[PASSED] Gay Panic Defense Ban

[Cela]

I'm appalled but not shocked that people are voting against this. Sure some may say "well yeah this obvious, it doesn't even need to be said". But here is proof that it still does need to be said.

[Daarwyrth]

"It is a fairly endearing anecdote, but I recall how my office sent a copy of this proposal to the office of Her Majesty the Queen, when it reached the floor. Barely half a minute later I receive a call from Her Majesty's office, instructing me to vote in favour of this proposal at the earliest possible convenience. I believe I've never received an instruction from my Queen faster than that. Obviously, Daarwyrth has voted in favour of this resolution, and on a personal level, I wholeheartedly support it."

[Philimbesi]

"My esteemed colleagues, I rise today to cast the USP's vote FOR this legislation. We fully support its aims, however I must say that we are disappointed in its scope. Using discriminatory rhetoric in criminal defense is abhorrent no matter what protected class is being exploited.

This law, while necessary, still allows for the accused to justify their crime because of the race, religion, or any other " any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination". While protecting our gay populations is important the USP laments that this body has chosen not to afford those protections to other portions of our populations.

None-the-less, some law is better than none in our opinion.

FOR!"

[Ardiveds]

"My esteemed colleagues, I rise today to cast the USP's vote FOR this legislation. We fully support its aims, however I must say that we are disappointed in its scope. Using discriminatory rhetoric in criminal defense is abhorrent no matter what protected class is being exploited.

This law, while necessary, still allows for the accused to justify their crime because of the race, religion, or any other " any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination". While protecting our gay populations is important the USP laments that this body has chosen not to afford those protections to other portions of our populations.

None-the-less, some law is better than none in our opinion.

FOR!"

IC: "Ambassador, the CoCR exist for that exact reason."
OOC: This ---> viewtopic.php?p=414#p414

[Kelssek]

Some may be surprised that Kelssek will vote against this proposal. No doubt this government agrees with the goal of eliminating homophobia and other forms of bigotry, and indeed its passage would likely not change anything in our country. What the proposal does in the abstract principle, however, is an intrusive reach into domestic law to the extent of specifying acceptable defences for assault charges. It also refers to the World Assembly as a "legislature". Certainly resolutions have become more intrusive in recent years, but this is a move that we intend to resist. For these two reasons, the Federation votes against.

Often we hear that national sovereignty is an irrelevant argument in the World Assembly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that the World Assembly can override national sovereignty does not mean that it should. A better balance needs to be found and this delegation's policy is that it will only support those clearly necessitating international cooperation on international issues, and oppose or seek to repeal all others.

Émelie Evrard
Ambassador to the WA

[Philimbesi]

"My esteemed colleagues, I rise today to cast the USP's vote FOR this legislation. We fully support its aims, however I must say that we are disappointed in its scope. Using discriminatory rhetoric in criminal defense is abhorrent no matter what protected class is being exploited.

This law, while necessary, still allows for the accused to justify their crime because of the race, religion, or any other " any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination". While protecting our gay populations is important the USP laments that this body has chosen not to afford those protections to other portions of our populations.

None-the-less, some law is better than none in our opinion.

FOR!"

IC: "Ambassador, the CoCR exist for that exact reason."
OOC: This ---> viewtopic.php?p=414#p414

Agreed, which is why I quoted its "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" Ambassador. It is our opinion that the CoCR does not cover this type of "defense" regardless of the protected class of the victim. While it is admirable to say that you can't "defend" yourself by saying that you feared the victims sexuality, it should be as illegal to say you harmed them because you were afraid of their race, or religion.

If it is the opinion of this body the CoCR DOES limit this type of discrimination then why would this sexuality only based ban be necessary?

[Ardiveds]

IC: "Ambassador, the CoCR exist for that exact reason."
OOC: This ---> viewtopic.php?p=414#p414

Agreed, which is why I quoted its "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" Ambassador. It is our opinion that the CoCR does not cover this type of "defense" regardless of the protected class of the victim. While it is admirable to say that you can't "defend" yourself by saying that you feared the victims sexuality, it should be as illegal to say you harmed them because you were afraid of their race, or religion.

If it is the opinion of this body the CoCR DOES limit this type of discrimination then why would this sexuality only based ban be necessary?

"As we said earlier, Ardiveds does not view this as strictly necessary as CoCR covers this. Of course, almost all resolutions that explicitly prohibit arbitrary or reductive discrimination simply do what the CoCR does implicitly."
OOC: From a strictly meta perspective, irl gay panic defense is a far more real thing than similar situation regarding race or religion. Plus the CoCR is always there for other cases.

[San Finn]

In the nation of Texkentuck Federation it's taboo and surprisingly no one is asking to be of the opposite sex. Sure sometimes some may dress up or act out diffirent than their sexual orientation but we do not see the need to promote or propagate sexual orientation. We are a nation in which boys compete against boys and girls compete against girls. Anyways if a girl wants to compete against a guy it's possible and same vice versa but that's a diffirent program. In Texkentuck we have the toughest women in military service. We don't see the need for such a proposal or law because it's not a big issue. Most men in Texkentuck are men and most women in Texkentuck are women. Most citizens in Texkentuck match with their identity. In our public schools at high school level such topics are discussed but most students and facalty see it as taboo. In Texkentuck it's illegal to do a crime of violence against any individual regardless of sexual orientation or race. We are a society that teaches coexistence but our government does propagate morality and human decency. Proudly a society of open discussion. Our government insures every citizens rights are protected...... We think this proposal propagates that most WA nations have issues of such. Thankfully Texkentuck is advanced beyond worrying of the girl playing football and boy taking interest in Barbie over GI Joe.

I don't know how to adress this statement, as it displays a dramatic lack of understanding of the international community. In this you seem to be refering to transgenderism or the changing of genders, but the proposition also protects those who are atracted to the same gender. Secondly, nobody cares.

[Greater Novast]

Despite concerns over national sovereignty, the Armed Republic of Greater Novast will vote for this proposal, in order to improve the civil liberties of our populace and in accordance with the position of our regional assembly.

[Scalizagasti]

The United Regions Alliance recommends that nations vote against this resolution. During internal voting, 8 regions voted in favour this resolution, 4 regions voted against, and 3 regions abstained. It should be noted that when weighted for population, the vote distribution was 27.48 / 41.12 / 5.80.

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1514000

[Texkentuck]

In the nation of Texkentuck Federation it's taboo and surprisingly no one is asking to be of the opposite sex. Sure sometimes some may dress up or act out diffirent than their sexual orientation but we do not see the need to promote or propagate sexual orientation. We are a nation in which boys compete against boys and girls compete against girls. Anyways if a girl wants to compete against a guy it's possible and same vice versa but that's a diffirent program. In Texkentuck we have the toughest women in military service. We don't see the need for such a proposal or law because it's not a big issue. Most men in Texkentuck are men and most women in Texkentuck are women. Most citizens in Texkentuck match with their identity. In our public schools at high school level such topics are discussed but most students and facalty see it as taboo. In Texkentuck it's illegal to do a crime of violence against any individual regardless of sexual orientation or race. We are a society that teaches coexistence but our government does propagate morality and human decency. Proudly a society of open discussion. Our government insures every citizens rights are protected...... We think this proposal propagates that most WA nations have issues of such. Thankfully Texkentuck is advanced beyond worrying of the girl playing football and boy taking interest in Barbie over GI Joe.

I don't know how to adress this statement, as it displays a dramatic lack of understanding of the international community. In this you seem to be refering to transgenderism or the changing of genders, but the proposition also protects those who are atracted to the same gender. Secondly, nobody cares.

The parliament and the nation of Texkentuck understand well beyond....We are not a member of the WA!! It's more of a coalition than an assembly that sets laws not great for all nations. All do respect the President of Texkentuck is appalled by most laws and feels no need to visit or vote. As Ambassador we are here to represent the citizens of our nation and to stay engaged but we will protect our sovereignty. Too many people in our nation care about many issues a lot so we don't liberally just accept the laws the majority may not represent or feels it goes against civil rights. Or laws that serve no purpose for rhetoric sake....

[Elwher]

Elwher feels that it is not the function of any legislative body, national or international, to restrict the abilities of an attorney to present a defense of their client's actions. While we believe this to be an ineffective defense, it is up to a jury to make that determination in a specific case, and up to a judge to determine if the defendant's state of mind is relevant at sentencing.

[Niveusium]

Elwher feels that it is not the function of any legislative body, national or international, to restrict the abilities of an attorney to present a defense of their client's actions. While we believe this to be an ineffective defense, it is up to a jury to make that determination in a specific case, and up to a judge to determine if the defendant's state of mind is relevant at sentencing.

This is not restricting the rights of a judge or jury, this is literally banning the killing of someone based solely on sexual orientation and gender identity, not sure how difficult it is to understand, feel free to actually read the resolution before commenting the same thing over and over again even though multiple people, including myself, have countered your claims.

[Texkentuck]

Elwher feels that it is not the function of any legislative body, national or international, to restrict the abilities of an attorney to present a defense of their client's actions. While we believe this to be an ineffective defense, it is up to a jury to make that determination in a specific case, and up to a judge to determine if the defendant's state of mind is relevant at sentencing.

This is not restricting the rights of a judge or jury, this is literally banning the killing of someone based solely on sexual orientation and gender identity, not sure how difficult it is to understand, feel free to actually read the resolution before commenting the same thing over and over again even though multiple people, including myself, have countered your claims.

The parliament of Texkentuck today was discussing your nations statement. Parliament has decided that on a sovereign level that no one should be killed on the bases of sexual orientation or gender. Their is already a law which is non-discriminatory which is if you murder you get the just punishment regardless if it was someone of sexual orientation or gender. Our nation has decided to treat all citizens as citizens which is the law we have in place. All murder regardless of why is treated as a crime. In our justice system prisoners do not take kind to people killing others out of sheer discrimination. Most crimes in Texkentuck are not on such bases of that reason. Crime in our nation is fairly low and most people are traditional and thankful know need for this proposal. People are not doing criminal actions to those who are minorities. In the nation of Texkentuck we see that as huge progress in civil rights. We are a very religious society. Not all people in Texkentuck attend Mass every Sunday. But in Texkentuck we have a strong nuclear family unit but the biggest problems are divorce rates and children with out mother or fathers. This is the problem in Texkentuck. Our nation hopes that this proposal when passed will actually help in social progress for the nations of the World Assembly. Texkentuck's parliment doesn't tolerate crime against any person based on beliefs. In having freedom of religion even if their is a state religion keeps our society vibrant.

A statement from President Bram W. Schirkophf is the following below

Nations of the World Assembly it would be more easy to just outlaw sheer murder of all regardless of belief or personal preference of ones beliefs. This proposal doesn't go far enough to stop criminal actions.
Very pleased that Texkentuck has had this discussion today and parliament has had our ambassador share their statement. Tomorrow in Texkentuck we open our morning prayer for the WA to promote life and not to do any form of hate crime regardless if this proposal passes or not. Texkentuck government embraces our state religion while understanding that some may celebrate a diffirent creed or life style. Texkentuck is a society of coexistence and culture while embracing our religious traditions. We allow for our citizens to be open to truth and we don't ban opinions from other nations on our world wide web. We only stop false propaganda that could collapse our government. Our libraries have every book on any subject you can find. Freedom and liberty with a democratic elected monarchy is our policy. It works for Texkentuck....

Pres. Bram W. Schirkophf


Ambassador of Texkentuck to the WA

[Super Duper Nice People]

I see all y'all responding to this in character and I OOC would like to say
As a member of the LGBTQIAP+ community I constantly think about the Gay/Trans Panic Defence laws and fear it and the fact that it's not banned in my state yet

This needs to be talked about more in the real world
Any time I bring it up to a friend they're shocked because they didn't know it was a thing.

That's all now I hope y'all are having a great day and have a kitten
*hands you kitten*

[Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic]

I'm appalled but not shocked that people are voting against this. Sure some may say "well yeah this obvious, it doesn't even need to be said". But here is proof that it still does need to be said.

OOC: some nations don't follow the Users' opinions.

[Crowheim]

Immensely grateful for the support that got this across the finish line, thank you all for the feedback during drafting or the kind words during voting!

[Brototh]

Immensely grateful for the support that got this across the finish line, thank you all for the feedback during drafting or the kind words during voting!

Congratulations my friend! Good work with the proposal, and even though I'm not active on the forums, I look forward to seeing more of your posts and drafts here in the future.

[Sylh Alanor]

Congratulations ^-^

[Jedinsto]

Congratulations, crow and sylh!

[Elwher]

Elwher feels that it is not the function of any legislative body, national or international, to restrict the abilities of an attorney to present a defense of their client's actions. While we believe this to be an ineffective defense, it is up to a jury to make that determination in a specific case, and up to a judge to determine if the defendant's state of mind is relevant at sentencing.

This is not restricting the rights of a judge or jury, this is literally banning the killing of someone based solely on sexual orientation and gender identity, not sure how difficult it is to understand, feel free to actually read the resolution before commenting the same thing over and over again even though multiple people, including myself, have countered your claims.

While it is irrelevant now that the measure has passed, I feel the need to respond. This law specifically bans the use of a "Gay Panic" defense by an attorney, the killing of someone due to sexual orientation was already illegal. Had this law gone to the root problem and banned killing someone due to sexual orientation, we would have supported it; but not allowing an attorney to bring up motive was not, in our opinion, a legitimate function of a legislative body.

[Tinhampton]

Gay Panic defense Ban was passed 13,832 votes to 2,155.

(but Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip! I asked you to sort out that upper-case D in your title when this thing got to vote! =P)

[Maowi]

Congratulations on first GA resolution!!!!!!!!!

Gay Panic defense Ban was passed 13,832 votes to 2,155.

(but Chiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip! I asked you to sort out that upper-case D in your title when this thing got to vote! =P)

*whistles innocently*