NationStates Jolt Archive

Hailing the work in furtherance of personal freedom already achieved by the World Assembly and,

Recognising this work as the preeminent task of civilisation and,

Seeking to augment this,

The World Assembly,

Requires W.A. member states to fairly and equally enact and enforce the following articles,

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

d ) Member states are enjoined to counteract ignorance and prejudice, and are urged to create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity.

e ) The application of both emergency legal measures and Martial law during periods of national crisis must also respect the provisions of this resolution.


Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

c ) Member states shall actively work towards eliminating criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice based on cultural or societal differences.

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

The People's of Sasquatchewain would not be in support of this proposal.

Our main complaint is regarding 1.b. While it is not a law in effect within our territory, it is currently being discussed whether or not to place educational requirements in political offices. Our peoples are the children of a nation ruled by populist demagogues. Our fears finally coalesced into action after a man with no secondary education was elected to president and, utilizing his deficient knowledge, nigh erased our proud nation from the map. We therefore desire only men educated in the ways of the world to be allowed to our government. And we wish to do so by enforcing a minimum education requirement of a completed gymnasium (high school).

However, due to some economic difficulties that have cursed our nation since those dark times, we have always had an unfortunately large portion of our population in a less-than-satisfactory economic situation. This has kept the gates open for demagoguery and poor governance, as demonstrated by recent surveys, which state that while the less-fortunate follow the newly-traditional view of the importance of experience and education, they are primarily focused in a governmental-policy that aids them. Thus, our nation is still vulnerable to a renewed onslaught of demagoguery over wisdom.

The general belief is that the new Educated Governors laws will pass.

As well, 1.e is a bit redundant. Being in the W.A. demands the acceptance of international laws and rights.

The People's of Sasquatchewain would not be in support of this proposal.

Our main complaint is regarding 1.b. While it is not a law in effect within our territory, it is currently being discussed whether or not to place educational requirements in political offices. Our peoples are the children of a nation ruled by populist demagogues. Our fears finally coalesced into action after a man with no secondary education was elected to president and, utilizing his deficient knowledge, nigh erased our proud nation from the map. We therefore desire only men educated in the ways of the world to be allowed to our government. And we wish to do so by enforcing a minimum education requirement of a completed gymnasium (high school).

However, due to some economic difficulties that have cursed our nation since those dark times, we have always had an unfortunately large portion of our population in a less-than-satisfactory economic situation. This has kept the gates open for demagoguery and poor governance, as demonstrated by recent surveys, which state that while the less-fortunate follow the newly-traditional view of the importance of experience and education, they are primarily focused in a governmental-policy that aids them. Thus, our nation is still vulnerable to a renewed onslaught of demagoguery over wisdom.

The general belief is that the new Educated Governors laws will pass.

As well, 1.e is a bit redundant. Being in the W.A. demands the acceptance of international laws and rights.



Respected Ambassador no part of this resolution will prevent your nation from having educational requirements for any government position.

Clause e) of Article 1. simply requires member states to apply international laws to all of their citizens without prejudice, it is not a request that member states comply with international laws.

yours e.t.c. ,

f ) And the right not to be discriminated against on grounds including gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender alignment.

We support it, but have a question about this clause. Could you also include social status?

Diplomat Xen Felgras

We support it, but have a question about this clause. Could you also include social status?

Diplomat Xen Felgras


The list the honoured Ambassador is refering to is not supposed to be comprehensive, it stresses that these grounds "include" those listed, this means that member states are completely free to add other grounds to the list if they wish.

The purpose of the list is to create a base level of automatically protected conditions of being, to add every possible one of the conditions would lead to a list far too great for the purposes of a resolution for the w.a.

We hope this makes the position more clear for the honoured Ambassador.

yours e.t.c. ,

Respected Ambassador no part of this resolution will prevent your nation from having educational requirements for any government position.

Clause e) of Article 1. simply requires member states to apply international laws to all of their citizens without prejudice, it is not a request that member states comply with international laws.

yours e.t.c. ,


Article 1.b is actually, grammatically-speaking, a continuation of 1.a, which begins with "Inhabitants of W.A. Member-States." Sure, it's not "All inhabitants," but that's implied. This in turn means that 1.b really states that "[All] inhabitants of W.A. Member-States have the right to participate in government." Which does thus mean that educational requirements cannot be placed upon political office.

As well, I just thought of the choice of words regarding "inhabitants." Many nations might be reluctant to allow a newly-arrived immigrant political office, even if he does have citizenship.

Article 1.b is actually, grammatically-speaking, a continuation of 1.a, which begins with "Inhabitants of W.A. Member-States." Sure, it's not "All inhabitants," but that's implied. This in turn means that 1.b really states that "[All] inhabitants of W.A. Member-States have the right to participate in government." Which does thus mean that educational requirements cannot be placed upon political office.

As well, I just thought of the choice of words regarding "inhabitants." Many nations might be reluctant to allow a newly-arrived immigrant political office, even if he does have citizenship.


While we sympathise with the honoured Ambassador nation's position and will think about altering the wording of this clause somewhat, we must ask them if they think we should drastically reword a resolution meant to better the lives of the entire citizenry of this organisation simply because Sasquatchewain has an educational deficit which its government seems bizarrely unable to compensate for?

yours e.t.c. ,

The list the honoured Ambassador is refering to is not supposed to be comprehensive, it stresses that these grounds "include" then listed, this means that member states are completely free to add other grounds to the list if they wish.

The purpose of the list is to create a base level of automatically protected conditions of being, to add every possible one of the conditions would lead to a list far too great for the purposes of a resolution for the w.a.

We hope this makes the position more clear for the honoured Ambassador.

It does. Objection withdrawn.

Diplomat Xen Felgras

I don't know; a lot of this seems to have been largely copied and pasted from Discrimination Accord and Fairness and Equality Act, with a few minor tinkerings in wording. Is there a way to enact the goals of Res #99, but expressed in your own words? I don't mind the text being lifted from F&EA, as the author, although I do think 2b overlaps with the "hate crimes" clause: one tells nations to prevent these crimes, the other tells them to criminalize them. Maybe combine them into one clause?

I don't know; a lot of this seems to have been largely copied and pasted from Discrimination and Fairness and Equality Act, with a few minor tinkerings in wording. Is there a way to enact the goals of Res #99, but expressed in your own words? I don't mind the text being lifted from F&EA, as the author, although I do think 2b overlaps with the "hate crimes" clause: one tells nations to prevent these crimes, the other tells them to criminalize them. Maybe combine them into one clause?

We take your point respected Ambassador, and in fact we fully expect that this resolution will be really rather different by the time it comes to submission.

What is posted here is merely a skeleton, the advice and questions of other Ambassadors will give us a better idea in what direction to take this resolution. This being needfull since we could not find adequate advice elsewhere.

In fact we would rather prefer to approach this subject in a radically simplified way perhaps by outlining only the circumstances in which it might be possible for legal ( and socially beneficial) forms of discrimination to be allowed. With the simple statement of the equality of all inhabitants of W.A. states before and in the law at the begining.

Essentially this is a consultative phase, by which we will learn what will be most efficacious.

yours e.t.c. ,

While we sympathise with the honoured Ambassador nation's position and will tink about altering the wording of this clause somewhat, we must ask them if they think we should drastically reword a resolution meant to better the lives of the entire citizenry of this organisation simply because Sasquatchewain has an educational deficit which its government seems bizarrely unable to compensate for?

yours e.t.c. ,

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain apologize for not having an economic and/or educational policy which allows utopian equality between all. However, we are convinced that we are not the only ones facing such issues, making this not a Sasquatchwain oddity, but an important possible reality to be considered in the writing of W.A. proposals.

The Peoples of Sasquatchewain apologize for not having an economic and/or educational policy which allows utopian equality between all. However, we are convinced that we are not the only ones facing such issues, making this not a Sasquatchwain oddity, but an important possible reality to be considered in the writing of W.A. proposals.


The resolution has been radically redrafted, respected Ambassador, not we should say in response to the respected Ambassador's speculative demography but none the less the new wording may allay some of their fears.

yours e.t.c.,

Coolio.

Shall not be discriminated against unfairly...? I seem to remember pedantic arguments about this last time anti-discrimination legislation came up.

Shall not be discriminated against unfairly...? I seem to remember pedantic arguments about this last time anti-discrimination legislation came up.



Does the respected and esteemed Ambassador suggest we include the word "unfairly" or not? We would tend to excise it, but this may not suit other governments.

I'm agnostic on the subject, but others may be more insistent that it should be included. Otherwise, the argument went, using any criterion to make any decision is discriminating...

Our current thinking is that keeping the word "fairly" will allow nations to institute policies of positive discrimination, should they so wish.

Urgench itself does not generally approve such policies, but some leeway to allow for special treatment of the very young and the very old for instance might be usefull.

yours e.t.c. ,

Please excuse this ambassador's sluggish thoughts, but what exactly would such 'positive discrimination' consist of?

Positive discrimination is a policy of actively trying to benefit a group within society which have suffered serious forms of negative discrimination. Quotas of persons of specific racial groups which have traditionally been excluded from higher education and its associated benefits, or providing women with better maternity leave conditions which will not prejudice their career prospects in industries which have discriminated against women on a large scale. The list can be expanded upon.

We do not hold with very many of these forms of positive discrimination unless they can be shown to have substantial benefits to society at large and qualitative benefits to those who will enjoy them. But we do accept that other governments may see positive discrimination in a more positive light and therefore would be loathe to outlaw it.

yours e.t.c. ,

Can I make a suggestion? Replace indivual with "human", then define "human" as any sapient life form. It is probably the only way a "sapients rights" resolution will get through, and it will ensure that nations don't attempt non compliance by redifining an individual. Furthermore, if you define a human as a sapient being without putting my usual "the purposes of this resolution" disclaimer, it will mean that human is redefined for all resolutions.

Oh, and c ) All inhabitants of w.a. member states have the right not to be discriminated against on grounds including gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender alignment.


needs "without good reason" stuck on the end. Afterall, it would be rather silly to claim that a woman rejected for the role of Hamlet, or a white man for Othello,etc. should be illegalised ;)

Goodness we hadn't thought of that.....What an interesting solution.

We wouldn't want to jeopardise the whole bill with such a definition, but killing two birds with one stone would be very neat.

In fact we were trying to avoid definitions entirely, they can be terribly controversial, but perhaps just this one might not be too great a stretch.

We thank the honoured and respected Ambassador for their highly thought provoking suggestion.

yours e.t.c. ,

Can I make a suggestion? Replace indivual with "human", then define "human" as any sapient life form. It is probably the only way a "sapients rights" resolution will get through, and it will ensure that nations don't attempt non compliance by redifining an individual. Furthermore, if you define a human as a sapient being without putting my usual "the purposes of this resolution" disclaimer, it will mean that human is redefined for all resolutions.

Before continuing, we support that idea. It adds onto the resolution and kills any future arguments over the word human from our end.

That aside, it's not totally abuseless, but nations have to work harder to abuse it, usually through creative definitions of "sapient." We wish the abuse could be entirely prevented.

It might be worht looking at previous definitions of sapient used in failed resolutions, as opposed to saying outright "spaient". 1) it hides the fact you are including all sapients and 2) they've been mulled over long enough to reduce loopholiness. i.e. to use Shuttegods one, slight reworked

DEFINES a human as any individual with independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with others;

Can I make a suggestion? Replace indivual with "human", then define "human" as any sapient life form. It is probably the only way a "sapients rights" resolution will get through, and it will ensure that nations don't attempt non compliance by redifining an individual. Furthermore, if you define a human as a sapient being without putting my usual "the purposes of this resolution" disclaimer, it will mean that human is redefined for all resolutions.

Oh, and

needs "without good reason" stuck on the end. Afterall, it would be rather silly to claim that a woman rejected for the role of Hamlet, or a white man for Othello,etc. should be illegalised ;)



We do see where the honoured Ambassador is going with that last suggestion but in fact we would object if two actors were auditioned for the part of Hamlet, one of them male the other being female , and the female was rejected despite being better at the part simply because she was a woman.

However we would for instance allow for only female nurses to be employed at a clinic or shelter for raped or abused women.

Whoever "without good reason" sounds rather too vague don't you think, honoured Ambassador? Rather like a get out of this resolution free card?

yours sincerely,

I agree, but cannot think of anything better - there are several reasons where there exists reasonable reason for discrimination, (such as disabled soldiers, short sighted sailors, having Tom Cruise play Rosa Parks in a historical biopic, men in rape shelters, etc.) that it would be impossible to list them, but daft not to understand a genuine need for discrimination in such circumstances. It may be possible to add "reasonable reasons include, but are not limited to, the armed forces, acting, modelling, and other occupations for which there is a genuine need to discriminate.

However, that said, I feel the inclusion of the word "reasonable" should suffice. It would, let us face it, be unreasonable, and therefore against such a worded artical, to prevent black people from joining the military, or gay people from working in business, or short people from selling pasties, etc.

Or perhaps - " compelling practical reasons or reasons concerning the personal anguish of psychologically distressed persons " ?

yours e.t.c. ,

I agree, but cannot think of anything better - there are several reasons where there exists reasonable reason for discrimination, (such as disabled soldiers, short sighted sailors, having Tom Cruise play Rosa Parks in a historical biopic, men in rape shelters, etc.) that it would be impossible to list them, but daft not to understand a genuine need for discrimination in such circumstances. It may be possible to add "reasonable reasons include, but are not limited to, the armed forces, acting, modelling, and other occupations for which there is a genuine need to discriminate.

However, that said, I feel the inclusion of the word "reasonable" should suffice. It would, let us face it, be unreasonable, and therefore against such a worded artical, to prevent black people from joining the military, or gay people from working in business, or short people from selling pasties, etc.



We would agree with the honoured Ambassador that it would not be reasonable to do the things they suggest but that is probably because we are probably using a similar form of reason to them.

In matters of prejudice and discrimination however it is often the case that absolutely no reason is at play at all. Or at the very least only a very faulty reasoning is used to justify all manner of absurd injustices.

Our form of words in the above post or something like it would perhaps eliminate such abuses since it concentrates on practicality rather than reason.

yours e.t.c. ,

Yep, your wording would work, I should think, and alleviate my concerns

We were wondering if any respected Ambassador's had any more advice for us?


yours e.t.c. ,

O.O.C. Bump

I would advise submitting this and campaigning for it quickly.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I would advise submitting this and campaigning for it quickly.

Diplomat Asuka Felna


Why such haste honoured Ambassador?


yours e.t.c.,

Just a personal belief this should be voted on as soon as possible.

Just a personal belief this should be voted on as soon as possible.



Well we hope that is because it accords with the honoured Ambassador's nation's own conception of non-discrimination.

But we would rather be sure we had written as good a statute as possible with as much consensus on the provisions of it before we submitted it. However there has been fairly little objection so far, and this leads us to believe that this resolution with some final finessing may well be ready for submission.

yours sincerely,

I don't know; a lot of this seems to have been largely copied and pasted from Discrimination Accord and Fairness and Equality Act, with a few minor tinkerings in wording. Is there a way to enact the goals of Res #99, but expressed in your own words? I don't mind the text being lifted from F&EA, as the author, although I do think 2b overlaps with the "hate crimes" clause: one tells nations to prevent these crimes, the other tells them to criminalize them. Maybe combine them into one clause?



As the honoured and esteemed Ambassador can see we have rewritten the sections they pointed out as being superfluous, we have made the provisions of clause b) of article 2 more comprehensive, we feel.

yours e.t.c.,


Khan Mongkha's assistant Tarmashirin of Herat draws the khan's attention to the figure of a short old man with squinting eyes and dark weather beaten complexion, dressed in reindeer skins and wearing a pair of reindeer antlers on his head, all over the man's costume are dirty coloured ribbons and tiny bells which jingle as he walks towards the Khan. This odd looking individual carries on his back a huge flat drum with strange signs and symbols branded on to its skin. The man reeks of filth, swamp, arboreal fauna and fungus.


" Excellent Urug Eljegidai is here, " Mongkha says to his assistant, smiling, " Secretary Teku Beg has seconded Urug from the Imperial Security Secretariat to assist us with campaign for this bill, his odour is in direct proportion to his vast competence in certain vital fields. Take him away Tarmashirin and find somewhere for him to stay which is as far from us as possible. See to his needs and make sure he is comfortable. "......

respected ambassador of Urgench,

i noticed that in your first clause you say that people that the right to not be discriminated against based on....... etc. ... "sexual orientation". although i agree with you on this issue, i think it would alienate theocracies who have banned gay marraiges..etc. and therefore ARE discriminating against people because of sexual orientation.

respected ambassador of Urgench,

i noticed that in your first clause you say that people that the right to not be discriminated against based on....... etc. ... "sexual orientation". although i agree with you on this issue, i think it would alienate theocracies who have banned gay marraiges..etc. and therefore ARE discriminating against people because of sexual orientation.



Since the FoMa and the Sexual Privacy act these theocracies have had to legalise gay marriage and decriminalise homosexuality in any case. This statute would merely prevent other forms of less obvious but perhaps more pernicious discrimination. We feel that the current political climate within the w.a. , as evidenced by the affirmative votes both on FoMa and SPa, is as positive as we could hope for it to be and that these other statutes have created both a legislative framework and a concurrent legal precedent for this kind of resolution.

In any event if we removed the list ( which is non-exclusive ) theocracies would still have observe non-discrimination ( of any group or Individual ) as would all the other members of this organisation, the list is only included so that certain groups have the double protection of being able to site this statute should their governments attempt ingenious evasion of this statute.


We hope this has clarified our position for the honoured Ambassador for Wachichi.

yours sincerely,

respected ambassador of Urgench,

i noticed that in your first clause you say that people that the right to not be discriminated against based on....... etc. ... "sexual orientation". although i agree with you on this issue, i think it would alienate theocracies who have banned gay marraiges..etc. and therefore ARE discriminating against people because of sexual orientation.
Remind me again why this is a bad thing?

However the w.a. recognizes the need, periodically for member states to differentiate their treatment of their inhabitants 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.

(O.O.C reminds me of Trudeau in his "just watch me" moment with the PQ)

Could you mention that member nations that abuse the following article point, (O.O.C like Hitler "periodically" encouraging Citizens to abuse Jews after the Depression) will be investigated for their "war crimes" or something of that nature and will be dealt with.
Possibly even a WA Anti-discrimination Committee to do so?

As ambassador for the Unibot Empire, I would like it to be known that the empire would surely support your proposal.

(O.O.C keep up the good work!)

(O.O.C reminds me of Trudeau in his "just watch me" moment with the PQ)

Could you mention that member nations that abuse the following article point, (O.O.C like Hitler "periodically" encouraging Citizens to abuse Jews after the Depression) will be investigated for their "war crimes" or something of that nature and will be dealt with.
Possibly even a WA Anti-discrimination Committee to do so?

As ambassador for the Unibot Empire, I would like it to be known that the empire would surely support your proposal.

(O.O.C keep up the good work!)


As it happens, honoured Ambassador, it was our first instinct to completely excise most of the section you have indicated. We dislike allowing too broad a basis for the suspension of the statutes protections and would welcome any suggestions on how to square this circle.

We do not wish to encumber this organisation with another committee however and could foresee endless complications in how such a committee was to function in any case.

We imagine a more brief outline with more specific criteria would solve the problem of which kinds of situation would in fact be acceptable for the suspension of protection from discrimination, We thought of requiring the presence of international observers ( O.O.C. Gnomes by any other name ) for the duration of such a suspension. But that might activate the need for a committee again.

We thank the Unibot Empire for its support of our endeavours.

Yours e.t.c. ,

How about using the entire assembly instead of a specific committee. In the case of abuse of that specific section that I brought up, diplomats would meet to the Headquarters for the case of the nation. This would also be exercising the right of the WA to investigate the nation in question to gather a case. Diplomats and government leaders of the law-breaking nation would be detained as PoW or something of that nature until the decision is made. The "jury" or deciding factor would be a vote between all diplomats, a majority would be needed to make a verdict on the subjects guiltiness.

However I'm sure the Fair Criminal Trial or the Diplomat Protection Act have something to say against the idea.

(O.O.C brings back memories of Gr. 10 History Class, "The Nuremberg Trials", except it would be less biased hopefully because the whole W.A wouldn't be involved in a war against the subjects)

Some notes I gathered while looking back at some of the resolutions I mentioned might conflict with the concept.

- The Trial must be allowed to be public. So the trial might have to take place somewhere different if the W.A has a problem with opening the doors of the HQ to everyone.
- The government officials on trial must have an adequate legal defence team, I suppose they would be supplied by the nation under question. While the "crown" or WA would supply its own prosecution lawyer(s), most likely from the nation that objected to the behaviour of the defending nation.
-The detained officials cannot be PoWs because the PoW accord bans mental interrogation of the prisoner, so they must be dubbed defendants or something else.

The Diplomat Protection Act may have some "loopholes" too,

REQUIRES that any diplomat granted diplomatic immunity be free from prosecution for crimes, search and/or seizure of personal belongings and belongings of family members and personal staff, search and/or seizure of family members and personal staff, seizure of pets, and search and/or seizure of private quarters outside any extraterritorial property by the nation in which the diplomat is serving

However I think we should honour the spirit and not the wording of the resolution, giving the diplomats immunity in all shape and form from the court case and worrying about the government officials who are really guilty anyway.

We suspect that while being very imaginative these solutions would probably be illegal honoured Ambassador ( O.O.C. as a form of metagaming ) , and we should say that our concern is not that w.a. officials themselves could not do a perfectly good job of anything they were asked to do but more that they would need a committee to report their findings to, unless they report directly to the assembly but perhaps that might also be illegal.

We would certainly not wish to hold the good Ambassador's sent to this organisation to blame for the crimes of their governments.

We should say that if this proposed statute were to come in to law it would seek to make discrimination so uncommon that a permanent committee or process for the investigation of it would be unnecessary. We might consider creating the ability for an ad hoc committee to be formed if an abuse has slipped through the loophole created by the need to compensate for national crisis.

(O.O.C sorry for littering your discussion page with my scattered thoughts and ever changing concepts)

So the Unibotian Ambassador proposes something like the following

MANDATES that any nation claimed to have broken the laws of the resolution will have its government official(s) detained by the World Assembly. The W.A is obligated to supply a defence lawyer if the defendants have no lawyer available and are not wiling to represent their case without the presence of a lawyer. The Crown Prosecution Table will be made of diplomat(s) of the W.A that volunteer for the position. All ambassadors of the WA must be present for the court session, afterwards the session ends a vote between all of the ambassadors decides the guiltiness of the defendant(s).

But I suppose a problem would be detaining a government official, who's going to run their country then...

We suspect that while being very imaginative these solutions would probably be illegal honoured Ambassador ( O.O.C. as a form of metagaming ) , and we should say that our concern is not that w.a. officials themselves could not do a perfectly good job of anything they were asked to do but more that they would need a committee to report their findings to, unless they report directly to the assembly but perhaps that might also be illegal.
(O.O.C I wasn't suggesting it would actually physically happen, our compliance commission makes SURE of that. But considering the fourth wall there should be a fictional plan in the fictional world IF some nation were to break the laws.)

We would certainly not wish to hold the good Ambassador's sent to this organisation to blame for the crimes of their governments.

Yeah. Diplomats have immunity, plain and simple.

Well this would require the creation of a w.a. court and an investigative police force both of which would definitely fall foul of legality issues.

Besides the possible frequency of such acts post the passage of this bill would be very minimal, that is as long as we can close down the loopholes, which we have every confidence of doing.

Yours,

(O.O.C. Its not litter, thanks for taking the time. )

investigative police force

It wouldn't be necessarily a police force. Prosecuting Diplomats could put citizens to the stands as witnesses, a little diplomatic surveillance and SMACK you just won a court case.

And I don't think a ban is in place for a court made of the World Assembly.

However the Unibotian Ambassador fully understands your concerns, and encourages you to tighten up the language particularly in the section he brought up earlier, and now is going to enjoy at drink at the Strangers Bar.

Perhaps we should be clearer, the resolution is trying to make it impossible or nearly so for nations to allow institutional discrimination, this means that the need for investigation or punishment of such instances would be obviated.

Yours e.t.c. ,

- The Trial must be allowed to be public. So the trial might have to take place somewhere different if the W.A has a problem with opening the doors of the HQ to everyone.

I doubt that would be a problem. After all, during the UN days they once televised a "Iron Chef" style cooking competition that took place in the General Assembly hall during the repeal of the old "Banning Whaling" resolution.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

PS The secret ingredient was whale.

i doubt that would be a problem. After all, during the un days they once televised a "iron chef" style cooking competition that took place in the general assembly hall during the repeal of the old "banning whaling" resolution.

Bob flibble
wa representative

ps the secret ingredient was whale.


o.o.c. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!! :D

I doubt that would be a problem. After all, during the UN days they once televised a "Iron Chef" style cooking competition that took place in the General Assembly hall during the repeal of the old "Banning Whaling" resolution.

(O.O.C Dahm I missed out!).

Perhaps we should be clearer, the resolution is trying to make it impossible or nearly so for nations to allow institutional discrimination, this means that the need for investigation or punishment of such instances would be obviated.

(O.O.C Brilliant, now put something like what you just wrote in the proposal for loopholing idiots like me who read it and just think...Hitler.)

Its a great proposal, if I haven't said it before.
Good Work

MANDATES that any nation claimed to have broken the laws of the resolution will have its government official(s) detained by the World Assembly. The W.A is obligated to supply a defence lawyer if the defendants have no lawyer available and are not wiling to represent their case without the presence of a lawyer. The Crown Prosecution Table will be made of diplomat(s) of the W.A that volunteer for the position. All ambassadors of the WA must be present for the court session, afterwards the session ends a vote between all of the ambassadors decides the guiltiness of the defendant(s)

This is very illegal. It requires the WA itself to detain individuals, and that doesn't so much break the policing metagaming rule as jump up and down on it with hobnail boots. It obliges the WA to supply a defense lawyer, which will be fun since it doesn't have any. The Crown Prosecution Table breaks the committee rules all on its own, as if having the result decided by a vote of the WA wasn't blatant enough. And if you've ever seen all the WA ambassadors together in one place, or even paying attention to one place at the same time, you're a lucky man.

This is very illegal. It requires the WA itself to detain individuals, and that doesn't so much break the policing metagaming rule as jump up and down on it with hobnail boots. It obliges the WA to supply a defense lawyer, which will be fun since it doesn't have any. The Crown Prosecution Table breaks the committee rules all on its own, as if having the result decided by a vote of the WA wasn't blatant enough. And if you've ever seen all the WA ambassadors together in one place, or even paying attention to one place at the same time, you're a lucky man.

I wasn't suggesting any sort of metagaming fantasy were there is a tread available for court cases or something like that, I meant that prosecution of discriminative "criminals" and such should be expanded on in, though everyone in the WA would be obligated to follow the rules anyway. It would be as fictional as our committees, which could be taken as meta-gaming if we didn't specify they actually don't happen outside of the resolution.

I wasn't suggesting any sort of metagaming fantasy were there is a tread available for court cases or something like that, I meant that prosecution of discriminative "criminals" and such should be expanded on in, though everyone in the WA would be obligated to follow the rules anyway. It would be as fictional as our committees, which could be taken as meta-gaming if we didn't specify they actually don't happen outside of the resolution.
What you meant is irrelevant. To quote a much-missed delegation, "The law says what the law says." Whether your meant it or not, your suggested addition would justify starting such a thread, which is exactly what the metagaming rules are there to prevent. If you don't believe me, read the sticky.

To quote a much-missed delegation, "The law says what the law says."Actually, the line is, "the law means what the law says." :tongue:

What you meant is irrelevant. To quote a much-missed delegation, "The law says what the law says." Whether your meant it or not, your suggested addition would justify starting such a thread, which is exactly what the metagaming rules are there to prevent. If you don't believe me, read the sticky.

John Lennon then might as well have added another line to All you Need is Love...

You Can Misread Anything You Read

All you Need Is Bad Diplomacy!

Fact of the matter is, you can suggest anything from misinterpretation.
Thats why you should be following the spirit of the law, not the word.

Words mean nothing without the spirit.

This exchange is becoming slightly off topic. We should say that we do not anticipate member states having to divine some ineffable intention from this statute should it ever become law. We hope to make its meaning as explicit as possible to avoid the possibility of divergent or contradictory interpretation.

We would welcome any advice on how this might be achieved.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Alas, I am the master of diversion and off topicness.
Lest it not hinder the furthering of this splendid proposal.

I would recommend

However the w.a. recognizes the need, periodically for member states to differentiate their treatment of their inhabitants 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.

-Define Periodical for the purposes of this resolution. To end any possible loopholes. (I know those pesky dictators should just buy a dictionary, but...)
- Possibly the discrimination of criminals and detainees (The latter being what the quoted paragraph talks about, I think) could be elaborated on.
- Explain the minimum treatment and provisions that these detainees should be given. Because they ARE being discriminated for diplomatic reasons, so what is the bare minimum they must be allowed? (There not PoW, I don't think)
- International Discrimination!? (Xenophobia?)

We have currently removed the entire passage pro tem, honoured Ambassador. The more we read it in conjunction with the preceding provisions the more we could not see the point in it.

The statute requires states to enforce their own and international laws equally, as such we cannot see how this would actually prevent them from eliminating threats to their security or deal with other national crises. Interning whole sections of society for instance would not prevent dissaffection or improve internal cohesion. Differentiating treatment of civilians during natural disasters or other such events is illogical. Racial profiling cannot be said to offer tangible or wide scale efficacy.

In short, unless we can be shown specific instances where discrimination is irrefutably in the national interest and how this discrimination can be operated without actually harming the society in question in the long term then we are loathe to offer any "get out" clauses at all.

Yours e.t.c. ,

In short, unless we can be shown specific instances where discrimination is irrefutably in the national interest and how this discrimination can be operated without actually harming the society in question in the long term then we are loathe to offer any "get out" clauses at all.

O.O.C A thought experiment, If Maxtopia goes to war with Bigtopia, Maxtopia puts all the immigrants from Bigtopia in internment camps for national security and their own protection from radical (and drunk) Maxtopians.

I don't agree with the statement, but nether the less it could be that "specific instance" that you mention.

No indeed it is not the specific instance unfortunately, honoured Ambassador. No evidence exists which proves that interning whole populations of minority immigrant populations from nations with whom ones state is at war has any positive effects for ones own nation or the minority in question. Incidences of law breaking by the drunk individuals you are referring to should be able to be dealt with as all other crimes are without any real disadvantage, and indeed in preserving a sense of normal rule of law may in fact have a morale boosting effect.

Persons who have emigrated from a belligerent nation to its opponent prior to commencement of hostilities are in any case largely unlikely to feel strong desires to support a nation which they were unwilling or unable to live in any more and are quite likely to wish to show solidarity with their adoptive nation. Presuming the opposite will in fact alienate these immigrants and make them disaffected rather than assimilating them to the cause one is fighting.

The long term effects of this kind of alienation can be highly corrosive to social cohesion, leading to ghettoisation, marginalisation, mutual suspicion and ingrained prejudice and mutual misunderstanding.

Added to this are the considerable expense and waste of man power and frequently the accompanying inhuman and degrading treatment and tendency towards abuse which are the common side effects of this kind of action.

Thus we feel that interning the citizens of a state with whom one is at war would in fact undo large parts of the work this resolution is trying to do and on a time scale which would doubtless far out last the prosecution of a war.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Very well, I agree with you completely on that issue.
However I must continue to find different instances that a problem may arouse,

and hence I bring forth a new thought experiment:

Maxtopia is under a dark age of civil unrest. Residents of Lower Maxtopia wish to separate from the Maxtopian Democratic Government. Some lower Maxtopians have formed terrorist groups attacking the more traditional Upper Maxtopia which is in fact the centre of the nation's politics. After hearing of a possible terrorist demonstration in Lower Maxtopia, Maxtopian Prime Minister Treubeck decides to order the national guard on Lower Maxtopia, ordering any separatist sympathizers in the demonstration be put in jail. The rights of Lower Maxtopians is severely cut, to allow the police to arrest and investigate anyone in Lower Maxtopia. The Prime Minister promises Maxtopia that the nation will stabilize soon after the separatist-terrorist movement is squashed, and the rights of Lower Maxtopians will return.


So, is the Anti-Discrimination Act taking away a nation's right to Political Stability?

Very well, I agree with you completely on that issue.
However I must continue to find different instances that a problem may arouse,

and hence I bring forth a new thought experiment:

Maxtopia is under a dark age of civil unrest. Residents of Lower Maxtopia wish to separate from the Maxtopian Democratic Government. Some lower Maxtopians have formed terrorist groups attacking the more traditional Upper Maxtopia which is in fact the centre of the nation's politics. After hearing of a possible terrorist demonstration in Lower Maxtopia, Maxtopian Prime Minister Treubeck decides to order the national guard on Lower Maxtopia, ordering any separatist sympathizers in the demonstration be put in jail. The rights of Lower Maxtopians is severely cut, to allow the police to arrest and investigate anyone in Lower Maxtopia. The Prime Minister promises Maxtopia that the nation will stabilize soon after the separatist-terrorist movement is squashed, and the rights of Lower Maxtopians will return.


So, is the Anti-Discrimination Act taking away a nation's right to Political Stability?


There are several reasons why this is a poor reason to allow governments to suspend civil and personal liberties.

Firstly, and most pertinently, it would be madness for the Upper Maxtopian Government to proceed in this fashion since depriving the lower Maxtopians of their rights ( in this case rights to political self determination ) was the cause of Upper Maxtopia's woes in the first place and in further diminishing these rights the upper Maxtopian government could only ever hope to increase resentment of itself in lower Maxtopia. Indeed by introducing these measures the Upper Maxtopian government could only hope to create a positive feedback loop which would involve further alienating the lower Maxtopian population by removing its rights and motivating ever greater numbers of lower Maxtopians to join the fight against an ever increasingly oppressive upper Maxtopian regime which far from seeming to care about their aspirations for self rule was intent on directly marginalising them and depriving them of their democratic freedoms.

This would result in any assurances of a speedy reinstatement of rights on the part of the Upper Maxtopian government being effectively a lie since it could never hope to be certain of a return to normal conditions if it acted so peremptorily.

Secondly, this resolution would not interfere in a nation's ability to investigate, and prosecute criminals of any kind. Lower Maxtopian separatist terrorists would not be easier to fight if upper Maxtopia were wasting vast amounts of time and resources harassing lower Maxtopian civilians ( and for the reasons stated above would find it completely counter-productive ) and would doubtless have far more success if it used more discreet methods of investigation combined with an effort to motivate the lower Maxtopians to assist them perhaps with a real commitment to talking to democratically elected representatives about the issue of self rule. Which leads us to the last reason why this situation is a poor reason for the suspension of civil and personal liberties.

This being that if the Upper Maxtopian government is truly a democracy then it cannot expect to be allowed to suspend civil and personal liberties only for lower Maxtopians instead of more generally for its entire people without becoming an ethnic dictatorship. By which we mean that a government which claims to be a democracy cannot claim to rule with the mandate of its people if it abrogates large sections of its people's opinions and desires and liberties. The lower Maxtopian people would be fully justified in treating any government which ignored their aspirations for self rule and deprived them of their liberties and treated them as criminals as a foreign and hostile occupier.

The Confederated Sublime Khanate itself faced violent insurrection by separatists some centuries ago. The Empire was not ruled democratically in those days and the then Emperor and autocrat decided to fight fire with fire so to speak. The result was a conflagration which nearly destroyed the empire completely. Many millions died in this conflict on both sides. Only when a new emperor offered the real possibility of democracy and a fair hearing to the secessionists was the empire saved. The resulting talks gave autonomy within the empire to the regions which had been ruled by fiat and command before and a completely new form of government for all. The citizens of the empire regardless of their location within it have never been more loyal to it and stability and prosperity and peace have been assured in perpetuity.


By putting the civil and personal liberties of lower Maxtopians beyond doubt this resolution would in fact increase the overall stability of greater Maxtopia by reassuring the lower Maxtopians that though their separatist aspirations might currently remain unheeded they could still expect to enjoy fair and equal governance which would be required to treat them as equals in society with as much right to be heard and understood as any other group.

We should repeat though that this resolution does not effect any change in how member states may treat violent criminals who may be acting on their own recognizance and who aim at benefiting none but themselves. This must simply be done in accordance with a member states existing laws for the investigation and prosecution of such crimes and not descend into an ethnic persecution and widespread and unwarranted oppression.


Yours e.t.c. ,

This being that if the Upper Maxtopian government is truly a democracy then it cannot expect to be allowed to suspend civil and personal liberties only for lower Maxtopians instead of more generally for its entire people without becoming an ethnic dictatorship. By which we mean that a government which claims to be a democracy cannot claim to rule with the mandate of its people if it abrogates large sections of its people's opinions and desires and liberties. The lower Maxtopian people would be fully justified in treating any government which ignored their aspirations for self rule and deprived them of their liberties and treated them as criminals as a foreign and hostile occupier.


O.O.C the scenario was based on Canadian Politics, the FLQ a terrorist organization did the radical demonstrations to the rest Canada in protest of separation. On the front steps of parliament a reporter commented on Prime Minister Trudeau "But, you can't be seriously thinking about attacking Quebec, with all the separatism movement!?", Trudeau stared at him glaringly "Just watch me" he said. Within the moment, Quebec was under a War Time Clause, many rights of Quebeckers were restricted to allow police to capture the FLQ. It was the destruction of the FLQ and its terrorist implications, but lead to the formation of a political party, the PQ, who's main principles are the separation of Quebec.

Many were not upset in Quebec actually, those who were captured were treated fairly and released quickly, they understood that the FLQ needed to be taken care of it, even if Quebeckers rights were being cut temporarily.

Sorry, if you don't really care. But this was an important part of Canadian History, which is typically looked at as a "good" move by Trudeau, and I think governments would be upset if they were barred from doing the same when civil unrest happens. Not all terrorism-separatist groups can be cooled down with a little political sweep-under-the-rug-with-a-little-extra-civil-rights-bonus.

I appreciate the efforts of Urgench to promote equal rights in all aspects. However, I feel that a separate resolution on each aspect (women, disability, belief) is feasible because if one equal rights resolution is repealed then the whole equal rights thing wouldn't collapse.

This is apparently evident for the Disability sector because I wish to protect and promote disability and disability rights.

I appreciate the efforts of Urgench to promote equal rights in all aspects. However, I feel that a separate resolution on each aspect (women, disability, belief) is feasible because if one equal rights resolution is repealed then the whole equal rights thing wouldn't collapse.

This is apparently evident for the Disability sector because I wish to protect and promote disability and disability rights.



This is merely a non-discrimination statute and not a bill of rights, honoured Ambassador, we would not object to a statute dealing with the needs of the disabled.

Write whatever you like on the needs of the disabled more specifically. So long as it contains no positive discrimination then this statute and what ever you write will be able to co-exist perfectly.

Yours e.t.c. ,

O.O.C the scenario was based on Canadian Politics, the FLQ a terrorist organization did the radical demonstrations to the rest Canada in protest of separation. On the front steps of parliament a reporter commented on Prime Minister Trudeau "But, you can't be seriously thinking about attacking Quebec, with all the separatism movement!?", Trudeau stared at him glaringly "Just watch me" he said. Within the moment, Quebec was under a War Time Clause, many rights of Quebeckers were restricted to allow police to capture the FLQ. It was the destruction of the FLQ and its terrorist implications, but lead to the formation of a political party, the PQ, who's main principles are the separation of Quebec.

Many were not upset in Quebec actually, those who were captured were treated fairly and released quickly, they understood that the FLQ needed to be taken care of it, even if Quebeckers rights were being cut temporarily.

Sorry, if you don't really care. But this was an important part of Canadian History, which is typically looked at as a "good" move by Trudeau, and I think governments would be upset if they were barred from doing the same when civil unrest happens. Not all terrorism-separatist groups can be cooled down with a little political sweep-under-the-rug-with-a-little-extra-civil-rights-bonus.



O.O.C. I hate making out of character statements in the w.a. so I don't really want to write a long response to this. Suffice it to say that what may be a political victory may not always be a moral one and i'm not familiar enough with the situation your writing about to decide which of these Mr. Trudeau achieved.

Either way if the people of Quebec consented to having their rights suspended then more fool them but strictly speaking this resolution does not preclude the possibility of emergency measures so long as they are non-discriminatory in nature.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I have not read the debate in its entirety, so forgive if I'm bringing up a dead point.

The proposal is rather sweeping. I could call it a gay marriage proposal (which has been pointed out), a desegregation proposal, an antislavery proposal, a worker's protection proposal, etc, from this single clause:
a ) All inhabitants of w.a. member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by their nation of residence.

Not that I am against gay marriage, antislavery, and the like. I'm just concerned that such a sweeping resolution could actually be passed in to international law. It's just the bureaucrat in me, though.

I'm generally favorable of this proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes

I have not read the debate in its entirety, so forgive if I'm bringing up a dead point.

The proposal is rather sweeping. I could call it a gay marriage proposal (which has been pointed out), a desegregation proposal, an antislavery proposal, a worker's protection proposal, etc, from this single clause:


Not that I am against gay marriage, antislavery, and the like. I'm just concerned that such a sweeping resolution could actually be passed in to international law. It's just the bureaucrat in me, though.

I'm generally favorable of this proposal.

Dr. Bradford Castro,
Ambassador to the World Assembly,
from the Commonwealth of Glen-Rhodes


The w.a. has already taken steps to legalise homosexuality through out the w.a. and to make gay unions legal. It has also already banned slavery.

This resolution simply prevents member states from alienating any particular group of their inhabitants from their legal rights both in domestic and international law. No specific rights are actually outlined in this bill except the right of all inhabitants of w.a. states to be treated equally by the government of the state in which they live. Some states will choose to extend more freedoms some will reduce freedoms.

Anti-discrimination law may seem sweeping in some respects in that it effects all persons for whom it is made but in fact its effect is in application rather than formulation of law. Treat each citizen of your state as an individual with their own relationship to the state instead of lumping individuals together on spurious and crude bases such as race, sex, age or ethnicity which are in any case extremely non-diagnostic indicators, this is the essence of non-discrimination.


Yours e.t.c. ,

preclude the possibility of emergency measures so long as they are non-discriminatory in nature.

Perfect, now mention this in the resolution. Set up standards for civil emergencies concerning discrimination and treatment of civil defectors and such. I know your list was not comprehensive, merely because that would be nearly impossible and quite boring to read, but this sort of thing will attract the eyes of your vital voting demographic and sooth the worried dictators who love their political stability.

Perfect, now mention this in the resolution. Set up standards for civil emergencies concerning discrimination and treatment of civil defectors and such. I know your list was not comprehensive, merely because that would be nearly impossible and quite boring to read, but this sort of thing will attract the eyes of your vital voting demographic and sooth the worried dictators who love their political stability.



The point is, honoured Ambassador, that even during periods of national emergency when normal civilian law must needs be suspended their is still no strictly practical reason to introduce discriminatory laws. Emergency or Martial law can be applied equally without the need to single out specific groups for special or different treatment.

For instance what would be the point of making martial conditions only apply to specific ethnic groups or social classes ? Unless the member state in question had an ulterior motive for doing so ?

What would be the point of applying Emergency contingency laws only to specific sexualities or age groups unless the member state in question had other motives than alleviating the circumstances of the Emergency?

Emergency law should apply without discrimination just as normal law should.

The whole point of this statute is to deny states the right to make fatuous presumptions about their inhabitants based on the colour of their skin, their inability to walk, the deity they worship e.t.c. Presumptions which invariably lead states to make laws and apply them in ways which have ridiculous and socially destructive outcomes. Why would it be better for states to do this at times when social cohesion and national morale are more vital than ever?

Indeed when faced with crisis discriminatory policy may actually be highly dangerous.

The example of communicable disease is instructive. A nation finds itself suddenly in the grip of an epidemic, the greatest number of those showing symptoms of infection are of a particular age group would it be sensible to discriminate against this entire age group and quarantine them all ? No. This is because the right thing to do is to quarantine all those who are showing symptoms and all those you know them to have had contact with, and all those you may reasonably surmise them to have had contact with.

This would not mean all persons of this age group would need to be quarantined since not all individuals of this age are in contact with each other or are showing symptoms. Some of this age will have been abroad and returned to find their country in the grips of crisis but are perfectly healthy, some do not habitually interact with others of their own age, others live in remote places or choose not to have contact with anyone, others are in prisons, or other forms of seclusion from society, others will be immune and not be carriers of this disease.

The waste of time and resources it would take for a state to quarantine every member of this age group within their society would be dangerous since it would ignore other groups who may be infected and may be continuing to pass infection and it would be quarantining perfectly healthy individuals for no good reason, healthy individuals who could be assisting the effort to prevent further infection.

A tale from the mythical "Real World" shows this to be true. A new disease called AIDS appeared, it was widely associated with homosexuals because in some countries they were some of the first to be infected with this disease even though this was not the case in all countries. It suited certain countries with a historic contempt of Homosexuals to compound the misinformation that AIDS was a disease only of homosexuals. As a result many millions of heterosexuals became infected with this dangerous disease because their governments had not made it clear enough that they were just as capable of being infected also. Millions died because discriminatory thinking had interfered with proper policy in the matter of disease control.


We will make it clear within the resolution that Emergency and Martial law are uneffected so long as they are non-discriminatory in nature.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Thank you Ambassador.

I will look further into the resolution for other possible "problems" in your proposal.

Thank you Ambassador.

I will look further into the resolution for other possible "problems" in your proposal.


We thank the honoured Ambassador for allowing us the opportunity to fully explore the meaning and intentions of this resolution. Doubtless we will have to make similar points if this statute ever comes to vote. We welcome your further examination of any possible faults the statute may have.

Yours e.t.c. ,

All inhabitants of w.a. member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender alignment, except for compelling practical purposes or where the emotional or physical well-being of others is concerned.


This might be a weak point to bring up, but what if the government is a chiefdom with the older members of society leading the nation. This would constitute as Ageism, or something like that, because younger citizens are discriminated from being politicians. But I don't see why that nation shouldn't have the right to choose who runs its nation.

The application of both Emergency legal measures and Martial law must also respect the provisions of this resolution.

Watch your capitalization.

Both are capitalised as formal nouns honoured Ambassador, in the case of Emergency perhaps we will change it since it is more of an adjective.

Yours e.t.c. ,

Both are capitalised as formal nouns honoured Ambassador, in the case of Emergency perhaps we will change it since it is more of an adjective.

Yours e.t.c. ,

It just looked odd to my grammar-spidey senses. Maybe in Unibot they taught different...

This might be a weak point to bring up, but what if the government is a chiefdom with the older members of society leading the nation. This would constitute as Ageism, or something like that, because younger citizens are discriminated from being politicians. But I don't see why that nation shouldn't have the right to choose who runs its nation.

I believe I have answered my own inquiry. It is not discrimination if the same laws apply to everyone, and seeing as how age effects everyone the same chronologically then a chiefdom run specifically with older members of the society is not discrimination. As long as it is a well oiled system, and it is plausible at some point in a natural life to become a politician or chief. Or else having only "educated" teachers would be discriminative against non-educated teachers for example.

As well, it's doubtful that a chiefdom would have a law stating that one must be above the age of X before becoming a chief. They'd most probably simply have tests of wisdom or knowledge or... other chiefy talents that are only found in sufficient quantity in the elderly and senile.

We basically support this proposal, and should all bits and bumps be sorted out will do so strongly.

A few things, that may have been brought up already:

1. Would it kill you to capitalise 'WA'? Sorry, I know it's petty.

2. I am really unclear on what the 'previously stated grounds' are in clause 2 (b) are.

3. You have a run-on sentence in 2 (b). You should separate 'member states should actively...' off into a separate clause, or at least change the comma to a semi-colon.

4. I am uneasy about the use of the word 'should' in the above subclause, especially given you elsewhere use 'shall'. I would suggest either using 'shall' or, if your intention is to make the requirement weaker, an alternative phrasing such as 'are encouraged to'.

5. You use '[WA] member states' three times, then switch to 'member states'. It would be better to be consistent:
- use 'WA member states' once, then 'member states' thereafter;
- use 'WA member states' throughout;
- use 'member states' throughout.

6. You letter individual clauses, but you have two non-lettered clauses floating between Articles 1 and 2. I would suggest either turning these into a separate article, or lettering them (d) and (e).

The above are, for the most part, eminently cosmetic suggestions that do little to change the force of the bill but will, I feel, aid comprehension and clarity.

I have two slightly more substantive concerns, of a similar nature.

The first is with 2 (a). You pick what are, to me, a quite narrow set of areas for discrimination to be barred from. What about, for example, compensation? Does this really fall under 'employment' (which I would assume to be more about hiring practices)? I am not sure that 'benefits' fall within 'services'.

The second is with 1 (c). You provide a long and admirably comprehensive list of criteria, with the obvious - and purposeful? - omissions of 'age', 'political affiliation', and 'sexual identity' (which may fall under 'gender alignment', I'm unsure of the distinction between the terms). Though I do not personally take issue with it, others might note your exclusion of 'species'. As I have stated in past discussions on issues of this nature, I remain unconvinced that this is the optimal way to approach the subject. We cannot, possibly, compile a list of what amounts to all the different ways people will find to hate one another. Fifty years ago in Quintessence of Dust, a couple of those criteria would not have made the list. A hundred years ago, even 'race' and 'sex' might not have. Are there differences between us that we are not including, which might in a new fifty years seem significant? For example, the use of artificial prosthetic enhancements. One might imagine a dystopia where IQ is a grounds for discrimination.

I wonder, then, whether it is possible to derive a more abstract expression. One, imperfect, suggestion would be:
'any arbitrary criteria'
or, a fuller one:
'any criteria irrelevant to the pursuit of good citizenship'.

I do not pretend those two example sentences would suffice: in fact, I acknowledge they wouldn't. But wouldn't it at least be possible to come up with a way to define 'unfair discrimination' in a way that does not simply consist of cataloguing ways in which people are different, but rather looks for a common grounds through which people are equal?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

We basically support this proposal, and should all bits and bumps be sorted out will do so strongly.

A few things, that may have been brought up already:

1. Would it kill you to capitalise 'WA'? Sorry, I know it's petty.

2. I am really unclear on what the 'previously stated grounds' are in clause 2 (b) are.

3. You have a run-on sentence in 2 (b). You should separate 'member states should actively...' off into a separate clause, or at least change the comma to a semi-colon.

4. I am uneasy about the use of the word 'should' in the above subclause, especially given you elsewhere use 'shall'. I would suggest either using 'shall' or, if your intention is to make the requirement weaker, an alternative phrasing such as 'are encouraged to'.

5. You use '[WA] member states' three times, then switch to 'member states'. It would be better to be consistent:
- use 'WA member states' once, then 'member states' thereafter;
- use 'WA member states' throughout;
- use 'member states' throughout.

6. You letter individual clauses, but you have two non-lettered clauses floating between Articles 1 and 2. I would suggest either turning these into a separate article, or lettering them (d) and (e).

The above are, for the most part, eminently cosmetic suggestions that do little to change the force of the bill but will, I feel, aid comprehension and clarity.

I have two slightly more substantive concerns, of a similar nature.

The first is with 2 (a). You pick what are, to me, a quite narrow set of areas for discrimination to be barred from. What about, for example, compensation? Does this really fall under 'employment' (which I would assume to be more about hiring practices)? I am not sure that 'benefits' fall within 'services'.

The second is with 1 (c). You provide a long and admirably comprehensive list of criteria, with the obvious - and purposeful? - omissions of 'age', 'political affiliation', and 'sexual identity' (which may fall under 'gender alignment', I'm unsure of the distinction between the terms). Though I do not personally take issue with it, others might note your exclusion of 'species'. As I have stated in past discussions on issues of this nature, I remain unconvinced that this is the optimal way to approach the subject. We cannot, possibly, compile a list of what amounts to all the different ways people will find to hate one another. Fifty years ago in Quintessence of Dust, a couple of those criteria would not have made the list. A hundred years ago, even 'race' and 'sex' might not have. Are there differences between us that we are not including, which might in a new fifty years seem significant? For example, the use of artificial prosthetic enhancements. One might imagine a dystopia where IQ is a grounds for discrimination.

I wonder, then, whether it is possible to derive a more abstract expression. One, imperfect, suggestion would be:
'any arbitrary criteria'
or, a fuller one:
'any criteria irrelevant to the pursuit of good citizenship'.

I do not pretend those two example sentences would suffice: in fact, I acknowledge they wouldn't. But wouldn't it at least be possible to come up with a way to define 'unfair discrimination' in a way that does not simply consist of cataloguing ways in which people are different, but rather looks for a common grounds through which people are equal?

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria




We are honoured that the respected Ms. Benson has offered her input to our endeavour. It gives us great encouragement, and we sincerely thank her.

We will make all the structural and compositional changes she suggests ( we are aware that this is often a weakness with us ) including making the floating clauses into articles and replacing that ugly "should".


As for Ms. Benson's other points, the first we will address by asking her if she thinks their are any other areas in which we can eliminate discrimination which are not covered by the first two clauses of the first article? We will certainly include further prohibitions if they are necessary. We will definitely include "services, compensation and benefits" in Article 2.

The second is more complicated to address. The list of criteria is included ( and probably will remain so ) as a fail safe. It insures that in the event of nations attempting clever evasions of the rest of the statute the named will still be able to site their inclusion on this list for protection of their equality. This list stresses that it is inclusive and we intend that nations should feel free to add whatever other criteria they see fit once it is written into their legal codes.

Age was specifically left out because we could not reconcile the concept of ages of consent to sex or ages of majority with a prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age. Member states are free to include this criteria if they wish so long as it can be made to fit with their international legal commitments and national laws on this topic.

We also chose consciously not to include political affiliation because we would not wish to interfere directly if nations which have suffered under totalitarian regimes which committed grave crimes against humanity choose to ban membership of the parties or organisations which supported these regimes. There are other reasons for which we would see sensible cause to ban certain kinds of political organisation also. We left this criteria for nations to include if they wish, but we are open to be persuaded to include it.

We will change "gender alignment" to "sexual identity" which was our preferred wording in any case, " gender alignment" was a remnant of former drafts.

The matter of species was we hoped solved by making this resolution apply to "all inhabitants of W.A. member states" the term "inhabitant" referring to an individual who consciously intends to inhabit a location, as opposed to someone, or rather something, which merely lives or exists in that location. This conscious intent could really only be the action of a sapient being rather than one which is only motivated by less complicated forms of instinct.


Your suggested rewording is interesting. The possibility of creating a common characteristic of equalisation ( which we had hoped might be covered by making everyone " equal in law and under its actions" ) is very interesting to us and eliminating discrimination on any arbitrary criteria is interesting too.

As for the latter we might prefer- " any arbitrary categorisation which reduces an individuals identity to this category and which could be used to discriminate against them in law or by private businesses or organisations " or words to this effect.



We hope we have answered some of your questions Ms. Benson, and once again wish to thank you for your invaluable input.


Yours sincerely,

In fact we have decided to letter the two floating clauses the respected Ms. Benson pointed out to us as clauses d) and e) of article 1 as she suggested.


Yours e.t.c. ,

WA in the preamble is still not capitalised. Otherwise this is starting to look very good and I look forward to supporting it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

WA in the preamble is still not capitalised. Otherwise this is starting to look very good and I look forward to supporting it.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire


Thank you, change made, and thank you for your encouragement honoured Ambassador.


Yours,

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination on previously stated grounds in private employment, housing, education or access to services, employment benefits, and compensations provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.The phrase is "services provided to the general public," and you seem to have unwittingly bisected it. Move "services" accordingly.

Thank you honoured Ambassador, the change is made.

Yours ,

Excellent work so far, and I hope that the respected ambassador for Urgench will accept our apologies for conflict of opinion and I am hopeful that successful reconciliation can be made to bring the WA as a whole back together.

Excellent work so far, and I hope that the respected ambassador for Urgench will accept our apologies for conflict of opinion and I am hopeful that successful reconciliation can be made to bring the WA as a whole back together.


No apologies are necessary honoured Ambassador and no substantive rift exists. No reconciliation is necessary. Certainly our opinion of the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg is unchanged irrespective of any differences of opinion.

We are very grateful for the honoured Ambassador's encouragement.

Yours sincerely,

d ) Member states are enjoined to counteract ignorance and prejudice, and create or allow large-scale education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity.
We oppose any measure which seeks to establish education programs in cultural diversity. The people of Aundotutunagir enjoy the benefits of living in a monolithic culture and see no need to be exposed to the cultures of foreigners with ways different than our own.

Perhaps you could add a clause allowing for the establishment of organizations to censor literature and media so as to allow nations to protect their citizens from cultural pollution?

That's a bit over the top, and the censorship of explicit material in member nations appear way outside the scope of equal rights.

We oppose any measure which seeks to establish education programs in cultural diversity. The people of Aundotutunagir enjoy the benefits of living in a monolithic culture and see no need to be exposed to the cultures of foreigners with ways different than our own.

Perhaps you could add a clause allowing for the establishment of organizations to censor literature and media so as to allow nations to protect their citizens from cultural pollution?



On reflection and after having consulted with our legal advisers we have decided to inform the honoured and respected Ambassador for Audotutunagir that it is our sincerest regret that we cannot comply with their request.

The matter of censorship of "cultural pollution" as the honoured and revered Ambassador so eloquently puts it is quite beyond the instructions given to the permanent mission of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench to the World Assembly by our ministry for Foreign Affairs on the matter of drafting this resolution.


Yours e.t.c. ,

On reflection and after having consulted with our legal advisers we have decided to inform the honoured and respected Ambassador for Audotutunagir that it is our sincerest regret that we cannot comply with their request.
Very well. I shall return to Aundotutunagir and inform the government of your intransigence. In the meantime, I offer the assistance of my Cultural Attaché in making this proposal more palatable to Aundotutunagirian values, should you reconsider.

Very well. I shall return to Aundotutunagir and inform the government of your intransigence. In the meantime, I offer the assistance of my Cultural Attaché in making this proposal more palatable to Aundotutunagirian values, should you reconsider.


Please extend the warmest felicitations of his Divine Majesty the Emperor of Urgench to your government honoured Ambassador, and please do not mistake incapacity for intransigence.

Very well. I shall return to Aundotutunagir and inform the government of your intransigence. In the meantime, I offer the assistance of my Cultural Attaché in making this proposal more palatable to Aundotutunagirian values, should you reconsider.



By the way your nation's flag is very interesting, who's skulls are depicted upon it ?


Yours e.t.c. ,

By the way your nation's flag is very interesting, who's skulls are depicted upon it ?


Yours e.t.c. ,
Many centuries ago, when the Aundotutunagirian People were still living in tents because we had yet to develop the hovel-building skills, we were visited by three missionaries from a far away land called "Sweden".

The missionaries were wise and very kind, plus they were helpful and skilled in many technologies which were unknown to the Aundotutunagirian People. The missionaries taught us improved farming and irrigation techniques. They taught us construction, road-building, writing, mathematics and many other things. They were, in effect, the agents of our transformation from a nomadic society to a settled, city-dwelling people. The modern and enlightened miracle that is Aundotutunagir may well have never existed if it had not been for the intervention of these missionaries.

Eventually it was decided that since the missionaries were foreigners they would have to be killed. So one night, while the missionaries were asleep in their beds, the Aundotutunagirians went into their hut and hacked them to pieces. Their corpses were dragged behind horses and small children were encouraged to beat them with rocks and sticks. Finally their heads were removed and placed on pikes in the town square.

Those are the skulls on our flag.

Many centuries ago, when the Aundotutunagirian People were still living in tents because we had yet to develop the hovel-building skills, we were visited by three missionaries from a far away land called "Sweden".

The missionaries were wise and very kind, plus they were helpful and skilled in many technologies which were unknown to the Aundotutunagirian People. The missionaries taught us improved farming and irrigation techniques. They taught us construction, road-building, writing, mathematics and many other things. They were, in effect, the agents of our transformation from a nomadic society to a settled, city-dwelling people. The modern and enlightened miracle that is Aundotutunagir may well have never existed if it had not been for the intervention of these missionaries.

Eventually it was decided that since the missionaries were foreigners they would have to be killed. So one night, while the missionaries were asleep in their beds, the Aundotutunagirians went into their hut and hacked them to pieces. Their corpses were dragged behind horses and small children were encouraged to beat them with rocks and sticks. Finally their heads were removed and placed on pikes in the town square.

Those are the skulls on our flag.
__________________

OOC like the three skulls from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

OOC like the three skulls from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
No, like the three skulls from "The Aundotutunagirian People kill the foreign devils and place their heads on pikes".

Many centuries ago, when the Aundotutunagirian People were still living in tents because we had yet to develop the hovel-building skills, we were visited by three missionaries from a far away land called "Sweden".

The missionaries were wise and very kind, plus they were helpful and skilled in many technologies which were unknown to the Aundotutunagirian People. The missionaries taught us improved farming and irrigation techniques. They taught us construction, road-building, writing, mathematics and many other things. They were, in effect, the agents of our transformation from a nomadic society to a settled, city-dwelling people. The modern and enlightened miracle that is Aundotutunagir may well have never existed if it had not been for the intervention of these missionaries.

Eventually it was decided that since the missionaries were foreigners they would have to be killed. So one night, while the missionaries were asleep in their beds, the Aundotutunagirians went into their hut and hacked them to pieces. Their corpses were dragged behind horses and small children were encouraged to beat them with rocks and sticks. Finally their heads were removed and placed on pikes in the town square.

Those are the skulls on our flag.



Of course, of course, how colourful. Missionaries can be very tiresome.

We have consulted with the Imperial Geological Survey of Urgench, and they inform us that your claim to having a monolithic state, one created from a single super-gigantic piece of stone, are outlandish, improbable and an engineer's nightmare.

All the more reason, we fear, for us to ignore your renowned nation's former requests of the statute which is the subject of this resolution. Geology is not a laughing matter with Urgenchis and we do not approve of hyperbolic claims of lithic magnificence.


Yours e.t.c., e.t.c. ,

one created from a single super-gigantic piece of stone

Ambassador Eduard Heir flips his cellphone open, calling Prof. Franklin Dogood of Unibotian Geology. "Where did our nation come from!?" asked Heir nervously, Dogood laughed, "no one knows that, the world just..happened.". Heir stared blankly, "it just...happened. Huh, and you're a university professor of geology, correct!?", "why yes, twenty-five years and counting..".

We have consulted with the Imperial Geological Survey of Urgench, and they inform us that your claim to having a monolithic state, one created from a single super-gigantic piece of stone, are outlandish, improbable and an engineer's nightmare.
What!? I said we enjoyed the benefits of living in a monolithic culture. ARE YOU MOCKING ME!?

Anyway, we are sidetracking the discussion of your culturally imperialistic proposal with this foolishness. Let us get back to the matter at hand.

Article 1 section c) has been expanded to include some of the ideas suggested by the honoured and respected Ms. Benson of the Quodite delegation. We would welcome Ms. Benson's criticism of this redraft, and any other delegation's criticism and advice also.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Once again, great work. We could improve the preamble and the structure, perhaps adopting from whatever is left of the voluntarily withdrawn resolution Rights of the Disabled, and integrate into this, but I am absolutely certain the committees should be left out this time: it was a inadvertently not a good idea in this case. BTW, be sure to praise member nations who say no to discrimination.

I would move the phrase the World Assembly to the top, and reword along the lines of as below:

The World Assembly,

Applauding member states who condemn the inhumane practice of discrimination, a principle in which a member state or organization unreasonably favour citizens of a certain kind over others whether it is access to basic services or employment;

Recognising that the furtherance of personal freedom is a pre-eminent task of civilisation and therefore;

Seeking to to augment this by making this kind of discrimination history;

We will certainly consider including a reference to those states which already act against
discrimination.

We think that the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg's wording is a little too verbose for what we were trying to achieve however. Our desire is to keep the preamble as simple as possible to eliminate confusion.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is pleased at having read this Proposal. She has the following comments:

1. Article 1a states that "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions." The Holy Empire holds that persons under certain ages are not legally equal in that they are not legally responsible for their actions. For example, a 5 year old cannot, legally, enter into a binding contract for mobile-phone services. The parent or legal guardian of said child would need to sign the contract. Similarly, the child cited above would not be legally responsible for damage done in the course of play; rather the parents would be responsible for any repair costs even though they themselves have not caused the damage. And, recognizing that childhood is a time of making mistakes, the legal dossier of a child is closed and cannot be reviewed or used against the child in future legal disputes at a certain age.

All these examples are, in the opinion of the Holy Empire, good situations in which equality should not be granted. Furthermore: there are those that, due to disease or situation, should not be considered legally competent and held equal to those that are considered legally competent. For example: the mentally insane.

The Holy Empire would enjoy seeing a modification of this phrase to allow, explicitly, justifiable exceptions to equality - while being aware that this does raise the possibility of loop-holes that can be exploited.

2. Consider dropping the phrase "...or where the emotional or physical well-being of others is concerned" in Article 1c. She feels that this is sufficiently covered by the phrase "compelling practical reasons" and would elemanate a potential loop-hole. Especially as "others" and "well-being" has not been qualified, theoretically it would be sufficient to find one person who would be distressed by, for example, having to work with someone of a different race to allow racial discrimination at work to be legal.

3. The Holy Empire is always concerned when the phrase "including but not limited to" is used in the context of a Proposal such as this. She must ask "what else is covered by this Proposal?" In Her opinion, the Proposal should list the minimum, and include a phrase similar to "and other categories as the member nation deems" to allow for expansion. That brings clarity as to just what the Proposal is covering, while allowing those nations to expand as deemed well and fit.

In all, the Holy Empire applauds this Proposal.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve is pleased at having read this Proposal. She has the following comments:

1. Article 1a states that "All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions." The Holy Empire holds that persons under certain ages are not legally equal in that they are not legally responsible for their actions. For example, a 5 year old cannot, legally, enter into a binding contract for mobile-phone services. The parent or legal guardian of said child would need to sign the contract. Similarly, the child cited above would not be legally responsible for damage done in the course of play; rather the parents would be responsible for any repair costs even though they themselves have not caused the damage. And, recognizing that childhood is a time of making mistakes, the legal dossier of a child is closed and cannot be reviewed or used against the child in future legal disputes at a certain age.

All these examples are, in the opinion of the Holy Empire, good situations in which equality should not be granted. Furthermore: there are those that, due to disease or situation, should not be considered legally competent and held equal to those that are considered legally competent. For example: the mentally insane.

The Holy Empire would enjoy seeing a modification of this phrase to allow, explicitly, justifiable exceptions to equality - while being aware that this does raise the possibility of loop-holes that can be exploited.

2. Consider dropping the phrase "...or where the emotional or physical well-being of others is concerned" in Article 1c. She feels that this is sufficiently covered by the phrase "compelling practical reasons" and would elemanate a potential loop-hole. Especially as "others" and "well-being" has not been qualified, theoretically it would be sufficient to find one person who would be distressed by, for example, having to work with someone of a different race to allow racial discrimination at work to be legal.

3. The Holy Empire is always concerned when the phrase "including but not limited to" is used in the context of a Proposal such as this. She must ask "what else is covered by this Proposal?" In Her opinion, the Proposal should list the minimum, and include a phrase similar to "and other categories as the member nation deems" to allow for expansion. That brings clarity as to just what the Proposal is covering, while allowing those nations to expand as deemed well and fit.

In all, the Holy Empire applauds this Proposal.



We thank the honoured Ambassador for New Illuve for their interest and encouragement.

The first article is worded as it is because without it this would not be an anti-discrimination resolution and only other forms of words which communicated the same meaning could ever be used. This does not effect how member states choose to treat persons considered below the age of legal responsibility since age in itself is non-discriminating and in any case the wording does not apply to legal responsibility which is not mentioned in the text of this resolution.

Holding someone legally responsible for their actions or not is a matter for member states to decide for themselves based on the facts available to judge such a thing. So long as this decision is made on the facts pertaining to the individual in question and not on an arbitrary categorisation such as race or sex then this decision is non-discriminatory. To make the decision that all mentally ill people are always incapable of legal responsibility or are in some way unequal is immoral and not sensible, there are many occasions when facts would suggest that a mentally ill person can be considered responsible for their actions, and legal responsibility is not the defining quality which confers equality.

The whole point of this resolution is to stop vast numbers of people being treated in a specific way because they have been pigeon-holed with a label or categorisation.


The second point you make, honoured Ambassador, is interesting. We may well drop the phrase "...or where the emotional or physical well-being of others is concerned" or replace it with a more closed phrasing which will eliminate misuse.

The third point the honoured Ambassador makes accords with our own feelings, the original phrasing did not include "but not limited to" and the word "including" and the latter portion of the clause are enough to indicate that the list may be further augmented in the legal codes of member states should they wish to do so.


Once again we thank the honoured Ambassador,

Yours sincerely,

OOC like the three skulls from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

OOC: No, Temple of Doom has the three sankara stones not skulls.

OOC: No, Temple of Doom has the three sankara stones not skulls.

OOC: You're Right! Geese, I need to rewatch my Indy collection again.

O.O.C. Ok I think I indicated that frippery and foolishness was over for a while anyway in this thread. I'd like sensible types not to have to read through pages of guff ( including my own admittedly ) :)

OOC. Well actually think of those poor Sankara children in the Temple of Doom, enslaved because of discrimination and cosmic evil. Or the Jewish discrimination prevailing in the Last Crusade or the talking alien in ...:)

O.O.C. Seriously, please stop it, I really don't want this to degenerate into a spam thread.

First, I'm glad you adopted all the cosmetic changes.

Second, I included in that list one non-cosmetic point, which understandably seems to have been skipped. In 2 (b), the phrase 'on previously stated grounds' is included. Does this refer to the 'grounds' in 1 (b)? If so, I think it could be phrased a little more clearly: perhaps it could specify 'on such grounds as in clause 1 (b)' (though that's a little inelegant). My point it's only now, on a seventh or so reading, become apparent what those 'grounds' actually are.

I thank you for addressing my substantive issues: I think 'arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation' is a very impressive wording, whose inclusion I support.

I do also agree with my regional colleague that the occlusion of 'or where the emotional or physical well-being of others is concerned' would be advisable. This seems to fall with 'compelling practical reasons' in a way that is less prone to abuse.

-- Samantha Benson

First, I'm glad you adopted all the cosmetic changes.

Second, I included in that list one non-cosmetic point, which understandably seems to have been skipped. In 2 (b), the phrase 'on previously stated grounds' is included. Does this refer to the 'grounds' in 1 (b)? If so, I think it could be phrased a little more clearly: perhaps it could specify 'on such grounds as in clause 1 (b)' (though that's a little inelegant). My point it's only now, on a seventh or so reading, become apparent what those 'grounds' actually are.

I thank you for addressing my substantive issues: I think 'arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation' is a very impressive wording, whose inclusion I support.

I do also agree with my regional colleague that the occlusion of 'or where the emotional or physical well-being of others is concerned' would be advisable. This seems to fall with 'compelling practical reasons' in a way that is less prone to abuse.

-- Samantha Benson


We have made the changes the respected Ms. Benson and the honoured Ambassador for New Illuve have suggested we hope they meet with their approval.


Yours e.t.c. ,

bump

Are you waiting until after the holidays to submit this?

Are you waiting until after the holidays to submit this?

Yes honoured Ambassador, why ?


Yours,

Yes honoured Ambassador, why ?


Yours,
I was just curious. With the necessary approvals so low it would be tempting to do it now, but I think you are prudent to wait.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I was just curious. With the necessary approvals so low it would be tempting to do it now, but I think you are prudent to wait.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire



What is the current figure for the number of delegates necessary for Quorum honoured Ambassador ?


My assistant has absented himself for some unknown reason, and the figure is not in my notes.


Yours,

What is the current figure for the number of delegates necessary for Quorum honoured Ambassador ?


My assistant has absented himself for some unknown reason, and the figure is not in my notes.


Yours,
Only 66. We contacted fewer than 200 nations for both WAEU and Patient's Rights. Both reached quorum with ease.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

That is a very tempting figure. Would it be expected to rise in the near future ( O.O.C. New Year ) honoured Ambassador ?

We are wondering if any other advice might be forthcoming from our fellow Ambassadors ?


Yours sincerely,

All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and in the law of their country of residence.

Is that clause really necessary? Isn't the legality of international law taken for granted. They wouldn't be laws then...just guidelines?

Is that clause really necessary? Isn't the legality of international law taken for granted. They wouldn't be laws then...just guidelines?



The clause does not deal with the legality of international law, it deals ( rather clearly we think ) with how they are to be applied. This clause also tries to circumvent national attempts at clever evasions of international laws in order to further their discriminatory agendas.



Yours e.t.c. ,

All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and in the law of their country of residence.

So its trying to say that the national laws cannot overpower and conflict with the international laws. I still thinks thats taking for granted... anybody who tries to get around WA laws with that kind of loophole is going to be audited by the compliance commission before you can say "lizard-snappers".

So its trying to say that the national laws cannot overpower and conflict with the international laws. I still thinks thats taking for granted... anybody who tries to get around WA laws with that kind of loophole is going to be audited by the compliance commission before you can say "lizard-snappers".


In fact that would not be the case. The statute says nothing about national law being unable to "overpower" international law.

The compliance commission has not audited Urgench even though we legally evaded being forced to comply with the piracy prohibitions the w.a. recently introduced because we saw them as a threat to our national security.

Other states may wish to find legal but devious ways of alienating member's of their societies from their equality, this clause insures that they may not do this.


Yours e.t.c. ,

Perhaps replace "inhabitants" with "people who are legally present within", to make it clearer that (for example) nations can still reject illegal immigrants -- even if they've managed to remain undetected by the authorities for long enough to acquire residences -- without being in non-compliance for discriminating on the basis of nationality?

Perhaps replace "inhabitants" with "people who are legally present within", to make it clearer that (for example) nations can still reject illegal immigrants -- even if they've managed to remain undetected by the authorities for long enough to acquire residences -- without being in non-compliance for discriminating on the basis of nationality?

Perhaps "citizens" would be better then. "people who are legally present within" is a bit too long.

Perhaps "citizens" would be better then. "people who are legally present within" is a bit too long.
Some nations regard the term "citizens" as applying to only some of their 'nationals', for one reason or another, and "people who are legally present within" would also protect not only legal immigrants but those short-term visitors who'd arrived with official consent as well.

Perhaps replace "inhabitants" with "people who are legally present within", to make it clearer that (for example) nations can still reject illegal immigrants -- even if they've managed to remain undetected by the authorities for long enough to acquire residences -- without being in non-compliance for discriminating on the basis of nationality?



Indeed that would be contrary to our intentions honoured Ambassador. We would not wish to see a situation in which the only class of people who might still be legally alienated from their equality were some of society's most easily exploited and despised.

States would still be able to enforce their immigration laws after the passage of this resolution so long as they did so in a non-discriminatory fashion.

For instance it would no longer be legal to discriminate between those one allows or disallows into one's country purely on the basis of their ethnicity, race, religion or nationality e.t.c. but it would remain absolutely legal to refuse citizenship or even entry of one's nation on the basis of individual applicant eligibility.

In the assessment of visa applications this would for most countries ( we suspect ) represent virtually no change at all. In the instance of dealing with illegal immigrants the only change would be that states must treat all illegal immigrants equally and not show preferences for people on the basis of ethnicity e.t.c. in their treatment of these people.

Certainly if states have blanket bans on immigrants from certain nations or of certain ethnicities or races e.t.c. this would become illegal, unless it is justified for compelling practical reasons to do so.


Naturally any immigrant who has entered a state illegally must face the legal sanction imposed by the state to which they have emigrated for such a transgression, this would not change if this statute were introduced. The imposition of such penalties being of a non-discriminatory nature since all would-be transgressors of this law would be treated the same and according to the facts of their case.



We hope that this has clarified the terms we have included Honoured Ambassador, and the reason why this statute does not deal only with citizens or even legal residents.


Yours sincerely,

Perhaps replace "inhabitants" with "people who are legally present within", to make it clearer that (for example) nations can still reject illegal immigrants -- even if they've managed to remain undetected by the authorities for long enough to acquire residences -- without being in non-compliance for discriminating on the basis of nationality?Sigh. "Inhabitants" is fine. The document doesn't ban discrimination based upon resident status.

Sigh. "Inhabitants" is fine. The document doesn't ban discrimination based upon resident status.


But it does require that states treat all persons inhabiting them as equall under the law honoured Ambassador. This includes those who may not have achieved the legal status of resident, but who nonetheless have chosen to inhabit a state.


yours e.t.c. ,

Sigh. "Inhabitants" is fine. The document doesn't ban discrimination based upon resident status.But as resident status depends to a significant extent on nationality, wouldn't this proposal's ban on nationality-based discrimination apply?

But as resident status depends to a significant extent on nationality, wouldn't this proposal's ban on nationality-based discrimination apply?


If resident status has been granted to an individual then the state which has granted it has clearly recognised the nationality of the bearer of this residency, it would be banned from discriminating against such an individual on the basis of their nationality amongst other things.

If a state has not granted residency, or any other status on an individual the mere fact that they are an inhabitant of this state grants them their equality under the provisions of this statute.


Yours sincerely,

Honorable Khan,

I have nothing to add. We would support this resolution as it stands. Good work to you and all the ambassadors who employed their considerable skills in the shaping of this resolution!

Honorable Khan,

I have nothing to add. We would support this resolution as it stands. Good work to you and all the ambassadors who employed their considerable skills in the shaping of this resolution!




We thank the honoured Ambassador for their encouragement, we are hoping to submit this resolution for approval in the very near future.

Yours,

We have made changes to the first two clauses of Article 1. These are in order to eliminate confusion, the wording which used the term "nation of residence" might have allowed states to continue to deprive certain groups within their society of rights available to the generality and instead insist that only the rights of the state these persons were legally "resident" in were applicable to them.

Instead the statute now requires that persons be entitled to the rights available to any other person in the state in which they "inhabit" . This insures the equal treatment of immigrants and mere visitors such as tourists alike.


We hope this is an improvement and may go some way toward dispelling any further confusion on the matter of what rights immigrants may expect to enjoy in whichever nation they have emigrated to.


Yours,

The Holy Empire of New Illuve must disagree with the respected Ambassador from Urgench. The word "inhabit" would not cover those that are merely visiting a nation. The word '"inhabit" has connotations that go beyond simply a physical presence at a particular location. After all, one would not normally say "I'm inhabiting at the hotel" but rather "I'm staying at the hotel." The word "Inhabit" has a sense of permanency that tourists may or may not be judged able to legitimately apply to themselves.

Perhaps a change to "in the nation where they are present" would further clarify the point and close a potential loophole based on symantecs.

The Holy Empire also seeks more clarification around the phrase "compelling practical purposes". She is afraid that, without this, discrimination could still be achieved by various and sundry means. Consider a theoretical example where a vital industry goes on strike so that women are paid less then men due to "they can't do the same work as a man". Consider the government holds fast to not allowing the discrimination. Jobs are lost, the economy dies, people go hungry, rioting in the streets and several stories appropriate for made-for-TV movies with washed out actrices in the lead roll take place. Would allowing differing pay for women now qualify? Getting people fed, back to work, and horrible late night television stopped before the film is made might be seen as "compelling" and "practical".

Is the above silly, overblown, and overly dramatic? Yes, but it illustrates the point that the phrase, as writen, can be used by those seeking discriminatory policies easily. The lack of any qualifications, or measures to judge, "compelling" and "practical" leave it up to the discretion of those reviewing the discriminatory measures. This would not be an issue in those nations that really do not need this Proposal, but for those nations where this Proposal should be actively applied? The Holy Empire fears that those two words will be stretched to accomodate the very actions and policies this Proposal is seeking to end.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve must disagree with the respected Ambassador from Urgench. The word "inhabit" would not cover those that are merely visiting a nation. The word '"inhabit" has connotations that go beyond simply a physical presence at a particular location. After all, one would not normally say "I'm inhabiting at the hotel" but rather "I'm staying at the hotel." The word "Inhabit" has a sense of permanency that tourists may or may not be judged able to legitimately apply to themselves.

Perhaps a change to "in the nation where they are present" would further clarify the point and close a potential loophole based on symantecs.

The Holy Empire also seeks more clarification around the phrase "compelling practical purposes". She is afraid that, without this, discrimination could still be achieved by various and sundry means. Consider a theoretical example where a vital industry goes on strike so that women are paid less then men due to "they can't do the same work as a man". Consider the government holds fast to not allowing the discrimination. Jobs are lost, the economy dies, people go hungry, rioting in the streets and several stories appropriate for made-for-TV movies with washed out actrices in the lead roll take place. Would allowing differing pay for women now qualify? Getting people fed, back to work, and horrible late night television stopped before the film is made might be seen as "compelling" and "practical".

Is the above silly, overblown, and overly dramatic? Yes, but it illustrates the point that the phrase, as writen, can be used by those seeking discriminatory policies easily. The lack of any qualifications, or measures to judge, "compelling" and "practical" leave it up to the discretion of those reviewing the discriminatory measures. This would not be an issue in those nations that really do not need this Proposal, but for those nations where this Proposal should be actively applied? The Holy Empire fears that those two words will be stretched to accomodate the very actions and policies this Proposal is seeking to end.



We have made changes to Article 1 in line with the suggestions of the honoured and respected Ambassador for New Illuve in regard to the issue of the status of visitors as opposed to inhabitants.


However we are less certain about what to do with regard to their second concern. The issue of allowing certain forms of discrimination which are absolutely necessary, such as all women hiring practices for certain kinds of shelters for battered or raped women, is difficult to compass without allowing a certain amount of wriggle room which may allow evasion.


We are tempted to outline these kinds of exception explicitly, however we fear the list of allowances might become to long, controversial, and complicated.


We would welcome the advice of the respected and honoured Ambassador for New Illuve as to how we might square this circle.


Yours sincerely,

We would welcome the advice of the respected and honoured Ambassador for New Illuve as to how we might square this circle.Yours sincerely,

Indeed, there is a tension in providing exceptions to non-discrimination while attempting to close the possibilities for misuse. Finding the appropriate balance is not a simple matter.

For your consideration, the Holy Empire puts forward the following for discussion and debate as an initial draft:

Article 3.

a) Recognizing that there may be times in which discrimination based upon the above mentioned categories may be necessary, such discrimination can be done provided the following is held to:

i) The discrimination provides positive benefits for those affected that no other mitigating steps will bring
ii) The essential nature of the situation is such that applying the non-discrimination policy would render the goal unreachable
iii) The discrimination does not do more injury than the ideal of non-discrimination would do
iv) The discrimination must be held to the least possible
v) The discrimination is based upon objective reasons or measures

The rationale behind these points are:

i) This implies that all other measures have been taken to achieve a goal, but have not proven to be sufficient. This should allow for an all-woman hiring practice in a home for battered women.
ii) Some jobs can only be performed by a man or a woman. For example: this would allow a sperm bank to only sollicite men, or an egg bank to only sollicite women. Or in medical trials where the sex of the subject is material to the trial itself.
iii) This is somewhat vague in that "injury" is not defined, but the idea is to ensure that the lesser of two evils is chosen. For example, consider employment means exposure to toxic chemicals to a level that is considered safe for adults, but not for children, and not allowing women of child-bearing ages to work there. A judgement around the injury done to a woman by not allowing her to work there needs to be weighed against the (potential) injury to a current or future child. And a consideration of just how many women this could affect may also be brought in. Would the discrimination affect only a handful of people, or whole masses?
iv) This means that only the level of discrimination that is absolutely necessary can be done. To use the battered woman house example: this would mean only those positions that would come in contact with the clients could have a woman-only hiring policy. If the bookkeeper would not be in contact with the clients, then a man should be able to apply for the position.
v) This requirement should help mitigate unreasoned and immaterial uses of discrimination, and would also provide a place for those who feel unfairly excluded to challenge the discriminatory policies.

The Holy Empire hopes that this provides the basis for further and fruitful discussion and debate.

We thank the honoured Ambassador for New Illuve for their extremely usefull suggestions we will consider them and produce a redraft presently.


We are also concerned that we have a duty to include a right for inhabitants of w.a. states to decide to submit themselves to discrimination of certain kinds ( proffessional for instance ) by choice.


Yours sincerely,

Can the Ambassador name such a circumstance? And one that would not be covered by the five points suggested?

My nation is new however I was reading through your proposal and the responses others have given.
I agree with your proposal and support it due to the equality it gives and the support for ethnic and cultural diversity and the ban of discrimination based on race, culture, etc.

Can the Ambassador name such a circumstance? And one that would not be covered by the five points suggested?



You are quite right Ambassador this is only a theoretical prospect which it is hard to find actual instances of. We will leave this out of the statute.



Yours,

Indeed, there is a tension in providing exceptions to non-discrimination while attempting to close the possibilities for misuse. Finding the appropriate balance is not a simple matter.

For your consideration, the Holy Empire puts forward the following for discussion and debate as an initial draft:



The rationale behind these points are:

i) This implies that all other measures have been taken to achieve a goal, but have not proven to be sufficient. This should allow for an all-woman hiring practice in a home for battered women.

Your suggested wording is helping us formulate a phrase which will we hope cover this.

ii) Some jobs can only be performed by a man or a woman. For example: this would allow a sperm bank to only sollicite men, or an egg bank to only sollicite women. Or in medical trials where the sex of the subject is material to the trial itself.

Thankfully this strictly speaking is not a form of discrimination, this resolution would not effect how scientific studies were carried out or how medicine is practiced so long as the intent is to do good and not to perpetuate cultural biases which have no basis in science.

iii) This is somewhat vague in that "injury" is not defined, but the idea is to ensure that the lesser of two evils is chosen. For example, consider employment means exposure to toxic chemicals to a level that is considered safe for adults, but not for children, and not allowing women of child-bearing ages to work there. A judgement around the injury done to a woman by not allowing her to work there needs to be weighed against the (potential) injury to a current or future child. And a consideration of just how many women this could affect may also be brought in. Would the discrimination affect only a handful of people, or whole masses?

We have a slight problem with this reasoning since it constitutes unfair discrimination against men who's health and life would seem to be considered less worthy of protection by it.

iv) This means that only the level of discrimination that is absolutely necessary can be done. To use the battered woman house example: this would mean only those positions that would come in contact with the clients could have a woman-only hiring policy. If the bookkeeper would not be in contact with the clients, then a man should be able to apply for the position.

This is excellent reasoning and we will hopefully be able to compass it in our phrasing.

v) This requirement should help mitigate unreasoned and immaterial uses of discrimination, and would also provide a place for those who feel unfairly excluded to challenge the discriminatory policies.

Hopefully the entire statute will serve this purpose and further repetition of this idea would therefore be unnecessary.


Yours,

Perhaps you could follow the example of the previous international council's resolution on this topic and simply forbid "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" on any of the grounds (such as species or gender) that you list? Doing so would allow nations to continue permitting discrimination in those situations where it actually is "fair and reasonable", for example in various types of cases that other people here have already used as examples, without leaving as much scope for weaselry as some other possible choices of wording -- and perhaps trying to list circumstances under which discrimination would still be acceptable -- might do...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Perhaps you could follow the example of the previous international council's resolution on this topic and simply forbid "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" on any of the grounds (such as species or gender) that you list? Doing so would allow nations to continue permitting discrimination in those situations where it actually is "fair and reasonable", for example in various types of cases that other people here have already used as examples, without leaving as much scope for weaselry as some other possible choices of wording -- and perhaps trying to list circumstances under which discrimination would still be acceptable -- might do...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.



The only problem with this suggestion is that it leaves the job of deciding what is fair and reasonable in the hands of states who may not be expected to judge such things in the spirit of the statute.

For most reasonable states this would be a perfectly sensible wording, however many member states are not as reasonable as might be wished.


Yours sincerely,

The only problem with this suggestion is that it leaves the job of deciding what is fair and reasonable in the hands of states who may not be expected to judge such things in the spirit of the statute.

For most reasonable states this would be a perfectly sensible wording, however many member states are not as reasonable as might be wished.

Hr'rmm, so maybe you could also use some of this proposal's wordage to establish some kind of 'WA Arbitration Tribunal', with the right and duty of binding arbitration in any appeals about national decisions on these matters that are brought before it, grant a general right of appeal to this body for that purpose, and require nations to consider its decisions as setting legal precedents? That would seem to close the potential loophole, and such a body might well prove useful for future proposals too...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Hr'rmm, so maybe you could also use some of this proposal's wordage to establish some kind of 'WA Arbitration Tribunal', with the right and duty of binding arbitration in any appeals about national decisions on these matters that are brought before it, grant a general right of appeal to this body for that purpose, and require nations to consider its decisions as setting legal precedents? That would seem to close the potential loophole, and such a body might well prove useful for future proposals too...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.



We had considered a W.A. equality authority in some of the earlier drafts of this resolution. It is a neat way of solving the problem. We are tempted to write it back in in some form.

Would a more general court of arbitration be possible honoured Ambassador ? Presumably no other resolution could really rely on it because of "house of cards " regulations.


Yours,

Just to clarify the example of pregnant women working in toxic environment - it was in a theoretical environment where the toxicity was not sufficient to damage an adult - irregardless of the sex. The toxicity was, however, sufficient to damage an unborn child.

In the human species, a man refreshes his sperm every few weeks. Education about this, the need not to engage in activity that could result in a father, etc. should be sufficient to reduce the risk that the toxicity would result in harm to a future child via a man. However, women contain a life-time supply of eggs in their body. Working in such an environment now can damage eggs that will be fertilized years after she is no longer employed in such an environment. That would be the reason for not allowing women who could bear children from working there. A woman who cannot mother children (due to not having any ovaries, or is past the menopause, for example) would be allowed.

The Holy Empire wishes to say that all five of Her points should not be seen in isolation from each other. They should all be used together in a specific situation to see if discrimination should be allowed. To use the example cited above:

i) Educating men to the risks of fathering a child until any damaged sperm has been removed from his body, which will happen in a matter of weeks once exposure has ended, can be considered a mitigating step that will bring about the positive benefit of reducing the chances of disabled children. Given the reproductive characteristics of the human woman, this is not possible and expecting her to either never mother a child (intentionally or accidently) is not realistic and removing her ovaries would generally not be considered acceptable. Also, the possibilities of robotic activity or other activity-at-a-distance that a woman could do would have to have been found impossible or not of enough quality in comparison to a physical presence.

ii) This does not apply.

iii) On the one hand, a group of people will be denied work and on the other hand the risk of disabled children is being reduced. How many woman are, realistically, going to be effected, and what is the risk of genetic damage to woman's eggs? What are the effects of raising a child with disabilities, and how easily can the affected women find other, acceptable work? These and similar questions will have to be weighed off against one another to find a balance.

iv) Are women only being denied work that absolutely requires access to the toxic environment? And only those women for whom the toxicity is a real and immediate problem?

v) Are there sufficient medical reports from reputabile organizations to form a solid opinion on the effects of toxicity on the eggs? Where are the reports that indicate possible mitigating steps will not produce the same results? Have ethicists discussed this situation? Have all efforts to reduce the toxicity been taken and there is still danger and has this been sufficiently documented? How rigerous have these studies been? How accepted in the appropriate circles are the results?

The Holy Empire hopes that this quick fleshing out of the five points has provided some clarity. They are not intended to be used as a quick test, where a simple majority of "yes" or "no" is used to determine if a discriminatory situation can exist. Each one will provide guidance, and the totality of this guidance should lead to the decision.

Just to clarify the example of pregnant women working in toxic environment - it was in a theoretical environment where the toxicity was not sufficient to damage an adult - irregardless of the sex. The toxicity was, however, sufficient to damage an unborn child.

In the human species, a man refreshes his sperm every few weeks. Education about this, the need not to engage in activity that could result in a father, etc. should be sufficient to reduce the risk that the toxicity would result in harm to a future child via a man. However, women contain a life-time supply of eggs in their body. Working in such an environment now can damage eggs that will be fertilized years after she is no longer employed in such an environment. That would be the reason for not allowing women who could bear children from working there. A woman who cannot mother children (due to not having any ovaries, or is past the menopause, for example) would be allowed.

The Holy Empire wishes to say that all five of Her points should not be seen in isolation from each other. They should all be used together in a specific situation to see if discrimination should be allowed. To use the example cited above:

i) Educating men to the risks of fathering a child until any damaged sperm has been removed from his body, which will happen in a matter of weeks once exposure has ended, can be considered a mitigating step that will bring about the positive benefit of reducing the chances of disabled children. Given the reproductive characteristics of the human woman, this is not possible and expecting her to either never mother a child (intentionally or accidently) is not realistic and removing her ovaries would generally not be considered acceptable. Also, the possibilities of robotic activity or other activity-at-a-distance that a woman could do would have to have been found impossible or not of enough quality in comparison to a physical presence.

ii) This does not apply.

iii) On the one hand, a group of people will be denied work and on the other hand the risk of disabled children is being reduced. How many woman are, realistically, going to be effected, and what is the risk of genetic damage to woman's eggs? What are the effects of raising a child with disabilities, and how easily can the affected women find other, acceptable work? These and similar questions will have to be weighed off against one another to find a balance.

iv) Are women only being denied work that absolutely requires access to the toxic environment? And only those women for whom the toxicity is a real and immediate problem?

v) Are there sufficient medical reports from reputabile organizations to form a solid opinion on the effects of toxicity on the eggs? Where are the reports that indicate possible mitigating steps will not produce the same results? Have ethicists discussed this situation? Have all efforts to reduce the toxicity been taken and there is still danger and has this been sufficiently documented? How rigerous have these studies been? How accepted in the appropriate circles are the results?

The Holy Empire hopes that this quick fleshing out of the five points has provided some clarity. They are not intended to be used as a quick test, where a simple majority of "yes" or "no" is used to determine if a discriminatory situation can exist. Each one will provide guidance, and the totality of this guidance should lead to the decision.





The example you use implies that human beings should be discriminated against on their reproductive ability. A woman should be ble to choose to endanger her fertility and the health of her eggs if she wishes`just as a man would be free to endanger his ability to reproduce also, and in our opinion it is not the business of government to tell its inhabitants what they are or are not allowed to do with their own bodies.


Discrimination on these grounds would seem unfair and unreasonable to us honoured Ambassador.


Discrimination which has positive outcomes for all parties to the circumstances is acceptable and we are using many of the honoured and esteemed Ambassador for New Illuves ideas to effect this possibility.


Yours sincerely,

Indeed, honored Ambassador. In fact, the discussion of whether or not the injury to a woman by not allowing her work in a certain location versus the injury to yet unfertilized eggs she carries would be the subject of point iii.

Please note that the Holy Empire is not putting forth an example of acceptable discrimination, but only an example of where discussion could be put forward and how that discussion could be guided. Different nations, different cultures, can come to different conclusions on the same situation.

That, however, is the risk when avoiding blanket, universal, declarations.

In fact, the Holy Empire also would not find discrimination in this case to be appropriate or acceptable.

We had considered a W.A. equality authority in some of the earlier drafts of this resolution. It is a neat way of solving the problem. We are tempted to write it back in in some form.

Would a more general court of arbitration be possible honoured Ambassador ? Presumably no other resolution could really rely on it because of "house of cards " regulations.

OOC: Giving new jobs to an existing committee is definitely allowed, as a preferable alternative to just creating more & more new committees. The Mods have ruled that if the original resolution in which a committee that has since had its role expanded was created gets repealed then, although that committtee loses its original role, it remains in existence to carry out the extra duties that it has had assigned...

OOC: does that mean we could have a resolution that creates a "WA committee of standards" that all other resolutions can refer to for these kinds of things? That might be an idea. Especially if this committee was pledged to create standards based upon objective, scientific, etc. criteria. The WA gnomes can't be bribed or influenced by emotions, after all. That would also remove the ability of "bad" regimes to stack a national committee.

Perhaps you could follow the example of the previous international council's resolution on this topic and simply forbid "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" on any of the grounds (such as species or gender) that you list? Doing so would allow nations to continue permitting discrimination in those situations where it actually is "fair and reasonable", for example in various types of cases that other people here have already used as examples, without leaving as much scope for weaselry as some other possible choices of wording -- and perhaps trying to list circumstances under which discrimination would still be acceptable -- might do...

We feel we should point out that the inverse of "fair and reasonable" is "unfair or unreasonable". Other than that, we would commend Ambassador o Redwood's words.

We feel we should point out that the inverse of "fair and reasonable" is "unfair or unreasonable". Other than that, we would commend Ambassador o Redwood's words.



We really would rather not have to list these circumstances under which discrimination should be possible since the danger will arrise of forgetting to list somehting of vital importance.


We will if we have to but we would rather not.


Yours,

The resolution we passed under the United Nations only forbade "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination, and did not need to go into specifics about what that did or did not constitute. As I recall, that legislation was acceptable (and it has in fact been borrowed from liberally for this statute). We do not need a committee, nor a glossary, nor a compendium, nor a user's manual detailing to government officials what exactly entails unfair and unreasonable treatment (or even, "compelling practical" reasons).

Only an idiot does not know what those words mean.

That has ever been the policy of the United Nations, and now the World Assembly, in such situations, and I think we should stick with it.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

The resolution we passed under the United Nations only forbade "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination, and did not need to go into specifics about what that did or did not constitute. As I recall, that legislation was acceptable (and it has in fact been borrowed from liberally for this statute). We do not need a committee, nor a glossary, nor a compendium, nor a user's manual detailing to government officials what exactly entails unfair and unreasonable measures (or even, "compelling practical" ones).

Only an idiot does not know what those words mean.

That has ever been the policy of the United Nations, and now the World Assembly, in such situations, and I think we should stick with it.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador




We are rather heartened by respected Deputy Ambassador Baca's words. Our own legal experts inform us that the current wording is actually sufficient and that any state which contravened the requirements of fair and reasonable treatment and did discriminate without compelling practical purposes in object would be in direct contravention of their legal obligations which is impossible.


We are still open to persuasion but on this point but we are edging towards keeping the current wording.


Yours sincerely,

After much thought and consultation with other delegations who's perspicacity we value and admire we have made certain changes which include offering the most obvious example of a form of discrimination which is for "compelling practical purposes".

We are still loathe to get into too much detail on this matter since in effect a whole other article might need to be added to cover it. An article we feel would be unnecessary.


In mitigation of this we feel it would be important to point out that if any states can ( considering the way compliance works ) allow or commit unfair and unreasonable forms of discrimination which are not for compelling practical purposes and are otherwise in breach of the spirit of this statute then their inhabitants will have the opportunity to use the provisions of this statute in their courts to seek full redress of their injuries.

Indeed this statute would represent a stern reproof and complete remedy were it to be applied by the good sense of a judge presiding in a civil case who's outcomes could easily involve large damages being awarded to large numbers of people who have been discriminated against by their government or other entities.

We have always had the greatest confidence in the good sense of the judiciary in most circumstances and see no strong reason for this to change.


The current draft of this resolution is near complete in our eyes, we are hoping to submit it for approval in the very near future and will take any last minute advice on how to improve the wording.


Yours sincerely

It seems a reasonable addition in our eyes, honorable Khan. It is a good to provide such an example rather than listing every possible instance that the statute covers, and thereby providing loopholes for the rare instances not mentioned.

It seems a reasonable addition in our eyes, honorable Khan. It is a good to provide such an example rather than listing every possible instance that the statute covers, and thereby providing loopholes for the rare instances not mentioned.


Thank you honoured Ambassador.

OOC: does that mean we could have a resolution that creates a "WA committee of standards" that all other resolutions can refer to for these kinds of things? That might be an idea. Especially if this committee was pledged to create standards based upon objective, scientific, etc. criteria. The WA gnomes can't be bribed or influenced by emotions, after all. That would also remove the ability of "bad" regimes to stack a national committee.OOC: Any such resolution would have to do something else too, as well as create that committee, as the (OOC) justification for its effect on member nations' stats...

____________________________________________________________

Now, back to the current proposal...

Hailing the work in furtherance of personal freedom already achieved by the World Assembly and,

Recognising this work as the preeminent task of civilisation and,

Seeking to augment this,

The World Assembly,

Requires W.A. member states to fairly and equally enact and enforce the following articles,

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are present.

b ) All inhabitants of member states are entitled to rights secured to them in international law and the law of the nation they inhabit or in which they are present.

c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

d ) Member states are enjoined to counteract ignorance and prejudice, and are urged to create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity.

e ) The application of both emergency legal measures and Martial law during periods of national crisis must also respect the provisions of this resolution.


Article 2.

a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.

b ) Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution shall be a civil cause and criminal offense in all member states.

c ) Member states shall actively work towards eliminating criminal incidents motivated by hatred or prejudice based on cultural or societal differences.

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


Re clauses '1 a' & '1 c': Would giving any privileges to the members of certain groups constitute now-illegal discrimination against everybody who isn't a member of those groups? If so, then would this point rule out the continued existence of a 'class system', possibly containing a hereditary aristocracy whose members might possess certain privileges of various kinds such as (for example) the sole right to certain types of heraldic insignia, or the right to sit as members of a 'House of Lords' within the national legislature? What about hereditary monarchies? That "equal in status in law" phrase, and the wording of '1 c', seem to me to raise the possibility of such an argument... which I would challenge under the 'No ideological bans' rule. I think that you might need to tweak the wording slightly to make it clear that monarchies & aristocracies -- with whatever traditional privileges they might possess --would still be allowed.

Re clause '1 b': This seems to say that a person has all of the rights that they are guaranteed by the laws of the nation that they (normally) inhabit and the laws of any other nation in which they are temporarily present... What happens if those two law-codes disagree on the matter?

Re clause '2 b': What about any nations that don't have separate 'civil' & 'criminal' legal systems?

Re clause '2 d': only "already enacted"? So would it prevent the passage of any subsequent national legislation on such matters?

To add a further question, the Holy Empire wonders just how Article 2a is not just a further re-wording of Article 1c, or at least not already contained within Article 1c.

1c details the grounds upon which people cannot be discriminated (race, color, etc.); 2a the areas in which they cannot be discriminated (housing, employment, etc.).

To add a further question, the Holy Empire wonders just how Article 2a is not just a further re-wording of Article 1c, or at least not already contained within Article 1c.


This is a simple one to answer, 2 a) deals with how discrimination is to be ended in the private sector. 1 c) deals with how discrimintion by government is to be ended.

The two in tandem are essential to prevent inconsistencies of treatment of persons.

Yours,

The Holy Empire fails to see how Article 2a is limited to the private sector. The wording states that, exempting specific situations, discrimination based upon a range of categories is outlawed as categorically as can be done. Article 2a does not state from whom the discrimination is coming from; indeed it is focused on the "receiver" rather than the "giver" of discrimination, and states that one shall not have this done to them. That would apply equally to the private as the public sector, and apply to all activites (excepting the exemptions, naturally).

Re clauses '1 a' & '1 c': Would giving any privileges to the members of certain groups constitute now-illegal discrimination against everybody who isn't a member of those groups? If so, then would this point rule out the continued existence of a 'class system', possibly containing a hereditary aristocracy whose members might possess certain privileges of various kinds such as (for example) the sole right to certain types of heraldic insignia, or the right to sit as members of a 'House of Lords' within the national legislature? What about hereditary monarchies? That "equal in status in law" phrase, and the wording of '1 c', seem to me to raise the possibility of such an argument... which I would challenge under the 'No ideological bans' rule. I think that you might need to tweak the wording slightly to make it clear that monarchies & aristocracies -- with whatever traditional privileges they might possess --would still be allowed.


An individuals personal entitlements ( whatever they may be ) cannot be seen as discriminating in regard to others so long as those entitlements do not include the right to unfairly discriminate against others. Otherwise completely unqualified persons could expect to qualify as doctors or nuclear physicists.

Qualification, be that through endeavour and achievement or through tradition or right is separate from discrimination, admittedly by a very fine margin but none the less the difference exists.

So long as a King and a Pauper or a Princess and a Milkmaid are treated as equals by the law and not shown special favour based on their status in society then they are perfectly free to continue to live the life which providence has allotted them.

We admit that the hereditary principle of some Monarchies ( though not all observe it ) looks at first sight to be discriminatory but in fact this is not the case. if the hereditary principle were discriminatory then this resolution would also be banning the right of ordinary individuals to will their possessions or wealth to their children. A title or a position in society left to one by one's parents is as much an accident of birth as blond hair or schizophrenia.

The example that best describes this is that of criminal prosecution. If a King commits a murder and is not investigated and tried and punished in the same way as a Shopkeeper is then this system is unfairly discriminatory and should be ended. If a king and a shopkeeper are treated as equal before the law then this is admirable.

The amount of power an individual wields in society may be the result of a plethora of circumstances. Kings, princes, Khans and beggars are all subject to the whims of fate and happenstance. A king may be assassinated or deposed, a beggar may be elevated to the heights of wealth.

The wording used in this statute simply insures that if the king is deposed he may seek just as much justice for is injuries as the Nurse who has been robbed of her purse.


Re clause '1 b': This seems to say that a person has all of the rights that they are guaranteed by the laws of the nation that they (normally) inhabit and the laws of any other nation in which they are temporarily present... What happens if those two law-codes disagree on the matter?

The important word in this clause is "or". Individuals are entitled to the rights secured to them in the nation in which they currently dwell ( and are currently actually in ) or they are entitled to the rights secured to the inhabitants of the nation they currently find themselves in, be that their nation of habitation or another.

Re clause '2 b': What about any nations that don't have separate 'civil' & 'criminal' legal systems?

If a state has no separate civil and criminal systems then it must treat the crime according to whether their system treats all cases as criminal or as civil.

Either way, the case will be heard as equivalent to all other cases brought before it. However if another phrase could be used to compensate for this situation we would be glad to include it.

Re clause '2 d': only "already enacted"? So would it prevent the passage of any subsequent national legislation on such matters?


No this would not prevent further national legislation to prevent discrimination though we could make that clearer by stating it.


Yours sincerely,

The Holy Empire fails to see how Article 2a is limited to the private sector. The wording states that, exempting specific situations, discrimination based upon a range of categories is outlawed as categorically as can be done. Article 2a does not state from whom the discrimination is coming from; indeed it is focused on the "receiver" rather than the "giver" of discrimination, and states that one shall not have this done to them. That would apply equally to the private as the public sector, and apply to all activites (excepting the exemptions, naturally).


" Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states. "


Private employment is by its own definition private. If housing is not privately contracted by individuals then the state will be bound by the provisions of Article 1 of this resolution , if the same applies to education, employment benefits, compensations and access to to services provided to the general public then the state will also be bound by Article 1.

However it is frequently the case that these things are provided and contracted in the private sector. This clause will insure that private concerns are as bound not to discriminate as governments are.


Yours,

An individuals personal entitlements ( whatever they may be ) cannot be seen as discriminating in regard to others so long as those entitlements do not include the right to unfairly discriminate against others. Otherwise completely unqualified persons could expect to qualify as doctors or nuclear physicists.I would argue that the exemption for 'compelling practical purposes' would apply in those cases...

Qualification, be that through endeavour and achievement or through tradition or right is separate from discrimination, admittedly by a very fine margin but none the less the difference exists.Hr'rrmm.

We admit that the hereditary principle of some Monarchies ( though not all observe it ) looks at first sight to be discriminatory but in fact this is not the case. if the hereditary principle were discriminatory then this resolution would also be banning the right of ordinary individuals to will their possessions or wealth to their children.That's a good point. Perhaps the section saying "All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination" should specifically state that the term "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" does not incude 'family'...

The important word in this clause is "or". Individuals are entitled to the rights secured to them in the nation in which they currently dwell ( and are currently actually in ) or they are entitled to the rights secured to the inhabitants of the nation they currently find themselves in, be that their nation of habitation or another.Perhaps I mis-read it... but perhaps actually inserting the word "currently" into the clause in question would make its meaning clearer?

If a state has no separate civil and criminal systems then it must treat the crime according to whether their system treats all cases as criminal or as civil.

Either way, the case will be heard as equivalent to all other cases brought before it. However if another phrase could be used to compensate for this situation we would be glad to include it.Hr'rrmm, I'll think about this point.

I would argue that the exemption for 'compelling practical purposes' would apply in those cases...

Indeed and just as the compelling practical purposes in only employing actual doctors as doctors is to prevent unqualified persons form becoming doctors, so some states would have compelling practical purposes in only allowing a person qualified to be king in their system to become king.



That's a good point. Perhaps the section saying "All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination" should specifically state that the term "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" does not incude 'family'...


Is that really necessary honoured Ambassador ? We would prefer to allow the good sense of the Judiciaries of member states to interpret this aspect of the clause for themselves.

Perhaps I mis-read it... but perhaps actually inserting the word "currently" into the clause in question would make its meaning clearer?

This may be a good idea, we will likely make this change.

Hr'rrmm, I'll think about this point.


We thank the honoured Ambassador for their attention to our endeavour and await their advice in certainty of its good sense.



Yours sincerely,

By the looks of it, apart from tidying up the grammar, it should be ready for the first run but note that I am planning to make a resolution on conscientious objection: should the resolution should also cover them, or should be this dedicated to my proposal?

By the looks of it, apart from tidying up the grammar, it should be ready for the first run but note that I am planning to make a resolution on conscientious objection: should the resolution should also cover them, or should be this dedicated to my proposal?


The grammar honoured Ambassador ?


This resolution already does cover conscientious objectors as inhabitants of w.a. member states with the right not to be discriminated against.

We feel that this statute and the one which the honoured delegation of Charlotte Ryberg is currently writing on the right to conscientious objection will work together very well should both be passed.


Yours,

I mean, whatever's left that is yet to be perfected but if you've got the hang of it and the grammar, well done.

I mean, whatever's left that is yet to be perfected but if you've got the hang of it and the grammar, well done.


Oh we only meant to ask if the honoured Ambassador had any suggestions on the matter of grammar which might not be clear enough.


Yours sincerely,

We are anxious to bring this statute to vote in the very near future and are wondering if any other delegations have any further advice or criticism.



Yours sincerely,

We have bought it into a second reading and we have determined that it is generally excellent: however, I wonder whether it is better to cross reference using the style of words like "Article 1, Clause c" or "Article 1c" instead of "clause c) of article 1"?

Other than that I see no issues.

We have bought it into a second reading and we have determined that it is generally excellent: however, I wonder whether it is better to cross reference using the style of words like "Article 1, Clause c" or "Article 1c" instead of "clause c) of article 1"?

Other than that I see no issues.


We thank the honoured Ambassador for Charlotte Ryberg for her review of our work, we will consider her advice carefully.


Yours sincerely,

Aside for style issues, the Holy Empire of New Illuve would advise Her Regional Delegate to support this Proposal to be put forward for vote.

Aside for style issues, the Holy Empire of New Illuve would advise Her Regional Delegate to support this Proposal to be put forward for vote.


We thank the honoured and respected Ambassador for New Illuve both for their highly useful assistance in formulating this statute, and in offering their support for it.



Yours sincerely,

We are anxious to bring this statute to vote in the very near future and are wondering if any other delegations have any further advice or criticism.



Yours sincerely,
We thirst for the blood of those who have crafted this abominable and culturally imperialistic proposal. Other than that we have no further comments.

We thirst for the blood of those who have crafted this abominable and culturally imperialistic proposal. Other than that we have no further comments.



Bless you neighbour, knowing this is the position of Aundotutunagir on this statute convinces us all the more of its absolute necessity.


May the horde of Aundotutunagir ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time!


Yours sincerely,

Bless you neighbour, knowing this is the position of Aundotutunagir on this statute convinces us all the more of its absolute necessity.


May the horde of Aundotutunagir ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time!


Yours sincerely,
It appears ready for submission. I see no major flaws. The People of Aundotutunagir are of course opposed to it on principle.

See? I can say nice things. Why do you assume that whenever I speak something crazy will come out of my mouth?

It appears ready for submission. I see no major flaws. The People of Aundotutunagir are of course opposed to it on principle.

See? I can say nice things. Why do you assume that whenever I speak something crazy will come out of my mouth?

I don't think you really want anyone to answer that question, but none the less we were being completely sincere honoured Ambassador, we have nothing but the greatest of respect for your person , and for the delegation and nation of Aundotutunagir.

We are of course aware of the contrasting nature of our nation's character and politics, it is for this reason that your opinion of this statute is so valuable.

Our commendation of the horde of Aundotutunagir was meant in the spirit of customary honour with which it is always imbued.



We thank you for your useful assistance honoured Ambassador,


Yours sincerely,

We have submitted this statute for approval by delegates. Should any delegates wish to approve it it may be found here - http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=civil



Yours sincerely,

Done.

Thank you honoured Delegate, and may the horde of Charlotte Ryberg ride swift across the plain for all time.



Yours sincerely,

And I voted for.

Greetings esteemed colleagues,

The United Confederacy of Rymeria opposes this proposal on the following grounds:

Article I, Section C: All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity...

We believe that requiring governments to prohibit discrimination on bases that run counter to their belief system is a form of oppression. We have a sizeable religious community within Rymeria who are adamantly opposed to statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. To force them to tolerate, let alone accept homosexuals, would be tantamount to religious discrimination against them. Thus, Article I, Section C is unworkable.

With respect to Article I, Section E, emergency measures, provides too strenuous a prohibition against government management of crises. In addition, there is no satisfactory definition of "inhabitant." Would terrorist operatives within a country who are citizens of a different state be considered "inhabitants"? There is no language that specifies one way or the other. Thus, Article I, Section E is unworkable.

In addition, no provision has been made within the bounds of this resolution for enforcement or support of enforcement; thus, it is an unfunded mandate.

Thus, we shall cast our vote AGAINST this proposal and we encourage all other delegates to do the same.

Thomas Hanratty
Representative
United Confederacy of Rymeria
Delegate, The New Alliance

With respect to Article I, Section E, emergency measures, provides too strenuous a prohibition against government management of crises. In addition, there is no satisfactory definition of "inhabitant." Would terrorist operatives within a country who are citizens of a different state be considered "inhabitants"? There is no language that specifies one way or the other. Thus, Article I, Section E is unworkable.


God dammit, someone needs to solve this freaking ongoing debate, and while we're at we need to define mortality...

DEFINES inhabitant as any living being that is governed by a institution of some form, no matter the transparency of that establishment.

Voting for. Nicely done, and we hope it passes.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Greetings esteemed colleagues,

The United Confederacy of Rymeria opposes this proposal on the following grounds:


We believe that requiring governments to prohibit discrimination on bases that run counter to their belief system is a form of oppression. We have a sizeable religious community within Rymeria who are adamantly opposed to statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. To force them to tolerate, let alone accept homosexuals, would be tantamount to religious discrimination against them. Thus, Article I, Section C is unworkable.

This resolution does not require religious groups to stop hating whom ever they wish, it merely requires governments to treat individuals as equal under the law. The section your government is so concerned about exists specifically to protect the rights of those named within the clause should governments attempt subtle evasions of the other provisions.

Frankly if a state does not have the courage to defend its inhabitants against organised hatred then we are unconcerned about its scruples.

With respect to Article I, Section E, emergency measures, provides too strenuous a prohibition against government management of crises.

In fact the application of emergency measures is hampered and confused if they are saddled by wrongheaded and scatter-gun, discriminatory approaches. This statute will help states be far more focused and detailed in their actions when dealing with crises.


In addition, there is no satisfactory definition of "inhabitant." Would terrorist operatives within a country who are citizens
of a different state be considered "inhabitants"? There is no language that specifies one way or the other. Thus, Article I, Section E is unworkable.

Why would you want to treat such individuals as of lesser legal status than the rest of the inhabitants of your state honoured Ambassador ? Presumably this would make it more difficult to properly prosecute them for their crimes and add fuel to whichever fire they are trying to stoke, ultimately making it more difficult to neutralise any future support for the actions of such criminals.

In addition, no provision has been made within the bounds of this resolution for enforcement or support of enforcement; thus, it is an unfunded mandate.

The resolution specifically requires, enactment and enforcement on the part of member governments, what else could it do honoured Ambassador? Compliance with w.a. resolutions is legally absolute, and what would be the point in creating expensive w.a. committees to do the work of member governments, who ought be doing this kind of work in any event ?


Yours,

This resolution does not require religious groups to stop hating whom ever they wish, it merely requires governments to treat individuals as equal under the law. The section your government is so concerned about exists specifically to protect the rights of those named within the clause should governments attempt subtle evasions of the other provisions.

Frankly if a state does not have the courage to defend its inhabitants against organised hatred then we are unconcerned about its scruples.
I think their concern relates to Article 1, Section d, and Article 2, Section b, probably more so the latter.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I think their concern relates to Article 1, Section d, and Article 2, Section b, probably more so the latter.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Well thankfully our response would have remained unchanged, regardless of which sections the respected delegation of Rymeria were objecting to.

Yours,

The Palentine delegation seems to be in a bit of dissaray. Empty cans of Olde Frothingslosh, litter the desk along with pizza boxes, and half empty trays of nachos. Senator Sullas is nowhere to be found. Behind the desk, sits a strange looking lamp with a pair of ladies undergarments hanging off the lampshade. Suddenly the lampshade begins to move somewhat unsteadily. A somewhat rumpled arm reaches out unsteadily to a drawer, and withdrawls a bottle of Wild Turkey(TM). The Lamp then takes a swig straight from the bottle before speaking in a slurred but familiar voice.

"Greetings you shilly sits. I wish to apologize for my appearenshhe, but the Defenestrators won the Palentine Football Championship yessterday, and I've been shellebrating! I wish to shtate that I vehim...I veheem...I really oppose the reshoulution! I just really can't shtand theshe damned human rightshh reshoulutions. They give me shuch a rash! Furrthermore......why ist the room shpinning? I thinks I better lie down."

With that the good but unwholesome senator crashes onto the floor behind his desk.

"Ouch!" yells out a female voice. Suddenly a catgirl stands up and sees the delegates.
"AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!", She gives an embarrased yell, before covering herself up and diving back behind the desk.

The ambassador for Avarahn stood up.

Second Ambassador Countess Hilda DuChesne gathered her papers and started speaking.

"Congratulations to our friends, Urgench for creating and proposing this wondrous and timely piece of legislation. Avarahn will be glad to accept and support the provisions in this proposed Charter. However, we only have one problem with it. The wording of, the 3rd provision, specifically, where it states that all belief systems will nor be discriminated against even in emergency and martial law. The phrase 'belief systems' is a very wide and ranging phrase that can be intepretated in dozens of ways. While we acknowledge that it was for a varying intepretation that the phrase was used, however, it also allows for the beliefs of terrorism, mass suicide, mass murder, satanism, destructive cults and other beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with civilisation. While beliefs that are at odds with race are banned, but beliefs at odds with the life and humanity are not. Thus, we will abstain from voting till we receive a reply to our grievance or untill this charter is withdrawn and the specific pharse replaced or constrained, or rather a provision protecting life and humanity is included in the Charter as well." She drew a deep breath.

"Thank you."

The Empire of Vanquest will vote against this current resolution, as it undermines the soveriegnty of member nations. This will be the first time that a nay vote has been cast by the Emperor of Vanquest.

Civil Rights are important...but they are just that. Civil, meanig unique to a country and culture. I salute the author state for its intentions, but I will not vote for something that will impliment rights in all member regions that make no difference.

For instance...until recently the Empire of Vanquest was classified as a "Psychotic Dictatorship" and is now classified as a "Compulsory Consumerist State." I, as the ruler have not wavered in what I value, nor in what the values or my subjects will be. Yet, I still have the same recognition as the Anarchists, the Theocratics, and the other "ists."

If the WA wishes to go on with this frivilous attempt at despotism, as it will unfairly narrow the options of rule that members have, I will have no choice but to immidiately write a resolution repealing this act.

There is no need for this declaration of rights as it can in no way include all rights that all regions hold dear. Some regions {nations} may accept gay marriage, some regions {nations} may force all people to worship God....By defining Civil Rights, you narrow them. I willl have no part of this foolishness.

My people are free and no damn resolution will curtail their right to have unlimited rights.

Once things are stated, it will be all too easy to say..."Those are your rights and nothing else. If you were meant to have this freedom, it would have been listed."

I firmly and resolutely reject this resolution as a waste of time, and energy.

Shame will befall nations who do not protect their nations from such invasive and needless actions of a foreign government.

Emperor Gideon I of Vanquest
Protector of the Realm
Imperial Monarch
Head of the Church
Defender of the Faith

specific pharse replaced or constrained, or rather a provision protecting life and humanity is included in the Charter as well

Possibly the ambassador was avoiding another boring debate about the morality behind abortion?

If the WA wishes to go on with this frivilous attempt at despotism, as it will unfairly narrow the options of rule that members have, I will have no choice but to immidiately write a resolution repealing this act

Why join an international organization if you merely want to control yourself on an national level?

Possibly the ambassador was avoiding another boring debate about the morality behind abortion?

Second ambassador Countess Hilda DuChesne looked incredulously at the offending member.

" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH, haha , hehehehh ...." she couldnt stop laughing, startling even members of her own delegation.

" Hahaha ..umm .hahaha ..Well .haha. Okay. Hah. Well, no. I was not mentioning abortion at all. Perhaps it might seem that way but Avarahn adheres toa fierce tradition of individual choice and rights. If you want to, then do it, as long as you dont harm another being. Human beings only come into existence after the first trimester. But nonetheless, we are not seeking to enforce any of our views on other nations. We only wish to point out that the belief of terrorism and murder and satanism can be classified as a belief system and thus be protected by this absurdly phrased but well meaning charter".

The ambassador for Avarahn stood up.

Second Ambassador Countess Hilda DuChesne gathered her papers and started speaking.

"Congratulations to our friends, Urgench for creating and proposing this wondrous and timely piece of legislation. Avarahn will be glad to accept and support the provisions in this proposed Charter. However, we only have one problem with it. The wording of, the 3rd provision, specifically, where it states that all belief systems will nor be discriminated against even in emergency and martial law. The phrase 'belief systems' is a very wide and ranging phrase that can be intepretated in dozens of ways. While we acknowledge that it was for a varying intepretation that the phrase was used, however, it also allows for the beliefs of terrorism, mass suicide, mass murder, satanism, destructive cults and other beliefs that are fundamentally at odds with civilisation. While beliefs that are at odds with race are banned, but beliefs at odds with the life and humanity are not. Thus, we will abstain from voting till we receive a reply to our grievance or untill this charter is withdrawn and the specific pharse replaced or constrained, or rather a provision protecting life and humanity is included in the Charter as well." She drew a deep breath.

"Thank you."



We thank the honoured Ambassador for Avarahn for their kind words and are anxious to allay their fears regarding this statute.


We should point out, that equality under the law does not mean special protection by the law, and nowhere in this statute is there a single provision which allows any individual or group to commit criminal acts without being punished.

If a terrorist commits an act of terrorism this statute insures that this individual and who ever may have aided and abetted them will be properly prosecuted without the miasma and confusions created by discriminatory policy.

Mass murder is thankfully not an actual belief system, and in any case if an individuals belief system did encompass such acts, this resolution would have no effect on a nation's ability to prosecute this individual for committing them. Since this prosecution would not constitute discrimination.

Mass suicide, Satanism, and "destructive cults" as the honoured Ambassador describes them, are vague and complicated ideas.

But Satanism however is a legitimate belief system, despite how unsavoury it is to some, and therefore those who believe in it would be protected from discrimination by this statute. However if worship of Satan caused an individual to commit a crime, this individual would remain completely criminally responsible for their actions.

There is a fundamental difference between a state making certain actions illegal, and a state making whole groups of people into a legal under class.


We hope this has been of use in clarifying the effects of this statute to the honoured Ambassador of Avarahn.


Yours sincerely,

Outside, Gen. Hiriaurtung Arororugul is tending a small vegetable patch which he has planted alongside his yurt. Upon hearing that the hated Urgenchi Charter of Civil Rights has come to vote, he lets out an ancient Aundotutunagirian war cry and charges towards the entrance to the World Assembly Headquarters.

"Káááán ve dëmırrrrrrr!!!!!"

He flashes his diplomatic ID as he bursts through a security checkpoint. On the walkway leading to the entrance, there is a WA Building Mgmt policeman on horseback. General Arororugul grabs the officer by the back of his black leather jacket and drags him off his mount. He then leaps upon the horse and gallops it through the main doors and straight up to the podium. At the dais, he grabs the microphone and begins orating from horseback.

"The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this! The Urgenchis have come unhinged and have unleashed this deplorable piece of cultural imperialism upon the fair nations of the World Assembly. It is the right of all governments to control, suppress and expel groups who hold views which are damaging to public safety and public decency.

Who are the Urgenchis to say what is best for all WA nations? Who are the Urgenchis to instruct us to counteract ignorance and prejudice? Who are the Urgenchis to urge us to create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity. Diversity is BAD! Aundotutunagir's homogeneous culture is what makes Aundotutunagir a great nation. If we are forced to allow such diversity it will undermine the very basis of Aundotutunagirian society. We must rise up and defeat this attempt to impose Urgenchi values upon the nations of the world. Who will stand with me?

The horse rears up, pawing the air with its forelegs, its nostrils flaring. Hiriaurtung Arororugul's nostrils flare too as he draws his sidearm and fires six rounds into the air.

"Arise nations of the World Assembly! Arise and defeat this Urgenchi imperialism!"

The horse whinnies and rears up again. Outside, lightning crashes and a peal of thunder rolls through General Assembly hall.

The elderly Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, is seemingly unmoved by General Arororugul's antics, he shuffles some papers and turns to his tired looking assistant, Tarmashirin of Herat and says-

" He rides like a Muscovite with Sciatica " Mongkha smiles ever so slightly and addresses himself to the Ambassador of Aundotutunagir

" Honoured and esteemed Ambassador , General Arororugul, it is a matter of the greatest satisfaction to our delegation that you have decided to feel quite so moved to action as you evidently are by our humble endeavour.

We are suffuse with pride that the representative of our honoured neighbour should choose to display the cumulative prowess of his people with that most supreme of friends to man, the horse, in his efforts to further the cause of evil and corrupt oppression and we will treasure this moment as an example of the heights to which Aundotutunagirian honor may fly.

naturally we completely aver the accusation of Imperialism, with which the noble General charges us but we could not allow such absurd flights of fancy, which we must attribute to his Excellency's undoubted frailty of grip on reality ( for which we have only the sincerest pity and sorrow ) , to cause relations between such closely related neighbours as are we to become encumbered with recrimination and calumny.


Were Aundotutunagir still to maintain one worthy of the name, we would commend its horde to ride swiftly across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.


In the absence of such I personally wish the noble General the blessing of Tengri, and the comfort of Umay. "


The elderly Khan adjusts his gold rimmed, half-moon spectacles and returns to his documents.

The Federation of Sconopia is currently reluctant to grant approval for this resolution based on the following concerns:

In article I, sec. c: "...reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers. [emphasis added]", who is to decide what a "compelling practical purpose" is? The given example is a clear statement of the spirit of this clause, but it is Sconopia's fear that this exception leaves a loophole that uncooperative nations will exploit to bypass the protections provided by this resolution.

In article II, sec. d: "Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states.", is this to say that the anti-discrimination clauses are not meant to deny member nations from legalizing increased penalties for cases where discrimination was involved (e.g. "hate crimes")?

Thank you,
The United Federation of Sconopia
Council on Foreign Affairs

In article II, sec. d: "Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states.", is this to say that the anti-discrimination clauses are not meant to deny member nations from legalizing increased penalties for cases where discrimination was involved (e.g. "hate crimes")?

I cant exactly answer the other part, but I feel I can this one. The best example I can give here is that if your current or future enacted standards are higher than those set by this resolution, yay you. This I believe is setting the benchmark, but if you wish to go beyond it is fully supported, you dont have to lower your standards to comply

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Thank you for explaining this clause, most distinguished Ambassador Lynxkind. Sconopia agrees with this section, based on your explanation.

There is still the matter of article I, sec. c. Perhaps the esteemed Ambassador from the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench has some ideas or comments regarding this section of the otherwise sound resolution?

Thank you,
The United Federation of Sconopia
Council on Foreign Affairs

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.


c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.
Why "inhabitants" and not citizens?

How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration/presence?


---


d ) Member states are enjoined to counteract ignorance and prejudice, and are urged to create or support education programs in ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity.
Enjoined! What does this have to do with civil rights? Plus what gives the WA the right to tell nations how their citizens must think?


---


a ) Unfair and unreasonable discrimination, on the grounds outlined in clause c) of article 1 of this resolution, in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states.
This alone is a nonstarter for us. Private means just that.. a private matter.


And again, the illegal issue?


-


or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination
I'm sorry but I juat have to comment on this. A WA resolution is no place for hyperbole such as this.

Indeed the respected Ambassador for Tai Lao is correct in his description of the effects of article 2 clause d).

As for the honoured Ambassador for Sconopia's other query, it is worth pointing out that all laws should be seen in their entirety. The example used in Article 1 clause c) is used as the respected Ambassador correctly surmises, to indicate that spirit of the clause in question, which would then form the basis of good jurisprudence within the courts of member states. But even were this clause to be misused, the rest of the provisions of this statute would make it extremely difficult for a government to continue to unfairly discriminate against any group within its society.

The requirement of equality under the law is not qualified by anything, indeed nor are most of the other required provisions of this resolution.

We hope this has clarified the effects of the statute for the honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,.

Why "inhabitants" and not citizens?

How does this affect the issue of illegal immigration/presence?

This statute does not effect the issue of illegal immigration at all, a crime will remain a crime, but states will be required not to use discriminatory illogic in dealing with such persons.






Enjoined! What does this have to do with civil rights? Plus what gives the WA the right to tell nations how their citizens must think?

Yes enjoined honoured Ambassador, to teach about the cultures of others and about the diverse nature of society, but not how to think. Nowhere in this statute is such a thing required.






This alone is a nonstarter for us. Private means just that.. a private matter.

So your government is happy for private businesses to only employ white people, or exclude women, or to discriminate against people of a specific religion is it ?


And again, the illegal issue?

Yes, honoured Ambassador it is.






I'm sorry but I juat have to comment on this. A WA resolution is no place for hyperbole such as this.


It isn't hyperbole honoured Ambassador, merely a form of words which creates a window for member states to elaborate upon the list of specified grounds upon which it would be illegal to discriminate.



Yours,

After review, I am pleased to say that the Trilateral Federation supports this resolution. We see no conflict between its provisions and already existing Federal law, and we also have yet to hear an argument against this resolution that is compelling enough for us to change our stance.

In regards to national sovereignty and cultural protectionism, we note that no one is forcing a nation's leaders to keep their nation in this Assembly (at least, we hope not). Ultimately, in all things, the Federation believes in working to improve the international community, and achieving balance between the competing goals of national sovereignty and international legislation to the betterment of peoples everywhere. In this case, we simply do not see a legitimate reason for the sovereigntist/cultural protectionist argument to trump the admirable goal of protecting peoples' inherent rights, or countering discrimination and prejudice. Just as an example, if the Federation had adhered to similar sentiments as the representative of Aundotutunagir, dramatic horsemanship and firearms prowess notwithstanding, had expressed, my Akamian and Argali colleagues here would still be laboring under repression by the Altanari majority of our nation. I don't think that would be a good thing, frankly, so I have a hard time stomaching such an argument.

If someone can present an argument that convinces us, we may change our stance, but it is unlikely.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

We thank the honoured and noble Ambassador for their support.


May the horde of the Altan Steppes ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.


Yours sincerely,

Why join an international organization if you merely want to control yourself on an national level?
I did not join the organization to have terms dictated to me. I joined so that I could explore relations with other nations and explore their political beliefs and ideals.

I did not join the organization to have terms dictated to me. I joined so that I could explore relations with other nations and explore their political beliefs and ideals.


We suggest the honoured Ambassador familiarise themself with the full canon of this organisation's laws, we are sure they will see that this is one of the least dictatorial of these statutes and that there are several which constitute very serious abrogations of national prerogative indeed.


Yours,

I did not join the organization to have terms dictated to me. I joined so that I could explore relations with other nations and explore their political beliefs and ideals.

That's what embassies and cultural/educational exchanges are for. We legislate here, we don't sit around and chat and drink at the Strangers' Bar all day.

Well, ok, we do sit around all day and chat and drink some days. Perhaps most days, depending on the delegation.

The point is, an international organization whose purpose is to pass and regulate the canon of international law is going to, at some point, actually pass laws that may conflict with your own. It's kind of what we do here. Sorry.

Now, does the esteemed ambassador from Vanquest have an objection to the legislation that does not revolve around the argument "I don't like what the WA does"?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The Nation of Vao Island Emirate is currently 'having' a problem with Article 1.c., mainly because if you weren't 'born' on this Island then you can't 'work' at this Island.

And it states:
''All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.''

Signed by,
Vao, The President of the Peaceful Region of Hallmark and Governor of Vao Island Emirate

And Dictators? We Dont whant this! The maker is selfish, if he is a Civilrights hippy he must let it affect Nations wh are a democracie! NOT US!


Bradiak, the High Chancellor of The NeoUnited Dictatorship and Delegate of the NeoUnited Dictatorship.

And Dictators? We Dont whant this! The maker is selfish, if he is a Civilrights hippy he must let it affect Nations wh are a democracie! NOT US!


Bradiak, the High Chancellor of The NeoUnited Dictatorship and Delegate of the NeoUnited Dictatorship.

This statute does not prevent dictatorships from continuing to oppress their people, though we would rather they didn't, it will simply require them to oppress their people without discrimination.


Please read the statute before making wild accusations about its effects, and please do not resort to childish name calling because you do not agree with its effects whether you understand them or not.


Yours,

We thank the honoured Ambassador for Avarahn for their kind words and are anxious to allay their fears regarding this statute.


We should point out, that equality under the law does not mean special protection by the law, and nowhere in this statute is there a single provision which allows any individual or group to commit criminal acts without being punished.

If a terrorist commits an act of terrorism this statute insures that this individual and who ever may have aided and abetted them will be properly prosecuted without the miasma and confusions created by discriminatory policy.

Mass murder is thankfully not an actual belief system, and in any case if an individuals belief system did encompass such acts, this resolution would have no effect on a nation's ability to prosecute this individual for committing them. Since this prosecution would not constitute discrimination.

Mass suicide, Satanism, and "destructive cults" as the honoured Ambassador describes them, are vague and complicated ideas.

But Satanism however is a legitimate belief system, despite how unsavoury it is to some, and therefore those who believe in it would be protected from discrimination by this statute. However if worship of Satan caused an individual to commit a crime, this individual would remain completely criminally responsible for their actions.

There is a fundamental difference between a state making certain actions illegal, and a state making whole groups of people into a legal under class.


We hope this has been of use in clarifying the effects of this statute to the honoured Ambassador of Avarahn.


Yours sincerely,

The Second Ambassador stood up, frowning at the lunatic on the horse.

She directed her attention to the delegation from urgench and smiled.

'Thank you for clarifying that matter, though we are reluctant to agrre with the ambassador's words, but those words do have merit. We are still concerned at possible constitutional arguments over wheter or not civil rights will triumph over criminal charges as there is no provision that we can see of in this charter that will allow such allowances to be made, in that criminal charges can sometimes triumph over civil rights proscribed for in this charter. This we feel opens up a whole new can of worms. Nevertheless, though we are still objected to the legalisation of satanism, we understand the need to allow even stanists to worship freely. Rest assured they will be monitored, however as to this Charter we will be voting for it now. Thank you once again to Urgench for raising this charter and for advancing the rights of humanity."

The Second Ambassador stood up, frowning at the lunatic on the horse.

She directed her attention to the delegation from urgench and smiled.

'Thank you for clarifying that matter, though we are reluctant to agrre with the ambassador's words, but those words do have merit. We are still concerned at possible constitutional arguments over wheter or not civil rights will triumph over criminal charges as there is no provision that we can see of in this charter that will allow such allowances to be made, in that criminal charges can sometimes triumph over civil rights proscribed for in this charter. This we feel opens up a whole new can of worms. Nevertheless, though we are still objected to the legalisation of satanism, we understand the need to allow even stanists to worship freely. Rest assured they will be monitored, however as to this Charter we will be voting for it now. Thank you once again to Urgench for raising this charter and for advancing the rights of humanity."



We are extremely glad to have been of service to the honoured Ambassador for Avarahn. We assure them that, despite their fears the specific human right outlined in this statute that is, the right not to be discriminated against, will in fact aid member nations to insure that their justice systems are able to properly identify the actual culprits of crimes and try them for their crimes based upon the facts pertaining to these crimes. This replaces the all too frequent eventuality that individuals may be wrongly accused of crimes they have not committed based upon the discriminatory notions about these individuals, leading to wrongful prosecutions, erroneous convictions, lengthy and costly appeals processes, possible miscarriages of justice, and over all failure of confidence in the fairness of a states ability to properly deal with crime.

We are extremely glad that the honoured Ambassador has felt able to vote for this statute, and we commend them for the historic act of Justice their vote represents. History will remember such acts and honor them.


Yours sincerely,

i choose a in article 1

i choose a in article 1
Which reminds me, why doesn't this thread have a poll? I demand a poll!

Which reminds me, why doesn't this thread have a poll? I demand a poll!


Your wish is our command, noble General.


Yours,

Dunno, but General Arororugul sure rides like a sedated walrus
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, you insult my honor and the honor of my people. I challenge you to a horse race at the conclusion of this vote. Do you have your own mount or shall I furnish you with one? You may have first choice from my stable, of course.

Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, you insult my honor and the honor of my people. I challenge you to a horse race at the conclusion of this vote. Do you have your own mount or shall I furnish you with one? You may have first choice from my stable, of course.


How serendipitous, We have long awaited such a challenge, so far no other delegation has offered us one. His Excellency the Khan of Kashgar will ride his prize Mongolian Mare, Hauraten ( a gift from his Divine Majesty's Stable ), but he thanks the noble General for his kind offer of a mount. It is perhaps worth noting that his Excellency has won numerous pan-Imperial prizes for his Horsemanship, and is a much decorated player of Bashkazirt, the empire's most dangerous horse riding tournament.

We wish the noble General god's speed.


Yours sincerely,

My region has sent me here to vote against the current resolution, well all felt the ideal of the resolution was in the correct..place so to speak. Most disagreed with the World Assembly dictating what, in our regions view should be a national issue.

Thank you

My region has sent me here to vote against the current resolution, well all felt the ideal of the resolution was in the correct..place so to speak. Most disagreed with the World Assembly dictating what, in our regions view should be a national issue.

Thank you


Very well honoured Ambassador, as you see fit, far be it for us to quarrel with the expressed view of your renowned region.


Yours sincerely,

After discussing the Ambassador's most reasonable and logically sound responses to our concerns, the United Federation of Sconopia's Council on Foreign Affairs wishes to declare our nation's support of this most enlightened proposal.

Thank you,
The United Federation of Sconopia
Council on Foreign Affairs

We are very glad we were able to dispel any confusion your renowned state may have had about this resolution and are extremely pleased you felt able to vote for it too.


Yours sincerely,

The Nation of Vao Island Emirate is currently 'having' a problem with Article 1.c., mainly because if you weren't 'born' on this Island then you can't 'work' at this Island.

And it states:
''All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.''

Signed by,
Vao, The President of the Peaceful Region of Hallmark and Governor of Vao Island Emirate

As the representative of Urgench pointed out, this does not supersede criminal law. Therefore, if it is illegal for those not born in Vao Island Emirate to work in that nation, then this does not over-rule that.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

My region has sent me here to vote against the current resolution, well all felt the ideal of the resolution was in the correct..place so to speak. Most disagreed with the World Assembly dictating what, in our regions view should be a national issue.

Thank you

The Empire of Vanquest cannot help but agree with you. Logic can't be confusing to all...can it?

The Empire of Vanquest cannot help but agree with you. Logic can't be confusing to all...can it?

What logic is the respected Ambassador referring to ? So far neither the honoured Ambassador for Wencee nor indeed you, honoured Ambassador, have used any to reach their position on this statute.

If the honoured Ambassador for Vanquest imagines that it is logical for an international organisation such as this to continue to allow some of its member states to persecute, marginalise, and despise whole sections of their societies based upon the absurd illogic of prejudice and discrimination when it could end such injustice forever then we are afraid the honoured Ambassador is in fact a stranger to the concept of logic altogether.


So far the honoured Ambassador for Vanquest has offered no logical arguments against this statute at all. In fact all they have done is shown a singular lack of comprehension and perspicacity, having completely misunderstood the content and effect of this statute they have gone on to make wildly inaccurate and garbled accusations about it.

If the honoured Ambassador imagines that such accusations, amounting as they do to nothing more than the erroneous opinions of a confused conception, are any form of logic which should be understood by any but themselves then we suggest they revisit their nation's logicians and philosophers for a tutorial in that ancient discipline.


Yours,

As the representative of Urgench pointed out, this does not supersede criminal law. Therefore, if it is illegal for those not born in Vao Island Emirate to work in that nation, then this does not over-rule that.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador



This is only partially true, specifically the first sentence of the honoured Ambassador for Tai Lao's contribution is correct, so long as the criminal law in question is not discriminatory in nature or is not used as a tool of discrimination and prejudice. The second is too broad and confused to be correct and therefore we must demure to have our own words associated with it.

Criminal law and employment law are not one in the same, and post the passage of this statute the two will be more clearly defined and rectified than ever before, to the betterment of civilisation.


Yours,

We rise today to cast our vote for the measure. Our esteemed colleague from Urgench should be commended for this work.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

What logic is the respected Ambassador referring to ?
Yours,


I make no argument that the intent...spirit of the document isn't a just and noble think. My argument is thus: It is unenforceable, as the issues that we will continue to recieve will not compensate for this resolution. You, I, and Billy-Bob will still be free to persecute or to uplift however we choose.

Instead of narrowly defining what rights member nations must grant to their citizens, pass a resolution recognizing that there simply are rights which each civil society must preserve for its people. These resolutions need to be vague and flexible in order to stand the test of time. This is too narrow and too confined.

It is a waste of time.

I make no argument that the intent...spirit of the document isn't a just and noble think. My argument is thus: It is unenforceable, as the issues that we will continue to recieve will not compensate for this resolution. You, I, and Billy-Bob will still be free to persecute or to uplift however we choose.

Instead of narrowly defining what rights member nations must grant to their citizens, pass a resolution recognizing that there simply are rights which each civil society must preserve for its people. These resolutions need to be vague and flexible in order to stand the test of time. This is too narrow and too confined.

It is a waste of time.




So you recommend "vague" and "flexible" rights honoured Ambassador ? what possible purpose would such plastic rights have if they were malleable to the touch of those who wished to pervert them ? Rights are of an absolute nature honoured Ambassador and it would be pointless to pretend otherwise.

In any event you call for rights in general to be named, this statute does exactly that with one specific right. The right not to be discriminated against.

This is not an overall human rights statute, and we could never have hoped to have written one given the constraints this organisation imposes on its legislation.

The benefit of not having all human rights be encapsulated in a single statute is that they cannot all be excised from the canon at one fell swoop by a single repeal. In correlation with the other human rights statutes already passed by this organisation this law will augment the legal protections of human freedom alrady in place in w.a. law in a cumulative fashion and future legislation will hopefully follow suit.

In fact this is an extremely efficacious way to proceed.


As for enforcement, this statute does not and could not hope to change every individual citizen of every w.a. state's way of thinking in a flash, but the nature of compliance with w.a. law means that it will change the way in which w.a. governments behave towards those inhabiting the countries they rule practically instantaneously. This will have a profound and benign effect on the lives of billions of individuals, some of whom are the most persecuted and despised in the world. For this we will be thankfull that we have been castigated by the honoured Ambassador for Vanquest.

Yours,

My argument is thus: It is unenforceable, as the issues that we will continue to recieve will not compensate for this resolution. You, I, and Billy-Bob will still be free to persecute or to uplift however we choose.

IC: We suspect that there are many varied nations represented in this assembly who would be only too glad to show you how laws corresponding to this resolution, which have been on their statute books for a great many years, are entirely enforceable. We are certainly one such.

OOC: Don't expect coordination between issues and resolutions about anything, ever. This is a metagaming argument, and refuted thus: the mods say "No."

OOC: Don't expect coordination between issues and resolutions about anything, ever. This is a metagaming argument, and refuted thus: the mods say "No."

(OOC: I could be wrong, but at least when it was under the old NSUN, but wasnt there something in the game mechanics that either blocked or at least lessened the chance of the Issue(s) coming up, or if the action taken was in contradiction to a passed resolution there would be some penalty to the nation? That was my understanding anyway)

As the representative of Urgench pointed out, this does not supersede criminal law. Therefore, if it is illegal for those not born in Vao Island Emirate to work in that nation, then this does not over-rule that.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

This is only partially true, specifically the first sentence of the honoured Ambassador for Tai Lao's contribution is correct, so long as the criminal law in question is not discriminatory in nature or is not used as a tool of discrimination and prejudice. The second is too broad and confused to be correct and therefore we must demure to have our own words associated with it.

Criminal law and employment law are not one in the same, and post the passage of this statute the two will be more clearly defined and rectified than ever before, to the betterment of civilisation.


Yours,

Thus to clear it up, I managed to find the terms that reach my reason for why this will hurt my fellow followers.

Written in this Document is the terms of immigration:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallmark Compact Version 2.5

1.A. Anyone who has a job within the the Founding Nations (Vao Isle, and Vao Island Emirate) and hasn't shown a precise birth certificate will be considered an immigrant.

1.B. If one is Unemployed and is a still yet an immigrant, they have no right to have National Insurance or availability in Health or Medical assistance.


2.A. Because of over immigration, this statement (2.A.) will force all immigrant-born people the law not to work within The Peaceful Region of Hallmark under any circumstances.


3.A. If they 'fled' from another nation to Hallmark, they have no right to live within this nation and will have to leave.

3.B. If they haven't left within 3.5 week limit, they will be prosecuted to the Death Penalty of Hanging immediately following the next day.

3.C. If they confirm they haven't fled from troubled nations to Hallmark, then they will still yet have no chance of citizenship here.


Signed by,
Vao, Leader/President/Founder of Hallmark
Dominic, Co-Leader/Executive of Hallmark
Opprio, Co-Founder/Secretary of Hallmark
Hector, Vice President of Hallmark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see, allowing any Ethnic Group or Nationality immigrant work within territory will tear this Compact to pieces and even make twice the immigration percentage!

So I see no way this will help certain 'immigration troubled' nations/regions any of the least bit.

Signed by,
Vao, Governor of Vao Island Emirate and President of the Peaceful Region of Hallmark

Thus to clear it up, I managed to find the terms that reach my reason for why this will hurt my fellow followers.

Written in this Document is the terms of immigration:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hallmark Compact Version 2.5

1.A. Anyone who has a job within the the Founding Nations (Vao Isle, and Vao Island Emirate) and hasn't shown a precise birth certificate will be considered an immigrant.

1.B. If one is Unemployed and is a still yet an immigrant, they have no right to have National Insurance or availability in Health or Medical assistance.


2.A. Because of over immigration, this statement (2.A.) will force all immigrant-born people the law not to work within The Peaceful Region of Hallmark under any circumstances.


3.A. If they 'fled' from another nation to Hallmark, they have no right to live within this nation and will have to leave.

3.B. If they haven't left within 3.5 week limit, they will be prosecuted to the Death Penalty of Hanging immediately following the next day.

3.C. If they confirm they haven't fled from troubled nations to Hallmark, then they will still yet have no chance of citizenship here.


Signed by,
Vao, Leader/President/Founder of Hallmark
Dominic, Co-Leader/Executive of Hallmark
Opprio, Co-Founder/Secretary of Hallmark
Hector, Vice President of Hallmark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you see, allowing any Ethnic Group or Nationality immigrant work within territory will tear this Compact to pieces and even make twice the immigration percentage!

So I see no way this will help certain 'immigration troubled' nations/regions any of the least bit.

Signed by,
Vao, Governor of Vao Island Emirate and President of the Peaceful Region of Hallmark

If those are the standards after, I would hate to see the process of actually getting in.

Whilst we dont condone such extreme measures, I can understand the necessity for them, and would probably fall under the exemption for compelling practical purposes (IE over-immigration meaning fewer jobs to go around), though Ambassador Mongkah might have to clarify it since they are the ones who drafted this proposal.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

(OOC: I could be wrong, but at least when it was under the old NSUN, but wasnt there something in the game mechanics that either blocked or at least lessened the chance of the Issue(s) coming up, or if the action taken was in contradiction to a passed resolution there would be some penalty to the nation? That was my understanding anyway)
OOC: You're wrong. The game has never made any such adjustments for issues received by UN/WA members.

Unfortunately, despite the honoured Ambassador for Tai Lao's assurances, we are still unable to offer any further light on the subject of the Vao Island Emirate's objections to this statute.

The situation the respected Ambassador for the Vao Island Emirate describes is utter nonsense, it is not considered, rationalised policy upon which it might be possible to gauge the impact which this resolution might have at any great length or in much detail.

Suffice it to say, this statute will not force states to allow hordes of ravening foreigners to enter there borders illegally and take all their precious jobs. But it will mean that states such as the Vao Island Emirate will have to develop sensible and fair policies towards those who may seek to enter their state legally, and they will have to offer even those who have entered illegally due process, regardless of factors such as sex, ethnicity, race, religion e.t.c.

Nowhere within this statute is it required that the Vao Island Emirate allow non-nationals to work within its borders unless it has given them prior permission on an individual basis to do so. However if it bans black people from working, or Jews or nomads or women or Chinese people en masse then it will certainly have to re-write such laws if not remove them entirely.

The Vao Island Emirate will retain the right to control immigration into its state, but such control would have to take place under strictly non-discriminatory conditions.


Naturally we are disgusted at the revelation that the Vao Island Emirate murders those found illegally within their borders, this will absolutely have to change should this statute pass, the judicial murder of illegal immigrants would be seen as a obscene form of discrimination based upon nationality, or lack thereof, and would be illegal under this statute's provisions.

Yours,

3.A. If they 'fled' from another nation to Hallmark, they have no right to live within this nation and will have to leave.

3.B. If they haven't left within 3.5 week limit, they will be prosecuted to the Death Penalty of Hanging immediately following the next day.

3.C. If they confirm they haven't fled from troubled nations to Hallmark, then they will still yet have no chance of citizenship here.

As you see, allowing any Ethnic Group or Nationality immigrant work within territory will tear this Compact to pieces and even make twice the immigration percentage!

As the Urgenchi have pointed out, this legislation does not require you to allow immigrants to live or work in your benighted nation, as long as you block pretty much everyone, without singling out a specific group. But given your barbaric policies and attitude towards immigrants, I can't help but wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to inhabit your backwards locale.

The Trilateral Federation, under its Safe Haven Program, will provide asylum and assistance to anyone threatened by the barbaric immigration policies of Hallmark. They are more than welcome to come to the Federation, rather than have to die in your Gods-cursed state or region.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

1a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law
1c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including ... nationality...

I apologize for my late entry into this discussion, but I have only recently joined this august body.

Am I to understand this will grant all the rights of citizenship to all inhabitants of a nation?

Certainly there are ways around this... loyalty oaths, for instance... but it seems to me that if this passes, a nation would not be able to limit the franchise of voting to just its citizens.

I apologize for my late entry into this discussion, but I have only recently joined this august body.

Am I to understand this will grant all the rights of citizenship to all inhabitants of a nation?

Certainly there are ways around this... loyalty oaths, for instance... but it seems to me that if this passes, a nation would not be able to limit the franchise of voting to just its citizens.

The Urgenchi can correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I read this, it doesn't mean that at all. "Nationality" in that clause is referring to a person's national origin or ethnicity, and as far as voting goes, I'd read that to mean that you couldn't ban people who are already citizens of your country from being able to vote just because of their origin.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I apologize for my late entry into this discussion, but I have only recently joined this august body.

Am I to understand this will grant all the rights of citizenship to all inhabitants of a nation?

Certainly there are ways around this... loyalty oaths, for instance... but it seems to me that if this passes, a nation would not be able to limit the franchise of voting to just its citizens.



Nationality, honoured Ambassador, is a legal status normally granted by a nation to persons who meet certain specific criteria which help define such persons as nationals of the nation in question.

Governments will retain the absolute right to grant national or citizenship rights to those who meet a criteria which is non-discriminatory in nature.

Grant this status on a non-discriminatory basis and this status may continue to have certain specific legal appertenances which would otherwise be denied those without this status.

Member states will not however be able to say- " all inhabitants of X country shall be denied the status of Citizen/National/Subject,", or " all Christians shall be denied Citizenship " and therefore intentionally deny the rights associated with such a status to whole groups within their nation without considering the actual circumstances of the individuals who comprise such groups.


Deny the right to vote to individuals with no legitimate interest in doing so by all means honoured Ambassador, but should this resolution pass it will be illegal to do so to punish or exclude large sections of your nation's inhabitants with a legitimate interest in doing so simply because these groups have been intentionally marginalised on a discriminatory basis.


We hope we have clarified the effects of this statute for you, please let us know if you have any further concerns.


Yours sincerely,

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan strongly objects to the ambassador from Urgench's proposition to bind all nations, regardless of cultural traditions and values, by one common, draconion law. We believe that the internal affairs of nations are just that; to be run solely and individually by the rightful leaders of such nations, and no other body. Furthermore, this proposition threatens to undermine the cultures, progress, and security of the nations it professes to protect. The Jamahiriyastani do not seek to impose our values on the Urgenchi; we ask that the Urgenchi do not impose their values on us, under the false banner of "universal rights."

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan strongly objects to the ambassador from Urgench's proposition to bind all nations, regardless of cultural traditions and values, by one common, draconion law. We believe that the internal affairs of nations are just that; to be run solely and individually by the rightful leaders of such nations, and no other body. Furthermore, this proposition threatens to undermine the cultures, progress, and security of the nations it professes to protect. The Jamahiriyastani do not seek to impose our values on the Urgenchi; we ask that the Urgenchi do not impose their values on us, under the false banner of "universal rights."
Outstanding! I commend the ambassador from Jamahiriyastan for his wisdom and insight. Welcome to the World Assembly!

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan strongly objects to the ambassador from Urgench's proposition to bind all nations, regardless of cultural traditions and values, by one common, draconion law. We believe that the internal affairs of nations are just that; to be run solely and individually by the rightful leaders of such nations, and no other body. Furthermore, this proposition threatens to undermine the cultures, progress, and security of the nations it professes to protect. The Jamahiriyastani do not seek to impose our values on the Urgenchi; we ask that the Urgenchi do not impose their values on us, under the false banner of "universal rights."

Firstly we have not outlined any "Universal Rights", we have outlined one single right, the right not to be discriminated against.

We are not imposing our values on anyone, honoured Ambassador, believe us when we say that were we to have done so this statute would have been radically different in nature. We are merely asking the membership of this organisation to commit to the prevention and cessation of persecution, marginalisation, and alienation of persons who have done nothing to deserve such appalling treatment.

If your state wishes to allow the worst aspects of human nature to remain unchecked, and for billions of individual lives to continue to be made unbearable or indeed unsustainable or for states to be able to continue to commit atrocities and outrages against whole groups within their societies then by all means vote against this statute.

If however Jamahiriyastan cares about fairness, justice, compassion and mercy then it should vote for this statute without reservation since these qualities are this resolution's guiding principles.


Yours,

The esteemed Urgenchi delegate misses the main point. The solution to the world's problems is not a "one size fits all" resolution. Each and every nation is different in terms of culture, temperament, religion, and politics. Let us therefore to each mind our own, rather than allow independent, sovereign nations to be ruled by a tyranny of the majority, a majority who have no right to govern the internal affairs of other nations.

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan pleads with members of this esteemed body not to allow this resolution to pass.

The esteemed Urgenchi delegate misses the main point. The solution to the world's problems is not a "one size fits all" resolution. Each and every nation is different in terms of culture, temperament, religion, and politics. Let us therefore to each mind our own, rather than allow independent, sovereign nations to be ruled by a tyranny of the majority, a majority who have no right to govern the internal affairs of other nations.

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan pleads with members of this esteemed body not to allow this resolution to pass.


Please we miss no point, honoured Ambassador, we simply see the well being and right to live without persecution of each and every inhabitant of the member states of this organisation as more important than the mean and narrow focus of cultural mores, the vagaries of "temperament", and the passing fashions of religion and politics, which in any case may be seen to be demonstrably unjust, cruel, iniquitous and inhumane.

We are all beings of one substance , our right to be respected on this basis is not the hostage of the accident of which country we happen to have been born in.


Yours,

The esteemed Urgenchi delegate misses the main point. The solution to the world's problems is not a "one size fits all" resolution. Each and every nation is different in terms of culture, temperament, religion, and politics. Let us therefore to each mind our own, rather than allow independent, sovereign nations to be ruled by a tyranny of the majority, a majority who have no right to govern the internal affairs of other nations.

The People's Republic of Jamahiriyastan pleads with members of this esteemed body not to allow this resolution to pass.

Translation: "Yes, please don't let this pass, so that we can continue to discriminate against people and mistreat them if we so choose."

The response of any civilized nation to such an entreaty should be, "What a bunch of crap. No."

As for your "right to govern the internal affairs", you gave the WA that right when you joined. Please, let's not have that tiresome argument again.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador