NationStates Jolt Archive

Equal Application of Law
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Description: WHEREAS some nations have been known to pass laws which apply only to certain groups, or are known to exclude certain income brackets and/or positions within the government;

Be it therefore

RESOLVED that all laws passed within a member nation must be applied equally to all citizens of that nation, from the highest office to the lowest citizen, without exception;

RESOLVED all laws shall be applied equally without regard to color, sex, gender, race, religion, income, position, or any other exclusion which would show favoritism to one group, or cause specific detriment to one group.

NOTES that this does resolution does not remove the application of punishment under law; it serves only to remove the possibility of passing laws which do not apply to select groups, or apply only to select groups.

Voting Ends: Sat Sep 18 2004

***

Short & sweet.

Um. Some laws are, for example, gender-specific for very good reasons. I like what you're trying to say but I think it could do with amending.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Wouldn't this proposal ruin affirmative action programs and the like?

Wouldn't this proposal ruin affirmative action programs and the like?

I think that might be what it is trying to achieve. Cause affirmative action programs are only affirmative if you get the action.
Don't get me wrong - I think they are needed in some situations, but they can be seen to have the potential to foster discrimination and act as a breeding ground for more anger and hate.

Wouldn't this proposal ruin affirmative action programs and the like?

It depends.

The debate in the CCSM is that affirmative action programs are sometimes necessary "Social Justice" programs in order to achieve and implement an equality based "Human Rights" standard.

If Vastiva were talking about an actual social justice program, my government would find this unacceptable. But really Vastiva is just restating the principle of equality ... in my government's opinion that is.


OOC: Human Rights vs. Social Justice.

Traditionally human rights are just that. Statements of rights and principles. Social justice is the actual enforcement and / or policies used to enact and defend human rights. Affirmative action programs are so named in most countries, because they seek to tip the balances of inequality *back* to meet the requirements of basic human rights principles.

RESOLVED that all laws passed within a member nation must be applied equally to all citizens of that nation, from the highest office to the lowest citizen, without exception;

RESOLVED all laws shall be applied equally without regard to color, sex, gender, race, religion, income, position, or any other exclusion which would show favoritism to one group, or cause specific detriment to one group.

I just thought of something else that's much, much worse than anything with affirmative action. Under the clauses I quoted, if a nation has a standing law mandating the execution of any person of a particular ethnic group, wouldn't this resolution provide for expanding that policy to all ethnic groups? Is there a prior resolution that outlaws genocide? Please tell me there is.

We find this proposal to be contradictory to UN Resolutions already passed, which require laws to be passed for certain parts of the citizenry only. Examples of such resolutions include, but are not limited to:

-Education for all (for anyone under age 16)
-Gay Rights (only applies to homosexuals only)
-Child Labor (applies to anyone under age 12)

From these examples, laws are passed that are selective in that they PROTECT certain parts of the population, that may not be able to protect themselves, especially when they are a minority group. The all encompassing nature of this proposal needs to be changed before it should be considered for vote as a UN resolution.

Is there a prior resolution that outlaws genocide? Please tell me there is.

There is no human rights resolution focused primiarly on outlawing genocide. I key word searched the United Nations Associate database for genocide and got 0 hits.

The keyword search works fine, because "slavery", "children", "homosexual", and "AIDS" are popping up.

I've seen several Genocide proposals in the queue since April, but unfortunately nations are interested in making a statement about it specifically. I'd recommend that our two nations can work together to make a simple human rights proposal outlawing it and that together we could probably count on significant support from others.

I just thought of something else that's much, much worse than anything with affirmative action. Under the clauses I quoted, if a nation has a standing law mandating the execution of any person of a particular ethnic group, wouldn't this resolution provide for expanding that policy to all ethnic groups? Is there a prior resolution that outlaws genocide? Please tell me there is.

It would remove the law as "against UN Resolution". It states you can't specifically go after anyone, or limit a single race, or execute a single race. Laws are officially blind to this factor.

We find this proposal to be contradictory to UN Resolutions already passed, which require laws to be passed for certain parts of the citizenry only. Examples of such resolutions include, but are not limited to:

-Education for all (for anyone under age 16)
-Gay Rights (only applies to homosexuals only)
-Child Labor (applies to anyone under age 12)

From these examples, laws are passed that are selective in that they PROTECT certain parts of the population, that may not be able to protect themselves, especially when they are a minority group. The all encompassing nature of this proposal needs to be changed before it should be considered for vote as a UN resolution.

But these laws would only apply to those groups, and could not be used to remove rights from other groups. For example if you were to say that children (those under the age of majority) can not work more than 10 hours a week, it would not be sane or sensible to expand it to everyone - including those who are over the age of majority, because the law doesn't reduce any of their rights anyway.

I would say the resolution is worded fine, as it is an attempt to stop laws being passed that remove rights or reduce rights from the groups that need them most.

NOTES that this does resolution does not remove the application of punishment under law; it serves only to remove the possibility of passing laws which do not apply to select groups, or apply only to select groups.

Voting Ends: Sat Sep 18 2004

***

Short & sweet.

I realise that voting is long past, but this bit confused me.

The way it is written says that "laws that do not apply to select groups" or "laws that do apply to select groups" shall be made illegal under this resolution.

Wouldn't that make passing ANY law impossible?

I realise that voting is long past, but this bit confused me.

The way it is written says that "laws that do not apply to select groups" or "laws that do apply to select groups" shall be made illegal under this resolution.

Wouldn't that make passing ANY law impossible?

If it would, I'm all for it!