Is this proposal legal?
Harhun Emyn
18-10-2004, 16:41
Anti-Women Voting
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.
Category: Political Stability
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Sonnebornia
Description: Women shall not have the right to vote in their country, excluding women who are the leaders and women who are UN members
Approvals: 0
Status: Lacking Support (requires 136 more approvals)
Voting Ends: Thu Oct 21 2004
----
Not mine, BTW. Just wondering.
Texan Hotrodders
18-10-2004, 16:49
Silly, yes. Badly written, yes. I don't think it's illegal though.
I am compelled to break out my official U.N. smiley. :headbang:
Legalese
18-10-2004, 20:48
Where should I start:
-Sonnebornia gives no reasoning whatsoever within the resolution for taking this action.
-Sonnebornia is also attempting to restrict democracy, using a democratic process, by mandating discrimination, which this body generally takes steps in the other direction to discourage such.
But yes, this is legal, yet I hope it never sees the light of day on the floor.
Unfree People
18-10-2004, 21:52
I think it's legal, it wouldn't be my say that is final, though.
If you do find questionable UN proposals, you can always report them via Getting Help or through IRC.
Meriadoc
19-10-2004, 06:18
Unfree People has answered as to the legality but whoever came up with this must be sexist.
The Resurgent Dream
19-10-2004, 06:25
I don't think it's legal because it legislates form of government, not relations between governments. It's beyond the authority of the U.N. Also, resolutions institutionalizing prejudice aren't allowed by the mods. Someone just got a resolution deleted that demanded the burka.
Powerhungry Chipmunks
19-10-2004, 06:59
The proposal seems to be out-of category. This is more of a human rights issue than a political stability issue. And, even if it were to benefit political stability to keep women from voting, there is no argument to explain this. This also might violate as not worthy of the UN's time, or as being too vague...*gives a sheepish grin*
The Most Glorious Hack
19-10-2004, 08:19
Well, let's see here.
First, that is (nominally) the proper category. It does indeed restrict political freedoms. Questionable if that increases political stability, however. It certainly wouldn't fit under "Human Rights" as it doesn't expand civil rights.
Now then, there's still the question of legality. Personally, this strikes me as an obviously descriminatory resolution, which would make it run afoul of the "offensive" rules for UN proposals:
Flagrant Offences
2. Racist or otherwise "bigoted" proposals - including but not limited to the following: advocating the killing of any minority groups or deportation of same to other locales.
This could be termed "bigoted". As written, I can't see this being legal.
- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator