[DRAFT] Repeal: "GA#141 Permit Male Circumcision

[Kamchakta]

Disclaimer: I live in Asia so timezones will be different for most of you. I May not be able to reply immediately to fix and revise my resolution but I will change it according to the feedback and debate. Thank you.

The World Assembly,

EMPHASIZING this resolution is not to ban male circumcision but to repeal an outdated and authoritarian resolution which requires revision

While RECOGNIZING the intent behind the act in defining male circumcision and to protect the rights of individuals who wish to perform the procedure;

UNDERSTANDING male circumcision to be the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis, which may be performed for an increasingly wide range of medical and religious reasons;

SUPPORTING the classification that male circumcision is a medical procedure that individuals can undergo should they choose to do so,

However,

STATING that this body has greatly grown in size since the passing of the said resolution;

HIGHLIGHTING the increased cultural heterogeneity of nation-states in this assembly;

ACCENUATING that not all nations have such a cultural practice and some are against such body-altering practices;

DISAFFECTED by the last clause which "OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure"

Hence,

BELIEVING that the last clause is an afront to members national sovereignty;

CONVINCED that the last clause suppresses the multitude of cultures in this Assembly;

OF THE OPINION that nation-states have a right to ban the practice which the last clause prohibits,

Thus,

PRIMARILY objecting to the last clause's narrow outlook that was suitable for the time when it was passed and therefore maintaining that for the above reason, the World Assembly hereby repeals “Permit Male Circumcision”.

The World Assembly,

EMPHASIZING this resolution is not to ban male circumcision but to repeal an outdated resolution which requires revision;

RECOGNIZING the intent behind the act in defining male circumcision and to protect the rights of adult and consenting individuals who wish to perform the procedure;

UNDERSTANDING male circumcision to be the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the penis, which may be performed for an increasingly wide range of medical and religious reasons;

SUPPORTING the classification that male circumcision is a medical procedure that consenting adult individuals can undergo,

However,

STATING that this body has greatly grown in size since the passing of the said resolution;

HIGHLIGHTING the increased cultural heterogeneity of nation-states in this assembly;

ACCENUATING that not all nations have such a cultural practice and some are against such body-altering practices religiously or secularly;

WORRIED at no mention or clause of the procedure being performed on unconsenting minors;

CONCERNED about the medical issues, while low risk, that can result from these unnecessary procedures including infection and bleeding;

DISAFFECTED by the last clause which "OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure" which commands all nation-states to permit the practice,

Furthermore in accordance and contradiction of GA#114,

ASSERTING the point made "that cultural or religious identity or tradition is wholly inadequate justification for the barbaric mutilation of an individual's sexual organs without that individual's fully informed consent" should extend to male circumcision;

MAINTAINING that being "DEDICATED to the fundamental human rights of girls and women and to the bodily integrity and sovereignty to which every individual is entitled" should be inclusive of individuals with male orientation,

Hence,

CONVINCED that the last clause suppresses the multitude of cultures in this Assembly;

SHOCKED by the contradiction between previously passed resolutions lack of upholding those same protections on males;

APPALLED by the dangers posed by a redundant procedure;

BELIEVING that nation-states have a right to ban the practice, as the last clause of #141 prohibits,

Thus,

PRIMARILY objecting to the last clause's narrow outlook that was suitable for the time when it was passed and therefore maintaining that for the above reason, the World Assembly hereby repeals “Permit Male Circumcision”.[/box]

I would like opinions on this and if the argument holds weight. Any suggestions for improvement. I am new to this, so please be as critical and rigorous as possible in spotting errors or correcting me. Thank you.

Latest reworded and Co-authored with Tinhampton version

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

EMPHASIZING this resolution is to repeal an outdated resolution which requires revision;

RECOGNISING the good intentions of GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision" in seeking to define male circumcision, designate it as a medical procedure, and allow for men to be circumcised;

NOTING, however, that - as this august body's membership has doubled in size since the passage of the target resolution - so it has accordingly taken in nations with many different cultures, some of which are opposed to circumcision for religious or cultural reasons and others of which do not recognize the practice of male circumcision altogether;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the final clause of the target resolution requires all member states to legalize male circumcision, even though:

• the risks associated with the practice, such as infection and bleeding, are rare but not negligible;
• GA#141 does not explicitly forbid the circumcision of minors who cannot consent to the practice (or whose parents have refused consent to their offspring being circumcised); and
• previous [resolution=GA#114]international law[/resolution] has outlawed female genital mutilation (FGM), explicitly rejecting arguments of cultural and religious sovereignty in the process, on the basis that the right of every sapient being (including men) to bodily sovereignty supersedes such arguments; and

WORRIED that, even if members may be interested in forbidding circumcision for the same reasons that FGM is outlawed, they cannot currently do so - and clarifying that this repeal will not require member states to outlaw male circumcision, although hopeful that a better settlement can be struck with the passage of future legislation;

Hence,

DISAFFECTED by the last clause which "OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure" which commands all nation-states to permit the practice,

CONVINCED that the last clause suppresses the multitude of cultures in this Assembly;

HIGHLIGHTING the contradiction between previously passed resolutions and the lack of upholding those same protections for males;

APPALLED by the dangers posed by the procedure,

HEREBY REPEALS GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision."

[Honeydewistania]

Welcome to GA.

Firstly, you should post the whole text in the thread.

Secondly, you do not need to include the null and void part. That is automatic in all repeals.

Thirdly, you have NatSov arguments, which are generally frowned upon in the GA. Think of something better.

I am for a repeal in principle, but this needs more work.

[Kamchakta]

Okay, I just spotted a mistake myself, if I support that the procedure is one that individuals can go for, then why do I support a nation's ban on it. I think I should emphasize the point that not all nations have such a practice and hence do not have the preconceived idea and justification of its health effects and can ban it. Also, defending the rights of secular and religious nations (regarding religions that see such body-alteration as a sin)

[Kamchakta]

Welcome to GA.

Firstly, you should post the whole text in the thread.

Secondly, you do not need to include the null and void part. That is automatic in all repeals.

Thirdly, you have NatSov arguments, which are generally frowned upon in the GA. Think of something better.

I am for a repeal in principle, but this needs more work.

I agree now that I think of it, if not everything can be repealed with National Sovereignty reasons. haha. I will put the entire thing up too

[Isaris]

BELIEVING that nation-states have a right to ban the practice which the last clause prohibits

OOC: The way this reads it sounds like it's saying you're giving nations the right to ban "the practice the last clause prohibits", but as you know, the last clause of the target does not prohibit male circumcision. It of course prohibits banning it, which is what you're trying to say.

I would suggest "to ban the practice, as the last clause of #141 prohibits" or something similar to that. It reads more clearly and gets your desired point across better.

[Tinhampton]

Simply because you take out a single explicitly NatSov argument does not suddenly mean that your draft is now free of all implicit NatSov arguments.

[Kenmoria]

“I am very much up for a repeal of GA #141, and regard it as one of the most troubling pieces of legislation passed by this assembly. However, this proposal chooses to focus on a very weak argument, namely national and cultural sovereignty, over a multitude of others.

For example, you can mention the right to bodily sovereignty previously protected by numerous resolutions passed by this assembly as being violated on the infant’s part.”

[Honeydewistania]

“I am very much up for a repeal of GA #141, and regard it as one of the most troubling pieces of legislation passed by this assembly. However, this proposal chooses to focus on a very weak argument, namely national and cultural sovereignty, over a multitude of others.

For example, you can mention the right to bodily sovereignty previously protected by numerous resolutions passed by this assembly as being violated on the infant’s part.”

"I concur with the Kenmorian ambassador"

[WayNeacTia]

Simply because you take out a single explicitly NatSov argument does not suddenly mean that your draft is now free of all implicit NatSov arguments.

Having NatSov arguments are perfectly legal. The rule clearly states the the argument cannot be purely NatSov.

[Kamchakta]

“I am very much up for a repeal of GA #141, and regard it as one of the most troubling pieces of legislation passed by this assembly. However, this proposal chooses to focus on a very weak argument, namely national and cultural sovereignty, over a multitude of others.

For example, you can mention the right to bodily sovereignty previously protected by numerous resolutions passed by this assembly as being violated on the infant’s part.”

Thank you for the insight, I shall be looking into previous GAs defending bodily sovereignty to shore up my argument.

Simply because you take out a single explicitly NatSov argument does not suddenly mean that your draft is now free of all implicit NatSov arguments.

Thank you for helping me. I see your point and will try to steer clear of NatSov arguments.

[Kamchakta]

Simply because you take out a single explicitly NatSov argument does not suddenly mean that your draft is now free of all implicit NatSov arguments.

Having NatSov arguments are perfectly legal. The rule clearly states the the argument cannot be purely NatSov.

Thank you for the input too. I will try to make that not my main point though ^_^

[Honeydewistania]

Simply because you take out a single explicitly NatSov argument does not suddenly mean that your draft is now free of all implicit NatSov arguments.

Having NatSov arguments are perfectly legal. The rule clearly states the the argument cannot be purely NatSov.

No one said NatSov is illegal. It’s just bad points

[WayNeacTia]

Having NatSov arguments are perfectly legal. The rule clearly states the the argument cannot be purely NatSov.

No one said NatSov is illegal. It’s just bad points

Perhaps you should read Tinhamptons comment again. Also NatSov arguments are not bad. They just need to be worded correctly.

[Kamchakta]

Should this be just for repeal or should the repeal have actions that need to be taken by nations? Eg to protect minors. It should not be, right? That should come in another resolution in a revision of a repealed res.

[Kamchakta]

I have updated it to have 3 arguments

1) Cultural

2) Violation of rights and what the GA has previously defended

3) Health risks associated with the procedure

I fear I have not articulated or worded it well enough though, in terms of vocabulary and structure. Feel free to critique once again ^_^

[Ardiveds]

Should this be just for repeal or should the repeal have actions that need to be taken by nations? Eg to protect minors. It should not be, right? That should come in another resolution in a revision of a repealed res.

OOC: Legislating in a repeal in illegal. A repeal can only repeal a particular resolution.
IC: "We believe there is nothing wrong with preventing nations from banning something solely based on religious reasons. Religion is usually unreasonable and laws based on religion are also usually unreasonable. After all, this very assembly voted to prevent nations from banning abortion, often considered 'sinful' by many religions. However if the resolution also allows forced circumcision of minors, we most definitely would support this repeal"
--- Kaiser

[Tinhampton]

Proposed rewording - as ever, do with this as you feel, but please cite Tinhampton as a co-author if you choose to use all (or a significant part of) this. That [resolution] tag will work if/when you submit it gameside:

Co-authored with Tinhampton.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

RECOGNISING the good intentions of GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision" in seeking to define male circumcision, designate it as a medical procedure, and allow for consenting adult men to be circumcised;

NOTING, however, that - as this august body's membership has doubled in size since the passage of the target resolution - so it has accordingly taken in nations with many different cultures, some of which are opposed to circumcision for religious or cultural reasons and others of which do not recognise the practice of male circumcision altogether;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the final clause of the target resolution requires all member states to legalise male circumcision, even though:

• the risks associated with the practice, such as infection and bleeding, are rare but not negligible;
• GA#141 does not explicitly forbid the circumcision of minors who cannot consent to the practice (or whose parents have refused consent to their offspring being circumcised); and
• previous [resolution=GA#114]international law[/resolution] has outlawed female genital mutilation (FGM), explicitly rejecting arguments of cultural and religious sovereignty in the process, on the basis that the right of every sapient being (including men) to bodily sovereignty supercedes such arguments; and

WORRIED that, even if members may be interested in forbidding circumcision for the same reasons that FGM is outlawed, they cannot currently do so - and clarifying that this repeal will not require member states to outlaw male circumcision, although hopeful that a better settlement can be struck with the passage of future legislation:

HEREBY REPEALS GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision."

For future reference, repeals can only repeal; they cannot legislate to do anything other than repeal a certain named resolution.

[Kamchakta]

Proposed rewording - as ever, do with this as you feel, but please cite Tinhampton as a co-author if you choose to use all (or a significant part of) this. That [resolution] tag will work if/when you submit it gameside:

Co-authored with Tinhampton.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

RECOGNISING the good intentions of GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision" in seeking to define male circumcision, designate it as a medical procedure, and allow for consenting adult men to be circumcised;

NOTING, however, that - as this august body's membership has doubled in size since the passage of the target resolution - so it has accordingly taken in nations with many different cultures, some of which are opposed to circumcision for religious or cultural reasons and others of which do not recognise the practice of male circumcision altogether;

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the final clause of the target resolution requires all member states to legalise male circumcision, even though:

• the risks associated with the practice, such as infection and bleeding, are rare but not negligible;
• GA#141 does not explicitly forbid the circumcision of minors who cannot consent to the practice (or whose parents have refused consent to their offspring being circumcised); and
• previous [resolution=GA#114]international law[/resolution] has outlawed female genital mutilation (FGM), explicitly rejecting arguments of cultural and religious sovereignty in the process, on the basis that the right of every sapient being (including men) to bodily sovereignty supercedes such arguments; and

WORRIED that, even if members may be interested in forbidding circumcision for the same reasons that FGM is outlawed, they cannot currently do so - and clarifying that this repeal will not require member states to outlaw male circumcision, although hopeful that a better settlement can be struck with the passage of future legislation:

HEREBY REPEALS GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision."

For future reference, repeals can only repeal; they cannot legislate to do anything other than repeal a certain named resolution.

Much more succinct and delivers the point very well. I will put it up at the front for people to comment and look at and I will be happy for you to be a co-author.

I'll leave the discussion open for a while more before putting anything up to get more opinions and suggestions. Thank you ^_^

[Kamchakta]

Should this be just for repeal or should the repeal have actions that need to be taken by nations? Eg to protect minors. It should not be, right? That should come in another resolution in a revision of a repealed res.

OOC: Legislating in a repeal in illegal. A repeal can only repeal a particular resolution.
IC: "We believe there is nothing wrong with preventing nations from banning something solely based on religious reasons. Religion is usually unreasonable and laws based on religion are also usually unreasonable. After all, this very assembly voted to prevent nations from banning abortion, often considered 'sinful' by many religions. However if the resolution also allows forced circumcision of minors, we most definitely would support this repeal"
--- Kaiser

That has come across my mind a few times too.

However, I feel the resolution needs to be repealed because it misses out many things such as grey areas on circumcision of minors with no consent and while the resolution does not necessarily force such acts, these grey areas can create reasons and pathways to doing said practice of forced circumcision on minors. Also, the reason above in the newly worded GA resolution has a good point on some nations seeing it as AKIN to FGM and wanting to ban it and have no pathway to doing so.

[Kenmoria]

“You have ‘recognising’ in the second clause but ‘recognize’ in the third. I recommend sticking to one spelling or the other. I am very much in support of this new draft.”

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Sigh...these things are always so flipping tiresome...

EMPHASIZING this resolution is to repeal an outdated resolution which requires revision;

Oh, yes. The entire Muslim world, Jewish communities across the globe, large swathes of the British Commonwealth, and especially the third most populous country on Earth -- still do not, by and large, find the concept of male circumcision offensive, yet in retaining this resolution somehow it's the World Assembly that is bizarrely "behind the times."

(Hold off on that impulse to post some lame NS != RL retort now; the NS world also contains numerous Muslim, Jewish and British-heritage states.)

RECOGNISING the good intentions of GA#141 "Permit Male Circumcision" in seeking to define male circumcision, designate it as a medical procedure, and allow for men to be circumcised;

Why, oh why, must every repeal incorporate the standard boilerplate "the author had good intentions" filler line -- when everybody knows it means precisely nothing?

NOTING, however, that - as this august body's membership has doubled in size since the passage of the target resolution - so it has accordingly taken in nations with many different cultures, some of which are opposed to circumcision for religious or cultural reasons and others of which do not recognize the practice of male circumcision altogether;

Yeah...larger does not equal more diverse. I can easily triple the size of a 50-member college biology class by inviting in 100 more white guys -- that would actually make the group less diverse. At any rate, there were already "many different cultures" represented in the WA before, and they still collectively decided this resolution was a good idea.

DEEPLY CONCERNED that the final clause of the target resolution requires all member states to legalize male circumcision, even though:
- the risks associated with the practice, such as infection and bleeding, are rare but not negligible;

There are risks associated with any surgical procedure; doesn't mean we ban them all.

- GA#141 does not explicitly forbid the circumcision of minors who cannot consent to the practice (or whose parents have refused consent to their offspring being circumcised); and

No, but together with Patients Rights Act it does allow you to forbid it in your own nation. Isn't that good enough? Aren't all these "many different societies" in the WA entitled to make up their own minds?

- previous [resolution=GA#114]international law[/resolution] has outlawed female genital mutilation (FGM), explicitly rejecting arguments of cultural and religious sovereignty in the process, on the basis that the right of every sapient being (including men) to bodily sovereignty supersedes such arguments; and

A cruel and barbaric, not to mention massively misogynistic, practice is banned, whereas a much simpler and (comparatively) more compassionate practice is not. So?

WORRIED that, even if members may be interested in forbidding circumcision for the same reasons that FGM is outlawed, they cannot currently do so

Yes they can. PRA makes it quite clear that nations can still ban infant circumcision, and thus, this resolution only expressly protects voluntary circumcision requested by a consenting adult.

clarifying that this repeal will not require member states to outlaw male circumcision, although hopeful that a better settlement can be struck with the passage of future legislation;

So, the repeal won't make you do anything you don't want to do, but the replacement resolution might. Oh, what to do, what to do?

DISAFFECTED by the last clause which "OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure" which commands all nation-states to permit the practice,

Only on a voluntary basis.

CONVINCED that the last clause suppresses the multitude of cultures in this Assembly;

No it does not.

HIGHLIGHTING the contradiction between previously passed resolutions and the lack of upholding those same protections for males;

*snort!* "Men's rights." Always a winning argument.

APPALLED by the dangers posed by the procedure,

The ones you admitted before were minor and rare?

Better luck next time.

[Morover]

CONVINCED that the last clause suppresses the multitude of cultures in this Assembly;

"This is not true - in fact, it's the opposite. See GAR#29, clause seven. I am supportive of a repeal of this, but I feel that cultural rights are not necessarily the way to go with this."

[Stellar Colonies]

"The Confederacy is obeying this resolution with the caveat that it is disallowed, except for cases involving medical necessity, for those under the age of consent based on the principle of bodily autonomy. Considering other nations may not be doing the same, and recognizing that as a violation of the patient's rights if they were not capable of consent, we would be fully in favor of repealing and replacing this proposal with an alternative which specifically banned it below a reasonable age of consent, minus cases of medical necessity in which all other less drastic options are insufficient."

"The Confederacy also does not regard the religious argument in favor of infant circumcision as valid, considering that it allows religious rights to violate basic human rights. Other religious practices or rules involving more or less drastic violations of what we consider to be human rights have been removed or altered to prevent such violations, and we consider infant circumcision to be more of the same."

[Ardiveds]

...

That has come across my mind a few times too.

However, I feel the resolution needs to be repealed because it misses out many things such as grey areas on circumcision of minors with no consent and while the resolution does not necessarily force such acts, these grey areas can create reasons and pathways to doing said practice of forced circumcision on minors. Also, the reason above in the newly worded GA resolution has a good point on some nations seeing it as AKIN to FGM and wanting to ban it and have no pathway to doing so.

"True the grey areas are concerning. However ambassador, your argument on deterioration of culture has one major flaw: there are cultures/religions out there that specifically practice involuntary circumcision of minors. Now please tell us, ambassador, how would it not be detrimental to their culture or religion if this assembly were to ban involuntary circumcision of minors just as you say forcing everyone to legalise circumcision is detrimental to the culture or religion of those who don't believe in it? This is why we believe the cultural sovereignty argument is a flawed one. Though we shall still support the repeal regardless."

[Isaris]

That has come across my mind a few times too.

However, I feel the resolution needs to be repealed because it misses out many things such as grey areas on circumcision of minors with no consent and while the resolution does not necessarily force such acts, these grey areas can create reasons and pathways to doing said practice of forced circumcision on minors. Also, the reason above in the newly worded GA resolution has a good point on some nations seeing it as AKIN to FGM and wanting to ban it and have no pathway to doing so.

"True the grey areas are concerning. However ambassador, your argument on deterioration of culture has one major flaw: there are cultures/religions out there that specifically practice involuntary circumcision of minors. Now please tell us, ambassador, how would it not be detrimental to their culture or religion if this assembly were to ban involuntary circumcision of minors just as you say forcing everyone to legalise circumcision is detrimental to the culture or religion of those who don't believe in it? This is why we believe the cultural sovereignty argument is a flawed one. Though we shall still support the repeal regardless."

"Ambassador, this body has asserted in GA#144 'that cultural or religious identity or tradition is wholly inadequate justification for the barbaric mutilation of an individual's sexual organs without that individual's fully informed consent'. Isaris fails to see how the involuntary circumcision of male minors differs in any way from the same of female minors, or anyone else for that matter. Isaris is more than willing to accommodate the religious and cultural rights of its adult citizens; however, we will not allow minors within our nation, who are incapable of providing informed consent on their own, to be subjected to major, lifelong alterations of their sexual organs. The argument is not flawed."