NationStates

Repeal: “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#603
Proposed by: Macadia
General Assembly Resolution #603 “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING, the attempt made by General Assembly Resolution #603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act, to address the problems faced by the LGBT+ youth of member-states of the World Assembly, and the attempt to prevent discrimination and protect their mental health,

REALIZING, that the often vague language used within GAR#603 (as it shall henceforth be referred to as) has allowed some member-nations to continue discrimination against LGBT+ students, such as through its use of the vague term “age of majority” in reference to the level at which its mandated courses on romantic orientation and gender identity must be taught at,

ACKNOWLEDGING, that the enforcement of said courses on romantic orientation and gender identity may take away time in schools from already established and proper parts of the curriculum, potentially leaving a student who may need help in said subjects behind in order to focus on the mandated courses. In addition, the enforcement of these courses may offend some national and religious cultures,

This resolution hereby repeals GAR#603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act.

OOC: Bigotry and homophobia will NOT be tolerated here. I would request a mod moves this to the General Assembly sub-forum, I was unable to post this there because of my device.

Oh god not again

Trivalve wrote:Oh god not again

Could you explain what you mean with this short statement?

Macadia wrote:

Trivalve wrote:Oh god not again

Could you explain what you mean with this short statement?

This resolution has had attempted repeals a few times now lol

Against due to the arguments, for the repeal.

Trivalve wrote:

Macadia wrote:Could you explain what you mean with this short statement?

This resolution has had attempted repeals a few times now lol

And this one is an attempt to replace it with a better version, not eliminate the protections for the LGBT+ community.

I assume you have a replacement in order? Otherwise, there's really no reason to promote a repeal to this legislation.

Minskiev wrote:Against due to the arguments, for the repeal.

Could you give me some feedback on what’s wrong with the arguments?

Ocilivia wrote:I assume you have a replacement in order? Otherwise, there's really no reason to promote a repeal to this legislation.

Yes, there’s one in the works.

This is the SC forum, not the GA forum...

Macadia wrote:

Minskiev wrote:Against due to the arguments, for the repeal.

Could you give me some feedback on what’s wrong with the arguments?

They're generally weak. The language isn't really that vague and the second argument about offending cultures is very, very weak.

Minskiev wrote:

Macadia wrote:Could you give me some feedback on what’s wrong with the arguments?

They're generally weak. The language isn't really that vague and the second argument about offending cultures is very, very weak.

And anyway I could improve them, any flaw that I could actually make a sound argument with?

Lenlyvit wrote:This is the SC forum, not the GA forum...

Macadia is aware.

No support. REALIZING is a super-shoddy argument and ACKNOWLEDGING is just infuriatingly... ughhhh

Macadia wrote:Repeal: “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#603
Proposed by: Macadia
General Assembly Resolution #603 “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING, the attempt made by General Assembly Resolution #603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act, to address the problems faced by the LGBT+ youth of member-states of the World Assembly, and the attempt to prevent discrimination and protect their mental health,

REALIZING, that the often vague language used within GAR#603 (as it shall henceforth be referred to as) has allowed some member-nations to continue discrimination against LGBT+ students, such as through its use of the vague term “age of majority” in reference to the level at which its mandated courses on romantic orientation and gender identity must be taught at,

ACKNOWLEDGING, that the enforcement of said courses on romantic orientation and gender identity may take away time in schools from already established and proper parts of the curriculum, potentially leaving a student who may need help in said subjects behind in order to focus on the mandated courses. In addition, the enforcement of these courses may offend some national and religious cultures,

This resolution hereby repeals GAR#603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act.

OOC: Bigotry and homophobia will NOT be tolerated here. I would request a mod moves this to the General Assembly sub-forum, I was unable to post this there because of my device.

“Ambassador, I have two complaints. First of all, you need more clauses, since three-clause proposals rarely ever succeed in the World Assembly. So perhaps try to find more issues embedded within the target resolution and use those issues to generate more clauses. Second, your claim that the gender identity courses in educational facilities harm students struggling in certain subjects can be easily contradicted. For example, for these students, schools already provide tutoring sessions, after-class question periods, office hours, etc. Therefore, I do not think the third clause is a valid argument against the target resolution and should be promptly replaced with a different argument.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Your "Acknowledging" argument is terrible. Opposed at least until it is removed.

These are just people. Why do they need more care then anyone else? All will fall to the Legionaries of Akron and El Paso. Silence to all but the Legionaries.

The Legionnaires of Akron and El Paso wrote:All will fall to the Legionaries of Akron and El Paso. Silence to all but the Legionaries.

"Ambassador, nobody here cares."

"We support this effort, as the target is not necessary."

IC, you can just nullify this law, like any statutes by the Assembly on spacefaring or anything of that sort.

Royal Frankia wrote:IC, you can just nullify this law, like any statutes by the Assembly on spacefaring or anything of that sort.

No, you can't. It's WA law - compliance is mandatory for all WA members.

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:

Macadia wrote:Repeal: “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act”

A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#603
Proposed by: Macadia
General Assembly Resolution #603 “LGBTIQA Inclusiveness in Schools Act” (Category: Education and Creativity; Area of Effect: Educational) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING, the attempt made by General Assembly Resolution #603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act, to address the problems faced by the LGBT+ youth of member-states of the World Assembly, and the attempt to prevent discrimination and protect their mental health,

REALIZING, that the often vague language used within GAR#603 (as it shall henceforth be referred to as) has allowed some member-nations to continue discrimination against LGBT+ students, such as through its use of the vague term “age of majority” in reference to the level at which its mandated courses on romantic orientation and gender identity must be taught at,

ACKNOWLEDGING, that the enforcement of said courses on romantic orientation and gender identity may take away time in schools from already established and proper parts of the curriculum, potentially leaving a student who may need help in said subjects behind in order to focus on the mandated courses. In addition, the enforcement of these courses may offend some national and religious cultures,

This resolution hereby repeals GAR#603, LGBTIQA Inclusiveness In Schools Act.

OOC: Bigotry and homophobia will NOT be tolerated here. I would request a mod moves this to the General Assembly sub-forum, I was unable to post this there because of my device.

“Ambassador, I have two complaints. First of all, you need more clauses, since three-clause proposals rarely ever succeed in the World Assembly. So perhaps try to find more issues embedded within the target resolution and use those issues to generate more clauses. Second, your claim that the gender identity courses in educational facilities harm students struggling in certain subjects can be easily contradicted. For example, for these students, schools already provide tutoring sessions, after-class question periods, office hours, etc. Therefore, I do not think the third clause is a valid argument against the target resolution and should be promptly replaced with a different argument.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

“Thank you for the feedback, Ambassador. In my own personal experience not many students actually have the time to go after school, to receive tutoring, life doesn’t pause because a student needs to learn, and that’s what schools in their normal operating hours are for. I must admit the third clause is a very weak one, and if anyone can suggest anything to replace it with, it would be very much appreciated.”
-Nikola Razowil, WA Ambassador of Macadia

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, I have two complaints. First of all, you need more clauses, since three-clause proposals rarely ever succeed in the World Assembly.

Please stop giving this advice which seems to reduce to just telling people to pad. There is no reason why proposals need to be book length. Some proposals are naturally long (tariffs and trade being such a topic). Other proposals, especially repeals, are harmed by being too long to read and too complex to understand. Repeals are best if strategically short. This is for two reasons. Fewer claims mean fewer opportunities for honest mistakes. A single central claim focuses the repeal and clarifies the rationale far more than a single claim followed by "but also all these other things".

Also, proposals which are short and were passed regardless. I didn't even look through all of them. I just looked through mine.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=35010161#p35010161
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=35370852#p35370852
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=34237192#p34237192
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=25513115#p25513115

Longer proposals should be motivated by a need to explain complex topics (like how exactly GA 495 is a waste of money and how its corruption control mechanisms don't work), not by an aesthetic preference for length.

While I oppose the proposal IA is right that there is absolutely no reason why a GA resolution needs to be longer than it is.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Anne of Cleves in TNP wrote:“Ambassador, I have two complaints. First of all, you need more clauses, since three-clause proposals rarely ever succeed in the World Assembly.

Please stop giving this advice which seems to reduce to just telling people to pad. There is no reason why proposals need to be book length. Some proposals are naturally long (tariffs and trade being such a topic). Other proposals, especially repeals, are harmed by being too long to read and too complex to understand. Repeals are best if strategically short. This is for two reasons. Fewer claims mean fewer opportunities for honest mistakes. A single central claim focuses the repeal and clarifies the rationale far more than a single claim followed by "but also all these other things".

Also, proposals which are short and were passed regardless. I didn't even look through all of them. I just looked through mine.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=35010161#p35010161
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=35370852#p35370852
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=34237192#p34237192
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=25513115#p25513115

Longer proposals should be motivated by a need to explain complex topics (like how exactly GA 495 is a waste of money and how its corruption control mechanisms don't work), not by an aesthetic preference for length.

OOC: Apologies. I seem to have this “lengthy = high effort” mentality, but judging from your resolution examples, it appears that is not always the case in the WA. I will probably just limit my expectations to 3-5 clauses.