[On Hold] Repeal "Ban on Sterilisation of Minors etc"

[Marxist Germany]

"A member-state can decide that people of specific ethnicities are "incompetent"."

“That doesn’t seem to be a good-faith interpretation of what the word ‘incompetent’ means, since that interpretation doesn’t align with reality.”

"You make a good case, ambassador, I am unsure as to why I added that clause in the first place. I have thusly made some changes to the proposal."

[Maowi]

OOC: Grammar has been fixed, I am unsure as to how it is inaccurate.

OOC: See my post here:

Also ... this clause ...

Worried that the vagueness of the term, "long-term health", allows member-states to sterilise minors citing reasons such as prevention of cancer in the genitalia, which can be deemed as a long-term health benefit by the Institutional Review Board,

... was confusing me, because I thought that it was just pointing out a possible emergency situation and being worried that the target allows the emergency to be fixed. But is your point that the target allows a hypothetical future cancer as a justification for a sterilisation of a minor??? Because that it doesn't do. A hypothetical is not a necessity.

[...] which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Grammar has been fixed, I am unsure as to how it is inaccurate.

OOC: See my post here:

Also ... this clause ...

... was confusing me, because I thought that it was just pointing out a possible emergency situation and being worried that the target allows the emergency to be fixed. But is your point that the target allows a hypothetical future cancer as a justification for a sterilisation of a minor??? Because that it doesn't do. A hypothetical is not a necessity.

[...] which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.

OOC: Forgot to remove that in the latest edit, fixed.

[Stellonia]

"Is there a replacement draft for the resolution in question?"

[Kenmoria]

"Is there a replacement draft for the resolution in question?"

“The ambassador for Marxist Germany, Mr. Schmidt, does not believe there is a need for a replacement because of GA #486, which covers a very similar area of legislation. However, if this repeal were to pass, I have plants to start work on a replacement proposal that would expand the protection given to WA residents against forcible sterilisation.”

[WayNeacTia]

"Is there a replacement draft for the resolution in question?"

“The ambassador for Marxist Germany, Mr. Schmidt, does not believe there is a need for a replacement because of GA #486, which covers a very similar area of legislation. However, if this repeal were to pass, I have plants to start work on a replacement proposal that would expand the protection given to WA residents against forcible sterilisation.”

"Here's a better idea my good man. Mandate sterilization of all persons born. Then if they choose to have children, they can have the process easily reversed. Would cut down on massive population growth exponentially, and would also have the benefit of rendering the Stelloninan resolution on birth control moot."

Wayne

[Stellonia]

“The ambassador for Marxist Germany, Mr. Schmidt, does not believe there is a need for a replacement because of GA #486, which covers a very similar area of legislation. However, if this repeal were to pass, I have plants to start work on a replacement proposal that would expand the protection given to WA residents against forcible sterilisation.”

"Here's a better idea my good man. Mandate sterilization of all persons born. Then if they choose to have children, they can have the process easily reversed. Would cut down on massive population growth exponentially, and would also have the benefit of rendering the Stelloninan resolution on birth control moot."

Wayne

"We are not confident that the process can be 'easily reversed' in all cases. We also worry that such a requirement would offend the sensibilities of parents who would disapprove of having their children sterilized."

[WayNeacTia]

"Here's a better idea my good man. Mandate sterilization of all persons born. Then if they choose to have children, they can have the process easily reversed. Would cut down on massive population growth exponentially, and would also have the benefit of rendering the Stelloninan resolution on birth control moot."

Wayne

"We are not confident that the process can be 'easily reversed' in all cases. We also worry that such a requirement would offend the sensibilities of parents who would disapprove of having their children sterilized."

"Who gives a shit if parents are easily offended? Most parents are idiots, and thus should be treated as such. Perhaps the enlightened ones would see the long term value to preventing massive overpopulation."

Wayne

[Marxist Germany]

"We are not confident that the process can be 'easily reversed' in all cases. We also worry that such a requirement would offend the sensibilities of parents who would disapprove of having their children sterilized."

"Who gives a shit if parents are easily offended? Most parents are idiots, and thus should be treated as such. Perhaps the enlightened ones would see the long term value to preventing massive overpopulation."

Wayne

"Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by eco-fascists."

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

Agreed fully with the draft. Minors should not be sterilized for their "long term health benefit". Unless not doing so would be detrimental to their health, they should be allowed to decide whether they want to pursue those "long term health benefits" or not when they can make an informed choice about the procedure.

Clause 2 is especially harmful as it leaves it to a committee, not a legislative body, to create legislation answering issues not addressed by the target (such as how IRB will even look like, will it be a national or international body, will it be staffed by the specialists or lawyers, and what is the "incompetent person"). Noteworthy, GAR#299: Legal Competence is unhelpful for determining that last question, as its definition of legal competence is binding for that resolution only and no reference to the aforementioned definition is given in the target (ooc: in fact, such reference would be illegal as being House of Cards).

[Kenmoria]

“The ambassador for Marxist Germany, Mr. Schmidt, does not believe there is a need for a replacement because of GA #486, which covers a very similar area of legislation. However, if this repeal were to pass, I have plants to start work on a replacement proposal that would expand the protection given to WA residents against forcible sterilisation.”

"Here's a better idea my good man. Mandate sterilization of all persons born. Then if they choose to have children, they can have the process easily reversed. Would cut down on massive population growth exponentially, and would also have the benefit of rendering the Stelloninan resolution on birth control moot."

Wayne

“Though I acknowledge that overpopulation is an issue, mandating sterilisation seems to be a hugely disproportionate response. Universal rights should only ever be ignored when there is a dire, immediate threat to everyone’s wellbeing. At least in Kenmoria, we are several decades away from the point at which there is a complete Malthusian crash of society. It is not worth violating people’s rights for an event so far in the future. Furthermore, I’m sure there are several WA nations that are millennia away from that point.”

"Who gives a shit if parents are easily offended? Most parents are idiots, and thus should be treated as such. Perhaps the enlightened ones would see the long term value to preventing massive overpopulation."

Wayne

"Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by eco-fascists."

“The idea that overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by ecofascists is a myth perpetuated by reactionaries.”

[Maowi]

Agreed fully with the draft. Minors should not be sterilized for their "long term health benefit". Unless not doing so would be detrimental to their health, they should be allowed to decide whether they want to pursue those "long term health benefits" or not when they can make an informed choice about the procedure.

"Ambassador ... have you maybe considered reading the target? Look, I'll quote it for you now:
"It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person."
"That does not allow minors to be sterilised if it in some way is beneficial to their health. It needs to be shown that the sterilisation is necessary for their health. There is a significant difference between the two."

Clause 2 is especially harmful as it leaves it to a committee, not a legislative body, to create legislation answering issues not addressed by the target (such as how IRB will even look like, will it be a national or international body, will it be staffed by the specialists or lawyers, and what is the "incompetent person"). Noteworthy, GAR#299: Legal Competence is unhelpful for determining that last question, as its definition of legal competence is binding for that resolution only and no reference to the aforementioned definition is given in the target (ooc: in fact, such reference would be illegal as being House of Cards).

"On the contrary - GAR 299 is extremely helpful. This is because it mandates that member nations set and enforce an age of legal competence, ensuring that this standard exists across all member nations and can be referred to by GA legislation."

[Sancta Romana Ecclesia]

"Ambassador ... have you maybe considered reading the target? Look, I'll quote it for you now:
"It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person."
"That does not allow minors to be sterilised if it in some way is beneficial to their health. It needs to be shown that the sterilisation is necessary for their health. There is a significant difference between the two."

I in fact read that. There are two meanings of health: 1) state of being free from illness and injury; 2) general physical condition (thus we can say "he has bad health", which would make no sense in the previous meaning). Your objection to my reading applies if IRB were obliged to follow the first definition of health, but they are not. Under 2nd definition what I said is perfectly valid, things that are beneficial to one's condition (in long term) can be construed to be necessary for it.

"On the contrary - GAR 299 is extremely helpful. This is because it mandates that member nations set and enforce an age of legal competence, ensuring that this standard exists across all member nations and can be referred to by GA legislation."

Except this one doesn't refer to it at all, in fact, the terms "legal competence" or "legally (in)competent persons" are not even used in the target.

[Maowi]

I in fact read that. There are two meanings of health: 1) state of being free from illness and injury; 2) general physical condition (thus we can say "he has bad health", which would make no sense in the previous meaning). Your objection to my reading applies if IRB were obliged to follow the first definition of health, but they are not. Under 2nd definition what I said is perfectly valid, things that are beneficial to one's condition (in long term) can be construed to be necessary for it.

"... But why, with two definitions available, would member nations or IRBs pick the one which is more problematic and clearly goes against the spirit and intention of the resolution? Definition 1) would make more sense in this context and would make sure only the truly necessary sterilisations were approved."

Except this one doesn't refer to it at all, in fact, the terms "legal competence" or "legally (in)competent persons" are not even used in the target.

"Precisely for the reason you mentioned above - i.e., that the definitions in a resolution do not extend past the scope of that resolution - it is not necessary to use the exact term. "Incompetent" in this context has a very clear meaning, and the only reasonable interpretation of it would be that it refers to the age of legal competence mandated by GAR 299."

(OOC: Edited because I messed up my quote tags)

[Marxist Germany]

I in fact read that. There are two meanings of health: 1) state of being free from illness and injury; 2) general physical condition (thus we can say "he has bad health", which would make no sense in the previous meaning). Your objection to my reading applies if IRB were obliged to follow the first definition of health, but they are not. Under 2nd definition what I said is perfectly valid, things that are beneficial to one's condition (in long term) can be construed to be necessary for it.

"... But why, with two definitions available, would member nations or IRBs pick the one which is more problematic and clearly goes against the spirit and intention of the resolution? Definition 1) would make more sense in this context and would make sure only the truly necessary sterilisations were approved."

"For nefarious reasons, presumably, ambassador."

[Maowi]

"... But why, with two definitions available, would member nations or IRBs pick the one which is more problematic and clearly goes against the spirit and intention of the resolution? Definition 1) would make more sense in this context and would make sure only the truly necessary sterilisations were approved."

"For nefarious reasons, presumably, ambassador."

"Apologies, that point ... did not make sense. The body which does have the power to enforce the definition which is in keeping with the spirit of the law is the WACC, as in clause 2 of the target. While it cannot create new legislation beyond the scope of the resolution - as your proposal claims it does - it can create regulations clarifying what compliance with the target looks like in practice. It seems unlikely to me that the committee would purposefully enforce the dishonest reading of the target."

[Kenmoria]

"For nefarious reasons, presumably, ambassador."

"Apologies, that point ... did not make sense. The body which does have the power to enforce the definition which is in keeping with the spirit of the law is the WACC, as in clause 2 of the target. While it cannot create new legislation beyond the scope of the resolution - as your proposal claims it does - it can create regulations clarifying what compliance with the target looks like in practice. It seems unlikely to me that the committee would purposefully enforce the dishonest reading of the target."

(OOC: I don’t think that assuming what legislation the WACC has created makes much sense, given that nobody actually knows what this committee might do with the resolution. I view it as far easier to imagine that the WACC has not created any secondary legislation, since no player has the ability to actually view any hypothetical laws created by WA gnomes.)

[Maowi]

(OOC: I don’t think that assuming what legislation the WACC has created makes much sense, given that nobody actually knows what this committee might do with the resolution. I view it as far easier to imagine that the WACC has not created any secondary legislation, since no player has the ability to actually view any hypothetical laws created by WA gnomes.)

OOC: It's definitely a knotty one. This discussion has happened before on a different topic, I think - if I remember correctly, it was being said at the time that a committee being authorised to create regulations on something would take a maximalist interpretation of that and make as complete a set of regulations as possible. I'm not sure just ignoring the line and assuming the committee does nothing is a particularly satisfactory solution.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: Submitted.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: The last attempt failed because the API campaign that I set up was extremely slow due to my forgetting to change the speed from recruitment to WA campaigning. I will be resubmitting this now.

[Tinhampton]

OOC: The last attempt failed because the API campaign that I set up was extremely slow due to my forgetting to change the speed from recruitment to WA campaigning. I will be resubmitting this now.

33 approvals won out of 75 needed with about an hour to go. How slow was your telegram campaign this time around?

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: The last attempt failed because the API campaign that I set up was extremely slow due to my forgetting to change the speed from recruitment to WA campaigning. I will be resubmitting this now.

33 approvals won out of 75 needed with about an hour to go. How slow was your telegram campaign this time around?

OOC: I sent a TG to every delegate within 24hrs. I now know that nstg web takes twice as long to campaign and will no longer use it. As to this draft, I'll try one last time in July.

[WayNeacTia]

33 approvals won out of 75 needed with about an hour to go. How slow was your telegram campaign this time around?

OOC: I sent a TG to every delegate within 24hrs. I now know that nstg web takes twice as long to campaign and will no longer use it. As to this draft, I'll try one last time in July.

There may be a simpler answer here. Perhaps, and I am just floating this, no one is interested in repealing it? I know, I know, crazy talk right?

[Kenmoria]

“Given what has transpired in another debating chamber recently, will the bolding of the first words of each clause be removed?”

33 approvals won out of 75 needed with about an hour to go. How slow was your telegram campaign this time around?

OOC: I sent a TG to every delegate within 24hrs. I now know that nstg web takes twice as long to campaign and will no longer use it. As to this draft, I'll try one last time in July.

(OOC: I never knew that nstg was twice as slow as other methods of campaigning. Was this a result of your specific hardware or does the tool just take longer to telegram people?

[Gorundu]

OOC: I sent a TG to every delegate within 24hrs. I now know that nstg web takes twice as long to campaign and will no longer use it. As to this draft, I'll try one last time in July.

There may be a simpler answer here. Perhaps, and I am just floating this, no one is interested in repealing it? I know, I know, crazy talk right?

XD...I recall a certain proposal that was passed by a clear majority but ultimately discarded for some wording issues...not sure I want to bring that back out though.