[Draft] On Rigid Social Stratification

[Kenmoria]

“I recommend numbering all of your active clauses so they are easier to reference. You could make the affirmation clauses subclauses or just use a different verb for them.”

[Cardoness]

New update. I tweaked the definition, "socio-religious" now directly ties to the definition as the divisions of people based on power, prestige, religion, or wealth. I also axed Affirms 3 and added it with back with better wording further down in the resolution. I also added a new clause that should have obviously been there from the beginning, sorry for missing it. All in all, I fell pretty good about this version and and ready to get down to deceasing the details.

Declares that no law may be made or enforced which limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes.

OOC: This should, in my opinion, be re-phrased to something like '...limits marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class', as any law restricting marriage, e.g., one prohibiting underage marriage, also limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes (whatever this is).

I don't think so. Even before it was clarified it really couldn't have been argued that children and adults belong to different social or religious classes. I also fail to see how your wording substantially differs from the current language.

“I recommend numbering all of your active clauses so they are easier to reference. You could make the affirmation clauses subclauses or just use a different verb for them.”

You are right, that would make it easier to discuss, but I don't like the aesthetic of it. Each clause has a different lead, that will have to do.

[The New Nordic Union]

OOC: This should, in my opinion, be re-phrased to something like '...limits marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class', as any law restricting marriage, e.g., one prohibiting underage marriage, also limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes (whatever this is).

I don't think so. Even before it was clarified it really couldn't have been argued that children and adults belong to different social or religious classes. I also fail to see how your wording substantially differs from the current language.

OOC:
And I have never argued that adults and children are different social or religious classes. What I mean is that a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibits marriage between an adult from socio-religious class A and a child from socio-religious class B. Under the current wording, this is a 'law [...] which limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes', and would therefore be forbidden should this proposal become a resolution.

My re-wording avoids this by making clear that no law should be passed that limits marriage between individuals of different social-religious classes because of them belonging to different classes.
The exact wording is up to you as the author, of course.

[Cardoness]

I don't think so. Even before it was clarified it really couldn't have been argued that children and adults belong to different social or religious classes. I also fail to see how your wording substantially differs from the current language.

OOC:
And I have never argued that adults and children are different social or religious classes. What I mean is that a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibits marriage between an adult from socio-religious class A and a child from socio-religious class B. Under the current wording, this is a 'law [...] which limits marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes', and would therefore be forbidden should this proposal become a resolution.

My re-wording avoids this by making clear that no law should be passed that limits marriage between individuals of different social-religious classes because of them belonging to different classes.
The exact wording is up to you as the author, of course.

How does a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibit marriage between different socio-religious classes?

And how exactly is
No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes
fundamentally different from
No law may limit marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class?

[The New Nordic Union]

How does a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibit marriage between different socio-religious classes?

All OOC:
Because this is not the way your clause is worded; it focuses on individuals. And as I said, a ban on child marriage also forbids Adult from SRC A to marry Child from SRC B, therefore limiting individuals from different SRCs to marry.

And how exactly is
No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes
fundamentally different from
No law may limit marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class?

It is different in that the original prohibits any law that limits marriage in any way possible, whereas the second only prohibits such laws as say, explicitly or implicitly, 'you cannot marry anyone from another SRC'.

[Cardoness]

How does a law prohibiting child marriage also prohibit marriage between different socio-religious classes?

All OOC:
Because this is not the way your clause is worded; it focuses on individuals. And as I said, a ban on child marriage also forbids Adult from SRC A to marry Child from SRC B, therefore limiting individuals from different SRCs to marry.

Yeah, I understand that's what you said. What I don't understand is how. I don't know of any wording of any law dealing with child marriage that would be construed to also ban inter-class marriage. You saying it does doesn't make it so. Can you give me an example please?

And how exactly is
No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes
fundamentally different from
No law may limit marriage between individuals on the grounds of socio-religious class?

It is different in that the original prohibits any law that limits marriage in any way possible, whereas the second only prohibits such laws as say, explicitly or implicitly, 'you cannot marry anyone from another SRC'.

No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes

[The New Nordic Union]

All OOC:
Because this is not the way your clause is worded; it focuses on individuals. And as I said, a ban on child marriage also forbids Adult from SRC A to marry Child from SRC B, therefore limiting individuals from different SRCs to marry.

Yeah, I understand that's what you said. What I don't understand is how. I don't know of any wording of any law dealing with child marriage that would be construed to also ban inter-class marriage. You saying it does doesn't make it so. Can you give me an example please?

OOC:
It has nothing to do with the wording of the chil-marriage law, but rather with your proposed clause. By the simple fact that the law prohibits two individuals from different soci-religious classes to marry, it runs afoul your provision.

This is because your provison is simply 'no law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes'.

The example again:
Adult A from SRC A wants to marry Child B from SRC B. There is a law that forbids child marriage.

We have here
1. Two individuals
2. of different socio-religious classes
who are
3. limited in marrying each other by a law.

Under your provision, this is enough for the child marriage law to contradict this proposal.
What I want is that a law that prohibits marriage is only forbidden under this proposal if and only if 3 follows from 2.

[Kenmoria]

All OOC:
Because this is not the way your clause is worded; it focuses on individuals. And as I said, a ban on child marriage also forbids Adult from SRC A to marry Child from SRC B, therefore limiting individuals from different SRCs to marry.

Yeah, I understand that's what you said. What I don't understand is how. I don't know of any wording of any law dealing with child marriage that would be construed to also ban inter-class marriage. You saying it does doesn't make it so. Can you give me an example please?

It is different in that the original prohibits any law that limits marriage in any way possible, whereas the second only prohibits such laws as say, explicitly or implicitly, 'you cannot marry anyone from another SRC'.

No law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes

(OOC: Exactly, you are banning any laws from restricting marriage of people from different socio-religious classes, even if it is the marriage prohibition is based on other factors. For example, noble A wants to marry commoner B, who is a minor. Since they are of different socio-economic classes, no law may be passed banning the marriage, even if there is a completely different reason. I suggest putting ‘No law may limit marriage between individuals solely based on their socio-economic classes’ or something similar.)

[Cardoness]

Yeah, I understand that's what you said. What I don't understand is how. I don't know of any wording of any law dealing with child marriage that would be construed to also ban inter-class marriage. You saying it does doesn't make it so. Can you give me an example please?

OOC:
It has nothing to do with the wording of the chil-marriage law, but rather with your proposed clause. By the simple fact that the law prohibits two individuals from different soci-religious classes to marry, it runs afoul your provision.

This is because your provison is simply 'no law may limit marriage between individuals of different socio-religious classes'.

The example again:
Adult A from SRC A wants to marry Child B from SRC B. There is a law that forbids child marriage.

We have here
1. Two individuals
2. of different socio-religious classes
who are
3. limited in marrying each other by a law.

Under your provision, this is enough for the child marriage law to contradict this proposal.
What I want is that a law that prohibits marriage is only forbidden under this proposal if and only if 3 follows from 2.

I still don't think that it does, but it's an easy enough change to make. I will do so on my next update.

[The New Nordic Union]

I still don't think that it does, but it's an easy enough change to make. I will do so on my next update.

Thank you.

[Araraukar]

I still don't think that it does, but it's an easy enough change to make. I will do so on my next update.

OOC: To be fair, such clauses need to be worded very carefully in general so that you don't step on the toes (aka contradict) all the existing resolutions... With the given example on marriage, you'd have run afoul of GA #160, Forced Marriages Ban Act, because children can't consent, and thus any marriage with a child as one of the participants would violate that resolution. At the best case, you would have tried to amend it instead, but that's also a proposal rules violation.

The only numbered clause 2 still has the same issue (not a marriage one, obviously), by the way, and needs the same addition. It has two parts, separated by comma and "nor", and the first part (you really should break the clause into two separate ones) doesn't have the same restriction.

[Cardoness]

I still don't think that it does, but it's an easy enough change to make. I will do so on my next update.

OOC: To be fair, such clauses need to be worded very carefully in general so that you don't step on the toes (aka contradict) all the existing resolutions... With the given example on marriage, you'd have run afoul of GA #160, Forced Marriages Ban Act, because children can't consent, and thus any marriage with a child as one of the participants would violate that resolution. At the best case, you would have tried to amend it instead, but that's also a proposal rules violation.

The only numbered clause 2 still has the same issue (not a marriage one, obviously), by the way, and needs the same addition. It has two parts, separated by comma and "nor", and the first part (you really should break the clause into two separate ones) doesn't have the same restriction.

Would the removal of the comma resolve the issue? I would really rather keep the career/work related directives together. I fear separating them will make it rather clunky. All I really need is for the last bit to apply to the whole clause.

[Kenmoria]

OOC: To be fair, such clauses need to be worded very carefully in general so that you don't step on the toes (aka contradict) all the existing resolutions... With the given example on marriage, you'd have run afoul of GA #160, Forced Marriages Ban Act, because children can't consent, and thus any marriage with a child as one of the participants would violate that resolution. At the best case, you would have tried to amend it instead, but that's also a proposal rules violation.

The only numbered clause 2 still has the same issue (not a marriage one, obviously), by the way, and needs the same addition. It has two parts, separated by comma and "nor", and the first part (you really should break the clause into two separate ones) doesn't have the same restriction.

Would the removal of the comma resolve the issue? I would really rather keep the career/work related directives together. I fear separating them will make it rather clunky. All I really need is for the last bit to apply to the whole clause.

(OOC: Try this: ‘To pursue, without governmental restrictions based solely on socio-religious class, the career of their choice, including both where they may work and the type of work being performed.’)

[Araraukar]

(OOC: Try this: ‘To pursue, without governmental restrictions based solely on socio-religious class, the career of their choice, including both where they may work and the type of work being performed.’)

OOC: That would work well.

[Cardoness]

Update with both suggested changes implemented.

[Cardoness]

Any other issue which need to be addressed? I would like to submit this next week if it’s ready.

[Araraukar]

Any other issue which need to be addressed? I would like to submit this next week if it’s ready.

OOC: Spotted a couple, but on mobile device so typing is a pain. Can you wait a day or two? Would in any case suggest waiting until after weekend, since not everyone logs in during working week.

[Cardoness]

Any other issue which need to be addressed? I would like to submit this next week if it’s ready.

OOC: Spotted a couple, but on mobile device so typing is a pain. Can you wait a day or two? Would in any case suggest waiting until after weekend, since not everyone logs in during working week.

OOC: No worries. Don’t want to rush it, but no reason to dally either.

[Kaiserholt]

Speaking as a society that has evolved under a patron-client system for 3,000 years, and in that time all individuals of merit within that system have benefited from said patron client relations and the resultant meritocracy, I request that this body consider that not all stratified societies are such in an attempt to simply keep the Plebs done.

[Araraukar]

OOC post. And sorry it took me a while to get back to you on this. Friday basically disappeared into some kind of black hole and ceased to exist. To make up for it, wrote a full proposal shredding instead of just a couple of pointers. ^_^

Believing

I would suggest not using italics at all. IA no longer stomps his Delegate votes against you for doing so, but they're really unnecessary anyway.

Believing in the vast potential of the individual,

Elaborate on this. Vast potential to what? Vast potential to cause suffering and misery?

Understanding that possessing an avenue to pursue ones personal life goals is essential for physical and mental wellbeing,

I'd more say that having life goals itself depends on your socio-economical status, but that's perhaps semantics. Still, this looks weird, and at the very least doesn't look like an argument for a civil right. Instead of going for some vague "wellbeing", you should have arguments for why you think caste systems are so oppressive that they need international legislation to do away with.

Dismayed that many governments stifle the individual in the name of the greater good,

Another odd one, given that criminals can be imprisoned for this exact purpose. "Stifling an individual in the name of the greater good" is why laws exist, as well. You're not free to do as you want, if you would violate the rights of others.

Condemning such a cover to keep the powerful in power at the expense of others,

Again, strange and doesn't really address the issue you're writing the proposal for. I have a feeling these lines were preamble to some previous version and were left in accidentally. Also, remember that some positions of power are inherited, and that you're not allowed to ban monarchies.

Whereas most systems of rigid social stratification limit an individual as to where they may seek employment, the types of jobs they may work, where they may reside, whom they may interact with,

Why does it start with "whereas"? Usually that means "in contrast to" something. And yes, it's got a different meaning in Legalese, but the majority of voters won't be well-versed in Legalese, and will just feel that this is an incomplete sentence. In any case this should be part of the definition, or given as an extreme example of one such system.

Defining

Should come after the Hereby, as an active clause, rather than as part of the preamble. Also you should number your main clauses in the active clause section.

Defining “Rigid Social Stratification” as the socio-religious subdivision of society into a hierarchy differentiated on the basis of power, prestige, religion or wealth with limited or no movement between the social classes and which is determined upon ones birth based upon the social class or occupation of ones parents, or determined by the government or other agency for its people,

You only use the term you define, once. You then use undefined terms (mostly "socio-religious class") for the rest of the proposal, which leave them open to unimaginative creative compliance.

Also, the definition uses "socio-religious". If the caste system is like India's, based on what caste parents you're born to, it wouldn't be caught in this. And neither would anything non-religious, given how "religious" is integral in the definition and the terms you use. I would suggest figuring out some words that are less specific. You could, for example, just define "caste" with all the qualities you want to ban discrimination with (in an "or" list), and then use that for the rest of the proposal.

Abolishes all forms of Rigid Social Stratification within WA member states,

I suggest making that "within the jurisdiction of the WA member states", so that it applies everywhere the member nation's laws are in effect, such as planes or ships that might be in international airspace/waters. Also, given that you abolish "all forms" of it, why are any of the rest of the clauses even necessary?

Affirms the right of each individual:
1) To exercise control over their own life and to pursue their own happiness through basic life choices,

I think "basic life choices" is so incredibly vague that it does more damage than good, here. Also, rather than using "individual", I'd use "person over the age of majority", because children shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want, given that they rarely understand the consequences of important life-altering decisions.

2) To pursue, without governmental restrictions based solely on socio-religious class, the career of their choice, including both where they may work and the type of work being performed,

The "governmental restrictions" looks odd here. Are you saying it's totally fine for, say, restaurants to ban people of certain caste from entering, simply because they are that particular caste, or making them sit at the back of the bus so they're out of sight of the higher caste people? Or that schools - even government-funded ones - can turn away students of the wrong kind of caste?

Recognizes the right of governments or other entities to place restrictions on employment as necessary for the safe and successful completion of the required tasks,

I would add the words "knowledge" and "skill" in there, to make it clear that that's what you're actually talking about, here.

Forbids any law be made or enforced which limits the right of travel or domicile on any legal resident solely on account of socio-religious class,

Again, I know that "domicile" has a Legalese meaning, but I'd guess that most people casting votes in NS won't even know the non-Legalese meaning. So I would suggest opening it up into actual words that explain what you mean with it. (Especially as the Legalese term speaks only of residence for "unlimited time", which presumably would mean that this part of the proposal wouldn't apply to residences rented out for a predetermined period of time.)

Declares that no law may be made or enforced which limits marriage between individuals based solely on the grounds of different socio-religious classes.

...why's the word "enforced" there? If you can't make a law, and pre-existing ones have been abolished, to discriminate in this manner, then you can't enforce a law that doesn't exist, anyway? All in all, this and the previous one should likely be bundled together, and made subclause points of one clause. And yes the previous one should be split in two.

Requires that identity cards refrain from containing any reference to the social class or occupation of the card holder,

Say goodbye to business cards. And pensioner/student benefit cards, and probably other benefit cards of similar nature. Also, if you're abolishing the social classes (another undefined term, btw), then, again, why mandate something you've already made so?

Exempts cards issued by an employer for job related identification purposes,

Only job-related identification purposes? They can't take the ID cards outside of their workplace?

Urges all governments to pass laws and fund education initiatives to quickly end socio-religious discrimination,

Again, if you want to ban the discrimination, actually ban the discrimination. Why is this only an urges to begin with, given you're otherwise very strict with the topic?

Encourages members states to engage with nonmembers and work to end rigid social stratification.

Deeeeefinitely needs the word "peacefully" to go with "engage", and changing "and work to end" into "to work to end".

[Bears Armed]

OOC

Also, rather than using "individual", I'd use "person over the age of majority", because children shouldn't be allowed to do whatever they want, given that they rarely understand the consequences of important life-altering decisions.

"legally-competent person" might be better,

Requires that identity cards refrain from containing any reference to the social class or occupation of the card holder,

Say goodbye to business cards. And pensioner/student benefit cards, and probably other benefit cards of similar nature.

It might be awkward in situations where groups formerly subject to such restrictions, and still subject to extensive prejudice from other groups despite the law, have been granted compensatory advantages too. For example, in RL India's parliament:

The maximum strength of the House allotted by the Constitution of India is 552. Currently, the house has 545 seats which is made up by the election of up to 543 elected members and at a maximum, 2 nominated members of the Anglo-Indian Community by the President of India. A total of 131 seats (24.03%) are reserved for representatives of Scheduled Castes (84) and Scheduled Tribes (47).