[DRAFT #2] Against Harassment

[Tinhampton]

TINHAMPTONIAN MINISTRY OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS: Notice of Submission Warning
This proposal will be submitted in conjunction with CoAUP, unless there is no appetite for this proposal. Thank you for your consideration.

---

Character count: 1,204
Word count: 179

Bianca Venkman, Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador: What you see behind my on the projected screen is the first in a series of proposals that we hope will serve as her platform for change.

(OOC, wrt Article b: In this report by the UNnameable Organisation from 2018 - Section 36b in particular - it is "recommend[ed] that [New Zealand]... ensure that all workplaces have a sexual harassment policy.")

Against Harassment
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Seeing harassment to be a violation of sapient rights, equality, and dignity, the General Assembly hereby:

1. defines "harassment" as a wilful act - including threats, attempts, and aiding and abetting thereof - by a person; which harms (or could harm) another person physically and non-fatally, mentally, or financially; and which would not be tolerated by a reasonable person,
2. suggests that all businesses within the World Assembly's jurisdiction adopt policies against sexual harassment, and
3. requires all members to:
   
   1. criminalise harassment within their jurisdiction; unless permitted in prior and unrepealed WA law, or future WA law on self-defence,
   2. prosecute it as a crime of appropriate gravity, regardless of motive (including cultural tradition and "honour" so-called), including by prosecuting it more seriously if the victim was significantly harmed,
   3. ban the use of alternative means of dispute resolution in resolving charges of it,
   4. refrain from repatriating vulnerable harassment victims to a state where their life or dignity may be in danger, and
   5. immediately educate all their subjects on the criminal nature and consequences of harassment.

CHANGELOG:

Draft 1:

1. 25-Jan-2020, original resolution.
Draft 2:

1. 26-Jan-2020, suffixed the wording "and which would not be tolerated by a reasonable person" upon the definition of harassment in Article a. Moved Article d to Article b, and the old Article b to Article c. "Removed the wording "was below the age of majority, was related to the suspect; or if the suspect has been convicted of harassment before" from Article c, which was retitled Article c(iii). Split the old Article b into two bullet points, and changed "subject to standing WA law" to "unless permitted in prior and unrepealed WA law, or future WA law on self-defence" in Article c(i). Added Article c(iv), on non-refoulement, and c(v), on educational campaigns.

[WayNeacTia]

No, and more no. This is something best handled at the national level.

[Tinhampton]

No, and more no. This is something best handled at the national level.

Assistant Venkman: Consider the following. Anybody can be defamed, so the World Assembly makes laws clarifying that nations may place reasonable regulations against defamation. Anybody can be suspected of a crime - rightly or wrongly - or victimised during the course thereof, so the World Assembly makes multiple laws about fair trials and the rights of victims of crimes. Anybody can be enslaved or tortured, so the World Assembly makes laws against them. Likewise, anybody can be harassed - so what does the World Assembly do?
None of these crimes necessarily involve crossing borders by definition, although they do on some occasions; they are all, however, assaults on the sapient being and their dignity, hence why the WA legislates upon them. There are plenty of other issues which are domestic and do not even appear to involve attacks upon the person, and yet the WA has also legislated upon those. It would hence not be disreasonable for the body of augustness whose headquarters I am presenting in right now to legislate against harassment.

[Bananaistan]

"The definition requires work. At the moment it bans everything from self defence to debt collection."

[Kenmoria]

“I’m not sure why you chose to require harassment by family members to be taken more seriously. If done at all, this does seem to be more of a national decision. Personally, I can’t see why different people would be prosecuted differently for the same crime.”

[Teretstein]

Assistant Venkman: Consider the following. Anybody can be defamed, so the World Assembly makes laws clarifying that nations may place reasonable regulations against defamation. Anybody can be suspected of a crime - rightly or wrongly - or victimised during the course thereof, so the World Assembly makes multiple laws about fair trials and the rights of victims of crimes. Anybody can be enslaved or tortured, so the World Assembly makes laws against them. Likewise, anybody can be harassed - so what does the World Assembly do?

You really think that we don't have laws against defamation to begin with? Here, knowingly falsely accusing someone is 10 years in prison. PERIOD. If you know that you're lying, it becomes 20 years in a maximum-security prison. We don't like liars much.

This is best handled on a national level.

[The New Nordic Union]

'I agree with the assessment that the definition is overly broad.'

(OOC: In fact, there might not be any act that could not harm any other person,)

[Bears Armed]

OOC
As currently written, this illegally contradicts several existing resolutions.

[Tinhampton]

OOC
As currently written, this illegally contradicts several existing resolutions.

ALSO OOC: I'd imagine that most of that legal stickiness pertains to the overbroad definition of harassment and the mandates defined in Article (c)?

[Bears Armed]

OOC
As currently written, this illegally contradicts several existing resolutions.

ALSO OOC: I'd imagine that most of that legal stickiness pertains to the overbroad definition of harassment and the mandates defined in Article (c)?

STILL OOC: Yes. for example, the definition including "physical harm" clashes with all of the resolutions that specifically allow inflicting various forms of harm in military or law-enforcement contexts...
...and the ban on inflicting harm "financially" arguably interferes with member nation's domestic taxation.

[Tinhampton]

DEFINITELY OOC: Ta much, Bears! I suspected the definition of harassment had something to do with it. Now I wonder how much attention a reasonable person would pay to the Sovereign Citizen movement and Hans Hoppe...

Venkman: ...be tolerated... by a reasonable person. Well, that's hopefully a better definition and I've whacked in a few more clauses as well. Your comments and complaints - especially complaints - are welcomed.

[Araraukar]

Seeing harassment to be a violation of sapient rights, equality, and dignity, the General Assembly hereby:

OOC: Needs more preamble. Why is this an international issue? Wouldn't reasonable nations already have this legislation in place?

defines "harassment" as a wilful act - including threats, attempts, and aiding and abetting thereof - by a person; which harms (or could harm) another person physically and non-fatally, mentally, or financially; and which would not be tolerated by a reasonable person,

As has already been said, waaaay past anything even vaguely resembling what is actually meant by "harassment" in actual normal English. And also way overboard any kind of semi-sensible definition for this purpose.

suggests that all businesses within the World Assembly's jurisdiction adopt policies against sexual harassment, and

You don't define sexual harassment. And also why is this just a suggestion when non-sexual harassment gets made a crime???

...come to think of it, there's probably already a resolution on this, can't remember the name off the top of my mind, but sexual privacy or something like that, comes to mind.

requires all members to:

1. criminalise harassment within their jurisdiction; unless permitted in prior and unrepealed WA law, or future WA law on self-defence,

Underlined looks fishy, given you're trying to write that too. Why single out self-defence? Makes no sense except you've realized you've written yourself in a corner otherwise. Bad writing. Also, as pointed out already, over-broad definition makes this a problem.

prosecute it as a crime of appropriate gravity, regardless of motive (including cultural tradition and "honour" so-called), including by prosecuting it more seriously if the victim was significantly harmed,

...so "of appropriate gravity" can mean "no worse than a verbal "no-no" from the judge", if the nation doesn't take harassment very seriously in general?

ban the use of alternative means of dispute resolution in resolving charges of it,

...what? Like, literally, what is this even trying to say?

refrain from repatriating vulnerable harassment victims to a state where their life or dignity may be in danger, and

Dignity? Since when is the WA concerned about people's dignity? And why should it, more to the point.

immediately educate all their subjects on the criminal nature and consequences of harassment.

And you've undoubtedly created some machine with which to beam this knowledge immediately into their brains?

This opinion has been brought to you by the good people of Orion Pharma, the makers of the pain medication necessary for a knee injury after slipping on the most frictionless surface known to man, which is fresh frosty snow on smooth ice.