[GA, defeated] - Promoting Ethnic and Cultural Equality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Promoting Ethnic And Cultural Equality
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Ice States, Co-authored by: Simone Republic, Wallenburg | Onsite Topic​

Whereas ethnic and cultural discrimination occurs in many member nations, yet is inherently unjust such that member nations have a duty both to protect their citizens against, and themselves refrain from, such discrimination; and

Whereas the repeal of "The Charter of Civil Rights" has left an ominous silence regarding protections against ethnic and cultural discrimination;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

  1. Definition: For the purposes of this resolution, a "protected characteristic" is any characteristic such as skin colour, nationality and language which is subject to discrimination as a result of its connection to an individual's culture, ethnicity or race. Culture, ethnicity and race are themselves protected characteristics.

  2. Services:No member nation, or entity therein, may withhold, delay, or segregate any service, right or privilege, including employment and remuneration as well as sale of goods and property, from an individual on the grounds of any real or perceived protected characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual. The following exceptions apply to this provision, although nothing in the said exceptions preclude exempted conditions from being an unlawful form of discrimination based on another real or perceived protected characteristic.
    1. Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right, policy, or privilege clearly related to a protected characteristic, where such a requirement is strictly necessary to mitigate harms towards persons holding a particular protected characteristic without causing similar or worse harms to those lacking it, from being conditional on the recipient's holding of that protected characteristic.

    2. Section 2 also shall not prohibit an entity from requiring those selected to conduct some task to hold a particular protected characteristic, if and only if that entity can demonstrate clear and convincing objective evidence that both (a) the task is clearly related to the said protected characteristic, and (b) that protected characteristic is strictly necessary to effectively carry out the relevant tasks if selected. For roles with a language requirement, no person may be discriminated against on the grounds that their language fluency is learnt and not their native language.

  3. Segregation: Systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation or internment of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group are recognised as acts of genocide. The segregation of a population based on any real or perceived protected characteristic, regardless of whether such segregation is enforced by a state, is universally prohibited under World Assembly jurisdiction.

  4. Classification: Every member nation is to consider protected characteristics to be arbitrary and reductive, and accordingly enforce laws against hate crime, violence, and other discrimination on the grounds of real or perceived protected characteristics as with any other arbitrary, reductive characteristic. No part of this resolution should be interpreted as preventing member nations from jointly or severally enacting further legislation to protect against discrimination on the grounds of any real or perceived protected characteristic. Terms in the singular are to be interpreted as including the plural thereof, absent clarification otherwise.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
71100
 
Last edited:
Overview
This resolution is the second attempt at a purported replacement for GA35, The Charter of Civil Rights - the first attempt was rejected with the worst complaints focused on exceptions for employers in terms of discrimination. This has been redrafted with a statement in clause 2(a) that "a service, right, policy, or privilege clearly related to a protected characteristic, where such a requirement is strictly necessary to mitigate harms towards persons holding a particular protected characteristic without causing similar or worse harms to those lacking it, from being conditional on the recipient's holding of that protected characteristic."

Recommendation
We see nagging concerns over this resolution, still focusing on clause (2)(a) regarding whether the statement (quoted exactly above) amounts to a ban on positive discrimination. There are also various issues raised in the gameside forums which remain outstanding. We recognize that reaching consensus on such a broad (and sometimes highly emotional) topic may never be genuinely achievable, but the resolution probably would have benefited from a significant re-drafting.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the GA proposal at vote, "Promoting Ethnic And Cultural Equality".
 
This is the re-badged version of "Against Racial Discrimination" which lost the last time by exactly one vote in TNP (11-12), and TNP was the swing vote (the margin it lost by was slightly less than TNP's vote as the forum barely swung against).

Last discussion: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9197938/

Please note that I am now attributed as a co-author (although it's basically one line and a couple of edits).
 
Last edited:
For, as it was edited substantially after I mauled Magecastle over the wording about race and language, largely publicly over Discord several times in the last week or so. I did actually knock off most of the bits that I vehemently opposed last time.
 
Last edited:
I am voting for this proposal. The vast majority of the issues that were raised with its previous version has been addressed, such as the definition of discrimination and the problem surrounding linguistic fluency. I therefore feel confident that this is not only a good replacement for GA #035, but also a good piece of legislation on its own terms.
 
Against. I hope people will forgive me for voicing my opposition again when the last issue I was concerned about has largely been addressed, but I've noticed another issue with this proposal that was brought up, namely that it appears to ban the sort of treaties with indigenous nations signed by the Canadian Crown (and, I believe, the US government.) They are not, as I understand them, "strictly necessary to mitigate harms towards persons holding a particular protected characteristic," but rather based on historic rights and reclamations.
 
Comfed:
Against. I hope people will forgive me for voicing my opposition again when the last issue I was concerned about has largely been addressed, but I've noticed another issue with this proposal that was brought up, namely that it appears to ban the sort of treaties with indigenous nations signed by the Canadian Crown (and, I believe, the US government.) They are not, as I understand them, "strictly necessary to mitigate harms towards persons holding a particular protected characteristic," but rather based on historic rights and reclamations.
Click to expand...

I need to find the reference, but I think that exact point was also raised when Tinhampton tried to do her Indigenous Rights thing that I pointed out she would have to surrender her house in Northamptonshire in England to the Brits or Picts or whatever.

If you are just talking about property rights, I need to check where the hell in the 280-odd res body of law that says this can't happen because it came up before.
 
Simone:
I think that interpretation violafes RNT.
Click to expand...
...how?
Simone:
Also I need to find the reference, but I think that exact point was also raised when Tinhampton tried to do her Indigenous Rights thing that I pointed out she would have to surrender her house in Northamptonshire in England to the Brits or Picts or whatever.
Click to expand...
My objection is that this resolution bans treaties which are currently held by both parties to be in force, such as those between the Canadian Crown and many indigenous nations in Canada. There is no reason to ban those, and in Canada they are a key part of the legal system that guarantees the rights of indigenous people in Canada. I don't know that Tinhampton's draft said, but I very much doubt that it was the same thing that I am talking about.
 
Comfed:
...how?

My objection is that this resolution bans treaties which are currently held by both parties to be in force, such as those between the Canadian Crown and many indigenous nations in Canada. There is no reason to ban those, and in Canada they are a key part of the legal system that guarantees the rights of indigenous people in Canada. I don't know that Tinhampton's draft said, but I very much doubt that it was the same thing that I am talking about.
Click to expand...

I am not familiar with the Canadian treaties. Let me look it up.

Edit: I am vaguely familiar with the Treaty of Waitangi of New Zealand (between the Crown and the New Zealand Maoris), since Yohannes, Magecastle and myself all have ties to New Zealand, but I think it's not the same thing.
 
Last edited:
What's the interpretation of "strictly necessary"? My interpretation is that it has to be the only reasonable way of mitigating the harm that has been done. It seems like a very high bar to clear for me, and I think Comfed's example is one that seems like reasonable government policy but doesn't clear that bar because surely there are other ways of repaying for historic harms towards indigenous peoples.
 
Simone:
I am not familiar with the Canadian treaties. Let me look it up.

Edit: I am vaguely familiar with the Treaty of Waitangi of New Zealand (between the Crown and the New Zealand Maoris), since Yohannes, Magecastle and myself all have ties to New Zealand, but I think it's not the same thing.
Click to expand...

OK I took a quick read through the Indian Act of Canada (or at least the Wikipedia article of it). Just in terms of clause (2)(1)

Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right, policy, or privilege clearly related to a protected characteristic, where such a requirement is strictly necessary to mitigate harms towards persons holding a particular protected characteristic without causing similar or worse harms to those lacking it, from being conditional on the recipient's holding of that protected characteristic.
Click to expand...

If you substitute the words "native" (I know the preferred word is "First Nations" in Canada, but terms differ between countries and I use the word "native" below)

Section 2 shall not prohibit a policy... clearly related to (being native), where such a requirement is strictly necessary to mitigate harms towards... (being native) without causing similar or worse harms to those lacking it (Anglo-Saxon or whatever), from being conditional on the recipient's holding of that protected characteristic (being native).

So I think the wording does not prohibit something like the Indian Act, although this depends on how you read the words "strictly necessary". But since this resolution doesn't have an interpretation clause and RNT requires a standard presumption against binding the sovereign, I think it's OK. (I need to find where in the Gensec rulings archive for that, but Magecastle can probably find that faster than I am).

(IA emphasized this point in "Repeal: Sophisticated Investors Protocol", which is the GA resolution coming up next, mind you that's Magecastle repealing a resolution from me and IA).

Gorundu:
What's the interpretation of "strictly necessary"? My interpretation is that it has to be the only reasonable way of mitigating the harm that has been done. It seems like a very high bar to clear for me, and I think Comfed's example is one that seems like reasonable government policy but doesn't clear that bar because surely there are other ways of repaying for historic harms towards indigenous peoples.
Click to expand...

Again, depends on how you read "strictly necessary". But that term isn't defined so by RNT convention each WA state has some leeway.

Please note that since I am listed as a co-author (although it's basically one line and a bit), if I find an issue with this resolution, I'll hit the kill switch.
 
Last edited:
Simone:
So I think the wording does not prohibit something like the Indian Act, although this depends on how you read the words "strictly necessary". But since this resolution doesn't have an interpretation clause and RNT requires a standard presumption against binding the sovereign, I think it's OK. (I need to find where in the Gensec rulings archive for that, but Magecastle can probably find that faster than I am).
Click to expand...
Well, I can't be bothered finding historic rulings on RNT, but "strictly necessary" seems like very restrictive language by nature. It's intended to bind the sovereign. I'm still against.
 
Magecastle:
Assuming good faith, how is the loss of "historic rights and reclamations" not inherently a form of harm?
Click to expand...
The problem is that the resolution bans policies which aren't "strictly necessary" to mitigate harm. That is a very high bar, and I am not convinced that the relevant treaties clear it, because their intent is not to mitigate harm. On paper, they are negotiated settlements, and in practice, were used to drive indigenous peoples off their historic lands into reserves (reservations in the U.S.).

Even if losing the treaties would be a form of harm, the treaties themselves do not necessarily meet the test for being exempted from section 2.
 
Comfed:
The problem is that the resolution bans policies which aren't "strictly necessary" to mitigate harm. That is a very high bar, and I am not convinced that the relevant treaties clear it, because their intent is not to mitigate harm. On paper, they are negotiated settlements, and in practice, were used to drive indigenous peoples off their historic lands into reserves (reservations in the U.S.).
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that a particular treaty should be permitted if its purpose is to harm indigenous communities.

Comfed:
Even if losing the treaties would be a form of harm, the treaties themselves do not necessarily meet the test for being exempted from section 2.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily losing the treaties, but not having them may certainly cause harms, such as the loss of their culture and land. I would consider state policies, documented in a treaty or not, to indeed be strictly necessary to prevent these harms.
 
Last edited:
Against, unforch. For legislation as universal and strong as has been proposed, it feels like all of the details haven't exactly been ironed out.
 
Norvoz:
I see multiple people raising this concern. I am unaware of the context here - can you please explain more?
Click to expand...
I may be ancient as compared to many others around here, but Wallenburg had a very toxic relationship with TNP, previously criticizing many members of our region and our government for small issues that were ultimately proved to be more incorrect than correct. While he may have improved a bit after he got elected onto GenSec, I believe many older members of TNP have not forgiven him for his actions and therefore still does not seem to be willing to vote for a proposal co-authored by him (including yours truly)

I think there are also other issues in the proposal as raised by Comfed and Gorundu that I think is also dealbreaking for me, so that is my other reason for voting against.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top