable."

Trying to help improve the writing here. Take it or leave it.

A: Thanks. I'll keep in consideration.

1. Defines mental health disorders, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses in this resolution as follows:
a. Health conditions which are often characterised by alterations of behaviour or thinking, associated with stress or impaired functioning;
b. Mandates the use of the term “mental health afflictions” as the umbrella term for mental health disorders for this resolution;

Okay, you're losing me a bit here with part (b), both with its awkward and needless attempt at political correctness and the fact that your definition of "mental health disorders" bizarrely contains a mandate that they be called "mental health afflictions" instead. That's weird. You should remove part (b).

I also don't think you need the word "often" in part (a); it creates unnecessary ambiguity without any discernible benefit. If I suffer from infrequent but severe bouts of schizophrenia, I should be covered by this law right? I think the definition needs more refining but lets start with that.

A: Thanks.

2. Authorises the commissioning of a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities worldwide;
a. The inquiries are designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;
b. Proclaims the name of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);
c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;
d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but is not limited to:
i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the World Assembly Associations of that region;
f. Confirms the commission of the International Mental Health Inquiry Panel (IMHIP) as the body of oversight for this inquiry;

Okay, a massive bureaucracy to "ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues." That's fine, I guess. It's more micromanage-y than I like but whatever floats your boat; there's nothing really objectionable here.

A: I'm trying to remove as such bureaucratic red tape as possible. I'm still working on it.

3. Commissions the International Youth’s Mass Awareness for Mental Afflictions campaign to raise awareness on mental health issues and the issues surrounding mental health afflictions among adolescents;
a. Defines the nature of the campaign as a country-specific campaign tailored to the societal structures of their respective nations;
b. Mandates the use of the IISMHA as the foundations for the direction of the campaign;
c. Campaigns in individual nations are to primarily be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;

Okay... more bureaucracy but this time to raise awareness on mental health issues specific to youths. Fine, okay, that's a lot of bureaucracy in one proposal but whatever. At least this one is less micromanage-y. The first bureaucracy could learn from this bureaucracy.

A: I've deleted this clause for now while I try to amend it. Feel free to provide any suggestions.

4. Mandates that WA member nations increase support for mental health issues and those suffering from mental health afflictions;
a. Requires WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to classify mental health afflictions as a legitimate health condition;
b. Mandates that WA member nations allocate government funds to the investment of public awareness campaigns on the subject of the destigmatisation of mental health afflictions;

Finally, we get to the part where Member Nations do something!! This is a good start! But it could be more clear and to the point. "Requires WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditionsto classify mental health afflictions as a legitimate health condition." That does EXACTLY the same thing you were going for but without an unnecessary conditional clause.

You might want to beef up your call for funding. Some nations will look at such a loose funding mandate, invest $1 to the cause, and smile as they proclaim their compliance with the plain requirements of the law.

A: Yeah, I know. But in my opinion it's either "urge nations to provide more funding" or have the WA be seen as an "autocratic organisation that dictates the national budgets of its member nations". :/

That's enough for now. I look forward to seeing where you take this.

[The Yellow Monkey]

You might want to beef up your call for funding. Some nations will look at such a loose funding mandate, invest $1 to the cause, and smile as they proclaim their compliance with the plain requirements of the law.

A: Yeah, I know. But in my opinion it's either "urge nations to provide more funding" or have the WA be seen as an "autocratic organisation that dictates the national budgets of its member nations". :/

You are thinking too rigidly. Strict compartmentalization works until it doesn't.

What about "Mandates that WA member nations fund public awareness programs to the degree necessary to destigmatise mental health afflictions."

[Tinhampton]

How exactly will the IMHP oversee the IISMHA? Why do you need to create an "International Inquiry" in the first place if all of the details surrounding it will be reserved to member states? And why are you not granting anonymity to the survey answerers by default, as may have been suggested earlier?

[Republic of Satherland]

A: Yeah, I know. But in my opinion it's either "urge nations to provide more funding" or have the WA be seen as an "autocratic organisation that dictates the national budgets of its member nations". :/

You are thinking too rigidly. Strict compartmentalization works until it doesn't.

What about "Mandates that WA member nations fund public awareness programs to the degree necessary to destigmatise mental health afflictions."

Good idea. I'll add it in for Draft 4. Thanks.

[Republic of Satherland]

How exactly will the IMHP oversee the IISMHA? Why do you need to create an "International Inquiry" in the first place if all of the details surrounding it will be reserved to member states? And why are you not granting anonymity to the survey answerers by default, as may have been suggested earlier?

The IMHP is just a simple body of oversight that will ensure that WA member nations are in compliance with DOMHA and will provide additional support if requested by member nations. I'll make sure to elaborate further on this in Draft 4.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Style

The seeming consensus at least on the WA Discord has moved very far from the application of styling to verbs or incipits. The style applied in your proposal broadly aligns with existing norms, though there are some areas which seem somewhat like circumlocutions and other portions don't perfectly align with the idea that the whole piece is a single sentence. Broadly, one could split into lots of clauses or just use a statute style à la UK or other jurisdictions. Not to plug my blog too much, but you'll find a short post on the topic there with some pre-made explanations and examples.

Preamble

The World Assembly,

Fully aware of the severity of mental health afflictions among people worldwide,

Recognising the risks of leaving mental health afflictions undiagnosed and untreated, including but not limited to social isolation, increased rates of violence by and towards sufferers of mental health afflictions and attempted suicide,

Alarmed by the ongoing stigmatisation of mental health afflictions in much of modern society, especially in and around adolescent communities worldwide,

Emphasising the need for an international campaign to raise awareness on this global pandemic,

Bearing in mind the differences shared by cultures around the world surrounding the issue of mental health,

Appalled by the mischaracterisations of individuals afflicted with mental health disorders as dangerous and unpredictable by certain media platforms,

Acknowledges the responsibility of certain segments of society in educating the populous by raising awareness on contemporary issues, while challenging attitudes and helping to dispel myths,

I'd condense these into a few major points. At a broad argumentative level, you should establish a claim, warrant, and impact. Those three should then yield at least one substantive argument in favour of the resolution. The impact should also best relate to something that you believe that an international body ought to do. This requires at least two warrants: the insufficiency of the status quo (non-inherency) and the reasons why the World Assembly ought to be taking this action (topicality). I would also caution away from using overly hyperbolic language like 'pandemic'.

Section 1

1. Defines mental health disorders, or psychiatric and psychological illnesses in this resolution as follows:
a. Health conditions which are characterised by alterations of behaviour or thinking, associated with stress or impaired functioning;
b. Mandates the use of the term “mental health afflictions” as the umbrella term for mental health disorders for this resolution;

The general turn of phrase is "Defines for the purposes of this resolution: term as definition". On a stylistic note, you ought to split your mandates and definitions by section rather than grouping them under this specific section.

Section 2

2. Mandates that all WA member nations conduct a large-scale inquiry into the root causes of stigma surrounding the issue of mental health in various communities under their jurisdiction;
a. The inquiries are to be designed to ascertain the sources of stigma of mental health issues in different cultures and communities around the world, the results of which will be used to hand-tailor mental health awareness campaigns in their respective communities;
b. Proclaims the umbrella term of this inquiry as the International Inquiry on the Stigmatisation of Mental Health Afflictions (IISMHA);
c. IISMHA projects in individual nations are to be planned and conducted by the World Assembly Association of that nation;
d. Topics in the IISMHA must include, but are not limited to:
i. The history of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
ii. The culture and religious beliefs of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iii. The social structure of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
iv. The political and economic situation of the community in question and its relevance to the stigmatisation of mental health issues in said community;
e. Topics covered in the inquiry are permitted to be subjective based on the culture, geography, religious beliefs, etc. of a population, and those criteria will be set by the relevant health ministry of that region;
f. Confirms the commission of the International Mental Health Panel (IMHP) as the body of oversight for this inquiry;
g. Mandates that complete anonymity be given to participants and contributors of the IISMHA inquiry in all WA member nations if requested;

Use the list code to create indented subsections. For examples of the list code, see the Passed resolutions thread.

To me, the idea that some body must conduct an inquiry is unhelpful and easily got around. Imagine an inquiry where they just say that nothing is broken and that nothing is wrong. Certainly an inquiry. Not a helpful one. This solution broadly preferred by a lot of authors on this has simply been to delegate the authority to do this to a committee instead of having it done by the nation. If you wanted large levels of public participation, you would write such a thing in the legislation establishing the committee's task.

Moreover, the idea of placing clauses that could become spent into law eventually means the clause becomes useless. After the compilation of this inquiry and the return of its recommendations... then what? What do you do with the report? Either make it a perpetual review process (which could also be objected to in terms of cost, though it seems that the GA pretends costs basically do not exist in any quantity) or eliminate the process.

Section 3

3. Mandates that WA member nations increase support for increasing awareness on mental health afflictions and to those suffering from mental health afflictions;
a. Urges the health ministries of WA member nations which have yet to recognise mental health afflictions as legitimate medical conditions to consider classifying mental health afflictions as a legitimate medical condition;
b. Mandates that WA member nations allocate government funds to the investment of public awareness campaigns on the subject of the destigmatisation of mental health afflictions;

There is a style thing here again similar to the first element. The use of the word mandates in a subsection doesn't make logical sense. That aside—

The general purpose of WA legislation is to create goals for members to meet. In this sense, they are very much like European Union Directives (though I'd imagine BA will raise a fuss about that). Laws can also specify the mode of interaction, which makes them somewhat like EU Regulations, but we do not have a strict dichotomy between the two, even in application of something like the strength rule.

That said, a goal of 'make X go up by an unspecified amount' or 'spend more' is unclear. Nations could comply by spending 20 pence more. Similarly is 'make X go up by 5 per cent' because that generally doesn't not fit all situations. This is why authors generally ask for specific conditions to be met (eg Minimum Standard of Living Act). The conditional can be wrapped away because it is unnecessary to tell someone 'If you have not done X, do X'. Doing X, if it is a state and not, say, a production target, is either already completed or it isn't, so the conditional is unnecessary.

[Toasted Biscuit]

This Bill has Toasted Biscuits full support!