NATION

PASSWORD

[PASSED] Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

[PASSED] Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Postby Maowi » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:09 am

"The main aim of this proposal is to block member states from employing large-scale genetic modification of offspring to systematically eliminate particular traits among their population, such as those pertaining to a specific race. I don't believe this has been covered by existing legislation, as far as I am aware. I would be very grateful for any feedback or advice."

OOC: This is short but I don't think it needs to be much longer - if anything I'll just flesh out the preamble, unless further material for active clauses comes to mind.

Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant


Condemning the use of forced eugenics,

Applauding the measures contained in GAR #38 "Convention Against Genocide" against the use of eugenics to further an agenda of ethnic cleansing,

Convinced that it should be the guardian's prerogative, and not a state's or a medic's, whether their unborn offspring undergoes genetic modification,

Subject to its previous, extant legislation, the World Assembly hereby:

  1. Forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy or elimination of disorders, disabilities, or diseases;

  2. Prohibits any individual or entity from genetically modifying or commanding the genetic modification of sapient offspring prior to their birth without the informed consent of the offspring's legal guardians; and

  3. Forbids any individual or entity from compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian to give consent to the genetic modification of their offspring prior to their birth.


Safeguarding Genetic Diversity

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild


Condemning the use of eugenics by states especially to reduce or eliminate the portion of their populaces belonging to particular ethnicities,

Subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions, the World Assembly hereby forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from:

  1. compelling or incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy of genetic diseases; or

  2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals of a particular race, religious identity, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual identity from reproducing.
Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild


Condemning the use of eugenics by states especially to further a national agenda of large-scale ethnic cleansing,

Subject to its previous, extant legislation, the World Assembly hereby forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from:

  1. compelling or incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy or elimination of disorders or diseases; or

  2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals possessing a particular arbitrary, reductive characteristic from reproducing.
Restrictions on Forced Eugenics

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant


Condemning the use of forced eugenics, especially by states aiming to further a national agenda of large-scale ethnic cleansing,

Convinced that it should be the guardian's prerogative, and not a state's or a medic's, whether their offspring undergoes genetic modification,

Subject to its previous, extant legislation, the World Assembly hereby:

  1. Forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from:

    1. incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy or elimination of disorders, disabilities, or diseases; or

    2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals possessing a particular arbitrary, reductive characteristic from reproducing;

  2. Prohibits any individual from genetically modifying sapient offspring prior to their birth without the informed consent of the offspring's legal guardians; and

  3. Forbids any individual or entity from compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian to give consent to the genetic modification of their offspring prior to their birth.
Last edited by Ransium on Wed Aug 26, 2020 9:00 pm, edited 14 times in total.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:16 am

"Clause 1 currently makes no exception for the removal of genetically-inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis. I think this should be changed."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:29 am

Kenmoria wrote:"Clause 1 currently makes no exception for the removal of genetically-inherited disorders such as cystic fibrosis. I think this should be changed."

"Should member states be permitted to force parents to have their baby's genes edited in this way if they do not wish to? I believe it should be the right of the legal guardian to decide whether they wish the embryo or foetus to undergo the procedure, just as the World Assembly gives legal guardians the right to make decisions on their wards' medical treatment after birth. However, I do see your point when it comes to incentivising genetic editing in the cases you mention (rather than compelling), and I'll modify that in the draft."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7990
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:32 am

If you are willing to go that far on cutting things down... (;p)
Maowi wrote:
Safeguarding Genetic Diversity (alternative title suggestion: "Eugenics Ban"? Or is that not specific enough?)

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild


Condemning the use of eugenics by states especially to reduce or eliminate the portion of their populaces belonging to particular ethnicities further a national agenda of large-scale ethnic cleansing,

Subject to previous, extant World Assembly resolutions its prior and standing legislation, the World Assembly hereby forbids member states, or the governments of any political subdivision thereof, from:

  1. compelling or incentivising the genetic modification of any sapient offspring prior to their birth, except for incentivising the remedy of genetic diseases; or

  2. explicitly discouraging or disincentivising individuals of a particular race, religious identity, ethnicity, gender identity, or sexual identity from reproducing simply because they possess a particular arbitrary, reductive characteristic.
If you want that last one explained, covering all ARCs would forbid governments from discouraging reproduction by (say) the disabled or national minorities that broadly share the same ethnicity. In the main, this legislation is... appropriately Tinhamptonian, full support :P
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Marxist Germany
Minister
 
Posts: 2111
Founded: Jun 07, 2018
Corporate Bordello

Postby Marxist Germany » Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:34 pm

"Would this not be covered by extant legislation, namely, GA#35?"
Country represents RL views mostly. Not Marxist anymore.
Author of GA#461, GA#470, GA#477, GA#481, GA#486 (co-author), and SC#295

Ex-delegate of The United Federations; citizen and ex-Senior Senator of 10000 Islands
RP name: Germany
The National Factbook (WIP)
Ambassador Klaus Schmidt
Political Compass
Pro:Laissez-faire, Cultural Nationalism, Guns, Free speech, Christianity, United Ireland.
Anti:"Progressivism", Abortion, Transgenderism, Socialism, Interventionism, Mass-migration.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:24 pm

Tinhampton wrote:-snip-

OOC: Thanks both for the advice and support, I'll integrate those suggestions in there!

Marxist Germany wrote:"Would this not be covered by extant legislation, namely, GA#35?"

"Clause 1 certainly is not covered. Clause 2 perhaps could be, but I believe the argument could be made that discouraging something as opposed to banning it may not fall under the prohibition on GAR 35, which is the reason for which I included it to cover that possibility."

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2714
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:34 pm

"This has our support"
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira
Wonderess wrote:frankly someone I don’t want to see gain influence in NS and by extension TNP
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Managing Director of Lazarus
The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Grays Harbor
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18527
Founded: Antiquity
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Grays Harbor » Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:19 pm

Marxist Germany wrote:"Would this not be covered by extant legislation, namely, GA#35?"

How so? I’m not seeing it.
Everything you know about me is wrong. Or a rumor. Something like that.

Head of the Grays Harbor WA delegation: Sir Henry Rodut, OHE, GHC
3-2-1 lets jam

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:01 pm

"I must concur with the ambassador from Maowi that the subject matter discussed here is not covered by GA#35. Isaris offers its support for this proposal. We are particularly pleased with the inclusion of an exception clause for the remedying of genetic diseases, as this practice is already widespread in our nation."

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15444
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:32 pm

OOC: Before calling other ambassadors names in IC, I want the clarification that this is intentionally trying to block the advancement of beneficial genetics as well, not merely blocking the elimination of ethnicities?

Because eugenics is specifically about making people better (like, think if we could eliminate diabetes - both type 1 and type 2 entirely, or make all future children immune to diarrhea viruses or malaria or HIV), NOT what people think it means (Nazi ideology of ethnical cleansing on genetical level). (EDIT: The allowed exception would not apply on genetic-level immunization against communicable diseases. Nor probably diabetes - type 1 is triggered by infection, type 2 is more or less an acquired metabolic disorder rather than "genetic disease".)

Calling all eugenics bad is like lumping all ethnic rights advancement groups into terrorists, simply because some terrorists use the same rights advancement ideology as a justification to their actions.
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:29 am

"I am very grateful for the support both from the Isari ambassador and the ambassador from Honeydewistania."

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Before calling other ambassadors names in IC, I want the clarification that this is intentionally trying to block the advancement of beneficial genetics as well, not merely blocking the elimination of ethnicities?

Because eugenics is specifically about making people better (like, think if we could eliminate diabetes - both type 1 and type 2 entirely, or make all future children immune to diarrhea viruses or malaria or HIV), NOT what people think it means (Nazi ideology of ethnical cleansing on genetical level). (EDIT: The allowed exception would not apply on genetic-level immunization against communicable diseases. Nor probably diabetes - type 1 is triggered by infection, type 2 is more or less an acquired metabolic disorder rather than "genetic disease".)

Calling all eugenics bad is like lumping all ethnic rights advancement groups into terrorists, simply because some terrorists use the same rights advancement ideology as a justification to their actions.

OOC: Just to be clear (for people in general, not just for you, because I don't think this is what you were saying) - this isn't banning genetic modification of sapient offspring; it's banning member states from forcing it onto people. So in that sense, yes, it is blocking "beneficial eugenics" if eugenics to you means these things are made mandatory. Note that there is now an exception for incentivising what you refer to as beneficial genetics.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15444
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:51 am

Maowi wrote:Note that there is now an exception for incentivising what you refer to as beneficial genetics.

OOC: Where? You only mention remedy of "genetic diseases" (whatever those are, since faulty genes usually cause disorders instead of diseases) in clause 1.

And why is discouragement banned in clause 2? You know that if you inherit sickle cell anemia gene from both parents, you suffer and then die, right? Why shouldn't a state be allowed to urge people with certain fatal-if-gotten-from-both-parents genetic issues to not reproduce naturally? That is, not banning them from reproducing, but encouraging to use embryo screening, for example. You give the exception for "remedy of genetic diseases" in clause 1, but not clause 2.
Last edited by Araraukar on Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:04 am

Araraukar wrote:
Maowi wrote:Note that there is now an exception for incentivising what you refer to as beneficial genetics.

OOC: Where? You only mention remedy of "genetic diseases" (whatever those are, since faulty genes usually cause disorders instead of diseases) in clause 1.

OOC: Okay, I edited the language in clause 1 so that it hopefully makes more sense now - thanks for the feedback.

And why is discouragement banned in clause 2? You know that if you inherit sickle cell anemia gene from both parents, you suffer and then die, right? Why shouldn't a state be allowed to urge people with certain fatal-if-gotten-from-both-parents genetic issues to not reproduce naturally? That is, not banning them from reproducing, but encouraging to use embryo screening, for example. You give the exception for "remedy of genetic diseases" in clause 1, but not clause 2.

I wouldn't consider carrying genes which could lead to genetic issues in offspring as an arbitrary categorisation. It would be a reasoned and practically sensible approach to take, not just plucked out of thin air, and as such I don't think the language in clause 2 forbids discouragement in those cases.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15444
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:21 am

OOC: Thank you for making it clearer.

Also I note that it currently only applies to the state and not, for example, doctors or other healthcare providers, or any other kind of private citizen, regardless of what authority they may have over reproducing individuals. It can become problematic given PRA allows parents to consent on the behalf of their minors.

Oh and could you please change the title to something like "Restrictions on Forced Eugenics" or something to make it more obvious that you're talking about stuff done without people's explicit consent. That is, you're not trying to ban a couple from using artificial fertilization or embryo screening or anything like that out of their own choice, but rather keep a government from banning blue-eyed people from breeding entirely and taking steps to ensure no blue-eyed kids will ever again be born?

Blue eyes used as an inoffensive example of a feature one can be born with.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:37 am

OOC: Title change done, good idea.

My original intent with this was particularly to make provisions against states employing eugenics to eliminate entire ethnic groups - like with your blue-eyed people example. I could probably include private citizens in this along with member states, but I'll give it some more thought.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15444
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:12 pm

Maowi wrote:OOC: I could probably include private citizens in this along with member states, but I'll give it some more thought.

OOC: Would make more sense that way, and as a Moral Decency proposal.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:46 pm

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Would make more sense that way, and as a Moral Decency proposal.

OOC: I've updated the draft with some provisions to do with that. Not 100% sure why it would work better as MD rather than civil rights, as it a) protects minorities etc. from despotic regimes and the like, and b) reserves to the individual the right to decide what happens to their body and to their offspring, in perhaps a similar vein to the prevention of forced sterilisation.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15444
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:34 am

OOC: I think it would work better if you used current clause 1 as a definition what's included under "forced eugenics" (keeping the exception), and then banned that unilaterally. If you ban it from being done by anyone and anything, then you don't need to specify states and businesses and individuals separately. And then at least it would work as MD. Or if you want to insisit on CR as category, doing the definiton the same way and then writing the mandate so that all individuals are free of it. (Sounds like that'd be a clumsier way of doing it than as a MD one, but I'll leave that decision to you.)
Last edited by Araraukar on Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:55 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: I think it would work better if you used current clause 1 as a definition what's included under "forced eugenics" (keeping the exception), and then banned that unilaterally. If you ban it from being done by anyone and anything, then you don't need to specify states and businesses and individuals separately. And then at least it would work as MD. Or if you want to insisit on CR as category, doing the definiton the same way and then writing the mandate so that all individuals are free of it. (Sounds like that'd be a clumsier way of doing it than as a MD one, but I'll leave that decision to you.)

OOC: I've edited the draft slightly to transfer all the "forcing/compelling/coercing" language to one place and have it apply to all entities rather than just individuals or governments, but I don't think it makes sense to lump absolutely all the provisions together - the "incentivising" and "discouraging" language which works on governments doesn't really work for individuals, I think.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Mon Jun 22, 2020 5:09 pm

OOC: I'm bumping this and would greatly appreciate more feedback.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Honeydewistania
Minister
 
Posts: 2714
Founded: Jun 09, 2017
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Honeydewistania » Mon Jun 22, 2020 5:14 pm

Maowi wrote:OOC: I'm bumping this and would greatly appreciate more feedback.

Looks pretty good in my opinion.
Ambassador to the WA: Benji Schubert Hepperle
Assistant to the Ambassador: Rekeil Wrigglesworth II
Official Coffee-fetcher and Masseuse: Jonathan Santos de Oliveira
Wonderess wrote:frankly someone I don’t want to see gain influence in NS and by extension TNP
Honeydewistania (Nation mostly does not represent real life views.)
Hell yeah I'm ancap... ANti-CAPitalist B)

Managing Director of Lazarus
The MT Army Warrior
Need me? Click here!
Biggest acheivement: Spelling

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7990
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Mon Jun 22, 2020 9:44 pm

Maowi wrote:compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian

What's the distinction, and why does that distinction matter?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Potted Plants United
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1031
Founded: Jan 14, 2013
Democratic Socialists

Postby Potted Plants United » Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:44 am

Tinhampton wrote:
Maowi wrote:compelling, forcing, or coercing a legal guardian

What's the distinction, and why does that distinction matter?

OOC: Not the author obviously, but to my understanding, "forcing" is basically forcefully sedating/strapping someone into a hospital bed and performing medical operations on them without their consent (or in more tech advanced societies, maybe forcefully injecting them with nanobots that do the job), "coercing" would be something like blackmailing or threatening to withhold state services from them if they refuse to alter the genetics of their embryo/fetus to prevent it having blue eyes when it grows up, and "compelling" would be like having a national law to compel all inhabitants to undergo the genetic alterations of their offspring to ensure certain genetic straits are not inherited/passed on by them.

In my understanding it just tries to block all possible loopholes.
Last edited by Potted Plants United on Tue Jun 23, 2020 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
This nation is a plant-based hivemind. It's current ambassador for interacting with humanoids is a bipedal plant creature standing at almost two metres tall. In IC in the WA.
My main nation is Araraukar.
Separatist Peoples wrote:"NOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPENOPE!"
- Mr. Bell, when introduced to PPU's newest moving plant

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Wed Jun 24, 2020 2:43 am

OOC: Yeah, I was just trying to cover all the ways around it that I could think of. "Forcing" to my mind at least is physically preventing a particular individual from avoiding the procedure, "compelling" is equivalent to mandating, more on a national level, and "coercing" includes threats, etc.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

User avatar
Maowi
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1164
Founded: Jan 07, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Maowi » Sun Jul 05, 2020 3:57 pm

OOC: Bump, I'd be very grateful for people's thoughts on this current version.

Author of GARs 457, 480, 486, 489, 508, and 537
Co-author of GARs 479 and 536, and SCR 341

Factbooks

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bhang Bhang Duc, Giant Bats

Advertisement

Remove ads