[WHILE NO ONE WAS LOOKING] Conscientious Objector Act

[Erythrina]

This attained quorum...

GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL

Conscientious Objector Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Wadenor

Description: An act to protect the rights of conscientious objectors.
DEFINING a conscientious objector as an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service due to their conscience, beliefs, or ideas. Including, but not limited to, those individuals who identify themselves as pacifist, non-interventionist, non-resistant, and anti-militarist.
DECLARING every individual, regardless of race, gender, faith, or any other factor has the right to refuse military service on the grounds of conscience.
DECLARING that the right to refuse military service is not restricted to those persons who are already actively, or inactively participating in the military.
REALIZING that many nations and cultures have differing views on compulsory military service
THEREFORE DECLARING that nations may require conscientious objectors to perform civil service instead of military service, however any alternative service required of conscientious objectors shall not in any way violate the beliefs that caused them to claim conscientious objector status.
DECLARES that nations shall have the right to question those individuals who seek conscientious objector status. However those questions shall not in any way be deliberately confusing, seek to cause contradiction in the individual, or in any way designed to deny conscientious objector status for any illegitimate reason. The questioning also shall include no questions that include a hypothetical situation.
IMPLORES all member nations to accept conscientious objectors who are fleeing from non-member nations who deny them their right to refuse military service.

Approvals: 53 (Umbra Ac Silentium, Arcornia, Greater Rhodes, South Lorenya, Arunsey, IIIIIDaoistsIIIII, 11112222, Worldia555, CR Oscilloscopes, SR2 Normandy, Turekstan, Manticore Reborn, Free Peoples Cheese, Asdrubadoland, Pesda, Kyraina, Slayers And Witches, FunkyEli, Norwest Islands, Kindjal, Wilkshire, The Child of the Jago, Keijzers, Quelesh, Burning Ogre, LionWhyte, Hoffmaniia, Finnish North America, -Newfoundland-, Alpha Centerui, Nakatago Vedo, Ovisterra, The Followers of Lugh, Geografika, The Catholic Humans, Splash Hill, Oneiro, Aldonin, Nova Hispannica, Chenango-Greene-York, Rientia, Aridiya, Radkicks, Potato World, Floreria, Nerik, Dagnia, Marflo, Kingdom Brittania, Glan Seiont, South Kirkcaldy, Kleinekatzen, Opportunity and Peace)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

[Embolalia]

What the... how the.... How many times has this been tried, and this just sails through without any drafting? But.... Mine was better!

[Glen-Rhodes]

Eh. This is the downside to increased WA activity. However, the proposal isn't very different from past ones, and it's written decently enough. Makes me question if it's original... Doubly so since Wadenor is fairly new to NS and hasn't ever posted on the forums.

[Embolalia]

Eh. This is the downside to increased WA activity. However, the proposal isn't very different from past ones, and it's written decently enough. Makes me question if it's original... Doubly so since Wadenor is fairly new to NS and hasn't ever posted on the forums.

I smell a plagiarist. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3195075&sid=e04d0805725edff97bbe295b39087a42#p3195075
EDIT: Actually, it looks like it's the same person under a slightly different name.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I don't think the resolution looks bad at all: from the previous version the spelling mistake is corrected, and Charlotte Ryberg is more than welcome to grant political asylum status to any COs who were persecuted in their nation. However, a potential opportunity could be missed to ensure that alternative service isn't punitive.

[Mousebumples]

I smell a plagiarist. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3195075&sid=e04d0805725edff97bbe295b39087a42#p3195075
EDIT: Actually, it looks like it's the same person under a slightly different name.

If someone hasn't already, I'd suggest filing a GHR to let the mods sort this out - just to be certain.

[Erythrina]

Charlotte Ryberg is more than welcome to grant political asylum status to any COs who were persecuted in their nation.

Whoa, that's something I'd like to see! Hope your nation is big enough, or that your citizens don't really mind other five or six people stacked on top of them! Shrinking Potions are hard to produce, but I could get you a supply, if you desire!

[Erythrina]

I smell a plagiarist. http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3195075&sid=e04d0805725edff97bbe295b39087a42#p3195075
EDIT: Actually, it looks like it's the same person under a slightly different name.

If someone hasn't already, I'd suggest filing a GHR to let the mods sort this out - just to be certain.

And on Strength violation...

"DECLARING every individual, regardless of race, gender, faith, or any other factor has the right to refuse military service on the grounds of conscience."

Seriously, mild!?!? Wonder what strong would be, the right to behead generals of one's own nation, perhaps?

[Mousebumples]

And on Strength violation...

Again, if you have a concern regarding a submitted proposal (especially one that has already attained quorum), I would suggest submitting a GHR as that is a more time sensitive issue.

In theory. Given the 3 or 4 proposals ahead of it in the queue, it'll take a few weeks to be up for a vote anyhow.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Charlotte Ryberg is more than welcome to grant political asylum status to any COs who were persecuted in their nation.

Whoa, that's something I'd like to see! Hope your nation is big enough, or that your citizens don't really mind other five or six people stacked on top of them! Shrinking Potions are hard to produce, but I could get you a supply, if you desire!

At least it still provides us an excuse to build metro systems on the masses.

[Embolalia]

If someone hasn't already, I'd suggest filing a GHR to let the mods sort this out - just to be certain.

And on Strength violation...

"DECLARING every individual, regardless of race, gender, faith, or any other factor has the right to refuse military service on the grounds of conscience."

Seriously, mild!?!? Wonder what strong would be, the right to behead generals of one's own nation, perhaps?

GHR submitted, for possible plagiarism and strength violation. I completely agree that "Mild" is absolutely the wrong strength.

[Bears Armed]

"As I read it, this would allow a person to opt out of 'compulsory' military service — and out of any civilian work that their homeland would accept as an alternative to that duty, too — if they simply believe that ‘The world owes me a living, and I shouldn’t have to do anything for anybody’ : Yes?”


Artorrios o SouthWoods,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Belschaft]

Considering that the Confederate Republic does not operate any form of conscription, and therefore has no stake in it's passage, we will largely abstain from this debate unless unexpected developments make it interesting. Nevertheless we would implore nations to support it.

[Quelesh]

What happened to this? It was removed from the queue.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

What happened to this? It was removed from the queue.

It was, honoured ambassador from Quelesh, but then it returned.

[Quelesh]

What happened to this? It was removed from the queue.

It was, honoured ambassador from Quelesh, but then it returned.

Ah, so it has.

[Mousebumples]

From the looks of things, it was likely removed due to the category violation, as it now has a "strong" strength.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

The HRC is of the opinion that this is bleeding heart legislation. In no fashion can we support this.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I think Conscientious Objection is more of a political right, so it should have gone under Furtherment of Democracy, Mild.

[Absolvability]

"As I read it, this would allow a person to opt out of 'compulsory' military service — and out of any civilian work that their homeland would accept as an alternative to that duty, too — if they simply believe that ‘The world owes me a living, and I shouldn’t have to do anything for anybody’ : Yes?”

A rather concerning point brought up by good Ambassador Artorrios, it seems. The wording of the proposal definately allows for this... which is a shame, since the category this issue is obviously intended for should have nothing to do with allowing citizens to avoid civil service.

...any alternative service required of conscientious objectors shall not in any way violate the beliefs that caused them to claim conscientious objector status.

Please excuse me if I sound inconsiderate here... but I'm not a religious man myself, nor do I speak for a religious people. It's just that we seem to be allowing people to just make up their own beliefs on the spot to avoid civic duty and fit their own needs. Absolvability utilizes compulsory military service, but we have always allowed conscientious objectors to work in the community as an alternative. It just makes sense. We would support this proposal fully if it didn't have this one mistake... a mistake which is far larger than it might appear.

...The questioning also shall include no questions that include a hypothetical situation.

So... if we are to assume that practitioners of more than just one religion may opt out of military service... in the process of questioning these objectors, we may not ask as simple a question as, "Do you believe in God," because for atheists, agnostics, and religions that refer to God as anything other than 'God,' it is a hypothetical question?

Sadly opposed.

[Quelesh]

...The questioning also shall include no questions that include a hypothetical situation.

So... if we are to assume that practitioners of more than just one religion may opt out of military service... in the process of questioning these objectors, we may not ask as simple a question as, "Do you believe in God," because for atheists, agnostics, and religions that refer to God as anything other than 'God,' it is a hypothetical question?

Sadly opposed.

I don't think that asking if someone believes in God constitutes a "hypothetical question." It's simply a direct question about their beliefs. A hypothetical question would be one that puts forward a fictitious scenario and asks how the person would respond to or feel about it.

You do make a good point though about the ability to avoid alternative service, though nations would still be able to use questioning to ascertain a person's true beliefs, and if it is felt that a person is just making up radical beliefs so that they don't have to serve at all, that can be acted on accordingly.

[Absolvability]

I don't think that asking if someone believes in God constitutes a "hypothetical question." It's simply a direct question about their beliefs. A hypothetical question would be one that puts forward a fictitious scenario and asks how the person would respond to or feel about it.

I hope that you're correct. I believe that you are, Ambassador, because your explaination seems a natural extension of not trying to trick somebody into contradicting themselves and goes faithfully with what I'm sure is at the heart of this proposal. I just worry that these small things may be misconstrued, especially since the author doesn't seem to wish to put to ease any concerns. Perhaps I'm spiteful, Ambassador, but I still must oppose if only because the text of this proposal can no longer be altered. It simply does not satisfy me.

You do make a good point though about the ability to avoid alternative service, though nations would still be able to use questioning to ascertain a person's true beliefs, and if it is felt that a person is just making up radical beliefs so that they don't have to serve at all, that can be acted on accordingly.

Thank you, Ambassador, but this point goes to the representative from Bears Armed. What I will say, however, is that I'm not so convinced as you that this resolution, if passed, will allow us to 'act accordingly,' on someone that is making up radical beliefs. This is a very touchy subject, I'm sure we can agree. Considering that my country has no national religion, we support all belief structures (though we don't promote any,) and therefore would find it difficult to prove or disprove someone's religious beliefs. Especially with the restrictions on questioning.

Is the object of an investigation to describe a pattern in beliefs and lifestyle? What about people who just 'got saved'?

[Unibotian WA Mission]

From the looks of things, it was likely removed due to the category violation, as it now has a "strong" strength.

From the author:

The mods told me they were going to delete it because the strength was wrong so i asked for it to be deleted, however i have fixed that so please endorse it again