[SUBMITTED] Universal Murder Law Act

[Keshiland]

Realizes that barbaric nations need such a law to keep citizens safe.

Bans- The killing of political opponents
Requires- The WA Nations to enforce laws that ban the unjustified killing of other civilians
Bans- The killing of citizens or residents based on color, species, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, language, or religion

I edited out the parts that were deemed illegal.

[Essu Beti]

"The inclusion of "mercy" makes this read as an attempt to slide in a euthanasia ban under a supposedly honor killing based act. That's pretty ballsy of you."

[The Sheika]

So far I have no objections, but that does not mean that nobody will object. You may need to add some additional information, such as what defines an honor killing as well as an explanation as to why it should be banned.

Be advised, it is likely that you will get a lot of friction in regards to the ban of killing for mercy. Some may consider that a slight against euthanasia, may being the key word there. On a further note, "killing for pride" might get a few comments given that some soldiers may be sworn to close with, engage, and destroy an enemy for the pride of their nation. These are not my concerns, just something to think about.

[Keshiland]

"The inclusion of "mercy" makes this read as an attempt to slide in a euthanasia ban under a supposedly honor killing based act. That's pretty ballsy of you."

Killing someone is different than suicide.

[Essu Beti]

"I said euthanasia, not suicide."

[Keshiland]

"I said euthanasia, not suicide."

I just defined the meanings of all of them and euthanasia is assisted medical suicide.

[The Sheika]

"I said euthanasia, not suicide."

I just defined the meanings of all of them and euthanasia is assisted medical suicide.

Pretty basic definitions, but a good start. You may need more information on what an honor killing is and why it is a concern, just to get your argument a little bit further.

[Essu Beti]

"Better. You still need a preamble, an explanation of why this wouldn't already be covered under existing resolutions regarding natural rights, a reformatting, and a spellcheck. Might also want to plump up your statements, too, make sure they cover all your bases."

[Thermodolia]

"Ambassador why would you put the word "exceptions" when there are none?"

[Keshiland]

"Ambassador why would you put the word "exceptions" when there are none?"

To make clear that there is no reason what so ever that it is okay

[The Sheika]

I see that you have submitted this to the World Assembly. I have a couple of questions to pose to you;
1) It has only been a couple of hours since you posted a draft here, are you absolutely certain that you cannot make anymore improvements to help carry your argument further and increase the odds of receiving more endorsements?
2) Are you sure that you could not have explained the purpose behind your resolution for clarity, as well as explaining specific situations that led to the creation of your proposal?

[Covenstone]

Criminalization of Honor Killing Act

Goal- To end killing for honor

Restictions- Complete and total ban of killing for pride, honor, or "mercy".

Exeptions- NONE

Defines - Killing for pride as killing in the name of the family

Defines - Killing for honor as killing due to going against the family

Defines - Killing for mercy as killing someone without there consent to "relieve them of pain"

Well, I am entirely curious as to the point of this.

They are all murder. If murder is illegal in a country, then why would you need a resolution to outlaw it?

Regardless of the motive, you are basically saying that murder is now illegal, which I think is already going to be the case in most member states. So this would just be duplicating laws they already have.

So yeah, I am going to have to oppose this because it literally serves no purpose as far as I can see.

And while I admit it is strange there are no resolutions against murder, maybe there is a reason for that. If The WA hasn't felt it necessary to pass a law saying "You shall not murder", then maybe it shouldn't feel compelled to pass a law saying "You shall not murder for specific reasons, but feel free to keep murderin' for all the other reasons you want" because it would kind of make The WA look like a bunch of callous bastards.

Because (from a certain point of view) this proposal says it is fine to kill someone if you want to steal their stuff, or if they are boinking your wife, or if they ran over your cat with their zamboni, but not if you want to restore your family pride? What kind of a fracked up law is that for a World body to pass?

The one thing I will accept is that the third clause doesn't outlaw euthanasia, because (from what I understand) euthanasia does kind of require the consent of the person who is dying. Otherwise it is pretty much murder.

[Keshiland]

I see that you have submitted this to the World Assembly. I have a couple of questions to pose to you;
1) It has only been a couple of hours since you posted a draft here, are you absolutely certain that you cannot make anymore improvements to help carry your argument further and increase the odds of receiving more endorsements?
2) Are you sure that you could not have explained the purpose behind your resolution for clarity, as well as explaining specific situations that led to the creation of your proposal?

I do not think that anyone would question why I think it needs to be outlawed. The bill is just how I want it but I will answer any questions that come my way.

Also if you could help it get more yes votes it would be greatly appreciated

[Thermodolia]

"Ambassador why would you put the word "exceptions" when there are none?"

To make clear that there is no reason what so ever that it is okay

"It's unnecessary. These things have a word limit ya know"

[Grays Harbor]

So, we need a resolution making a type of murder ... illegal??

[Thermodolia]

I see that you have submitted this to the World Assembly. I have a couple of questions to pose to you;
1) It has only been a couple of hours since you posted a draft here, are you absolutely certain that you cannot make anymore improvements to help carry your argument further and increase the odds of receiving more endorsements?
2) Are you sure that you could not have explained the purpose behind your resolution for clarity, as well as explaining specific situations that led to the creation of your proposal?

I do not think that anyone would question why I think it needs to be outlawed. The bill is just how I want it but I will answer any questions that come my way.

Also if you could help it get more yes votes it would be greatly appreciated

"It's going to fail because GenSec will declare it illegal. Because it is. It has no enacting clause, like hereby enacts such and such. You need to pull it"

[Keshiland]

Because (from a certain point of view) this proposal says it is fine to kill someone if you want to steal their stuff, or if they are boinking your wife, or if they ran over your cat with their zamboni, but not if you want to restore your family pride? What kind of a fracked up law is that for a World body to pass?

This resolution does not allow other murders. It is simply in place to stop a practice that many places think is okay. Striking it down does more harm than good because if nations see that they do not have to outlaw murder then many could take that as a license to kill.

If this passes the public vote then a bill outlawing all other murder would be proposed since it would show people are on board.

[Thermodolia]

Because (from a certain point of view) this proposal says it is fine to kill someone if you want to steal their stuff, or if they are boinking your wife, or if they ran over your cat with their zamboni, but not if you want to restore your family pride? What kind of a fracked up law is that for a World body to pass?

This resolution does not allow other murders. It is simply in place to stop a practice that many places think is okay. Striking it down does more harm than good because if nations see that they do not have to outlaw murder then many could take that as a license to kill.

If this passes the public vote then a bill outlawing all other murder would be proposed since it would show people are on board.

But murder is already illegal!

[The Sheika]

I do not think that anyone would question why I think it needs to be outlawed. The bill is just how I want it but I will answer any questions that come my way.

Also if you could help it get more yes votes it would be greatly appreciated

Oh, you might get a little bit of push back from nations or worlds, whatever the case may be, where honor killings are part of their culture. To you it may be uncivilized, and I am in agreement there, but there are always two sides to every story. As for the bill being how you want it, that's cool, but you may want to consider adding more content to fully explain your point of view. Doing so is likely to help you gain support. As it stands right now, you are probably going to encounter quite a bit of opposition.

[Thermodolia]

So, we need a resolution making a type of murder ... illegal??

"It's time for another defenestration!"

[Altanni]

Even though you ban honor killings, that doesn't automatically stop people from doing it. Nowhere in your proposal does it make these killings a criminal offense. While I find this a bit pointless and probably won't support it if it ever gets to vote, you definitely could have benefited from more careful and thorough revision.

[Essu Beti]

"Look kid, I'm seeing a pattern here with you. You like to bang out proposals in five minutes, throw them out to the public, and then submit them incomplete whether everyone's shouting advice or shooting it down. That doesn't fly here. Proposals take time and effort, and yours clearly wasn't given much of either. You didn't even spellcheck it!"

"So back up a bit and make this an actual proposal instead of a quick blogpost. Check out the styles of actual accepted ones. Add a preamble. Justify it- murder is already illegal, so what makes honor killings so different? Put in a little actual effort. And take advice that's given you."

[Araraukar]

I do not think that anyone would question why I think it needs to be outlawed. The bill is just how I want it but I will answer any questions that come my way.

Alrighty then...

1. Why is the goal "To end killing for honor", yet the proposal text actually includes two other things?
2. Why is the proposal named Criminalization of Honor Killing (and a surplus to requirements "Act"), when it is not, in fact, criminalized?
3. What counts as "family"? In some cases this would seem to ban fatal combat in war, where killing the enemy is often done "in the name of" one's extended family, also known as tribe, or even nation.
4. The wording "Killing for honor as killing due to going against the family" is very confusing. Is the killer going against the family or the victim? And what on earth does "against the family" mean anyway?
5. The wording of "killing to relieve them of pain" on mercy killing is very specific. Was that intended? One could claim the killing was done "to prevent needlessly prolonging their suffering" and be entirely compliant, despite the meaning being much the same.
6. When are you going to learn the patience needed for writing good resolutions, rather than just throwing crap at the WA in the hopes that something will stick?

---

But murder is already illegal!

murder is already illegal

In the eyes of the WA, only in very specific cases, such as genocide.

[Covenstone]

Because (from a certain point of view) this proposal says it is fine to kill someone if you want to steal their stuff, or if they are boinking your wife, or if they ran over your cat with their zamboni, but not if you want to restore your family pride? What kind of a fracked up law is that for a World body to pass?

This resolution does not allow other murders. It is simply in place to stop a practice that many places think is okay. Striking it down does more harm than good because if nations see that they do not have to outlaw murder then many could take that as a license to kill.

If this passes the public vote then a bill outlawing all other murder would be proposed since it would show people are on board.

Oh for the love of the goddess. The fact that some people in some countries in The WA might think this is permissible doesn't actually mean the countries they are IN think it is permissible. We have people who think they should be able to kill their neighbour because their neighbour plays their music too loud. Do you want to write a proposal saying "YOU CANNOT KILL SOMEONE BECAUSE THEY PLAYING 2112 TOO LOUD ON A SATURDAY MORNING"? I am guessing no, you don't, because that would be utterly insane. And not just because you can NEVER play that too loud

This is a solution looking for a problem, and it is a problem that either doesn't exist, or one that is so small it needs dealing with at a national level, not an international one.

Almost every country would (outside of capital punishment) consider the taking of a life without the consent of another person to be murder (of one sort or another - I don't want to get into discussion about manslaughter/1st degree/2nd degree etc) and they wouldn't care about the motive. So this proposal is somewhat pointless and incredibly overkill (if you will pardon the phrase.)

[Araraukar]

Criminalization of Honor Killing Act

Goal- To end killing for honor

Restictions- Complete and total ban of killing for pride, honor, or "mercy".

Exeptions- NONE

Defines - Killing for pride as killing in the name of the family

Defines - Killing for honor as killing due to going against the family

Defines - Killing for mercy as killing someone without there consent to "relieve them of pain"