[PASSED] Don't Kill the Poor Act

[Wallenburg]

Convention Against Genocide is good. Very good. However, it does not protect economic classes, as economic status is not a "perceived innate characteristic", at least in most states. Let's fix that, so that member states can't try raising VAT and killing all the poor.

Don't Kill the Poor Act

---

---

Category: Human Rights || Strength: Significant || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Celebrating a history of protecting essential sapient rights,

Recognizing historical efforts to prohibit genocide and guarantee equal rights for the citizens of member states,

Concerned that ill-intentioned governments might engage in violence against the weakest of those under its jurisdiction,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Recognizes 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 as acts of genocide,
   
   
2. Highlights that case-by-case imprisonment of, displacement of, or use of force against individuals does not target a general group, and so does not constitute genocide,
   
   
3. Renders crimes against humanity any acts of genocide against any group on the basis of economic status or employment,
   
   
4. Requires member states to render aid to individuals escaping genocide on the basis of their economic status or employment, and to consider such persons refugees.

[Wallenburg]

(Don't) Kill the Poor Act

---

Category: Human Rights || Strength: Significant || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Celebrating a history of protecting essential sapient rights,

Recognizing historical efforts to prohibit genocide and guarantee equal rights for the citizens of member states,

Concerned that ill-intentioned governments might engage in violence on the weakest of those under its jurisdiction,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Recognizes 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 as acts of genocide,
   
   
2. Highlights that case-by-case imprisonment of, displacement of, or use of force against individuals does not target a general group, and so does not constitute genocide,
   
   
3. Renders as crimes against humanity any acts of genocide against any group on the basis of economic status or employment,
   
   
4. Requires member states to render aid to those escaping genocide on the basis of their economic status or employment, and to consider such persons refugees.

(Don't) Kill the Poor Act

---

Category: Human Rights || Area of Strength: Significant || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Celebrating a history of protecting essential sapient rights,

Recognizing historical efforts to prohibit genocide and guarantee equal rights for the citizens of member states,

Concerned that ill-intentioned governments might engage in violence on the weakest of those under its jurisdiction,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Recognizes systematic 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 as acts of genocide,
   
   
2. Highlights that case-by-case imprisonment of, displacement of, or use of force against individuals does not target a general group, and so does not constitute genocide,
   
   
3. Prohibits acts of genocide against any group on the basis of economic status or employment,
   
   
4. Requires member states to render aid to those escaping genocide on the basis of their economic status or employment, and to consider such persons refugees.

(Don't) Kill the Poor Act

---

Category: Human Rights || Area of Strength: Significant || Proposed by: Wallenburg

---

Celebrating a history of protecting essential sapient rights,

Recognizing historical efforts to prohibit genocide and guarantee equal rights for the citizens of member states,

Concerned that ill-intentioned governments might engage in violence on the weakest of those under its jurisdiction,

The World Assembly hereby:

1. Recognizes systematic 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 as acts of genocide,
   
   
2. Prohibits acts of genocide against any group on the basis of economic status or employment,
   
   
3. Requires member states to render aid to those escaping genocide on the basis of their economic status or employment, and to consider such persons refugees.

As a footnote, I am fully aware that this also prohibits member states from exterminating the filthy bourgeoisie parasites in the workers' Revolution. As unfortunate as it might be to let them live, we all have to make compromises sometimes.

[Tinfect]

As a footnote, I am fully aware that this also prohibits member states from exterminating the filthy bourgeoisie parasites in the workers' Revolution. As unfortunate as it might be to let them live, we all have to make compromises sometimes.

OOC:
Completely unacceptable. No support never, and frankly, how dare you.

[Kenmoria]

"Looks good so far. However, the title is slightly odd by normal standards. In a sentence, brackets can be removed without changing the meaning as they clarify or provide additional detail, doing so here would be disastrous."

[Old Hope]

Recognizes systematic 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 as acts of genocide,

Could you please avoid calling quarantine, or other necessary security measures, genocide?
Irrespective of quarantine not being outlawed by this proposal; it should not be done.

--Reserved for draft history--

As a footnote, I am fully aware that this also prohibits member states from exterminating the filthy bourgeoisie parasites in the workers' Revolution. As unfortunate as it might be to let them live, we all have to make compromises sometimes.

No it does not. Just exterminate them for corruption, mistreatment, refusal to help et al.

Unfortunately, this is true for the unemployed and poor as well - crimes of sleeping in public areas, begging ...

[Attempted Socialism]

OOC: No exemption for pumping gas into Lidl while being a coldhearted pragmatist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg

[United Massachusetts]

"We are wholeheartedly in favour of resolutions to prevent the marginalisation and/or persecution of individuals on account of socioeconomic class. The Roman Catholic Federation will vote for the resolution when it heads to vote."

[Stoskavanya]

I think the key word is perceived innate characteristics, which in the doctrines you cite probably would refer to class status or employment as somewhat "innate". I don't think the words are that inflexible.

[Wallenburg]

"Looks good so far. However, the title is slightly odd by normal standards. In a sentence, brackets can be removed without changing the meaning as they clarify or provide additional detail, doing so here would be disastrous."

"I am still deciding whether this should be named 'Kill the Poor Act' or 'Don't Kill the Poor Act'. Perhaps I should go for 'The Computer Says We Shouldn't Kill all the Poor so We're not Doing It' instead."

I think the key word is perceived innate characteristics, which in the doctrines you cite probably would refer to class status or employment as somewhat "innate". I don't think the words are that inflexible.

Except in societies with no real economic mobility and a fixed employment rate, these are not innate characteristics, perceived or otherwise.

[Old Hope]

After reviewing the Convention against Genocide and possible side effects we shall not support this as long as the following issue exists:
CONVENTION AGAINST GENOCIDE:

2. Member nations are prohibited from perpetrating acts of genocide, and must take action against non-state groups undertaking such activities whithin their borders.

THIS DRAFT:

Recognizes systematic 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 as acts of genocide,

RESULT:
Member nations are prohibited from removing a group from designated areas, institute population controls on groups, or forcefully isolating groups in areas.

Member nations are prohibited to...
enact quarantines.
put people in prison.
enforce the law against groups.
And this list is not exhaustive.

[Kenmoria]

"To add to the Old Hope delagation's point, removal of a group of people to a seperate area is not genocide. The word “Genocide” comes from Greek “Genos” meaning race or people, and “-cide” meaning kill. Anything that does not kill a group of people is not genocide."

[Wallenburg]

The issue here is that incarceration and quarantine are generally performed on a case-by-case basis. This proposal only applies restrictions to performing such actions against entire groups, on the basis of economic status.

As to your concerns about the use of the word "genocide" to include things other than killing people outright, you might consider the UN's definition of genocide, which reads:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

I have done my best to mirror this definition without plagiarizing it in the way "Convention Against Genocide" does.

EDIT: Didn't notice you were talking IC there. I suppose you can consider the first paragraph here IC, and the rest OOC, since I can't really talk about the UNmentionable organization in any other way.

[Auralia]

Recognizes systematic 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 as acts of genocide,

These acts must be perpetrated against a group with the intent to destroy that group in order to constitute genocide. This should be made clear in the proposal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Wallenburg]

Recognizes systematic 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 as acts of genocide,

These acts must be perpetrated against a group with the intent to destroy that group in order to constitute genocide. This should be made clear in the proposal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador

"Fair enough. I will look into making changes to suit that context."

[Auralia]

"Fair enough. I will look into making changes to suit that context."

This would also help to stave off Old Hope-style criticisms about this proposal prohibiting quarantines and such.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador, Auralian Mission to the World Assembly

[Old Hope]

These acts must be perpetrated against a group with the intent to destroy that group in order to constitute genocide. This should be made clear in the proposal.

Martin Russell
Chief Ambassador

"Fair enough. I will look into making changes to suit that context."

It would be greatly appreciated if you could define group more narrowly; for this resolution.A group can consist of just three people.
This does not seem to be your intent.
Please do not forget to check your rework against unintended consequences due to synergy with Convention Against Genocide.
It is not what we want and, at least I hope that, not what you want.

[Bears Armed]

OOC
I'd argue that unless there's an absolutely clear division between rich and poor (e.g. all of the rich have at least 10N each, all of the poor have no more than 1N each, and nobody has any value of 'N' in between those two limits...). which probably isn't the case in most member nations, any thresholds set for dividing a society into 'economic classes' constitute an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" so that this would already be covered by GAR #35.

[Old Hope]

OOC
I'd argue that unless there's an absolutely clear division between rich and poor (e.g. all of the rich have at least 10N each, all of the poor have no more than 1N each, and nobody has any value of 'N' in between those two limits...). which probably isn't the case in most member nations, any thresholds set for dividing a society into 'economic classes' constitute an "arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" so that this would already be covered by GAR #35.

No, not really.

Everyone who needs help from the state to fend off their basic needs because they have not enough money is classified as poor.
Everyone who is poor is a problem for the society and should be killed to protect the nation.

There. Not arbitrarily assigned.

[Wallenburg]

What's this? An old draft of some much needed legislation? Well as long as member states are prohibited from rounding up the dwarves, we may as well forbid them from killing the poor.

[United Massachusetts]

What's this? An old draft of some much needed legislation? Well as long as member states are prohibited from rounding up the dwarves, we may as well forbid them from killing the poor.

"We still support this bill."

[Sciongrad]

OOC: I'm not convinced that it is currently legal, under extant WA legislation, to either systemically kill off any group on the basis of their economic status or to legally disadvantage them with the intention of displacing or isolating them. First, the Genocide Convention prohibits genocide against any "identifiable group of persons on the basis of [...] a perceived innate characteristic." Discrimination on the basis of economic status is generally predicated on some belief system that presupposes certain undesirable innate characteristics in the poor (e.g., lazy, criminal, etc.) or even the wealthy for that matter (oppressive, bourgeois, greedy). Even then, wouldn't CoCR prohibit unequal treatment on the basis of a reductive categorization, like economic status? And wouldn't systemic murder or isolation constitute deliberately inequitable legal treatment in violation of CoCR? The WA already outlaws summary execution, so surely there must be some legal basis, even if it's merely a pretext, for mass execution. But this legal basis can't violate CoCR, and I believe any legal regime that permits the mass execution, deportation, isolation, etc. of any group within a society violates CoCR, prima facie. Would you agree?

[United Massachusetts]

OOC: I'm not convinced that it is currently legal, under extant WA legislation, to either systemically kill off any group on the basis of their economic status or to legally disadvantage them with the intention of displacing or isolating them. First, the Genocide Convention prohibits genocide against any "identifiable group of persons on the basis of [...] a perceived innate characteristic." Discrimination on the basis of economic status is generally predicated on some belief system that presupposes certain undesirable innate characteristics in the poor (e.g., lazy, criminal, etc.) or even the wealthy for that matter (oppressive, bourgeois, greedy). Even then, wouldn't CoCR prohibit unequal treatment on the basis of a reductive categorization, like economic status? And wouldn't systemic murder or isolation constitute deliberately inequitable legal treatment in violation of CoCR? The WA already outlaws summary execution, so surely there must be some legal basis, even if it's merely a pretext, for mass execution. But this legal basis can't violate CoCR, and I believe any legal regime that permits the mass execution, deportation, isolation, etc. of any group within a society violates CoCR, prima facie. Would you agree?

No. I imagine killing the poor, in this sense, not to be a matter of any perceived characteristic of the poor, but rather, a perceived economic burden that maintaining their standard of living, in compliance with extant resolutions, entails. A more sinister regime certainly could assert that "leeching off the welfare system" without maintaining employment is a criminal activity, and thus could kill the unemployed. The reasons for killing wealthy individuals would be even easier to justify for these sinister regimes--by maintaining excessive stockpiles of wealth, the rich engage in "theft" of their own society and of the poor.

Either way, I imagine, the reasons for engaging in socioeconomic genocide are not on the basis of a characteristic. Nations have thousands of ways to justify it within the confines of CoCR.

[Sciongrad]

Either way, I imagine, the reasons for engaging in socioeconomic genocide are not on the basis of a characteristic. Nations have thousands of ways to justify it within the confines of CoCR.

OOC: How could you justify executing or isolating or deporting only poor people without violating CoCR? If we recognize that CoCR does not cover laws that exist only as a pretext to allow discrimination on the basis of one type of reductive categorization, we must recognize that it allows similar loopholes for all types, and the whole thing is undone.

[Bears Armed]

No. I imagine killing the poor, in this sense, not to be a matter of any perceived characteristic of the poor, but rather, a perceived economic burden that maintaining their standard of living, in compliance with extant resolutions, entails. A more sinister regime certainly could assert that "leeching off the welfare system" without maintaining employment is a criminal activity, and thus could kill the unemployed. The reasons for killing wealthy individuals would be even easier to justify for these sinister regimes--by maintaining excessive stockpiles of wealth, the rich engage in "theft" of their own society and of the poor.

Either way, I imagine, the reasons for engaging in socioeconomic genocide are not on the basis of a characteristic. Nations have thousands of ways to justify it within the confines of CoCR.

Now consider the combination of:
GA Resolution #79 'Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws' (which says that you can't punish people for actions carried out before the laws making those actions illegal were actually passed),

GA Resolution #323 'No Penalty Without Law' (which says that you can't punish people for their actions without having passed a law that criminalises those actions).

GA Resolution #344 'Minimum Standard of Living Act' (which requires member nations to guarantee a minimum standard of living to their peoples: trying to criminalise dependence on the nation by people who really can't support themselves seems a pretty clear violation of this)

GA Resolution #375 'Crime and Punishment' (particularly clause 4, which forbids the use of execution as a penalty for nonviolent crimes).

[Old Hope]

No. I imagine killing the poor, in this sense, not to be a matter of any perceived characteristic of the poor, but rather, a perceived economic burden that maintaining their standard of living, in compliance with extant resolutions, entails. A more sinister regime certainly could assert that "leeching off the welfare system" without maintaining employment is a criminal activity, and thus could kill the unemployed. The reasons for killing wealthy individuals would be even easier to justify for these sinister regimes--by maintaining excessive stockpiles of wealth, the rich engage in "theft" of their own society and of the poor.

Either way, I imagine, the reasons for engaging in socioeconomic genocide are not on the basis of a characteristic. Nations have thousands of ways to justify it within the confines of CoCR.

Now consider the combination of:
GA Resolution #79 'Ban on Ex Post Facto Laws' (which says that you can't punish people for actions carried out before the laws making those actions illegal were actually passed),

GA Resolution #323 'No Penalty Without Law' (which says that you can't punish people for their actions without having passed a law that criminalises those actions).

GA Resolution #344 'Minimum Standard of Living Act' (which requires member nations to guarantee a minimum standard of living to their peoples: trying to criminalise dependence on the nation by people who really can't support themselves seems a pretty clear violation of this)

GA Resolution #375 'Crime and Punishment' (particularly clause 4, which forbids the use of execution as a penalty for nonviolent crimes).

Actually, you are quite wrong. One could argue that fulfilling the Minimum Standard of Living Act, if you lack the necessary resources, practically requires you to kill enough people to be able to fulfill the duties for the rest. In this case, killing isn't a punishment for a crime either, but rather a necessary thing for the government to do - just like taxes aren't the punishment for a crime.