Advertisement
by Cela » Tue Mar 02, 2021 9:29 pm
by Daarwyrth » Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:20 am
by Philimbesi » Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:49 am
by Ardiveds » Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:26 am
Philimbesi wrote:"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!"
by Kelssek » Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:51 am
by Philimbesi » Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:59 am
Ardiveds wrote:Philimbesi wrote:"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
by Ardiveds » Wed Mar 03, 2021 8:53 am
Philimbesi wrote:Ardiveds wrote: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?
by San Finn » Wed Mar 03, 2021 9:51 am
Texkentuck wrote: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.
by Greater Novast » Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:28 am
by Scalizagasti » Wed Mar 03, 2021 3:14 pm
by Texkentuck » Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:15 pm
San Finn wrote:Texkentuck wrote: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.
by Elwher » Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:52 am
by Niveusium » Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:21 pm
Elwher wrote: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.
by Texkentuck » Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:27 pm
Niveusium wrote:Elwher wrote: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.
by Super Duper Nice People » Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:12 am
by Alinghi Federal-Democratic Republic » Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:16 am
Cela wrote: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.
by Crowheim » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:07 am
by Brototh » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:11 am
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.Crowheim wrote: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!
by Sylh Alanor » Fri Mar 05, 2021 10:12 am
by Elwher » Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:10 am
Niveusium wrote:Elwher wrote: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.
by Tinhampton » Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:24 pm
by Maowi » Fri Mar 05, 2021 6:00 pm
Tinhampton wrote: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)
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement