[GA - PASSED] Prohibition of Honor-based Violence

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hulldom

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
-
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Boston Castle
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Prohibition of Honor Based Violence
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Greater Cesnica | Onsite Topic​

The General Assembly,

Believing that acts of honor-based violence are especially heinous, and represent a fundamental betrayal of the trust afforded by a person to their relatives and members of their community,

Appalled that such acts occur in this current day and age, often with the tacit or explicit support of local authorities,

Seeking to put an end to these vile acts,

Hereby:

  1. Defines "honor-based violence" as an act of violence perpetrated against an individual by or at the direction of a relative or any other member of a community, due to the perception that the individual has brought shame or dishonor upon their family or community, or has otherwise violated an honor code.

  2. Prohibits:
    1. honor-based violence from being carried out in any member state and;
    2. the belief that the victim of an act of violence brought shame or dishonor upon their family or community, or otherwise violated an honor code, from being permitted as a part of:
      1. any defense in criminal proceedings or
      2. any argument to reduce the severity of criminal penalties.
  3. Requires member states to prosecute alleged honor-based violence with at least the same severity as they prosecute other forms of alleged unlawful violence against individuals.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to 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!
[TR][TD]For[/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]25[/TD][TD]1[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]

Prohibition of Honor-Based Violence was passed 13,108 (82.8%) votes to 2,712 (17.2%).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
Overview
The at-vote General Assembly proposal seeks to ban honour-based violence, which is the use of violence against individuals because they caused real or perceived damage to their family or community's reputation, honour, etc. Honour killings are often, but do not have to be, religious in nature and may, for example, target those who engaged in pre-/extramarital affairs.

Recommendation
This proposal bans a barbaric practice that too often costs people their lives, solely because they do not share the moral or religious framework of the perpetrator. Every act of honour based-violence is one too many, and this proposal adequately deals with the issue by including not just honour killings, but all forms of violence. In addition, the third clause prevents prosecutors from purposefully not prosecuting honour-based violence, or prosecuting such cases with less severity. This proposal thereby fills an important gap in present international law.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the at-vote resolution, "Prohibition Of Honor-Based Violence".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As of 1:41 PM EST, this proposal has achieved the proposals necessary to enter the formal queue. It will take the floor at Friday's Minor Update.
 
For.
Reasoning:
Killing in the name of "honor" is in of itself dishonorable an inescapable paradox and stain on the cohesion of the Autocratic Republic I have built for my people. Comrades need not burden themselves with practicing law, especially using a practice that is based on arbitrary concept.
Allow The State to restore your stained honor by proper state-legislated judicial measures. A true comrade would not need to worry as they wouldn't be dishonoring their fellow comrades in the first place.
 
This emerges from my comments at https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=38413686#p38413686.

I'll be honest, you shouldn't vote for this proposal because it by omission, allows honour killings to be used as justification or excuse. The relevant clause stops honour claims from being used in 'any defense in criminal proceedings questioning whether such a killing was a criminal offense'. That is separate from a claim where someone says, 'I did do it' – ie it was an offence – but it was justified or the act was excused. Such a claim is why I included justification and excuse explicitly in Gay Panic Defence Ban and also left '[t]he perception[] of a person's sex[] may not be used as a defence to a criminal offence' open ended.

Similarly, the reason why GPD Ban does not limit itself only to 'such killings' as this proposal does is to extend the barring of a GP defence to other cases: battery, bodily harm, assault, etc. Under the current proposal, question of honour could still be raised in non-lethal situations, gravely undermining its effectiveness and failing to place (what are basically) disliked persons within the protections of the law.

Nations which continue to have questions of honour as a valid defence would obviously exploit this failure, so it passes a reasonable nation test. I support a ban on honour killings (and assaults) and its barring from being used as a defence. I don't support this proposal because it fails to actually ban it properly, as it is poorly written. I think you all should reconsider your votes.

The proposal was withdrawn to correct these issues.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top