[Abandoned] Repeal "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking"

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

Well, that is going to have a pretty title.

Repeal "Ban on Slavery and Trafficking"

Category: Repeal || Target: link

---

The World Assembly,

Applauding the aim of GAR#23 to end the despicable practices of slavery, forced labour, and trafficking of persons,

Agreeing with classification of these practices as a violation of basic rights,

Worried that in the aforementioned resolution slavery is defined as holding another person to be one’s possession, property, etc. “under the law”, which means that slavery without the official sanction of the law is not banned by GAR#23;

Dismayed by the numerous exclusions from legal definitions present in GAR#23, which diminish its readability;

Perplexed that prison labour is excluded from the ban on forced labour, even if such labour would be dehumanizing or debilitating for the inmates;

Noting that what constitutes “normal civic duties” varies from nation to nation, thus excluding them from the ban on forced labour without properly defining said duties can result in a destitution of citizenry into a form of semi-servitude in some nations;

Alarmed that the blanket ban on sending aid to the countries that employ slavery, for any other purpose than for emancipating the slaves, blocks many forms of humanitarian aid from being sent, even if such aid would benefit persons in the condition of servitude, like disaster relief or medical supplies;

Disgusted by the last exclamatory sentence of GAR#23 and wanting statements of such kind to be removed from the fair laws of the World Assembly;

Considering the aforementioned flaws of the resolution in question,

Having reasonable hope that a better regulation, written in accordance with the modern standards of legislation and avoiding the pitfalls pointed out above, can be passed quickly by the very same body that progressed so much since this attempt at eliminating slavery passed;

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#23.

I hope that reading through this made it sound less crazy than what the title suggests. I do not have a replacement ready at the moment, but I will work on it. Obviously not going forward with this until there is a replacement I'm satisfied with.

This is the first serious attempt to touch this piece of legislation. OOC: I've searched for drafts of repeals on this forum to see what problems people brought up and if some of my own were answered already, but all drafts were slavery is good, durrrrr.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

The World Assembly,

Applauding the aim of GAR#23 to end the despicable practices of slavery, forced labour, and trafficking of persons,

Agreeing with classification of these practices as a violation of basic rights,

Worried that in the aforementioned resolution slavery is defined as holding another person to be one’s possession, property, etc. “under the law”, which means that slavery without the official sanction of the law is not banned by GAR#23;

Dismayed by the numerous exclusions from legal definitions present in GAR#23, which exclusions diminish its readability;

Perplexed that prison labour is excluded from the ban on forced labour, even if such labour would be dehumanizing or debilitating for the inmates;

Noting that what constitutes “normal civic duties” varies from nation to nation, thus excluding them from the ban on forced labour without properly defining said duties can lead to the destitution of citizenry into a form of semi-servitude in some nations;

Alarmed that the blanket ban on sending aid to countries that employ slavery for any other purpose than for emancipating slaves blocks many forms of humanitarian aid from being sent, even if such aid would benefit persons in the condition of servitude, like disaster relief or medical supplies;

Disgusted by the last exclamatory sentence of GAR#23 and declaring that statements of such kind have no place in the fair laws of the World Assembly;

Considering the aforementioned flaws of the resolution in question,

Having reasonable hope that a better regulation, written in accordance with the modern standards of legislation and avoiding the pitfalls pointed out above, can be passed quickly by the very same body that progressed so much since this attempt at eliminating slavery passed;

The World Assembly hereby repeals GAR#23.

[Barfleur]

OOC: Once my face recovered from the perplexed expression I made upon reading the title, I realize where you're coming from. I have to say I do oppose your proposal, but I do have some advice. Regarding prison labor, I think it would definitely be fair game to write a new proposal to ban/regulate it (assuming it has not been covered by other resolutions; you might want to check if you plan on taking my advice). If you want, you and I could write a proposal together to that effect.

[Waldenes]

“You want to do WHAT??? How can you even... oh... oh... hmm, I see. Ok. Forgive my rash outburst, ambassador. The title threw me for a bit of a loop there. We would need to see some replacement drafts, of course, before we can justify supporting this.”

[Morover]

"Dependent on an adequate replacement being present, we support this endeavor."

[Marxist Germany]

"I am open to writing a replacement if the Italian delegation wishes to pursue this repeal effort."

[Barfleur]

"If the good ambassador from Sancta Romana Ecclesia wishes to work on a proposal regulating prison labor, I would be happy to serve as co-author, or anything else I can do to help. As for this proposal itself, however, I will oppose it with everything I have. Slavery is a blight on humanity, a fate worse than death, and any proposal that would legalize it, even for a day, is a firm no from me."

OOC: Telegram me if you want my help. I believe a proposal about prison/convict labor would be legal, existing resolutions notwithstanding.

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

Thank you for your supportive words and offers, Ambassadors. I will be sure to consider them.

OOC: If I find out that the prison labour issue cannot be reasonably regulated in a replacement resolution for this, I would be interested in any offers for co-authoring a draft on it alone. I'll also check out for any potential existing resolutions on the topic (although while reading Treatment of Inmates nothing has struck me as resolving the problem).

I'll probably tg when I have the time to work on a replacement, if you say that you would be interested in drafting it, so be warned

[Kenmoria]

“This draft has my support. I think the ‘dismayed’ clause would be more readable if the second ‘exclusions’ were to be removed, but this is currently my only quibble.”