[PASSED] Gay Panic Defense Ban

[Crowheim]

This is a relative shot in the dark of a proposal but it’s been swirling around my head for some time, so I figured I should draft something out and see the feedback and thoughts on it.

For clarification I’m the same person as Penguin Palace and Titanne.

Gay Panic Defense Ban

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild

Commending previous efforts passed in these hallowed halls which advanced the civil rights of those who do not identify as heterosexual or cisgender,

Recognizing that there is still much work to be done in the securing of equality and justice for members of the LGBTQ+ community, as the previously passed resolutions could only cover so much ground,

Noting one of the most egregious offenses against these rights which is still in existence: the Gay Panic Defense, often used by aggressors of assault and murder to justify their actions due to their perception of one's sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, an argument which would have the finder of fact in the relevant courtroom believe that one's sex, sexual orientation or gender identity makes it acceptable to commit a violent crime against them,

Realizing that this justification rarely if ever is actually accurate to the circumstances of an assault or murder, and that when it is, the argument is rooted in bigotry, homophobia and transphobia which should not be logic accepted or utilized by a jury or judge in any court of law,

This legislature enacts the following:

The perception, whether true or not, of a person's sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity may not be used as a defence to a criminal offence, excuse or justification of criminal conduct, or evidence for mitigating a criminal offence's severity in sentencing.

The use of force against another individual is not justified by the mere discovery, knowledge, or disclosure of that individual's sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

Co-authored with Imperium Anglorum.

[Hulldom]

(Image)

The Gay Panic Defense Ban

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Commending previous efforts passed in these hallowed halls which advanced the civil rights of those who do not identify as heterosexual or cisgender,

Recognizing that there is still much work to be done in the securing of equality and justice for members of the LGBTQ+ community (those who are not cisgender or heterosexual),

Noting one of the most egregious offenses against these rights which is still in existence; the Gay Panic Defense, often used by aggressors of assault and murder to justify their actions under the logic that they thought the transgender or gay victim was attempting to become involved romantically or sexually with the aggressor,

Realizing that this justification rarely if ever is actually accurate to the circumstances of an assault or murder, and that when it is, it is built on arguments that bigotry, homophobia and transphobia, which should not be acceptable or present in any court of law,

...hereby mandates,

I) That the so-called Gay Panic Defense be disallowed in the court of law in all member states of the World Assembly,

II) That a commission selected by this body will be established to provide compensation to the families of previous victims of this legal strategy, as well as the victim his or herself, if applicable.

"The Hulldomian delegation is very much in favor of this resolution as we very much appreciate the sentiments behind this resolution. However, we have a list of edits we would make on this resolution. They would appear more in boldface, or more appreciably black than grey, but our legation assistant spent the money we should've used to buy ink for the printer on lobster."

1. Adding the bit after the "LGBTQ+ community" in the Recognizing clause is superfluous.

2. A colon after "in existence" in the Noting clause would be better.

3. In the realizing clause, it would be better for the latter part of the clause to read "arguments rooted in bigotry, homophobia, and transphobia", you can also eliminate the comma after that.

4. Don't need the ellipses before hereby. Just have it be "Hereby mandates:"

5. (More of a dealer's choice play here) Add a verb after "Gay Panic Defense" in point I, potentially shall.

6. Using no pronouns would be preferable to "his or herself", it would also be more inclusive towards those who use they/them pronouns or other pronouns.

[Wallenburg]

1) "Gay Panic Defense" most certainly requires a definition.
2) Is this proposal meant to suggest that current WA law does not already prevent this through its anti-discrimination law?

[Crowheim]

(Image)

The Gay Panic Defense Ban

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Commending previous efforts passed in these hallowed halls which advanced the civil rights of those who do not identify as heterosexual or cisgender,

Recognizing that there is still much work to be done in the securing of equality and justice for members of the LGBTQ+ community (those who are not cisgender or heterosexual),

Noting one of the most egregious offenses against these rights which is still in existence; the Gay Panic Defense, often used by aggressors of assault and murder to justify their actions under the logic that they thought the transgender or gay victim was attempting to become involved romantically or sexually with the aggressor,

Realizing that this justification rarely if ever is actually accurate to the circumstances of an assault or murder, and that when it is, it is built on arguments that bigotry, homophobia and transphobia, which should not be acceptable or present in any court of law,

...hereby mandates,

I) That the so-called Gay Panic Defense be disallowed in the court of law in all member states of the World Assembly,

II) That a commission selected by this body will be established to provide compensation to the families of previous victims of this legal strategy, as well as the victim his or herself, if applicable.

"The Hulldomian delegation is very much in favor of this resolution as we very much appreciate the sentiments behind this resolution. However, we have a list of edits we would make on this resolution. They would appear more in boldface, or more appreciably black than grey, but our legation assistant spent the money we should've used to buy ink for the printer on lobster."

1. Adding the bit after the "LGBTQ+ community" in the Recognizing clause is superfluous.

2. A colon after "in existence" in the Noting clause would be better.

3. In the realizing clause, it would be better for the latter part of the clause to read "arguments rooted in bigotry, homophobia, and transphobia", you can also eliminate the comma after that.

4. Don't need the ellipses before hereby. Just have it be "Hereby mandates:"

5. (More of a dealer's choice play here) Add a verb after "Gay Panic Defense" in point I, potentially shall.

6. Using no pronouns would be preferable to "his or herself", it would also be more inclusive towards those who use they/them pronouns or other pronouns.

Addressed all of these points.

1) "Gay Panic Defense" most certainly requires a definition.
2) Is this proposal meant to suggest that current WA law does not already prevent this through its anti-discrimination law?

1) Noted.
2) I think current WA law is a bit vague and while it takes great strides in broadly limiting discrimination and these sorts of practices, I think in this particular area it is a bit lacking, so it can never hurt to set it in stone.

[Ionida]

Although, Ambassador, the Commonwealth is in favour of this resolution, it doesn't agree that there should be a dedicated comission. This would be needless bureaucracy; existing charitable initiatives or organisations could deal with this, or cash payment could be ordered by a judge in court as a result of a trial for hate speech/anti-LGBTQ+ offences to be paid to the victim (or family) by the offender or government.
- Governmental Delegation for WA Human Rights Board

[Purple Hyacinth]

I support the idea, although my inexperience in WA means that I can't really evaluate the quality of the proposal

Quick suggestion: you may want to include, by name, the "Trans Panic Defense" as well.

[Ardiveds]

Although, Ambassador, the Commonwealth is in favour of this resolution, it doesn't agree that there should be a dedicated comission. This would be needless bureaucracy; existing charitable initiatives or organisations could deal with this, or cash payment could be ordered by a judge in court as a result of a trial for hate speech/anti-LGBTQ+ offences to be paid to the victim (or family) by the offender or government.
- Governmental Delegation for WA Human Rights Board

"We share this opinion as well and would like to question the necessity of compensating the family of the victim, atleast in cases where the victim himself/herself is still alive and legally competent. What if the immediate family of the victim themselves are disapproving of the victim's sexual identity?"

[Old Hope]

This is a relative shot in the dark of a proposal but it’s been swirling around my head for some time, so I figured I should draft something out and see the feedback and thoughts on it.

For clarification I’m the same person as Penguin Palace and Titanne.

(Image)

The Gay Panic Defense Ban

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Commending previous efforts passed in these hallowed halls which advanced the civil rights of those who do not identify as heterosexual or cisgender,

Recognizing that there is still much work to be done in the securing of equality and justice for members of the LGBTQ+ community, as the previous resolutions could only cover so much ground,

Noting one of the most egregious offenses against these rights which is still in existence: the Gay Panic Defense, often used by aggressors of assault and murder to justify their actions under the logic that they thought the transgender or gay victim was attempting to become involved romantically or sexually with the aggressor,

Defining Gay Panic Defense as a legal strategy in which a defendant claims they acted in a state of temporary insanity, diminished capacity, or self-defence, committing assault or murder, because of unwanted same-sex sexual advances.

Realizing that this justification rarely if ever is actually accurate to the circumstances of an assault or murder, and that when it is, the argument is rooted in bigotry, homophobia and transphobia which should not be acceptable or present in any court of law,

hereby mandates:

I) That the so-called Gay Panic Defense shall be disallowed in the court of law in all member states of the World Assembly,

II) That a commission selected by this body will be established to provide compensation to the families of previous victims of this legal strategy, as well as the victim themselves, if applicable.

This needs some polishing. "Sexual advances" is a very broad term. A bit too broad because it also includes physical actions also considered to be sexual assault.

[Crowheim]

Although, Ambassador, the Commonwealth is in favour of this resolution, it doesn't agree that there should be a dedicated comission. This would be needless bureaucracy; existing charitable initiatives or organisations could deal with this, or cash payment could be ordered by a judge in court as a result of a trial for hate speech/anti-LGBTQ+ offences to be paid to the victim (or family) by the offender or government.
- Governmental Delegation for WA Human Rights Board

"We share this opinion as well and would like to question the necessity of compensating the family of the victim, atleast in cases where the victim himself/herself is still alive and legally competent. What if the immediate family of the victim themselves are disapproving of the victim's sexual identity?"

"We have adjusted the proposed mandate so that renumeration is only provided in cases where the victim cannot receive it, and left wording deliberately vague so that the commission may decide whether such compensation is necessary at all, for cases like the one you referenced."

This is a relative shot in the dark of a proposal but it’s been swirling around my head for some time, so I figured I should draft something out and see the feedback and thoughts on it.

For clarification I’m the same person as Penguin Palace and Titanne.

(Image)

The Gay Panic Defense Ban

Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant

The General Assembly,

Commending previous efforts passed in these hallowed halls which advanced the civil rights of those who do not identify as heterosexual or cisgender,

Recognizing that there is still much work to be done in the securing of equality and justice for members of the LGBTQ+ community, as the previous resolutions could only cover so much ground,

Noting one of the most egregious offenses against these rights which is still in existence: the Gay Panic Defense, often used by aggressors of assault and murder to justify their actions under the logic that they thought the transgender or gay victim was attempting to become involved romantically or sexually with the aggressor,

Defining Gay Panic Defense as a legal strategy in which a defendant claims they acted in a state of temporary insanity, diminished capacity, or self-defence, committing assault or murder, because of unwanted same-sex sexual advances.

Realizing that this justification rarely if ever is actually accurate to the circumstances of an assault or murder, and that when it is, the argument is rooted in bigotry, homophobia and transphobia which should not be acceptable or present in any court of law,

hereby mandates:

I) That the so-called Gay Panic Defense shall be disallowed in the court of law in all member states of the World Assembly,

II) That a commission selected by this body will be established to provide compensation to the families of previous victims of this legal strategy, as well as the victim themselves, if applicable.

This needs some polishing. "Sexual advances" is a very broad term. A bit too broad because it also includes physical actions also considered to be sexual assault.

Edited.

I support the idea, although my inexperience in WA means that I can't really evaluate the quality of the proposal

Quick suggestion: you may want to include, by name, the "Trans Panic Defense" as well.

Added into the mandate section.

[Tinhampton]

a commission selected by this body

Are you absolutely sure that this doesn't violate the rule against proposals defining how committee members are chosen?

1) "Gay Panic Defense" most certainly requires a definition.

This, except replace "Gay" with "Trans" this time

[Wallenburg]

a commission selected by this body

Are you absolutely sure that this doesn't violate the rule against proposals defining how committee members are chosen?

1) "Gay Panic Defense" most certainly requires a definition.

This, except replace "Gay" with "Trans" this time

By the nature of definitions, they could make it cover both. I'm not sure why the mandates were separated to distinguish the two but no attempt was made to actually define the new term.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Covered by CoCR already.

[Crowheim]

Are you absolutely sure that this doesn't violate the rule against proposals defining how committee members are chosen?


This, except replace "Gay" with "Trans" this time

By the nature of definitions, they could make it cover both. I'm not sure why the mandates were separated to distinguish the two but no attempt was made to actually define the new term.

Noted, I'll mush the two together both in definitions and mandate.

[Greater Cesnica]

I would capitalize the 'H' in "hereby". Besides that, full support.

[Crowheim]

I would capitalize the 'H' in "hereby". Besides that, full support.

Edited, and thank you!

[Tinhampton]

Gay Panic Defense Ban or The Gay Panic Defense Ban? Be consistent

[Goobergunchia]

In the definition clause we wish to note that it's spelled "perceived", not "percieved".

We are also unsure if the "despite this often not being the case," language is not superfluous.

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly
Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

[Barfleur]

"Ambassador, my delegation offers its support to this proposal. We think such action is long overdue. As a matter of personal styling, I would recommend that you define 'gay panic defense' and 'trans panic defense' individually, and that you move the definitions after the operative clause ('hereby mandates:'). I also recommend defining 'sexual assault,' since, under your proposed legislation, it would be a valid defense in a murder trial. Such an important distinction, in my mind, merits a clear definition."

[Romextly]

Aight I'ma continue to list this as another laws I'll ignore

[Crowheim]

Gay Panic Defense Ban or The Gay Panic Defense Ban? Be consistent

Noted, will fix.

[Crowheim]

"Ambassador, my delegation offers its support to this proposal. We think such action is long overdue. As a matter of personal styling, I would recommend that you define 'gay panic defense' and 'trans panic defense' individually, and that you move the definitions after the operative clause ('hereby mandates:'). I also recommend defining 'sexual assault,' since, under your proposed legislation, it would be a valid defense in a murder trial. Such an important distinction, in my mind, merits a clear definition."

In the definition clause we wish to note that it's spelled "perceived", not "percieved".

We are also unsure if the "despite this often not being the case," language is not superfluous.

Madeleine Kofelgas
Deputy Ambassador to the World Assembly
Liberal Unitary Republic of Goobergunchia

Noted and fixed, to both of you.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Do you actually think by making it easier to convict criminal suspects, you are increasing civil liberties?

[Tinfect]

Do you actually think by making it easier to convict criminal suspects, you are increasing civil liberties?

OOC:
I think it works; it means that gay and trans people can't be murdered without the appropriate legal consequences. This argument only really works if you think it is a civil liberty to randomly murder people.

[Ardiveds]

Do you actually think by making it easier to convict criminal suspects, you are increasing civil liberties?

OOC:
I think it works; it means that gay and trans people can't be murdered without the appropriate legal consequences. This argument only really works if you think it is a civil liberty to randomly murder people.

OOC: It could be argued that the option to use gay panic defence is a civil liberty, just one that's discriminatory and ethically questionable. On the other hand, this doesn't really make it illegal to kill gay or trans people, that was already illegal under CoCR.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It was merely a game-stats query -- nothing else.