[Dropped] Repeal: "Don't Kill the Poor Act"

[Daves Computer]

Hello. It's been a long time since I've participated in the World Assembly but I'm hoping that I can still contribute. I've been reviewing passed legislation and noticed that the "Don't Kill the Poor Act," though has admirable goals, does nothing more than what GA#38 does. Because of how repetitious the two acts are but more importantly because of how vague the "Don't Kill the Poor Act" truly is, I do not believe this is influential or beneficial to the WA or its states in any way. I believe there is an argument to be made that legislation focusing on how we can protect the poor from genocidal actions should be considered, but GA#450 does not work. To make room for an act that will significantly benefit the poor while also cracking down on legislation that does not do anything more than what prior legislation already does, I will aim to repeal the "Don't Kill the Poor Act."

Though I don't have a replacement for the "Don't Kill the Poor Act," because everything it enacts is already accomplished in GAR#450, there is no immediate need to have one. But this repeal will, at the very least, bring attention to GAR#450's failings and hopefully encourage other authors to successfully follow through with the spirit of GAR#450 in a much more beneficial and impactful manner.

I'm a tad bit rusty with the drafting process of proposals, so I strongly encourage any and all constructive criticism.

Click here to see GAR#450 "Don't Kill the Poor Act."

Click here to see GAR#38 "Convention on Genocide."

Repeal: "Don't Kill the Poor Act
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#450 | Proposed by: Daves Computer

---

General Assembly Resolution #450 "Don't Kill the Poor Act" (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Commending GAR#450's noble goal of protecting the impoverished from genocidal and horrific actions made against them,

Noting, however, much of what this legislation aspires to do has already been accomplished in GAR#38 "Convention Against Genocide,"

1. GAR#450's interpretation of genocide is already expressly defined by GAR#38 in detail with no notable distinctions,
2. GAR#450 clarifies that genocide pertains to an identifiable group of people, not an individual, just as GAR#38 does,
3. While GAR#450 simply condemns acts of genocide, GAR#38 strictly forbids it and compels member nations to retaliate against such inhumanity,
4. Both pieces of legislation require member nations to provide some degree of aid to victims of genocide,

Recognizing that GAR#450 fails to distinguish itself from GAR#38 in any notable way,

Concerned that the legislation's failure to describe to what degree member states should "render aid" to individuals escaping genocide allows member states to do the bare minimum to achieve the expectations of this legislation,

Hoping that this well-intentioned piece of legislation is replaced by one that enacts more appropriate and impactful procedures to protect vulnerable groups such as the poor from genocide,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #450 "Don't Kill the Poor Act."

[Kenmoria]

“GA #450 actually serves a very important purposes that GA #38 does not. In Convention Against Genocide, ‘genocide’ is defined as killing people based on a ‘perceived innate characteristic’. Of course, being poor is not an innate state of being, leading to a situation where member states are free to commit genocide against the poor or any other group of people with a non-innate characteristics

Don’t Kill the Poor closes this loophole.”

[Daves Computer]

“GA #450 actually serves a very important purposes that GA #38 does not. In Convention Against Genocide, ‘genocide’ is defined as killing people based on a ‘perceived innate characteristic’. Of course, being poor is not an innate state of being, leading to a situation where member states are free to commit genocide against the poor or any other group of people with a non-innate characteristics

Don’t Kill the Poor closes this loophole.”

Though the "Convention Against Genocide"'s examples of genoicde are focused more on murder and acts of violence, its definition of genocide isn't explicitly limited to these sorts of methods. At its core, GAR#38 defines genocide as "any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons..." To my interpretation, I'd consider "destroy" to include forms of oppression and suppression that would "destroy" the will, spirit, and identity of these groups of people. And thus acts such as forceful removal or isolation would qualify, under GAR#38's definition, as acts of genocide if you believe my interpretation is accurate.

[Araraukar]

“GA #450 actually serves a very important purposes that GA #38 does not. In Convention Against Genocide, ‘genocide’ is defined as killing people based on a ‘perceived innate characteristic’. Of course, being poor is not an innate state of being, leading to a situation where member states are free to commit genocide against the poor or any other group of people with a non-innate characteristics

Don’t Kill the Poor closes this loophole.”

Though the "Convention Against Genocide"'s examples of genoicde are focused more on murder and acts of violence, its definition of genocide isn't explicitly limited to these sorts of methods. At its core, GAR#38 defines genocide as "any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons..." To my interpretation, I'd consider "destroy" to include forms of oppression and suppression that would "destroy" the will, spirit, and identity of these groups of people. And thus acts such as forceful removal or isolation would qualify, under GAR#38's definition, as acts of genocide if you believe my interpretation is accurate.

OOC: ...and? GA #38 still only protects against genocide based on innate qualities (meaning things you can't change) - like skin colour - while the later resolution expands the ban to a non-innate quality of wealth.

[Daves Computer]

Though the "Convention Against Genocide"'s examples of genoicde are focused more on murder and acts of violence, its definition of genocide isn't explicitly limited to these sorts of methods. At its core, GAR#38 defines genocide as "any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons..." To my interpretation, I'd consider "destroy" to include forms of oppression and suppression that would "destroy" the will, spirit, and identity of these groups of people. And thus acts such as forceful removal or isolation would qualify, under GAR#38's definition, as acts of genocide if you believe my interpretation is accurate.

OOC: ...and? GA #38 still only protects against genocide based on innate qualities (meaning things you can't change) - like skin colour - while the later resolution expands the ban to a non-innate quality of wealth.

I understand and agree with your point since this definition means any identifiable group being oppressed can be considered victims of genocide. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the definition only describes that acts of violence or forceful displacement upon any group is genocide, and doesn't take into account other means by which genocidal acts can take form. Although GAR#450 never refers or explicitly expands on GAR#38's definition, is this the best way for the WA to formally acknowledge acts of genocide. And are GAR#450's ambiguous definition of "groups" yet highly specific ways in which genocide can occur potentially exploitable or hard to enforce?

[Wallenburg]

I understand and agree with your point since this definition means any identifiable group being oppressed can be considered victims of genocide. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the definition only describes that acts of violence or forceful displacement upon any group is genocide, and doesn't take into account other means by which genocidal acts can take form.

This is incorrect. Both definitions of genocide include the forced concentration of a group or population controls against a group.

Although GAR#450 never refers or explicitly expands on GAR#38's definition, is this the best way for the WA to formally acknowledge acts of genocide.

It is.

And are GAR#450's ambiguous definition of "groups" yet highly specific ways in which genocide can occur potentially exploitable or hard to enforce?

To my knowledge, no. You'll have to show they actually are if you want to make such an argument, though.

As to your proposal:

Noting, however, much of what this legislation aspires to do has already been accomplished in GAR#38 "Convention Against Genocide,"
a. GAR#450's interpretation of genocide is already expressly defined by GAR#38 in detail with no notable distinctions,
b. GAR#450 clarifies that genocide pertains to an identifiable group of people, not an individual, just as GAR#38 does,

This is irrelevant. Any definitions used by a resolution must be defined in that same resolution. A reliance on previous definitions would violate the House of Cards rule.

c. While GAR#450 simply condemns acts of genocide, GAR#38 strictly forbids it and compels member nations to retaliate against such inhumanity,

This is incorrect, to an extent that it violates the Honest Mistake rule. The word "condemn" never appears in either resolution, and both of them provide clear mandates to prohibit genocide. Here's the prohibition in #450.

Renders crimes against humanity any acts of genocide against any group on the basis of economic status or employment,

d. Both pieces of legislation require member nations to provide some degree of aid to victims of genocide,

A strange criticism, but if you want to argue that aiding victims of genocide is bad, that's your own prerogative.

Recognizing that GAR#450 fails to distinguish itself from GAR#38 in any notable way,

Another Honest Mistake. As has been explained, #450 exists to fill a hole left by #38, in that the latter did not prohibit genocide against economic groups.

Concerned that the legislation's failure to describe to what degree member states should "render aid" to individuals escaping genocide allows member states to do the bare minimum to achieve the expectations of this legislation,

Neither does #38. I'd rather not micromanage aid distribution.

Hoping that this well-intentioned piece of legislation is replaced by one that enacts more appropriate and impactful procedures to protect vulnerable groups such as the poor from genocide,

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have said that you don't think there is an immediate need for a replacement, or that "everything it enacts is already accomplished" in #38.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #450 "Don't Kill the Poor Act."

Predictably opposed.

[Daves Computer]

I understand and agree with your point since this definition means any identifiable group being oppressed can be considered victims of genocide. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the definition only describes that acts of violence or forceful displacement upon any group is genocide, and doesn't take into account other means by which genocidal acts can take form.

This is incorrect. Both definitions of genocide include the forced concentration of a group or population controls against a group.

Although GAR#450 never refers or explicitly expands on GAR#38's definition, is this the best way for the WA to formally acknowledge acts of genocide.

It is.

And are GAR#450's ambiguous definition of "groups" yet highly specific ways in which genocide can occur potentially exploitable or hard to enforce?

To my knowledge, no. You'll have to show they actually are if you want to make such an argument, though.

As to your proposal:

Noting, however, much of what this legislation aspires to do has already been accomplished in GAR#38 "Convention Against Genocide,"
a. GAR#450's interpretation of genocide is already expressly defined by GAR#38 in detail with no notable distinctions,
b. GAR#450 clarifies that genocide pertains to an identifiable group of people, not an individual, just as GAR#38 does,

This is irrelevant. Any definitions used by a resolution must be defined in that same resolution. A reliance on previous definitions would violate the House of Cards rule.

c. While GAR#450 simply condemns acts of genocide, GAR#38 strictly forbids it and compels member nations to retaliate against such inhumanity,

This is incorrect, to an extent that it violates the Honest Mistake rule. The word "condemn" never appears in either resolution, and both of them provide clear mandates to prohibit genocide. Here's the prohibition in #450.

Renders crimes against humanity any acts of genocide against any group on the basis of economic status or employment,

d. Both pieces of legislation require member nations to provide some degree of aid to victims of genocide,

A strange criticism, but if you want to argue that aiding victims of genocide is bad, that's your own prerogative.

Recognizing that GAR#450 fails to distinguish itself from GAR#38 in any notable way,

Another Honest Mistake. As has been explained, #450 exists to fill a hole left by #38, in that the latter did not prohibit genocide against economic groups.

Concerned that the legislation's failure to describe to what degree member states should "render aid" to individuals escaping genocide allows member states to do the bare minimum to achieve the expectations of this legislation,

Neither does #38. I'd rather not micromanage aid distribution.

Hoping that this well-intentioned piece of legislation is replaced by one that enacts more appropriate and impactful procedures to protect vulnerable groups such as the poor from genocide,

No you don't. If you did, you wouldn't have said that you don't think there is an immediate need for a replacement, or that "everything it enacts is already accomplished" in #38.

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #450 "Don't Kill the Poor Act."

Predictably opposed.

Thank you for your feedback. Just to clarify, the four points under "Noting" weren't to necessarily criticize GAR450 but explain the lack of distinctions between 450 and 38. Though I maintain that much of what 450 seeks is already accomplished in 38, I understand that since 450 uniquely expands the definition however ambiguously of what identifiable groups can be victims of genocide, it is a vital piece of legislation for the WA. I also can't name specific instances where the ambiguity of terms such as "group" and "render aid" would cause harm, though I fear it may be exploited. But if my only argument for a repeal is redundancy and an uncertainty in how easily definitions can be exploited, I should probably drop the repeal. Regardless of whether I keep going or drop this proposal, thank you all for the feedback. This has been a very educational experience. :¬)

[Daves Computer]

OOC: After further consideration, I agree that, although GAR#450 shares many similarities with GAR#38, it uniquely expands the types of groups which can suffer genocide, which are therefore protected under both 450 and 38. Unless there were to be a repeal and replace, repealing GAR#450 means that groups outside of those protected under GAR#38 such as the poor can suffer oppression without it being legally recognized as genocide. But because 38 does no harm as far as I can see, there's no need to go through all that trouble. Thank you all for your feedback.