[Draft] Discriminatory Dress

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

OOC: It's been awhile, but I am back for another go. I've been keeping my eye on the forum enough to know that a very similar topic has been up recently, but looking at Amnesty convinced me it has international scope. So, here I am.

*Over the bustle of the WA, the quiet Ambassador who periodically emerges from the back raises her voice. After whiling away some moments with brief chorus of something from Sondheim, she's ready with her papers:* "I beg your patience, Ambassadors. I don't know why I'm the person NBH sent with this; I've not even found the WA canteen yet."
Draft Two

Discriminatory Dress
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant(?) | Proposed by: The New Bluestocking Homeland

The World Assembly

RECOGNISING dress codes can allow for the manifestation of discriminatory attitudes,

ACKNOWLEDGING that all citizens of member states have individual rights to the free outward expression of personal beliefs granted by WA#436 "Protecting Free Expression" and the protections against discrimination granted citizens under WA#35 "The Charter of Civil Rights",

APPLAUDING the steps already taken to protect the rights of citizens of member states,

NOTING that there are legitimate reasons for dress codes to exist,

STRIVING to strike a reasonable balance between strengthening the protections of citizens of member nations and permitting member nations to protect the health and safety of their citizens,

Hereby;

1. For the purpose of this resolution, defines the following terms:
   
   1. "dress code" as a set of rules, written or unwritten, with regards to the clothing that should or must be worn,
   2. "discrimination" as treating individuals differently on the basis of the group to which they belong,
2. Disallows member nations from:
   
   1. making accessing any government or essential service contingent on following a dress code,
   2. setting any punishment on the basis of not following a dress code,
   3. denying any support or protection on the basis of not following a dress code,
   4. mandating separate dress codes based on sex, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, nationality, skin colour, cultural background, ability, religious belief or any other arbitrary group,
   5. instituting a dress code that is designed to humiliate or which will increase the chance of illness befalling the wearer,
3. Clarifies that, with regards to Articles 2(b), the following exemptions exist for member nations:
   
   1. Where not following a dress code poses a serious and actual risk to the wearer's life, health or safety, or that of those around them,
   2. With individuals in uniformed government service and law enforcement,
   3. Where an individual is serving a prison sentence,
   4. For students in a school setting,

Further,

Urges member nations to educate their citizens on the social and physical harm of discrimination through dress codes, and to actively promote equality,

Exhorts member nations to further legislate against discriminatory dress codes in private commerce.

Discriminatory Dress
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant(?) | Proposed by: The New Bluestocking Homeland

The World Assembly

RECOGNISING dress codes can allow for the manifestation of discriminatory attitudes,

ACKNOWLEDGING that all citizens of member states have individual rights to the free outward expression of personal beliefs granted by WA#436 "Protecting Free Expression" and the protections against discrimination granted citizens under WA#35 "The Charter of Civil Rights",

APPLAUDING the steps already taken to protect the rights of citizens of member states,

NOTING that there are legitimate reasons for dress codes to exist,

STRIVING to strike a reasonable balance between strengthening the protections of citizens of member nations and permitting member nations to protect the health and safety of their citizens,

Hereby;

1. For the purpose of this resolution, defines the following terms:
   
   1. "dress code" as a set of rules, written or unwritten, with regards to the clothing that should or must be worn,
   2. "discrimination" as treating individuals differently on the basis of the group to which they belong,
2. Disallows member nations from:
   
   1. making accessing any government or essential service contingent on following a dress code,
   2. setting any punishment on the basis of not following a dress code,
   3. denying any support or protection on the basis of not following a dress code,
   4. mandating separate dress codes based on sex, ancestry, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, nationality, skin colour, cultural background, ability, religious belief or any other arbitrary group,
   5. instituting a dress code that is designed to humiliate or which will increase the chance of illness befalling the wearer,
3. Clarifies that, with regards to Articles 2.a and 2.b, the following exemptions exist for member nations:
   
   1. Where not following a dress code poses a serious and actual risk to the wearer's life, health or safety, or that of those around them,
   2. With individuals serving in the military,
   3. Where an individual is serving a prison sentence,
   4. For minor children in a school setting,

Further,

Urges member nations to educate their citizens on the social and physical harm of discrimination through dress codes, and to actively promote equality,

Exhorts member nations to further legislate against discriminatory dress codes in private commerce.

[Greater Cesnica]

McCooley muses to himself. Finally, a draft that appears decent from the get-go...

"Ambassador, this draft has my tentative support. That being said, I do request one change to be made. The exemption in Article 3(d) should be amended to include service in all government agencies. And, one last thing, I just want to inquire as to why the exemptions should apply to Article 2(a)? I understand for Article 2(b), just curious as to the the reasoning for the former."

OOC: I recommend putting the different drafts/variations of your resolution in the OP within spoilers so people can see any progression in the writing of the draft.

[Ardiveds]

"We see you've learnt from the mistakes of the delegates of Tinhampton and stayed away from nudism. We are however curious, like ambassador McCooley, regarding the exception to clause 2a."

[Tinhampton]

As the author of the defeated resolution covering the "very similar topic" alluded to in OP, I support this proposal.

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

"I thank the ambassadors from Greater Cesnica and Ardiveds." (and give OOC thanks to Tinhampton)

McCooley muses to himself. Finally, a draft that appears decent from the get-go...

"Ambassador, this draft has my tentative support. That being said, I do request one change to be made. The exemption in Article 3(d) should be amended to include service in all government agencies.

"From the reference to service in government agencies, may I assume you mean 3.b, Ambassador? I was hesitant about the scope being so wide as to forge many loopholes, Ambassador McCooley. While there are many justifiable reasons to create exemptions for army or navy personnel, there are fewer reasons to craft exemptions for the civil service, for example.

"I will try to consider how to strengthen it so it encompasses the necessary exemptions."

And, one last thing, I just want to inquire as to why the exemptions should apply to Article 2(a)? I understand for Article 2(b), just curious as to the the reasoning for the former."

"I was thinking of nations where they may impose a period of exclusion from schools, which -- while it might be just my Bluestocking mind -- is often an essential government service. That's also my answer to the Ambassador from Ardiveds.

"Or, would that be covered adequately under 2(b), as it's also a punishment?"

OOC: I recommend putting the different drafts/variations of your resolution in the OP within spoilers so people can see any progression in the writing of the draft.

OOC: Thanks. I will.

[Greater Cesnica]

"I thank the ambassadors from Greater Cesnica and Ardiveds." (and give OOC thanks to Tinhampton)

McCooley muses to himself. Finally, a draft that appears decent from the get-go...

"Ambassador, this draft has my tentative support. That being said, I do request one change to be made. The exemption in Article 3(d) should be amended to include service in all government agencies.

"From the reference to service in government agencies, may I assume you mean 3.b, Ambassador? I was hesitant about the scope being so wide as to forge many loopholes, Ambassador McCooley. While there are many justifiable reasons to create exemptions for army or navy personnel, there are fewer reasons to craft exemptions for the civil service, for example.

"I will try to consider how to strengthen it so it encompasses the necessary exemptions."

And, one last thing, I just want to inquire as to why the exemptions should apply to Article 2(a)? I understand for Article 2(b), just curious as to the the reasoning for the former."

"I was thinking of nations where they may impose a period of exclusion from schools, which -- while it might be just my Bluestocking mind -- is often an essential government service. That's also my answer to the Ambassador from Ardiveds.

"Or, would that be covered adequately under 2(b), as it's also a punishment?"

OOC: I recommend putting the different drafts/variations of your resolution in the OP within spoilers so people can see any progression in the writing of the draft.

OOC: Thanks. I will.

"Ah yes, I was referring to Article 3(b). I apologize for the confusion." McCooley shakes his head subtly, chastising himself, and takes a sip of his coffee.

"Alright, thank you for considering that point. Looking forward to how you deal with Article 3(b). Now, as for Article 2(a) and 2(b), I believe that Article 2(b) reasonably covers that example of exclusion from schools, amongst other scenarios."

[Ardiveds]

“Ambassador, we also suggest making an exception for members of law enforcement.”

[Greater Cesnica]

“Ambassador, we also suggest making an exception for members of law enforcement.”

"I concur, though I'd imagine that expanding beyond the scope of military would inevitably lead to law enforcement officers also being exempted."

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is not an international issue. It's probably not even a provincial one.

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

This is not an international issue. It's probably not even a provincial one.

"Perhaps the people of Imperium Anglorum find these issues too far outside their area of experience to be believable, but there are many people in the world who are not so fortunate. I assure you, civil rights restrictions this is designed to prevent are of international concern."

OOC: With respect to your greater experience in this area of the site, I disagree. The potential problems caused by discrimination in dress RL are such that they have come to the attention of Amnesty International, who raised the very issues this draft seeks to prevent as serious and specific issues in some parts of the world: people not able to access the government without wearing specific dress, jailing people for non-compliance with a dress code, people denied justice depending on how they are dressed, exacerbating pre-existing attitudes. The issues tackled here are very international and very real.

EDIT: Second draft up.

[Imperium Anglorum]

this draft seeks to prevent as serious and specific issues in some parts of the world: people not able to access the government without wearing specific dress, jailing people for non-compliance with a dress code, people denied justice depending on how they are dressed, exacerbating pre-existing attitudes. The issues tackled here are very international and very real.

Different standards of justice or what your proposal also speaks of re women are GA 35 CoCR matters. I don't know of any compelling practical purpose which would substantiate or justify government discrimination in such matters. Re some member nation requiring a religious minority to pin a star or cross on their chests, see Freedom of Religion and CoCR as well.

At the same time, government can have dress codes in civilian service, which you don't provide exceptions for. In Japan, transit employees wear a specific suit, peaked cap, and gloves. In France, civilian prefects to the departments have an (awesome-looking) dress uniform. In Britain, NHS doctors and nurses have a dress code to wear scrubs. Some of these are formal and people could disagree about their utility (eg Augustan requirements for people to wear togas in the forum). Some are important for preventing cross-infection or identifying help on a crowded platform.

[Greater Cesnica]

this draft seeks to prevent as serious and specific issues in some parts of the world: people not able to access the government without wearing specific dress, jailing people for non-compliance with a dress code, people denied justice depending on how they are dressed, exacerbating pre-existing attitudes. The issues tackled here are very international and very real.

Different standards of justice or what your proposal also speaks of re women are GA 35 CoCR matters. I don't know of any compelling practical purpose which would substantiate or justify government discrimination in such matters. Re some member nation requiring a religious minority to pin a star or cross on their chests, see Freedom of Religion and CoCR as well.

At the same time, government can have dress codes in civilian service, which you don't provide exceptions for. In Japan, transit employees wear a specific suit, peaked cap, and gloves. In France, civilian prefects to the departments have an (awesome-looking) dress uniform. In Britain, NHS doctors and nurses have a dress code to wear scrubs. Some of these are formal and people could disagree about their utility (eg Augustan requirements for people to wear togas in the forum). Some are important for preventing cross-infection or identifying help on a crowded platform.

OOC: Indeed. I've already requested above that the exemption for military service be expanded to include all government services.

[Bananaistan]

"I am inclined to agree with Comrade Wellesley. This is not an international issue and there are many valid reasons for standardised clothing in certain institutional and workplace settings well beyond the exemptions listed.

"Also many people are still in school in the first year or two of adulthood."

[The New Bluestocking Homeland]

The Ambassador ruffles her papers irritably: "Well, this is annoying. I amended the draft bill as discussed with the Ambassadors from Greater Cesnica and Ardiveds, got my papers lined up and then did not submit. The amended draft is with the committee now, and the Ambassadors will see that I did take your feedback onboard.

"I have also taken onboard the feedback of Ambassador Hornwood from Bananaistan, and changed 'minor children' to 'students in a school setting'.

"But I respectfully must again disagree with suggestions that this is not an international issue. It is true that not every nation uses dress to discriminate, attaches a mark of a person's ancestry as a prefix to darker deeds, or will turn someone away from urgently needed aid if they are considered improperly clothed. But is it not also true that not every nation would deny a woman's right to abortion? That not every nation would remove someone's free expression? That not every nation would disseminate false information in science classes? Yet there are laws regulating all those -- several, in the worthy case of abortion -- because the W.A. has always striven to protect its member states' citizens against the scourge of despotism anywhere, and to safeguard its citizens' rights.

"While I acknowledge the great work of the Charter for Civil Rights, this bill would be one more safeguard to the spirit of the law."

OOC: This time, second draft is actually up (I checked, twice). Sorry for the confusion.

[Daarwyrth]

Dame Maria vyn Nysen: "Despite the fact that this may not be an international issue, our delegation believes there are subjects that WA jurisdiction should engage with. In our opinion, this is one of those topics. As we find this proposal well-written, our delegation will vote in favour of it.

On a personal note, I wouldn't mind seeing Clause 3d removed from the proposal, yet naturally this is not a deal-breaker for me or our delegation."

[Pan-Asiatic States]

This is clearly an atheist Western plot to discriminate against Asian countries and our proud religious culture. What about the Muslims, whose religion demand that all women cover their hair as a means of serving the divine? What about certain sects of Christianity, that demand that certain areas of the body not be covered as revealing them is seen as an insult to the Lord God?

We do not sanction this proposed resolution. We do not see any way in which it could be amended to fit our national values either.

[Ardiveds]

This is clearly an atheist Western plot to discriminate against Asian countries and our proud religious culture. What about the Muslims, whose religion demand that all women cover their hair as a means of serving the divine? What about certain sects of Christianity, that demand that certain areas of the body not be covered as revealing them is seen as an insult to the Lord God?

We do not sanction this proposed resolution. We do not see any way in which it could be amended to fit our national values either.

"Ambassador, wherever this "Asia" you speak of is, the people there are free to practice their proud religious without the government forcing it upon then. If your national values involves government tyranny for the sake of religion, it is the WA's duty to defecate over those national values, atleast as long as you choose to remain a member."

[Daarwyrth]

This is clearly an atheist Western plot to discriminate against Asian countries and our proud religious culture. What about the Muslims, whose religion demand that all women cover their hair as a means of serving the divine? What about certain sects of Christianity, that demand that certain areas of the body not be covered as revealing them is seen as an insult to the Lord God?

We do not sanction this proposed resolution. We do not see any way in which it could be amended to fit our national values either.

"Ambassador, wherever this "Asia" you speak of is, the people there are free to practice their proud religious without the government forcing it upon then. If your national values involves government tyranny for the sake of religion, it is the WA's duty to defecate over those national values, at least as long as you choose to remain a member."

Vyn Nysen: "While I would have chosen a different choice of words... I do agree to the general sentiment of this statement. Religion has no place in the government of a nation, and must be, at all times, a free and conscious choice of an individual to start following it, or stop following it."

This is clearly an atheist Western plot to discriminate against Asian countries and our proud religious culture. What about the Muslims, whose religion demand that all women cover their hair as a means of serving the divine? What about certain sects of Christianity, that demand that certain areas of the body not be covered as revealing them is seen as an insult to the Lord God?

We do not sanction this proposed resolution. We do not see any way in which it could be amended to fit our national values either.

Vyn Nysen: "As per the text of this resolution, an individual is free to wear any religious attire that they want, as long as this religious attire is not imposed on the populace by the government. That is what this proposal prohibits, a government enforcement of specific wear. Religious individuals can still wear whatever they want or feel compelled to wear in name of their religion."

[Pan-Asiatic States]

The sovereignty of the Pan-Asiatic States' state legislative bodies, the District Assemblies, to pass into law policies that enforce choice of religious clothing must nonetheless be safeguarded. In highly conservative regions within our own country, such as in Brunei and in some parts of Xinjiang, these rules on prudent clothing are enforced.

Your Excellencies, you must understand—individual freedom is of no concern to us and it should not be of any concern to this body either. Fundamentally, we do not have free will. Philosophers and scientists have proved this time and time again, and this fact's manifestations can be seen throughout nature. Bees create beautiful hives only by establishing cells in uniform size. Birds must remain in formation if they wish to stay in the air. Humans, in some cultural interpretations, must dress all the same in order to preserve social coherence.

If your countries wish to preserve the right of the individual to their choice of clothing, so be it. Let your government halls be filled with nudists and other deviants. We do not care. But we will not sanction a resolution such as this to humiliate our proud culture by telling the imams, monks, and priests of our country that their involvement in our democracy is invalid.

[Daarwyrth]

The sovereignty of the Pan-Asiatic States' state legislative bodies, the District Assemblies, to pass into law policies that enforce choice of religious clothing must nonetheless be safeguarded. In highly conservative regions within our own country, such as in Brunei and in some parts of Xinjiang, these rules on prudent clothing are enforced.

Your Excellencies, you must understand—individual freedom is of no concern to us and it should not be of any concern to this body either. Fundamentally, we do not have free will. Philosophers and scientists have proved this time and time again, and this fact's manifestations can be seen throughout nature. Bees create beautiful hives only by establishing cells in uniform size. Birds must remain in formation if they wish to stay in the air. Humans, in some cultural interpretations, must dress all the same in order to preserve social coherence.

If your countries wish to preserve the right of the individual to their choice of clothing, so be it. Let your government halls be filled with nudists and other deviants. We do not care. But we will not sanction a resolution such as this to humiliate our proud culture by telling the imams, monks, and priests of our country that their involvement in our democracy is invalid.

Vyn Nysen: "Your exaggerations are neither fitting nor welcome. What delusions do you entertain about this resolution that you think it will enable nudity or deviancy? There is not a single line in this proposal's text that would promote such. You use arguments with no basis in reality, and try to depict anything that disagrees with your nation's government as deviancy, even if it is objectively morally sound. Your government, or your regional governments for that matter, have no business in telling people how they must dress themselves. If the concept of guaranteeing each person their individual freedoms, be they civil or political, are problematic to your government, then perhaps the World Assembly is not suitable for your nation, Ambassador."

[Ardiveds]

The sovereignty of the Pan-Asiatic States' state legislative bodies, the District Assemblies, to pass into law policies that enforce choice of religious clothing must nonetheless be safeguarded. In highly conservative regions within our own country, such as in Brunei and in some parts of Xinjiang, these rules on prudent clothing are enforced.

Your Excellencies, you must understand—individual freedom is of no concern to us and it should not be of any concern to this body either. Fundamentally, we do not have free will. Philosophers and scientists have proved this time and time again, and this fact's manifestations can be seen throughout nature. Bees create beautiful hives only by establishing cells in uniform size. Birds must remain in formation if they wish to stay in the air. Humans, in some cultural interpretations, must dress all the same in order to preserve social coherence.

If your countries wish to preserve the right of the individual to their choice of clothing, so be it. Let your government halls be filled with nudists and other deviants. We do not care. But we will not sanction a resolution such as this to humiliate our proud culture by telling the imams, monks, and priests of our country that their involvement in our democracy is invalid.

"Ambassador, this is a political platform, not a philosophical one, and the WA's policies have always been concerned with preserving and advancing free will, whether you believe in its existence or not is irrelevant. If you would've cared to read through previously passed resolutions, which you're obliged to do, you'd have understood. If you wish to go on with your tyranny, you can always leave the the WA, it's your choice, you do have the free will to do that."

[Pan-Asiatic States]

The sovereignty of the Pan-Asiatic States' state legislative bodies, the District Assemblies, to pass into law policies that enforce choice of religious clothing must nonetheless be safeguarded. In highly conservative regions within our own country, such as in Brunei and in some parts of Xinjiang, these rules on prudent clothing are enforced.

Your Excellencies, you must understand—individual freedom is of no concern to us and it should not be of any concern to this body either. Fundamentally, we do not have free will. Philosophers and scientists have proved this time and time again, and this fact's manifestations can be seen throughout nature. Bees create beautiful hives only by establishing cells in uniform size. Birds must remain in formation if they wish to stay in the air. Humans, in some cultural interpretations, must dress all the same in order to preserve social coherence.

If your countries wish to preserve the right of the individual to their choice of clothing, so be it. Let your government halls be filled with nudists and other deviants. We do not care. But we will not sanction a resolution such as this to humiliate our proud culture by telling the imams, monks, and priests of our country that their involvement in our democracy is invalid.

"Ambassador, this is a political platform, not a philosophical one, and the WA's policies have always been concerned with preserving and advancing free will, whether you believe in its existence or not is irrelevant. If you would've cared to read through previously passed resolutions, which you're obliged to do, you'd have understood. If you wish to go on with your tyranny, you can always leave the the WA, it's your choice, you do have the free will to do that."

We believe that we can change the opinion of this body. That is its core prerogative, is it not? Despite your opinion, which we ultimately respect, we are a democracy and we believe that the WA is an outlet for empowering democracies. Why else would we vote for resolutions, much less talk about proposed ones, if when in every disagreement the reaction is to expel those that dissent?

Given this, we also have a right, as much as any other in this assembly, to openly voice our discontent when we believe a proposed resolution infringes on policies that our own people have already voted to enact.

Once again, we do not ask that this body adopt our imams', priests', and monks' opinions on this issue—only that they be continued to be allowed to freely adopt their positions via the Pan-Asiatic States' people's democratic institutions. If, in a district, for example, a region votes to enforce the Shayla, and a majority consent to it, then they should be allowed to do their job as executors of Pan-Asiatic law without condemnation from the World Assembly.

[South Reinkalistan]

"Whereas the reasoning provided by the Pan-Asiatic Delegation is foundationally bankrupt in practice, the sentiment however remains valid." Remarks the Reinkalistani Ambassador. "Fundamentally, sirs and madames, I don't think we can properly reject the concept of the dress code as provided here, for a number of reasons which I would like to respectfully present."

He continues; "there is, fundamentally, an issue here, culturally. Obviously, the World Assembly is a progressive body, and in its time it has sought to further the interests of all global peoples, and has attained admirable leaps in the name of progress. For this, it has our thanks. However, that said, there are lines one cannot cross. Where we see tradition, the Assembly might see discrimination; it considers, in this case, atomisation to be freedom, and therefore we see their 'freedoms' to be corrosive. This is made implicit in the case of this act. I would, simply, like to request a conclusion - respectfully - as to whether this is a wanton attempt to impinge on national sovereignty in the long run? Of course, we all as nations sacrifice some principles of sovereignty for being members of the August body, but surely the line must be drawn somewhere -- perhaps at dress codes, would be a start?"

[Daarwyrth]

"Whereas the reasoning provided by the Pan-Asiatic Delegation is foundationally bankrupt in practice, the sentiment however remains valid." Remarks the Reinkalistani Ambassador. "Fundamentally, sirs and madames, I don't think we can properly reject the concept of a dress code, for a number of reasons which I would like to respectfully present."

He continues; "there is, fundamentally, an issue here, culturally. Obviously, the World Assembly is a progressive body, and in its time it has sought to further the interests of all global peoples, and has attained admirable leaps in the name of progress. For this, it has our thanks. However, that said, there are lines one cannot cross. Where we see tradition, the Assembly might see discrimination; it considers, in this case, atomisation to be freedom, and therefore we see their 'freedoms' to be corrosive. This is made implicit in the case of this act. I would, simply, like to request a conclusion - respectfully - as to whether this is a wanton attempt to impinge on national sovereignty in the long run? Of course, we all as nations sacrifice some principles of sovereignty for being members of the August body, but surely the line must be drawn somewhere -- perhaps at dress codes, would be a start?"

Vyn Nysen: "If a nation is unwilling to comply with the laws and regulations of the World Assembly they are free to leave this international community at any time. That is the nature of free will which is an intrinsic part of every individual or entity in existence. Yet if a nation chooses to remain a part of this international body, then they will have to accept that part of their sovereignty will be infringed upon, including cultural and traditional aspects.

And no, Ambassador, any argument you will provide will not make me reconsider my standpoint on this issue, nor that of my delegation. We are firmly against religious involvement in the governments of nations. Countries should be governed with pragmatism in mind, not religious dogma."

[South Reinkalistan]

"Whereas the reasoning provided by the Pan-Asiatic Delegation is foundationally bankrupt in practice, the sentiment however remains valid." Remarks the Reinkalistani Ambassador. "Fundamentally, sirs and madames, I don't think we can properly reject the concept of a dress code, for a number of reasons which I would like to respectfully present."

He continues; "there is, fundamentally, an issue here, culturally. Obviously, the World Assembly is a progressive body, and in its time it has sought to further the interests of all global peoples, and has attained admirable leaps in the name of progress. For this, it has our thanks. However, that said, there are lines one cannot cross. Where we see tradition, the Assembly might see discrimination; it considers, in this case, atomisation to be freedom, and therefore we see their 'freedoms' to be corrosive. This is made implicit in the case of this act. I would, simply, like to request a conclusion - respectfully - as to whether this is a wanton attempt to impinge on national sovereignty in the long run? Of course, we all as nations sacrifice some principles of sovereignty for being members of the August body, but surely the line must be drawn somewhere -- perhaps at dress codes, would be a start?"

Vyn Nysen: "If a nation is unwilling to comply with the laws and regulations of the World Assembly they are free to leave this international community at any time. That is the nature of free will which is an intrinsic part of every individual or entity in existence. Yet if a nation chooses to remain a part of this international body, then they will have to accept that part of their sovereignty will be infringed upon, including cultural and traditional aspects.

And no, Ambassador, any argument you will provide will not make me reconsider my standpoint on this issue, nor that of my delegation. We are firmly against religious involvement in the governments of nations. Countries should be governed with pragmatism in mind, not religious dogma."

The Ambassador smiles. "With all due respect, I don't think my point has carried itself across. It is precisely for the longevity - not the weakening - of this grand international community that we advocate for the cause of national sovereignty. Over time, the World Assembly has found itself to be more and more intrusive into how its constituent nations conduct its affairs. Of course, nations are free to leave, and they very well may do so if we continue on this path! Resolutions like this, legislation for the sake of legislation, are fundamentally ruining this institution. So what if a nation wishes to govern itself religiously? So what if we wish to assert dress codes in certain instances beyond what is strictly necessary? Do you want to strip the religious beliefs and customs from everyone, to homogenise them, reduce them to your perfect image of what the world should be? How can you expect the World Assembly to maintain itself if this is the case? More and more nations are, while remaining in the Assembly, proclaiming noncompliance to these ridiculous resolutions! If you wish for this body to be anything more than a paper tiger, you should personally learn that compromise, not ruthless globalism, is the key to the success of this institution."