NationStates Jolt Archive

The Most Serene Republic of Etanistan is pleased to unveil the following proposal.

The text of the Equal Rights Resolution is simple:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United Nations or by any member government on account of sex.

Section 2. The United Nations shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The government of Etanistan feels that it is unjust - in these somewhat enlightened times - to allow any laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. The UN should act to ensure that all citizens of its member nations have equal treatment before the law.

Etanistan urges UN Delegates to kindly consider voting for this proposal and for all member nations to petition their Regional UN Delegates to vote for it as well.

QUOTE: The government of Etanistan feels that it is unjust - in these somewhat enlightened times - to allow any laws that discriminate on the basis of sex.

"Any laws"? That is the problem with this proposal; it is simply too far reaching in being vague.

For example, if one wishes to adhere to the strict wording "any laws on the basis of sex", then any existing municipal by-laws that prohibit men from hanging out in womens bathrooms or womens gym changerooms, because the laws are on "the basis of sex"...would be deemed in violation of the UN Resolution. Under this proposal, the fact that men are 'discriminated' "based on their sex only". See my point?

Perhaps if it was 'tightened up'; for example, giving more precision: "Laws which impede employment (etc) unless due cause or consideration"

Some "discrimination" will always be around. Some health clubs are men only, some women only; for the members to be more comfortable. Some womens/girls sports leagues may not want men/boys in their leagues.

Additionally, many womens shelters do NOT hire males for valid reasons. According to your presently worded proposal, such actions would also be in violation of the UN Resolution.

The Most Serene Republic of Etanistan is pleased to unveil the following proposal.

The text of the Equal Rights Resolution is simple:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United Nations or by any member government on account of sex.

Section 2. The United Nations shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The government of Etanistan feels that it is unjust - in these somewhat enlightened times - to allow any laws that discriminate on the basis of sex. The UN should act to ensure that all citizens of its member nations have equal treatment before the law.

Etanistan urges UN Delegates to kindly consider voting for this proposal and for all member nations to petition their Regional UN Delegates to vote for it as well.

I agree. Unlike institutional racism, which is always evil, institutional sexism is not necessarily evil. Segregated bathrooms/locker rooms are sexist, for example.

QUOTE: The government of Etanistan feels that it is unjust - in these somewhat enlightened times - to allow any laws that discriminate on the basis of sex.

"Any laws"? That is the problem with this proposal; it is simply too far reaching in being vague.

For example, if one wishes to adhere to the strict wording "any laws on the basis of sex", then any existing municipal by-laws that prohibit men from hanging out in womens bathrooms or womens gym changerooms, because the laws are on "the basis of sex"...would be deemed in violation of the UN Resolution. Under this proposal, the fact that men are 'discriminated' "based on their sex only". See my point?

Perhaps if it was 'tightened up'; for example, giving more precision: "Laws which impede employment (etc) unless due cause or consideration"

Some "discrimination" will always be around. Some health clubs are men only, some women only; for the members to be more comfortable. Some womens/girls sports leagues may not want men/boys in their leagues.

Additionally, many womens shelters do NOT hire males for valid reasons. According to your presently worded proposal, such actions would also be in violation of the UN Resolution.

You actually weren't quoting the resolution itself. That was my explanation of it.

The discrimination you talk about will only become an issue if there are laws around it. For instance, if your country actually makes a law that all health clubs should be women only, then the UN might have a problem, should this resolution pass. The resolution specifically states that everyone is equal before the law. Where there are no laws, social mores (whether "good" or "bad" sexism) are free to predominate.

What this proposed resolution seeks to address are actual laws that have discrimination built into them, such as laws that say women can't vote or that men can't take parental leave.

The beauty of this resolution is that, while it promotes a minimum standard of strictly legal equality, it can be quite forceful or quite mild depending on interpretation. I'm sure you will say that is a weakness, but in the light of all the discussion of soveriegnty in the UN as of late, such flexibility is indeed an asset.

Okay, lets look at the actual wording.
----
The Most Serene Republic of Etanistan is pleased to unveil the following proposal.

The text of the Equal Rights Resolution is simple:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United Nations or by any member government on account of sex.

Section 2. The United Nations shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
----

By your own admission, the United Nations could, if this is implemented, emabrgo your nation ("Section 2. The United Nations shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.")???

Because my nation thinks that having men hang around women's bathrooms and changerooms is wrong and has a law prohibiting such activity?

Because little Sally O'Grady just wants to play hockey with other girls and not have boys in their 1 girls league when there are over 20 boys leagues? So how will the UN 'enforce' its rule on a 7 year old girl?

Because having a safe 'women & children only' zone at a Womens Refuge Shelter violates the UN resolution, will the UN now seek to traumatise still further a woman and her children fleeing abuse?

I point these out because your resolution IS so vague as to be unenforcable. Laws, especially in international law, are very specific and rightly so. Simply to 'hope' everyone knows what the intent is, is not good enough. A resolution must stand on its own; what does it entail? how does it suggest attaining its goals? These are specifics, not vague 'feelings'.

While I 'think' I understand what you are trying to say, the way it stands now is untenable to say the least.

Okay, lets look at the actual wording.
----
The Most Serene Republic of Etanistan is pleased to unveil the following proposal.

The text of the Equal Rights Resolution is simple:

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United Nations or by any member government on account of sex.

Section 2. The United Nations shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
----

By your own admission, the United Nations could, if this is implemented, emabrgo your nation ("Section 2. The United Nations shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.")???

Because my nation thinks that having men hang around women's bathrooms and changerooms is wrong and has a law prohibiting such activity?

Because little Sally O'Grady just wants to play hockey with other girls and not have boys in their 1 girls league when there are over 20 boys leagues? So how will the UN 'enforce' its rule on a 7 year old girl?

Because having a safe 'women & children only' zone at a Womens Refuge Shelter violates the UN resolution, will the UN now seek to traumatise still further a woman and her children fleeing abuse?

I point these out because your resolution IS so vague as to be unenforcable. Laws, especially in international law, are very specific and rightly so. Simply to 'hope' everyone knows what the intent is, is not good enough. A resolution must stand on its own; what does it entail? how does it suggest attaining its goals? These are specifics, not vague 'feelings'.

While I 'think' I understand what you are trying to say, the way it stands now is untenable to say the least.


1. Would the UN ever decide that an embargo is "appropriate legislation"? Probably not. In game terms, the ONLY legislation the UN can pass is to kick your country out of the UN.

2. To repeat, there is nothing wrong with sex-segregated bathrooms, AS LONG AS THERE ISN'T A LAW SPECIFICALLY SEPARATING THEM BY SEX. Why would you need such a law? We don't have to legislate everything. As for men hanging around women's bathrooms, they could be arrested under laws against stalking or harassment, which can be written in sex-neutral language. All a woman would have to do would be to prosecute a man that made her uncomfortable under these provisions. The same basic argument works for the hockey and womens' shelter examples.

3. The benefit to women and those in some countries categorized as "genderqueer" would far exceed any potential problems. In addition, all of the problems, which you are sensible to bring up, are not really problems given my explanation on number two. Nations which would prohibit certain people from voting or running for office on account of their sex would have to change.

If you want to prefer the rights of women over men in cases of custody and support, which is in fact our current national policy, this legislation would undermine your intentions.

The Un spokesperson for Etanistan, Villejo Garbanzo, would like to admit, on behalf of his nation, that an amendment very similiar to this resolution has been voted against in a far away nation of the United States of America quite often. It passed and was nearly ratified at one point, but scare tactics about public bathrooms undermined what would have been a very significant piece of legistlation in that country known as the Equal Rights Amendment.

Furthermore, our exercise here in the UN was to find out if such a resolution could find support among the members of the UN, whilst it had formerly lacked support that far-off country.

Interestingly and sadly, the very same rhetoric used to undermine the Equal Rights Amendment has been deployed against the Equal Rights Resolution, all the while no UN members seemed to notice the similarity.

We would like to point out - now that the resolution seems to be far from the support it needs - one of the more interesting interpretations, which we had hoped another nation might notice: It would undermine any attempt to legally define marriage as between one man and one woman; thus, same-sex marriage would be legal in all UN nations.