[At Vote] [ga] Promoting Ethnic And Cultural Equality

[Astrobolt]

General Assembly Resolution

Promoting Ethnic And Cultural Equality

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Civil Rights

Strength: Strong

Proposed by: The Ice States

Whereas ethnic and cultural 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, such discrimination; and



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



The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. Definition: For the purposes of this resolution, a "protected characteristic" is any characteristic such as skin colour, nationality and language which is subject to discrimination as a result of its connection to an individual's culture, ethnicity or race. Culture, ethnicity and race are themselves protected characteristics.
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 real or perceived protected characteristic possessed or lacked by that individual. The following exceptions apply to this provision, although nothing in the said exceptions preclude exempted conditions from being an unlawful form of discrimination based on another real or perceived protected characteristic. 
   1. Section 2 shall not prohibit a service, right, policy, or privilege clearly related to a protected characteristic, where such a requirement is strictly necessary to mitigate harms towards persons holding a particular protected characteristic without causing similar or worse harms to those lacking it, from being conditional on the recipient's holding of that protected characteristic.
   2. Section 2 also shall not prohibit an entity from requiring those selected to conduct some task to hold a particular protected characteristic, if and only if that entity can demonstrate clear and convincing objective evidence that both (a) the task is clearly related to the said protected characteristic, and (b) that protected characteristic is strictly necessary to effectively carry out the relevant tasks if selected. For roles with a language requirement, no person may be discriminated against on the grounds that their language fluency is learnt and not their native language.
   
   
3. 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 real or perceived protected characteristic, regardless of whether such segregation is enforced by a state, is universally prohibited under World Assembly jurisdiction.
4. Classification: Every member nation is to consider protected characteristics to be arbitrary and reductive, and accordingly enforce laws against hate crime, violence, and other discrimination on the grounds of real or perceived protected 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 real or perceived protected characteristic. Terms in the singular are to be interpreted as including the plural thereof, absent clarification otherwise.

Co-authors: Simone Republic, Wallenburg




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

[Astrobolt]

Personally don't know how I feel about the genocide definition. Specifically, whether "intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group" rises to that level.

[Lenlyvit]

I was asked very politely by a member of TNP to pass on their opinion:

I can’t see how this is much different from the last try, which is kind of par for the course for Magecastle since he’s so stubborn and refuses to accept criticism at times, but it does concern me given it seems to greatly restrict affirmative action and nullify tribal treaties with governments that have them. There’s also that strictly necessary definition which needs a lot of work - even IA, vaunted legal expert, couldn’t see how it actually worked right in practice and he flipped his vote against as a result.

There’s a much better analysis on our voting thread, I could link the posts if that helps

As well as some background discussion threads:

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10665296

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10665300

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10665573

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10671273

[Jabberwocky]

The author stipulates that segregation is genocide. I see them as separate things, even if both are reprehensible.

[icethousand]

Mar 4, 2024 10:53:24 GMT -5 Jabberwocky said:

The author stipulates that segregation is genocide. I see them as separate things, even if both are reprehensible.

I don't think it does this; while it's in the same provision as the genocide definition, segregation itself is classed only as "universally prohibited", not genocide.

Mar 4, 2024 4:02:14 GMT -5 Lenlyvit said:

I was asked very politely by a member of TNP to pass on their opinion:

I can’t see how this is much different from the last try, which is kind of par for the course for Magecastle since he’s so stubborn and refuses to accept criticism at times, but it does concern me given it seems to greatly restrict affirmative action and nullify tribal treaties with governments that have them. There’s also that strictly necessary definition which needs a lot of work - even IA, vaunted legal expert, couldn’t see how it actually worked right in practice and he flipped his vote against as a result.

There’s a much better analysis on our voting thread, I could link the posts if that helps

As well as some background discussion threads:

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10665296

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10665300

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10665573

forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9198039/post-10671273

Frankly, that the campaign against is based on insults and personal swipes is rather disappointing; even with the crusade against the coauthor I imagined they would have better standards than this. I don't understand why they saw this appropriate, especially when it is the very introduction of their argument. Regardless, thanks for passing this on.

With regards to affirmative action, the exception in 3a was designed to allow this; often such policies are indeed necessary to mitigate the effects of historical and current discrimination. If implemented correctly they also avoid causing "similar or worse harms" to those not protected by it. I addressed the tribal treaty arguments in the linked thread in TNP. IA never publicised what his concern was (unless I missed something) so I have no idea how to address that.

Mar 4, 2024 2:20:13 GMT -5 Astrobolt said:

Personally don't know how I feel about the genocide definition. Specifically, whether "intentional and statistically disproportionate violence perpetrated against a group" rises to that level.

With eg discriminatory law enforcement activity, would it constitute "intentional" targeting of a group? Noting also that this is more so a reiteration of existing law and not creating new one; this provision originates from GA #601 Freedom of Travel (the wording being used here with Wallenburg's consent, which is why he is credited as coauthor).

[Lysandrion]

I campaigned ruthlessly against the previous draft due to its obvious logical flaws. Is this iteration better? Well, it is different, with some old issues removed and some new added. I still think that the "protected characteristic" test proposed by the resolution is way less practical and much more ideologically loaded than the simple 4-step proportionality test (to me, there is a difference in deeming ethnicity as a legitimate, suitable, necessary and reasonable criterion in a given case and deeming it as "related" or "strictly necessary" to certain tasks or roles by the very nature of both the criterion and the task). Clause 3 does not equal segregation with genocide, but clumps these two issues together in a way that apparently confuses some readers. OVerall, I feel that, had the main effort gone into the draft itself rather than into its public defense, then the end result would be much more polished. However, in the end I did not have the time to propose my own amendments to wording, so I won't be grilling it as harshly as before. Still, not a fan and in favour of abstaining at best.