Removed Proposal: Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision"[Archived] [Complete]

Category: Repeal
Resolution: GA#141
Proposed by: Mahaj WA Seat

Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision":

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #141: Permit Male Circumcision (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the intent of Resolution 141 Permit Male Circumcision,

NOTING that the resolution in question gives no protections for consent, meaning that circumcision could be forced upon an individual who has made an informed decision but is still under the age of majority in their nation,

BELIEVING that the World Assembly should not be assisting in forcing this procedure on an individual,

POSSESSING an adequate replacement that addresses this concern while keeping the practice of circumcision legal,

CONCLUDING that this resolution ought to be repealed in order to protect individual's reproductive rights and their right to choose,

HEREBY Repeals General Assembly Resolution #141 Permit Male Circumcision.

Click to expand...

I would like to ask the MoWA to delegate the writing of an informational review for this resolution, and fast.

Cut vs. Uncut. Go!

I would like to delegate the writing of this brief to Cormac.

I wait for him to come online and accept / unaccept.


Meanwhile, I vote for. :p

I'm sure that my assessment will differ from Mahaj's, but here's my take, if it's welcome:

The resolution in question is short enough, so I'm going to quote it in its entirety:

The World Assembly,

AFFIRMING that male circumcision, the removal of some or all of the foreskin from the thingy, may be performed for a range of medical and religious reasons;

HAVING VOTED to deny a ban on male circumcision on previous occasions;

DECLARES male circumcision to be a medical procedure, and entitles patients undergoing male circumcision to all the protections associated with that status;

OBLIGES all member states to permit the practice of male circumcision, notwithstanding their authority to regulate the procedure.

Click to expand...

The most important thing, in my mind, is the OBLIGES line, as that's the one that really gives each nation the flexibility to regulate circumcision as would best suit their people, their culture, etc.

Your nation could pass a minimum age law. Your nation could pass a mandatory 18 year waiting period on all circumcisions. Your nation could require individual consent (versus allowing for parental consent).

Further, I think that the "consent" line in the repeal is misleading, as the resolution above (by declaring circumcision to be a "medical procedure") does correspond with consent rights. Of course, the resolution in question (GAR#29 - Patient's Rights Act for anyone who wants to delve in deeper) isn't written as clearly as I'd prefer, but I think that does establish a need for consent as it permits individuals to refuse treatment.

(I do have PRA, as linked above, on my "eventual repeal list" ... mainly because of the awkward wording that could and should be much clearer, in my mind.)

I firmly believe that this sort of hot button issue (circumcision) is something that should be decided by each nation with regards to the needs of their citizens and culture. I feel that Permit Male Circumcision does a good job of assuring that individual member states can make these decisions through how they decide to "regulate the procedure." As such, I encourage a vote AGAINST this repeal.

I would strongly advise the acting MoWA to incorporate Mousebumples' argument.

" firmly believe that this sort of hot button issue (circumcision) is something that should be decided by each nation with regards to the needs of their citizens and culture. I feel that Permit Male Circumcision does a good job of assuring that individual member states can make these decisions through how they decide to "regulate the procedure." As such, I encourage a vote AGAINST this repeal."

Interestingly, you believe it should be decided by each nation but you support a resolution that forces it to be legal?

Against

Mahaj:

" firmly believe that this sort of hot button issue (circumcision) is something that should be decided by each nation with regards to the needs of their citizens and culture. I feel that Permit Male Circumcision does a good job of assuring that individual member states can make these decisions through how they decide to "regulate the procedure." As such, I encourage a vote AGAINST this repeal."

Interestingly, you believe it should be decided by each nation but you support a resolution that forces it to be legal?

Click to expand...

Mahaj, you know as well as I do that PMC is a very effective blocker. As a blocker it has to do SOMETHING. In this case it "legalized" male circumcision. However, your nation (and my nation and ... everyone's nation) is able to regulate the procedure so much that it may be legal in name only.

For example: if you wanted to (essentially) outlaw Male Circumcision in your nation - with PMC still in effect - you could regulate it with the following laws:

1. Set a minimum age law above your average life expectancy.
2. Mandatory 200 year waiting period for anyone seeking to be circumcised - and the clock wouldn't start until the minimum age was first met.
3. Whatever else you want to come up with.

On a national basis, you can (effectively) outlaw circumcision - despite what PMC technically says.

Against.

Mousebumples:

Mahaj:

" firmly believe that this sort of hot button issue (circumcision) is something that should be decided by each nation with regards to the needs of their citizens and culture. I feel that Permit Male Circumcision does a good job of assuring that individual member states can make these decisions through how they decide to "regulate the procedure." As such, I encourage a vote AGAINST this repeal."

Interestingly, you believe it should be decided by each nation but you support a resolution that forces it to be legal?

Click to expand...

Mahaj, you know as well as I do that PMC is a very effective blocker. As a blocker it has to do SOMETHING. In this case it "legalized" male circumcision. However, your nation (and my nation and ... everyone's nation) is able to regulate the procedure so much that it may be legal in name only.

For example: if you wanted to (essentially) outlaw Male Circumcision in your nation - with PMC still in effect - you could regulate it with the following laws:

1. Set a minimum age law above your average life expectancy.
2. Mandatory 200 year waiting period for anyone seeking to be circumcised - and the clock wouldn't start until the minimum age was first met.
3. Whatever else you want to come up with.

On a national basis, you can (effectively) outlaw circumcision - despite what PMC technically says.

Click to expand...

By that logic, why do we even have a WA? If "your nation can do everything yourself", then whats the point of the entire assembly?

Having read the repeal, the original resolution and the arguments on this and other threads.

I am AGAINST this repeal.

Against

Mahaj:

By that logic, why do we even have a WA? If "your nation can do everything yourself", then whats the point of the entire assembly?

Click to expand...

Do you seriously want to turn this into an IntFed versus NatSov debate? I'm sure you've heard the answer to this question before, but here goes:

While I do believe that there are some arenas (such as this one) where things are better left up to national decision-making, there are some topics on which I feel that international intervention is a Good Thing. These include, for example, education standards, collaborative research topics, human rights concerns, general health care topics, etc.

I've been involved with legislation enough in the WA that you know as well as I do that I am not a "I can do everything myself!" sort of person. I can do a lot of things for my own nation. And I'm almost always opposed to micromanaging resolutions that try to dictate all sorts of unnecessary details to WA nations.

However, on topics as controversial as this one, I feel that an effective blocker (such as the one we presently have on the books) is the best way to go. Which is why I'll be registering my nation's 4 votes against when this reaches a vote.

EDIT: Also, from a pure "game playing" perspective, getting involved in the WA (whether through R&D or resolution writing or ... whatever) is one of the very big things To Do in NS. And, for the record, I used to be very IntFed, back in the old UN days. My first resolution was only so NatSov'y because I was trying to win the votes of a very populous NatSov region back in the day. My philosophy has now evolved throughout the past 9 years that I've been playing NS.

Against

Against

It seems I will be voting against it.

Eluvatar:

It seems I will be voting against it.

Click to expand...

--> 7 minutes ago: The proposal "Repeal "Permit Male Circumcision"" was removed from the floor.

I expect that Mahaj will likely update the draft to resolve the legality issues and resubmit, but in the interim, it's unlikely that this will be the next proposal At Vote.

I'll refrain from archiving this for now, but any new proposal will be in a new topic.

Topic moved to WA Archives.

Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.