[At Vote] [ga] Against Racial Discrimination

[Astrobolt]

General Assembly Resolution

Against Racial Discrimination

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: The Ice States

Whereas racial discrimination occurs in many member nations, yet is inherently unjust such that member nations have a duty both to protect their citizens against, and themselves refrain from, racial discrimination; 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 remuneration 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, policy, 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 being conditional on a racial characteristic of the recipient. Nor shall Section 2 prohibit an employer from considering a racial characteristic as part of deciding who to employ in a role, where that employer can conclusively show that both (a) the role is clearly related to the said racial characteristic, and (b) that racial characteristic is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed.
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.

Co-author: Wallenburg


This is the discussion thread. To cast your vote, go HERE

[Lysandrion]

I believe that passing this resolution will only reward the author's less than diligent choice of words and will not grant ethnic minorities protection they need. For the record, I include the points already made elsewhere:

Clause 1 is already a mess, because of how it defines this "racial characteristic": basically, it defines ethnicity and ethnic qualities as components of the notion of race. This essentially means that the proposal recognises the perspective that things like language, culture and nationality "are a result of an individual's race" as understood by pseudoscience of the early XX century. This is basically the perspective that gave rise to systemic racism in the first place. If anything, what is understood as "race" (physical features, genetic ancestry) should be viewed as a component of a broader ethnicity, not the other way around. Every "racial" feature is ethnic, not every ethnic feature is "racial".

Sure, the proposal then tries to say that it only defines the racist's perspective. But that's another problem, it makes the prohibition of "racial" [i.e. ethnic] discrimination conditional on the perpetrator's perspective. What happens when somebody discriminates someone else based on their language, but without considering that language a result of any particular "race"? This wording forces state organs to investigate things they should not need to in order to determine if the "proper" kind of discrimination occurred. This opens a floodgate of malicious interpretations.

Clause 3 on exceptions does exactly the same, allowing you to still employ people of a particular ethnicity in the least paid and most disgusting jobs if you can "conclusively show that both (a) the role is clearly related to the said racial characteristic, and (b) that racial characteristic is essential to carry out the relevant tasks". Based on the logic of Clause 1, another floodgate for non-compliance is opened.

Clause 4 is likely already covered by any existing prohibitions on genocide.

At the end of the day, it is bad law that inadvertently gives a nod to bad science. If it passes in its current shape, it will just prevent better law rom being enacted. The only good thing about it is the title. and maybe the intention

[Pantso]

Feb 2, 2024 4:11:46 GMT -5 Lysandrion said:

I believe that passing this resolution will only reward the author's less than diligent choice of words and will not grant ethnic minorities protection they need. For the record, I include the points already made elsewhere:


Clause 1 is already a mess, because of how it defines this "racial characteristic": basically, it defines ethnicity and ethnic qualities as components of the notion of race. This essentially means that the proposal recognises the perspective that things like language, culture and nationality "are a result of an individual's race" as understood by pseudoscience of the early XX century. This is basically the perspective that gave rise to systemic racism in the first place. If anything, what is understood as "race" (physical features, genetic ancestry) should be viewed as a component of a broader ethnicity, not the other way around. Every "racial" feature is ethnic, not every ethnic feature is "racial".

Sure, the proposal then tries to say that it only defines the racist's perspective. But that's another problem, it makes the prohibition of "racial" [i.e. ethnic] discrimination conditional on the perpetrator's perspective. What happens when somebody discriminates someone else based on their language, but without considering that language a result of any particular "race"? This wording forces state organs to investigate things they should not need to in order to determine if the "proper" kind of discrimination occurred. This opens a floodgate of malicious interpretations.

Clause 3 on exceptions does exactly the same, allowing you to still employ people of a particular ethnicity in the least paid and most disgusting jobs if you can "conclusively show that both (a) the role is clearly related to the said racial characteristic, and (b) that racial characteristic is essential to carry out the relevant tasks". Based on the logic of Clause 1, another floodgate for non-compliance is opened.

Clause 4 is likely already covered by any existing prohibitions on genocide.

At the end of the day, it is bad law that inadvertently gives a nod to bad science. If it passes in its current shape, it will just prevent better law rom being enacted. The only good thing about it is the title. and maybe the intention

Not sure where you're getting the idea that "the proposal then tries to say that it only defines the racist's perspective", or even what you mean by that.

Clause 3, which defines conditions for making exceptions, is clearly geared to situations where a person's racial - or ethnic, if you prefer - characteristics are relevant and necessary. Hypothetically, when casting for a show about a family of slaves on a plantation in the Antebellum South, discrimination by skin tone may be reasonable. It's not reasonable when casting backstage staff for the same show. The Exceptions clause requires that the employer be able to show conclusively that the discrimination is relevant and essential, which mitigates malicious interpretation. 

As to Clause 4, there is almost certainly a resolution forbidding genocide based on racial or ethnic characteristics, and including the definition provided in this resolution. It is the objector's responsibility to show there is; not on the resolution's author to show there isn't (else they would have to prove a negative). 

As to the definition, your objection appears to be specifically related to the use of the term "racial characteristic". Perhaps it would be better termed "ethnic characteristic" but I think you are reading a great deal into the definition of a term whose scope is limited to this resolution.

[Lysandrion]

EDIT: if what is said below is TLDR, just look to my most recent post in the game forum thread. Basically this resolution allows you to use a court lawsuit to label a learned language as a racial characteristic and ascribe it to another person. And the court has to follow that logic, because of how the wording is structured. Which is not just silly, it is hilariously bad for the judicial systems of all WA nations.

Feb 2, 2024 6:41:52 GMT -5 Pantso said:

Not sure where you're getting the idea that "the proposal then tries to say that it only defines the racist's perspective", or even what you mean by that.

The use of wording "perceived to be a result of one's(...) race" was Ice States (feeble) attempt at signalling that the resolution does not validate the demented perspective that culture or language is linked to biological race - that the rest of the clause actually suggests. The problem with that kind of signal is that it creates a de facto standard of proo, reuiring the perp to base their discriminating actions in biological racism. Which should not be necessary, if you refuse to hire someone because of their culture, that is that - you discriminate based on ethnicity and the court does not need to verify if your act of discrimination is founded by any racial beliefs. This clause opens the way for perps to argue their demented ideas and motivations in the courts of law, with possibility of even winning their cases if they get lucky. IT introduces ideology where it is not needed.

Feb 2, 2024 6:41:52 GMT -5 Pantso said:

Clause 3, which defines conditions for making exceptions, is clearly geared to situations where a person's racial - or ethnic, if you prefer - characteristics are relevant and necessary. Hypothetically, when casting for a show about a family of slaves on a plantation in the Antebellum South, discrimination by skin tone may be reasonable. It's not reasonable when casting backstage staff for the same show. The Exceptions clause requires that the employer be able to show conclusively that the discrimination is relevant and essential, which mitigates malicious interpretation.

I know what clause 3 wants to do, the problem is it is putting the issue on its head by crating a racist assumption that (a) the role is clearly related to the said racial characteristic, and (b) that racial characteristic is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed.

There are no such roles or characteristics.

Now, the example you provide, or an example where administrative personnel or police officer is assigned to a community that matches their ethnicity are examples of employers prioritising and making use of certain physical or learned assets that might be connected to one's ethnic origin and could make the employee better suited for the job or easier to prepare for the job - be it physical appearance matching the role or knowledge of language and cultural intricacies of the managed community.

But none of such assets are either "racial" (as race is a construct, not a fixed quality and language can be learned), neither they are essential (in modern cinema e.g., it's just the matter of costs and work to completely and non-invasively remake a person), neither are roles "clearly related to" racial characteristic by definition (can Black people play Danish princes from XIV century? Yes, they can, they in fact do.). Way more often, such relation stems from religion or culture, which are not racial characteristics, and sometimes not even truly ethnic, characteristics (what ethnicity are Jehova's witnesses?).

The resolution's language forces, and in fact invites, the employers and state organs to enter the quicksands of uncertain and ultimately racist evaluations about who's destined to do a certain job. But what if a Dravidian person is rejected in the title role casting for a sequel of "Django" and claims discrimination based on the racial characteristic? Or, ever read the book "Black Like Me"? - what if a white actor rejected for such a role demonstrates an ability to artificially change their skin tone to match the requirement (a feat possible already in the 60s?). What if a Caucasian-looking Finnish-Chinese clerk is denied a job posting in Chinatown despite speaking fluent Cantonese? Which "racial characteristic" prevails? What if the director of a spectacle claim that they need dark-skinned backstage personnel so that they blend into the background while operating the scenography? Or, for that matter, if an employer refuses to hire you because you do not speak Italian and Japanese, then under this resolution knowledge of these languages is an "essential racial characteristic". Is knowledge of the language ever a racial characteristic? Have I suddenly become Anglo-Saxon by learning English?

This is why, when people with actual brains take to writing this kind of clauses, they simply say - any discrimination based on the [catalogue of causes, here - broadly defined ethnicity] is prohibited. Period. And if they do introduce exceptions, they do it in a way that does not explicitly suggest that some jobs and roles can only ever be performed by people with a single "racial characteristic".

Feb 2, 2024 6:41:52 GMT -5 Pantso said:

As to Clause 4, there is almost certainly a resolution forbidding genocide based on racial or ethnic characteristics, and including the definition provided in this resolution. It is the objector's responsibility to show there is; not on the resolution's author to show there isn't (else they would have to prove a negative).

As to the definition, your objection appears to be specifically related to the use of the term "racial characteristic". Perhaps it would be better termed "ethnic characteristic" but I think you are reading a great deal into the definition of a term whose scope is limited to this resolution.

I am reading a great deal into the definition, because definition make and break laws. And the term is limited to the resolution now. If it passes, it becomes a potential point of reference for future legislation related to the subject or an instruction to interpret existing and connected laws. Which will lead to solidifying an idiotic - I truly have no other words to describe the level of its inadequacy - definition of "racial characteristic", that was taken straight from XIX Century's colonial prejudices.

[Astrobolt]

One thing I will say, definitions made in one resolution DO NOT carry over to any other resolution. So a ‘racial characteristic’ in this resolution does not always mean a racial characteristic in another resolution. From my view, the definition of ‘racial characteristic’ is broad in order for the resolution to have a broader net and thereby make discrimination based on a larger number of traits illegal.


Edit: While you are free to disagree with the resolution, you are not free to attack the author directly.

[Pantso]

I will not argue with someone who peppers their arguments so liberally with rhetoric and insults.

[Lysandrion]

Feb 2, 2024 9:14:54 GMT -5 Pantso said:

I will not argue with someone who peppers their arguments so liberally with rhetoric and insults.

Your choice to agree with me is a matter of personal pride that bears no harmful consequences for anyone. Your choice to support a resolution that leads to the results I demonstrated in the game forum and which I will quote below for easier reference, however, bears much more gravity. And I will quote it verbatim, with all rhetoric and insults originally present for all to judge. The choice between the satisfaction of putting me in my place and preventing a flawed intenrational legislation, I shall leave to you.

My goodness, this proposal just keeps giving. Look at this, folks:

a "racial characteristic" is any characteristic such as skin colour, culture, nationality and language

So, supposedly you're an American WASP who applied for a job requiring you to speak Italian. The employer - rightfully - bins your application and hires a Chinese person fluent in Italian. You file a discrimination lawsuit based on the clause stating that:

No member nation, or entity therein, may withhold, delay, or segregate any service, right or privilege, including employment and remuneration as well as sale of goods and property, from an individual on the grounds of any racial characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual

Your would-be employer counters with the argument

(a) the role is clearly related to the said racial characteristic, and (b) that racial characteristic is essential to carry out the relevant tasks if employed.

At the end of the day, you obviously lose your silly little lawsuit, but your Chinese competitor suddenly learns, likely to their horror, that their fluency in Italian is, apparently, their racial characteristic. Confirmed and sanctioned by a court of law. Now, God knows what will happen if they would start learning French, too.

And the best part? The court acts bona fide (even if the claimant does not), so there can be no argument of interpretation in bad faith. I love this.

Ice States, Wallenburg - I congratulate you, No, I actually formally commend you for having created the most hilarious thing I have seen in a while. I take back everything I said before, it is a glorious act, a marvellous monument of the art of law-making. Please, please, let's have it passed

Astrobolt, I do believe that most of my mockeries till now were addressing wording rather than mental or moral faculties of its authors, but I shall make my future submissions more agreeable, if duller, reads, in order to heed your advice.

[Astrobolt]

Feb 2, 2024 9:49:19 GMT -5 Lysandrion said:

Astrobolt , I do believe that most of my mockeries till now were addressing wording rather than mental or moral faculties of its authors, but I shall make my future submissions more agreeable, if duller, reads, in order to heed your advice.

Please read the following quote again:

This is why, when people with actual brains take to writing this kind of clauses, they simply say - any discrimination based on the [catalogue of causes, here - broadly defined ethnicity] is prohibited.

This all but says that the authors are dumb, it doesn’t attack the wording, but takes a dig at the authors’ intelligence.

[Lysandrion]

Feb 2, 2024 10:22:06 GMT -5 Astrobolt said:

Feb 2, 2024 9:49:19 GMT -5 Lysandrion said:

Astrobolt , I do believe that most of my mockeries till now were addressing wording rather than mental or moral faculties of its authors, but I shall make my future submissions more agreeable, if duller, reads, in order to heed your advice.

Please read the following quote again:

This is why, when people with actual brains take to writing this kind of clauses, they simply say - any discrimination based on the [catalogue of causes, here - broadly defined ethnicity] is prohibited.

This all but says that the authors are dumb, it doesn’t attack the wording, but takes a dig at the authors’ intelligence.

Touche, I was in the wrong - my apologies.