Page 4 of 5

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:19 pm
by Kenmoria
La xinga wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It’s very possible to argue that OOC, since circumcision is a part of Judaism in real life. Also, from an IC perspective, there are religions that do practice circumcision. Complicating the matter is the fact that some nations have Judaism as part of their canon, despite the fact that mentioning Judaism in a proposal would make that legislation illegal for RL reference.

When it comes to roleplay, the whole thing’s a grey area because everyone has their own canons. However, overall, antisemitism can generally be mentioned in General Assembly debates.)

OOC: So it's a whole mess?

(OOC: Roleplay as a whole is a total mess. There are nations with magic and aliens sat next to nations with 1960s era-tech and nothing else. Antisemitism is a valid criticism to lob at proposals in a GA context, because Judaism does exist in at least some canons, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for a proposal or repeal. Instead, a piece of legislation would have to use much more general terms.)

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:22 pm
by La xinga
Kenmoria wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: So it's a whole mess?

(OOC: Roleplay as a whole is a total mess. There are nations with magic and aliens sat next to nations with 1960s era-tech and nothing else. Antisemitism is a valid criticism to lob at proposals in a GA context, because Judaism does exist in at least some canons, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for a proposal or repeal. Instead, a piece of legislation would have to use much more general terms.)

Like what kind of more general terms?

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:50 pm
by United Massachusetts
La xinga wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Roleplay as a whole is a total mess. There are nations with magic and aliens sat next to nations with 1960s era-tech and nothing else. Antisemitism is a valid criticism to lob at proposals in a GA context, because Judaism does exist in at least some canons, but shouldn’t be used as a basis for a proposal or repeal. Instead, a piece of legislation would have to use much more general terms.)

Like what kind of more general terms?

Noting that several world religions practised in WA member states treat the circumcision of infants as a vital ritual,

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:18 pm
by La xinga
United Massachusetts wrote:
La xinga wrote:Like what kind of more general terms?

Noting that several world religions practised in WA member states treat the circumcision of infants as a vital ritual,

Yet completely ignored xD

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:30 pm
by Desmosthenes and Burke
Kenmoria wrote:[snip]despite the fact that mentioning Judaism in a proposal would make that legislation illegal for RL reference.


Has GenSec squarely said that, because that is not how I read the rule:

Rules, emphasis added wrote:Real World Reference: WA laws are written for the world of NationStates and the fictional countries therein, so your proposal should not contain any real world references. This includes but is not limited to, world leaders, real world persons, places, organizations and/or events. Generic references, however, are permitted, such as religions, political philosophies, languages, general scientific terminology, and phenomena.


Given how the rule is phrased, it seems to me it is giving an ok to make generic references to Judaism, Christianity, Islam, et al.

Sorry for the aside, but this has annoyed me several times now.

For the proposal itself, UM adequately presents what I would say.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 17, 2020 6:46 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
Mentioning the names of religions has been okayed in the past. viewtopic.php?p=1210525#p1210525

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:18 pm
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
Quintus decided to contribute to this conversation. "Well," he said, "since we heard that this proposal would interfere with Jewish religious practices, we decided to inform ourselves on the Jewish religion. We found that this religion contained," placing emphasis on the -ed, "a number of practices that are incompatible with generally accepted standards of decency and with Resolutions previously enacted by this Assembly. These include executions for a wide range of offenses, if they can be properly called by that name, such as homosexuality, performing work on the seventh day of the week, and rebelliousness towards one's parents. However, over time, the Jewish religion renounced or significantly modified many of its practices in response to changing standards of decency. Since the circumcision of an infant violates that infant's bodily sovereignty, which this General Assembly holds to be a fundamental right, even at the expense of offending religious sensibilities, a prohibition of infant circumcision would not be an undue imposition upon the Jewish religion. We think that the Jewish people are capable of finding some alternative to their current practice of infant circumcision, just as they have had to seek alternatives to pre-existing practices throughout their history."

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:22 pm
by United Massachusetts
Desmosthenes and Burke wrote:For the proposal itself, UM adequately presents what I would say.

I am painfully adequate, yes.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 5:24 pm
by La xinga
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:Quintus decided to contribute to this conversation. "Well," he said, "since we heard that this proposal would interfere with Jewish religious practices, we decided to inform ourselves on the Jewish religion. We found that this religion contained," placing emphasis on the -ed, "a number of practices that are incompatible with generally accepted standards of decency and with Resolutions previously enacted by this Assembly. These include executions for a wide range of offenses, if they can be properly called by that name, such as homosexuality, performing work on the seventh day of the week, and rebelliousness towards one's parents. However, over time, the Jewish religion renounced or significantly modified many of its practices in response to changing standards of decency. Since the circumcision of an infant violates that infant's bodily sovereignty, which this General Assembly holds to be a fundamental right, even at the expense of offending religious sensibilities, a prohibition of infant circumcision would not be an undue imposition upon the Jewish religion. We think that the Jewish people are capable of finding some alternative to their current practice of infant circumcision, just as they have had to seek alternatives to pre-existing practices throughout their history."

OOC: 1. Most Orthodox Jews are against homosexuality.
2. Is that bad?
3. They say to not do it.
4. Orthodox Jews didn't renounce or modify anything.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:00 pm
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
OOC: I'm not sure what points 2 and 3 address.

La xinga wrote:OOC: 1. Most Orthodox Jews are against homosexuality.

Luckily, the GA doesn't allow them to legislate against it.

4. Orthodox Jews didn't renounce or modify anything.

They did, starting with the implementation of rabbinical Judaism and continuing with everything thereafter.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:04 pm
by La xinga
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:OOC: I'm not sure what points 2 and 3 address.

La xinga wrote:OOC: 1. Most Orthodox Jews are against homosexuality.

Luckily, the GA doesn't allow them to legislate against it.

4. Orthodox Jews didn't renounce or modify anything.

They did, starting with the implementation of rabbinical Judaism and continuing with everything thereafter.

OOC: 1. Luckily? Isn't that a matter of opinion?
2. Like, what did they modify?

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:12 pm
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
La xinga wrote:OOC: 1. Luckily? Isn't that a matter of opinion?

Yes, luckily. I wouldn't want for an Orthodox Jew to impose his or her views of homosexuality on the law.

2. Like, what did they modify?

Rabbis have issued numerous rulings over the centuries. Rabbi Gershom ben Judah, for example, outlawed polygamy and the reading of other people's mail. Since the Jews of Yemen never heard of Gershom, they continued to practice polygamy and brought it to modern Israel, which outlawed polygamy but allowed existing polygamous marriages.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:13 pm
by La xinga
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: 1. Luckily? Isn't that a matter of opinion?

Yes, luckily. I wouldn't want for an Orthodox Jew to impose his or her views of homosexuality on the law.

2. Like, what did they modify?

Rabbis have issued numerous rulings over the centuries. Rabbi Gershom ben Judah, for example, outlawed polygamy and the reading of other people's mail. Since the Jews of Yemen never heard of Gershom, they continued to practice polygamy and brought it to modern Israel, which outlawed polygamy but allowed existing polygamous marriages.

1. Why? And this law, or the "Affordable THT" law?
2. That's making it stricter, not loosening restrictions.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2020 6:15 pm
by Cisairse
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:Observing that in its 114th Resolution, this General Assembly requires its member nations to prohibit female circumcision,

noting that male circumcision, like female circumcision, is a violation of bodily autonomy when performed without the subject's informed consent, and

asserting that bodily autonomy is one of the most fundamental rights of sentient beings,

this General Assembly hereby proclaims the following:

  1. Male circumcision and circumcision of males shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and executing the terms of this Resolution, as irrevocable or potentially irrevocable modifications made to the male sexual organs.

  2. The above definition does not include sex change procedures, or procedures whose purpose is to alter an individual's sexual organs in order to reflect their gender identity. Such operations shall fall under the purview of other Resolutions.

  3. The member nations of this World Assembly must permit the circumcision of males of legal majority who have provided their informed consent to such a procedure.

  4. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the circumcision of males of legal minority, except in cases where it is medically necessary. In such cases, the member nations of this World Assembly shall permit male circumcision.

  5. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the act of traveling abroad to perform male circumcision that they must prohibit under the terms of this Resolution.

  6. The member nations of this World Assembly must impose such penalties as are necessary to deter male circumcision that they must prohibit under the terms of this Resolution.

  7. This World Assembly believes that the right to bodily autonomy takes precedence over the right to practice religious or cultural traditions.

Observing that this General Assembly has already outlawed female genital mutilation in its 114th Resolution,

noting that this General Assembly has not outlawed male genital mutilation,

believing that male genital mutilation is no less egregious than female genital mutilation, and therefore

seeking to eliminate any discrepancy between the legal statūs of male genital mutilation and female genital mutilation,

the World Assembly hereby proclaims the following:

  1. Male genital mutilation shall be defined, for the purpose of interpreting and applying the terms of this Resolution, as the removal of any part of the penis, including the foreskin.

  2. The member nations of this World Assembly must prohibit the male genital mutilation of those who have not reached the age of majority, except in cases where doing so is medically necessary.


  3. The member nations of this World Assembly must prosecute and punish male genital mutilation to the same extent as they do female genital mutilation.

  4. The World Health Authority must campaign against male genital mutilation, especially in member nations of this World Assembly where it is a common practice.


The delegation of Cisairse supports this resolution.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:00 am
by Ardiveds
La xinga wrote:
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:OOC: I'm not sure what points 2 and 3 address.


Luckily, the GA doesn't allow them to legislate against it.


They did, starting with the implementation of rabbinical Judaism and continuing with everything thereafter.

OOC: 1. Luckily? Isn't that a matter of opinion?
2. Like, what did they modify?

OOC: How is homophobia anymore a matter of opinion than antisemitism or Islamophobia?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:07 am
by Aclion
Liberimery wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: A total ban on even voluntary circumcision would of course be antisemitic. However, this draft only bans involuntary circumcision and therefore cannot be reasonably argued to constitute a religiously-discriminatory piece of legislation. The focus here is not on prohibiting a religious practice but on upholding the right to bodily sovereignty.)


(The custom in the Jewish faith is symbolic of God’s pact with Abraham. While it is traditionally believed that Abraham was 99 years old when he was circumcised, the procedure occurs days after the birth of a male child and is a major celebration for the family. Of the child akin to baptism in some sex’s of Christianity (notably Catholicism which traditionally holds the sacrament about a month after the birth). In addition circumcision is also practiced in some sects of other Abrahamic religions but Judaism is notable as the practice occurs in all major secs.

Thus by not allowing the religious exception, a ban is anti-semetic by its vary nature, as the religion dictates it must be done early in a boy’s life.)

I'd like to point out that the "my religion requires this" argument can be used to object to literally anything. It's basically natsov.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 4:35 am
by La xinga
Ardiveds wrote:
La xinga wrote:OOC: 1. Luckily? Isn't that a matter of opinion?
2. Like, what did they modify?

OOC: How is homophobia anymore a matter of opinion than antisemitism or Islamophobia?

OOC: What?

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 7:33 am
by Pope Saint Peter the Apostle
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:Quintus decided to contribute to this conversation. "Well," he said, "since we heard that this proposal would interfere with Jewish religious practices, we decided to inform ourselves on the Jewish religion. We found that this religion contained," placing emphasis on the -ed, "a number of practices that are incompatible with generally accepted standards of decency and with Resolutions previously enacted by this Assembly. These include executions for a wide range of offenses, if they can be properly called by that name, such as homosexuality, performing work on the seventh day of the week, and rebelliousness towards one's parents. However, over time, the Jewish religion renounced or significantly modified many of its practices in response to changing standards of decency. Since the circumcision of an infant violates that infant's bodily sovereignty, which this General Assembly holds to be a fundamental right, even at the expense of offending religious sensibilities, a prohibition of infant circumcision would not be an undue imposition upon the Jewish religion. We think that the Jewish people are capable of finding some alternative to their current practice of infant circumcision, just as they have had to seek alternatives to pre-existing practices throughout their history."

Ambassador, with all due respect, the effrontery to claim that a non-Jew can just tell the Jews that a fundamental part of Judaism - circumcision - can just be changed is objectionable. Furthermore, as I hope you are aware, claiming that Judaism traditionally required the death penalty for homosexuality based on the Bible, while ignoring the teachings of the Oral Torah, which effectively prevented any death penalty for homosexual intercourse to ever take place, is ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst.

I would note that you are yet to explain why you single out male circumcision - which is in fact medically beneficial - instead of also targeting procedures like orthodontic treatments for cosmetic purposes. You also did not address the fact that benefits decresed and risks increase if men have to circumcise at a later age.

It is also interesting that some people that would support abortion on the grounds that I'd otherwise be done illegally do support this proposal, while circumcision can in fact also happen illegally.

--Saint Luke the Envangelist, patron of the physicians and surgeons
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2020 8:39 pm
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
"Are there any objections to this proposal that have yet to be stated?" asked Quintus.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 21, 2020 5:19 am
by La xinga
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:"Are there any objections to this proposal that have yet to be stated?" asked Quintus.

Yes?

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:14 pm
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
"All of the objections to this proposal, it seems, relate to its objectives per se, as opposed to its ability to fulfill these objectives. In light of this, our intention is to submit this proposal within a few days. If anyone would like to state any objections between now and then, they should do so promptly."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:20 pm
by La xinga
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:"All of the objections to this proposal, it seems, relate to its objectives per se, as opposed to its ability to fulfill these objectives. In light of this, our intention is to submit this proposal within a few days. If anyone would like to state any objections between now and then, they should do so promptly."

You didn't respond to:
Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:Quintus decided to contribute to this conversation. "Well," he said, "since we heard that this proposal would interfere with Jewish religious practices, we decided to inform ourselves on the Jewish religion. We found that this religion contained," placing emphasis on the -ed, "a number of practices that are incompatible with generally accepted standards of decency and with Resolutions previously enacted by this Assembly. These include executions for a wide range of offenses, if they can be properly called by that name, such as homosexuality, performing work on the seventh day of the week, and rebelliousness towards one's parents. However, over time, the Jewish religion renounced or significantly modified many of its practices in response to changing standards of decency. Since the circumcision of an infant violates that infant's bodily sovereignty, which this General Assembly holds to be a fundamental right, even at the expense of offending religious sensibilities, a prohibition of infant circumcision would not be an undue imposition upon the Jewish religion. We think that the Jewish people are capable of finding some alternative to their current practice of infant circumcision, just as they have had to seek alternatives to pre-existing practices throughout their history."

Ambassador, with all due respect, the effrontery to claim that a non-Jew can just tell the Jews that a fundamental part of Judaism - circumcision - can just be changed is objectionable. Furthermore, as I hope you are aware, claiming that Judaism traditionally required the death penalty for homosexuality based on the Bible, while ignoring the teachings of the Oral Torah, which effectively prevented any death penalty for homosexual intercourse to ever take place, is ignorant at best, and dishonest at worst.

I would note that you are yet to explain why you single out male circumcision - which is in fact medically beneficial - instead of also targeting procedures like orthodontic treatments for cosmetic purposes. You also did not address the fact that benefits decresed and risks increase if men have to circumcise at a later age.

It is also interesting that some people that would support abortion on the grounds that I'd otherwise be done illegally do support this proposal, while circumcision can in fact also happen illegally.

--Saint Luke the Envangelist, patron of the physicians and surgeons
Senior membrum, Sanctus Commissio Sancti Imperii

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:44 pm
by Lucius Caecilius Iucundus
"Once again, this is a matter of principle. We have entertained the idea that banning child circumcision is wrong and rejected that idea."

PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 9:50 pm
by Honeydewistania
Lucius Caecilius Iucundus wrote:"All of the objections to this proposal, it seems, relate to its objectives per se, as opposed to its ability to fulfill these objectives. In light of this, our intention is to submit this proposal within a few days. If anyone would like to state any objections between now and then, they should do so promptly."

You can’t submit this without the repeal of Permit Male Circumsicion. Draft one or get whoever drafted one before to submit theirs

PostPosted: Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:06 am
by Kenmoria
“Clause VII seems as though it would be better placed in the preamble. Speaking of which, the first letters of each preambulatory clause should be capitalised. Also, there’s no need to capitalise ‘resolution’ every time it appears.”