[GA - AT VOTE] Prohibiting Racism

Fachu

Fachu

Minister
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him
TNP Nation
RemiorKami
ga.jpg

Prohibiting Racism
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Excidium Planetis | Onsite Topic​
The Assembly of Worlds,

Aware that additional legislation on this topic can be passed, but that racial discrimination is an extremely pressing matter requiring an immediate address,

Believing that all persons are deserving of equal rights, including those rights which have been established by this Assembly, and that they should not be denied these rights for arbitrary and hateful reasons,

Clarifying that nothing in this resolution shall prevent this Assembly from issuing further resolutions expanding on the rights of racial and ethnic minorities,

Hereby:

  1. Prohibits member nations from establishing or enforcing any laws that discriminate against their inhabitants on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity;
  2. Mandates that member nations shall not deny any basic, established rights or privileges to their inhabitants on the basis of race, national origin, or ethnicity;
  3. Allows nations to make exception to Article 1 only where such laws are necessary and intended to promote equity between racial and ethnic minorities, such as to correct for systemic inequality caused by historical oppression;
And Reminds this Assembly once more that nothing in this resolution prevents this Assembly from passing, for example, a resolution on discrimination in employment by private entities.
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
41802
 
Last edited:
Information For Voters

Vote AGAINST “Prohibiting Racism”.

Overview
The proposal seeks to prohibit racism and discrimination in World Assembly member-countries. It does this by prohibiting member-states from creating or enforcing any discriminatory laws within their nation. It then mandates that member-states should not deny any rights to individuals based on their origin, ethnicity, or race. Finally, the resolution makes an exception for affirmative action legislation.

Recommendation
Whilst the proposal has a very valiant goal that should be supported, and it admittedly carries out good legislation, we cannot support the machinations used to get this proposal to vote, as the proposal's author eagerly took advantage of an unprecedented time period within the General Assembly to forward this proposal. We wish to see a suitable replacement on this topic that solves and addresses these same issues.

For those reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote AGAINST “Prohibiting Racism”.
 
Last edited:
I don’t appreciate the machinations used to get this draft to vote, especially at the expense of the universally condemned actions against Separatist Peoples. I won’t reward that behavior.

Against
 
Non-WA and not voting.

By my count, four votes were edited on Wednesday and Thursday to simply read "Against." These edits make a mockery of the OP's claim that this proposal is leading 6-0 among TNP voters. Is there a particular reason why a massive wave of opposition has emerged among people who have already voted (as opposed to first-time voters, who - for example - emerged in force against my GA#653 repeal following Pallaith's defence of the target)?
 
Pallaith:
I don’t appreciate the machinations used to get this draft to vote, especially at the expense of the universally condemned actions against Separatist Peoples. I won’t reward that behavior.

Against
Click to expand...
(Non-cit, non-WA)

Might I add that this (and other) drafts had been initially posted as a manner of protest against the fate that GenSec took due to M/A's mismanagement of the entire situation. It was misguided, which EP recognised later on, and as such removed most drafts from submission as far as I can tell. There was no advantaged being taken here - this would've gotten to vote regardless if it had not been submitted as a protest proposal. It was a mistake, one that was later acknowledged, motivated by the heat of the moment. I'm not sure this is sufficient to merit retaliation.

EDIT: After some questioning, it seems that the proposals were not pulled, they simply fell out of queue. Less ideal, but I still reckon a retaliation is needless, given that there was very little direct exploitation of the event.
 
Last edited:
Lieutenant Columbo:
That's a pretty compelling story, even though it's a work of fiction.

The WA has gone far too long without a general anti-racism statute. FOR
Click to expand...
I usually find you to be reasonable and fair in your critiques and your handling of arguments. What I laid out did in fact happen and as you can see in other places, even supporters of the author and this resolution agree it was in bad form. Where we disagree is on how to respond to it. But it was not fiction, you are being uncharitable to me and downplaying this. Disappointing to see from you.

Tinhampton:
Non-WA and not voting.

By my count, four votes were edited on Wednesday and Thursday to simply read "Against." These edits make a mockery of the OP's claim that this proposal is leading 6-0 among TNP voters. Is there a particular reason why a massive wave of opposition has emerged among people who have already voted (as opposed to first-time voters, who - for example - emerged in force against my GA#653 repeal following Pallaith's defence of the target)?
Click to expand...
The staff may not always catch up with changes in votes particularly when posts are edited. I wouldn’t get into calling this a mockery, it will be updated when the relevant people are available to do so. As for why that happened, it was the same reason I cast my vote against. Additional context makes all the difference.

Cesssarea:
(Non-cit, non-WA)

Might I add that this (and other) drafts had been initially posted as a manner of protest against the fate that GenSec took due to M/A's mismanagement of the entire situation. It was misguided, which EP recognised later on, and as such removed most drafts from submission as far as I can tell. There was no advantaged being taken here - this would've gotten to vote regardless if it had not been submitted as a protest proposal. It was a mistake, one that was later acknowledged, motivated by the heat of the moment. I'm not sure this is sufficient to merit retaliation.

EDIT: After some questioning, it seems that the proposals were not pulled, they simply fell out of queue. Less ideal, but I still reckon a retaliation is needless, given that there was very little direct exploitation of the event.
Click to expand...
We simply disagree on whether this offense merits this response. I, and many others, feel that it does. This isn’t the first time EP did something distasteful that caused people to oppose something they otherwise might not have. I happen to believe that any exploitation of this is bad, and I happen to believe that high profile negative attention attached to popular sentiment for protest obviously can boost attention and awareness of a proposal of your submitting it happens when all eyes are on the queue. You cannot say there’s no advantage there, though you do rightly point out the advantage is questionable - I agree, it was not worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top