GA Resolution: Conscientious Objector Act

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Conscientious Objector Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Otrenia


Description: An act to protect the right of conscientious objectors to refuse military service for moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs.

DEFINING a conscientious objector as an individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion.

DECLARES that a person may claim the right to be a conscientious objector because of their moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs.

DECLARES that a person may claim the right to be a conscientious objector because they are pacifist, non-interventionist, non-resistant, antimilitarist, or other reason.

DECLARES that a person may not be punished in any way due to their refusal to perform military service for moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs.

DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections.

REALIZING that different nations have differing views on conscription and military service.

THEREFORE DECLARING that each nation has the right to question those persons seeking conscientious objector status, however these questions may, in no way, be deliberately misleading, confusing, or self-incriminating.

FURTHER authorizing nations, at their discretion, to require conscientious objectors to fill non-combatant roles, or civilian service roles for an equal amount of time as those who perform the involuntary military service the conscientious objectors have objected to.

DECLARES that this resolution does not prevent further regulation, by member nations or the World Assembly, to protect conscientious objectors.

[Guy]

I actually quite like it, I believe a person has the right to not kill.

Also, it allows nations to 'require objectors to fill non-combatant roles'. The absence of such a clause if what put me off the last attempt to pass similar legislation.

Aye.

[Consortina]

I'm not sure how non-combattant is going to be defined but I'll take the resolution as it stands. Aye.

[Walabamba]

Some of it seems a little sketchy to me but I'll go for it.

[Magthere]

Seeing as it has clauses for allowing non combat roles and fair questioning of why they are objecting to service, I to support the measure.

[Markanite]

I'll go for it and give it a chance

[Cerb]

I'll go against it (again).
There is no suitable grounds in my regional philosophy to reject service.
Furthermore, it's contradictory.
Military service does not imply combat. Many of my military members serve there time in non combatant roles.

About 15% of my military is taken up with administration where the individual wields a computer.
They have no right to object to sitting at a desk.

[Guy]

... You are allowed to force them to perform non-comabtory roles. You should've read the resolution...

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

I am once again against this. Big problems include, but are not limited to:

A) "DECLARES that a person may claim the right to be a conscientious objector because they are pacifist, non-interventionist, non-resistant, antimilitarist, or other reason."

Other reason? Seriously? Well, I don't like war, so there's your other reason.

B) "DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections."

Wow, this war is going badly, time to develop conscientious objections. Or: getting drafted is one thing, but I didn't sign up for not signing up for the Marines! I object!

C) The author of the resolution never even bothered to run in through the General Assembly forums. That really irks me, frankly.

I implore everyone to vote against.

[Cerb]

Jan 7, 2011 3:24:37 GMT -5 Guy said:

... You are allowed to force them to perform non-comabtory roles. You should've read the resolution...

I read it thoroughly thanks.

DECLARES that a person may not be punished in any way due to their refusal to perform military service for moral, religious, or philosophical beliefs.

Did you read this? It doesn't state "refusal to perform combat", it says "refusal to perform military service ".

You can't write a law that says this and then waive it away with "non-combatant duties". Delivering groceries is non-combatant. It isn't military service.

You can argue that it's implied. It's a law. You can't "imply" something with a law. It either is, or it isn't.

[Eist]

Hmm.. Good point Cerb.

[Guy]

Later clause deals with that (second to last). That clause overrides the one you quoted, as since I can rememer the WA (and the UN) an exception clause after the main clause overrides the main clause.

That developing objections clause is tricky, but I'd take what I've got.

[Eist]

Jan 7, 2011 12:33:46 GMT -5 Guy said:

Later clause deals with that (second to last). That clause overrides the one you quoted, as since I can rememer the WA (and the UN) an exception clause after the main clause overrides the main clause.

That developing objections clause is tricky, but I'd take what I've got.

That's fair, and I have tentatively voted FOR this. If what you say - that the an exception cause after the main clause overrides the main clause - is the case, then this is interesting too.

Still throws a spanner in the works though.

[Cerb]

But it does not state military service. It says "to fill non-combatant roles, or civilian service roles ".
Ergo it does not countermand the first clause.
If it said non combatant military service, it would be a different matter.
You have to keep the language consistent throughout the legislation. Non-combatant does not mean military service no matter how you dress it up.

[Sionis Prioratus]

AGAINST, with vigour. This is absolutely insane. In a few words: this legalizes desertion.

[Eist]

Jan 7, 2011 14:29:47 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

AGAINST, with vigour. This is absolutely insane. In a few words: this legalizes desertion.

I don't believe so. One you are in the military there is nothing in this that permits members to go AWOL. This is only concerned with those that choose not to join the military.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Jan 7, 2011 14:55:09 GMT -5 Eist said:

Jan 7, 2011 14:29:47 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

AGAINST, with vigour. This is absolutely insane. In a few words: this legalizes desertion.

I don't believe so. One you are in the military there is nothing in this that permits members to go AWOL. This is only concerned with those that choose not to join the military.

"DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections."

That pretty much legalizes desertion. If you didn't object up front, you shouldn't be allowed to change your mind because you're unit is moving closer to the action, you got demoted, or any other reason.

[Eist]

Jan 7, 2011 15:11:51 GMT -5 Tsim Sha Tsui said:

Jan 7, 2011 14:55:09 GMT -5 Eist said:

I don't believe so. One you are in the military there is nothing in this that permits members to go AWOL. This is only concerned with those that choose not to join the military.

"DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections."

That pretty much legalizes desertion. If you didn't object up front, you shouldn't be allowed to change your mind because you're unit is moving closer to the action, you got demoted, or any other reason.

Hmm.. Good point Sionis and Tsim. I think that if I get this nit-picky with WA resolutions I will never approve any

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

I follow the motto, "When in Doubt, Don't Approve"

[Sionis Prioratus]

Jan 7, 2011 14:55:09 GMT -5 Eist said:

Jan 7, 2011 14:29:47 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

AGAINST, with vigour. This is absolutely insane. In a few words: this legalizes desertion.

I don't believe so. One you are in the military there is nothing in this that permits members to go AWOL. This is only concerned with those that choose not to join the military.

Not quite it...

DECLARES that persons performing military service may develop conscientious objections.

Again, legalizing desertions. Again, AGAINST.

[Cerb]

In my opinion it is essential to be nit-picky with legislation. There really isn't much point in passing a piece of legislation that will get repealed in short order.

While I am whole heartedly against any legislation which allows people to conscientiously object, I will lose a vote in good humor if it is well written and well thought out.

I don't think this one is well written as it is proving extremely easy to object to. I strongly recommend each islander to consider voting this down and wait for a well written proposal that picky people can't argue against.

[Embolalia]

I'm sorry to invade your forum again, but when I noticed Just Guy's vote for, I had to ask:

Why does this deserve the delegate vote of 10000 Islands, yet the recent version I drafted does not?

It was the vote of this region's delegate, and that vote alone, which cause my version to fail. I hope you'll understand if I'm a little concerned that somehow the position has completely reversed in the past month. Especially considering that the version currently at vote is, in comparison with mine, frankly disastrous. Just for the most glaring example, the third line lets someone become a CO for any reason. Any, at all. "I'm lazy" is enough to justify being a CO. Hell, "I like turtles" would be enough. That's not even mentioning that every clause seems to have a different idea of what a CO is.

Incidentally, I'm redrafting my previous version (as I had planned to do since its narrow defeat). The drafting thread is here, and I would greatly appreciate the input of the members of this region.

[Walabamba]

I've decided to vote against this resolution.

[Eist]

Jan 7, 2011 17:28:14 GMT -5 Walabamba said:

I've decided to vote against this resolution.

Yea, I've reversed my decision, based on the commentary in this thread. I urge all to vote in the XKI WA voting thread

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

Jan 7, 2011 17:01:42 GMT -5 Embolalia said:

I'm sorry to invade your forum again, but when I noticed Just Guy's vote for, I had to ask:

Why does this deserve the delegate vote of 10000 Islands, yet the recent version I drafted does not?

It was the vote of this region's delegate, and that vote alone, which cause my version to fail. I hope you'll understand if I'm a little concerned that somehow the position has completely reversed in the past month. Especially considering that the version currently at vote is, in comparison with mine, frankly disastrous. Just for the most glaring example, the third line lets someone become a CO for any reason. Any, at all. "I'm lazy" is enough to justify being a CO. Hell, "I like turtles" would be enough. That's not even mentioning that every clause seems to have a different idea of what a CO is.

Incidentally, I'm redrafting my previous version (as I had planned to do since its narrow defeat). The drafting thread is here, and I would greatly appreciate the input of the members of this region.

I opposed your resolution, but I was welcoming your newer version that didn't ban peacetime national service. This new, vile piece of trash doesn't come close to your well written proposal. Even if some of your supporters were quite rude (which hardened my position), at least there was a thoughtful debate.

For the record, I believe Guy actually abstained in the end.

Edit: in better news, the "nays" now outnumber the "ayes" in the XKI poll, so hopefully Guy will change his vote as well.

[Guy]

Embolalia, you are welcome to 'invade' our forum. Just remember to telegram Grub on NS.

Well, I think the WA is known for abandoning a subject after one repeal, so I usually say I'd take what I can get in those situations.

[Cerb]

At least there is already another proposal in draft.

I'll wander over and review it to see whether I can remotely tolerate it ;D

[Wordy]

I voted against. Same reason as Cerb has already stated.

[Embolalia]

Jan 7, 2011 19:22:08 GMT -5 Tsim Sha Tsui said:

I opposed your resolution, but I was welcoming your newer version that didn't ban peacetime national service. This new, vile piece of trash doesn't come close to your well written proposal. Even if some of your supporters were quite rude (which hardened my position), at least there was a thoughtful debate.

For the record, I believe Guy actually abstained in the end.

To be honest, my original draft's lack of peacetime service was a mistake, hastily added to appease pacifists who claimed they wouldn't support it otherwise. I greatly regret it. And, now that you mention it, I think you're right about Guy's abstention. Still, though, it speaks to the closeness of the vote. I look forward to debating my new draft here when the time comes.

[Paffnia]

With three or so hours left, it's "For: 4,528. Against: 4,454." Closest vote since September, I believe. I am personally against the act because of the "other reason" clause.