[GA - passed] Protecting Objectors In Combative Military Service

[Nutmeg The Squirrel]

Protecting Objectors In Combative Military Service
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Magecastle Embassy Building A5 | Onsite Topic​

---

Believing that individuals have the right not to be forced to participate in combative roles in an armed conflict despite holding conscientious, moral, or religious objections against such participation,

Further noting that conscripted conscientious objectors not only are likely to be demoralised themselves, but also demoralise the rest of the armed force in which they are conscripts, thus providing little to no advantage as soldiers,

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein said individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.

2. Such an objection may only be voided by the individual in question. Further, no person may be penalised for expressing, holding, or failing to void, such an objection.

3. This resolution does not prohibit member nations from enforcing forced military service in compliance with Sections 1 and 2. Yet, regardless of the other provisions of this resolution, the World Assembly shall maintain the power to further restrict forced military service by resolution.

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!

---

For	Against	Abstain	Present
11	4	0	2

 

[Nutmeg The Squirrel]

Overview
This proposal seeks to prohibit nations from forcing individuals into armed conflict where they would cause harm to another if the individual expresses objection based on their moral, conscientious, or religious values. The objection may be voided only by the individual themselves.

Recommendation
This proposal, in its role of preventing conscription of individuals who morally or religiously object against conscription, prevents demoralized individuals from being forced into the army against their will. It also prevents objectors from demoralizing the army as a whole or performing poorly in battle due to their objection.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the at-vote General Assembly resolution, "Protecting Objectors In Combative Military Service".

 

[Chipoli]

For

 

[Lionsmeow]

Present

 

[Nutmeg The Squirrel]

Present

 

[Cloud]

For

 

[Magecastle]

For, for obvious reasons -- happy to answer questions if needed

 

[Kenmoria]

I am for this proposal. It marks the roughly appropriate point at which the General Assembly should prohibit conscription. The legislation is short but to the point, and I can see no flaws in the execution.

 

[Tim Kasto]

As a military man, I am for

I do not want cowards in my squad getting me killed HOORAH

 

[Comfed]

Against

 

[Space Cat]

Present

 

[Tape]

For

 

[nvxl]

Against

I'm not too happy with the qualifier in the first clause, but I'm open to changing my mind about it; the resolution as a whole is fine.

 

[Loh]

Against

 

[Zash]

For

 

[Magecastle]

Against

I'm not too happy with the qualifier in the first clause, but I'm open to changing my mind about it; the resolution as a whole is fine.

As mentioned in the forum thread, the qualifier exists solely because not having it would make what is likely an already-controversial idea receive even more opposition. I support enacting the same protections for non-combative military service; but doing so in this proposal would likely mean that no protections whatsoever are enacted.

 

[TheLandOfFunFunFun]

Against

 

[Oceania]

For

 

[Simone]

It's a preamble fight essentially.

I do not fully believe that they have the right not to fight, but I also agree with the author (as discussed ad nauseum) that putting unwilling soldiers on the front lines is a bad idea.

 

[MarcoTheReal]

For

 

[Magecastle]

This was withdrawn, and resubmitted with identical text (largely due to losing quorum).

 

[Daijaqnida]

For

 

[Sauron]

For

 

[Magecastle]

This is quorate.

 

[Kaschovia]

For

 

[Jag]

For

 

[Wilkshire]

For

 

[Simone]

For. Qualifier: any attempt to pass a resolution to exempt conscious objectors from non military service alogether will be treated as treason by me. I am fine if they stay home and fix rail cars or pump gas or whatever, but not if they don't work.

 

[Comfed]

For

 

[Norvoz]

Against

 

[Polgaria]

For

 

[Maurnindaia [fr]]

For

 

[Simone]

Recent:

Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service was passed 11,149 votes to 3,766.


Thread locked.