NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a proposal we were considering as a possible replacement for Rights of Women and Minorities, recently repealed. (All hail Glog!!)

Edit: It has been submitted, hopefully for the last time. PLEASE APPROVE!! Thanks.

Fairness and Equality Act (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=fairness) << approval link
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states;

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.

Leaving aside the usual arguments about why a matter like this -- for which any national government's decisions would normally have no direct effects on any other nations -- should actually be considered a relevant topic for international legislation...

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


Does the term "background or lifestyle choice" cover choosing to live by theft and/or other criminal activities? Or persistently poor personal & domestic hygiene, which might (for example) make some other people understandably reluctant to provide the people concerned with housing? Or refusal to pay (as is locally considered 'proper') taxes, rents, and/or utility bills? Does it mean that any healthcare systems that are partly or wholely publicly-funded can not charge patients at higher rates if their medical problems include "self-inflicted" elements (e.g. injuries from dangerous sports, or liver damage due to excessive consumption of alcohol, or side-effects of over-eating...), or require that those patients change their ways as a condition for treatment?

You use the term "discrimination": As I have already pointed out in several previous discussions in these halls, that simply means 'choice' or 'selectiveness'... What I think (or, at least, "hope") you really want to ban should actually be described as 'unfair discrimination' instead...

I hope that forbidding discrimination on the grounds of "economic background" doesn't rule out allowing financial charges for the services concerned: It isn't meant to do so, is it?

Why don't you also object to (unfair) discrimination in these matters on the grounds of age?

Oh, and some nations' codes of laws might just define all offenses as offense, pure and simple, and not include the concept of a 'civil'/'criminal' classification such as you mention here...

I don't know if this comes from a lack of knowledge of the English language.... but what does the resolution mean by "public services". Does it mean services offered to the general public? Services offered by the state? or something entirely different?

I would agree with St Edmundan Antarctic in that unfair discrimination would be a better term. At least in the preamble's AFFIRMING clause. As for the first operative clause, I believe it would be redundant. This clause already implies what would constitute unfair discrimination.

I too agree in that "lifestyle choice" is too vague. Perhaps something like "legitimate lifestyle choices" would make more sense.

There are entities, as has been previously noted, that should be legally allowed to charge higher fees depending on the lifestyle choices of their customers. Insurance would be a clear example. The proposal seems to put those institution in a serious problem. Higher fees could well be considered discrimination.

As for economic background ruling out financial charges, I would not interpret it that way. In this case we would understand economic background as the socioeconomic antecedents, (do you come from a rich or poor family, neighborhood, etc) or general situation (if you want to buy this luxury car you must live in such or such high end zone). We would not take it to mean "ability to pay".

We would also include forbidding discrimination based on age, though most care should be put into doing so. Once again, there are situation in which discrimination based on age is perfectly acceptable. Once again insurance seems a proper example.

Hope this helps

We find it curious that this proposal seeks to limit itself to public services. Those are indeed the services provided to the general public by the government, sometimes indirectly, but we see no reason to distinguish them from any other service or business on this occasion.

We do, however, see a need to distinguish between general purpose services open to all, and special purpose services (and likewise clubs, societies and the like) which are specifically intended only to reach certain segments of society. An able-bodied person should not expect to receive much attention at an athletics club designated for those missing one or more legs, for instance, and nor necessarily should a man expect much joy from classes for mothers-to-be.

We of Roseariea find this to be a most beneficial proposal worthy of our full support. The only quibble we have is that seemingly shared by the Logopians:

"background or lifestyle choice"

is very vague indeed, and there are certainly some backgrounds (convicted terrorist) which we would prefer we be allowed to discriminate against in filling certain areas of employment (fellow who mans the large red button).

A great proposal though, we will support it when you feel it is most ready.

- Gordon Tills, Roseariean ambassador

OOC: Not that I wouldn't support this(though certaintly Douria won't), but doesn't this just about ban the government type of Tyranny by Majority? So does R99 though.

Wow, I'm pretty liberal but the more I delve into the resolutions the more liberal I notice this body is(albeit these are mild compared to some I see). What's up with that?

I would agree with St Edmundan Antarctic in that unfair discrimination would be a better term. At least in the preamble's AFFIRMING clause. As for the first operative clause, I believe it would be redundant. This clause already implies what would constitute unfair discrimination.

I too agree in that "lifestyle choice" is too vague. Perhaps something like "legitimate lifestyle choices" would make more sense.We'll simply change the language to "gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background." That should address most concerns with the first preambulatory clause.

As for economic background ruling out financial charges, I would not interpret it that way. In this case we would understand economic background as the socioeconomic antecedents, (do you come from a rich or poor family, neighborhood, etc) or general situation (if you want to buy this luxury car you must live in such or such high end zone). We would not take it to mean "ability to pay".This is our interpretation as well. Without seeing any strong arguments to sway us, we will keep the language as is.

We would also include forbidding discrimination based on age, though most care should be put into doing so. Once again, there are situation in which discrimination based on age is perfectly acceptable. Once again insurance seems a proper example.We're inclined to avoid the question of age discrimination. If a modeling agency wants only to employ young models, we see no reason why they shouldn't be empowered to do so. If companies want to require someone to have reached a certain age before taking on a job with serious responsibilities, we see no reason why they shouldn't, either. Even the RL U.S. government bars citizens below the age of 25 to run for Congress. Certainly this does not mean that elderly people should be discriminated against for jobs that any able-bodied person can reasonably do, but we don't know how to ban age discrimination without also allowing schools and businesses to require a minimum age, or even governments to pass laws regarding age of consent. This is a subject probably best reserved for a separate proposal.

We find it curious that this proposal seeks to limit itself to public services. Those are indeed the services provided to the general public by the government, sometimes indirectly, but we see no reason to distinguish them from any other service or business on this occasion.Nor do we. We had intended to include services offered by private entities, but perhaps our choice of language was a bit vague. Would "services offered to the general public" fix it?

We do, however, see a need to distinguish between general purpose services open to all, and special purpose services (and likewise clubs, societies and the like) which are specifically intended only to reach certain segments of society. An able-bodied person should not expect to receive much attention at an athletics club designated for those missing one or more legs, for instance, and nor necessarily should a man expect much joy from classes for mothers-to-be.This is actually a very good point. Suggestions on how to incorporate it into the next draft?

ooc:Apart from the fact my nation would oppose this with all its hearts (one per territory!) the biggest problem I can see is education:
single sex schools
Foreign schools i.e. ones set up for kids of foreign workers
Free schools that are only for the poor
Religious schools
Educational programs that insist on an economic minimum to ensure they can afford it. i.e. study abroad programs

In fact you can probably find a case for each of your criteria except sexual orientation.

We're inclined to avoid the question of age discrimination. If a modeling agency wants only to employ young models, we see no reason why they shouldn't be empowered to do so. If companies want to require someone to have reached a certain age before taking on a job with serious responsibilities, we see no reason why they shouldn't, either. Even the RL U.S. government bars citizens below the age of 25 to run for Congress. Certainly this does not mean that elderly people should be discriminated against for jobs that any able-bodied person can reasonably do, but we don't know how to ban age discrimination without also allowing schools and businesses to require a minimum age, or even governments to pass laws regarding age of consent. This is a subject probably best reserved for a separate proposal.

Wouldn't all of the examples that you cite probably count as 'fair', discrimination? If so then, if you aimed this proposal more clearly at only the 'unfair' version, including age in the list of factors still wouldn't rule them out...

Oh, and isn't unfair discrimination in the field of Education already covered well enough by clause#3 of the UNEAA?
3. Condemns all forms of unfair and unreasonable discrimination with national educational systems, and motions for effective remedies to such;
(Assuming that where the latter law says "with" it should actually be read as saying "within", anyway... ;))

Edit: Doesn't forbidding discrimination on the grounds of religion in the field of employment effectively ban theocracies, given that they would require all candidates for at least some government jobs to be members of specific faiths?

H'mm, and come to think of it, if you're still banning "discrimination" rather than just "unfair discrimination", don't you really need to exempt religious organisations in general from the prohibition against discriminating on religious grounds?

Later Edit: Wouldn't this proposal's proposed ban on discrimination due to "economic or cultural background" be incompatible with the continued existence of hereditary Caste Systems, such as the one that has been intrinsic to mainstream Hinduism for somewhere between two and three millennia? Mightn't that clause therefore count as an ideological ban and thus make the proposal illegal?

ooc:Apart from the fact my nation would oppose this with all its hearts (one per territory!) the biggest problem I can see is education:
single sex schools
Foreign schools i.e. ones set up for kids of foreign workers
Free schools that are only for the poor
Religious schools
Educational programs that insist on an economic minimum to ensure they can afford it. i.e. study abroad programs

In fact you can probably find a case for each of your criteria except sexual orientation.I agree, at least in part, which is why I solicited suggestions for incorporating some of these concerns into the text. Do you think that simply specifying (to borrow from our Gruenbergian friends) "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination would cover it, or does it require something more legalistic?

Oh, and isn't unfair discrimination in the field of Education already covered well enough by clause#3 of the UNEAA?Well, since this document seeks to outlaw discrimination in education, and the text you quote merely "condemns" it, I would say not.

Edit: Doesn't forbidding discrimination on the grounds of religion in the field of employment effectively ban theocracies, given that they would require all candidates for at least some government jobs to be members of specific faiths?Even if I was willing to accept this theory, wouldn't you have to agree that theocracies have already been "banned" under Discrimination Accord?

Even if I was willing to accept this theory, wouldn't you have to agree that theocracies have already been "banned" under Discrimination Accord?

Have we?

I agree, at least in part, which is why I solicited suggestions for incorporating some of these concerns into the text. Do you think that simply specifying (to borrow from our Gruenbergian friends) "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination would cover it, or does it require something more legalistic?
That seems workable to me.

Well, since this document seeks to outlaw discrimination in education, and the text you quote merely "condemns" it, I would say not.
3. Condemns all forms of unfair and unreasonable discrimination with national educational systems, and motions for effective remedies to such;
Doesn't the second half of that clause mean "tells people to stop it"?

Even if I was willing to accept this theory,

Which part of my suggestion were you classifying as (just) a 'theory'? Was it _
a/ The fact that the concept of 'Theocracy' involves government, according to the teachings & traditions of a specific faith, by members of that faith's own religious hierarchy;
b/ The fact that membership in religious hierarchies is normally reserved for members of the religions concerned;
c/ The fact that your proposal's current wording would seemingly force those hierarchies to open their ranks to "unbelievers" too, which would not only be anathema to true believers in those faiths (Okay, except perhaps in the case of a few very 'inclusive' faiths: Do we have any Unitarian thocracies around here, yet?) but would almost certainly reduce the likelihood of the governments that were drawn from those hierarchies governing along the the "correct" principles;
d/ The idea that such a change would therefore constitute an effective ban on (genuine) Theocracies... unless we assume that al such regimes would be so fortunate as to have no politically-ambitious unbelievers present within their jurisidictions;
or
e/ The fact that 'Theocracy' has already been officially ruled to be an accepted "ideology" in the context of the rule against ideological bans?

wouldn't you have to agree that theocracies have already been "banned" under Discrimination Accord?

No, because that resolution's wording contained several loopholes that I think your proposal would close:
The list of (numbered) rights that it REQUIRES nations to fairly and equally apply are specifically for "citizens", with no definition of the latter term, so that theocracies could simply define non-believers as non-citizens and then deny them any or all of those rights (including the right to participate in government).
It doesn't apply to employment, and so religious organisations could still limit their recrutiment to genuine members of their chosen faiths... and then governments could require previous employement in specific organisations as a prerequisite for employment in government, and if those organisations just happened to be religious in nature I don't think that that would violate the resolution's wording...
It allows nations to claim exemption from its rules in "especial conditions" or "extreme conditions"... Maybe theocracies could legitimately say that their having been organised as theocracies in the first place -- so that any unbelievers entering them, or residents converting to other faiths, would already know that they'd have no say in the government -- fell under that heading, with the rule against discrimination on religious grounds in such matters then being applicable only to those supposedly-pluralist nations in which the dominance of specific religions was less official in nature?


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the United Nations
for
The Protectorate of The St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this confusticated penguin costume...)


_________________________________________________________________

OOC
I don't recall ever having read the 'Discrimination Accords' before this. They were passed before I started playing the game, and I must somehow have overlooked them when catching-up on the applicable laws.

ooc: First resolution I read to make sure my idea for a state was possible. Hence the difference between 'nationals' and 'citizens' in the GT, a tiny minority have the status of the latter.

I'm not sure if asking for the help of a nation opposed to any anti-negative-descrimination legislation would be a good idea, unless you want it full of loopholes! :D In that vein 'unreasonable' would probably suit the GTUN Office just fine.

Thanks for the comments; I'll do my best to respond to them later. In the meantime, this has been submitted, though I'm probably not going to telegram for it. Since my intended title didn't fit in the title box, it's called "Fairness and Equality Act." To find it, search for "fairness" on the site search engine.

Fairness and Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, provided the discriminatory practices are applied on irrelevant grounds of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states.

ooc: ... full of loopholes! :D In that vein 'unreasonable' would probably suit the GTUN Office just fine.That's not the loophole you're looking for. *jedi handwave* Reasonable nation theory, good sir, reasonable nation.

SG: We've added our approval. Good luck.

Okay, with this restriction to "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination, my government can (without actually conceding that this is a sufficiently trans-national matter to be a fitting subject for UN legislation) live with it...

If you can find anything in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536490) that's of use you're welcome to use it.

Doesn't the second half of that clause mean "tells people to stop it"?No, it's basically throw-away language that says, "This is bad, and you guys should do something about it," without providing any specific instructions on the matter.

*wall of text*OK, so do you really think theocracies couldn't reasonably function under this proposal? If working to promote certain beliefs actually required private adherence to said beliefs, all lawyers and celebrity spokespersons in the world would be unemployed. I think theocracies could still hire able-bodied people outside their own religion to promote their religious rule over the country (although I don't know how many people outside said religion would actually apply to take such jobs). Since this does not neutralize theocracies or their effectiveness of rule, I doubt this would constitute an ideological ban.

I'm not sure if asking for the help of a nation opposed to any anti-negative-descrimination legislation would be a good idea, unless you want it full of loopholes! :D In that vein 'unreasonable' would probably suit the GTUN Office just fine.You may want to take lessons from the St Edmund Antarcticans on loophole-hunting; when a resolution strictly forbids "unreasonable" discrimination, I just don't see how it would reasonably allow you to discriminate.

If you can find anything in this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536490) that's of use you're welcome to use it.Actually, I saw it a couple days ago after conducting a post search; it's pretty good. If I do decide to use anything from it, I'll post it here first, or do my best to contact you privately.

As a general note, I'm going to wait to see how Glog's repeal goes before making any further decisions on this proposal. Hopefully it will succeed.

ic: (ooc: cos I can be ruder that way :p)
Ok...suddenly someone I was viewing in a neutral way, i.e. another hippie reformer has gone way downhill in my estimation.
I think your understanding of English is a little off, I asked one of my secretaries to get down The Big Fat BookTM and look up this word you have trouble with.
un·rea·son·a·ble adj.
1. Not governed by reason: an unreasonable attitude.
2. Exceeding reasonable limits; immoderate: unreasonable demands.

rea·son·a·ble adj.
1. Capable of reasoning; rational: a reasonable person.
2. Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.
3. Being within the bounds of common sense: arrive home at a reasonable hour.
4. Not excessive or extreme; fair: reasonable prices.
when a resolution strictly forbids "unreasonable" discrimination, I just don't see how it would reasonably allow you to discriminate.
To stop unreasonable discrimination = banning reasonable. Now my advisor is a be-tard lawyer and not even he can explain how that works. Nearest he could come up with is that the court's version of unreasonable is different for your view. I'm sure that is an easily solveable issue anyway.

Now it is in my thinking reasonable to discriminate in certain circumstances. I am sure from the arguments previously made that others think so too. It is reasonable to encourage people not qualified for one type of job to apply for one more fitting. It is reasonable to negatively discriminate against appointing stupid people from jobs requiring people to think intelligently in most countries....It is reasonable to positively discriminate by giving disabled people more accessible parking.
Of course reasonability relies on perspective - it would be reasonable to burn this proposal and give you sick leave in my nation. Unfortunately this would be seen as unreasonable by most people here.

Anyone got a match?

Protection of women and minorities? Bah! The Kolnesian empire have consulted the allfather Shub-Duk Niv'fl, and have concluded that we do not wish to support such an unreasonable act!

Just a thought about the title: Is this really accurate? After all, the proposal would seem to protect majorities (from prosecution by minorities) too...

Just a thought about the title: Is this really accurate? After all, the proposal would seem to protect majorities (from prosecution by minorities) too...
Fairness and Equality Act? I don't think he was able to use the original title.

Anyway, this is coming along nicely and we look forward to seeing it submitted after the passage of the current repeal.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

OK, short update: the first run got about halfway there without TG support, which hopefully bodes well for its chances at reaching quorum. Glog's repeal seems to be succeeding, and without jinxing the whole thing, its passage will save me from having to ask for a legality ruling. I can't promise you this will be submitted the minute Repeal RoMaW passes, but I am planning on a follow-up submission, with full TG support, in the short term. Thanks.

Fairness and Equality Act? I don't think he was able to use the original title.

Anyway, this is coming along nicely and we look forward to seeing it submitted after the passage of the current repeal.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

'Protection Against Prejudice'?
'Protection Against Persecution'?

Protection of Women and MinoritiesIf the laws of a nations are set up to protect all citizens on equal bases then why single out 'Women and Minorites' as next you will want to add 'One eared three horned seven toed nerds' to get special treatments or be treated like any other citizen of that nation when if they are citizens of the nation they have the same rights as other citizens.. Thus work on getting citizens of all nations on an equal level not one group at a time but all at once.


Mandate that all citizens of UN member nations have certain rights, then leave it up to each nation to set the standards to become a citizen of their nation. Or try to set up citizenship rules for all UN member nations.... As until that happens there will always be discrimination in nations due to citizenship requirements and the rights citizens have inside the nation over visitors or non citizens... which some will call discrimination if a nation allows a citizen to see a doctor free in nation and charges visitors.. or something else along this line....... so until you get all at the same place there will always be discrimination.

That old idea 'created equal' ended when they crawled out of the womb and started to learn to walk on life's road or run down it. As people earn where they are in life and if they don't work don't need to be handed things on some welfare system and this will lead to greater welfare because foks will say you discriminate if one works hard and can buy a car and another wants to steal one and call it work...

This is a proposal we were considering as a possible replacement for Rights of Women and Minorities, a repeal for which has been the subject of recent discussion. We're not quite sure if this qualifies as "duplication," however, so obviously a submission of this proposal may be contingent on the success of G l o g's repeal (but hopefully not).

<snipped for brevity>

Please be merciless and point out all potential flaws or problems, to help improve this legislation and increase its chances of passage; all comments, suggestions, questions, etc. will be welcomed.

Thanks.

I'd like to see a title for the proposal that accurately reflects its purpose of attacking discrimination by private entities.

Perhaps "End Barbaric Discriminations" or "Fair Treatment in the Private Sector". That sort of thing.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

At least this is in coherent language.

I am proposing the following additions to this act:

Fairness and Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod*

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for groups which are under threat or possibility of discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;

REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, provided the discriminatory practices are applied on irrelevant grounds of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, language, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

2. The prohibitions which are noted firstly, shall be extended to international relations within the sphere of this United Nations and will guide moderate, tolerant and undiscriminatory negotiations between member states.

3. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states.

----

Reasoning for additions:
- "groups which are under threat or possibility of discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background"
This has been added to extend our mandate beyond simply women and minority groups, which seems to be the purpose of the rebranding of this proposal.

- I've pointed out languages specifically as it has become apparent via some of the conversations in the discussion thread of the repeal that many nations do not respect the uses of various dialects which are used in discussion. This would be covered under various other points within, but I feel it deserves special mention.

- The Addition of #2 is simply because I feel that such rulings must apply not only in our dealings within our nations, but in contact between them as well. This will prohibit the negative commentary towards nations who use other 'dialects' of language within negotiations and allow for the full expression of their culture and such, even in an international setting.

I am proposing the following additions to this act:

- "groups which are under threat or possibility of discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background"
This has been added to extend our mandate beyond simply women and minority groups, which seems to be the purpose of the rebranding of this proposal.



We of Roseariea are in favour of SchutteGod's proposal and also of the additions suggested by the noble Evoinian delegate. Further, we suggest the inclusion of physical and metal handicap as valuable additions. Reasonable access to housing, public services, education and employment ought to be extended to these groups as well.

We also greatly approve of the treatment of language issues brought up and feel it important to be inclusive in that regard.

Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador

At least this is in coherent language.
Yes. Rather refreshing to see proper grammar being employed in these halls, is it not?

http://209.85.48.12/html/emoticons/ninja.gif

I would second the additions which are proposed by the honorable delegate of Roseariea as well. As he is correct, such groups are left out in the cold by the current wording of the proposal and must be included as well.

Also, I would propose that we devise measures which will ensure the enaction of this document that does not infringe on independant sovergnity of nations.

Maximillian Renault, Ambassador of Evoinia.

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for groups which are under threat or possibility of discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;I see no need to alter the language of this clause.

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, provided the discriminatory practices are applied on irrelevant grounds of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, language, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;Proscribing against discrimination based on language might be doable; the only problem being, most language discrimination in employment is fair: if most of your customers speak English, it makes sense to require applicants to speak that language. If you're English-speakers looking for an Arab-language interpreter, it makes sense for applicants to speak both Arabic and English. As far as access to services for minority-language customers and clients, most of the time it's a simple matter of lack of resources. Many small businesses simply can't afford to hire an interpreter or translator. I think the "unfair and unreasonable" proviso should cover it, but if I'm wrong, someone let me know.

2. The prohibitions which are noted firstly, shall be extended to international relations within the sphere of this United Nations and will guide moderate, tolerant and undiscriminatory negotiations between member states.I don't understand what this is about at all; this resolution specifically relates to how nations treat persons under their jurisdictions internally. Diplomacy is an entirely separate matter. If the intent of this is to prevent ambassadors from yelling at Glog for bad grammar, I don't think there's a way to prevent that legislatively.

Further, we suggest the inclusion of physical and metal handicap as valuable additions. Reasonable access to housing, public services, education and employment ought to be extended to these groups as well.Luckily, physically impaired persons are already covered under Rights of the Disabled (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421247&postcount=161) -- although their protection from violence under Clause 2 may also be a consideration, so I will consider adding "disability or physical condition" to the mix (even if this laundry list is getting quite hefty).


At the risk of derailing this proposal on a side issue, I was also considering adding language prohibiting racial profiling in policing; is there a way to prohibit stopping or detaining persons solely on the basis of [insert condition here], or are there too many legal ramifications to consider to do it easily? Should it just be saved for a separate resolution?

At the risk of derailing this proposal on a side issue, I was also considering adding language prohibiting racial profiling in policing; is there a way to prohibit stopping or detaining persons solely on the basis of [insert condition here], or are there too many legal ramifications to consider to do it easily? Should it just be saved for a separate resolution?
I would advise steering clear of that. Racial profiling is a distasteful practice but it's probably a bit nit-picky to go into that much detail in this resolution. I'm also not sure it can be addressed without running afoul of earlier legislation (I'll check on that).

I'm assuming that this is the most up to date text:
Fairness and Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, provided the discriminatory practices are applied on irrelevant grounds of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states.
This looks good but I have a few comments.
provided the discriminatory practices are applied on irrelevant grounds
Something bugs me about "irrelevant" being thrown in there. I'm not sure how I would fix it just yet but there must be a clearer way of wording that.

gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;
Also, the list is very long and some of the terms could be seen as overlapping.
civil and criminal offense
Do you really want to address civil law in member states?

Other than those (admittedly minor) complaints it looks good.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

I see no need to alter the language of this clause.

I would respectfully disagree, as the language used is specific to only minorities and women, where as your naming of the act implies overall protection against discrimination for a greater number (in a perfect world, all) of the groups in society. Thus, to be more specific to what the rest of the document is speaking towards, then I believe this chance should be made.

Proscribing against discrimination based on language might be doable; the only problem being, most language discrimination in employment is fair: if most of your customers speak English, it makes sense to require applicants to speak that language. If you're English-speakers looking for an Arab-language interpreter, it makes sense for applicants to speak both Arabic and English. As far as access to services for minority-language customers and clients, most of the time it's a simple matter of lack of resources. Many small businesses simply can't afford to hire an interpreter or translator. I think the "unfair and unreasonable" proviso should cover it, but if I'm wrong, someone let me know.
I would think that proviso would indeed cover such an instance, though you are correct some people might take issue with it.

I don't understand what this is about at all; this resolution specifically relates to how nations treat persons under their jurisdictions internally. Diplomacy is an entirely separate matter. If the intent of this is to prevent ambassadors from yelling at Glog for bad grammar, I don't think there's a way to prevent that legislatively.

Wel my thought would be if were going to enforce this internally so then should we equally do so in the international stage. It may not be preventable but I would hope the spirit of such a clause would carry into our discussions.

Luckily, physically impaired persons are already covered under Rights of the Disabled (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421247&postcount=161) -- although their protection from violence under Clause 2 may also be a consideration, so I will consider adding "disability or physical condition" to the mix (even if this laundry list is getting quite hefty).

I'd again still think it would be worth mentioning, even with a reference to the previous act as a precendent to it, as most other groups are mentioned.

At the risk of derailing this proposal on a side issue, I was also considering adding language prohibiting racial profiling in policing; is there a way to prohibit stopping or detaining persons solely on the basis of [insert condition here], or are there too many legal ramifications to consider to do it easily? Should it just be saved for a separate resolution?
Well, I would think that this issue would be at least already implied by ideals of this proposal... though, I think it would be best to create a second proposal for that issue once this one has passed, I mean as you said the laundry list is already quite long and this issue would deserve a seperate resolution to be fully delt with.

It looks to be a very sound and well written proposal. I cannot at the moment find anything that makes it weak or anything that has been left out. excellent work.

I had a long comment, then realize you haven't updated the original post to reflect changes. Do that.

It's good by the way.

the daft invader supports this wholeheartedly

Generally, I think trying to write an act which pinpoints "women and children" or "women and minorities", whatever, is useless. It's such a narrow scope that it will HAVE to be modified in the future. What about the civil rights of space aliens? Oh, we don't have any right now? But what about in 50 years?

All I'm saying if you need to look into the future to see what can be fallable with the legislation. I would say if you are going to craft this bill, that you include ALL sexes (known and unknown), races and creeds (known and unknown), instead of focusing strictly on women and "minorities".

This sounds good, but because we're so definition happy, I just have a few complaints:
Define Discrimination
Define Prohibited
Define Discriminatory Practices
Define Unprovoked
Define Violence
Define Intimidation
Define Offense

Because, like some people are saying, definitions must be clear or else people could misunderstand.

I would advise steering clear of that. Racial profiling is a distasteful practice but it's probably a bit nit-picky to go into that much detail in this resolution. I'm also not sure it can be addressed without running afoul of earlier legislation (I'll check on that).Thanks, I'll drop the issue.

Something bugs me about "irrelevant" being thrown in there. I'm not sure how I would fix it just yet but there must be a clearer way of wording that. What I was thinking when I added it was considerations of applicants'/potential clients' gender, race, etc., when those traits had nothing whatsoever to do with whether they'd do a good job. But since the "unfair and unreasonable" bit's been added, do you think we could just drop the word "irrelevant" from the clause altogether?

Also, the list is very long and some of the terms could be seen as overlapping.Yes, some of the items seem overlapping; it's only because I want there to be no question in some cases. Employers could say that they weren't discriminating based on race; they just hated the applicant's skin color. They had no idea what his race was; if he was Indian, Mexican, Pakistani, Arab, whatever. They just don't like brown folk (which isn't a race). Well, they can't weasel their way out of it; both traits are listed. It gets kind of cumbersome, but like you said that's a minor consideration.

Do you really want to address civil law in member states?If this is problematic, please give me examples. I don't want to run into any unnecessary problems down the road.

I would respectfully disagree, as the language used is specific to only minorities and women, where as your naming of the act implies overall protection against discrimination for a greater number (in a perfect world, all) of the groups in society. Thus, to be more specific to what the rest of the document is speaking towards, then I believe this chance should be made.No, it does not specify women or minorities; you're getting that from the old title, which has since been changed. It only states people shouldn't be targeted based on "gender" (nonspecific), "sexual orientation" (nonspecific), and "religious and cultural background" (nonspecific). That should cover everybody, male, female, minority, majority.

Wel my thought would be if were going to enforce this internally so then should we equally do so in the international stage. It may not be preventable but I would hope the spirit of such a clause would carry into our discussions.The clause will not be added.

I'd again still think it would be worth mentioning, even with a reference to the previous act as a precendent to it, as most other groups are mentioned.I'm inclined to agree, as the previous resolution does not take measures against violence and intimidation of handicapped persons. They should be protected under Clause 2 as well.

Generally, I think trying to write an act which pinpoints "women and children" or "women and minorities", whatever, is useless. It's such a narrow scope that it will HAVE to be modified in the future. What about the civil rights of space aliens? Oh, we don't have any right now? But what about in 50 years?

All I'm saying if you need to look into the future to see what can be fallable with the legislation. I would say if you are going to craft this bill, that you include ALL sexes (known and unknown), races and creeds (known and unknown), instead of focusing strictly on women and "minorities".Yeah, good thing that, when you read the actual proposal (and not just the thread title), neither women nor minorities are specified.

This sounds good, but because we're so definition happy, I just have a few complaints:
Define Discrimination
Define Prohibited
Define Discriminatory Practices
Define Unprovoked
Define Violence
Define Intimidation
Define Offense

Because, like some people are saying, definitions must be clear or else people could misunderstand.I don't like it when legislators add glossaries to their proposals, unless it cannot be avoided. It can be avoided in this instance. Only idiots would honestly try to definition-wank on those terms to get around the proposal's mandate. Alas, no UN resolution is idiot-proof.

Yeah, just to note: this is still on. We are pleased with the RoMaW repeal's success, as it saves us a legal hurdle. This can't be submitted this week, however, due to multiple reports of psychotic mutant turkeys terrorizing our cities and countrysides. Therefore, next week will be our target date. Thanks to all who have supported thus far; we will continue to field any questions or suggestions for improvement.

I look forward to seeing this come to vote, I'll be supporting it. The racial profiling part might be an obstacle to passing it, though. I would continue to endorse the proposal even if that were included, but I doubt everyone shares my view. Perhaps the best idea would be a separate proposal concentrating on racial profiling, that would be an appropriate place to really take care of that issue.

I have high hopes for this one, regardless.

-Gordon Tills, Roseariean Ambassador

No, it does not specify women or minorities; you're getting that from the old title, which has since been changed. It only states people shouldn't be targeted based on "gender" (nonspecific), "sexual orientation" (nonspecific), and "religious and cultural background" (nonspecific). That should cover everybody, male, female, minority, majority.

If the following remains in the document in that form, it does still infact specify in this one instance whereas the remainder of the document does not

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

To make things fit better, you'd have to change the words: 'women and members of minority groups' to something which matches the rest of your document's scope.

- Maximillian Renault, Vice-Commisar of The United Socialist States of Evoinia and Ambassador of the Progressive Allied Union.

...

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, provided the discriminatory practices are applied on irrelevant grounds of a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, language, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation...

(OOC Coherence: )

I think I would prefer some support for no discrimination via language. To use a somewhat touchy example-- the US. Say, in the next fifty years, we ended up with 50% of our population born Spanish-speakers. Assume we still hadn't gotten an official language. Half our population speaks Spanish at birth, and we suddenly decide to declare English the official language and ban any signs, books, pamphlets, labels, or anything else in Spanish (not that I think we actually would).

If we did that, this resolution (if, in this hypothetical situation, it was a US law in effect) would do nothing. They could STILL pass a law to that effect. It's true that "cultural background" part might cover it, making it an illegal law, but I'm sure we could find any number of corrupt "experts" to say that language had nothing to do with culture (since many different cultures can use the same language, of course) and that this was not illegal at all. On the other hand, I'm reasonably sure the Supreme Court would smack that argument down like the garbage it is.

But that's not the point. In a relatively moral culture, that wouldn't happen. But in a culture where the minority has sufficient strength to oppress the majority (or the majority suppress the fairly-large minority) and they WANT to do so, this resolution would provide no barrier to such a action.

Well, either that or I'm beign nitpicky. Who knows?

(IC Ficticious Random In-Dialect Blathering... am I even allowed to RP here? Not a clue: )

A young, short, pale white girl, short black hair pulled into a ponytail, stood up, looking somewhat uncertain and uncomfortable in the pristine white uniform she wore. Her thick glasses and nerdish, educated appearance decidedly at odds with the thick, unplaceable accent evident when she began to speak. "Us D-Jerseyans want ta say hat we support some protec'ion fer language. What wit' all them Swiss we got coming over here, an' all our wierd lil' dialec's an' pidgins an' creoles, we all know how you need ta protec' the right all'a us got to speak our lingos, and ta have signs an' sech we all kin unnerstan."

"Fr'instance, when you got fiddy people talking Italian, twenny jabbering in French, an' thirty yakking 'way in Piscataway; you gotta make some 'lowance fer them Francos and 'taways. They is a minority, but they still a purty damn big minority-- yeh cain't put all the signs in 'talian when half yer country don't be born speking hat way, let 'lone reading lik' hat."

--Billie K. Rogantini, Temporary Special Assistant to the Temporary Interim Special Ambassador, Borderlands of Delmarva Jersey

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;Heh. I thought I'd changed that clause before I submitted last time. Nonetheless, it's only a preambulatory clause, and nonbinding. The language in the operative section remains nonspecific.

(IC Ficticious Random In-Dialect Blathering... am I even allowed to RP here? Not a clue: )

OOC: Yup. Most of us RP here almost all the time.

But since the "unfair and unreasonable" bit's been added, do you think we could just drop the word "irrelevant" from the clause altogether?
Yes, I believe so. How about this:
1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public involving a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation, shall be prohibited by all member states;
Or this:
1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.
(i) Such actions would include discrimination based upon a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, economic or cultural background, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;
Does anyone see any possible problems or loopholes with either of those?

Yes, some of the items seem overlapping; it's only because I want there to be no question in some cases. Employers could say that they weren't discriminating based on race; they just hated the applicant's skin color. They had no idea what his race was; if he was Indian, Mexican, Pakistani, Arab, whatever. They just don't like brown folk (which isn't a race). Well, they can't weasel their way out of it; both traits are listed. It gets kind of cumbersome, but like you said that's a minor consideration.
It's fine, leave it the way it is. I was just worried that some would see the list and go "wall of text!" Now that I've thought on it some more it's better to cover all the bases so leave it alone.

If this is problematic, please give me examples. I don't want to run into any unnecessary problems down the road.
Nothing specific. During the drafting of No Ex Post Facto Laws I asked if it should be extended to include civil law. The Ausserland delegation responded with a resounding NO. That was bit different situation though because it dealt with EPF laws. I'm not sure it really applies here so leave "civil" in (unless Auss comes along and yells "Take It Out"!)

Will you need help with telegramming?

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Can we get a "current" draft containing everything, including category and strength? Would be handy.

Proscribing against discrimination based on language might be doable; the only problem being, most language discrimination in employment is fair: if most of your customers speak English, it makes sense to require applicants to speak that language.The scenario that repeatedly entails language-based discrimination usually revolves around workers speaking a non-dominant language informally in the work place. They speak the dominant language to the boss and to customers, but "fall back" to their native language when speaking with each other. Supervisors/bosses have been known to ban use of non-dominant languages even when not a necessity for the conduction of business.
Luckily, physically impaired persons are already covered under Rights of the Disabled (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11421247&postcount=161) -- although their protection from violence under Clause 2 may also be a consideration, so I will consider adding "disability or physical condition" to the mix (even if this laundry list is getting quite hefty).I second (third?) the request for a complete new draft, showing all changes.

Adding "disability or physical condition" (are you specifically excluding mental disabilty or condition? If not, perhaps worded: physical or mental disability or condition...) within the context of clause 2 (only) makes sense. If added in the more general clauses, does it not fall foul of UNR#160?

Wel my thought would be if were going to enforce this internally so then should we equally do so in the international stage.Other than conventions of diplomacy, this international body is already prohibiting from discriminating against a wide variety characteristics by Fairness and Equality UNR#88

Does anyone see any possible problems or loopholes with either of those?No loopholes, but the first option parses more clearly.

--L.T.

OOC: We find this title amusing as written: Protection of Women and Minorities {draft}As was just listening to a reminded for males when they reach 18 in US to go to post office and register for draft. So the word women and draft in this is amusing.. As if one looked at this then the US would be disicriminating by requiring only males to have to register for a draft and not females. Then allow females to join military and serve as equals to a drafted male or even over them. I recall back in my younger days a young lady gave me advice to go to Canada not join Army and end up in Nam. The only reason that females are not required to registers it a 'physical' thing 'their sex' thus if the US says they don't need to register to defend the nation then there must be some reason for it and females should not be treated equal or put in with men over them who 'face prison or having to leave nation' to avoid going into military service should a draft be reinstated. Unless they rich and have a papa who has friends can pull some ropes and get them out of it.

IC:Why single out one or two groups and give them protection as it would be easier to protect all citizens of a nations as equals in all areas. All they have to do is meet the requirements of citizenship and thus they are equal and not discriminated against... Those that don't meet citizenship requirements here have no rights but are protected under the same laws that protect citizens until they come of age or meet the requirements to become a citizen.

Thank you for the time my aide says my bed is made and ready so good night all...

OOC: We find this title amusing as written: As was just listening to a reminded for males when they reach 18 in US to go to post office and register for draft.

OOC: Actually, the US currently doesn't have a draft. What you're thinking of is the Selective Service, which is what would be used should the draft ever vbe reinstated.

Can we get a "current" draft containing everything, including category and strength? Would be handy.The most recent version has been added to the first post. It is subject to future edits based on comments received since it was submitted last week.

And the category and strength were already there.

Rogantini studied the draft that gently wated its way onto the table in front of her, still hot from the printer. "We--ll," she said, "'side from the way yeh still lef' ou' a protec'ion for language, I wonder-- do that "unfair AND unreasonable" part mean 'hat yeh kin discrim'ate long as it be unfair or unreasonable, an' not bot'? So shouldn' 'hat be an'/or? Or do I be obsessin' here?"

"Less importan', I t'ink 'hat bit 'bout educa'ion migh' be redundan'. Don't educac'ion be a "service to the general public," an' covered by the par' af'er 'hat?" Strangely, her accent seemed to dissapear whenever she quoted the resoultion, only to come rushing back with greater force when she left it.

(OOC Long story short-- still wants protection for language, and wonders if the "and" shouldn't be "and/or" just to seal up any possibility of loophole-ness.

Also wondering about whether it could be shorter and still say the same thing, since education is a service to the general public. On the other hand, a government could say that it's NOT a service to the general public, it's only for rich white kids, and discriminate that way-- so feel free to tell her that.

And thanks for reassuring me on the RPing-here part, Gobbannium. Let's hope you don't come to regret that. Don't worry, Billie up there probably won't last long. Well, either that or she'll wipe the accent. She's only talking like that because she doesn't feel the need to change it for this. She be more comfor'able 'hat 'ay.)

We would also be interested in adding 'language' to the list of possible discriminants, since as Ambassador Talone has pointed out the "unfair and unreasonable" condition prevents its abuse. In fact, would it be opening too large a can of worms at this stage to prefer Ambassador Spøtyiú's second rewording with the added suggestion of saying that such actions "would include but are not limited to discrimination based upon..."? That would allow for curious discrimination cases that we in our sadly less than infinite wisdom have yet to conceive of.

We are still concerned that this proposal is limited in the spheres in which it protects minorities. Much of the 'private' public sphere is still permitted to abuse as it desires -- segregated shopping, for instance, is not dealt with, nor the much stickier issue of club membership, and we envision long and painful arguments as to whether privately run bus, train and air transport companies constitute a public service.

(OOC: no problems, D'Jersey. There's more than a few players who'd like to strangle me for making Prince Rhodri such a windbag :-)

We would also be interested in adding 'language' to the list of possible discriminants, since as Ambassador Talone has pointed out the "unfair and unreasonable" condition prevents its abuse. In fact, would it be opening too large a can of worms at this stage to prefer Ambassador Spøtyiú's second rewording with the added suggestion of saying that such actions "would include but are not limited to discrimination based upon..."? That would allow for curious discrimination cases that we in our sadly less than infinite wisdom have yet to conceive of.

We are still concerned that this proposal is limited in the spheres in which it protects minorities. Much of the 'private' public sphere is still permitted to abuse as it desires -- segregated shopping, for instance, is not dealt with, nor the much stickier issue of club membership, and we envision long and painful arguments as to whether privately run bus, train and air transport companies constitute a public service.

(OOC: no problems, D'Jersey. There's more than a few players who'd like to strangle me for making Prince Rhodri such a windbag :-)

We would also agree with your concerns on the lack of protection against Private sphere abuses and discrimination. We think however it would be best to deal with this in seperate legislation where we can deal with all issues related to it indepthly.

OOC: You wanted an example of language discrimination earlier? Well the one which comes to my mind is the great mess which is Canada-Quebec Relations. Quebec being the primarily Francophone province in Canada.

The discrimination which exists within the country towards Quebec simply is notable even when you speak about Quebec which is refered to as: "French" Canada and it's language is usually apart of any discrimination leveled at the entire province.

Now, Quebec itself has had its own instances of discrimination, such as some of their early language laws which made blatant discrimination against their English Minority.

Does anyone see any possible problems or loopholes with either of those?I'll probably use the first suggestion; I'll see how it goes when I revise the draft this weekend.

Nothing specific. During the drafting of No Ex Post Facto Laws I asked if it should be extended to include civil law. The Ausserland delegation responded with a resounding NO. That was bit different situation though because it dealt with EPF laws. I'm not sure it really applies here so leave "civil" in (unless Auss comes along and yells "Take It Out"!)I think I'll telegram Auss and ask; if there's a problem here, it'll only apply to criminal law.

Will you need help with telegramming?Yes, and I will begin soliciting such after the crisis with the mutant turkeys and asexual sapient stuffing is resolved in my nation.

Adding "disability or physical condition" (are you specifically excluding mental disabilty or condition? If not, perhaps worded: physical or mental disability or condition...) within the context of clause 2 (only) makes sense. If added in the more general clauses, does it not fall foul of UNR#160?No, excluding mental disabilities was not intentional. The language you've suggested is fine. It would not run afoul of #160, because the duplication rule doesn't usually apply when the scope of a new resolution far exceeds the narrow mandate of a previous one. I think I remember the ruling correctly... unless of course I'm overlooking a potential contradiction in the language. Am I?

We are still concerned that this proposal is limited in the spheres in which it protects minorities. Much of the 'private' public sphere is still permitted to abuse as it desires -- segregated shopping, for instance, is not dealt with, nor the much stickier issue of club membership, and we envision long and painful arguments as to whether privately run bus, train and air transport companies constitute a public service.Er, it's no longer just "public services"; the wording's been changed to "services provided to the general public," which I assume would cover most of these concerns. As to your "including but not limited to" suggestion, I would propose that a third clause be added, stating something to the effect of, "Nothing in this document shall be construed as to deny additional protections against discrimination or abuse in effect in member nations" (help with wording?). I think such language may be necessary.

It would not run afoul of #160, because the duplication rule doesn't usually apply when the scope of a new resolution far exceeds the narrow mandate of a previous one. I think I remember the ruling correctly... unless of course I'm overlooking a potential contradiction in the language. Am I?I don't see any contradiction between the proposal and UNR#160, and if duplication is handled as you indicate then that's fine.

wonders if the "and" shouldn't be "and/or" just to seal up any possibility of loophole-ness.
The lass with the lovely accent raises an interesting point. The use of "and/or" is to be avoided as it creates more confusion than it solves. However, is it the intent of the author to require discrimination to be both unfair and unreasonable before this proposal could be invoked?

We're a little concerned that that raises the bar of protection a little too high, although we acknowledge the need to allow for justifiable discrimination (relevant employer requirements, for example).

--L.T.

Fairness and Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states;

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.Semi-final draft. Thoughts, questions, comments, concerns? This is your last chance, as I hope to submit this week sometime.

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;


The end of that sentence still doesn't fit the the scope of the rest of the legislation...

But nonetheless, Evoinia will be giving full support to this legislation.

Semi-final draft. Thoughts, questions, comments, concerns? This is your last chance, as I hope to submit this week sometime.Any takers?

Me thinks you might as well go for it and get the ball rolling. We'll gather support to quickly get this to the needed level.

The end of that sentence still doesn't fit the the scope of the rest of the legislation...

But nonetheless, Evoinia will be giving full support to this legislation.Actually it does. The proposal provides equal protection against unfair and unreasonable discrimination, but the preamble recognizes (through that statement) that women and minorities are more likely to need the protections than men (assuming a patriarchy) and dominant majorities.

SchutteGod, the proposal looks fine. We hereby offer whatever of our help you wish to avail yourself of.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

The process of creating and passing the "ex post facto" resolution was a long and tortuous one, and we really don't remember what our exact objection to inclusion of civil law was all about. (We have lousy memories and a filing system that's even worse.) We'll take the word of the distinguished member from Yelda on this.

In this case, we don't see a strong objection. In fact, we're not even quite sure what a "civil offense" is. If an act is prohibited by law and a person is harmed by it, they would surely have legal recourse under existing tort law. What benefit accrues from specifying "civil"?

As a matter of fact, we're not enthusiastic about that clause at all. Surely unprovoked violence against anyone should be illegal, regardless of motive. And intimidation is a very nebulous thing and very difficult to prove. While we won't oppose the proposal because of the clause, we'd be happier if it wasn't there.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

"D-Jersey wants ta express our wholehear'ed suppor' fer this resolu'ion, but we wanta ask-- what, exac'ly, do we need to do to help it? We aren't entiely clear on how proposals become resolutions under debate..."

In this case, we don't see a strong objection. In fact, we're not even quite sure what a "civil offense" is. If an act is prohibited by law and a person is harmed by it, they would surely have legal recourse under existing tort law. What benefit accrues from specifying "civil"?

As a matter of fact, we're not enthusiastic about that clause at all. Surely unprovoked violence against anyone should be illegal, regardless of motive. And intimidation is a very nebulous thing and very difficult to prove. While we won't oppose the proposal because of the clause, we'd be happier if it wasn't there.I thank my Ausserlander colleague for her insightful comments. My concern with including this clause is with governments who officially outlaw violence against private citizens but calmly look the other way when it involves gay-bashing or beating women. The language is supposed to assure that these laws are enforced fairly and equitably. I don't know how to retool the clause without 1) making it completely ineffective, or 2) committing a category violation (Moral Decency or International Security vs. Human Rights), and since I would like to prevent abuse of women and minorities with this resolution, as well as assuring their equality under the law, I'd just as soon keep the clause.

I hope this addresses your concerns.

Here we go again (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=fairness)!! Please approve!


[edit: mods, can we change the thread title to "Fairness and Equality Act"? Thanks!]

Post-server crash bump. Over halfway there with two days to go. Don't be shy, folks! Approve (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=fairness)!!

Hoorah! The resolution has reached quorum!

Congratulations, SchutteGod! Only one more vote with the general assembly and this will be law.

PAU will be there to fully support you.