[PASSED] Repeal: "Institutional Psychiatry Act"

[Goobergunchia]

This is the thread for discussing the repeal of GA140 - there is a replacement attempt here that you should visit in order to give feedback on that as well. Please keep most feedback directly regarding the replacement in that thread.

General Assembly Resolution #140 “Institutional Psychiatry Act” (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Believing in the rights of people with mental illness, as laid out by Resolution 140, “Institutional Psychiatry Act”,

Concerned, however, that when discussing the right to freedom of communications that people with mental illness have, that no exception is made for those who are charged with a crime,

Worried that this failure allows criminals with potentially dangerous or otherwise harmful information and just so happen to have a mental illness to release this information to cohorts or the world at large, which may pose a threat to society, and gets in the way of proper justice being delivered,

Believing that this singular oversight is significant enough to justify repeal of Resolution 140, and intending to pass a suitable replacement for the protection of those with mental illnesses,

Hereby repeals Resolution 140, “Institutional Psychiatry Act”.

This has been a draft of mine for a few weeks now, and I've checked up on it a few times and have not made any changes. I figure it might be worth it to just open it up for public review.

Thanks to Jedinsto for looking over the proposal initially, and we are currently working together to co-author a replacement.

[Morover]

Changed some terminology from "mentally ill" to "people with mental illness", just to avoid a term that some may see as harmful.

Also, following discussions with Banana on Discord, I'm contemplating adding an argument with the clause about voluntary residency being perhaps a little too lenient, which could lead to issues. I'm conflicted on it, so feedback from all you lovely people on this would be appreciated.

[Goobergunchia]

Also, following discussions with Banana on Discord, I'm contemplating adding an argument with the clause about voluntary residency being perhaps a little too lenient, which could lead to issues. I'm conflicted on it, so feedback from all you lovely people on this would be appreciated.

[OOC: To me this really comes down to whether and how you're going to address this in the replacement. On a mechanical level I'd be okay with it if there's something specific in the replacement governing residency and admittance.]

[Araraukar]

Also, I'm contemplating adding an argument with the clause about voluntary residency being perhaps a little too lenient, which could lead to issues. I'm conflicted on it, so feedback from all you lovely people on this would be appreciated.

OOC: What about it is too lenient?

[Jedinsto]

Also, I'm contemplating adding an argument with the clause about voluntary residency being perhaps a little too lenient, which could lead to issues. I'm conflicted on it, so feedback from all you lovely people on this would be appreciated.

OOC: What about it is too lenient?

I believe Banana's argument was that people with minor mental illnesses that would not in any way require residency in a facility should not be able to check themselves in because they feel like it. I tend to agree and I'll make sure that change is worked into the replacement.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I'm going to need to see a replacement for it before repeal.

[Unibot III]

OOC: Is this repeal text contemplating how patient rights and solidary confinement interact? I think that needs to be discussed upfront explictly if so, because I don't think the WA should be blindly tossing away rights in the name of solidary confinement practices.

I would welcome the opportunity, however, for a new generation of authors to take a stab at the conversation surrounding patient rights and care facilities for mental health -- this was my attempt at it years ago, I'm sure others will be able to contribute something newer and better.

Uni.

[Morover]

Also, following discussions with Banana on Discord, I'm contemplating adding an argument with the clause about voluntary residency being perhaps a little too lenient, which could lead to issues. I'm conflicted on it, so feedback from all you lovely people on this would be appreciated.

[OOC: To me this really comes down to whether and how you're going to address this in the replacement. On a mechanical level I'd be okay with it if there's something specific in the replacement governing residency and admittance.]

It's handled slightly differently in the current iteration of the replacement - We can always revisit it once the replacement is posted, hopefully soon.

OOC:
I'm going to need to see a replacement for it before repeal.

I won't submit this until the replacement is also ready to be submitted.

OOC: Is this repeal text contemplating how patient rights and solidary confinement interact? I think that needs to be discussed upfront explictly if so, because I don't think the WA should be blindly tossing away rights in the name of solidary confinement practices.

I would welcome the opportunity, however, for a new generation of authors to take a stab at the conversation surrounding patient rights and care facilities for mental health -- this was my attempt at it years ago, I'm sure others will be able to contribute something newer and better.

Uni.

Not entirely - and besides, solitary confinement is almost totally banned already because of 534. My concern is rather with dangerous criminals talking with their cohorts, or criminals with very specific knowledge (nuclear codes, etc.) being able to release them, or terrorists being able to incite more violence. In some cases, even planning an escape can occur, due to them being unable to be censored. Mental illness is not a reason to let any of these things necessarily happen

[Jedinsto]

I'm going to need to see a replacement for it before repeal.

We're working on it.

Edit: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=508705

[Morover]

I'm beginning to start work up on the replacement again, following Jedinsto's departure - it will hopefully be up in fewer than four days, but no promises - if you have any feedback on that draft, I'll take it into consideration with the new version I'm working on.

[Morover]

Bump - new replacement up. This constitutes the "in a few days" I promised, right?

[Thousand Branches]

Bump - new replacement up. This constitutes the "in a few days" I promised, right?

A few days, two and a half months, same dif In seriousness, this does look interesting. I assume you’re also revisiting the replacement?

[Morover]

Bump - new replacement up. This constitutes the "in a few days" I promised, right?

A few days, two and a half months, same dif In seriousness, this does look interesting. I assume you’re also revisiting the replacement?

Oops, yep!
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=513405
I'll update the OP with the new link now.

[Thousand Branches]

A few days, two and a half months, same dif In seriousness, this does look interesting. I assume you’re also revisiting the replacement?

Oops, yep!
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=513405
I'll update the OP with the new link now.

Ah wonderful! I also popped up a couple edits since the resolution is so short

Concerned, however, that the resolution at hand does not make exceptions for those in prison due to criminal activity, which several of the provisions granted, especially freedom of communication, may prevent justice from being served or prove generally dangerous to the public at large,

This is worded a bit weirdly, I’ll give a rewrite really quick just for clarity and conciseness:

“Concerned, however, that the resolution at hand makes no exceptions for those in prison due to criminal activity, a dangerous oversight that stands in the way of proper justice and public safety when considering the resolutions’ provision on freedom of communication,”

Not much shorter, but a lot clearer I think?

Believing that this singular oversight is significant enough to justify the repeal and replacement of Resolution 140, and hoping that such a replacement is promptly passed so as to continue the protection of the those with mental illness in all member-states,

“Resolution 140” —> “GAR#140”? Just sounds more official.

“and hoping that such a replacement is promptly passed so as to continue the protection of the those with mental illness in all member-states,” —> “and hoping that such a replacement is promptly and properly produced for the protection of those with mental illnesses,” just think it sounds better?

[Morover]

Concerned, however, that the resolution at hand does not make exceptions for those in prison due to criminal activity, which several of the provisions granted, especially freedom of communication, may prevent justice from being served or prove generally dangerous to the public at large,

This is worded a bit weirdly, I’ll give a rewrite really quick just for clarity and conciseness:

“Concerned, however, that the resolution at hand makes no exceptions for those in prison due to criminal activity, a dangerous oversight that stands in the way of proper justice and public safety when considering the resolutions’ provision on freedom of communication,”

Not much shorter, but a lot clearer I think?

Changed. Thanks!

Believing that this singular oversight is significant enough to justify the repeal and replacement of Resolution 140, and hoping that such a replacement is promptly passed so as to continue the protection of the those with mental illness in all member-states,

“Resolution 140” —> “GAR#140”? Just sounds more official.

I tend to just say Resolution [#] as a stylistic preference in repeals - it's my delegation's preferred phrasing!

“and hoping that such a replacement is promptly passed so as to continue the protection of the those with mental illness in all member-states,” —> “and hoping that such a replacement is promptly and properly produced for the protection of those with mental illnesses,” just think it sounds better?

Didn't change it to exactly this but did phrase it mostly similar to what you had. Thank you!

[Unibot III]

Not entirely - and besides, solitary confinement is almost totally banned already because of 534. My concern is rather with dangerous criminals talking with their cohorts, or criminals with very specific knowledge (nuclear codes, etc.) being able to release them, or terrorists being able to incite more violence. In some cases, even planning an escape can occur, due to them being unable to be censored. Mental illness is not a reason to let any of these things necessarily happen

OOC: Yes, it’s a good point. The language used “right to..” didn’t consider those limiting factors.

I think though your repeal text as written overstates your point as it says there are no exceptions for dangerous individuals, but there are some, just not for the right to the freedom of information.

I was pleasantly surprised to read the old resolution - thank you for that! Nice trip down memory lane. I usually hate reading anything I wrote back then.

One thing I like about the original is I experimented in the final clause with non-compliance which was controversial and unusual at the time. And I recall the clause about minority persecution being challenging to write.

I’ll be supporting the repeal, with or without edits, when it comes to vote.

[Apatosaurus]

Why is that such a big deal that justifies repeal?

[Morover]

Why is that such a big deal that justifies repeal?

Somebody who hacked the government and secured nuclear launch codes or otherwise sensitive information is arrested for hacking. They also happen to have a mentall illness. Because of this resolution, they are given free rein to release this information as they like.

A group of people rob a bank. One of them who gets caught and arrested has a mental illness, but they still have an accomplice outside. They are allowed to give the accomplice the location of the money they stashed without interference, which may very well result in them getting out of prison (bail) or the money becoming otherwise irrecoverable.

I can go on if you'd like.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Why is that such a big deal that justifies repeal?

Somebody who hacked the government and secured nuclear launch codes or otherwise sensitive information is arrested for hacking. They also happen to have a mentall illness. Because of this resolution, they are given free rein to release this information as they like.

A group of people rob a bank. One of them who gets caught and arrested has a mental illness, but they still have an accomplice outside. They are allowed to give the accomplice the location of the money they stashed without interference, which may very well result in them getting out of prison (bail) or the money becoming otherwise irrecoverable.

I can go on if you'd like.

Asking for clarification. How does the text do this? Could you provide these impacts directly in your draft?

[Morover]

Somebody who hacked the government and secured nuclear launch codes or otherwise sensitive information is arrested for hacking. They also happen to have a mentall illness. Because of this resolution, they are given free rein to release this information as they like.

A group of people rob a bank. One of them who gets caught and arrested has a mental illness, but they still have an accomplice outside. They are allowed to give the accomplice the location of the money they stashed without interference, which may very well result in them getting out of prison (bail) or the money becoming otherwise irrecoverable.

I can go on if you'd like.

Asking for clarification. How does the text do this? Could you provide these impacts directly in your draft?

Target, clause one: "All persons with a mental illness... have a right to... [f]reedom of communication" - where freedom of communication is defined as "freedom to send and receive uncensored private communications with anyone outside or inside in a mental health facility with respect to domestic court restraining orders (i.e., "no contact" provisions), and inalienable access to communicational services (postal and telephone) and newspapers, radio, television and other forms of media". In my mind, this pretty clearly has the issue of both of the scenarios I provided, and a plethora of others. Nowhere in the clause does it say that the people afforded these rights are being held in mental hospitals (or whatever the term you want to use is), but even if that provision was in there, my problem would still arise (albeit in a smaller capacity). If I need to elaborate further please let me know.

I can provide these impacts in my draft if that sentiment is echoed, but as-is, the impact (intended to be "a dangerous oversight that stands in the way of proper justice and public safety", though I admit that could probably use a rewrite to be more clear in its own right) is intentionally vague to allow for as many possible scenarios as possible.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm speaking as a voter and author, it's usually strategic to illustrate how it does what you claim it does explicitly. So long as your interpretation isn't suspect on HM veracity, that usually is just positives. Providing the claim, warrant, and impact for your argument is good; it makes it clear what the problem is, where it comes from, and why it matters. All of those are important things to address: arguments become incoherent without all three.

Putting the fancy pink hat on, looking at it prima facie, that interpretation seems colourable, though the others™ might disagree (probably on RNT grounds).

[Morover]

I'm speaking as a voter and author, it's usually strategic to illustrate how it does what you claim it does explicitly. So long as your interpretation isn't suspect on HM veracity, that usually is just positives. Providing the claim, warrant, and impact for your argument is good; it makes it clear what the problem is, where it comes from, and why it matters. All of those are important things to address: arguments become incoherent without all three.

Putting the fancy pink hat on, looking at it prima facie, that interpretation seems colourable, though the others™ might disagree (probably on RNT grounds).

I'll revise the impact some point soon. Regarding RNT (and yes I understand you aren't necessarily arguing that but I figured it's better to get ahead of the ball), when the text very explicitly says something, as it does in the resolution, I don't think RNT as an argument holds up - sure, if there is a more reasonable interpretation of the text, then nations would adopt it, but I'm seeing no other interpretations that don't explicitly add or exclude something from the text. Let me know if you disagree.

[Bears Armed]

I'm speaking as a voter and author, it's usually strategic to illustrate how it does what you claim it does explicitly. So long as your interpretation isn't suspect on HM veracity, that usually is just positives. Providing the claim, warrant, and impact for your argument is good; it makes it clear what the problem is, where it comes from, and why it matters. All of those are important things to address: arguments become incoherent without all three.

Putting the fancy pink hat on, looking at it prima facie, that interpretation seems colourable, though the others™ might disagree (probably on RNT grounds).

I'll revise the impact some point soon. Regarding RNT (and yes I understand you aren't necessarily arguing that but I figured it's better to get ahead of the ball), when the text very explicitly says something, as it does in the resolution, I don't think RNT as an argument holds up - sure, if there is a more reasonable interpretation of the text, then nations would adopt it, but I'm seeing no other interpretations that don't explicitly add or exclude something from the text. Let me know if you disagree.

OOC: I agree with you.

[Unibot III]

OOC: Morover, you may find you will avoid a HM challenge more easily if you phrase your central clause as saying “the resolution provides no exceptions to the freedom of information,” (or something like that) and then have a second clause that explains why this is bad: “in particular cases.. etc.” A one two punch.

As it stands (as I’ve said before), your resolution runs the risk of getting nailed for the same reason as the CPA repeal recently did (reasoning that Bears Armed supported, and I opposed) by saying the resolution “makes no exceptions for dangerous criminals,” as there’s at least one exception present in the original text for dangerous criminals, but none for the freedom of information section — that’s a product of how the original resolution was structured by the idiot who wrote it.

EDIT: another trick that could be used is to incorporate the fact that the resolution does have some exceptions for dangerous criminals, to strengthen your defence against RNT. Because why provide explicit exceptions for something, but not the other… if you follow.

[Morover]

Made some edits. Let me know what you think.

I'll give this + the replacement about a month (maybe a little less) to linger and then I'll begin considering submission, just to make my timeline perfectly clear.