[DRAFT] Against Forced Population Planning

[States of Glory WA Office]

Against Forced Population Planning

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member states are concerned about excessive population growth or decline and wish to reduce or increase birth rates through population planning measures,

BELIEVING that so long as such measures are non-coercive, member states should retain the right to implement such measures if they see fit,

CONCERNED about the impact that coercive population planning measures, such as legal penalties for having too many or not enough children, have on the right to reproductive freedoms,

NOTING that the issue of reproductive freedoms has already been addressed by this organisation in the aptly-named GA #286: "Reproductive Freedoms", thus setting a precedent that this constitutes an issue worthy of international attention,

HORRIFIED that in particularly patriarchal societies, coercive measures to reduce birth rates often lead to the abortion of female foetuses on the basis of sex as well as the murder or abandonment of baby girls,

HEREBY:

1. PROHIBITS member states from:
   
   
   1. establishing a maximum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for exceeding said quota,
      
      
   2. establishing a minimum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for failing to meet said quota,
   
   
2. FORBIDS discrimination in the provision of public sector jobs on the basis of:
   
   
   1. the number of children that an individual has fathered or given birth to,
      
      
   2. whether an individual has undergone abortion or sterilisation,
      
      
   3. whether an individual is biologically fertile,
   
   
3. REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character or where there exist compelling medical reasons to require otherwise,
   
   
4. DECLARES that the right of individuals to vote in elections and referenda shall not be restricted or infringed on the basis of any immutable characteristics listed in Clause 2, as determined by that member state's judiciary,
   
   
5. MANDATES that:
   
   
   1. all charges under Clause 1 shall be dismissed with prejudice,
      
      
   2. all convictions under Clause 1 shall be overturned and all such convicts pardoned,
      
      
   3. all prisoners incarcerated under Clause 1 shall be released unless also serving imprisonment for a completely separate crime,
      
      
   4. all fines issued under Clause 1 shall be cancelled if unpaid or refunded if paid, to the best of the member state's ability,
   
   
6. RESERVES to member states the right to implement non-coercive measures intended to increase or reduce birth rates, including but not limited to public education programmes and tax benefits,
   
   
7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as affecting:
   
   
   1. the right of individuals within member states to procure abortions and practise birth control voluntarily,
      
      
   2. the right of member states to provide funding for abortions and birth control.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Against Forced Population Planning

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member states are concerned about excessive population growth or decline and wish to reduce or increase birth rates through population planning measures,

BELIEVING that so long as such measures are non-coercive, member states should retain the right to implement such measures if they see fit,

CONCERNED about the impact that coercive population planning measures, such as legal penalties for having too many or not enough children, have on the rights of individuals to reproduce,

NOTING that the issue of reproductive freedoms has already been addressed by this organisation in the aptly-named GA #286: "Reproductive Freedoms", thus setting a precedent that this constitutes an issue worthy of international attention,

HORRIFIED that in particularly patriarchal societies, coercive measures to reduce birth rates often lead to the abortion of female foetuses on the basis of sex as well as the murder or abandonment of baby girls,

HEREBY:

1. PROHIBITS member states from:
   
   
   1. establishing a maximum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for exceeding said quota,
      
      
   2. establishing a minimum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for failing to meet said quota,
   
   
2. FORBIDS discrimination in the provision of public sector jobs on the basis of:
   
   
   1. the number of children that an individual has fathered or given birth to,
      
      
   2. whether or not an individual has undergone abortion or sterilisation,
      
      
   3. whether or not an individual is biologically fertile,
   
   
3. REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character,
   
   
4. DECLARES that the conditions in Clauses 2a, 2b and 2c constitute immutable characteristics for the purposes of international law and that the right to vote shall not be restricted or infringed on the basis of said characteristics,
   
   
5. MANDATES that:
   
   
   1. all charges under Clause 1 shall be dismissed with prejudice,
      
      
   2. all convictions under Clause 1 shall be overturned and all such convicts pardoned,
      
      
   3. all prisoners incarcerated under Clause 1 shall be released unless also serving imprisonment for a completely separate crime,
      
      
   4. all fines issued under Clause 1 shall be cancelled if unpaid or refunded if paid, to the best of the member state's ability,
   
   
6. RESERVES to member states the right to implement non-coercive measures intended to increase or reduce birth rates, including but not limited to tax benefits,
   
   
7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as:
   
   
   1. affecting the right of individuals within member states to procure abortions and practise birth control voluntarily,
      
      
   2. affecting the right of member states to provide funding for abortions and birth control.

Against Forced Population Planning

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member states are concerned about excessive population growth or decline and wish to reduce or increase birth rates through population planning measures,

BELIEVING that so long as such measures are non-coercive, member states should retain the right to implement such measures if they see fit,

CONCERNED about the impact that coercive population planning measures, such as legal penalties for having too many or not enough children, have on the rights of individuals to reproduce, right to reproductive freedoms,

NOTING that the issue of reproductive freedoms has already been addressed by this organisation in the aptly-named GA #286: "Reproductive Freedoms", thus setting a precedent that this constitutes an issue worthy of international attention,

HORRIFIED that in particularly patriarchal societies, coercive measures to reduce birth rates often lead to the abortion of female foetuses on the basis of sex as well as the murder or abandonment of baby girls,

HEREBY:

1. PROHIBITS member states from:
   
   
   1. establishing a maximum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for exceeding said quota,
      
      
   2. establishing a minimum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for failing to meet said quota,
   
   
2. FORBIDS discrimination in the provision of public sector jobs on the basis of:
   
   
   1. the number of children that an individual has fathered or given birth to,
      
      
   2. whether or not an individual has undergone abortion or sterilisation,
      
      
   3. whether or not an individual is biologically fertile,
   
   
3. REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character or where there exist compelling medical reasons to require otherwise,
   
   
4. DECLARES that the conditions in Clauses 2a, 2b and 2c constitute immutable characteristics for the purposes of international law and that the right to vote shall not be restricted or infringed on the basis of said characteristics,
   
   
5. MANDATES that:
   
   
   1. all charges under Clause 1 shall be dismissed with prejudice,
      
      
   2. all convictions under Clause 1 shall be overturned and all such convicts pardoned,
      
      
   3. all prisoners incarcerated under Clause 1 shall be released unless also serving imprisonment for a completely separate crime,
      
      
   4. all fines issued under Clause 1 shall be cancelled if unpaid or refunded if paid, to the best of the member state's ability,
   
   
6. RESERVES to member states the right to implement non-coercive measures intended to increase or reduce birth rates, including but not limited to public education programmes and tax benefits,
   
   
7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as affecting:
   
   
   1. affecting the right of individuals within member states to procure abortions and practise birth control voluntarily,
      
      
   2. affecting the right of member states to provide funding for abortions and birth control.

Against Forced Population Planning

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING that many member states are concerned about excessive population growth or decline and wish to reduce or increase birth rates through population planning measures,

BELIEVING that so long as such measures are non-coercive, member states should retain the right to implement such measures if they see fit,

CONCERNED about the impact that coercive population planning measures, such as legal penalties for having too many or not enough children, have on the right to reproductive freedoms,

NOTING that the issue of reproductive freedoms has already been addressed by this organisation in the aptly-named GA #286: "Reproductive Freedoms", thus setting a precedent that this constitutes an issue worthy of international attention,

HORRIFIED that in particularly patriarchal societies, coercive measures to reduce birth rates often lead to the abortion of female foetuses on the basis of sex as well as the murder or abandonment of baby girls,

HEREBY:

1. PROHIBITS member states from:
   
   
   1. establishing a maximum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for exceeding said quota,
      
      
   2. establishing a minimum birth quota and criminalising or imposing civil penalties for failing to meet said quota,
   
   
2. FORBIDS discrimination in the provision of public sector jobs on the basis of:
   
   
   1. the number of children that an individual has fathered or given birth to,
      
      
   2. whether an individual has undergone abortion or sterilisation,
      
      
   3. whether an individual is biologically fertile,
   
   
3. REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character or where there exist compelling medical reasons to require otherwise,
   
   
4. DECLARES that the conditions in Clauses 2a, 2b and 2c constitute immutable characteristics for the purposes of international law and that the right to vote shall not be restricted or infringed on the basis of said characteristics, right of individuals to vote in elections and referenda shall not be restricted or infringed on the basis of any immutable characteristics listed in Clause 2, as determined by that member state's judiciary,
   
   
5. MANDATES that:
   
   
   1. all charges under Clause 1 shall be dismissed with prejudice,
      
      
   2. all convictions under Clause 1 shall be overturned and all such convicts pardoned,
      
      
   3. all prisoners incarcerated under Clause 1 shall be released unless also serving imprisonment for a completely separate crime,
      
      
   4. all fines issued under Clause 1 shall be cancelled if unpaid or refunded if paid, to the best of the member state's ability,
   
   
6. RESERVES to member states the right to implement non-coercive measures intended to increase or reduce birth rates, including but not limited to public education programmes and tax benefits,
   
   
7. CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be construed as affecting:
   
   
   1. the right of individuals within member states to procure abortions and practise birth control voluntarily,
      
      
   2. the right of member states to provide funding for abortions and birth control.

[The Ice States]

REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character,

"Does this include surrogacy?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[States of Glory WA Office]

REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character,

"Does this include surrogacy?"

Neville: 'What would be the implications of surrogacy for the provisions of this proposal?'

[The Ice States]

"Does this include surrogacy?"

Neville: 'What would be the implications of surrogacy for the provisions of this proposal?'

"Can whether or not an individual is fertile be considered when considering someone to act as a surrogate?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: 'What would be the implications of surrogacy for the provisions of this proposal?'

"Can whether or not an individual is fertile be considered when considering someone to act as a surrogate?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Neville: 'Ah, I see. Obviously, it would be rather silly not to discriminate on the basis of fertility when it comes to surrogacy! I'm not sure if that constitutes part of the private sector, but it wouldn't do any harm to carve out an exemption. Would something like 'except where such discrimination is required for compelling medical reasons' suffice?'

[The Ice States]

"Can whether or not an individual is fertile be considered when considering someone to act as a surrogate?"

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Neville: 'Ah, I see. Obviously, it would be rather silly not to discriminate on the basis of fertility when it comes to surrogacy! I'm not sure if that constitutes part of the private sector, but it wouldn't do any harm to carve out an exemption. Would something like 'except where such discrimination is required for compelling medical reasons' suffice?'

"Yes, that addresses our question, subject to comments from other ambassadors. We can support this, assuming such an exception is added."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “I have a few minor textual points to submit. First, in the ‘concerned’ clause, there is a corresponding right not to reproduce which is just as threatened by non-coercive measures as the right to reproduce. I suggest that the ideal wording would be ‘…on the right to reproductive freedom,’ or ‘on the right to reproductive autonomy,’. Second, ‘whether’ inherently includes ‘or not’, so clauses 2n and 2c can be made more concise by the removal of ‘or not’.”

“Onto more substantive concerns, I have two. What the fourth clause says about the conditions in the second clause is being immutable is simply false, your Excellency, with many of those conditions being entirely mutable. Given that that no single resolution can affect the interpretation of other resolutions, at least not insofar as retroactively including something in the provisions of a past resolution, I am not sure what this definition does.”

“My second and more serious substantive concern regards the fifth cause in its entirety. Just as there is a prohibition in this Assembly of ex post facto legislation, there should likewise be a prohibition on the converse. No individual should be free from punishment for an act which was known to be illegal at the time at which he did it. The cancellation of punishment after it has been found in a court of law, without any appealable ground, destroys any legal certainty for individuals, who are left unable to guarantee whether any given conduct will remain penalised. Though this is not a concern for the People’s Republic of Kenmoria in a direct sense, since the People’s Republic has no such laws, it is very much a concern in the moral sense.”

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: 'We have made minor changes to the draft in response to some of the concerns that have been put forward.'

“Onto more substantive concerns, I have two. What the fourth clause says about the conditions in the second clause is being immutable is simply false, your Excellency, with many of those conditions being entirely mutable. Given that that no single resolution can affect the interpretation of other resolutions, at least not insofar as retroactively including something in the provisions of a past resolution, I am not sure what this definition does.”

Neville: 'The intention of the clause is of course to prevent discrimination in voting rights. As for mutable vs. immutable, it could easily be argued that infertility is an immutable characteristic, and if the requirement is that a characteristic cannot ever change then the characteristics of having had an abortion or having undergone sterilisation are clearly immutable. Besides, we believe that GA #661: "Voting Rights Guarantees" has set a clear precedent, given the fact that that resolution, moreso than ours, existed only to reinterpret the blocker clause in GA #579: "Promoting Democratic Stability Act".'

“My second and more serious substantive concern regards the fifth cause in its entirety. Just as there is a prohibition in this Assembly of ex post facto legislation, there should likewise be a prohibition on the converse. No individual should be free from punishment for an act which was known to be illegal at the time at which he did it. The cancellation of punishment after it has been found in a court of law, without any appealable ground, destroys any legal certainty for individuals, who are left unable to guarantee whether any given conduct will remain penalised. Though this is not a concern for the People’s Republic of Kenmoria in a direct sense, since the People’s Republic has no such laws, it is very much a concern in the moral sense.”

Neville: 'We would like to point out that GA #657: "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" as well as its spiritual predecessor GA #577: "Drug Decriminalization Act" includes similar provisions relating to pardons. However, although we were convinced that such provisions have existed in multiple resolutions over the years, these two were the only ones that we could find. Perhaps there are more that we are missing. We believe, for the time being, that it would be better to keep this clause unless it becomes clear that such a clause would not be supported by the majority of delegations.'

[Comfed]

REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character [...]

Wait, what? We find this discrimination to be a human rights violation UNLESS your religious beliefs say that you have to do it?

[States of Glory WA Office]

REQUIRES member states to prohibit discrimination in the private sector on the same grounds listed in Clause 2, excepting organisations that are purely religious in character [...]

Wait, what? We find this discrimination to be a human rights violation UNLESS your religious beliefs say that you have to do it?

Neville: 'The intent here is so that it is not a criminal offence for a monastery to require that all of its members are childless.'

[The Ice States]

Neville: 'We would like to point out that GA #657: "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" as well as its spiritual predecessor GA #577: "Drug Decriminalization Act" includes similar provisions relating to pardons. However, although we were convinced that such provisions have existed in multiple resolutions over the years, these two were the only ones that we could find. Perhaps there are more that we are missing. We believe, for the time being, that it would be better to keep this clause unless it becomes clear that such a clause would not be supported by the majority of delegations.'

"Other resolutions have done so as well, such as GA #535 and GA #611, which require retroactive pardons to be granted for certain kinds of sentences or convictions."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

[Barfleur]

"We strongly support this proposal, with the possible exception of clause 2(a) and the corresponding provision of clause 3. We do not find it unreasonable that, if forced to choose between laying off two otherwise equal candidates, an employer might choose to prioritize the employment of the one who is the provider for several children in order to assure that that entire family will not lose its source of income. We also reiterate that clauses 2(a) and (b) are generally not, in fact, immutable, as a person can indeed choose whether to have children, how many to have, and when to stop. Biological fertility is certainly closer to being immutable when separated from sterilization."

Neville: 'We would like to point out that GA #657: "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" as well as its spiritual predecessor GA #577: "Drug Decriminalization Act" includes similar provisions relating to pardons. However, although we were convinced that such provisions have existed in multiple resolutions over the years, these two were the only ones that we could find. Perhaps there are more that we are missing. We believe, for the time being, that it would be better to keep this clause unless it becomes clear that such a clause would not be supported by the majority of delegations.'

"Other resolutions have done so as well, such as GA #535 and GA #611, which require retroactive pardons to be granted for certain kinds of sentences or convictions."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

"We agree, and do not see a problem with retroactive grants of relief. Even if a person committed the 'crime' of having or not having children, we do not think it just or reasonable to allow them to be punished even after recognizing that what they did falls squarely within fundamental rights. If you have a fundamental right to make a choice, it doesn't become less so depending on when you made it. Furthermore, many member nations take prior convictions into account upon sentencing for a subsequent crime, so it makes little sense for a person to have a crime on their record which would be totally invalid going forward."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: 'We would like to point out that GA #657: "World Psychoactive Drugs Act" as well as its spiritual predecessor GA #577: "Drug Decriminalization Act" includes similar provisions relating to pardons. However, although we were convinced that such provisions have existed in multiple resolutions over the years, these two were the only ones that we could find. Perhaps there are more that we are missing. We believe, for the time being, that it would be better to keep this clause unless it becomes clear that such a clause would not be supported by the majority of delegations.'

"Other resolutions have done so as well, such as GA #535 and GA #611, which require retroactive pardons to be granted for certain kinds of sentences or convictions."

~Alexander Nicholas Saverchenko-Colleti,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Communal Union of the Ice States.

Neville: 'So I wasn't going crazy after all! Yes, as I suspected, there are a number of resolutions that do this sort of thing, which makes sense. Declaring reproductive freedoms a human right is not much consolation to those who have already been jailed for exercising this right unless their convictions are also overturned.'

We strongly support this proposal, with the possible exception of clause 2(a) and the corresponding provision of clause 3. We do not find it unreasonable that, if forced to choose between laying off two otherwise equal candidates, an employer might choose to prioritize the employment of the one who is the provider for several children in order to assure that that entire family will not lose its source of income.

Neville: 'Conversely, of course, an employer could decide that those without children would be less distracted and prioritise them instead. Besides, just because one candidate has children and the other doesn't, does not necessarily mean that the one without children does not have more dependents or isn't in a worse financial situation. We therefore find this line of argument to be unpersuasive.' (OOC: It's worth nothing that to my understanding, some states in India have a two-child limit for government employees, which is the reasoning behind including this provision in the proposal)

Google defines 'immutable' as 'unchanging over time or unable to be changed' and Wiktionary defines 'immutable' as 'unable to be changed without exception'. By these definitions, 2a indeed isn't immutable unless you're dealing with someone who is infertile or a woman who has undergone menopause. 2b is immutable if an individual has undergone an abortion or sterilisation as travelling back in time isn't physically possible, but it's always possible for someone who hasn't yet had an abortion to have one in the future for as long as they remain fertile, so it's only immutable in one direction. 2c probably counts as immutable, but it's possible for someone is not biologically fertile to become fertile later on through puberty, and of course the inverse is true with menopause. I'll have to rethink the entirety of Clause 4 here and see if I can find some alternative.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: I've reworded Clause 4 in a way that I think should be compliant with the blocker in GA #579, but I'm not entirely sure. Further feedback would be welcome.

[Honeydewistania]

Ambassador Hepperle wakes up. Damn, that was a long nap. Time for more coffee.

He stumbles around the winding Hallowed Halls of the World Assembly HQ until he finally finds a refreshments table. He grabs a coffee, a muffin and a napkin before sitting back down.

As he wipes his mouth, he realises this is no napkin. No, this is a copy of a draft of 'Against Forced Population Planning'! Benji is intrigued by the title and starts reading.

"Blegh." Benji chokes on his muffin. "Religious exemption? So as long as my bigotry is supported by my God, that makes it okay? As soon as I'm done with my food I'm going to go up to the ambassador behind this and demand such a change be made." He smiled. The coffee really does help with productivity.

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: Bump.

[Araraukar]

OOC: 2.a. excludes adoption for some reason?

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: 2.a. excludes adoption for some reason?

OOC: Adopting a child does not impact population growth whereas fathering a child and giving birth to a child does, so it seems unlikely that a government wishing to engage in forced population planning would be all too fussed with adoption. Then again, I suppose adoption does affect population growth if done across international lines. However, I'd rather not open that can of worms here as I believe adoption ought to be addressed by other resolutions.

[Wallenburg]

"This is not feasible for societies experiencing severe and unresolvable limits on population capacity. For instance, inhabitants of a vessel or a remote island. Supporting a larger population is not something these societies can achieve by smarter food management or the construction of more housing. Where the population is likely to exceed the capacity of their resources to support their basic survival needs, hard limits must be established."

[Barfleur]

"This is not feasible for societies experiencing severe and unresolvable limits on population capacity. For instance, inhabitants of a vessel or a remote island. Supporting a larger population is not something these societies can achieve by smarter food management or the construction of more housing. Where the population is likely to exceed the capacity of their resources to support their basic survival needs, hard limits must be established."

"In such a society, I would imagine individuals would be well aware of how few resources there are and would not wish to further divide the pie they all eat from, and would prefer to not have children until they could be comfortably supported. In any case, clause 6 seems sufficient to solve the problems you described."

[Wallenburg]

"This is not feasible for societies experiencing severe and unresolvable limits on population capacity. For instance, inhabitants of a vessel or a remote island. Supporting a larger population is not something these societies can achieve by smarter food management or the construction of more housing. Where the population is likely to exceed the capacity of their resources to support their basic survival needs, hard limits must be established."

"In such a society, I would imagine individuals would be well aware of how few resources there are and would not wish to further divide the pie they all eat from, and would prefer to not have children until they could be comfortably supported. In any case, clause 6 seems sufficient to solve the problems you described."

"Your idea of how family planning works does not play out in reality. Unless you expect these societies to indoctrinate people into unhealthy attitudes about sex, I don't see how section 6 addresses this at all."

[States of Glory WA Office]

"This is not feasible for societies experiencing severe and unresolvable limits on population capacity. For instance, inhabitants of a vessel or a remote island. Supporting a larger population is not something these societies can achieve by smarter food management or the construction of more housing. Where the population is likely to exceed the capacity of their resources to support their basic survival needs, hard limits must be established."

Neville: 'We would assume that there are plenty of other active resolutions that would be impractical for any such hypothetical member state to enforce. Regardless, we'd argue that the appalling acts that occur when population limits are forcefully imposed are of sufficient gravity to ban such policies entirely.'

[States of Glory WA Office]

OOC: As I am leaving NationStates indefinitely, I am hereby releasing all my drafts, including this one, for anyone to use or modify as they wish with no co-authorship credit required.