Advertisement
by Ardiveds » Sat Aug 15, 2020 6:37 am
by CoraSpia » Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:34 am
by Kenmoria » Tue Aug 18, 2020 12:18 pm
Comfed wrote:“We are strongly opposed to clause three - by Comfedian law, those who disagree with Our Leader, Comrade BB, are to be imprisoned for the remainder of their lives. Including children.”
by Imperium Anglorum » Sun Aug 23, 2020 8:55 pm
by Honeydewistania » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:18 pm
Alger wrote:if you have egoquotes in your signature, touch grass
by Araraukar » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:56 pm
Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, we'd be grateful if you could clear some things up a bit:
Does clause 1 ban homeschooling? Also, does that clause mandate member nations have to make children from different backgrounds sit together regardless of what the children themselves want, all in the name of diversity?
In clause 3, what exactly does 'poorly treated' mean? Children tease eachother, argue, fight, taunt etc, this seems like an easy way for a troublesome parent to abuse the system to pester the school for every little play fight."
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 Kenmoria » Thu Sep 24, 2020 11:54 pm
by Old Hope » Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:16 am
Kenmoria wrote:“I have a very precise issue with this proposal - the word ‘self-segregation’ in clause 1. If students are self-segregating, it doesn’t seem to be proportionate or reasonable to have the WA put a stop to this. If children want to make friendship groups based on a protected class: let them, because having international law put a stop to that would silly.”
Imperium Anglorum wrote:The format wars are a waste of time.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:05 am
Kenmoria wrote:“I have a very precise issue with this proposal - the word ‘self-segregation’ in clause 1. If students are self-segregating, it doesn’t seem to be proportionate or reasonable to have the WA put a stop to this. If children want to make friendship groups based on a protected class: let them, because having international law put a stop to that would silly.”
by Graintfjall » Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:08 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 25, 2020 1:53 pm
Graintfjall wrote:“While not having particularly strong views on this proposal as we don’t consider it an international issue but also don’t think it likely to be actively harmful – we do question why only those children ‘physically unfit’ are exempted. What about mental, psychological, behavioral unfitness? Similarly the hardship is assumed to be imposed on ‘the child’, but not on other children or teachers, for example by the perennially disruptive?”
Ardiveds wrote:Does clause 1 ban homeschooling? Also, does that clause mandate member nations have to make children from different backgrounds sit together regardless of what the children themselves want, all in the name of diversity?
Ardiveds wrote:In clause 3, what exactly does 'poorly treated' mean? Children tease each other, argue, fight, taunt etc, this seems like an easy way for a troublesome parent to abuse the system to pester the school for every little play fight."
by WayNeacTia » Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:08 pm
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:04 pm
by Desmosthenes and Burke » Mon Sep 28, 2020 4:16 am
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:02 am
by Kenmoria » Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:20 am
by West Phoenicia » Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:32 am
by Land Without Shrimp » Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:44 am
by Bruke » Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:56 am
Land Without Shrimp wrote:Shocked and appalled by the intrusive and heavy handed nature of this resolution. Despite being very much against segregation and segregationist attitudes, the end of Clause 1 will strip parents of the rights to choose a school for their own child. If the following statement was taken out, I would consider voting for. As it is, a not particularly liberal reading of this statement "they shall prohibit segregation and self-segregation of students by parental income, race, religion, or other protected classes..." is a cudgel that has the power to single-handedly destroy religious schools, as well as further curtail the rights of home-schooling parents. Integration and the fostering of openness to diverse viewpoints is an admirable goal, but this resolution does more to deaden diversity and make a mockery of pluralism than actually advance the growth of a welcoming and inclusive society. If state-enforced conformity is to be prized above all else, this should be voted for. As it is, I will vote Against.
by Attempted Socialism » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:00 am
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Velosia » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:28 am
by Kandorith » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:38 am
☾ Great Empire of Kanyori | 大宮来国 | Arashi Kanyori Yokoku ☽
Overview | Constitution | Anthem | Imperial Anthem | Armed Forces | Foreign Affairs | Emperor
Hikari Kyoyu Headlines:
BREAKING NEWS: LDP wins elections in landslide though Yoshiro Murakami will not return as prime minister they stated. | Latest technology showcased at the Empress Masumi Stadium as the January Tech Summit starts for the weekend | CDP claims LDP stole the election and will take legal steps against the election results
by Kenmoria » Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:29 pm
Velosia wrote:Ambassador, would you be so kind as to provide some clarification on the resolution's attitude towards religious segregation?
It clearly implies that all forms of religious segregation will not be tolerated. However, there are a number of nations afford certain religious communities the right to establish so-called 'faith schools'. These are institutions of learning, generally operating with the full support of the state, that openly favour the admittance of children who are part of the same religious community over those who are not.
It is still illegal to prohibit children of other faiths from attending but, as there is an open bias towards children of one faith over others, this is undeniably an example of religious discrimination.
While this delegation does not share this view, the nations in question would see this as a form of protection for minority religious communities and feel that it is a morally justified position to take. A form of 'positive discrimination' so to speak, though we would argue that any form of discrimination is still discrimination.
But I digress. Would such a situation still full under, what this resolution would describe as, an example of unacceptable religious discrimination?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement