[GA - DEFEATED] Freedom of Dress

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hulldom

Winter Kingdom
Pronouns
He/Him/His
TNP Nation
Hulldom
Discord
seathestarlesssky
ga.jpg

Freedom of Dress
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Tinhampton | Onsite Topic


Aware that clothing - as well as occasionally serving to express one's beliefs - can also sometimes function simply as items of personal convenience, and

Condemning the various archaic policies on clothing (such as companies forbidding their female employees from wearing flat shoes or trousers) that continue to run rampant today in some member states...

The General Assembly hereby:
  1. reserves to the individual member states the matter of whether to permit the wearing of clothes, and
  2. requires those member states choosing to allow clothing to also forbid the imposition of any restriction on what clothing any of their inhabitants may wear, unless doing so is:
    1. a requirement of prior and standing international law, or of future international law regarding hate speech,
    2. to provide for the covering of any part of a sapient's body that a reasonable member of that sapient being's species would expect a great level of privacy in relation to, or anything naturally released by those body parts, in any area that can be accessed by the public,
    3. necessary to preserve the health of its wearer or of the general public,
    4. necessary to ensure that members of the general public do not wilfully impersonate on-duty members of militaries or national emergency services, or
    5. a result of an employer prescribing a uniform for their employees or a school prescribing a uniform for their pupils; so as long as such restrictions do not forbid individuals from wearing, nor require individuals to wear, any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic.
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]1[/TD][TD]15[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]1[/TD][/TR]

Freedom of Dress was defeated 10,056 votes to 4,026 (28.6% support).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV - Against

Overview
This proposal seeks to codify the freedom of a sapient being to dress the way they please, carving out multiple exceptions for cases of health, safety, and privacy.

Recommendation
We are genuinely unimpressed by the mandate suggested in this proposal due to its note as a rule with exceptions. Additionally, this topic is so narrowly specific in its goals and moralistic in its formulation as an idea that it should not warrant our consideration in the World Assembly,

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the General Assembly resolution at vote, “Freedom of Dress”.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This feels like legislating for the purpose of legislating. The GA doesn't need to address everything.

Against.
 
Why does this even exist? [...]
Article 3 of GA#436 "[p]rohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting [...] restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation." This means that future acts of international law could be enacted that would require nations to ban clothing, to prohibit nudism, or to enact onerous restrictions on what sort of clothes may be worn and where.

The intention of Freedom of dress is to prevent such restrictions from being enacted throughout the WA in future, except to prevent the propagation of hate speech. It allows member nations to impose such restrictions where necessary for health and safety, to ensure that Joe Public does not impersonate soldiers or key workers, and to allow for requirements that... sensitive body parts be covered in public. It allows employers and schools to set dress codes, so long as they are not sexist (see also the preamble's CONDEMNING clause) or otherwise discriminatory.

Tuesday will mark the fifth anniversary of Nicola Thorp revealing to the BBC that she was sent home from work six months earlier - in London, the capital of the United Kingdom - for not wearing high heels. Thorp's petition*, "Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work," remains the 105th most popular petition (out of more than 80,000 ever uploaded) in the history of the UK Parliament's official petition website and was debated in its secondary debate chamber, Westminster Hall. Do you want such injustices as those that Thorp suffered to be perpetuated, every hour of every day of every year, somewhere in the World Assembly?

*You will note that petition.parliament.uk no longer names the creators of closed petitions; however, doubting sharks need not apply.
 
Last edited:
This proposal has achieved the necessary approvals to enter the formal queue. It will go to a vote at next Wednesday’s Major Update.
 
Article 3 of GA#436 "[p]rohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting [...] restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation." This means that future acts of international law could be enacted that would require nations to ban clothing, to prohibit nudism, or to enact onerous restrictions on what sort of clothes may be worn and where.

The intention of Freedom of dress is to prevent such restrictions from being enacted throughout the WA in future, except to prevent the propagation of hate speech. It allows member nations to impose such restrictions where necessary for health and safety, to ensure that Joe Public does not impersonate soldiers or key workers, and to allow for requirements that... sensitive body parts be covered in public. It allows employers and schools to set dress codes, so long as they are not sexist (see also the preamble's CONDEMNING clause) or otherwise discriminatory.

Tuesday will mark the fifth anniversary of Nicola Thorp revealing to the BBC that she was sent home from work six months earlier - in London, the capital of the United Kingdom - for not wearing high heels. Thorp's petition*, "Make it illegal for a company to require women to wear high heels at work," remains the 105th most popular petition (out of more than 80,000 ever uploaded) in the history of the UK Parliament's official petition website and was debated in its secondary debate chamber, Westminster Hall. Do you want such injustices as those that Thorp suffered to be perpetuated, every hour of every day of every year, somewhere in the World Assembly?

*You will note that petition.parliament.uk no longer names the creators of closed petitions; however, doubting sharks need not apply.
This is drafted in a very odd way. "(R)eserves to the individual member states the matter of whether to permit the wearing of clothes" seems to imply running a nudist country (which I know is permitted in game). I am in agreement that employers should not require say employees wear heels but there are also exceptional circumstances, say requiring an actor to be dressed up as a clown in high heels (or say as Boris Johnson in high heels in a bikini or whatever, reminding me of the behavior of an MP from a long time ago).
 
Last edited:
This is drafted in a very odd way. "(R)eserves to the individual member states the matter of whether to permit the wearing of clothes" seems to imply running a nudist country (which I know is permitted in game). I am in agreement that employers should not require say employees wear heels but there are also exceptional circumstances, say requiring an actor to be dressed up as a clown in high heels (or say as Boris Johnson in high heels in a bikini or whatever, reminding me of the behavior of an MP from a long time ago).
I do not believe that the circumstances I have highlighted in bold constitute "requir[ing] individuals to wear any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic," merely as a consequence of their being an actor (which - as far as I know - is not an arbitrary and reductive characteristic).
 
I do not believe that the circumstances I have highlighted in bold constitute "requir[ing] individuals to wear any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic," merely as a consequence of their being an actor (which - as far as I know - is not an arbitrary and reductive characteristic).
But how does (5) solve I presume is your concern that some women are required to wear high heels at work? I can make that part of the costume (or uniform). I can also make wearing high heels (or platform shoes or whatever works for any non binary gender) compulsory for any gender and make end runs. I don't mind the intent but I think the resolution as it stands is badly drafted. AGAINST
 
Last edited:
I do not believe that the circumstances I have highlighted in bold constitute "requir[ing] individuals to wear any item of clothing solely as a consequence of their possessing or not possessing an arbitrary and reductive characteristic," merely as a consequence of their being an actor (which - as far as I know - is not an arbitrary and reductive characteristic).
If you are employed for a role (for fair compensation under common law and subject to local regulation etc etc) you are arbitrarily assigned for that particular role. My statement obviously depends on the definition of "arbitrary" and "reductive" neither of which is defined.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top