[DEFEATED] Repeal Defending Rights Sexual Gender Minorities

[Hatzisland]

What I am confused about is the fact that the original proposal passed very narrowly, while this one is being destroyed by a wide margin. Why?

[Maowi]

What I am confused about is the fact that the original proposal passed very narrowly, while this one is being destroyed by a wide margin. Why?

I would assume, in this case, that more or less everyone who voted for the target resolution has voted/intend to vote against this repeal. Then some who voted against the target resolution won't like this repeal's arguments, and have voted/intend to vote against it too.

Also, TNP is against.

[Hatzisland]

What I am confused about is the fact that the original proposal passed very narrowly, while this one is being destroyed by a wide margin. Why?

I would assume, in this case, that more or less everyone who voted for the target resolution has voted/intend to vote against this repeal. Then some who voted against the target resolution won't like this repeal's arguments, and have voted/intend to vote against it too.

Also, TNP is against.

That makes sense. But who is TNP?

[Maowi]

I would assume, in this case, that more or less everyone who voted for the target resolution has voted/intend to vote against this repeal. Then some who voted against the target resolution won't like this repeal's arguments, and have voted/intend to vote against it too.

Also, TNP is against.

That makes sense. But who is TNP?

The North Pacific (one of the feeder GCR regions). Their delegate is Pallaith and has over 1000 endorsements. Pallaith votes however the majority of TNP votes on their forum.

[Kenmoria]

What I am confused about is the fact that the original proposal passed very narrowly, while this one is being destroyed by a wide margin. Why?

(OOC: Its core arguments just aren’t up to the standards one expects for a GA resolution, regardless of the actual stance on DRSGM. Also, some of the largest delegates have voted against, which has a stong impact.)

[Battlion]

What I am confused about is the fact that the original proposal passed very narrowly, while this one is being destroyed by a wide margin. Why?

Additionally, there will be delegates who may have voted Against DRSGM but following it’s passage for whatever reason (either their region mates response or reevaluation) have chosen that it shouldn’t be repealed.

TNP has been mentioned, they voted against the original resolution but now seem to be voting against it’s repeal. Which personally I welcome.

[Rat Piss]

I will be very frank, while I am in favor of the stated argument within this resolution, I will be voting against because I simply cannot 100% trust that this is going to have the outcome it's claiming.

"Lets repeal this legislation to bring it back even better!" sounds wonderful, but this is clearly going to attract bad faith actors jumping at the opportunity to undo civil rights progress

[Reichania2]

#2Genders
#Straightpride

[Maowi]

#2Genders
#Straightpride

Please don't.

[Battlion]

#2Genders
#Straightpride

Please don't.

This

[The Marconian State]

What I am confused about is the fact that the original proposal passed very narrowly, while this one is being destroyed by a wide margin. Why?

If I remember correctly, there were a number of people who were reluctantly against #457 because of Clause 5, which, while they supported the intent and the cause, felt clause 5 neutered it from being able to live up to its potential. However, since it has already passed, they would not want to repeal it knowing there is no good replacement that has been proposed yet, or they feel that the hole can instead be filled by further legislation, as clause 5 of #457 says.

[Reploid Productions]

this whole gender disforia crap has got this old man bugged, its too much, leave kids alone, let them grow up before they mutilate themselves, this is an adult issue, leave kids out of it.. i'm disgusted by all this nonsense.. its attention seeking by sick peoole who need a shrink not surgery, i'm tempted but, i think denying people any rights is wrong, we have to put the breaks on all this crazy stuff , but denying anyone basic rights is wrong

*** BILLYSANDS, WARNED for trolling. *** You can argue for/against the merits of the resolution at vote without trolling all transgender folks as "attention seeking sick people". Please review the site rules before posting again.

EDIT TO ADD: Nevermind. You're still DOSed, go away.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Vygarm]

As a self-admitted 'secular' nation, Vygarm believes in both a 'Freedom Of Religion' and a 'Freedom From Religion'.

However, we do maintain that no religious or cultural group be exempted from our laws, including laws against prejudice and discrimination.

This clear oversite by the General Assembly regarding the original bill's contents and wording, wherein religious groups were clearly exempted from facing the same legal culpability as other, non-religious organizations for discrimination against different sexual and gender minorities is something that we cannot stand for as a precedent for our nation to follow.

Vygarm strongly supports the notion that human and civil rights for sexual and gender minorities and the LGBT+ community at large must be upheld and defended, but would rather have this bill repealed and replaced than be complicit in the exemption of persecution from religious factions.

It is for that reason that Vygarm votes to repeal the act stated.

[Battlion]

As a self-admitted 'secular' nation, Vygarm believes in both a 'Freedom Of Religion' and a 'Freedom From Religion'.

However, we do maintain that no religious or cultural group be exempted from our laws, including laws against prejudice and discrimination.

This clear oversite by the General Assembly regarding the original bill's contents and wording, wherein religious groups were clearly exempted from facing the same legal culpability as other, non-religious organizations for discrimination against different sexual and gender minorities is something that we cannot stand for as a precedent for our nation to follow.

Vygarm strongly supports the notion that human and civil rights for sexual and gender minorities and the LGBT+ community at large must be upheld and defended, but would rather have this bill repealed and replaced than be complicit in the exemption of persecution from religious factions.

It is for that reason that Vygarm votes to repeal the act stated.

It wasn’t a clear oversight though, the author AND resolution make clear that it’s to invite a sole resolution on religious organisations to be brought forward. And the alternative proposed, by the author of this repeal, is nowhere near satisfactory nor has any other alternative I’ve seen.

I’d urge you to reconsider your vote.

[Macsenoedd]

As a self-admitted 'secular' nation, Vygarm believes in both a 'Freedom Of Religion' and a 'Freedom From Religion'.

However, we do maintain that no religious or cultural group be exempted from our laws, including laws against prejudice and discrimination.

This clear oversite by the General Assembly regarding the original bill's contents and wording, wherein religious groups were clearly exempted from facing the same legal culpability as other, non-religious organizations for discrimination against different sexual and gender minorities is something that we cannot stand for as a precedent for our nation to follow.

Vygarm strongly supports the notion that human and civil rights for sexual and gender minorities and the LGBT+ community at large must be upheld and defended, but would rather have this bill repealed and replaced than be complicit in the exemption of persecution from religious factions.

It is for that reason that Vygarm votes to repeal the act stated.

If Somebody Willingly Chooses To Follow A Religion That Finds Homosexuality Sinful Or Whatever, And Yet They Are Openly Homosexual, It Is Perfectly Reasonable For Other Members Of The Religion To Discriminate Against Them, Call Them Sinful Or Heretics Or Whatever, If You Ask Me.

[Libervalley]

The Federation of Conservative Nations will be voting in favor of this repeal as the original law is unacceptable. Libervalley already provides services equally to all citizens and protects the rights of minorities. A fluid social construct is impossible to enforce such as picking your gender. Libervalley complies with equal protection laws but will fine everyone with a single Liber dollar per year which they will get back in a tax cut. Religious institutions will remain exempt.

[Reploid Productions]

As a self-admitted 'secular' nation, Vygarm believes in both a 'Freedom Of Religion' and a 'Freedom From Religion'.

However, we do maintain that no religious or cultural group be exempted from our laws, including laws against prejudice and discrimination.

This clear oversite by the General Assembly regarding the original bill's contents and wording, wherein religious groups were clearly exempted from facing the same legal culpability as other, non-religious organizations for discrimination against different sexual and gender minorities is something that we cannot stand for as a precedent for our nation to follow.

Vygarm strongly supports the notion that human and civil rights for sexual and gender minorities and the LGBT+ community at large must be upheld and defended, but would rather have this bill repealed and replaced than be complicit in the exemption of persecution from religious factions.

It is for that reason that Vygarm votes to repeal the act stated.

Please avoid making entire posts out of colored text. It's just garish can be make your post difficult to read in either the regular or dark forum themes. Please note the "Garish Posts" rule in the OSRS.

[The Sect Meces]

#2Genders
#Straightpride

OOC: Thanks for not contributing anything.......

[Uan aa Boa]

This repeal proposal has failed to grasp the difference between (a) the government providing exactly the same rights, powers etc to all individuals and (b) the government ensuring that everybody provides exactly the same rights, powers etc to all individuals. It's like the difference between (a) the public sector treating its employees in a certain way (b) the government making it mandatory for all employers to treat their employees in a certain way. It's not all unusual for governments to hold themselves to a higher standard than they require of everyone else.

ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organisations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual based on their sexuality or gender, as the sanctions or punishments imposed on organisations discriminating on the basis of other arbitrary, reductive criteria (such as, but not limited to, ethnicity, age and religion

Clause 3 extends the mandate of clause 2 to cover private parties.

It's not exactly an extension of clause 2 but I know what you mean. It then goes on to make an exception for religious organisations. You might agree or disagree that this exception is a good idea (personally I don't like it) but it doesn't produce a contradiction because contrary to the claims of this proposal the state is not required by #457 to ensure equality of outcome in all cases.

[Reploid Productions]

#2Genders
#Straightpride

*** Warned for spamming. *** Please avail yourself of the site rules before proceeding. If you want to discuss your opinions on LGBTQ+ matters, the appropriate venue is over in the General forum, NOT in drive-by posts clearly serving no purpose beyond being incendiary.

[Blueflarst]

Someone must repeAL THIS GENDER DICTATORSHIP

[Blueflarst]

The Federation of Conservative Nations will be voting in favor of this repeal as the original law is unacceptable. Libervalley already provides services equally to all citizens and protects the rights of minorities. A fluid social construct is impossible to enforce such as picking your gender. Libervalley complies with equal protection laws but will fine everyone with a single Liber dollar per year which they will get back in a tax cut. Religious institutions will remain exempt.

We have three traitors voting againist

[Mistlands]

Just revise it, don’t repeal. Submit a new resolution that disregards the flaws of this one while not revoking protection gender/sexuality rights.

Summary here is that the target has some critical flaws in construction, and has the potential to create paradoxical conflicts within itself and with standing law (mainly GAR#035). Happy to answer any questions, explain my rationale, etc. It should be noted that without the flaws, I would have been in support.

Revised: Feb 28, 2019 - Final Submitted

The General Assembly:

Fully acknowledging the importance of providing specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities,

Asserts that recently passed legislation GA #457 (DRSGM) must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant legal paradoxes for nations.

Of specific concern is DRSGM’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This Assembly believes that the silence from this legislation, as it relates to this ideological group, can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of this legislation, while all others must comply.

This is alarming, given previous World Assembly law requiring, as a cornerstone of human rights, that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law.

Noting several troubling and untenable paradoxes for nations, that result from DRSGM:

• Nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while provided no strength through this law to apply those rules and penalties, equally, to others.

• Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of DRSGM, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

This Assembly acknowledges the potential for these inequities under law to lead to civil unrest within nations, and to create an untenable burden on nations to both uphold DRSGM and simultaneously preserve the intended human right to civil equality under law.

Further, due to the precedent set by DRSGM, it is understood that any future legislation can now be tailored, through silence on specific ideological groups, to target some and not others, leaving open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

The Assembly concludes that the passage of DRSGM has revealed a critical flaw in WA jurisprudence that requires clarification, and

Understands that, due to precedent, those clarifications can not legally be applied while DRSGM stands.

For these reasons, The General Assembly hereby repeals GA #457.

Repeal Draft 3

The General Assembly:

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights for all.

This Assembly asserts, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant paradoxes for nations, and inadvertently undermines the noble cause of equality to which it aspires.

The Assembly expresses deep concern regarding the GAR#457’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This silence from the legislation as it relates to this ideological group can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of GAR#457, while all others must comply. While the clause does not limit the possibility of future legislation on the matter, until such legislation is passed, this de facto exemption creates several untenable paradoxes, all with troubling consequences:

1. Under GAR#457 nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while providing no strength of law to apply those same rules and penalties on exempted neighbouring organizations within their borders. This brings about great potential for civil unrest, and, for any nation that champions the principle of universal civil equity under law, a tearing at the very fabric of their justice system and understanding of human rights.

2. Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of GAR#457, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

3. Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by GAR#457, paving the way for any future legislation to permit a de facto exemption to any ideological group, without reasonable grounds, simply by including a similar clause. Any number of future legislations can now be tailored, through silence pertaining to their application to specific ideological groups, to target some and not others. This leaves open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

This is alarming, given previous World Assembly law requiring that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law.

The Assembly concludes that the passage of GAR#457 has revealed a critical flaw in WA jurisprudence that requires clarification, to prevent the current, and any future paradoxes of this nature, and, to bolster the intended principle of civil equality under the law.

Understands that, due to precedent, those clarifications can not legally be applied while GAR#457 stands.

For these reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals GAR#457.

Repeal Draft 2

The General Assembly:

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights for all.

Asserts, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant paradoxes for nations, and inadvertently undermines the noble cause of equality to which it aspires.

Expresses deep concern regarding the GAR#457’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This silence from the legislation as it relates to this ideological group can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of GAR#457, while all others must comply. While the clause does not limit the possibility of future legislation on the matter, until such legislation is passed, this de facto exemption creates several untenable paradoxes, all with troubling consequences:

1. Under GAR#457 nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while providing no strength of law to apply those same rules and penalties on exempted neighbouring organizations within their borders. This brings about great potential for civil unrest, and, for any nation that champions the principle of universal civil equity under law, a tearing at the very fabric of their justice system and understanding of human rights.

2. Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of GAR#457, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

3. Perhaps most troubling is the precedent set by GAR#457, paving the way for any future legislation to permit a de facto exemption to any ideological group, without reasonable grounds, simply by including a similar clause. Any number of future legislations can now be tailored, through silence pertaining to their application to specific groups, to target some and not others. This leaves open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

That such imbalances can legally exist is alarming, given provisions set out in GAR#035 The Charter of Civil Rights (The Charter), which states “All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions and have the right to equal treatment…”.

This Assembly concludes that the passage of GAR#457 has revealed a critical flaw in the language of The Charter that requires clarification through enhancing legislation, to prevent the current, and any future paradoxes of this nature, and, to preserve the intended principle of civil equality and equal treatment under the law.

Due to precedent, those enhancements to the Charter can not legally be applied while GAR#457 stands.

For these reasons, the General Assembly hereby repeals GAR#457.

Repeal Draft 1

The General Assembly

Acknowledges the importance of enhancing existing law to provide specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities, and, lauds the goal of achieving greater universal equity of political and civil rights to all.

Notes, however, that recently passed legislation GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities (DRSGM) must be repealed, due to critical flaws in language and construction that, while well-intentioned, have the potential to bring about significant legal paradoxes that will have far-reaching, unintended consequences, and may inadvertently undermine the noble cause of greater civil rights to which the proposal aspires.

Cites two significant issues and their consequences:

1. The combined clauses 2 and 3 of DRSMG “MANDATES that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals…” then “ORDERS all member nations to impose exactly the same sanctions or punishments on all organizations which deny any right, power, permission or service to an individual…”

As written, this objective is impossible to achieve, yet absolutely required. Any service organization can fall out of exact parity with others through the regular flow of human resources, or finances, at any time. Under DRSMG, nations have no choice but to impose punishments on those organizations, even though they may be in a period of temporary transition to exact parity. Absolutely no reasonable discretion is allowed to nations under DRSMG. This also has the unintended consequence of placing so many groups and organizations in violation at any given time, that there would be no reasonable legal grounds by which to prosecute the groups or organizations that blatantly disregard the mandate. There are a variety of other problems and unintended consequences with this portion of the legislation. This is but one example.

2. Clause 5 of the proposal inexplicably entrenches a legal right for religious organizations to continue to discriminate as they see fit. This hardly complies with the above-mentioned clauses 2 and 3, creating an internal paradox within the proposal itself. Furthermore, this clause stands in direct contradiction to GAR#035 Section 1 almost in its entirety. The precedent set by this exemption from the rule of law on ideological grounds has potentially catastrophic implications throughout the WA and gives cause to all groups to argue any other legislation because it conflicts with their ideological beliefs.

Summarizes that DRSGM is a paradoxical piece of legislation and its poor construction potentially threatens the legitimacy of entrenched civil rights throughout the WA.

Hereby repeals GAR#457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities in hopes that a more thoughtful replacement can be created.

[Prydania]

OOC:
I feel as if the current resolution accomplishes the goal of protecting same-sex marriage rights throughout the WA. And seeing as a repeal in no way ensures a more comprehensive replacement? I'm inclined to view the current resolution as good enough.

"You might want to familiarise yourself with GA#35, Mr ambassador"

OOC:
Do you not understand what “OOC” means? It means out of character. So you responded to my OOC opinion with an in character response. Good job. Regardless? You wanted an IC reply so ok...

IC:
“Well Ambassador, GA 35 contains a loop hole that allows nations to opt out of its protections for ‘practical’ reasons. This has been used by far right regimes to circumnavigate the protections guaranteed within GA 35. We believe GA 457 patches many of those loop holes, as well as clarifies the status of same-sex marriage within the WA, something GA 35 was vague on. In short? The delegation of the Prydanian Ríki feels as if GA 457 is a welcome fix for many of GA 35’s shortcomings.”

Ambassador Bjørn Lund sits down and sips his brennivín.

The Federation of Conservative Nations will be voting in favor of this repeal as the original law is unacceptable. Libervalley already provides services equally to all citizens and protects the rights of minorities. A fluid social construct is impossible to enforce such as picking your gender. Libervalley complies with equal protection laws but will fine everyone with a single Liber dollar per year which they will get back in a tax cut. Religious institutions will remain exempt.

We have three traitors voting againist

“Does the Federation of Conservative Nations not allow member states to vote their conscience, Ambassador?”

[Vrama]

The Federation of Conservative Nations will be voting in favor of this repeal as the original law is unacceptable. Libervalley already provides services equally to all citizens and protects the rights of minorities. A fluid social construct is impossible to enforce such as picking your gender. Libervalley complies with equal protection laws but will fine everyone with a single Liber dollar per year which they will get back in a tax cut. Religious institutions will remain exempt.

We have a similar view. "Gender" is a totally nebulous concept. Neither the Resolution 457 nor Resolution 91 provide a definition of gender.

So what is "gender"?

Historically, the definition has changed over time. It used to be a linguistic term. Then it came to mean the same as biological sex, and then it didn't anymore.

With the ever-changing definition of gender, the lack of a precise definition in the aforementioned resolutions renders it meaningless. No self-respecting nation will allow one of its subjects to have the gender identity of a toaster. This may sound absurd, but there are people out there that will, either seriously or as a joke, try to claim absurd genders.

Under 457, nations are supposed to respect their wishes. Are we really going to do that? No. No nation is going to do that. That is why we insist that 457 is illegal and void ab initio.

Since 457 cannot be amended, it should be repealed so that a better version -- one which defines gender -- can be created.