NationStates Jolt Archive

Due Diligence

21-01-2009, 10:57
It has been suggested that my resolution

May in some way replicate resolution #30 on freedom of expression. I think the confusion about this nay arise from the section of resolution #30 which lists the bases upon which a person should not expect political reprisals
for expressing themselves, being seemingly similar to the list contained in my resolution of grounds upon which someone should expect not to be discriminated against.

Now I can see the superficial similarity, but really the list I've included protects people from discrimination ( which may take numerous forms, both overt and discreet ) not reprisals ,which presumably has overtones either of criminal prosecutions or informal persecutions, and regardless of whether a person expresses their specific differences publicly or not.

One may be outwardly indistinguishable from every other citizen of the state you live in, but because of ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation e.t.c. which one scrupulously keeps private still be discriminated against.

The example of being Jewish is a good one in this case. Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity, and yet many Jews are completely unobservant and assimilated and yet as was proved in Germany under the National Socialists the mere fact that one is Jewish ( regardless of observance or extent of assimilation ) can be used to discriminate against one. The same can apply to all the listed grounds in the rest of my statute.

Naturally this is what my resolution is attempting to deal with. I think its fair to say that resolution #30 is dealing with intentional public display and expression of things which will mark one out as in contrast with prevailing norms of acceptability or in contradiction of political orthodoxy.

Anyway, I'm just seeing what you mods think, and seeing if I'll need to request to have my resolution pulled before it makes quorum and retool it.