NATION

PASSWORD

[DRAFT #2b] Freedom of dress

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7984
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

[DRAFT #2b] Freedom of dress

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Jan 16, 2021 5:53 pm

Character count: 1,391
Word count: 217
IC: Please take up your quibbles with Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of Delegate-Ambassador.

OOC1: This was written last summer but has only now been published. I do, however, urge you to look hither and thither.
OOC2: I would assume that a mask mandate (as we know it) would fall under the exemption/s in Article b(ii).
Image
Freedom of dress
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.
Category: Civil Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Tinhampton

Aware that clothing - as well as occasionally serving to express one's beliefs - can also sometimes function simply as items of personal convenience, and

Condemning the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states...

The General Assembly hereby:
  1. reserves to the individual member states the matter of whether to permit the wearing of clothes, and
  2. requires those member states choosing to allow clothing to also forbid the imposition of any restriction on what clothing any of their inhabitants may wear, unless doing so is:
    1. a requirement of prior and standing international law, or of future international law regarding hate speech,
    2. necessary to preserve the health of its wearer or of the general public,
    3. necessary to ensure that members of the general public do not wilfully impersonate on-duty members of militaries or national emergency services, or
    4. a result of an employer prescribing a uniform for their employees or a school prescribing a uniform for their pupils; so as long as such restrictions do not forbid individuals from wearing, nor require individuals to wear, any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic.


Draft 2 (897ch, 140w): mostly as Draft 2b, except without Articles b(iii-iv).
Aware that clothing - as well as occasionally serving to express one's beliefs - can also sometimes function simply as items of personal convenience, and

Condemning the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states...

The General Assembly hereby:
  1. reserves to the individual member states the matter of whether to permit the wearing of clothes, and
  2. requires those member states choosing to allow clothing to also forbid the imposition of any restriction on what clothing any of their inhabitants may wear, unless that restriction:
    1. is a requirement of prior and standing international law, or of future international law regarding hate speech,
    2. is made in the interests of national security, or
    3. is necessary to preserve public morals, the health of its wearer, or the health of the general public.
[/list]
Last edited by Tinhampton on Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:51 pm, edited 6 times in total.
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
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1704
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:33 pm

First, this is nothing more than a solution looking for a problem. Second, I don’t know why you would even bother. People are going to vote it down, based upon you being the author, and I can assure you, I am not an exception to that.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6531
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Sun Jan 17, 2021 4:41 am

“This appears to ban, among other things, schools having a set uniform policy for students. People have disagreements over this regularly, but I don’t think the long arm of the WA needs to wade in. In fact, I’m not certain this is an issue requiring the WA at all.”
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
Desmosthenes and Burke
Envoy
 
Posts: 342
Founded: Oct 07, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Desmosthenes and Burke » Sun Jan 17, 2021 8:39 am

This resolution is as offensive and unnecessary as it is toothless.

OOC:

Article b(iii) is worded in such a way as to render the resolution entirely incapable of addressing:
the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states


Specifically "public morals" is a very loaded term that can and does mean drastically different things to otherwise reasonable people and is entirely meaningless without being tied to some system of morality. Something tells me what I consider appropriate restrictions in the name of "public morals" is going to be VERY drastically different from yours.
香港加油!林郑月娥一定要去!自由香港万岁!五毛回家!| Carrie Lam must go! Long Live Free Hong Kong | La France pour les Français et Ceux Qu'en Veut Devenir Un.

User avatar
Scalizagasti
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 147
Founded: Jun 15, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Scalizagasti » Mon Jan 18, 2021 5:41 pm

"The exceptions in this resolution are quite poorly defined, meaning that there are plenty of loopholes which member states could exploit. For example, it is unclear what constitutes a national security threat with respect to clothing. For example, could a country not claim that hoodies are a national security threat because a criminal could conceal their identity from cameras using such clothing? Or, would it not be simple for clothing from cultural and religious minorities groups to be banned on the basis of public morals and social cohesion?"
Scalizagasti | iiwiki page | he/him

Overseer of the Assembly in the United Regions Alliance (URA)
Senator in Mariner Trench
Former President of The Great Experiment

Don't let them tell you it can't be done - Jack Layton

User avatar
Ardiveds
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 483
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:38 am

"The inclusion of 'public morals' exception entirely declaws the resolution when it comes to serving the purpose you expressed in the preamble."
Last edited by Ardiveds on Tue Jan 19, 2021 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Great Algerstonia
Diplomat
 
Posts: 561
Founded: Mar 21, 2019
Father Knows Best State

Postby Great Algerstonia » Tue Jan 19, 2021 10:17 pm

"Totalitarian nations can use the "national security" clause to justify banning clothing items critical to them."
I don't like sand.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7984
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:17 am

Obvious bump is obvious. Draft #2, (i.e. Draft #1 Jr.) is now up, which should address at least some of the above concerns.
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
Ardiveds
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 483
Founded: Feb 28, 2018
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Ardiveds » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:10 am

OOC: I dunno if it's just unavoidable or if it's even an issue in the first place, but I can see nations that subscribe to the theory of 'revealing clothes "invite" rape' forcing modesty on people, especially women, in the name of preserving the health of the wearer from rape.
If the ambassador acts like an ambassador, it's probably Delegate Arthur.
If he acts like an edgy teen, it's probably definitely Delegate Jim.... it's always Jim

User avatar
Qhevak
Envoy
 
Posts: 230
Founded: Jul 22, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Qhevak » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:56 am

"Would this apply to just the state or organizations within the state? The former wouldn't do anything to prevent the sexist corporate dress code policies mentioned, and if it's the latter (as much as we'd find it funny) we can see there being some problems. Maybe just prohibit discriminating dress codes?

For that matter, I don't see why you aren't just straight up banning forced nudity. Seems eminently reasonable to ban such a draconian policy which borders on state-enforced sexual harrassment."
Last edited by Qhevak on Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:59 am, edited 3 times in total.
The Oortian Federation of Qhevak
Semi-Hard SF Anarchotranshumanist association of Oort cloud space habitats - basically all of these ideologies living together. A 6.7 civilization according to this index. Does not use NS stats.
Aerospace Engineering grad student. Libertarian market socialist short term, anarchotranshumanist long term.
Previously Gogol Transcendancy, Ibis Galaxy Alliance.
Reddit
N&I RP in a shellnut

User avatar
Tinfect
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5166
Founded: Jul 04, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Tinfect » Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:08 am

"This legislation continues to prevent the Imperium from imposing proper uniform standards of Imperial personnel, or of students in higher educational facilities, or... any manner of things. We expect this to change if this legislation is to be moved forward."
Raslin Seretis, Imperial Diplomatic Envoy, Male
Tolarn Feren, Civil Oversight Representative, Male
Jasot Rehlan, Military Oversight Representative, Female


Bisexual, Transgender (She/Her), Native-American, and Actual CommunistTM.

Imperium Central News Network: Preliminary trials of Military Doctrinal Reform prototypes to begin; IRPC 5-115, 5-298, 5-076 public details, Project Lead interviews released | Aeravahn occupation expands to 17% of the Exterior Territories, Internal Security orders full-stop to Civilian expeditions to Exterior | TCO - Vigilant Star declared missing following exit of Iraet orbital region | Indomitable Bastard #283
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
Wayneactia
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1704
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:04 pm

Tinhampton wrote:Obvious bump is obvious. Draft #2, (i.e. Draft #1 Jr.) is now up, which should address at least some of the above concerns.

So what's next? Hair styles? Moustaches?

User avatar
Retired WerePenguins
Diplomat
 
Posts: 787
Founded: Apr 26, 2006
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Retired WerePenguins » Fri Feb 05, 2021 6:29 pm

Let us recall the great oppressive empires of old, such as the Roman Empire who looked with scorn on any barbarian who wore pants.
Or, for that matter, those wild men of the Middle Ages, who wore short tunics with nothing underneath (a strong wind or getting on a horse revealed far too much information).
Or those youths who wear their pants far too low to cover anything.
Or ...
Oh sod this, we're the The Totally Naked Fraternity of Retired WerePenguins. It's bad enough I have to wear clothing to debate in these halls. Let's do away with these false stereotypes of clothing alltogether!
Totally Naked
Tourist Eating
WA NS
___"That's the one thing I like about the WA; it allows me to shove my moral compass up your legislative branch, assuming a majority agrees." James Blonde
___"Even so, I see nothing in WA policy that requires that the resolution have a concrete basis in fact," Minister from Frenequesta
___"There are some things worse than death. I believe being Canadian Prime Minister is one of them." Brother Maynard.

User avatar
Alraibris
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 18
Founded: Oct 27, 2005
New York Times Democracy

Postby Alraibris » Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:50 pm

"The Shazbotdom Empire is officially opposed to this Proposal. Micromanaging if Nation can or cannot have Dress Codes is something that we in the Empire cannot get behind"
Imperial Delegate to the World Assembly: Mr. Antuan D. Flaberghast
Colony of The Shazbotdom Empire +6,450 from Jolt
Factbook + Q&A || Embassies v6.0 || ShazWeb || IIWiki
TWITTER/INSTAGRAM: TheShazMan999 || Fair Debates
DOES NOT MAINTAIN TELEGRAM BOX FOR THIS NATION!

User avatar
Jedinsto
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 379
Founded: Nov 12, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Jedinsto » Sat Feb 06, 2021 9:15 am

OOC- To ban school dress codes, and to specifically choose to allow nudity, should a nation choose to do so, is not something I will support.
My proposal
James DuBois
Capitalism, centrism, abortion, environment, civil rights
Communism, socialism, nukes, fascism, Trump

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15445
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:14 pm

OOC: Too lazy to put this in IC, but should definitely have an exception made for law enforcement and military uniforms, given it's harder to claim to be a cop (even if one is) without a uniform, and not requiring uniform of cops in active duty would open the door to various scams. And as for military, there are several resolutions about the conduct of war and separating civilians, even armed civilians, from combatants, which would be much harder (if not impossible) if military personnel cannot be required to wear military uniforms or at least clothing not normally worn by civilians.
- 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
Barfleur
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 465
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Sat Feb 06, 2021 2:37 pm

"While we understand and respect the right of individuals to freely express themselves through clothing, we do not believe this to be an issue of international concern. But should this proposal pass, well, it's not like our nation isn't already in compliance."
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7984
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:41 pm

I have lazily slapped on Articles b(iii) and b(iv) for your consideration :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
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7984
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:31 am

Tinhampton wrote:I have lazily slapped on Articles b(iii) and b(iv) for your consideration :P

Huh... my proposal's that good now? (This post also serves as a bump ;P)

If I don't abandon this, this will likely be submitted before 11th May 2021, the fifth anniversary of the Nicola Thorp controversy being publicised.
Last edited by Tinhampton on Fri Mar 12, 2021 4:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Stevanastardustia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Feb 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Stevanastardustia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:05 am

Opposed

This may increase black market trade in endangered species. It is our right to ban the wearing of endangered furs and to prohibit the production of environmentally damaging pigments and materials.

Then there is an issue of transferring wealth. With these laws someone could go from one country to another wearing suits made with actual cash to dodge taxes and duties. The taxation of such garments could be seen as a loophole which countries could use to circomvent the laws you have presented with excessive taxation on undesirable dress.

While it may sound silly, the consequences of not including amendments for these situations would be a huge oversight with immeasurable consequences.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7984
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:19 am

Stevanastardustia wrote:Opposed

This may increase black market trade in endangered species. It is our right to ban the wearing of endangered furs [...]

Article a of this proposal would allow Stevanastardustia to decide "whether to permit the wearing of clothes" - any clothes, including "endangered furs" - for itself without WA interference.

Stevanastardustia wrote:Then there is an issue of transferring wealth. With these laws someone could go from one country to another wearing suits made with actual cash to dodge taxes and duties. The taxation of such garments could be seen as a loophole which countries could use to circomvent the laws you have presented with excessive taxation on undesirable dress.

Firstly, I cannot require member states to impose a wealth tax on clothes made out of banknotes in this proposal without contradicting GA#17, Section 8 - and even if I could, it would be Pork Spending(TM) :P. Secondly, I've never seen anybody in the real world "wear [a] suit made with actual cash" at any point in the past 45 years.
Last edited by Tinhampton on Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
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
Stevanastardustia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Feb 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Stevanastardustia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:31 am

I feel like clause "A" then nullifies any intent in this document. I suppose you could have freedom of dress on international flights but if any country has the freedom to ban clothing they desire than what is this even for?



Tinhampton wrote:
Stevanastardustia wrote:Opposed

This may increase black market trade in endangered species. It is our right to ban the wearing of endangered furs [...]

Article a of this proposal would allow Stevanastardustia to decide "whether to permit the wearing of clothes" - any clothes, including "endangered furs" - for itself without WA interference.

Stevanastardustia wrote:Then there is an issue of transferring wealth. With these laws someone could go from one country to another wearing suits made with actual cash to dodge taxes and duties. The taxation of such garments could be seen as a loophole which countries could use to circomvent the laws you have presented with excessive taxation on undesirable dress.

Firstly, I cannot require member states to impose a wealth tax on clothes made out of banknotes in this proposal without contradicting GA#17, Section 8 - and even if I could, it would be Pork Spending(TM) :P. Secondly, I've never seen anybody in the real world "wear [a] suit made with actual cash" at any point in the past 45 years.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 7984
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:43 am

Stevanastardustia wrote:I feel like clause "A" then nullifies any intent in this document. I suppose you could have freedom of dress on international flights but if any country has the freedom to ban clothing they desire than what is this even for?

To prevent non-nudist member states from imposing unreasonable restrictions on clothing (and I have thankfully not used the word "reasonable" in this draft :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
Stevanastardustia
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 15
Founded: Feb 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby Stevanastardustia » Fri Mar 12, 2021 5:29 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Stevanastardustia wrote:I feel like clause "A" then nullifies any intent in this document. I suppose you could have freedom of dress on international flights but if any country has the freedom to ban clothing they desire than what is this even for?

To prevent non-nudist member states from imposing unreasonable restrictions on clothing (and I have thankfully not used the word "reasonable" in this draft :P)



Would the Stevanastardustia law stating that all pockets deeper than 15mm require a concealed carry permit violate this rule? Concealed carry permits are limited to military and special agent police.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10291
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Fri Mar 12, 2021 9:39 pm

Tinfect wrote:"This legislation continues to prevent the Imperium from imposing proper uniform standards of Imperial personnel, or of students in higher educational facilities, or... any manner of things. We expect this to change if this legislation is to be moved forward."

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We concur.

Author: 1 SC and 42 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Toxic villainous globalist kittehs
Delegate for Europe
Elsie Mortimer Wellesley (EMW); OOC unless otherwise indicated
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Molopovia

Advertisement

Remove ads