[DRAFT] Acknowledegement of transhuman rights

[Genomita]

Council: General assembly

Category: Human rights

Strength: Significant

Description:

DEFINES "transhuman" as a person descended from humans who:
1. Possesses physical, mental or other abilities that exceed the limits of the human body by a significant amount.
2. Has either inherited these abilities from it's predecessors or was altered in some way to exceed the limitations of the human body, wether by genetic engineering, technological or magical means.

AWARE that a good deal of WA-member nations are home to transhuman citizens.

CONCERNED that loopholes in the nations' laws might allow for the exploitation or discrimination of the transhuman citizens.

WORRIED that such exploitation could result in violent retaliation from the transhuman population.

THEREFORE proposes that:

1. All WA-member nations include a notification in their lawbooks that all laws apply both to the unaltered and the transhuman population.
2. Nations with a mixed unaltered and transhuman population create awareness programs aimed to help either faction understand the other better.
3. Advocate a public opinion of equality between unaltered and transhuman citizens through equal treatment.
4. Actively combat segration and discrimination by encouraging mixed communities.

(OOC: This is still a early draft of this proposla. If you think anything's missing or if anything violates the rules for GA proposals, please let me know.)

[Hirota]

Why not just draft legislation stating that human rights apply equally to all species, or sub-species in this case.

Most nations do acknowledge that human rights = rights for all - but you do get the odd nation who doesn't.

[Magthere]

Why not just draft legislation stating that human rights apply equally to all species, or sub-species in this case.

Most nations do acknowledge that human rights = rights for all - but you do get the odd nation who doesn't.

Uh, that would mean that bacteria would have equal rights to humans, So instead sentient beings would be a better description.

[Manticore Reborn]

Why not just draft legislation stating that human rights apply equally to all species, or sub-species in this case.

Most nations do acknowledge that human rights = rights for all - but you do get the odd nation who doesn't.

Although not specifically stated in the rules, passed resolutions, all resolution are to apply to all individuals that live in Member states regardless of their species.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Ms. Harper is confident that the Freedom of Expression and the Charter of Civil rights, aka the "Big 2", would have covered this.

Yours etc,

[Throwtopia]

Why not just draft legislation stating that human rights apply equally to all species, or sub-species in this case.

Most nations do acknowledge that human rights = rights for all - but you do get the odd nation who doesn't.

Uh, that would mean that bacteria would have equal rights to humans, So instead sentient beings would be a better description.

The Honorable representative of Throwtopia points to research undertaken by our top scientific institutes which show the definition of sentient is often hard to pin point and no known nation posses a universal measure by which sentience can be judged.

[Urgench]

This is already covered by the Charter of Civil Rights, which talks of "inhabitants of WA member states" the term implies all sapient and sentient beings and makes no distinction regarding species. The CoCR then goes on to require the recognition of all rights in national and international law to the inhabitants of WA member states, it therefore formally recognises the rights and equality of all sapient species. That would make this proposed resolution a duplication of existing WA law and therefore illegal.


Yours,

[Egalitarian People (Ancient)]

It's an important issue, but the remedies might be a little too invasive. For example, encouraging mixed communities and positive attitudes on the subject -- those sounds nice, but would involve a lot of government propoganda and intrusion into private lives.

We believe it would be better to support equal protection under the laws by specifically stating what was implied in prior acts of legislation.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is already covered by the Charter of Civil Rights, which talks of "inhabitants of WA member states" the term implies all sapient and sentient beings and makes no distinction regarding species. The CoCR then goes on to require the recognition of all rights in national and international law to the inhabitants of WA member states, it therefore formally recognises the rights and equality of all sapient species. That would make this proposed resolution a duplication of existing WA law and therefore illegal.


Yours,

Heh, once again, wave the COCR magic wand, and all our problems instantly vanish!

You're priceless, Urg.

[Urgench]

This is already covered by the Charter of Civil Rights, which talks of "inhabitants of WA member states" the term implies all sapient and sentient beings and makes no distinction regarding species. The CoCR then goes on to require the recognition of all rights in national and international law to the inhabitants of WA member states, it therefore formally recognises the rights and equality of all sapient species. That would make this proposed resolution a duplication of existing WA law and therefore illegal.


Yours,

Heh, once again, wave the COCR magic wand, and all our problems instantly vanish!

You're priceless, Urg.

OOC I can't help that it's just that good

[Darenjo]

Why not just draft legislation stating that human rights apply equally to all species, or sub-species in this case.

Most nations do acknowledge that human rights = rights for all - but you do get the odd nation who doesn't.

Although not specifically stated in the rules, passed resolutions, all resolution are to apply to all individuals that live in Member states regardless of their species.

If they do then plenty of nations ignore that rule.

What we need before anything like this proposal is a definition of sentience/sapience - which would probably result in needing definitions for civilization and other like terms.

[Flibbleites]

Why not just draft legislation stating that human rights apply equally to all species, or sub-species in this case.

Most nations do acknowledge that human rights = rights for all - but you do get the odd nation who doesn't.

Although not specifically stated in the rules, passed resolutions, all resolution are to apply to all individuals that live in Member states regardless of their species.

If they do then plenty of nations ignore that rule.

What we need before anything like this proposal is a definition of sentience/sapience - which would probably result in needing definitions for civilization and other like terms.

If history is any indication, all opening that particular can of worms gets you is a debate on whether sentient or sapient should be used.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Knootoss]

The first proposal is good. The rest invasive socialist nanny state bollocks!

~Aram Koopman, Knootian Ambassador to the WA