[PROPOSAL] Repeal "Don't Kill The Poor Act"

[Peacockastan]

Most Present Version:
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #450
General Assembly Resolution #450 “Don't Kill The Poor Act” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that killing the poor is a terrible thing to do;

Knowing that an increase in the being provided aid by a nation will put extreme strain on a nations economy;

Convinced that the Don't Kill The Poor Act is an attack on national sovereignty by dictating that nations must render aid to refugees;

Deeply concerned that under the Don't Kill The Poor Act, simply relocating a group because of their economic status or enacting a policy of segregation alone is considered to be an act of genocide;

Keeping in mind that genocide is an act of great terror which should not be thrown around lightly;

Confident that "genocide" was redefined to be overly broad which will flood courts and distract authorities with trivial claims of genocide that distract from real issues,

Deeply disturbed that "Render aid" is far too vague a phrase as used in the Don't kill The Poor Act and an ill-intentioned government could consider "aid" for refugees as holding them in camp cities indefinitely, providing minimal amounts of food and water, separating children from parents indefinitely to protect from human trafficking, or even invading and/or bombing the country the refugees come from under the guise of "promoting regional stability,"

HEREBY repeals GA 450.

Co-authored by: Grater Tovakia, The Federation of Spokane, and Tri-Galleon Yudobya

Suggestions and critique are welcome!
(The links are temporary because the resolution code doesn't work in the forums)

Category: Repeal | Resolution: [resolution=ga#450]GAR #450[/resolution]
[resolution=ga#450]General Assembly Resolution #450 “Don't Kill The Poor Act”[/resolution] (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that killing the poor is a terrible thing to do;

Knowing that an increase in the number of refugees being brought into a nation and an increase in the number of refugees being provided aid by a nation will put extreme strain on a nations economy;

Convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] is an attack on national sovereignty by dictating that nations must accept refugees and render aid;

Deeply concerned that under the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution], simply relocating a group because of their economic status is considered to be an act of genocide;

Keeping in mind that genocide is an act of great terror which should not be thrown around lightly;

Deeply convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] redefines the word, genocide, to be overly broad allowing for those who actually commit a mass heinous murder cast the blame elsewhere on a nation that simply moved a group of people from a designated area,

Confident that this redefinition of the word, genocide, will flood the international courts with trivial claims of genocide that distract from real issues,

Deeply disturbed that "Render aid" is far too vague a phrase as used in the [resolution=ga#450]Don't kill The Poor Act[/resolution] and an ill-intentioned government could consider "aid" for refugees as holding them in camp cities indefinitely, providing minimal amounts of food and water, separating children from parents indefinitely to protect from human trafficking, or even invading and/or bombing the country the refugees come from under the guise of "promoting regional stability,"

HEREBY repeals GA 450.

Co-authored by: Grater Tovakia, The Federation of Spokane, and Tri-Galleon Yudobya

Suggestions and critique are welcome!

[Wallenburg]

Category: Repeal | Resolution: [resolution=ga#450]GAR #450[/resolution]
[resolution=ga#450]General Assembly Resolution #450 “Don't Kill The Poor Act”[/resolution] (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

My resolution is Civil Rights: Significant, so I have no idea where you got Social Justice: Strong from.

Recognizing that killing the poor is a terrible thing to do;

Knowing that an increase in the number of refugees being brought into a nation and an increase in the number of refugees being provided aid by a nation will put extreme strain on a nations economy;

Untrue, but not quite as relevant as other issues here.

Convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] is an attack on national sovereignty by dictating that nations must accept refugees and render aid;

The target does not require nations to admit refugees, so this clause would make this illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

Deeply concerned that under the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution], simply relocating a group because of their economic status is considered to be an act of genocide;

Keeping in mind that genocide is an act of great terror which should not be thrown around lightly;

Deeply convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] redefines the word, genocide, to be overly broad allowing for those who actually commit a mass heinous murder cast the blame elsewhere on a nation that simply moved a group of people from a designated area,

Take it up with the UN. The WA has adopted a definition similar to this one in two resolutions.

Confident that this redefinition of the word, genocide, will flood the international courts with trivial claims of genocide that distract from real issues,

Another honest mistake. The World Assembly has no international courts. That is, of course, ignoring the disgusting suggestion that forced marches, concentration camps, and forced sterilization are "trivial".

Deeply disturbed that "Render aid" is far too vague a phrase as used in the Don't kill the poor act and an ill-intentioned government could consider "aid" for refugees as holding them in camp cities indefinitely, providing minimal amounts of food and water, separating children from parents indefinitely to protect from human trafficking, or even invading and/or bombing the country the refugees come from under the guise of "promoting regional stability,"

Member states still have to abide by existing WA resolutions. No member gets to violate one resolution under the pretenses of following another.

HEREBY repeals GA 450.

Co-authored by: Grater Tovakia, The Federation of Spokane, and Tri-Galleon Yudobya

Currently illegal, most likely unsalvageable. Good luck.

[The Federation of Spokane]

Category: Repeal | Resolution: [resolution=ga#450]GAR #450[/resolution]
[resolution=ga#450]General Assembly Resolution #450 “Don't Kill The Poor Act”[/resolution] (Category: Social Justice; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

My resolution is Civil Rights: Significant, so I have no idea where you got Social Justice: Strong from.

Recognizing that killing the poor is a terrible thing to do;

Knowing that an increase in the number of refugees being brought into a nation and an increase in the number of refugees being provided aid by a nation will put extreme strain on a nations economy;

Untrue, but not quite as relevant as other issues here.

Convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] is an attack on national sovereignty by dictating that nations must accept refugees and render aid;

The target does not require nations to admit refugees, so this clause would make this illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

Deeply concerned that under the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution], simply relocating a group because of their economic status is considered to be an act of genocide;

Keeping in mind that genocide is an act of great terror which should not be thrown around lightly;

Deeply convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] redefines the word, genocide, to be overly broad allowing for those who actually commit a mass heinous murder cast the blame elsewhere on a nation that simply moved a group of people from a designated area,

Take it up with the UN. The WA has adopted a definition similar to this one in two resolutions.

Confident that this redefinition of the word, genocide, will flood the international courts with trivial claims of genocide that distract from real issues,

Another honest mistake. The World Assembly has no international courts. That is, of course, ignoring the disgusting suggestion that forced marches, concentration camps, and forced sterilization are "trivial".

Deeply disturbed that "Render aid" is far too vague a phrase as used in the Don't kill the poor act and an ill-intentioned government could consider "aid" for refugees as holding them in camp cities indefinitely, providing minimal amounts of food and water, separating children from parents indefinitely to protect from human trafficking, or even invading and/or bombing the country the refugees come from under the guise of "promoting regional stability,"

Member states still have to abide by existing WA resolutions. No member gets to violate one resolution under the pretenses of following another.

HEREBY repeals GA 450.

Co-authored by: Grater Tovakia, The Federation of Spokane, and Tri-Galleon Yudobya

Currently illegal, most likely unsalvageable. Good luck.

I would like to point out that realistically it could impose a financial strain on a nation if said nation were to be poor or have large populations of refugees and citizens.

[Peacockastan]

My resolution is Civil Rights: Significant, so I have no idea where you got Social Justice: Strong from.

Yes, that's true and I'll change that in the next draft.

Untrue, but not quite as relevant as other issues here.

Yes it is true, a lot of nations simply don't have the funding to provide massive amounts of aid to large groups of refugees and providing aid is a very expensive task.

The target does not require nations to admit refugees, so this clause would make this illegal for violating the Honest Mistake rule.

To fix this I'll remove the parts that suggest that nations have to take in refugees however the parts saying that nations being forced to provide aid will stay in.

Take it up with the UN. The WA has adopted a definition similar to this one in two resolutions.

While this is true, your resolution also defines it in the same way and therefore will be critiqued for it no matter how many other resolutions use this definition. Also, House of Cards rule.

Another honest mistake. The World Assembly has no international courts. That is, of course, ignoring the disgusting suggestion that forced marches, concentration camps, and forced sterilization are "trivial".

While it is true that the World Assembly has no international courts, it still enacts international law which has to be judged in some kind of way so I'll simply remove the word "international". Also those things are not trivial however removing a group of homeless people sleeping in a park would be defined as genocide by your resolution, and that is trivial.

Member states still have to abide by existing WA resolutions. No member gets to violate one resolution under the pretenses of following another.

While this is true, it still doesn't hide the fact that the definition of aid in your resolution is still way to vague and can be interpreted in any way.

Currently illegal, most likely unsalvageable. Good luck.

Others and myself are still going to try to make it legal and will keep trying until it is, I hope to hear more from you.

[Peacockastan]

Category: Repeal | Resolution: [resolution=ga#450]GAR #450[/resolution]
[resolution=ga#450]General Assembly Resolution #450 “Don't Kill The Poor Act”[/resolution] (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognizing that killing the poor is a terrible thing to do;

Knowing that an increase in the being provided aid by a nation will put extreme strain on a nations economy;

Convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] is an attack on national sovereignty by dictating that nations must render aid to refugees;

Deeply concerned that under the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution], simply relocating a group because of their economic status is considered to be an act of genocide;

Keeping in mind that genocide is an act of great terror which should not be thrown around lightly;

Deeply convinced that the [resolution=ga#450]Don't Kill The Poor Act[/resolution] redefines the word, genocide, to be overly broad allowing for those who actually commit a mass heinous murder cast the blame elsewhere on a nation that simply moved a group of people from a designated area,

Confident that this redefinition of the word, genocide, will flood courts with trivial claims of genocide that distract from real issues,

Deeply disturbed that "Render aid" is far too vague a phrase as used in the [resolution=ga#450]Don't kill The Poor Act[/resolution] and an ill-intentioned government could consider "aid" for refugees as holding them in camp cities indefinitely, providing minimal amounts of food and water, separating children from parents indefinitely to protect from human trafficking, or even invading and/or bombing the country the refugees come from under the guise of "promoting regional stability,"

HEREBY repeals GA 450.

Co-authored by: Grater Tovakia, The Federation of Spokane, and Tri-Galleon Yudobya

Suggestions and critique are welcome!
Updated version after edits.

[Wallenburg]

You should put the latest version of your draft in the OP, using the edit button. Makes it easier for passers by to figure out which version is the most current.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: The submitting nation is allowed to list one nation as co-author.

Also, the "deeply convinced" clause is an Honest Mistake IMO, as I don't see how merely redefining a word would suddenly "allow" a horrible regime to exclaim "No, those bastards in East Bumblestan were the ones who greivously murdered our ethnic Brobdingnagian minority - go after them!" If they're that (dumb? cheeky?), they'll say what they want regardless.

[Kenmoria]

“The top bit of your proposal looks horrendous and there are lots of pieces of random code in square brackets, I recommend removing those as there isn’t a need to link to the target resolution anyway. Furthermore, I think some of your reasoning is a bit far-fetched, particularly that national courts would be ‘flooded’ with accusations of genocide.”

[Peacockastan]

OOC: The submitting nation is allowed to list one nation as co-author.

In the rules it says that you can list up to three co-authors so I don't really know where you got that from.

Also, the "deeply convinced" clause is an Honest Mistake IMO, as I don't see how merely redefining a word would suddenly "allow" a horrible regime to exclaim "No, those bastards in East Bumblestan were the ones who greivously murdered our ethnic Brobdingnagian minority - go after them!" If they're that (dumb? cheeky?), they'll say what they want regardless.

You're right, it wouldn't necessarily "allow" for them to do that, however it will enable them in ways to distract international authorities from the fact that they are committing mass murder by simply pointing a finger and saying "Hey these guys committed genocide" meanwhile they are the ones who are actually killing mass groups of people while the other nation moved a group from a designated area. So I will be changing it from "allow" to "enable"

[Peacockastan]

“The top bit of your proposal looks horrendous and there are lots of pieces of random code in square brackets, I recommend removing those as there isn’t a need to link to the target resolution anyway. Furthermore, I think some of your reasoning is a bit far-fetched, particularly that national courts would be ‘flooded’ with accusations of genocide.”

Thanks for the suggestion however I think that people should be able to easily access the resolution that they are voting on repealing throughout the repeal so they will stay in, and for some reason resolution links don't work in forums? Also yes they will "flood" courts because it doesn't take too many genocide cases to flood a court system. Do you know how long the Nuremberg trials lasted? It lasted nearly a year altogether and when a court has 20 pending genocide cases that all take upwards to a year then innocent people could be being mass murdered, but because of the Don't Kill The Poor Act, those people have to wait years before the people being killed off get justice for the crimes that were committed against them.

[Separatist Peoples]

You're right, it wouldn't necessarily "allow" for them to do that, however it will enable them in ways to distract international authorities from the fact that they are committing mass murder by simply pointing a finger and saying "Hey these guys committed genocide" meanwhile they are the ones who are actually killing mass groups of people while the other nation moved a group from a designated area. So I will be changing it from "allow" to "enable"

OOC: I cannot see a reasonable interpretation of that clause that is remotely accurate. Nobody will be able to shift the blame off of killing mass groups of people merely because forced migration is also illegal under the same term. That looks like an Honest Mistake violation to me. There is no colorable interpretation of Don't Kill The Poor that would enable a genocidal entity to avoid detection. Casting aspersions is not a terribly effective way to shift scrutiny in such cases. Best to nix the whole clause.

I also think the clause regarding the international courts is itself an honest mistake. There really aren't any international courts that pass judgment on perpetrators of genocide. The closest we have is the Independent Adjudicative Office which determines if states comply with extant WA law. In which case, the state itself is on trial for actions that may not be state sanctioned, and the only remedy is a hefty fine. That agency is explicitly designed to consider compliance with law and not to provide justice to victims, and would really not be tied up for terribly long.

[Kenmoria]

“The top bit of your proposal looks horrendous and there are lots of pieces of random code in square brackets, I recommend removing those as there isn’t a need to link to the target resolution anyway. Furthermore, I think some of your reasoning is a bit far-fetched, particularly that national courts would be ‘flooded’ with accusations of genocide.”

Thanks for the suggestion however I think that people should be able to easily access the resolution that they are voting on repealing throughout the repeal so they will stay in, and for some reason resolution links don't work in forums? Also yes they will "flood" courts because it doesn't take too many genocide cases to flood a court system. Do you know how long the Nuremberg trials lasted? It lasted nearly a year altogether and when a court has 20 pending genocide cases that all take upwards to a year then innocent people could be being mass murdered, but because of the Don't Kill The Poor Act, those people have to wait years before the people being killed off get justice for the crimes that were committed against them.

(OOC: You should use the [url]Icode for that instead, as the resolution code is very rarely used correctly. It works with [url=“Whatever the website address of the resolution is on the WA page”]actual name of the resolution[/url].)

[Peacockastan]

OOC: I cannot see a reasonable interpretation of that clause that is remotely accurate. Nobody will be able to shift the blame off of killing mass groups of people merely because forced migration is also illegal under the same term. That looks like an Honest Mistake violation to me. There is no colorable interpretation of Don't Kill The Poor that would enable a genocidal entity to avoid detection. Casting aspersions is not a terribly effective way to shift scrutiny in such cases. Best to nix the whole clause.

You're right, it doesn't allow people to shift blame off of a specific act of genocide to someone else. I had never really noticed that before, thanks for the feedback! The Don't Kill The Poor Act does however allow for those who have committed heinous mass murders to distract international authorities/national authorities/regional authorities (I will just put "authorities in the resolution because I don't know what exists and what doesn't exist, also it disturbs me that there are no defined international courts to judge on international incidents and I feel like someone should probably write a resolution about that (I will not be writing said resolution)) any way, it allows those who have committed heinous mass murders to distract authorities and courts with numerous trivial claims of genocide, what I just said will be replacing that clause. Again thanks for the feedback.

I also think the clause regarding the international courts is itself an honest mistake. There really aren't any international courts that pass judgment on perpetrators of genocide. The closest we have is the Independent Adjudicative Office which determines if states comply with extant WA law. In which case, the state itself is on trial for actions that may not be state sanctioned, and the only remedy is a hefty fine. That agency is explicitly designed to consider compliance with law and not to provide justice to victims, and would really not be tied up for terribly long.

That's why I changed 'international courts" to "courts"

[Tri-Galleon Yudobya]

OOC: I cannot see a reasonable interpretation of that clause that is remotely accurate. Nobody will be able to shift the blame off of killing mass groups of people merely because forced migration is also illegal under the same term. That looks like an Honest Mistake violation to me. There is no colorable interpretation of Don't Kill The Poor that would enable a genocidal entity to avoid detection. Casting aspersions is not a terribly effective way to shift scrutiny in such cases. Best to nix the whole clause.

OOC: I would respectfully disagree. In real life, brutal regimes are eager to use anything at their disposal to muddy the waters and change the subject from their own crimes. Russia uses the imperialist history of the United States to justify its actions in Crimea, African dictatorships use the faults of the West to justify their own actions, and much more. A resolution like this may not legally allow leaders that kill millions of people in an ethnic group to avoid being tried, but it is most certainly a weapon in terms of the discourse around the crime being committed. Trying world leaders is all about political will, not law, and the clause in the Don't Kill The Poor Act is a huge tool of brutal regimes to sap the right side of political will

[Wallenburg]

I honestly have no fucking clue how prohibiting mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization of one group makes the prohibited mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization of another more lawful or somehow "muddied". You might as well argue that by making child abuse illegal, you distract from the issue of spousal abuse and give domestic abusers justification for brutalizing their spouses.

[Arasi Luvasa]

a nation that simply moved a group of people from a designated area,

This was a method used by the apartheid government. It can actually be quite effective in destroying a people or culture so you should consider that.

[Peacockastan]

a nation that simply moved a group of people from a designated area,

This was a method used by the apartheid government. It can actually be quite effective in destroying a people or culture so you should consider that.

Right but there are also plenty of other reasons that people could be removed from a designated area, so if this bill wanted to specifically outlaw this exact instance than it should have specifically mentioned this act. This Act however did not do this and instead implemented an overly broad definition of the word "genocide"

[Wallenburg]

This was a method used by the apartheid government. It can actually be quite effective in destroying a people or culture so you should consider that.

Right but there are also plenty of other reasons that people could be removed from a designated area, so if this bill wanted to specifically outlaw this exact instance than it should have specifically mentioned this act. This Act however did not do this and instead implemented an overly broad definition of the word "genocide"

"Hereby prohibits the Trail of Tears, the Armenian Genocide, and the South African Group Areas Act," has a few problems with it.

[Peacockastan]

I honestly have no fucking clue how prohibiting mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization of one group makes the prohibited mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization of another more lawful or somehow "muddied". You might as well argue that by making child abuse illegal, you distract from the issue of spousal abuse and give domestic abusers justification for brutalizing their spouses.

I agree entirely with what you just said, however in your resolution this is not how literally anything was described. If you wanted this to be your argument for your resolution then you should have said this in your resolution, instead (like I said before) you redefined the word genocide to be overly broad.
Also the prohibition of mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization doesn't muddy the law. The prohibition of moving groups from an area and then calling it genocide does however muddy the law.

[Wallenburg]

I honestly have no fucking clue how prohibiting mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization of one group makes the prohibited mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization of another more lawful or somehow "muddied". You might as well argue that by making child abuse illegal, you distract from the issue of spousal abuse and give domestic abusers justification for brutalizing their spouses.

I agree entirely with what you just said, however in your resolution this is not how literally anything was described. If you wanted this to be your argument for your resolution then you should have said this in your resolution, instead (like I said before) you redefined the word genocide to be overly broad.
Also the prohibition of mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization doesn't muddy the law. The prohibition of moving groups from an area and then calling it genocide does however muddy the law.

Forced migration and death marches are absolutely genocide. Please learn your history.

[Peacockastan]

Right but there are also plenty of other reasons that people could be removed from a designated area, so if this bill wanted to specifically outlaw this exact instance than it should have specifically mentioned this act. This Act however did not do this and instead implemented an overly broad definition of the word "genocide"

"Hereby prohibits the Trail of Tears, the Armenian Genocide, and the South African Group Areas Act," has a few problems with it.

Actually I just looked at it and it said "forceful isolation of a group" that would be great if it was prohibited, instead you called it genocide. This is a massive disproportionate response to segregation. We can all agree that segregation is terrible, but it's not genocide. And yes I know that during segregation acts of genocide have been committed, but in no way should segregation alone be considered an act of genocide.

[Peacockastan]

I agree entirely with what you just said, however in your resolution this is not how literally anything was described. If you wanted this to be your argument for your resolution then you should have said this in your resolution, instead (like I said before) you redefined the word genocide to be overly broad.
Also the prohibition of mass murder, imprisonment, or sterilization doesn't muddy the law. The prohibition of moving groups from an area and then calling it genocide does however muddy the law.

Forced migration and death marches are absolutely genocide. Please learn your history.

I'll say it again, segregation by itself should not be considered an act of genocide and it is completely outrageous to me that you think it should be.
And yes death marches are genocide, but if you wanted death marches to be illegal and considered genocide under your resolution then you should have specifically listed it, instead (I'll say it again) genocide was redefined to be overly broad.

[Tri-Galleon Yudobya]

Forced migration and death marches are absolutely genocide. Please learn your history.

We're not saying it isn't but that the language of the legislation includes plenty of things aren't genocide

[The Federation of Spokane]

We're not saying it isn't but that the language of the legislation includes plenty of things aren't genocide

Agreed.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: I cannot see a reasonable interpretation of that clause that is remotely accurate. Nobody will be able to shift the blame off of killing mass groups of people merely because forced migration is also illegal under the same term. That looks like an Honest Mistake violation to me. There is no colorable interpretation of Don't Kill The Poor that would enable a genocidal entity to avoid detection. Casting aspersions is not a terribly effective way to shift scrutiny in such cases. Best to nix the whole clause.

OOC: I would respectfully disagree. In real life, brutal regimes are eager to use anything at their disposal to muddy the waters and change the subject from their own crimes. Russia uses the imperialist history of the United States to justify its actions in Crimea, African dictatorships use the faults of the West to justify their own actions, and much more. A resolution like this may not legally allow leaders that kill millions of people in an ethnic group to avoid being tried, but it is most certainly a weapon in terms of the discourse around the crime being committed. Trying world leaders is all about political will, not law, and the clause in the Don't Kill The Poor Act is a huge tool of brutal regimes to sap the right side of political will

OOC: The argument that a regime may use misdirection to cover their wrongdoing is sound. The argument that this resolution permits effective use of misdirection is not. It is your decision to persevere with this interpretation, but do know that it is the Secretariat's interpretation that will carry the day when two interpretations conflict.