[DEFEATED] Against Racial Discrimination

[The Ice States]

Ooc: Part 2 of a CoCR replacement. See here for associated repeal.

Whereas racial discrimination occurs in many member nations, yet is inherently unjust such that member nations have a duty both to protect their citizens against, and themselves refrain from, racial discrimination; and

Whereas the repeal of "The Charter of Civil Rights" has left an ominous silence regarding protections against racial discrimination;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Definition: For the purposes of this resolution, a "racial characteristic" is any characteristic such as skin colour, culture, nationality and language which is the perceived result of an individual's ethnicity or race, including ethnicity and race themselves.
   
   
2. Services: No member nation, or entity therein, may withhold, delay, or segregate any service, right or privilege, including employment and remuneration as well as sale of goods and property, from an individual on the grounds of any racial characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual, subject to Section 3.
   
   
3. Exceptions: Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right, policy, or privilege clearly related to a racial characteristic, and which is essential to mitigate discrimination or the effects thereof against a particular racial characteristic, from being conditional on a racial characteristic of the recipient. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from considering a racial characteristic as part of deciding who to employ in a role, where that employer can conclusively show that both (a) the role is clearly related to the said racial characteristic, and (b) that racial characteristic is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed.
   
   
4. Segregation: Systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation or internment of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group are recognised as acts of genocide. The segregation of a population based on any racial characteristic, regardless of whether such segregation is enforced by a state, is universally prohibited under World Assembly jurisdiction.
   
   
5. Classification: Every member nation is to consider racial characteristics to be arbitrary and reductive, and accordingly enforce laws against hate crime, violence, and other discrimination on the grounds of racial characteristics as with any other arbitrary, reductive characteristic. No part of this resolution should be interpreted as preventing member nations from jointly or severally enacting further legislation to protect against discrimination on the grounds of any racial characteristic.

Co-author: Wallenburg.

[The Ice States]

All drafts are equal, but some drafts are more equal than others. The less equal drafts are here.

[The Ice States]

Can it be presumed by the lack of comments that this draft is indeed perfect?

[Waffia]

Nicely written. I had a few concerns while reading the proposal, but most of them were addressed later on. A few remain.

Whereas the repeal of "The Charter of Civil Rights" has left an ominous silence regarding protections against racial discrimination;

Very ominous indeed... I wonder who caused it?

Services: No member nation, or entity therein, may withhold or segregate any right, privilege or service, including employment and renumeration as well as sale of goods and property, from an individual on the grounds of any racial characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual, subject to Section 3.

• How do you segregate a right? Is that really the correct phrase for the segregated application of a right?
• Do I understand correctly that this forbids positive discrimination, including preferential hiring or tie-breaking based on a racial characteristic, since those are not services as described in Section 3?
• If a tourist from a non-WA nation visits a WA nation (and is thus "an entity therein") and that tourist has a shop in their home country where segregation is mandatory, does that tourist now become a criminal during their holiday in the WA nation? If yes, is that the intended effect of your proposal?

Exceptions: Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, such as counselling for victims of racial discrimination, clearly related to a racial characteristic and which is essential to mitigate discrimination or the effects thereof against a particular racial characteristic from only being granted depending on a racial characteristic of the recipient. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from withholding employment from an individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language in the case of translators.

I think there should be a comma to indicate where the sub-sentence "clearly related to [...]" stops. I think after "against a particular racial characteristic"?

Segregation: Systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group are recognised as acts of genocide. Accordingly, the act of a state authority compelling any individual to remain within or outside of any particular physical boundary on the grounds of a racial characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual shall be considered a form of genocide.

A prison guard is a state authority. A prison guard intentionally placing an individual prisoner in the cell with the softest mattress solely because that prisoner is the only one with a specific racial characteristic is a racist act. However, this is obviously not a case of genocide.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier presents some annotated comments to the delegation for the Ice States. “On behalf of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, I provisionally support this measure.”

Whereas racial discrimination is a malum in se which member nations have a duty to protect their citizens against; and

Whereas the repeal of "The Charter of Civil Rights" has left an ominous silence regarding protections against racial discrimination; This preamble is somewhat bare. Though indubitably true, the mere assertion that racial discrimination is a malum in se comes with no justification.

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Definition: For the purposes of this resolution, a "racial characteristic" is any characteristic such as skin colour, culture, nationality and language which is the perceived result of an individual's ethnicity or race, including ethnicity and race themselves. The correct word here is “that” rather than “which”, before your Excellency is providing a criterion of the “characteristic”, rather than merely providing more detail about it.
   
   
2. Services: No member nation, or entity therein, may withhold or segregate any right, privilege or service, including employment and renumeration as well as sale of goods and property, from an individual on the grounds of any racial characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual, subject to Section 3. I am not certain that it is meaningful to speak of segregating a right. Given that segregation is prohibited by the fourth section of this proposal, I am not certain that segregation needs to be included in this clause. However, I do believe that “delay” should be added in its place.
   
   
3. Exceptions: Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, such as counselling for victims of racial discrimination, clearly related to a racial characteristic and which is essential to mitigate discrimination or the effects thereof against a particular racial characteristic from only being granted depending on a racial characteristic of the recipient. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from withholding employment from an individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language in the case of translators. The first sentence of this clause is, in my view, almost unreadable. Your Excellency should consider splitting it into multiple sentences.
   
   
4. Segregation: Systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group are recognised as acts of genocide. Accordingly, the act of a state authority compelling any individual to remain within or outside of any particular physical boundary on the grounds of a racial characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual shall be considered a form of genocide. This clause does not clarify what is meant by a group. Therefore, prisoners would be considered as a group, as would convicted murderers. This is clearly undesirable, so I suggest that your Excellency add some qualification to what is meant by a group.
   
   
5. Classification: Every member nation is to consider racial characteristics to be arbitrary and reductive, and accordingly enforce laws against hate crime, violence, and other discrimination on the grounds of racial characteristics as with any other arbitrary, reductive characteristic. No part of this resolution should be interpreted as preventing member nations from jointly or severally enacting further legislation to protect against discrimination on the grounds of any racial characteristic.

Co-author: Wallenburg.

[The Ice States]

I prefer using "which" instead of "that", which is still a grammatically correct (and somewhat more formal) way of introducing restrictive clauses. Eg [1]. As to the "group" wording, that was written by the co-author Wallenburg rather than myself, although I still believe that it is fine; attempting to destroy a group is considered genocide, yet enforcing the law is not considered genocide just because it attempts to destroy the existence of criminals. Otherwise, all concerns should be addressed. As to affirmative action, that could reasonably count as a "right[ ]or privilege" meeting Section 3's first set of criteria (NB: that exception was previously only limited to services).

[Imperium Anglorum]

Oxford Dictionary of English sv "that":

The general rule in British English is that, in restrictive relative clauses, where the relative clause serves to define or restrict the reference to the particular one described, which can replace that.

[The Ice States]

Bump.

[The Ice States]

Tentative last call for submission on Saturday absent further comments.

[Aelyria]

OOC: At the very least, you're missing a period at the end of the second sentence of section 3. Second, while I personally favor the use of (some) affirmative action programs, leaving that undefined without intent to create subsequent legislation on that particular matter creates a gaping escape clause in the topic, one very likely to be used as cause for repeal. All one need do is create a "positive discrimination" program which happens to target the right groups for assistance. Finally, as this regulates both government and private activity, formally speaking I am fairly sure that this would invalidate such groups as the NAACP and other organizations dedicated to the welfare of particular groups without being, as stated, "positive discrimination"--there can be no advocacy for persons of color if selectivity on the basis of race or ethnicity is a crime.

[Pacific Haven]

OOC: At the very least, you're missing a period at the end of the second sentence of section 3. Second, while I personally favor the use of (some) affirmative action programs, leaving that undefined without intent to create subsequent legislation on that particular matter creates a gaping escape clause in the topic, one very likely to be used as cause for repeal. All one need do is create a "positive discrimination" program which happens to target the right groups for assistance. Finally, as this regulates both government and private activity, formally speaking I am fairly sure that this would invalidate such groups as the NAACP and other organizations dedicated to the welfare of particular groups without being, as stated, "positive discrimination"--there can be no advocacy for persons of color if selectivity on the basis of race or ethnicity is a crime.

I don't see how this is banning groups like the NAACP. They still exist today despite anti-discrimination laws in the real world; their role is mainly providing legal advice to those who have been victims of such discrimination, which is now even more important because discrimination is a criminal offence.

[*]Segregation: Systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group are recognised as acts of genocide. Accordingly, the segregation of a population based on a racial characteristic enforced, including via informal pressure, by a state authority shall be considered a form of genocide.

Having separate bathrooms for people of colour is awful, and should be a crime, but can hardly be considered a genocide. The definition of "designated areas" needs to be broader, because this covers everything from which side of the road you can drive on- which isn't a genocide- up to the Trail of Tears- which is a genocide.

[The Ice States]

OOC: At the very least, you're missing a period at the end of the second sentence of section 3. Second, while I personally favor the use of (some) affirmative action programs, leaving that undefined without intent to create subsequent legislation on that particular matter creates a gaping escape clause in the topic, one very likely to be used as cause for repeal. All one need do is create a "positive discrimination" program which happens to target the right groups for assistance. Finally, as this regulates both government and private activity, formally speaking I am fairly sure that this would invalidate such groups as the NAACP and other organizations dedicated to the welfare of particular groups without being, as stated, "positive discrimination"--there can be no advocacy for persons of color if selectivity on the basis of race or ethnicity is a crime.

Ooc: The "positive discrimination" section was a leftover from an amendment to the draft; I believe it is now fully covered by the rest of Section 3, which also permits groups such as the NAACP,

Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right or privilege clearly related to a racial characteristic, and which is essential to mitigate discrimination or the effects thereof against a particular racial characteristic, from only being granted depending on a racial characteristic of the recipient.

Given that the "designated areas" wording is Wallenburg's rather than mine I've asked him to comment on that.

[Wallenburg]

I don't see how this is banning groups like the NAACP. They still exist today despite anti-discrimination laws in the real world; their role is mainly providing legal advice to those who have been victims of such discrimination, which is now even more important because discrimination is a criminal offence.

I agree with PH here. The NAACP, as an example, would fall under the section 3 exceptions, since anti-discrimination advocacy and material support to combat certain forms and products of discrimination necessarily count as services related to a racial characteristic.

Having separate bathrooms for people of colour is awful, and should be a crime, but can hardly be considered a genocide. The definition of "designated areas" needs to be broader, because this covers everything from which side of the road you can drive on- which isn't a genocide- up to the Trail of Tears- which is a genocide.

Forceful removal of a racial group from or isolation of a racial group into designated areas is ethnic cleansing. This language is lifted in full from my Freedom of Travel and Don't Kill the Poor Act resolutions because such actions carried out systematically are universally components of eliminationist ambitions concerning marginalized groups. As it stands, this does not cover things like "what side of the road you drive on" because "people travelling north on I-5" is not a group in any meaningful sense of the word.

[The Ice States]

Upon further consideration, I've changed the mandate for specifically segregation to not define such acts as inherently genocide while still prohibiting them, whether enforced by a state or not (eg some business providing separate bathrooms for black people is illegal). The broader provision against genocide written by Wallenburg remains unchanged.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The exception contained in the third clause, which presently applies only to the second clause, should also apply to the fourth clause. I cannot imagine how that would apply to forced controls on population, but I can imagine situations where it could apply to movement to and from an area, particularly where the area in question is of small size.”

[The Ice States]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The exception contained in the third clause, which presently applies only to the second clause, should also apply to the fourth clause. I cannot imagine how that would apply to forced controls on population, but I can imagine situations where it could apply to movement to and from an area, particularly where the area in question is of small size.”

"Thank you for the comment, Ambassador. That said, as of yet I am unconvinced that doing this is necessary while not merely weakening the protections of the resolution. Could you give an example of a situation in which making a racial distinction in freedom of travel is justified?"

~Robert Desak,
World Assembly Ambassador,
The Eternal Union of Devonia and the Ice States.

[Wallenburg]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The exception contained in the third clause, which presently applies only to the second clause, should also apply to the fourth clause. I cannot imagine how that would apply to forced controls on population, but I can imagine situations where it could apply to movement to and from an area, particularly where the area in question is of small size.”

"I cannot imagine situations where racially segregated travelling apparata are desirable. Transit and roads belong to all law-abiding citizens."

[The Ice States]

Submitting tomorrow!

[Imperium Anglorum]

It feels very strange to me to include language as a "racial characteristic". Some people from India speak English. Some people from China speak English. Some people from England speak Hindi and Chinese. Some people descended from people from China are no good at Mandarin. The inclusion of language here itself feels like the kind of racial essentialism that this proposal would want to fight against.

"Genocide" has a specific definition in international law. People today really like to spread it out. I would insist that the word's meaning remain as it was when defined in those statutes. Eg UN, Slate. To create a NS-specific definition is both unnecessarily confusing and greatly cheapening. Just discuss segregation and something akin to apartheid as themselves.

I thus insist, to that end, on rewrites to ensure that the ideas here are expressed precisely and consistently with general usage.

[Wallenburg]

It feels very strange to me to include language as a "racial characteristic". Some people from India speak English. Some people from China speak English. Some people from England speak Hindi and Chinese. Some people descended from people from China are no good at Mandarin. The inclusion of language here itself feels like the kind of racial essentialism that this proposal would want to fight against.

I think you've overlooked that such characteristics are not referred to as actual results of someone's ethnicity or race, but as perceived results of ethnicity or race. A black guy speaking Mandarin does not experience discrimination for his speaking Mandarin as a racial characteristic, whereas a Chinese man doing the same may. I think this is well-handled.

"Genocide" has a specific definition in international law. People today really like to spread it out. I would insist that the word's meaning remain as it was when defined in those statutes. Eg UN, Slate. To create a NS-specific definition is both unnecessarily confusing and greatly cheapening. Just discuss segregation and something akin to apartheid as themselves.

Segregation and apartheid are certainly international issues, but I don't see why the mass murder of populations on the basis of racial characteristics should go unaddressed. And, as I previously expressed, segregation and apartheid are necessarily components of eliminationist ideology. A society that removes a marginalized group to a designated subsection will ultimately not be satisfied with that, and will desire total elimination of the "undesirable" group.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It feels very strange to me to include language as a "racial characteristic". Some people from India speak English. Some people from China speak English. Some people from England speak Hindi and Chinese. Some people descended from people from China are no good at Mandarin. The inclusion of language here itself feels like the kind of racial essentialism that this proposal would want to fight against.

I think you've overlooked that such characteristics are not referred to as actual results of someone's ethnicity or race, but as perceived results of ethnicity or race. A black guy speaking Mandarin does not experience discrimination for his speaking Mandarin as a racial characteristic, whereas a Chinese man doing the same may. I think this is well-handled.

Then what is your interpretation of "Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from withholding employment from an individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language in the case of translators"?

"Genocide" has a specific definition in international law. People today really like to spread it out. I would insist that the word's meaning remain as it was when defined in those statutes. Eg UN, Slate. To create a NS-specific definition is both unnecessarily confusing and greatly cheapening. Just discuss segregation and something akin to apartheid as themselves.

Segregation and apartheid are certainly international issues, but I don't see why the mass murder of populations on the basis of racial characteristics should go unaddressed. And, as I previously expressed, segregation and apartheid are necessarily components of eliminationist ideology. A society that removes a marginalized group to a designated subsection will ultimately not be satisfied with that, and will desire total elimination of the "undesirable" group.

Unless you'd like to repeal and replace the Genocide Convention for no reason too, we have different words for these things.

[The Ice States]

I'm genuinely confused as to how Section 3 has any bearing whatsoever on the fact that the definition of a "racial characteristic" is explicitly defined as a characteristic perceived to be related to race or ethnicity.

[Kenmoria]

Ambassador Fortier stands to speak. “The exception contained in the third clause, which presently applies only to the second clause, should also apply to the fourth clause. I cannot imagine how that would apply to forced controls on population, but I can imagine situations where it could apply to movement to and from an area, particularly where the area in question is of small size.”

"I cannot imagine situations where racially segregated travelling apparata are desirable. Transit and roads belong to all law-abiding citizens."

Ambassador Fortier responds. “I was concerned in particular with the part prohibiting exclusion from an area. I will give an example of this. In the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, there is a Basque minority who suffered discrimination under the previous government. Occasionally, in the País Vasco, there are conferences on Basque issues which only Basque citizens are allowed to attend. These often extend over a very large area, with cultural events being performed.”

[Simone Republic]

Again, I am disappointed in the rushed submission of this resolution, when IA, Kenmoria and myself are all online trying to discuss issues with both this resolution and the Prevention of Hate Crime resolution, and issues with other resolutions related to the repeal of COCR (GAR#35).

Exceptions: Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right or privilege clearly related to a racial characteristic, and which is essential to mitigate discrimination or the effects thereof against a particular racial characteristic, from only being granted depending on a racial characteristic of the recipient. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from withholding employment from an individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language in the case of translators.

This has a giant loophole in that a private employer who sets out to discriminate against a race can literally include "translation" in nearly every job description as suggested in the resolution, to name one example.

Alternatively, they can easily discriminate speakers of African-American Vernacular English or Scottish English (vs Estuary English in London).

While WA resolutions assume good faith on the part of member states (or their governments or sub-governments in a way), such as GA654, the assumption of good faith on the part of private employers is tenuous at best and not actually apparent.

[The Ice States]

It would have been much easier to address this if you had posted it separately instead of editing all this actual substance days after posting. Anyway, an employer must not merely claim that something is essential, it must actually "show" that. What a member nation accepts as "shown" must obviously be in good faith; it seems very unreasonable to assume that something as tenuous as "Scottish English vs Estuary English" would be accepted in good faith.

Just including the keyword "translation" in an entirely unrelated job description, likewise, is a rather bizarre interpretation of what that does; the task must actually be translation. I don't think that example even falls under bad faith, that's just non-compliance.