[DEFEATED] Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee

[Sedgistan]

Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Ossitania

Description: The World Assembly,

ALARMED that some governments would restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that some governments further restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

FEELING that such deep intrusion into the personal lives of citizens is an unacceptable disrespect of individual freedoms,

SEEKING to strengthen and protect the individual freedoms of its citizens,

RECOGNISING, however, that not all people possess the mental competency to understand the consequences of their actions,

FURTHER RECOGNISING that not all activities are appropriate for public places,

Hereby,

Section I - Definitions

i. DEFINES "bodily sovereignty" as the inherent right of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in private, as well as the right to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in general,

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person who possesses a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

Section II - Rights

i. GUARANTEES the right of bodily sovereignty to all citizens of all member states,

ii. DECLARES that this right extends to:
a. acts that a mentally competent person does, voluntarily and without coercion, to or with himself or herself, so long as said acts do not result in non-consensual harm to others, and
b. consensual acts between two or more mentally competent people, so long as said acts do not result in non-consensual harm to others,

Section III - Responsibilities

i. REQUIRES member states to treat violations of bodily sovereignty as criminal offenses with appropriate punishments, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER REQUIRES state authorities who wish to restrict the bodily sovereignty of their citizens due to insufficient mental faculty, in accordance with IV.i., to prove that said citizens possess insufficient mental faculty through psychiatric and/or neurological assessment by a fully-qualified medical doctor,

Section IV - Exceptions

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of insufficient mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities, in accordance with due process of law, to restrict the bodily sovereignty of individuals suspected or convicted of criminal offenses for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration,

iii. CLARIFIES that this resolution does nothing to require member states to legalize or criminalize abortion,

iv. DECLARES that violations of the bodily sovereignty of another are not criminal when said violations are necessary for the defense of one's own bodily sovereignty,

Section V - Affirmations

i. AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution may be construed to allow any state, group or person to infringe on the bodily sovereignty of a mentally competent person, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution prevents member states from providing further protections for bodily sovereignty as they see fit.

Co-Authored by Quelesh

Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ossitania

Description: The World Assembly,

ALARMED that some governments would restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that some governments further restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

FEELING that such deep intrusion into the personal lives of citizens is an unacceptable disrespect of individual freedoms,

SEEKING to strengthen and protect the individual freedoms of its citizens,

NOTING, however, that not all people possess the mental competency to understand the consequences of their actions,

FURTHER NOTING that not all activities are appropriate for public places,

Hereby,

Section I - Definitions

i. DEFINES "bodily sovereignty" as the inherent right of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in private, as well as the right to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in general,

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person who possesses a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

Section II - Rights

i. GUARANTEES the right of bodily sovereignty to all citizens of all member states,

ii. DECLARES that this right extends to:
a. acts that a mentally competent person does, voluntarily and without coercion, to or with himself or herself, so long as said acts do not result in nonconsensual harm to others, and
b. consensual acts between two or more mentally competent people, so long as said acts do not result in nonconsensual harm to others,

Section III - Responsibilities

i. REQUIRES member states to treat violations of bodily sovereignty as criminal offenses with appropriate punishments, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER REQUIRES state authorities who wish to restrict the bodily sovereignty of their citizens due to insufficient mental faculty, in accordance with IV.i., to prove that said citizens possess insufficient mental faculty through psychiatric and/or neurological assessment by a fully-qualified medical doctor,

Section IV - Exceptions

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of insufficient mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities, in accordance with due process of law, to restrict the bodily sovereignty of individuals suspected or convicted of criminal offenses for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration,

iii. CLARIFIES that this resolution does nothing to require member states to legalize or criminalize abortion,

iv. DECLARES that violations of the bodily sovereignty of another are not criminal when said violations are necessary for the defense of one's own bodily sovereignty,

Section V - Affirmations

i. AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution may be construed to allow any state, group or person to infringe on the bodily sovereignty of a mentally competent person, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution prevents member states from providing further protections for bodily sovereignty as they see fit.

Co-Authored by Quelesh

Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ossitania

Description: The World Assembly,

ALARMED that some governments would restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that some governments further restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

FEELING that such deep intrusion into the personal lives of citizens is an unacceptable disrespect of individual freedoms,

SEEKING to strengthen and protect the individual freedoms of its citizens,

NOTING, however, that not all people possess the mental competency to understand the consequences of their actions,

FURTHER NOTING that not all activities are appropriate for public places,

Hereby,

Section I - Definitions

i. DEFINES "bodily sovereignty" as the inherent right of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in private, as well as the right to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in general,

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person who possesses a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

Section II - Rights

i. GUARANTEES the right of bodily sovereignty to all citizens of all member states,

ii. DECLARES that this right extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

Section III - Responsibilities

i. REQUIRES member states to treat violations of bodily sovereignty as criminal offenses with appropriate punishments, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER REQUIRES state authorities who wish to restrict the bodily sovereignty of their citizens due to insufficient mental faculty, in accordance with IV.i., to prove that said citizens possess insufficient mental faculty through psychiatric and/or neurological assessment by a fully-qualified medical doctor,

Section IV - Exceptions

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of insufficient mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities, in accordance with due process of law, to restrict the bodily sovereignty of individuals suspected or convicted of criminal offenses for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration,

iii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function to prevent them from aborting their offspring, except for cases where;
a. continuing the pregnancy would constitute a risk to the life or health of the pregnant individual,
b. there is a potentially harmful abnormality in the pregnancy,
c. the developing offspring is likely to be born with severe defects,
d. the offspring was conceived through non-consensual sexual activity,

iv. DECLARES that violations of the bodily sovereignty of another are not criminal when said violations are necessary for the defense of one's own bodily sovereignty,

Section V - Affirmations

i. AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution may be construed to allow any state, group or person to infringe on the bodily sovereignty of a mentally competent person, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution prevents member states from providing further protections for bodily sovereignty as they see fit.

Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ossitania

Description: The World Assembly,

ALARMED that some governments would restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that some governments further restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

FEELING that such deep intrusion into the personal lives of citizens is an unacceptable disrespect of individual freedoms,

SEEKING to strengthen and protect the individual freedoms of its citizens,

NOTING, however, that not all people possess the mental competency to understand the consequences of their actions,

FURTHER NOTING that not all activities are appropriate for public places,

Hereby,

Section I - Definitions

i. DEFINES "bodily sovereignty" as the inherent right of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in private, as well as the right to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in general,

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person who possesses a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

Section II - Rights

i. GUARANTEES the right of bodily sovereignty to all citizens of all member states,

ii. DECLARES that this right extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

Section III - Responsibilities

i. REQUIRES member states to treat violations of bodily sovereignty as criminal offenses with appropriate punishments, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER REQUIRES state authorities who wish to restrict the bodily sovereignty of their citizens due to insufficient mental faculty, in accordance with IV.i., to prove that said citizens possess insufficient mental faculty through psychiatric and/or neurological assessment by a fully-qualified medical doctor,

Section IV - Exceptions

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of insufficient mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities, in accordance with due process of law, to restrict the bodily sovereignty of individuals suspected or convicted of criminal offenses for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration,

iii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function to prevent them from aborting their offspring,

iv. DECLARES that violations of the bodily sovereignty of another are not criminal when said violations are necessary for the defense of one's own bodily sovereignty,

Section V - Affirmations

i. AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution may be construed to allow any state, group or person to infringe on the bodily sovereignty of a mentally competent person, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution prevents member states from providing further protections for bodily sovereignty as they see fit.

Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ossitania

Description: The World Assembly,

ALARMED that some governments would restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that some governments further restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

FEELING that such deep intrusion into the personal lives of citizens is an unacceptable disrespect of individual freedoms,

SEEKING to strengthen and protect the individual freedoms of its citizens,

NOTING, however, that not all people possess the mental competency to understand the consequences of their actions,

FURTHER NOTING that not all activities are appropriate for public places,

Hereby,

Section I - Definitions

i. DEFINES "bodily sovereignty" as the inherent right of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in private, as well as the right to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in general,

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person of, at most, the age of majority, who is deemed to have a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

Section II - Rights

i. DECLARES that this right extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

ii. GUARANTEES this right to all citizens of the World Assembly,

Section III - Responsibilities

i. REQUIRES member states to treat violations of bodily sovereignty as criminal offenses with appropriate punishments, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

Section IV - Exceptions

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of youth or diminished mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of criminals for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport and incarceration,

iii. DECLARES that violations of the bodily sovereignty of another are not criminal when said violations are necessary for the defense of one's own bodily sovereignty,

Section V - Affirmations

i. AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution may be construed to allow any state, group or person to infringe on the bodily sovereignty of a mentally competent person, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution prevents member states from providing further protections for bodily sovereignty as they see fit.

Edits from the original are in blue.

I checked previous resolutions extensively before proposing this and spent a good month or so drafting it but admittedly it will be down the shitter if CD's abortion proposal passes. As far as I'm aware, there is no current resolution that either guarantees the right to bodily sovereignty (so, iirc, it's not a case of duplication) or one that infringes on it. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This is an enshrinement and protection of what I view as the most important right of the individual; the sanctity and sovereignty of one's own body. Just as it is the right of a nation to decide what happens to its national territory, it is the right of the individual to decide what happens to his own body.

I'd like to just preemptively answer two questions I think may come up;

1. Yes, this does implicitly legalise drug use. However, it does not legalise possession, transport, selling, etc. and if you're really concerned about prosecuting drug users, then the use of drugs is implicit possession since they can't use them unless they possess them, so if you're not a pro-drugs nation, you can still prosecute drug users, don't worry.

2. IV.iii. is a self-defense clause. It is okay to infringe on someone else's bodily sovereignty if it is necessary to protect your own, i.e. it's okay to kick someone else in the balls if they try to knife you.

Other than that, I open the floor to my fellow nations. Have at me (though I would ask that you either attack just the resolution or the resolution and the intent, rather than just the intent, because that's rarely constructive).

[Mahaj WA Seat]

part of this confused me for a bit and should be changed, I think.

from

Section II - Rights

i. DECLARES that this right extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

ii. GUARANTEES this right to all citizens of the World Assembly,

to

Section II - Rights

i. DECLARES that the right of bodily sovereignty extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

ii. GUARANTEES this right to all citizens of the World Assembly,

[Ossitania]

part of this confused me for a bit and should be changed, I think.

from

Section II - Rights

i. DECLARES that this right extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

ii. GUARANTEES this right to all citizens of the World Assembly,

to

Section II - Rights

i. DECLARES that the right of bodily sovereignty extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

ii. GUARANTEES this right to all citizens of the World Assembly,

You're totally right, it was originally much shorter and didn't have sections and I didn't edit that bit properly when I split it up.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) has a draconian policy on body scanners, which allows subjects to personally verify that their data is deleted. Those who opt out go through the traditional metal scanner, therefore it has merit we can follow.

[American Capitalist]

I don't really like this legislation I would like to see some exception since after reading the resolution it seems a little too vague to me. For instance abortion could possibly be legalized completely by this resolution. There are other reasons as well for instance there's a loop hole where a government could declare tons of people mentally incompetent and get around the legislation. To me I think this really need to be more specific in it's terms and what it's trying to protect otherwise I can't really support this. Also I would like to note that incest, and abuse could be legalized by this if the other person "consents" to it. So basically this proposal look to be fuller of holes than swiss cheese err craters.

[Eireann Fae]

"Stop picking on the youth!" Alexandra and Rowan begin throwing pebbles at the Ossitanian Ambassador, giggling when they turn into miniature marshmallows mid-flight.

(OOC: In other words, make the following change to IV.i: s/youth or//;)

[The Coyote Coalition]

To: The Representative of Ossitania
From: Eustace Levi, Managing Director

I've made some edits to your proposal, including an alteration of the title, which I feel is more stream-lined. I like the idea of this proposal, although, I still think additional work should be done. Also, I'm not fully confident that it would get the support necessary to become a resolution. Although, I like the idea quite a bit and felt that I should offer what little assistance I could.

Biological Independence Act

Description:
ALARMED that many governments have restricted the rights of mentally competent individuals to do unto their own body whatsoever they choose.

CONCERNED that such intrusions display a complete disregard for an individual citizens' civil rights.

SEEKING to strengthen and protect an individuals right to do unto their own body whatsoever they choose.

UNDERSTANDING, however, that not all individuals possess the mental competency to understand the consequences of their actions.

ACKNOWLEDGING that not all activities are appropriate in public places.

HEREBY:

I. DEFINES the following,
a.) Biological independence: The inherent right of a mentally competent individual to do unto their own body whatsoever they choose in private.
b.) A mentally competent individual: An individual who has reached the age of majority and has displayed a degree of mental acuity which allows them to understand the consequences of their own actions.

II. DECLARES that the right of biological independence extends to consensual acts between two or more individuals.
a.) In instances of physical or emotional injury, evidence may be required to deny any allegations of threats or coercion.

III. GRANTS state authorities the right to restrict biological independence through a variety of methods (including, but not limited to, restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration) under certain circumstances:
a.) Individuals under the age of majority.
b.) Individuals proven to lack the mental acuity to understand the consequences of their own actions.
c.) Individuals suspected in a state-approved investigation.
d.) Individuals found guilty in a state-approved investigation.

IV. FURTHER GRANTS legal guardians the right to restrict the biological independence of those in their care.

V. GUARANTEES biological independence to citizens of all Member Nations.

[Linux and the X]

I find myself agreeing with Alexandra and Rowan, and I have larger items than pebbles to throw at you.

[Quelesh]

We strongly support this idea, but we have several comments.

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person of, at most, the age of majority, who is deemed to have a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

This definition should be reworded to eliminate references to the age of majority in particular and to age in general. Perhaps simply:

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person who possesses a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

"Age of majority" language can get quite messy, and this new wording would do the job quite nicely. Nations that insist upon age restrictions would not be prohibited from having them under this wording, unless they're unreasonable.

i. DECLARES that the right of bodily sovereignty extends to consensual acts between two or more people,

This definition would exclude acts that a person does to himself or herself, therefore involving only one person. Such acts should be included.

ii. GUARANTEES this right to all citizens of the World Assembly,

I recommend changing this to:

ii. GUARANTEES this right to all citizens of all member states,

There are no "citizens of the World Assembly" as such, and while the intended meaning of the clause is clear, the exact wording could be a major loophole.

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of youth or diminished mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

This clause also should be reworded to eliminate references to youth or age. Perhaps:

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of insufficient mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

This wording would accomplish the same objective. Honestly this clause is not necessary at all, since you earlier define "bodily sovereignty" in such a way that it only includes "mentally competent" individuals.

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of criminals for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport and incarceration,

I believe this wording could be taken advantage of by unscrupulous nations. "Criminals" is undefined. Perhaps something along the lines of:

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities, in accordance with due process of law, to restrict the bodily sovereignty of individuals suspected or convicted of criminal offenses for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration,

Note the "due process" language. In addition, existing WA resolutions regarding the treatment of criminal suspects or convicts would still apply.

1. Yes, this does legalise drug use. However, it does not legalise possession, transport, selling, etc. and if you're really concerned about prosecuting drug users, then the use of drugs is implicit possession since they can't use them unless they possess them, so if you're not a pro-drugs nation, you can still prosecute drug users, don't worry.

Yes, "internal possession" laws would be a loophole that would allow nations to criminalize the use of drugs, and possession, etc., could remain illegal.

For instance abortion could possibly be legalized completely by this resolution.

That's an interesting thought. I think the proposal is sufficiently vague on that point that a nation could continue to criminalize abortion if it so chose, though. This proposal protects "consensual acts," and a nation could define a fetus as a person that cannot consent to the abortion. The self-defense clause would seem to impact this as well, but I think a nation could interpret it in such a way as to still allow the criminalization of abortion.

There are other reasons as well for instance there's a loop hole where a government could declare tons of people mentally incompetent and get around the legislation.

That is definitely a potential concern. Perhaps an additional clause is in order, stating that a nation cannot deprive someone of the right to bodily sovereignty unless that person is in fact insufficiently mentally competent to understand his or her actions, and placing the burden of proof here on the state. Assuming that language relating to the age of majority is excised, this may have the effect of requiring nations that have such age restrictions to utilize an emancipation scheme allowing competent minors to exercise their rights to bodily sovereignty.

Also I would like to note that incest, and abuse could be legalized by this if the other person "consents" to it.

Regarding incest in and of itself, that doesn't matter. May I draw your attention to GAR16 Sexual Privacy Act, in particular this clause:

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

This clause effectively legalizes consensual incest in all member states, as that resolution has no exception for those who are related, by blood or otherwise.

Regarding "abuse," this proposal protects only consensual acts, and only those between individuals who are mentally competent, so I do not believe that is a valid concern.

I've made some edits to your proposal

I address several points regarding your proposed change below.

b.) A mentally competent individual: An individual who has reached the age of majority and has displayed a degree of mental acuity which allows them to understand the consequences of their own actions.

As I said above, references to the age of majority should be eliminated. Your wording otherwise here is fine, though I recommend "possesses" instead of "has displayed":

b.) A mentally competent individual: An individual who possesses a degree of mental acuity which allows them to understand the consequences of their own actions.

II. DECLARES that the right of biological independence extends to consensual acts between two or more individuals.

This wording suffers from the same flaw mentioned above, that it excludes acts that involve only one person.

a.) In instances of physical or emotional injury, evidence may be required to deny any allegations of threats or coercion.

What exactly does this mean?

III. GRANTS state authorities the right to restrict biological independence through a variety of methods (including, but not limited to, restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration) under certain circumstances:
a.) Individuals under the age of majority.
b.) Individuals proven to lack the mental acuity to understand the consequences of their own actions.
c.) Individuals suspected in a state-approved investigation.
d.) Individuals found guilty in a state-approved investigation.

First, here is another age of majority reference that should be excised. Second, and quite significant, the wording here allows "restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration" if any of those conditions are met, which would mean that the state would have blanket authority to incarcerate anyone under the age of majority, for any reason. Likewise, they could incarcerate anyone who is "mentally incompetent." In addition, the lack of a "due process" condition here could mean that nations could incarcerate those suspected or convicted of crimes indefinitely, even if due process of law requires their release (their sentence has been completed, for example).

IV. FURTHER GRANTS legal guardians the right to restrict the biological independence of those in their care.

While this proposed addition would not directly affect Quelesh, as we have no "legal guardians" as such, we vehemently oppose it and would vote against the proposal if this change were included. This clause is not even necessary. Without it, nations that have legal guardians and an age of majority would still be able to continue to allow said guardians to restrict bodily sovereignty, as long as "those in their care" are not "mentally competent."

[Ossitania]

We have taken the concerns raised into account.

@Charlotte Ryberg: Thank you for your support, I think. I'm not 100% with what you're saying, sometimes syntax confuses me.

@American Capitalist: Quelesh already addressed your concerns about incest, as well as giving a possible way to keep abortion criminalised but there are sometimes when loopholes and de facto law shouldn't be relied upon and I think abortion is one of those issues. Therefore, I am open to a partial abortion exception, i.e. "FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function to prevent them from aborting their offspring," or some such, the word "ALLOWS" being very important; unlike CD, I'm leaving this open as an option, not as a requirement.

As for the declaration of mental incompetency problem, yes, that is a serious issue. I'll have to look into that one; it would need to be carefully worded. Perhaps;

"FURTHER REQUIRES state authorities who wish to restrict the bodily sovereignty of their citizens due to insufficient mental faculty, in accordance with IV.i., to prove that said citizens possess insufficient mental faculty through assessment by a fully-qualified psychiatrist,"

@Eireann Fae & Linux and the X: As Quelesh suggested, all references to age have been stricken from the proposal.

@Coyote Coalition: While I thank you for your contribution, I feel that your edits made the wording too vague and created further loopholes.

@Quelesh: Your concerns have been taken into account and we have adopted the rewordings you suggested for the second draft. In relation to your concern that this excludes acts that individuals do to themselves, that was an oversight on my part due to the splitting up of the proposal into sections. I believe that simply putting the "GUARANTEES the right" clause before the "DECLARES this right extends" clause clears up the issue.

I am tentatively including the partial abortion exception and "burden of proof on the state" clauses in the second draft.

[American Capitalist]

@American Capitalist: Quelesh already addressed your concerns about incest, as well as giving a possible way to keep abortion criminalised but there are sometimes when loopholes and de facto law shouldn't be relied upon and I think abortion is one of those issues. Therefore, I am open to a partial abortion exception, i.e. "FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function to prevent them from aborting their offspring," or some such, the word "ALLOWS" being very important; unlike CD, I'm leaving this open as an option, not as a requirement.

As for the declaration of mental incompetency problem, yes, that is a serious issue. I'll have to look into that one; it would need to be carefully worded. Perhaps;

"FURTHER REQUIRES state authorities who wish to restrict the bodily sovereignty of their citizens due to insufficient mental faculty, in accordance with IV.i., to prove that said citizens possess insufficient mental faculty through assessment by a fully-qualified psychiatrist,"

I was thinking a committee of some kind that could define the "mental capacity" of a species or sub-species that would stop nations declaring every one within their borders mentally incompetent. However your solution seems to be a good fix for the problems presented maybe end the sentence with doctor instead of psychiatrist to deal with babies born with a mental illness?

[Ossitania]

I was thinking a committee of some kind that could define the "mental capacity" of a species or sub-species that would stop nations declaring every one within their borders mentally incompetent. However your solution seems to be a good fix for the problems presented maybe end the sentence with doctor instead of psychiatrist to deal with babies born with a mental illness?

Perhaps it should read "psychiatric and/or neurological assessment by a fully-qualified doctor"? I'm trying to make sure there are no loopholes.

Though, it must be said, I'm sure most nations (the position of Eireann Fae not withstanding) would not deem a baby to be a mentally competent person anyway.

[American Capitalist]

I was thinking a committee of some kind that could define the "mental capacity" of a species or sub-species that would stop nations declaring every one within their borders mentally incompetent. However your solution seems to be a good fix for the problems presented maybe end the sentence with doctor instead of psychiatrist to deal with babies born with a mental illness?

Perhaps it should read "psychiatric and/or neurological assessment by a fully-qualified doctor"? I'm trying to make sure there are no loopholes.

Though, it must be said, I'm sure most nations (the position of Eireann Fae not withstanding) would not deem a baby to be a mentally competent person anyway.

That's agreeable I understand but it would save money and time if you could declare a person mentally incomptent at birth if they have a mental illness.

[Ossitania]

That's agreeable I understand but it would save money and time if you could declare a person mentally incomptent at birth if they have a mental illness.

Your point is taken and the change has been added to the second draft. I extended it to "medical doctor", just to be totally airtight.

[Grays Harbor]

iii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function to prevent them from aborting their offspring,

This particular clause guarantees we shall never support this draft as it appears to be yet another attempt to restrict abortions rights.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) has a draconian policy on body scanners, which allows subjects to personally verify that their data is deleted. Those who opt out go through the traditional metal scanner, therefore it has merit we can follow.

I'm not so sure about that.

We intend to vote against this to be on the safe side.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

1. Yes, this does legalise drug use.

Yes, that does make this proposal illegal for cross-category violations. In addition IV.iv is actually Furtherment of Democracy (since self-defense is a political freedom, not a personal one), and III.i is Moral Decency. My advice: pick one category and write to it.

[Ossitania]

This particular clause guarantees we shall never support this draft as it appears to be yet another attempt to restrict abortions rights.

Honoured ambassador, that clause does restrict abortion rights but the resolution in general supports them; it guarantees abortion rights to everyone except pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function.

I am all in favour of abortion rights but there's a point at which idealism must be tempered with realism and pragmatism; the chances of a blanket abortion rights resolution getting through are miniscule. This is about as good as we can get it.

Though admittedly, I did make an error, in so far as I forgot to include exceptions to the exception; for birth defects, threat to the individual's health and cases of rape. These will subsequently included thusly;

iii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function to prevent them from aborting their offspring, except for cases where;
a. continuing the pregnancy would constitute a risk to the life or health of the pregnant individual,
b. there is a potentially harmful abnormality in the pregnancy,
c. the developing offspring is likely to be born with severe defects,
d. the offspring was conceived through non-consensual sexual activity,

The change will be made in the third draft.

I understand the honoured ambassador's position and, believe me, I would prefer a much freer provision on abortion, but this is realistically as free as we can ever get it. Opposing or not supporting this resolution because it is not as free as we would ideally want does not further the cause of individual freedoms, it damages it because this is as free as it can realistically be. I deeply hope you will change your position.

Minoa (Charlotte Ryberg) has a draconian policy on body scanners, which allows subjects to personally verify that their data is deleted. Those who opt out go through the traditional metal scanner, therefore it has merit we can follow.

I'm not so sure about that.

We intend to vote against this to be on the safe side.

Honoured ambassador, to be perfectly honest, I don't understand exactly what Ms. Harper is talking about but I can assure you that my proposal does not enshrine any right for people to check government computers. Please do not take Ms. Harper's comment to be a summary of the intent or content of my proposal.

1. Yes, this does legalise drug use.

Yes, that does make this proposal illegal for cross-category violations. In addition IV.iv is actually Furtherment of Democracy (since self-defense is a political freedom, not a personal one), and III.i is Moral Decency. My advice: pick one category and write to it.

The proposal enshrines and protects the rights of individuals to do to their own bodies what they want, therefore it gives them to right to put whatever they want inside their bodies, including drugs. This is not a drugs resolution, drug use is simply implicitly guaranteed as a right by it. It does not alter the legality of drugs, possessing them is still a crime, transporting them is still a crime, selling them is still a crime, buying them is still a crime. With this resolution in place, drugs are still illegal and you can still prosecute drug users, you just have to prosecute them for possession, purchase or transport, rather than use.

Self-defense is not a political freedom, it is a personal one. How exactly is the right to defend one's own bodily sovereignty a political right? At what point is kicking someone in the balls when they try to knife you relevant to the political process?

Also, I hold up WAR#09, WAR#23, WAR#35 and WAR#114 as examples of resolutions in the Human Rights category that criminalise the violation of human rights, giving me precedent to not treat III.i. as belonging in a different category.

[Grays Harbor]

This particular clause guarantees we shall never support this draft as it appears to be yet another attempt to restrict abortions rights.

Honoured ambassador, that clause does restrict abortion rights but the resolution in general supports them; it guarantees abortion rights to everyone except pregnant individuals whose offspring have developed brain function.

I am all in favour of abortion rights but there's a point at which idealism must be tempered with realism and pragmatism; the chances of a blanket abortion rights resolution getting through are miniscule. This is about as good as we can get it.

Then just leave abortion out of it altogether. We tire of the few ideologues here trying to enforce their morals on the rest of us. The WA has no business regulating abortion rights.

[Ossitania]

Then just leave abortion out of it altogether. We tire of the few ideologues here trying to enforce their morals on the rest of us. The WA has no business regulating abortion rights.

The clause was included as a concession intended to end the debate on abortion rights. The WA has every business regulating abortion rights, just as it has every business regulating any other human right; "Human Rights" and "Moral Decency" are categories for a reason.

We are all nationstates. We are not just states, we are not just nations. We are nationstates who are members of the World Assembly. The World Assembly has a degree of authority over us, over both the nation and the state, and I believe it is perfectly within the mandate of the World Assembly to protect nations from their states now and then.

If the WA butts out of the issue of abortion rights, billions of pregnant individuals will be denied their basic human right to bodily sovereignty; they will be legally obligated to allow a functional parasite to feed off their body, to cause them pain and suffering and to cause them financial burden for at least nine months, if not for the remainder of their lives.

Yes, this resolution restricts the abortion rights of people living in nations where there is currently abortion unrestricted by term. But it vastly increases the abortion rights of people where abortion is currently restricted or outright banned.

You say that abortion is not an international issue, but surely providing protections to the all the people of all the nations of the world is a totally international issue. From what I can see, you don't think this is a supranational issue, you don't want the WA to tell your government what it can and can't do, and to hell with the people outside your nation being oppressed.

Furthermore, there have been plenty of resolutions on human rights and human rights are always and only a moral issue.

In Syvorji's attempted repeal of "Restrictions on Child Labour", you said;

We cannot in good conscience support any repeal of the Child Labour Laws enacted.

And in Cirina's attempted repeal of "Prevention of Torture", you said;

Split as many hairs as you like, the fact that torture is wrong and has no place in civilized society is reason enough not to repeal the resolution.

Emphasis added, obviously. What are these if not you bringing your morality into the WA? Surely if you believe it is not the place of the WA to enforce morals, then you would have strongly supported the aforementioned repeals. If you truly don't believe the WA should be dictating moral issues, why haven't you launched a repeal of every human rights resolution ever passed? After all, they are all the WA enforcing the morals of some nations on all the nations within it, aren't they?

And even if you did get them all repealed, you'd be doing exactly the thing you're complaining about; you'd be an ideologue enforcing your morals on everyone else. In fact, that's what you're doing right now; by denying this resolution your support based on your moral position, you are enforcing your morals on everyone else by reducing the chance of this resolution being passed.

[Grays Harbor]

You are seriously trying to equate our opposition to the repeal of laws against torture and child labour with abortion regulation? Nice try. A misguided try, but valiant nonetheless. We are not going to be enterring debate on "moral relativism" with you, not now, not ever. So give it up now if that is what you are seeking from us.

Our stance remains that we shall not now nor shall we ever support any regulation of abortion by the WA.

[Ossitania]

You are seriously trying to equate our opposition to the repeal of laws against torture and child labour with abortion regulation? Nice try. A misguided try, but valiant nonetheless. We are not going to be enterring debate on "moral relativism" with you, not now, not ever. So give it up now if that is what you are seeking from us.

Our stance remains that we shall not now nor shall we ever support any regulation of abortion by the WA.

I am simply trying to gauge why you will complain about nations enforcing their morality on others in one place and then do it yourself in others.

[Eireann Fae]

Though, it must be said, I'm sure most nations (the position of Eireann Fae not withstanding) would not deem a baby to be a mentally competent person anyway.

"Babies are people too!" Alexandra throws a few more pebbles at the Ossitanian Ambassador.

(OOC: Thanks for taking out the anti-youth bits. Most resolution authors wouldn't be so kind :-)

[Ossitania]

"Babies are people too!" Alexandra throws a few more pebbles at the Ossitanian Ambassador.

(OOC: Thanks for taking out the anti-youth bits. Most resolution authors wouldn't be so kind :-)

Eli deftly catches each of the pebbles, then puts them down on the table. "Of course they are, honoured ambassador, but I'm sure you'll find that most babies are not mentally competent as per the terms of the resolution, the odd biological processes of your native Fae notwithstanding."

(OOC: Not a bother.)

And now, back to normality, posting as my character but not roleplaying.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Self-defense is not a political freedom, it is a personal one. How exactly is the right to defend one's own bodily sovereignty a political right? At what point is kicking someone in the balls when they try to knife you relevant to the political process?

If a man cannot defend himself, he becomes reliant on the State to assure his own personal integrity. By removing that barrier and allowing the individual to defend his own freedom, and not remain dependent upon the State to do so, the individual is endowed with additional political freedom. It ties in with the right to bear arms, but since the game separates that issue into an entirely unique category, it is irrelevant.

Also, I hold up WAR#09, WAR#23, WAR#35 and WAR#114 as examples of resolutions in the Human Rights category that criminalise the violation of human rights, giving me precedent to not treat III.i. as belonging in a different category.

Look, just because previous resolutions have had to change members' criminal statutes in order to uphold a (relevant) human right, it doesn't mean you get to use the Human Rights category as a veritable Christmas tree on which you can hang any manner of categorically irrelevant provisions, including decriminalizing drug use, regulating criminal assault laws, and rebranding justifiable assault as a "personal freedom."

But since you've apparently decided to doom this draft by dragging it into the never-ending abortion shitfest, I really shouldn't say any more.