[Legality Challenge] Prohibition Of Honor-Based Violence

[Old Hope]

Text of potentially illegal proposal:

The General Assembly,

Believing that acts of honor-based violence are especially heinous, and represent a fundamental betrayal of the trust afforded by a person to their relatives and members of their community,

Appalled that such acts occur in this current day and age, often with the tacit or explicit support of local authorities,

Seeking to put an end to these vile acts,

Hereby:

Defines "honor-based violence" as an act of violence perpetrated against an individual by or at the direction of a relative or any other member of a community, due to the perception that the individual has brought shame or dishonor upon their family or community, or has otherwise violated an honor code.

Prohibits:

honor-based violence from being carried out in any member state and;

the belief that the victim of an act of violence brought shame or dishonor upon their family or community, or otherwise violated an honor code, from being permitted as a part of:

any defense in criminal proceedings or

any argument to reduce the severity of criminal penalties.

Requires member states to prosecute alleged honor-based violence with at least the same severity as they prosecute other forms of alleged unlawful violence against individuals.

Category:Civil Rights
Strength:Mild

Link to the debate thread:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=499231

Argument:
Rules potentially violated:

Strength: This determines the effect a proposal has on a nation's policy. A proposal with mild language or affecting a narrow area of policy is Mild, while one which a very broad area of policy in a dramatic way is Strong. Anything in between is Significant. Some categories don't use strength but rather a specific area, so proposals will need to specify the area of policy affected from a pre-populated list of options. These options do have a statistical effect and strength.

The strength is mild.
However, many communities live according to honor codes/honor, and their enforcement is - as is any other type of enforcement - based on violence. Without enforcement, these codes collapse.
In these communities, honor decides nearly all facets of life, making it very very important....
This proposal would totally upend the control of these communities over their individual members - in member nations - , making it a proposal with a very wide-ranging effect and strong language. This puts the real strength of this proposal at "Strong". You could maybe argue for "significant" if you take into account that not every community has a honor code.
But not "Mild". This is simply not a "Mild" proposal. Strong language("Prohibits";"Requires"....) and a gigantic effect on many communities in member nations do not fulfill the criteria for "Mild".

[Sierra Lyricalia]

We have held in the past that Mild is an acceptable strength for a Civil Rights resolution that "plugs a hole" - one that explicitly prohibits some oppressive practice that, on consideration, most WA nations have already banned due to prior legislation, but that might still be technically possible. One would have imagined that the resolutions requiring the rule of law and rights for those accused of crimes would require police to be restrained in their conduct and not corrupt; so GAR #504 was passed as CR/Mild. Forced sterilization - using force or the threat of force to cut open the body of a living person and physically remove their ability to procreate - is just as violent as an "honor killing" (is there not a less euphemistic term we could use for that, honestly?), yet because of the likely number of people it's happening to in World Assembly member states, GAR #486 was passed as Mild.

Given the vast body of WA laws prohibiting sex/gender/orientation/etc. discrimination, and given the fact that upwards of 99% of so-called "honor killings" are not Klingon or other feudal warriors or aristocrats settling grievances by combat, but outright murders of women who have committed the grievous sin of being raped, my sense is that such murders - combined with willful ignorance by law enforcement - are not prevalent enough in WA states to require a Significant strength for this proposal. Mild is acceptable.

As always I am willing to hear counter-arguments.

[Old Hope]

We have held in the past that Mild is an acceptable strength for a Civil Rights resolution that "plugs a hole" - one that explicitly prohibits some oppressive practice that, on consideration, most WA nations have already banned due to prior legislation, but that might still be technically possible. One would have imagined that the resolutions requiring the rule of law and rights for those accused of crimes would require police to be restrained in their conduct and not corrupt; so GAR #504 was passed as CR/Mild. Forced sterilization - using force or the threat of force to cut open the body of a living person and physically remove their ability to procreate - is just as violent as an "honor killing" (is there not a less euphemistic term we could use for that, honestly?), yet because of the likely number of people it's happening to in World Assembly member states, GAR #486 was passed as Mild.

Given the vast body of WA laws prohibiting sex/gender/orientation/etc. discrimination, and given the fact that upwards of 99% of so-called "honor killings" are not Klingon or other feudal warriors or aristocrats settling grievances by combat, but outright murders of women who have committed the grievous sin of being raped, my sense is that such murders - combined with willful ignorance by law enforcement - are not prevalent enough in WA states to require a Significant strength for this proposal. Mild is acceptable.

As always I am willing to hear counter-arguments.

The proposal does not solely target honor killings. If it did, I would not have filed this request, although it might have been on the edge.
It targets honor- code/honor based violence, which is a much more expansive term.

[Separatist Peoples]

This is wildly off base. No.

[TreedomA]

If you take the definition of Honour Code from https://www.lexico.com/definition/honour_code: "Any (unwritten) set of rules, customs, or principles among a particular group of people (often those otherwise considered to be unprincipled)." Then this proposal could be stated as affecting all areas of policy in a fairly extreme way. This includes all GA resolutions as they are a set of rules among a group of people. This would leave only the need to prove shame or dishonour before wiping out the ability to enforce any rules anywhere through the use of force.

[Ardiveds]

If you take the definition of Honour Code from https://www.lexico.com/definition/honour_code: "Any (unwritten) set of rules, customs, or principles among a particular group of people (often those otherwise considered to be unprincipled)." Then this proposal could be stated as affecting all areas of policy in a fairly extreme way. This includes all GA resolutions as they are a set of rules among a group of people. This would leave only the need to prove shame or dishonour before wiping out the ability to enforce any rules anywhere through the use of force.

OOC: Neither WA laws, nor national laws are unwritten rules or principles.

[TreedomA]

If you take the definition of Honour Code from https://www.lexico.com/definition/honour_code: "Any (unwritten) set of rules, customs, or principles among a particular group of people (often those otherwise considered to be unprincipled)." Then this proposal could be stated as affecting all areas of policy in a fairly extreme way. This includes all GA resolutions as they are a set of rules among a group of people. This would leave only the need to prove shame or dishonour before wiping out the ability to enforce any rules anywhere through the use of force.

OOC: Neither WA laws, nor national laws are unwritten rules or principles.

Parenthesis are additional not exclusive and in this case serve to clarify that it can mean unwritten as well as written (which would be the assumed meaning without the parenthesis).

[Ardiveds]

OOC: Neither WA laws, nor national laws are unwritten rules or principles.

Parenthesis are additional not exclusive and in this case serve to clarify that it can mean unwritten as well as written (which would be the assumed meaning without the parenthesis).

OOC: Well we can always use the oxford definition then
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... onour-code
Or the Collins: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/amp/e ... -of-honour
Unless I'm mistaken, there is a rule like if a proposal's text has multiple equally valid interpretations, the one that creates the least conflict is to be taken

[TreedomA]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a rule like if a proposal's text has multiple equally valid interpretations, the one that creates the least conflict is to be taken

Hopefully that's the case otherwise the legislation is depending of a favourable interpretation of a grey area of linguistic definitions!

[Barfleur]

Unless I'm mistaken, there is a rule like if a proposal's text has multiple equally valid interpretations, the one that creates the least conflict is to be taken

Hopefully that's the case otherwise the legislation is depending of a favourable interpretation of a grey area of linguistic definitions!

OOC: That applies to a lot of legislation. As to the Lexico definition you provided, the parenthetical clearly serves to add a qualifier to the noun. If I defined a Kindle as "an (electronic) book," no one would seriously be able to claim that definition includes a hardcover or paperback--it only refers to books in an electronic form. Similarly, an "(unwritten) set of rules" does not refer to rules which are written--only those that are unwritten.

[TreedomA]

Hopefully that's the case otherwise the legislation is depending of a favourable interpretation of a grey area of linguistic definitions!

OOC: That applies to a lot of legislation. As to the Lexico definition you provided, the parenthetical clearly serves to add a qualifier to the noun. If I defined a Kindle as "an (electronic) book," no one would seriously be able to claim that definition includes a hardcover or paperback--it only refers to books in an electronic form. Similarly, an "(unwritten) set of rules" does not refer to rules which are written--only those that are unwritten.

I would argue that due to context in the kindle example, the parenthesis is grammatically incorrect. The word electronic is not adding extra information to the sentence. If you were to write that: "nowadays, due to postal delivery and web hosting changes, it is possible to gain access to an (electronic) book faster than ever." The meaning changes or at least becomes a lot more unclear.

[Barfleur]

OOC: That applies to a lot of legislation. As to the Lexico definition you provided, the parenthetical clearly serves to add a qualifier to the noun. If I defined a Kindle as "an (electronic) book," no one would seriously be able to claim that definition includes a hardcover or paperback--it only refers to books in an electronic form. Similarly, an "(unwritten) set of rules" does not refer to rules which are written--only those that are unwritten.

I would argue that due to context in the kindle example, the parenthesis is grammatically incorrect. The word electronic is not adding extra information to the sentence. If you were to write that: "nowadays, due to postal delivery and web hosting changes, it is possible to gain access to an (electronic) book faster than ever." The meaning changes or at least becomes a lot more unclear.

OOC: That would be perfectly clear. If any category of book were included, there would be no need for the parenthetical. But when the parenthetical is included, you cannot just ignore it. Yes, it may make more sense grammatically and stylistically to have "electronic" without parentheses, but that doesn't affect the meaning in this case.

[Separatist Peoples]

Lets move this to TG or something. It's not terribly relevant given that the challenge is so unconvincing.