[GA - At Vote] Ban On Forced Sterilisation

Status
Not open for further replies.
TlomzKrano

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Ban On Forced Sterilisation
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Marxist Germany | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Lauding the previous efforts of this assembly to protect civil rights,

Recognising that forced sterilisation can have detrimental effects on the individual, including depression and long term psychological effects,

Noting that sterilisation against an individual's will continues to be used as a method of reducing the population of minorities in some member-states and as a punishment for sexual offenders,

Acknowledging that each individual should have the right to choose to reproduce or not as long as it does not violate another individual's right to choose,

Seeking to ban this method that has been, in the past, used to get rid of people that society has considered to be unwanted members, whether they were sexual or ethnic minorities or people with specific disabilities,

Hereby,

  1. Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, "sterilisation" as the permanent elimination of an individual's ability to reproduce through the removal or alteration of their reproductive organs or the physiological processes that enable reproduction, through chemical or physical means;



  2. Prohibits:
    1. The sterilisation of any individual without their informed consent, unless a parent or guardian is legally able to and does consent on their behalf;

    2. The extradition of any criminal to places where they may be subject to forced sterilisation as a form of punishment;




  3. Requires that member states:
    1. Carry out thorough investigations into all sterilisation services within their borders, to ensure no illegal sterilisation is taking place;

    2. Reasonably punish people who carry out illegal sterilisation;




  4. Urges member states to provide reparations for victims of forced sterilisation.
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!
 
From my post in the WA Forum,

“While we have objections on permitting a parent or guardian having permission to sterilize their children or minors in their care, we do recognize that this clause is in the bill to maintain its legal status under previous WA resolutions.

As such we support this bill as currently written, with the above reservations.”

For
 
Last edited:
Vigorously against, for purposes of sex offender punishment only though.
 
For. As written in my dispatch and my forum post, I voted with the reservation about Clause 4 (that the state should not provide reparations but be in charge of ensuring that reparations is provided). Unlike all the other people, I don't think there is a purpose voting against a GA proposal simply because of the person proposing (I would only do it in the SC, because the entire commendation/condemnation needs to be considered as a whole). I voted this way purely because the resolution is reasonable, and I would not let the actions of the person proposing stop me from doing so.
 
Last edited:
This proposal is objectively bad. It allows for rampant parental abuse without review. The fact that a guardian figure could simply consent to their child being sterilized without review is awful.
 
(Marxist) Germany:
I mean, voting against something because of the author is something I will never understand. (also I have redacted my statements of noncompliance since)
Click to expand...
I don't think people are voting based on that, it's more because of the potential for parental abuse that Tlomz mentioned.

That said, I vote Present
 
The resolution is problematic as has been pointed out by a few people, and narrow though it is, it’s enough reason to oppose. We can do this without taking into account the author’s unacceptable views on WA compliance, though that is also significant. Personally I take issue with the deliberate framing of this resolution in terms of reproductive freedom and choice by individuals who do not actually believe in such things. It causes me to wonder if they don’t see some sort of angle I can’t, though even for them there doesn’t seem to be much wiggle room here for tricks so I’m willing to take their argument and their sincerity at face value (though again, I find their rhetoric to be aggravating).

That said, I believe it is perfectly reasonable to refuse to engage with individuals who do not deal with the WA in good faith. Respect the work of your fellow members and respect the institution, and then we can talk about giving your resolution a fair hearing. The fact is, it’s already getting more of a look than it deserves. You can’t have things both ways, so whatever you think of such opposition, know that I for one will proudly oppose future resolutions solely on these grounds if there are no other grounds for opposition. This time, there are other grounds, and I stand on them and with those who are against this resolution.
 
TlomzKrano:
This proposal is objectively bad. It allows for rampant parental abuse without review. The fact that a guardian figure could simply consent to their child being sterilized without review is awful.
Click to expand...
How many times do I have to say that this is an exception not a mandate and it was added to avoid contradiction with Patients Rights Act which allows gaurdians to consent on behalf of their children on any medical procedure. Shall PRA be repealed, repealing this resolution would make more sense.
 
Last edited:
I would like to recognize that the author’s non-compliance stance has been reversed. As such I will not vote against his work by default should the situation ever arise where there is no other reason to oppose his work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top