GA Resolution: Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee

[Wordy]

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

Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ossitania


Description: The World Assembly,

ALARMED that some governments would restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

DEEPLY DISTURBED that some governments further restrict the rights of a mentally competent person to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose,

FEELING that such deep intrusion into the personal lives of citizens is an unacceptable disrespect of individual freedoms,

SEEKING to strengthen and protect the individual freedoms of its citizens,

RECOGNISING, however, that not all people possess the mental competency to understand the consequences of their actions,

FURTHER RECOGNISING that not all activities are appropriate for public places,

Hereby,

Section I - Definitions

i. DEFINES "bodily sovereignty" as the inherent right of a mentally competent person to do or have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in private, as well as the right to not do or not have done to their own body whatsoever they choose in general,

ii. FURTHER DEFINES "a mentally competent person" as a person who possesses a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions,

Section II - Rights

i. GUARANTEES the right of bodily sovereignty to all citizens of all member states,

ii. DECLARES that this right extends to:
a. acts that a mentally competent person does, voluntarily and without coercion, to or with himself or herself, so long as said acts do not result in non-consensual harm to others, and
b. consensual acts between two or more mentally competent people, so long as said acts do not result in non-consensual harm to others,

Section III - Responsibilities

i. REQUIRES member states to treat violations of bodily sovereignty as criminal offenses with appropriate punishments, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER REQUIRES state authorities who wish to restrict the bodily sovereignty of their citizens due to insufficient mental faculty, in accordance with IV.i., to prove that said citizens possess insufficient mental faculty through psychiatric and/or neurological assessment by a fully-qualified medical doctor,

Section IV - Exceptions

i. ALLOWS state authorities to restrict the bodily sovereignty of persons incapable of giving consent by reason of insufficient mental faculty for the protection of those persons,

ii. FURTHER ALLOWS state authorities, in accordance with due process of law, to restrict the bodily sovereignty of individuals suspected or convicted of criminal offenses for the purposes of their restraint, capture, search, transport or incarceration,

iii. CLARIFIES that this resolution does nothing to require member states to legalize or criminalize abortion,

iv. DECLARES that violations of the bodily sovereignty of another are not criminal when said violations are necessary for the defense of one's own bodily sovereignty,

Section V - Affirmations

i. AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution may be construed to allow any state, group or person to infringe on the bodily sovereignty of a mentally competent person, with the exception of the cases outlined in Section IV,

ii. FURTHER AFFIRMS that no provision of this resolution prevents member states from providing further protections for bodily sovereignty as they see fit.

Co-Authored by Quelesh

[Sionis Prioratus]

forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4527301#p4527301

Question to the author: "Does this legalize cannibalism between consenting parties?"

Author's answer: Assuming both parties possess a level of mental faculty allowing them to understand the consequences of their actions, then yes.


I guess I don't want to have my citizens making barbecues of each other, so NAY.

[Soviet Wong]

i have to say no as well, it gives governments not enough power to govern their people. Some countries for example have laws that are in place to prevent large moral rights issues, this resolution pretty much throws morals out of the window. by giving a person complete freedom over their body, it sounds great but think about it, it can be seen as legalising Euthanasia a topic close to nearly everyones heart.

This would have big knockbacks as such topics are very much hotly debated and contested around the world.

and the concept of section 3i is quite scary. in some countries they have laws that require a certain level of dress for religious reasons, to prevent any insult on these practitioners of the dominant religion, by banning that we risk upsetting many different groups of people.

Take for example Islam, it bans Halal meat,and thanks to this reso a person can go to a restaurant but then demand non-halal food and if the restaurant can't accommodate them they can be charged as a criminal offense. Then the chefs can go and say its a breach of their bodily sovereignty and then charge the customers resulting in one HUGE long chain of court cases just for a small incident.

if i'm rambling i apologise i hate trying to put my thoughts into words -.-

btw, i'm NAY

[Ossitania]

I feel compelled to defend my proposal. I've already spoken to SP on the NS forums about his objections, so I won't raise them again here.

Jan 23, 2011 2:17:28 GMT -5 Soviet Wong said:

i have to say no as well, it gives governments not enough power to govern their people. Some countries for example have laws that are in place to prevent large moral rights issues, this resolution pretty much throws morals out of the window. by giving a person complete freedom over their body, it sounds great but think about it, it can be seen as legalising Euthanasia a topic close to nearly everyones heart.

The WA legalised euthanasia ages ago.

Jan 23, 2011 2:17:28 GMT -5 Soviet Wong said:

and the concept of section 3i is quite scary. in some countries they have laws that require a certain level of dress for religious reasons, to prevent any insult on these practitioners of the dominant religion, by banning that we risk upsetting many different groups of people.

Well, first of all, I fail to see why you find III.i. so scary, since it just allows the state to restrict the bodily sovereignty of the mentally ill for their own protection, and any abuse of such power is prevented by making the state's ability to do so dependent on psychological/neurological assessment by a fully-qualified medical doctor. It was included so that states could take proper measures to restrain dangerous mental patients and to commit others to mental health facilities so that they can be treated properly.

Second of all, no one should be forced to dress a certain way just because it might bother other people. Neither should anyone be forced to be part of a religion.

Jan 23, 2011 2:17:28 GMT -5 Soviet Wong said:

Take for example Islam, it bans Halal meat,and thanks to this reso a person can go to a restaurant but then demand non-halal food and if the restaurant can't accommodate them they can be charged as a criminal offense. Then the chefs can go and say its a breach of their bodily sovereignty and then charge the customers resulting in one HUGE long chain of court cases just for a small incident.

This is a load of crap. Bodily sovereignty, as defined in the resolution, is the right of an individual to choose what does and does not happen to their body. It doesn't require anyone to provide for the arbitrary demands of whatever random person walks in their door. What you are discussing has absolutely nothing to do with bodily sovereignty.

[Quelesh]

Jan 23, 2011 3:24:59 GMT -5 Ossitania said:

Second of all, no one should be forced to dress a certain way just because it might bother other people. Neither should anyone be forced to be part of a religion.

In addition, the resolution doesn't prevent governments from mandating or prohibiting certain dress in public; people simply must have the right to dress, or not dress, as they wish in private.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Jan 23, 2011 3:24:59 GMT -5 Ossitania said:

I feel compelled to defend my proposal. I've already spoken to SP on the NS forums about his objections, so I won't raise them again here.

And yet I still find myself utterly unpersuaded that cannibalism should be legalized.

And your continued defense of legalizing cannibalism is mind-boggling.

forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=4534195#eatingpeople

Ossitania wrote:
n insult to cultures where cannibalism is an important aspect of their lives.

To which I responded:

"Funny thing is, life itself, along with all other important aspects of it, end with cannibalism."

Not to mention that you think that (almost) TWO WEEKS is more than ample time to public careful, thorough appreciation of a proposal with such profound implications before its submission. This can't be.

[Ossitania]

Jan 23, 2011 9:25:14 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

*snip*

I said I didn't want to bring your issues up here, as I have already responded to them on in the GA. Please respect that wish.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Jan 23, 2011 10:17:11 GMT -5 Ossitania said:

Jan 23, 2011 9:25:14 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

*snip*

I said I didn't want to bring your issues up here, as I have already responded to them on in the GA. Please respect that wish.

Jan 23, 2011 3:24:59 GMT -5 Ossitania said:

Jan 23, 2011 2:17:28 GMT -5 Soviet Wong said:

Take for example Islam, it bans Halal meat,and thanks to this reso a person can go to a restaurant but then demand non-halal food and if the restaurant can't accommodate them they can be charged as a criminal offense. Then the chefs can go and say its a breach of their bodily sovereignty and then charge the customers resulting in one HUGE long chain of court cases just for a small incident.

This is a load of crap.

You are abusing our hospitality. You have no right to insult XKI's citizens, as you did above. As the author, that does you no favors.

Also, you have no right to dictate how a XKI's citizen should behave on XKI. I am NOT convinced by your arguments, I am thoroughly explaining why I'm not convinced, and I see no reason to surrender my speech rights "just because".

[Eist]

Alright guys, calm down

A lot of XKI members do not read the NS Forum, so it is probably prudent, Ossitania, to defend your resolution in full here, considering the influence XKI has (I assume this is why you are here in the first place).

I think this resolution is a good idea, but it is too ambiguous (including the cannibalism claim, something I picked up on when I first read it). So in light of this I have to vote AGAINST, but am willing to support an updated version at a later date.

Also I would be happy if I never had to read "bodily sovereignty" ever again.

[Ossitania]

Jan 23, 2011 10:29:48 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

Jan 23, 2011 10:17:11 GMT -5 Ossitania said:

I said I didn't want to bring your issues up here, as I have already responded to them on in the GA. Please respect that wish.

This is a load of crap.

You are abusing our hospitality. You have no right to insult XKI's citizens, as you did above. As the author, that does you no favors.

Also, you have no right to dictate how a XKI's citizen should behave on XKI. I am NOT convinced by your arguments, I am thoroughly explaining why I'm not convinced, and I see no reason to surrender my speech rights "just because".[/quote]

I did not insult any of XKI's citizens, I opined that the above statement was "a load of crap"; I did not engage in argumentum ad hominem.

Furthermore, I am not dictating anything, I am asking you.

Nonetheless, as asked by Eist, I will reiterate my arguments here.

A person's right to choose to end their own life is the most paramount of rights. If a person is not allowed to choose to end their life at a time of their choosing, if the state prevents them from doing so, then they don't have control of their own life and if they don't have control of their own life, then how can they possibly have rights? The answer is that they can't; if you don't control your own life, you have no rights, only privileges.

[Sionis Prioratus]

Jan 23, 2011 14:03:47 GMT -5 Ossitania said:

A person's right to choose to end their own life is the most paramount of rights. If a person is not allowed to choose to end their life at a time of their choosing, if the state prevents them from doing so, then they don't have control of their own life and if they don't have control of their own life, then how can they possibly have rights? The answer is that they can't; if you don't control your own life, you have no rights, only privileges.

Now tell us, as you and the co-author openly and unashamedly admit, that because of your reasoning, mutually-agreed-upon cannibalism, is not only moral, but must be legalized.

What the hell were you thinking?

[Paffnia]

Jan 23, 2011 11:14:04 GMT -5 Eist said:

Alright guys, calm down

Agreed. Please, let's try to keep it civil. Debate is good, strife isn't.

[Ossitania]

Jan 23, 2011 14:11:10 GMT -5 Sionis Prioratus said:

Jan 23, 2011 14:03:47 GMT -5 Ossitania said:

A person's right to choose to end their own life is the most paramount of rights. If a person is not allowed to choose to end their life at a time of their choosing, if the state prevents them from doing so, then they don't have control of their own life and if they don't have control of their own life, then how can they possibly have rights? The answer is that they can't; if you don't control your own life, you have no rights, only privileges.

Now tell us, as you and the co-author openly and unashamedly admit, that because of your reasoning, mutually-agreed-upon cannibalism, is not only moral, but must be legalized.

What the hell were you thinking?

I was thinking that a world where governments have the right to claim ownership of the very flesh and bones of their citizens is a world that needs to be changed and, more importantly, improved.

[Takaram]

I must say that I agree. So long as no one else's rights are infringed upon, I'll support pretty much anything for anyone.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

I vote AGAINST. The resolution, while well meaning, is almost comically broad.

In just one example: it would allow a soldier to do whatever they wanted to their body in private, but if they've lopped off their hand they can't very well fight, now can they? Or they could inject whatever they wanted. And the military couldn't, under this proposal, do much about it other than try to prevent them from getting a knife or syringe in the first place, because as long as they did it in private it was legal.

Just as I feel right-wing nations like the Christian Democrats shouldn't push their agenda, I dislike when left-wing nations wish to spread their anarchy. There is no freedom without law.

Also, as previously noted, it is disturbing when a nation comes to us for support, and then dismisses the concerns our our nations as "a load of crap". If you did not come to eloquently state your case and reassure our members, then please do not come.

[Paffnia]

A quote from Ossitania: "I accept that this bill was written too broadly and there were certain concerns (particularly in relation to the death penalty) that never occurred to me during the drafting process. As such, am I withdrawing my support for my own proposal."

[Wordy]

"Bodily Sovereignty Guarantee" was defeated 5,549 votes to 2,828.

[Woonsocket]

...as it should have been.