[DRAFT #4] Freedom of dress

[Tinhampton]

Character count: 2,859
Word count: 458

ICly by Lydia Anderson, now the Assistant to the Delegate-Ambassador.
OOC: I'm back. Given that Article 3f of the newly-submitted Limiting Animal Pathogens prohibits wet markets from denying entry to those who "don personal protective equipment on the[ir] premises" and in light of Uan aa Boa's comments on the original thread, I suspected that the addition of a few bits and pieces here and there would be a good idea. This is far from perfect; comments on anything and everything are always welcome, as ever.

Freedom of dress
A resolution to improve worldwide human sapient and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

Aware that clothing can not only serve to express one's beliefs, but may also function simply as items of personal convenience,

Condemning the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states, and

Resolving to prevent not only the imposition of restrictions on clothing which are obviously discriminatory, but also those which do not obviously seek to protect public order or public health...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from imposing any restriction on what clothing any of their inhabitants may wear, except that they may impose restrictions which:
   
   1. are required by prior and standing international law, or future international law regarding hate speech,
   2. prohibit the wearing of clothing in a public place which conveys an illegal message or would otherwise grossly offend a typical person who regularly attends that place (such as clothing worn on a religious site which advocates for acts of genocide against adherents of that religion or expresses support for those who have committed such acts),
   3. provide for the covering of any part of its wearer's body that a reasonable member of their species would expect a great level of privacy in relation to, or anything naturally released by those body parts, in a public place,
   4. are necessary to preserve the health of its wearer or of the general public (such as requiring the wearing of hard hats, high-visibility jackets and steel-toed boots on construction sites), or
   5. are necessary to ensure that members of the general public do not wilfully impersonate on-duty members of militaries or national emergency services,
2. forbids public places in any member state from imposing any restriction on what clothing anybody may wear within their grounds, except that they must install whatever restrictions that member imposes pursuant to Article a, may impose Article a restrictions where that member does not do so, and may prescribe uniforms as provided by Article c, and
3. clarifies that:
   
   1. any employer in a member state may prescribe a uniform for those providing services for them, any organiser of an event in a member state may require a particular costume to be worn by those actively participating in that event, and any school in a member state may prescribe a uniform for its pupils, so long as their uniform codes neither forbid nor require individuals to wear any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic, but that
   2. actors in fictional visual entertainment productions (such as films and plays) may nonetheless be required to wear particular costumes while those productions are taking place.

[Tinhampton]

Burial site for obsolete drafts

Aware that clothing - as well as occasionally serving to express one's beliefs - can also sometimes function simply as items of personal convenience,

Condemning the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states, and

Resolving to prevent not only the imposition of restrictions on clothing which are obviously discriminatory, but also those which do not obviously seek to protect public order or public health...

The General Assembly hereby:

1. forbids member states from imposing any restriction on what clothing any of their inhabitants may wear, except that they may impose restrictions which:
   
   1. are required by prior and standing international law, or future international law regarding hate speech,
   2. prohibit the wearing of clothing in a public place which conveys an illegal message or would otherwise grossly offend a typical person who regularly attends that place (such as clothing worn on a religious site which advocates for acts of genocide against adherents of that religion or expresses support for those who have committed such acts),
   3. provide for the covering of any part of its wearer's body that a reasonable member of their species would expect a great level of privacy in relation to, or anything naturally released by those body parts, in a public place,
   4. are necessary to preserve the health of its wearer or of the general public (such as requiring the wearing of hard hats, high-visibility jackets and steel-toed boots on construction sites), or
   5. are necessary to ensure that members of the general public do not wilfully impersonate on-duty members of militaries or national emergency services, and
2. clarifies that:
   
   1. any employer in a member state may prescribe a uniform for their employees, any organiser of an event in a member state may require a particular costume to be worn by those actively participating in that event, and any school in a member state may prescribe a uniform for its pupils, so long as their uniform codes do not forbid individuals from wearing, nor require individuals to wear, any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic,
   2. actors in fictional visual entertainment productions (such as films and plays) may be required to wear particular costumes while those productions are taking place, and that
   3. public places must not deny any person entry on account of their clothing, except to enforce those restrictions which the member state they are located in makes pursuant to Article a, which they may make pursuant to Articles a(ii-v), or (if they are an employer, event organiser, or school) which they make pursuant to Article b(i).

[Fachumonn]

Opposed - how is this an international issue?

[Tinhampton]

Opposed - how is this an international issue?

My objective is the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, which I believe will serve great utility to many people in many member states.

[The Orwell Society]

For. It is already a really good draft. However, what would this mean? The cancelation of the prudism policy for some nations?

[Tinhampton]

For. It is already a really good draft. However, what would this mean? The cancelation of the prudism policy for some nations?

It is impossible for GA resolutions to affect the policies you get; only issue answering can do that. And thanks

[The Orwell Society]

For. It is already a really good draft. However, what would this mean? The cancelation of the prudism policy for some nations?

It is impossible for GA resolutions to affect the policies you get; only issue answering can do that. And thanks

No problem. You're definitely one of the better proposal authors

[Makko Oko]

"We in the Makko Okoan Government see very little that needs feedback in this resolution. While we don't officially condone WA meddling in any affair that regards our laws, we do feel that it is still a good resolution, even if we vote against it."

future international law regarding hate speech

"This portion of Article 1a is not much of an issue, but just curious, Ambassador, as to why you chose to define only 'hate speech' as the acceptable form of resolution to enact restrictions on clothing. Why can't any resolution do this, such as ones on civil rights?"

their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic

"This portion of Article 2a is more concerning to us. What is defined as an 'arbitrary and reductive characteristic'? Would having a body part specific to a gender count under that? For instance, if you're a woman, you must wear a shirt, but if you're a guy, you're not required to. We would love a definition of this to go into the resolution."

[Tinhampton]

snip

In light of Articles a(ii-v), I don't see how any category of future resolution other than matters regarding hate speech can effectively regulate clothing. I might provide an allowance for future WA law on stolen valor in a(i) but don't count on it.

GA#35 defines what an Arbitrary And Reductive Characteristic(TM) is. This resolution bans dress codes that say "if you're a woman, you must wear a shirt, but if you're a guy, you're not required to."

[Makko Oko]

snip

In light of Articles a(ii-v), I don't see how any category of future resolution other than matters regarding hate speech can effectively regulate clothing. I might provide an allowance for future WA law on stolen valor in a(i) but don't count on it.

GA#35 defines what an Arbitrary And Reductive Characteristic(TM) is. This resolution bans dress codes that say "if you're a woman, you must wear a shirt, but if you're a guy, you're not required to."

"Thank you for your responses Ambassador, they're much appreciated. You make us think of another concern however, and that is, if a place of business chooses to not require people wear shirts, it could violate nudity laws either locally or internationally. How do you intend to fix that gaping hole Ambassador?"

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Ms. Schafer strides into the chamber wearing a red dress (how ironic considering that this draft is about the freedom of dress)

“Her highness told me to tell you that this proposal is essentially free of major errors. However, she has one question for me to ask. Regarding Clause B, Part 1, would wearing pajamas to school and/of work be technically allowed under this resolution? That seems like a major loophole in this, ambassador. Also, as a sidenote, her highness does not like this concept in general though, due to prudism laws that she passed, but still thinks that the draft itself is okay nonetheless. I also support the prudism laws, since it compels me to wear beautiful dresses. Do you all believe this gorgeous look is a mistake? (Points to herself)”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

Iulia holds up an old tape recorder. "Allow me to play the remarks of the Tinhamptonian delegation on the proposal related to drunkers:"

I continue to oppose this proposal on principle (not the WA's business).

"Sadly, this proposal shows that in addition to being the masters of useless minutiae, the delegation wishes to add masters of hypocrisy to their curriculum vitae."

[Comfed]

For b(i), I would suggest instead a simple requirement that dress codes apply uniformly to everyone barring reasonable circumstances.

[Nepleslia]

My objective is the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy, which I believe will serve great utility to many people in many member states.

So with this proposal you’re attempting to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy by… introducing more unnecessary bureaucracy?

[Tinhampton]

Makko Oko and Anne of Cleves: As far as I know, this proposal will ban enforced nudism and enforced prudism alike

Comfed: I thought that making dress codes universally applicable was what b(i) did already.

Nepleslia: I've always had NatSov leanings but sometimes I have to balance that with PerSov. The latter, for the most part, won out here.

[Princess Rainbow Sparkles]

I have not delved too deeply into this proposal except to note that it generally runs as follows: "People are free to dress as they please except for when they are not for a variety of reasons." I suppose I can agree with that principle, but I'm not sure this draft meaningfully expands on prior resolutions protecting free expression and prohibiting discrimination.

To the extent you're concerned about female workers being discriminated against based on their sex, other WA law addresses that.

The idea that people should be allowed to wear what they please in public places except when it conveys an "illegal message" or "would otherwise grossly offend a typical person" is baffling in a proposal purportedly serving to expand protection of expression beyond what we have already enacted. It creates more questions than it answers, and it probably contradicts GAR #436.

Anyway, I see no reason to step on the legislative rights of Nudist nations - which can be a recognized and defining national characteristic of a Nationstate.

If this passes, I suppose next we must have the Freedom to Flail About Randomly; protecting people's right to express themselves by moving their arms about however they please, subject to limitations and exceptions. And then the Freedom to Take Two Steps Forward; protecting people's right to the convenience of moving two steps forward except when they should not do so for some reasons.

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Makko Oko and Anne of Cleves: As far as I know, this proposal will ban enforced nudism and enforced prudism alike

Comfed: I thought that making dress codes universally applicable was what b(i) did already.

Nepleslia: I've always had NatSov leanings but sometimes I have to balance that with PerSov. The latter, for the most part, won out here.

“Banning enforced nudism is great. I certainly would be horrified if all the Clevesian school kids came to school nude. But banning enforced prudism??? What’s wrong with mandated beauty and constantly wearing a dazzling red dress like mine? *points to her dress in a sophisticated way* There is certainly nothing wrong with the “Right of Beauty” in my eyes.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

[Attack Helicopter]

GAR#436 (Protecting Free Expression) already allows people in WA member nations to express themselves via clothing.

[Equai]

Federation of Equai fully supports this draft. We believe in the absolute autonomy and liberty of individuals to wear whatever type and/or outfit they want, as long there is nothing clearly offensive as an insignia. We believe that each individual shall decide what they want to wear on their own without imposed rules from the government. We deeply oppose any form of prusdism and standardized uniforms so supporting this draft is only natural for us.

[Tinhampton]

Attack Helicopter: Article 3 of 436 "prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting... restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation." ;P

Makko Oko and Anne of Cleves: As far as I know, this proposal will ban enforced nudism and enforced prudism alike [...]

“Banning enforced nudism is great. I certainly would be horrified if all the Clevesian school kids came to school nude. But banning enforced prudism??? What’s wrong with mandated beauty and constantly wearing a dazzling red dress like mine? *points to her dress in a sophisticated way* There is certainly nothing wrong with the “Right of Beauty” in my eyes.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Anderson: If you want to wear... reads notes beautiful clothing in these chambers, you can, pretty much. Some of the fanciest uniforms I've ever seen in my time here have been worn by ambassadors whose nations had no diplomatic uniform policies any harder or faster than "business casual."

(Mrs Anderson is currently wearing a charcoal grey pantsuit, two-inch stiletto heels and an almost-entirely-done-up blouse.)

[Anne of Cleves in TNP]

Attack Helicopter: Article 3 of 436 "prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting... restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation." ;P

“Banning enforced nudism is great. I certainly would be horrified if all the Clevesian school kids came to school nude. But banning enforced prudism??? What’s wrong with mandated beauty and constantly wearing a dazzling red dress like mine? *points to her dress in a sophisticated way* There is certainly nothing wrong with the “Right of Beauty” in my eyes.”
-Ms. Charlotte Schafer, WA Ambassador for the Clevesian Empire

Anderson: If you want to wear... reads notes beautiful clothing in these chambers, you can, pretty much. Some of the fanciest uniforms I've ever seen in my time here have been worn by ambassadors whose nations had no diplomatic uniform policies any harder or faster than "business casual."

(Mrs Anderson is currently wearing a charcoal grey pantsuit, two-inch stiletto heels and an almost-entirely-done-up blouse.)

“Yes, of course I’m allowed to wear this, but imagine if everyone legally had to wear fancy clothing everyday. The multiversal population would be prim and proper!”

[Berenice Soviet]

Against, dress code is not an international issue.

[West Barack and East Obama]

Dr Justin Obama, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs: Opposed. We like all of our citizens to be wearing stiff military uniforms at all times in honour of our military, thankyouverymuch.

[Tinhampton]

Bump for hopefully substantiative feedback!

[The Finntopian Empire]

For! great writing