[GA - Failed] Repeal: “Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities”

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dinoium

Dinoium

Legal nerd
-
TNP Nation
Dinoium
ga.jpg

Repeal: “Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities”
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#457
Proposed by: THX1138 | Onsite Topic​
General Assembly Resolution #457 “defending the rights of sexual and gender minorities” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The General Assembly:

Fully acknowledging the importance of providing specific protections to Sexual and Gender Minorities,

Asserts that recently passed legislation GA #457 Defending the Rights of Sexual and Gender Minorities (DRSGM) must be repealed due to critical flaws that bring about significant legal paradoxes for nations.

Of specific concern is DRSGM’s Clause 5, which states “…that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution and should be addressed by future legislation.”

This Assembly believes that the silence from this legislation, as it relates to this ideological group, can be readily interpreted as a de facto exemption from the mandates and penalties of this legislation, while all others must comply.

This is alarming, given previous World Assembly law requiring, as a cornerstone of human rights, that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law.

Noting several troubling and untenable paradoxes for nations, that result from DRSGM:

• Nations are mandated to impose rules and penalties on some organizations within their borders, while provided no strength through this law to apply those rules and penalties, equally, to others.

• Without the legal ability to hold all organizations to exactly equal account, it becomes impossible for nations to adhere to clause 2 of DRSGM, which states “…that every member nation must grant exactly the same rights, powers, permissions and services to individuals of all sexualities and genders, subject to exactly the same qualifying conditions...”.

This Assembly acknowledges the potential for these inequities under law to lead to civil unrest within nations, and to create an untenable burden on nations to both uphold DRSGM and simultaneously preserve the intended human right to civil equality under law.

Further, due to the precedent set by DRSGM, it is understood that any future legislation can now be tailored, through silence on specific ideological groups, to target some and not others, leaving open the potential for an unacceptable, multi-tiered system of law and human rights, applying inequitably across the spectrum of society.

The Assembly concludes that the passage of DRSGM has revealed a critical flaw in WA jurisprudence that requires clarification, and,

Understands that, due to precedent, those clarifications can not legally be applied while DRSGM stands.

For these reasons, The General Assembly hereby repeals GA #457.
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!
 
Normally I would be thrilled that one of our own had advanced a resolution that made it to queue. But it’s a repeal of a popular resolution that was supported by our WALL partners, and one that I personally don’t have a problem with. I have debated Toast on a very similar issue some time ago, with that Don’t Kill the Poor act. He felt it should have gone farther and didn’t want to leave it to a piecemeal approach. I feel his position with this repeal is doing the same thing, he is demanding the resolution completely cover the gap that allows nations to grant religious exemptions, something that undoubtedly would get a rewrite of this resolution killed at vote.

He’s claiming precedents and legal questions that are nothing new and are in fact how we typically do things in the WA. Great case in point, IA’s one line resolution. It was criticized for leaving large aspects of the issue unaddressed which was a feature not a bug. Resolutions do not have to encompass every aspect of an issue because they can leave the rest to future resolutions. And that may sometimes be the only realistic way you’ll move forward on something, because without compromising it in some way you may make it impossible to win over everyone. That is exactly what I think could happen here.

Toast’s argument in my view is a good argument for a resolution to go further on this issue, not to reverse the distance we’ve already traveled. I understand where he’s coming from and don’t doubt his convictions, he wishes to see fairer law and true equality not holes and exceptions. More than that though, I think he is making a process and quality argument that I simply cannot understand. There was nothing subtle or misleading about the exemption in the target resolution. It clearly carved out an exemption for religious organizations and stated the obvious, that further legislation is needed to deal with that subject. That author didn’t cheat or trick anyone, and didn’t reinvent the wheel. This isn’t the start of some bad series of resolutions that play the WA game differently, I just cannot grasp how he’s come to that conclusion.

Against
 
I'll post once, and attempt to address some of the above and leave it to others to cast their votes.

I've been in the WA for 6 years, and take a certain pride in having not missed very many votes in that time. I've always taken the time to read proposals and give them thorough consideration, and in that time, I can't recall seeing one quite like this. I accept Ghost's point that it is the occasional practice to allow for certain concessions in legislation for a better fit to the WA community. I have to disagree with Ghost that a legislation that essentially says: This law applies to everyone out there, except for this group, is 'typical'. That is a pretty big deal.

For all intents and purposes, the target is omnibus legislation, in that it takes two issues that are significant enough that they should have been dealt with separately, and unique enough that if split away, wouldn't impact the quality of the other. The target without clause 5 would achieve exactly the same rights for the LGBTQ2 community, so I can only surmise that it was tacked on the end, so as to not upset apple carts, and as a means to get the most possible votes. Fair enough, everyone wants to see their legislation pass, and I know the author sought feedback from a variety of people. A wide majority of us wanted to see these enhanced rights for gender and sexual minorities.

What is concerning with the target, however, is that in the process of that tailoring, in the excitement to get it passed, in the wheeling and dealing, a very important line was crossed - blown through like a stop sign - and no one seemed to take stock of that. I'm taking stock of that. We have a Charter of Civil Rights in the WA and as far as human rights are considered, it must serve as the blueprint for all we do here.

I'm not going to regurgitate what I've already stated in the repeal, but it is from that starting point that the repeal makes its case. There's nothing esoteric about it. We have a standing law with an exemption that is in contradiction to what was intended in the Charter: Equality under the law and it's actions, equality in human rights and an equal obligation to respect the rights of all others. Fairness, balance...not political fairness and balance, but actual, tangible, fairness and balance across the spectrum of society.

I will be submitting a draft proposal, tomorrow, which will aim to address the specific type of ideological exemption we see in the target. The 'this law doesn't apply to this group' without explanation or justification would be a non-starter. If a legislation wishes to exempt a group - any group - there needs to be a clear explanation as to why, so that every voter understands why that exemption is being included. We are a democracy after all, and if there is an intention to make some more equal than others, that warrants a conversation.

For
WA Nation THX1138
 
I continue to maintain this is an unreasonable standard for resolutions. We know why religious groups are exempted from this, and reasons can be explained in drafting.

Again, you make a good case for why this exemption shouldn't exist, and can draft legislation that deals with it directly. That isn't prevented by the existence of this resolution.
 
Against. Religious discrimination can be stamped out in subsequent resolutions without necessitating a repeal of the current one.

WA: New Bremerton
 
New Bremerton:
Against. Religious discrimination can be stamped out in subsequent resolutions without necessitating a repeal of the current one.
Click to expand...
This repeal has absolutely nothing to do with religious discrimination, and that is a straw man. This repeal has to do with societal exemptions from WA law that violates the spirit of the Charter. You are welcome to vote against it on those grounds, but please let's not try and make this about something it's not.
 
Against.

This repeal seems to be holding the targeted resolution to an unfair and unreasonable standard.
On that note? The religious exemptions can be dealt with via new legislation and does not require the targeted resolution- which does a whole lot of good- to be repealed.

In short? The targeted resolution does a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people. Its shortcomings can be addressed with future legislation that isn’t predicated on a repeal. For those reasons? I can’t vote in favour of repealing one of the most far-reaching pro civil rights resolutions in WA history. We already made the mistake of repealing one resolution that guaranteed legalized same-sex marriage without a replacement lined up. We shouldn’t do so again.

WA: Prydania
 
Last edited:
Against because I supported the original draft, let's keep it!
Your proposed patch can exist independently of this repeal too, so it can still pass. Your patch covers a different topic, more about religious organizations.

You don't need the repeal. You need

GAY RIGHTS!

WA: Queen Yuno
 
Last edited:
Against

For the love of god, what the hell is wrong with you, you propose plugging a perceived hole in the law not by proposing a better law or creating a new one that addresses something that plugs what you consider a flaw but instead decide the most efficient way to go about this was to burn down what is there and then create a proposal for a law that has nothing to do with the one you are trying to repeal.

This is either homophobia that is being barely veiled or its functioning off of a level of stupidity that is nigh impossible to comprehend.

"I see your LGBT protection bill there, lets get rid of it and replace with with a bill that defines the nature of exemptions"

~The Most Fabulous SC Member of Frances Francis the First of France


bowloftoast:
The proposed patch:
https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=460656
Click to expand...


Your "Proposed Patch" (That doesn't even have anything to do with the bill you are trying to repeal) has already been stated to be illegal by more then one of the people in charge of judging the legality of proposals.
 
Please, let's keep it civil. There's no need to attack Toast. While we may not agree with the consequences of repealing this particular legislation, I feel it is important to discuss how we write resolutions.

Clause 5 appears to be the World Assembly (momentarily, hopefully) conceding the right to discriminate to a group merely by its objection and societal stature. Rights should not be contingent on who wields social power, and I understand Toast's concern.

I have a few honest questions, if this is the appropriate forum:

1. The Charter of Civil Rights protects belief systems, and also protects gender and sexual minorities. Why should one protected class (belief) be allowed ways to discriminate against another class (gender and sexual minorities)? I understand that future legislation is meant to restrict how they can discriminate, but this still sets them apart from other protected classes. Could an exemption be granted for a gender or minority to discriminate (but in more restricted ways) against a different gender or minority because of certain ingrained social or cultural structures? Why can't an ethnicity or social class claim an exemption?

2. When should the World Assembly use a patchwork of legislation as opposed to taking an unequivocal stance at the start? Is the role of the World Assembly to push for groundbreaking legislation applied evenly, or to reflect, or stay a step ahead of, current societal norms through piecemeal legislation? Ghost has partially addressed it as compromise for resolutions unlikely to pass in one piece, but is there a line, or at least a fuzzy gray area, in which compromise becomes unworthy of WA consideration?

I feel the most impactful resolutions often make sweeping declarations on rights with exemptions only to not run afoul of more fundamental rights, and are the hallmark of a benevolent WA. This exemption does not explicitly state that, and instead can be interpreted to allow those who have historically discriminated to continue discrimination. Perhaps future legislation will address these issues, but this resolution comes across as one to be filed in a cabinet than framed on the wall. It's no less important; but it's not reaching a standard that reflects its significance.

3. What does WALL mean, and who are our partners?

I note that I am against repealing this resolution because I think the benefits here are significant, with downsides restricted to a small segment of society. The exemptions carved out bear no weight on civil issues, and I believe the Charter of Civil Rights and Freedom of Religion covers cases where a national religion seeks to discriminate. These downsides can then be further restricted in future legislation. But I think Toast raises some interesting questions (and I love questions because they're good for pondering), so I hope those more knowledgeable on WA matters can explain them to me.

eta: clarification in Q1
 
Last edited:
Lord Lore:
Against

For the love of god, what the hell is wrong with you, you propose plugging a perceived hole in the law not by proposing a better law or creating a new one that addresses something that plugs what you consider a flaw but instead decide the most efficient way to go about this was to burn down what is there and then create a proposal for a law that has nothing to do with the one you are trying to repeal.

This is either homophobia that is being barely veiled or its functioning off of a level of stupidity that is nigh impossible to comprehend.

"I see your LGBT protection bill there, lets get rid of it and replace with with a bill that defines the nature of exemptions"

~The Most Fabulous SC Member of Frances Francis the First of France





Your "Proposed Patch" (That doesn't even have anything to do with the bill you are trying to repeal) has already been stated to be illegal by more then one of the people in charge of judging the legality of proposals.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm not going to tolerate flaming. Keep it civil or feel free to not contribute.
 
TlomzKrano:
Yeah I'm not going to tolerate flaming. Keep it civil or feel free to not contribute.
Click to expand...
Yes I could have been more calm about how I worded that, this is a subject I am very passionate about and it is valid to speculate on the reasoning behind this because of how it was handled and how flippantly it was suggested that because of this small perceived flaw that we trash LGBT protections and not fix the flaw but instead replace it with something that has nothing to do with what is being repealed and that is obviously illegal under WA rules. I went too far in my stupidity comment but I will not apologize for the homophobia accusation.
 
Orven:
Why should one protected class be allowed ways to discriminate against another class
Click to expand...
The target resolution (GA 457) in no way allows a "protected class" (LGBT+ peoples) to discriminate against anyone. Equal rights does not equate to a loss of rights for the previously privileged group. Giving people more civil rights doesn't take them away from you. It's not pie.
 
Lord Lore:
For the love of god, what the hell is wrong with you, you propose plugging a perceived hole in the law not by proposing a better law or creating a new one that addresses something that plugs what you consider a flaw but instead decide the most efficient way to go about this was to burn down what is there and then create a proposal for a law that has nothing to do with the one you are trying to repeal.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you ever got the impression that I was looking to create a law to replace the target. I always assumed the author would. I've been abundantly clear that it's the ideological exemption in clause 5 that is problematic, both when the target first came up for vote, and up to and including now. I've also been very clear, every step of the way, that the problems that come up for nations, from that exemption and the paradoxes of it's mandates, are the reasons why I was seeking repeal. Look up ^ It's right there in black and white.
If you bother to check the GA forum, you'll see that I stated on several occasions that I was going to try and submit a proposal that addressed these huge, sweeping ideological exemptions from law. In short, in an attempt to ensure that this sort of discrimination be nullified completely, instead of partially. It's proven easier said than done, because of game mechanics.
Your accusation of homophobia is both inappropriate to the situation and absurd on the face of it. Perhaps you feel using that sort of tool is an effective way to shame people to your way of thinking, but I'm confident enough in my knowledge of self to be able to dismiss it as the ravings of someone who hasn't taken two minutes to actually read and consider the contents of the repeal.

Prydania:
Against.
...The targeted resolution does a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people. Its shortcomings can be addressed with future legislation that isn’t predicated on a repeal. For those reasons? I can’t vote in favour of repealing one of the most far-reaching pro civil rights resolutions in WA history. We already made the mistake of repealing one resolution that guaranteed legalized same-sex marriage without a replacement lined up. We shouldn’t do so again.
Click to expand...
Appreciate you giving the repeal fair consideration, and I respect your reasons for voting against.
 
Prydania:
The target resolution (GA 457) in no way allows a "protected class" (LGBT+ peoples) to discriminate against anyone. Equal rights does not equate to a loss of rights for the previously privileged group. Giving people more civil rights doesn't take them away from you. It's not pie.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's the 'protected class' they are referring to.
 
Prydania:
The target resolution (GA 457) in no way allows a "protected class" (LGBT+ peoples) to discriminate against anyone. Equal rights does not equate to a loss of rights for the previously privileged group. Giving people more civil rights doesn't take them away from you. It's not pie.
Click to expand...

I in no way meant that LGBT+ people would be able to discriminate against anyone. I reread that and realize that it was unclear. Let me rephrase:

In this specific scenario, what I am asking is: why is one protected class (religion or belief system) allowed to continue to discriminate against another protected class (LGBT+) when rights are supposed to be given without reservations? If we allow one protected class to discriminate, can other protected classes request exemptions? For instance, can a large ethnic minority demand that they be exempt from recognizing LGBT+ rights within their community? What is the criteria under which we allow this exemption?

One could argue that this is a specific case, where marriage was formerly mostly religious, and this separation of civil and religious marriage means that we have to single out religion to deal with separately. But irreligious conservative cultures can discriminate against LGBT+ too and bar same-sex marriage. We have determined that cultural background is not a basis for an exemption. Why do we give religion one? Furthermore, the inclusion of gender identity in this resolution means that religious organizations may continue to discriminate against transgender or genderfluid individuals outside the scope of marriage. This is a source of concern for me. Of course, this may be addressed in future legislation.

Again, I'm not arguing that this resolution decreases rights for privileged groups. I am saying that it does not appear prevent one privileged group from continuing discrimination, and posing the question of how and why we decide which groups (privileged or unprivileged) are allowed exemptions to continue discrimination by the mere basis of their history.
 
Religious groups have a particular interest in discriminating against this class as part of their religious beliefs. Wading into this requires messing with the separation of church and state thing, and is a huge element that by itself could sink this resolution on its own. Your questions are reasonable and a great reason why this issue should be addressed in its own legislation. In the meantime, we have greatly advanced rights for LGBTQ+ people. Repealing this means going back to a status quo where there's even more carveouts and where a potential replacement meeting Toast's high standard would be more likely to fail.

As for your other question, WALL is the World Assembly Legislative League, our partners are Europeia, Europe, the IDU and Balder. We wok together on discussing WA legislation, collaborating on campaigns and information to help our respective voters respond to them, and decide on proposals we wish to support.
 
Thanks for your answers!

Absolutely, this has significantly advanced LGBTQ+ rights, and I believe it should not be taken for granted that this can be done time and time again. Given the immense difficulty of securing rights for traditionally ostracized groups through popular vote, I believe this is a case where we need to take what we can get through WA, then push for broader protections when the time is right.

I vote Against.

eta: WA: Orven
whoops, I thought I only needed to link to my WA nation in my profile.
 
Last edited:
Orven:
Thanks for your answers!

Absolutely, this has significantly advanced LGBTQ+ rights, and I believe it should not be taken for granted that this can be done time and time again. Given the immense difficulty of securing rights for traditionally ostracized groups through popular vote, I believe this is a case where we need to take what we can get through WA, then push for broader protections when the time is right.

I vote Against.
Click to expand...
Reminder for you and everyone else, be sure to post your WA nations when casting a vote.

Mine is, obviously, Pallaith.
 
Against

We don't need to take a step back by repealing this resolution. We need to step forward and build upon what we already have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top