NationStates Jolt Archive

this whole Male Circumcision debate (at this stage i wont call it MGM, reserving status on that opinion) has got me thinking a bit. they say it is as bad as Female Genital Mutilation. i looked over the that particular resolution, which i paste here:
Female Genital Mutilation



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Safalra

Description: The General Assembly, Observing that female genital mutilation (hereafter 'FGM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

Alarmed by the long-term effects of FGM, including prolonged pain and increased risk of death during childbirth,

Deeply disturbed that many women are subjected to FGM against their will,

Recognising that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

1. Condemns the practice of FGM;

2. Calls upon States to fund programmes educating citizens about the dangers of FGM;

3. Urges States to avoid using the alternative phrase 'female circumcision', as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision.

Votes For: 14778

Votes Against: 1360

Implemented: Wed Jun 16 2004

now i know FGM is a bad thing, i have 2 problems with this:
a) it doesnt explain what FGM is, and,
b) makes refence to Female Circumcision, which is a legitimat proceedure, and is slightly different proceedure

now my idea was to repeal this, on that basis, and replace it with a better one. the things i wanted to outline were:
a) FGM relates to the removal of the hood, clitoris, labia, and sometimes the sewing up of the vaginal entrance.
b) Female Circumcision relates to the triming or removal of the hood, as a medical proceedure, to help enchance stimulation during intercorse (some women have hoods that cover the clitoris too much)
c) Reduction of the Clitoris and reduction of the Labia are both legitimate medical proceedures. in this case, we would submit that they would be done after the age of concent, or if it could cause harm to the patient.

the idea behind this is to clear things up a bit, and actually allow some legitimate medical proceedures to take place that otherwise would be banned by this. at this point in time, it is just ideas, asking for comment/advice to draw up a decent repeal and replacement resolution. i dont have the endorsements at this point in time to actually submit it, so i will try to get the 2nd endorsement once this has been nutted out

This is where my nation has difficulties.

In theory, we agree that this proposed replacement would bring more parity on the matter. However, I cannot ask my regional delegate for support on this, as Safalra is a regional associate.

I personally would repeal FGM, and do one resolution to deal with MGM and FGM at the same time (excluding Circumcision, which I'm thinking will have a hard time getting passed considering the opposition to it, regardless of how much I try and argue it)

yeah, well, i am actually against that one based on a 'choice' matter. and it is the same with trying to do a re-working of this one, so women can choose to have the stated operations if they want. i dunno if FGM and MGM should be in the same resolution though. if you could come up with a MGM one that allows for choice, fine. i just want to work on this one. hell, talk to your regional rep about it, they might actually agree that a definition is needed.

here is a rough repeal draft:
Acknowledging that Female Genital Mutilation is a serious and harmful thing

Recognising that there are legitimate medical procedures that are effectively banned by this resolution

Female Genital Mutilation should be repealed on the basis that:

1. No definition of what the act of FGM actually is has been presented
2. States that the term ‘Female Circumcision’ cannot be used for FGM, when it is a term for a legitimate procedure that only makes up part of FGM
3. It doesn’t allow for legitimate medical procedures, health-wise or cosmetic, such as Female Circumcision (shortening or removal of the hood), shortening of the clitoris or shortening of the labia.

Removal of this resolution could make way for a resolution that has a clear definition of FGM, and have the allowance for, by choice or professional advice, legitimate medical procedures.

at the moment, i am subscribing to the K.I.S.S. principle, but if anyone thinks something should be added, let me know

The main problem I can see is with your second point - Female Circumcision is often used as the term, when it would be more correct to say FGM. You'll need to spell out what you consider the differences to be (labiadectomy vs. sewing shut etc.) in order to get anything remotely approaching my support.

The main problem I can see is with your second point - Female Circumcision is often used as the term, when it would be more correct to say FGM. You'll need to spell out what you consider the differences to be (labiadectomy vs. sewing shut etc.) in order to get anything remotely approaching my support.
that was the whole idea with the replacement, which i havent worked out yet. that is just the draft of the repeal. the definition of FGM and FC would be laid out in the replacement. it would be tempting to acutally use the current resolution for the base of the replacment, but i didnt want to offend the author

that was the whole idea with the replacement, which i havent worked out yet. that is just the draft of the repeal. the definition of FGM and FC would be laid out in the replacement.

I think Enn's point is you're going to have to be explicit about the difference in the repeal, too. Promising a replacement isn't enough: you have to show what the problem is.

okay, is this any better?

Acknowledging that Female Genital Mutilation is a serious and harmful thing

Recognising that there are legitimate medical procedures that are effectively banned by this resolution

Female Genital Mutilation should be repealed on the basis that:

1. No definition of what the act of FGM actually is has been presented
2. States that the term ‘Female Circumcision’ cannot be used for FGM, when it is a term for a legitimate procedure that only makes up part of FGM, in that FGM is the removal of the hood, clitoris, labia and other damaging to the genital area, where as Female Circumcision is the shortening or removal of the hood
3. It doesn’t allow for legitimate medical procedures, health-wise or cosmetic, such as Female Circumcision, shortening of the clitoris or shortening of the labia.

Removal of this resolution could make way for a resolution that has a clear definition of FGM, and have the allowance for, by choice or professional advice, legitimate medical procedures.

I would suggest TGing Safalra with your ideas - they're still active, if not always in the UN forum. I vaguely recall them deliberately choosing the term FGM as a general term, including what is often termed (if incorrectly) 'female circumcision'.

If nothing else, it would be good to get input from the author when attempting to repeal the resolution with the greatest percentage of yes votes.

okay, i might do that.

I'll also contact Saf - I normally see him on our regional forums everyday, so a quick reply may be forthcoming.

I'll also contact Saf - I normally see him on our regional forums everyday, so a quick reply may be forthcoming.
okay, i have TGed him anyway. he may be helpful for the replacement. one thing that i want to make clear that, unlike one persons perception in the other thread, Female circumcision has nothing to do with removing the clitoris, and only to do with shortening or removal of the hood, to help with stimulation during sex.

The doors to the UN chambers swing open, and a stranger in a long black hooded cloak enters. A hush falls upons the gathered representatives as the stranger approaches the podium and the current speaker steps aside. The stranger lowers the hood, and announces: 'I have returned'. Most representatives stare in confusion, and the stranger, exasperated, sighs 'Safalra? You know - wrote the most successful resolution in history? I'm only gone for six seasons and you've already forgotten me.'

I've always been rather skeptical of repeals citing lack of definition - they seem rather disingenuous as the promised replacement resolutions rarely materialise. Instead a better way to tackly terms that are not clearly defined would be to propose a definition resolution:


Defining FGM

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Safalra

Description: The General Assembly, reaffirming its commitment to ending the practice of female genital mutilation (hereafter FGM),

Concerned that Resolution 62 does not clearly define FGM,

1. Defines FGM as [insert suitable definition]

2. Urges States to continue to implement Resolution 62.


With regards to criticism of the third action clause (Urges States to avoid using the alternative phrase 'female circumcision', as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision), it should be noted here that the key word here is alternative - the clause discourages states from using the phrase 'female circumcision' as an alternative to 'female genitial mutilation', but does no prohibit them from using the phrase in any other way. If clarification is needed, the proposed definition resolution above could be extended:


Defining FGM

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Safalra

Description: The General Assembly, reaffirming its commitment to ending the practice of female genital mutilation (hereafter FGM),

Concerned that Resolution 62, 'Female Genital Mutilation', does not clearly define FGM,

Troubled that Resolution 62 may be interpreted as discouraging a necessary medical procedure sometimes referred to as 'female circumcision',

1. Defines FGM as [insert suitable definition]

2. Clarifies that Resolution 62 does not prohibit necessary medical procedures that may be referred to as 'female circumcision'

3. Elucidates that Resolution 62 only advises against the usage of the term 'female circumcision' when it refers to FGM

4. Urges States to continue to implement Resolution 62.

only problem is, you cant do it, based on a HoC violation. if i could do it that way, i would. unfortunatly, we have to go through the repeal, then the replacement. i know, it sucks, but thats how the rules are now (blame Hack if you want ;) )

only problem is, you cant do it, based on a HoC violation.
What does that mean? It's been a long time since I posted in the United Nations forum - I had to leave NationStates for a while when I finished university (I didn't find out my resolution had passed until a few days later) - so I've forgotten most of the terminology.

That draft is a HoC violation. The idea of a Definition of FGM wouldn't be, though, would it? If you avoided reference to #62 (or only made minimal reference), then you could simply define FGM. Even if #62 was repealed, the UN would still have a definition of the practice, on which subsequent proposals would be based. One thing to be careful of, though: I really don't think they'll let you get too graphic. So I'm not sure how explicit you can be in your definition without either becoming so 'jargonised' that many delegates won't follow, or running the risk of having the proposal deleted. Just a thought.

EDIT: Sorry, Safalra: HoC = House of Cards. Can't base proposals on passed ones, in case they get repealed. That wouldn't have been a rule when #62 was passed.

dont worry, as i said, i like to stick to the k.i.s.s phliosophy, and any technical terms would be explained after.

[edit] also, if you did it without or with minimal reference to the FGM resolution, it could be seen in conflict with it by allowing these proceedures, which are effectively banned by this resolution, as is the term female circumcision in reguards to FGM, which in turn actually banned in practice by this resolution anyway.

EDIT: Sorry, Safalra: HoC = House of Cards. Can't base proposals on passed ones, in case they get repealed. That wouldn't have been a rule when #62 was passed.
Dang. How about:

Defining FGM

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Safalra

Description: The General Assembly, observing that the issue of female genital multilation (hereafter FGM) is frequently discussed both by United Nations representatives and in State legislatures,

Conceding that FGM has not been clearly defined to date,

Concerned that without a common definition of FGM legislation cannot be properly implemented,

Troubled that the term 'female circumcision' has dual uses, as a euphemism for FGM and as a colloquial term for a necessary medical procedure,

1. Defines FGM as [insert suitable definition]

2. Encourages States only to use the term 'female circumcision' to refer to the necessary medical procedure, and not as an alternative term for FGM

I think that's probably a fine approach. Obviously, you'd need to check with the mods ultimately, but the idea of providing a 'common ground' seems to me to be a good idea.

its kinda hard to set a definition, because it could, in turn, block the proceedures. i cant think of anything to finnish off 'the removal of....' without sayng '... for non-medical reasons". sometimes clitorectomies and labiadectomies are performed for cosmetic reasons, same with female circumcision. if i was to add in cosmetic reasons, it would leave a large loop-hole.

here is possibly an outline for the replacement, bassed on Safalra's original

Female Genital Mutilation



A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Safalra

Description: The General Assembly, Observing that female genital mutilation (hereafter 'FGM') is performed ritually in some cultures,

Defining FGM as the removal of the clitoris, labia and other sensory organs from the genital area, as well as in some cases, the closure of the vagina through sewing.

Alarmed by the long-term effects of FGM, including prolonged pain and increased risk of death during childbirth,

Deeply disturbed that many women are subjected to FGM against their will,

Recognising that when dealing with other cultures, legislation leads to confrontation, whilst education leads to willing change,

1. Condemns the practice of FGM;

2. Calls upon States to fund programmes educating citizens about the dangers of FGM;

3. Urges States to avoid categorising FGM with the alternative phrase 'female circumcision', which is explained below, as this leads to comparison with the safe male circumcision.

FGM does not include, however,

1. Female circumcision, defined as the reduction or removal of the hood of the clitoris

2. Clitorotomy, defined as the reduction, but not complete removal, of the clitoris

3. Labiadectomy, defined as the reduction, but not complete removal, of the labia

These procedures will be only used by choice of the woman, in consultation with a doctor or gynaecologist, or for medical reasons, at the agreement of the woman.

Co-authored by The Lynx Alliance


this is only if we cant get a workable 'definiton' proposal. i really wanted the definiton of those proceedures included, and the conditions, so that nobody could use the 'its not mutilation, it is a cosmetic proceedure' loophole that i came across in defining FGM in that other passage.

You might need to check that whatever definition of FGM you try to use doesn't inadvertently ban sex-change (or is the correct term supposed to be "gender reassignment" instead nowadays?) operations too...

You might need to check that whatever definition of FGM you try to use doesn't inadvertently ban sex-change (or is the correct term supposed to be "gender reassignment" instead nowadays?) operations too...
man, i thought of that, but completly forgot about it. we have a lot of time to nut this out anyway, because i still dont have the second regional endorsement, and i am going to wait till after xmas/new year anyway

The problem with the latest proposal is that it is now a Duplication Resolution and we would have to go through the repeal process before we even attempt to reinstate this more defined resolution.

The problem with the latest proposal is that it is now a Duplication Resolution and we would have to go through the repeal process before we even attempt to reinstate this more defined resolution.
read through the thread before making comment. this is a repeal and replacement thread

read through the thread before making comment. this is a repeal and replacement thread Ah but I have, but you can not do both, as what you are doing is an infraction of the format over repeal...
Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or lawsBy redefining anything, you add new provisions. Thus you infringe on the rule...please do not be rude just because you do not understand the basis of my statement.

By redefining anything, you add new provisions. Thus you infringe on the rule...please do not be rude just because you do not understand the basis of my statement.

He's talking about two separate proposals: one to repeal, and then one to replace. Case in point: resolutions #108 and #113. Reformentia repealed the old bio weapons ban, and then replaced it. I'm afraid it's you who's not understanding TLA here.

obviously you missunderstand me. what i am intending to do is repeal the resolution, then, once that has been done successfully, submit the replacement. that is allowable. it is just common curtasy(sp) to actually post or give ideas for the replacement proposal, if you intend to replace it.

He's talking about two separate proposals: one to repeal, and then one to replace. Case in point: resolutions #108 and #113. Reformentia repealed the old bio weapons ban, and then replaced it. I'm afraid it's you who's not understanding TLA here.Ah, point made...so sorry, just my misunderstanding...kinda new to these forums and all. Just trying to get into the move as this is really enjoyable. I had taken that he was attempting to do both within one. My fault entirely...so sorry

No problem. In that you'd read the rules, you're already waaay above a lot of new players who come here.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45hk.png

No problem. In that you'd read the rules, you're already waaay above a lot of new players who come here.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45hk.png
lol, too true
and welcome from The Mythically Futuristic Archdutchy of The Lynx Alliance

No problem. In that you'd read the rules, you're already waaay above a lot of new players who come here.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45hk.png Ah well thank you, and I am sorry yet again. Now not to let this turn into a dead thread, let my try to get on topic.

While I do believe that the ill-defined Resolution should be repealed, you do know that you will meet resistance due to the increase of No Rights Nations, right? I have noticed that they seem to be in the droves. Just as male genital mutilation is a just, yet ill-recieved cause, this might be also due to this change.

the advantage this time for the replacement (and maybe a hinderence for the repeal) is that the original passed with the greatest margin, something like 12,000 to 1,000. couple this with the fact that people acknowledge this being a serious subject, and it would get back in. it is just convincing people to repeal it in the first place

okay, repeal has been submitted (search Genital Mutilation in the proposals que). the repeal i have submitted is the second draft found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10106646&postcount=8)

[edit] it can be found in the que here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=genital)

wow, 22 approvals already, and that is without a telegram campain. still need a hundred odd more though.

wow, 22 approvals already, and that is without a telegram campain. still need a hundred odd more though.

treat this as a dry run and then i'll be able to give you a hand with a TG campaign in the new year.

treat this as a dry run and then i'll be able to give you a hand with a TG campaign in the new year.
that was the idea. thank you for the support. gotta work on the replacement though, because i want to add the sex change situation, but i want it to be that it is up to nations if it is allowable. some nations might object to it, thus flat out reject the replacement, and if i leave it out, some will reject it because it effectivly bans it.

I'm going to object to this repeal on three grounds:

1) Mutilation is a well-defined medical term - disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body (Stedman's medical dictionary) - so arguing that the resolution does not define its terms is like criticising it for being a Human Rights resolution without defining 'human'
2) The resolution allows legitimate medical procedures which are in the interest of the health of the patient, as these would not meet the medical definition of the term 'mutilation'
3) The resolution advises States not to use the term 'female circumcision' to refer to the FGM - the 'female circumcision' described in the repeal does not meet the medical definition of the term 'mutilation' and hence can continue to be referred to by this name

I'm going to object to this repeal on three grounds:

1) Mutilation is a well-defined medical term - disfigurement or injury by removal or destruction of a conspicuous or essential part of the body (Stedman's medical dictionary) - so arguing that the resolution does not define its terms is like criticising it for being a Human Rights resolution without defining 'human'
2) The resolution allows legitimate medical procedures which are in the interest of the health of the patient, as these would not meet the medical definition of the term 'mutilation'
3) The resolution advises States not to use the term 'female circumcision' to refer to the FGM - the 'female circumcision' described in the repeal does not meet the medical definition of the term 'mutilation' and hence can continue to be referred to by this name
1 & 2) i disagree. whilst we could generally we could accept that definfition, as the current vote "Rights of Sapient Biologicals" has proven, some people can get it dead wrong, thus they could actually be banning legitimate medical practices.
3) the problem here is while it is saying one thing, it inadvertadtly is implying another: that female circumcision is a form of FGM. I know it isnt, you know it isnt, but again, going by what i said, people could actually see it that way.

i would love to work on the replacement with you, since you are the author, but i believe a little clarity is needed. also, on that human rights, and needing to define human, that is why the current proposal is up for vote.

29 approvals on the dry run. thanks to the support of those regular posters on the UN board that approved it. will do the proper TG campain in the new year