NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a proposal I came up with while reviewing the UN resolutions.

Repeal “Discrimination Accord”

A proposal to repeal a previously passed proposal.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #99
Proposed by: Alaristan

NOTING the purpose of the international community is to provide freedom and equality for the people of all nations,

UNDERSTANDING the basic importance of universal human rights,

REALIZING the importance of certain legislation like the “Dicrimination Accord”,

RECOGNIZING the importance of the right to protection under law, condemning discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and school of thought,

NOTES that “eliminating ‘hate crimes’, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences” is in itself discriminatory, as it declares certain groups of victims to be of greater importance than others,

NOTES that “discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…age” can sometimes be of use to governments, particularly in discriminating at what age minors may vote, drive and consume alcohol,

NOTES that “discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…sex” can sometimes be of use to governments, particularly in discriminating which citizens are eligible for military conscription,

NOTES that while “[committing] to fighting ignorance and prejudice” is a noble goal, “mandating member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity” is the incorrect way of forcing nations to do so, as many smaller nations have homogeneous populations and insufficient resources to spend on such a program, without cutting back in other sectors vital to their population,

DETERMINES that this piece of legislation is in itself, through its emphasis on eliminating “hate crimes”, and forcing nations to create large, expensive programs to teach “diversity”, discriminatory against the majority populations in smaller, poorer nations, and, in view of these aforementioned points,

REPEALS “Discrimination Accord” in favor of a revised piece of legislation.


Would any of you be willing to support this?

OOC: Let's see the full text of the resolution that you want to repeal _

United Nations Resolution # 99

Discrimination Accord
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category : Human Rights
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Belgrade-Beograd

Okay, that's the one...

And now we get to the meat...

Description : The United Nations,

NOTING the precedent of international law towards greater human rights and equality for all,

RECALLING the sentiments of such documents as “Universal Bill of Rights”, “Definition of Marriage”, “Freedom and Equality”, and “Sexual Freedom” in the separation of governments from discriminatory practices and ideologies,

The fact that the UN has done something does not necessarily mean that it should have done so, or that it should continue along the same lines.
And here's yet another author who doesn't understand the difference between "discrimination" and "unfair discrimination"...

UPSET by the lack of previous legislation (at the time of this document’s composition) directly prohibiting governments from discriminatory practices,

QUESTIONING whether nations' policies with regard to such 'internal' matters are rightfully a matter for supranational legislation.

CITING as a possible cause of such oversight the incorrect interpretation of the “Gay Rights” document, which in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights:

To quote Ausserland, "The Law means what the Law says": If a resolution's author leaves loopholes then national governments are free to exploit that fact...

RESOLVES upon protecting all persons and groups in member nations from discrimination by their respective member governments;
(See my last-but-one comment here...)

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,

2. The right to participate in government,

3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;
It says "fairly and equally": What happens when "equally" isn't "fairly", for example -- as Alaristan has pointed out -- in cases where voting rights, or pensions, or other advantages -- logically should have age thresholds.
(My own UN nations have given "fairly" precedence over "equally", without any complaints from the UN, so far...)

Also, the fact that it only applies to 'citizens' is, for better or worse, a very BIG loophole...
(H'mm, and that takes care of some 'age discrimination' arguments, such as those on voting rights: Simply say that children aren't 'citizens' yet, as St Edmund already does...)

COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences;
These clauses do have the problems that Alaristan has pointed out.

URGES regional awareness of cultural, racial, and cultural differences, given the often close ties of a nation’s diversity with its region’s diversity;

CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.
Nothing actually binding there, but see my earlier grumble re "discrimination"/"unfair discrimination"...

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

§ The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.
The first of these clauses would be far too strong, given its apparent failure to recognise that there are cases in which discrimination is actually fair & reasonable, if it weren't for the fact that the following one effectively leaves national governments with the right to define any "especial events or conditions" under which they can ignore it and thus creates another HUGE loophole.

Okay, that can go.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

And now, a detailed look at Alaristan's proposed repeal _

NOTING the purpose of the international community is to provide freedom and equality for the people of all nations,
Where does it say so? ;)
There's actually nothing in the UN's rules to keep it from concentrating, if the members so choose, on measures to promote 'political stability' and inequality instead...
so try changing that first verb to 'BELIEVING'.

UNDERSTANDING the basic importance of universal human rights,
And what about the NSUN's sapient non-humans?

REALIZING the importance of certain legislation like the “Dicrimination Accord”,

RECOGNIZING the importance of the right to protection under law, condemning discrimination based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and school of thought,
Spellcheck! ("Discrimination Accord")

As already noted, some nations' governments (even some governments that do practice fair policies themselves) do not consider these to be matters over which the UN should be over-ruling national governments... but I suppose some such fluff would be a necessary part of a practical repeal.
And don't you mean "condemning unfair discrimination based on (etc.)"?

NOTES that “eliminating ‘hate crimes’, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences” is in itself discriminatory, as it declares certain groups of victims to be of greater importance than others,
Agreed.

NOTES that “discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…age” can sometimes be of use to governments, particularly in discriminating at what age minors may vote, drive and consume alcohol,
Agreed, but see my earlier remark about 'citizens'.

NOTES that “discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…sex” can sometimes be of use to governments, particularly in discriminating which citizens are eligible for military conscription,
It might be better to drop this clause, to avoid anatagonising any nations that might otherwise vote for this proposal but that disapprove of military conscription...

NOTES that while “[committing] to fighting ignorance and prejudice” is a noble goal, “mandating member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity” is the incorrect way of forcing nations to do so, as many smaller nations have homogeneous populations and insufficient resources to spend on such a program, without cutting back in other sectors vital to their population,
Agreed.

DETERMINES that this piece of legislation is in itself, through its emphasis on eliminating “hate crimes”, and forcing nations to create large, expensive programs to teach “diversity”, discriminatory against the majority populations in smaller, poorer nations, and, in view of these aforementioned points,
Agreed in principle, but I think that this clause could probably do with a re-write to tighten it up a bit.

REPEALS “Discrimination Accord” in favor of a revised piece of legislation.
That's arguably trying to REQUIRE the passage of a replacement, if & when one is submitted, which would be an illegal demand. Going by precedent, I suggest replacing this clause with something along the lines of
HOPING for the passage of suitable new legislation on this subject;

REPEALS Resolution #99 "Discrimination Accord".


Good luck!

Good suggestions! I'll rework them in to see how it looks.




NOTES that “discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…sex” can sometimes be of use to governments, particularly in discriminating which citizens are eligible for military conscription,

It might be better to drop this clause, to avoid anatagonising any nations that might otherwise vote for this proposal but that disapprove of military conscription...

Hmm... not a bad idea. But I like the principle of this particular objection. In Alaristan, our police department and fire department are male-only. While some would call this "discrimination", I simply believe it to be common sense, since males are better suited to jobs that require a good deal of physical strength.

Also, many of Alaristan's best medical research facilities have programs dedicated to finding cures to both breast cancer and prostate cancer. Since each is a disease that almost exclusively targets one gender, funding a program could be termed "discriminatory" under the discrimination accords. Does that mean that Alaristan should stop these programs? The way the resolution is worded, yes, even though that would mean turning our backs on the people affected by these diseases.

What I'm getting at is, "discrimination" isn't necessarily bad all the time. In some cases, it can be downright disgusting, but in many others, it can make perfect sense.


Good luck!

Thanks! :) I want to see how much support this gets, since I can't submit it myself yet (I have only one UN endorsement). Hopefully, though, I'll be able to submit it soon after it's fully revised.

A few problems with your argument at first glance:

NOTES that “eliminating ‘hate crimes’, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences” is in itself discriminatory, as it declares certain groups of victims to be of greater importance than others,The clause you cite is not mandatory; moreover, it does not discriminate at all. It encourages the prevention of hate crimes committed against anyone, not just certain races or classes of people.

NOTES that “discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…age” can sometimes be of use to governments, particularly in discriminating at what age minors may vote, drive and consume alcohol,

NOTES that “discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…sex” can sometimes be of use to governments, particularly in discriminating which citizens are eligible for military conscription,Discrimination Accord does not cover voting, driving, alcohol consumption or military conscription at all. If you have a look at subclauses 1-5, you'll find the scope of the rights protected under UNR #99 is rather narrow.

And what about the NSUN's sapient non-humans?Knock it off.

That's arguably trying to REQUIRE the passage of a replacement, if & when one is submitted, which would be an illegal demand.In what universe does "in favor of" equal "requiring the passage of"?! Outside the distorted world of St Edmund, that is, where words have no correct meaning and nothing makes sense?

Damn, Kenny got there first.

Knock it off.

In what universe does "in favor of" equal "requiring the passage of"?! Outside the distorted world of St Edmund, that is, where words have no correct meaning and nothing makes sense?

Looks like somebody got out of bed on the wrong side this morning... ;)


"decides in favour of [whatever]" = announces the decision that [whatever] has been chosen, No?
"abdicates in favour of [whoever]" = announces the decision that [whoever] has been chosen as a successor, No?
So, "REPEALS [the specified resolution] in favour of a revised piece of legislation" arguably announces a decision -- that the repeal shall be followed by a revised piece of legislation -- too...

The Mods might decide not to strike down a repeal proposal that used this phrase in its operative clause as illegal because of this factor, but I can remember a few cases in the past when people who included clauses with a similar tone (such as "REPEALS [the specified resolution] so that a better one can be passed"...) in draft proposals were told officially that they needed to alter them in order to achieve legality...

A few problems with your argument at first glance:

The clause you cite is not mandatory; moreover, it does not discriminate at all. It encourages the prevention of hate crimes committed against anyone, not just certain races or classes of people.

You're describing exactly what my issue is: having a "hate crime" classification leads to certain victims being classified as different. Every crime is or should be classified as a "hate crime". As such, this shouldn't be needed.

Discrimination Accord does not cover voting, driving, alcohol consumption or military conscription at all. If you have a look at subclauses 1-5, you'll find the scope of the rights protected under UNR #99 is rather narrow.

In fact, the Discrimination Accords do. The phrase "participation in government" is a catch-all phrase which can in fact be applied to voting rights, serving in the military, and, as an extension to voting rights, the rights (or lack thereof) of minors to choose when to drive and drink alcohol.

I'm not saying these should be implemented; much to the contrary. I'm simply using them as examples of how "discrimination" can be used for positive purposes, keeping the young safe, keeping the military effective, etc. The political catch all "participation in government" could potentially be used to either enforce all types of discrimination, positive and negative, or nothing at all. It isn't an effective phrase at all.

You're describing exactly what my issue is: having a "hate crime" classification leads to certain victims being classified as different. Every crime is or should be classified as a "hate crime". As such, this shouldn't be needed.No, you're only assuming the clause is about hate crimes. This is what the resolution actually says:

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the ... right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence, ...Nothing about hate crimes at all. It states that governments must protect their citizens from harassment and violence, but fails to specify the kind of violence or harassment committed. Maybe hate crimes was the language's intended target, but the way it reads, its effect is rather different.

In fact, the Discrimination Accords do. The phrase "participation in government" is a catch-all phrase which can in fact be applied to voting rights, serving in the military, and, as an extension to voting rights, the rights (or lack thereof) of minors to choose when to drive and drink alcohol.Yeah, that's kind of a stretch. The resolution does not specify the level of participation citizens must have a right to exercise, and since 1) the UN is disallowed from banning dictatorships or undemocratic governments, and 2) many dictatorships and undemocratic governments continue to operate freely under UN mandates, it must be assumed that this clause does not imply as universal right to vote. How could it, when hundreds (even thousands) of member states do not even have elections? If the resolution was implying a right to electoral participation in government, then elections would be mandatory. They're not. I don't even know where you're getting driving and alcohol consumption as an "extension" of voting rights from; if you're talking about age of consent, the UN has issued no advisory on age of consent/majority at all.

I'm not saying these should be implemented; much to the contrary. I'm simply using them as examples of how "discrimination" can be used for positive purposes, keeping the young safe, keeping the military effective, etc. The political catch all "participation in government" could potentially be used to either enforce all types of discrimination, positive and negative, or nothing at all. It isn't an effective phrase at all.I understand your intent here, I just think you're misreading the resolution.

The Mods might decide not to strike down a repeal proposal that used this phrase in its operative clause as illegal because of this factor, but I can remember a few cases in the past when people who included clauses with a similar tone (such as "REPEALS [the specified resolution] so that a better one can be passed"...) in draft proposals were told officially that they needed to alter them in order to achieve legality...I honestly don't think the moderators are quite that nitpicky; I never thought anyone could be so nitpicky, until you started posting in this thread. "In favor of" implies endorsement, and nothing more.

I honestly don't think the moderators are quite that nitpicky; I never thought anyone could be so nitpicky,

That reminds me of the pre-title that the nation of Fonzoland ended up using... Remember? ;)