[GA, not in queue] - Against Racial Discrimination

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Milky white thingy
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
ga.jpg

Against Racial Discrimination
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: The Ice States, Co-authored by: Wallenburg | Onsite Topic​

Whereas racial discrimination occurs in many member nations, yet is an unjust malum in se which member nations have a duty both to protect their citizens against and to refrain from themselves; and

Whereas the repeal of "The Charter of Civil Rights" has left an ominous silence regarding protections against racial discrimination;

The World Assembly enacts as follows.



  1. Definition: For the purposes of this resolution, a "racial characteristic" is any characteristic such as skin colour, culture, nationality and language which is the perceived result of an individual's ethnicity or race, including ethnicity and race themselves.

  2. Services: No member nation, or entity therein, may withhold, delay, or segregate any service, right or privilege, including employment and renumeration as well as sale of goods and property, from an individual on the grounds of any racial characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual, subject to Section 3.

  3. Exceptions: Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right or privilege clearly related to a racial characteristic, and which is essential to mitigate discrimination or the effects thereof against a particular racial characteristic, from only being granted depending on a racial characteristic of the recipient. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from withholding employment from an individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language in the case of translators.

  4. Segregation: Systematic or otherwise intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group, forceful isolation or internment of a group in designated areas, removal of a group from designated areas, or the forceful institution of population controls on a group are recognised as acts of genocide. The segregation of a population based on any racial characteristic, regardless of whether such segregation is enforced by a state, is universally prohibited under World Assembly jurisdiction.

  5. Classification: Every member nation is to consider racial characteristics to be arbitrary and reductive, and accordingly enforce laws against hate crime, violence, and other discrimination on the grounds of racial characteristics as with any other arbitrary, reductive characteristic. No part of this resolution should be interpreted as preventing member nations from jointly or severally enacting further legislation to protect against discrimination on the grounds of any racial characteristic.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in 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!

ForAgainstAbstainPresent
0701
 
Last edited:
Hard against. This is literally being submitted while discussions on the resolution and their implications are still going on the NationStates World Assembly Discord server.

As IA said:

Then what is your interpretation of "Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from withholding employment from an individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language in the case of translators"?
Click to expand...

As Kenmoria said:

I was concerned in particular with the part prohibiting exclusion from an area. I will give an example of this. In the People’s Republic of Kenmoria, there is a Basque minority who suffered discrimination under the previous government. Occasionally, in the País Vasco, there are conferences on Basque issues which only Basque citizens are allowed to attend. These often extend over a very large area, with cultural events being performed.
Click to expand...

As far as I can see, the exceptions in section 3 are hideous loopholes that literally is teaching employers how to discriminate - by claiming differences in language, say African-American Vernacular English, or Scottish vs Estuary English accents. Relying on private employers to act in good faith defeats the purpose of the resolution.
 
Last edited:
Kenmoria literally started in the WA Discord that their quoted post was an IC comment made in "poor faith" by their IC Ambassador, and they had no OOC objections to that clause.

Absolutely for (non-WA).
 
Magecastle:
Kenmoria literally started in the WA Discord that their quoted post was an IC comment made in "poor faith" by their IC Ambassador, and they had no OOC objections to that clause.

Absolutely for (non-WA).
Click to expand...

Or to quote myself in the gameside forum:

The exception "individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language" is highly dangerous and opens the way to link language capability to race.

I speak fluent Japanese, but I am not Japanese by race. I get discriminated all the time for this within Japan. (Mind you, so do Japanese citizens of Korean descent as well as those of Brazilian descent). This linkage opens a giant can of worms.

Also, if a court is involved, a prosecutor can't really prove the case because it's hard to challenge the employer's reasoning or argument (that's what "show" means), if the standard of proof for prosecutor to challenge the employer's reasoning is say "beyond reasonable doubt". In other words, it's extremely difficult to prosecute an employer, at least under common law systems.
 
Last edited:
To quote Coporiana in the Gameside forum (ok they are TCB but still), who has put it out more eloquently than I can (the following is all from Coporiana, not from me):

The exception carved out in section 3 (quoted here for continuity):
The Ice States wrote:Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from withholding employment from an individual based on a racial characteristic which that employer can show is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed, such as language in the case of translators.
Click to expand...

is extremely dangerous.

While we assume courts, employers, and people generally to act in good faith here, having racial characteristics be either real or perceived would open the door to discrimination in spades. As an example, if I perceive x racial group to be lazy and weak, which would be essential characteristic to carrying out the relevant tasks of any job, then this carve out makes this resolution very easy to get around. In the case of translating (as said above many times), language proficiency is not, cannot, and should not be considered a racial characteristic. Trying to expand this clause to other perceived characteristics, like work ethic, cultural competency, or aesthetics, all weaken any argument that could be made in favor of this clause. It provides a way for employers to materialize out of thin air a racial link to their employment and be legally exclusionary in their hiring practices with a thinly-veiled "good reason". Ironically, instead of reducing racial stereotyping, this provision enables it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top