[GA - Passed] Don't Kill The Poor Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
bowloftoast

bowloftoast

Not Just For Breakfast
Discord
bowloftoast

ga.jpg

Don't Kill The Poor Act
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Wallenburgian World Assembly Offices | Onsite Topic​
Celebrating a history of protecting essential sapient rights,

Recognizing historical efforts to prohibit genocide and guarantee equal rights for the citizens of member states,

Concerned that ill-intentioned governments might engage in violence against the weakest of those under its jurisdiction,

The World Assembly hereby:

  1. Recognizes systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group as acts of genocide,

  2. Highlights that case-by-case imprisonment of, displacement of, or use of force against individuals does not target a general group, and so does not constitute genocide,

  3. Renders crimes against humanity any acts of genocide against any group on the basis of economic status or employment,

  4. Requires member states to render aid to individuals escaping genocide on the basis of their economic status or employment, and to consider such persons refugees.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Ministry IFV
The Don't Kill The Poor Act, whilst named in a more trivial way than perhaps it should, is a piece of legislation aimed at expanding the current definition of 'genocide' as set out in GAR#38 'Convention Against Genocide', to include those targeted due to economic status. The resolution, whilst short, contains adequate protections from overzealous definitions or accusations of genocide whilst protecting victims and vulnerable groups. Moreover, the resolution adequately helps those fleeing genocide and reinforces nations responsibilities as defined aforementioned legislation.

In accordance with the reasoning above, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For this resolution
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I will vote FOR, however there is no real explanation on how a nation committing genocide is to be dealt with. Perhaps another resolution can tackle that. The definition is a solid working definition though. Another question I have is who decides if the definition applies as cause 1 and 2 can be interpreted differently by different people. Obviously a state is going to claim clause 2 even if it is doing what is described in clause 1. There are some logistics that I think need to be discussed, but I am willing to pass this as an introductory motion.
 
Against.

I against the forcing of resources to be spent on helping supposed victims of genocide. That's a state choice; not a given.
 
Wonderess:
I will vote FOR, however there is no real explanation on how a nation committing genocide is to be dealt with. Perhaps another resolution can tackle that. The definition is a solid working definition though. Another question I have is who decides if the definition applies as cause 1 and 2 can be interpreted differently by different people. Obviously a state is going to claim clause 2 even if it is doing what is described in clause 1. There are some logistics that I think need to be discussed, but I am willing to pass this as an introductory motion.
Click to expand...
The definition in clause 2 is for individuals. I literally cannot see how people would interpret them differently, or claim clause 2 when clause 1 would apply.

Yukkira:
Against.

I against the forcing of resources to be spent on helping supposed victims of genocide. That's a state choice; not a given.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't it be a given?

Clause 3 is why this resolution exists. It's a novel angle I never considered before, and I don't think it's terribly likely to be something that would happen. But we protect against genocide, I'm willing to close this particular loophole.

For
 
Pallaith:
The definition in clause 2 is for individuals. I literally cannot see how people would interpret them differently, or claim clause 2 when clause 1 would apply.


Shouldn't it be a given?

Clause 3 is why this resolution exists. It's a novel angle I never considered before, and I don't think it's terribly likely to be something that would happen. But we protect against genocide, I'm willing to close this particular loophole.

For
Click to expand...
One could say that a nation is killing 30 individuals for vilating some "egregious law" when in fact it is a veiled mass killing.
 
For. I don’t have a ton to add on this.

One could say we shouldn’t kill the poor bill...

I know I’m sorry it was a terrible joke
 
No Ghost. I won't force a country as poor as Uganda to spend what little it has on protecting genocide victims when the state can barely afford sustance for its own citizenry. Much less keep civil order.

But sure. Morality. Horray!
 
Against.
Let's not fool ourselves: The 'war against the poor' is in the very DNA of capitalism, and this proposal is going to be impossible to uphold. In any purely capitalist structure, there are going to be winners and losers because it is an inherently flawed system. There will always be a class of the impoverished have-nots, and there will always be a wealthier class seeking to exploit that lower class for its own gain. The idea that anyone can rise in a capitalist system with enough hard work is a load of BS. The idea that wealth 'trickles down' to help the indigent is also a complete load of BS Poverty in a capitalist society is a given. Ghettos are a given. Crime in ghettos is a given. Terrible policing in ghettos is a given. High infant mortality is a given. Increased risk to individual health is a given. Shorter lifespans are a given. The generational cycle of poverty is a given. In reality, poverty is nearly impossible to escape, and while there may not be physical barriers around economically depressed communities, there are barriers, nonetheless. So, every purely capitalist nation in the WA will immediately be guilty of genocide, simply because they are capitalist. The author proposes nothing here to address the root causes of the problem.

Much as I'd like to see this proposal be passed and enforced in a meaningful way, capitalist societies called out one by one, meaningful change brought about throughout the WA, and the exploiters of humanity held to account...ain't gonna happen, because people who don't know they're the problem, are the problem.

Virtuous as this proposal appears to be on the surface, it is incredibly naive, and ultimately meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Voting Against.

Mandating that states take in genocide refugees is not a good proposal, instead, the nation of Buckerino prefers maintaining necessary sanctions and condemnation for nations that commit such atrocity, plus using the international court and intervention to directly intervene and tackle the issue at its root, instead of a shallow solution as provided here.
 
bowloftoast:
Against.
Let's not fool ourselves: The 'war against the poor' is in the very DNA of capitalism, and this proposal is going to be impossible to uphold. In any purely capitalist structure, there are going to be winners and losers because it is an inherently flawed system. There will always be a class of the impoverished have-nots, and there will always be a wealthier class seeking to exploit that lower class for its own gain. The idea that anyone can rise in a capitalist system with enough hard work is a load of BS. The idea that wealth 'trickles down' to help the indigent is also a complete load of BS Poverty in a capitalist society is a given. Ghettos are a given. Crime in ghettos is a given. Terrible policing in ghettos is a given. High infant mortality is a given. Increased risk to individual health is a given. Shorter lifespans are a given. The generational cycle of poverty is a given. In reality, poverty is nearly impossible to escape, and while there may not be physical barriers around economically depressed communities, there are barriers, nonetheless. So, every purely capitalist nation in the WA will immediately be guilty of genocide, simply because they are capitalist. The author proposes nothing here to address the root causes of the problem.

Much as I'd like to see this proposal be passed and enforced in a meaningful way, capitalist societies called out one by one, meaningful change brought about throughout the WA, and the exploiters of humanity held to account...ain't gonna happen, because people who don't know they're the problem, are the problem.

Virtuous as this proposal appears to be on the surface, it is incredibly naive, and ultimately meaningless.
Click to expand...
Toast I don’t dispute anything you said, but I think it’s not applicable to this resolution. The negative outcomes you described do not constitute genocide and wouldn’t constitute genocide under this proposal. This isn’t an anti-capitalist ideological proposal, that strikes me as quite a stretch.
 
It is important to read the proposal and just concentrate on it alone.
Although swayed by bowloftoast's argument. After reviewing all the arguments and the proposal I am now, once again:-

For!

I would add that maybe another proposal could be addressed to cater for the other issues mentioned by bowoftoast.

I would also hope that the WA which is based on RL United Nations does not become as soft as it's predecessor - The League Of Nations.
 
Last edited:
Against.

While I choose to open arms and help them, in the end the way how nations deal with victims of genocide should be up to each nation.
 
Last edited:
Clause 1 fails to adequately distinguish between genocide and ethnic/social cleansing. Statistically disproportionate violence short of actually killing or starving a group of people does not equate to genocide. Forceful isolation of a group constitutes, at worst, ethnic/social cleansing. Forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers to new housing for their own safety hardly constitutes genocide, or Hong Kong and Singapore, nations with limited space and resources, would be guilty as charged. A compulsory one-child policy, while immoral, does not constitute genocide. Genocide means mass murder. It means the deliberate extermination of an identifiable group of people, in whole or in part. This proposal, specifically Clause 1, trivializes genocide.

Against.
 
New Bremerton:
Clause 1 fails to adequately distinguish between genocide and ethnic/social cleansing. Statistically disproportionate violence short of actually killing or starving a group of people does not equate to genocide. Forceful isolation of a group constitutes, at worst, ethnic/social cleansing. Forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers to new housing for their own safety hardly constitutes genocide, or Hong Kong and Singapore, nations with limited space and resources, would be guilty as charged. A compulsory one-child policy, while immoral, does not constitute genocide. Genocide means mass murder. It means the deliberate extermination of an identifiable group of people, in whole or in part. This proposal, specifically Clause 1, trivializes genocide.

Against.
Click to expand...
You are incorrect.

World Assembly GA Resolution #38 defines genocide as follows:

1. (1) Genocide shall be defined as any act committed, or measure enacted, with the intent to destroy, in whole or partially, an identifiable group of persons on the basis of belief, ethnicity, nationality, culture, or a perceived innate characteristic, which for the purposes of this resolution shall include sexual orientation.

(2) Acts of genocide include, but are not limited to: killing or inflicting serious harm upon members of the group, creating living conditions for the group which tend to bring about its physical destruction, forcibly removing children from the group, or taking measures to prevent births within the group.
Click to expand...

Under this definition, the things you mentioned can indeed constitute genocide, except for forcibly relocating squatters and slum-dwellers which is a situation that would be covered by Clause 2.

On balance, I am for this resolution.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top