NationStates Jolt Archive

Equality of Opportunity

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The United Nations,

Recognising and applauding previous legislation passed by the General Assembly aimed at eradicating unfair discrimination, notably Resolution #99, "Discrimination Accord",

Equally recognising that such legislation has almost exclusively tended towards the regulation of government activities and has largely not been concerned with discrimination transpiring in the private sphere,

Concerned that the opportunity for significant and grievous discrimination therefore still exists and that merely checking the ability of national governments to directly discriminate against specific groups of people will not fully realize the goals of social equality if such groups are the subject of widespread private discrimination,

Particularly noting that Article 4 of "Discrimination Accord" can apply only to state provisions, and that as such there exists substantial risk of discrimination continuing to exclude marginalised groups from access to, for example, opportunities in employment and housing,

Determined to prevent such forms of discrimination arising and recognising that uniform, concerted international action is an essential prerequisite of any attempt to do so, and,

Considering it in the international interest to promote general equality of opportunity:

1. Declares that no employer may discriminate in their relations with employees, including hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, and assignment of bonuses and benefits, based on grounds irrelevant to the nature of the employment, such as ethnicity, sex, matters of personal preference and conscience, or national origin;

2. Emphasises that the above does not preclude requirements for specific capabilities that are related to the nature of the employment, such as requirements for specific physical or mental capabilities, though encouraging full and clear advertisement of such requirements, and that reasonable accommodations be made towards those otherwise well suited to the employment;

3. Upholds the principle of freedom of association and declares that private organizations do have the right to enact such restrictions, so long as the ability to form similar, independent organizations is freely and fully available to all persons, and prohibits such organizations from receiving funds from member governments or the UN, such amounting to subsidised discrimination;

4. Prohibits discrimination on grounds irrelevant to the nature of the service in the provision of private services, such as the segregation of private facilities or the charging of differential rates, and specifically prohibits any restrictive covenants, such as used in the sale of land or property, containing such provisions;

5. Declares that no business engaging in such forms of discrimination as prohibited by Articles 1 and 4 of this resolution may engage in international trade with member nations, and that where they fall under the jurisdiction of member governments must be prohibited from domestic trade until they achieve conformity with international law;

6. Promotes national and local programs designed to promote equality of opportunity for all, recognising that approaches may vary dependent on particular circumstances.

The UN has passed much - almost, and I say this from an egalitarian viewpoint, too much - anti-discrimination legislation, but it hasn't really dealt with private discrimination. What we've tried to do in this draft is avoid a simple list approach, and instead to get at the central point: discrimination on irrelevant grounds. Has it succeeded? Or will the free market work everything out anyway?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Department of UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

OOC: What about the slavery repeal/replace? Yes, yes, that's still on. But I don't have time to TG for it right now, plus there may be a couple of other repeals coming up and I really don't want an already contentious repeal to become waaaaahmbulance roadkill. I have already discussed this with New Leicestershire, but apologies to him again anyway (although I think his proposal can be submitted before the repeal anyway anyway). Three proposals? Yes, I obviously will only have time to TG for one, if that. But I was getting bogged down and thought I'd try something different. Whichever is the most workable - not necessarily popular - I may go with. Do you have no life whatsoever? No, no I don't.

We would like to object to this proposal.
We find that people feel more comfortable when they are taught/served/interact with someone who understands their culture and point of view. If this means that we need to use certain criteria based on race and/or nationality so-be-it. Take for an example of a promotion to manage a new department as the business is branching into OMGIKK. You have two candidates, both excellent employees, both fluent in Kennyian having both spent a 5yr internship there, but one has a Kennyite father. He will therefore understand and work with the Kennyites better and will be the obvious choice.
If you can excuse mentality and physical criteria you can exclude race.

Ambassador Jawey

We would like to object to this proposal.
We find that people feel more comfortable when they are taught/served/interact with someone who understands their culture and point of view.

Quite right! I couldn't agree more; it's hardly the height of pleasure when I order soup and some poor foreign waiter proceeds to spoon-feed me. I much prefer to do it myself, and not the Yithonian way.

If this means that we need to use certain criteria based on race and/or nationality so-be-it. Take for an example of a promotion to manage a new department as the business is branching into OMGIKK. You have two candidates, both excellent employees, both fluent in Kennyian having both spent a 5yr internship there, but one has a Kennyite father. He will therefore understand and work with the Kennyites better and will be the obvious choice.

Poppycock. If they are both equal, then one should flip a coin. Parentage is no indication of ability; for all we know his "Kennyite" father is a Xt'Tap militant.

If you can excuse mentality and physical criteria you can exclude race.

Absolutely ludicrous. Race is no indication of ability. Such statements engender racial distrust are are frankly wrong-headed.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotentiary

We would like to object to this proposal.
We find that people feel more comfortable when they are taught/served/interact with someone who understands their culture and point of view. If this means that we need to use certain criteria based on race and/or nationality so-be-it. Take for an example of a promotion to manage a new department as the business is branching into OMGIKK. You have two candidates, both excellent employees, both fluent in Kennyian having both spent a 5yr internship there, but one has a Kennyite father. He will therefore understand and work with the Kennyites better and will be the obvious choice.
If you can excuse mentality and physical criteria you can exclude race.Well, first off, Kennyites speak English, and as it is widely spoken in the NS world and is the official language of the NS United Nations, it shouldn't be too difficult to locate one or two candidates who "spoke the language," so to speak. We would gravely have to agree with the Snefaldian representative (especially the part about Xt'Tap militants): parentage is no indication of whether or not someone could handle the job of managing a Kennyite store. A kevlar vest and a grenade launcher, maybe, but parentage is neither here nor there, and generally there is no good excuse for discriminating on the basis of ethnicity, race or nationality.

And we're still awaiting the inevitable joke that being Kennyite isn't necessarily a plus. Ah, well.

My mistake, I didn't bother to do any research on which nations speak which languages, but then the wonder of these earphones makes me forget who speaks what.

But if the Snefaldian Ambassador agrees with my first point how exactly do they propose that such an employee exists if all aspects of that person are not included?

1. Declares that no employer may discriminate in their relations with employees, including hiring, firing, promotion, compensation, and assignment of bonuses and benefits, based on grounds irrelevant to the nature of the employment, such as ethnicity, sex, matters of personal preference and conscience, or national origin;

Surely the generous loophole in clause 1 gives plenty of scope to discriminate where it is relevant; for example, where a human wetnurse is required, the employer is going to have to discriminate on the grounds of sex and, if non-humans apply, possibly race as well. But he or she is protected by clause 2:

2. Emphasises that the above does not preclude requirements for specific capabilities that are related to the nature of the employment, such as requirements for specific physical or mental capabilities, though encouraging full and clear advertisement of such requirements, and that reasonable accommodations be made towards those otherwise well suited to the employment;

And the words "such as" make it clear that these are merely examples, not an attempt to list what requirements employers may discriminate on. Ms Benson has already explained that the intention of the proposal is to avoid the "list" approach.

I'd appreciate clarification of a phrase in Clause 3: "such restrictions". What restrictions? It seems unlikely that the admirably clear Ms Benson has upheld the right to freedom of association, and then endorsed some undefined restrictions on it, but that's the way I'm reading that clause at the moment.

My compliments to her, by the way, on the decidedly muscular wording of Clause 5.

In view of the uncompromising approach taken in this clause, I accept that nations should run a magnifiying glass over anything that defines or seems to define the circumstances in which these penalties should be applied.

But I think it would be a mistake to go beyond that justifiable care by demanding what the QoDdite delegation has already said they don't intend to supply.

-- Dicey Reilly, unjustly President for Life of Ardchoille.

I thank those who, in my absence, have rebuffed the racist trash thus far offered in opposition.

I appreciate President Reilly's comments, though I am not sure the first two are directed at me. If they are, sorry to have ignored them.
I'd appreciate clarification of a phrase in Clause 3: "such restrictions". What restrictions? It seems unlikely that the admirably clear Ms Benson has upheld the right to freedom of association, and then endorsed some undefined restrictions on it, but that's the way I'm reading that clause at the moment.
That's bad writing on my part; I think I forgot what I wrote in clause 2. What I suppose I meant to say was: private organizations can discriminate in membership if they wish to, so long as those discriminated against have a similar right of freedom of association (and hence the opportunity to join a different organization). 'such requirements' would have been more consistent, but that would actually imply their requirements could only be made on grounds of relevancy, which wasn't really my intention: they can - though I obviously don't condone it - make totally arbitrary and irrelevant requirements should they wish.
But I think it would be a mistake to go beyond that justifiable care by demanding what the QoDdite delegation has already said they don't intend to supply.
It's not that, if absolutely necessary, I won't include a list, it's just that I'd rather not, for three reasons:
1. including any 'suspect category' only adds to the impression that such categories might be worth discriminating against in the first place;
2. inevitably, someone will be left out (thus for example, when the Quodite constitution was amended, it first barred discrimination based on race, and only later on grounds of sex, and only still later on grounds of sexual orientation, and no doubt there are now minority groups - whose plights I by no means wish to minimise - who feel that is still not inclusive enough);
3. a list feels like it is simply identifying certain specific 'badnesses' and casting against them: trying to employ an abstract definition at least entails getting to the root of the fundamental problem.

Thank you for the comments thus far, and I am sorry I was away for so long having newly presented it.

-- Samantha Benson

With regard to clause #1, with its reference to 'national origin' not generally being allowed as valid grounds for discrimination:
Would this would still let national governments set limits on foreigners' entry into their nation for the pupose of taking employment? Presumably the possession of a valid 'work permit' (or 'green card', or whatver your nation chooses to call such paperwork) could legally be counted as a "specific capability" as mentioned in clause #2?

(I'm aware that this proposal actually targets employers rather than governments, but of course there are many cases in which governments are employers... Would this proposal, as currently worded, make it illegal for them to give their own people priority over foreigners?)

Racist trash! Indeed, I'd be hurt if I didn't know we supported people's desires to be strong independant nationals.

But this does not stop the fact that no-one but a Gaffan citizen, born on Gaffan soil or of Gaffan parents will ever be a member of our government and associated bodies and we will not make any so-called 'reasonable accommodation'. But I have heard some nations are less strict on who may hold power - willing or not. *flashes a sharktoothed grin towards the Ardchoillean delegation*

But enough of that, perhaps you are unaware that many nations have a positive discrimination policy?

Or that one could simply make sure paid maternity leave was unavailable in governmental depapartments - that would make sure it would be an unappealing option for women. If you intend to do this you might as well do it properly:
'or any such restriction that while not ostensibly descriminatory in nature is discriminatory in effect.'
That would probably do the trick.

Ambss. Gohn Jawey,
National of Feltham Territory,
6th generation citizen of The Gaffan Territories.

Racist trash! Indeed, I'd be hurt if I didn't know we supported people's desires to be strong independant nationals.

But this does not stop the fact that no-one but a Gaffan citizen, born on Gaffan soil or of Gaffan parents will ever be a member of our government and associated bodies and we will not make any so-called 'reasonable accommodation'.

If the ambassador does not appreciate the irony of these adjacent sentences, we fear there is no hope for him.

With regard to clause #1, with its reference to 'national origin' not generally being allowed as valid grounds for discrimination:
Would this would still let national governments set limits on foreigners' entry into their nation for the pupose of taking employment? Presumably the possession of a valid 'work permit' (or 'green card', or whatver your nation chooses to call such paperwork) could legally be counted as a "specific capability" as mentioned in clause #2?
Yes, I believe it would. Having a legal capacity to work is clearly a relevant requirement; and this proposal does not prevent nations from excluding immigrants from obtaining such. Not that I condone such 'nativist' policies, but I do recognise it's not this proposal's (nor, perhaps, any's - a discussion for another time) place to legislate against them.

-- Samantha Benson

If the ambassador does not appreciate the irony of these adjacent sentences, we fear there is no hope for him.

And you do not appreciate Gaffan politics. Or the differences between a national and a citizen.
For that matter...perhaps independent needs to be defined for the esteemed gentleman?

We thank the ambassador for such a determined demonstration that he is indeed blessedly free from any need of rust-proofing.

I will be naming my yacht after you. The Ooh-Cutty Sark.