Advertisement
by The Great Boom » Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:00 pm
by Marxist Germany » Thu Aug 01, 2019 12:19 pm
The Great Boom wrote:3.c seems redundant given 3.a.
The use of "ensure" in 3.b is inappropriate word choice and makes 3.a and 3.c redundant.
The wording of 2.a creates a loophole which allows governments to sterilize children in any situation. PRA says that parents are legally able to consent. 2.a says that bations can sterilize kids if parents ARE ABLE to consent, not when parents DO consent. Parents are always able to consent per PRA, which means 2.a says any kid can be sterilized even if parents don't consent.
by Araraukar » Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:50 pm
Dreadton wrote:Mr/s. Ararukar
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Great Boom » Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:52 pm
by Araraukar » Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:15 pm
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Great Boom » Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:29 pm
by Araraukar » Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:11 am
The Great Boom wrote:Criminalisation implies punishment, and it's absurd to say your resolution ensures sterilzation won't happen while laying out vague sentencing guidelines. It's like the finale of a few good men, "if your orders are always followed... then what happened to Santiago?"
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Great Boom » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:19 am
Araraukar wrote:The Great Boom wrote:Criminalisation implies punishment, and it's absurd to say your resolution ensures sterilzation won't happen while laying out vague sentencing guidelines. It's like the finale of a few good men, "if your orders are always followed... then what happened to Santiago?"
OOC: In GA that's because 1. sentencing should be up to a legal court, not some faceless international entity like the WA, 2. mandatory sentencing, even minimum sentencing, is a crappy system because life is rarely that simple, and 3. the compliance committee exists to cause bad things to happen to nations that ignore resolutions. If your nation simply signing the "we will obey" form when joining the WA is not enough for you (it is for me, hence ignoring that committee).
by Araraukar » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:42 am
The Great Boom wrote:Exactly, so why stipulate any of it? Aren't we saying the same thing here?
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Great Boom » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:54 pm
Araraukar wrote:The Great Boom wrote:Exactly, so why stipulate any of it? Aren't we saying the same thing here?
OOC: Erm, no, we're saying the opposite. You're saying the proposal doesn't actually stop forced sterilizations if they're "only" criminalized but no mandatory punishments are set. I'm saying that there are resolutions that require people to have fair trials before guilt can be proven or any punishment is applied, and that there exist resolutions that do the enforcing of the mandates of other resolutions, so this particular ones doesn't need to spell the enforcement out.
by Kenmoria » Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:39 am
The Great Boom wrote:Araraukar wrote:OOC: Erm, no, we're saying the opposite. You're saying the proposal doesn't actually stop forced sterilizations if they're "only" criminalized but no mandatory punishments are set. I'm saying that there are resolutions that require people to have fair trials before guilt can be proven or any punishment is applied, and that there exist resolutions that do the enforcing of the mandates of other resolutions, so this particular ones doesn't need to spell the enforcement out.
No, I don't feel that way about it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't adequately criminalize it unless there are specificed punishments. I was just pointing out that, in this case at least, it's redundant to criminalize something and then clarify that there needs to be a penalty.
by The Great Boom » Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:57 am
Kenmoria wrote:The Great Boom wrote:
No, I don't feel that way about it. I'm not saying that it wouldn't adequately criminalize it unless there are specificed punishments. I was just pointing out that, in this case at least, it's redundant to criminalize something and then clarify that there needs to be a penalty.
(OOC: This is to stop a member nations from saying that something is illegal, but then imposing no penalty upon violators of the law. Although contradictory, this scenario happens a lot around the world, and was used frequently as a means of creative compliance.)
by Kenmoria » Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:24 am
The Great Boom wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: This is to stop a member nations from saying that something is illegal, but then imposing no penalty upon violators of the law. Although contradictory, this scenario happens a lot around the world, and was used frequently as a means of creative compliance.)
But the resolution doesn't say illegal, it says criminalized. The definition of criminalized entails criminal penalty. And when the resolution doesnt spell out the penalty at all, nations could fine violators just $1 with or without the redundant language.
by The Great Boom » Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:59 pm
Kenmoria wrote:The Great Boom wrote:
But the resolution doesn't say illegal, it says criminalized. The definition of criminalized entails criminal penalty. And when the resolution doesnt spell out the penalty at all, nations could fine violators just $1 with or without the redundant language.
(OOC: It is impossible to stop all forms of creative compliance, but a £1 fine is still better than no punishment at all. Also, the definition of ‘criminalised’ only entails that it be made a criminal offence, not necessarily with criminal penalty. No reasonable nation would separate the two, but we aren’t always dealing with reasonable nations.)
by Marxist Germany » Sun Aug 04, 2019 5:43 am
The Great Boom wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: It is impossible to stop all forms of creative compliance, but a £1 fine is still better than no punishment at all. Also, the definition of ‘criminalised’ only entails that it be made a criminal offence, not necessarily with criminal penalty. No reasonable nation would separate the two, but we aren’t always dealing with reasonable nations.)
I respectfully disagree with you on criminalization. If there's no penalty, then it's not criminalized. Name a crime without even the potential of a penalty. Because that's what we're talking about here.
by The Great Boom » Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:40 am
Marxist Germany wrote:The Great Boom wrote:
I respectfully disagree with you on criminalization. If there's no penalty, then it's not criminalized. Name a crime without even the potential of a penalty. Because that's what we're talking about here.
OOC:Some nations may claim that criminalising something does not entail a penalty in their Jurisdiction, which is a form of creative compliance.
by Araraukar » Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:40 pm
The Great Boom wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:OOC:Some nations may claim that criminalising something does not entail a penalty in their Jurisdiction, which is a form of creative compliance.
That's a totally illegitimate claim. If they're going to that length of mental gymnastics, they're already in violation of the resolution.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Marxist Germany » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:30 pm
Thepeopl wrote:Would chemical castration fall under this ban?
by Maowi » Tue Aug 06, 2019 3:31 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Acknowledging that each individual should have the right to choose to reproduce or not as long as it does not violate another individual's right to choose;
Defines, for the purpose of this resolution; "sterilisation" as the elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce permanently; by removing or altering their reproductive organs, through chemical or physical means, to stop the release of gametes for example;
Prohibitsmember-states from:
- The sterilisation of any individual without their consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able and does consent on their behalf;
- Member-states from extraditing criminals to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;
Requires that member states:
Criminalise the act of sterilising another individual against their will unless it falls under an exception mentioned within this resolution;(remove subject to edit above)- Carry out thorough investigations into their criminal and medical services, to ensure no illegal
forcedsterilisation is taking place;- Reasonably punish personnel who carry out illegal
forcedsterilisation;
Urges member states to provide reparations for victims of forced sterilisation.
by Marxist Germany » Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:20 am
by Bears Armed » Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:20 am
Araraukar wrote:The Great Boom wrote:That's a totally illegitimate claim. If they're going to that length of mental gymnastics, they're already in violation of the resolution.
OOC: If RL has taught us anything, it is that things may still be criminal according to law, but nobody actually follows that law for various reasons. For example, not long since in RL, homosexuality was considered a crime (still is in some backwards nations), but in many of those it wasn't actually done anything about for the last several decades of the law still existing, unless the individuals were politically inflammatory as well.
by The Great Boom » Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:44 pm
Araraukar wrote:The Great Boom wrote:That's a totally illegitimate claim. If they're going to that length of mental gymnastics, they're already in violation of the resolution.
OOC: If RL has taught us anything, it is that things may still be criminal according to law, but nobody actually follows that law for various reasons. For example, not long since in RL, homosexuality was considered a crime (still is in some backwards nations), but in many of those it wasn't actually done anything about for the last several decades of the law still existing, unless the individuals were politically inflammatory as well.
by Araraukar » Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:28 pm
The Great Boom wrote:Enforcement on banning homosexuality ranged anywhere from inconsistent to fervent, I agree. But that doesn't change the issue here, which is that criminalising something entails some form of consequence, by nature of the word criminalize.
If the resolution laid out specifc penalties
or even any form of guideline at all, then one could make the case it's getting around creative compliance.
Ask yourself this, what is the harm in getting rid of all the redundant clauses? There's no harm, and it makes the resolution clear and concise to interpret for voters nad the nations enforcing it.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by The Great Boom » Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:30 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement