LEGALITY CHALLENGE: Ban on compulsory minority registries

[Araraukar]

This has been submitted.

Proposal thread: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=484531

Ban on compulsory minority registries

Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the need for nations to possess information on its citizens and issue compulsory documents for the purpose of identification;

However,

ALARMED at the rapid rise of divisions and violence based on ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and other factors;

APPALLED at the willingness of nations to do nothing to combat, or in extreme cases, to facilitate these aforementioned divisions;

CONCERNED that the compulsory collection of data pertaining to ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation could be used to further discriminatory practices against minorities in any of these categories;

Hereby:

PROHIBITS
1. the creation and use of compulsory national registries made specifically for any given ethnic or religious minority or on the basis of sexual orientation,
2. the mandatory inclusion of ethnic, religious, and sexual orientation data in any national census or compulsory identification documents;

REAFFIRMS that this resolution in no way completely prohibits the collection of data pertaining to the aforementioned categories, and such data may be collected at the discretion of whomever the data is collected from;

URGES WA member nations to attempt to halt any escalations of the aforementioned divisions or violence occurring within their territory.

Rule broken: Contradiction, duplication.

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

Prohibiting collection of data based on minority status on one of the categories mentioned in the proposal (and CoCR) but NOT on majority status on the same categories, creates an inequality situation.

The compelling situation exception does not apply, because the proposal's suggested reason (violence towards minorities) has already been addressed by CoCR:

Article 2.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

So nations that are in compliance with CoCR, have already dealt with the situation that the proposal is concerned of. (And given the existing compliance enforcement methods, to my knowledge "because some nations might still be noncompliant" is not compelling enough reason for new resolutions on the same topic.)

The urges clause duplicates CoCR (the above clause b ) as well as the overall resolution effect) OR contradicts it (and possibly the genocide ban resolution), if "halt any escalations" means trying to restrict the number of people born into/existing in any of the minority categories. (Note that the latter is not my reading, but the language of the proposal makes it a possile reading.)

[Bananaistan]

1) No reasonable nation would interpret this as an inequality situation. Banning X is not a mandate to do not-X.

2) If there's any duplication it's minor. The meat and bones of the proposal for the vast majority of member states is the second prohibits section.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

In addition to what Banana said, taken in isolation with no preamble or concluding reaffirmations, the two numbered clauses could easily find themselves in a resolution prohibiting things like affirmative action, post-hoc reparations for genocide or slavery of one's ancestors, or similarly targeted welfare policies. The proposal at issue here is not treading the same ground as GAR #35, either with it or against it.

[Separatist Peoples]

See above. This is contrived at best.

[Araraukar]

So positive discrimination is okay and previously passed resolutions making things illegal can be assumed to not actually having reduced those things to insignifigance, got it.

[Separatist Peoples]

So positive discrimination is okay and previously passed resolutions making things illegal can be assumed to not actually having reduced those things to insignifigance, got it.

Alternatively, you've just misinterpreted the rules again.

[Araraukar]

So positive discrimination is okay and previously passed resolutions making things illegal can be assumed to not actually having reduced those things to insignifigance, got it.

Alternatively, you've just misinterpreted the rules again.

The proposal's reasoning (as given in preamble) is to prevent stuff like violence against minorities. Which CoCR directly addresses. So CoCR is assumed to not having had effect, if the reasoning given is considered valid?

[Bananaistan]

Alternatively, you've just misinterpreted the rules again.

The proposal's reasoning (as given in preamble) is to prevent stuff like violence against minorities. Which CoCR directly addresses. So CoCR is assumed to not having had effect, if the reasoning given is considered valid?

Only operative clauses can contradict or duplicate operative clauses in other resolutions. The reasoning in the preamble is irrelevant.

[Araraukar]

The reasoning in the preamble is irrelevant.

Except when it's used to justify a category, but that's not related to this one.

[Separatist Peoples]

The reasoning in the preamble is irrelevant.

Except when it's used to justify a category, but that's not related to this one.

This is entirely in line with modern legal interpretation.