by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

1

DispatchBulletinOpinion

by The Sororal Republics of Wallenburg. . 8 reads.

TEP Ministry of WA Affairs: Official Opinion on "Repeal 'Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities'"

Opinion on Repeal "Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities"
Office of the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs of the East Pacific

The resolution brought to Vote targets a resolution that mainly serves to guarantee marriage rights to same-sex couples. While there exist certain elements of that resolution which earned opposition within this ministry, this repeal does not address them. For the purpose of analyzing this repeal, we shall limit ourselves to observation of the material relevant to its arguments.

The repeal argues against the exceptions granted to religious organizations as "silence" on the matter of discrimination within religious institutions. This ignores the target's explicit support for additional legislative measures to address this matter. Furthermore, it does not produce any basis for a repeal of the target, as this exception by design does not block additional legislation to apply the very same mandates to religious institutions. If the author's concerns truly lie in the practical matter of such exemptions, then this repeal represents a waste of legislative effort that they could easily allocate to positive legislation on the matter.

The repeal also makes an overly simplistic argument that existing legislation requires "that all inhabitants of member states be treated equally under the law". Generously granting that this merely simplifies the far more nuanced reality of layered degrees of protection from discrimination, this not only serves as a poor argument against the target resolution, but undermines the repeal's efforts. The target represents a major success against discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation, and to repeal it on the basis of a minor exemption for the internal operations of religious institutions is to effectively further discrimination, not to reduce it.

More honestly, however, the resolution seems to consider equal marriage rights either secondary or irrelevant in the pursuit of civil equality. Specifically, it argues that the target resolution creates "an untenable burden" that curtails "the intended human right to civil equality under law". Clearly, this repeal implies that protection of equal marriage rights is less important a matter of equality under the law than is the handling of religious and nonreligious marriage practices. Such language is deeply concerning, and alongside its other arguments suggests an underlying bigotry against non-heteronormative marriage as the author's basis for repeal.

The author grants significant attention to supposed "paradoxes" within the target's text, but fails to identify any internal contradictions. It does identify concerning language that limits the ability of member states to provide specialized services or address issues that may arise on the basis of individuals' genders or sexual orientations. However, it argues that the standards this language mandates are "impossible for nations to adhere to", when any reasonably self-interested member state will interpret the relevant mandates such that compliance is certainly possible, although perhaps debilitating and expensive. The argument that the target resolution contains paradoxes is at best unconvincing, if not plainly false.

The authoring delegation concludes their argument for repeal in an incomprehensible assertion that the target somehow generates legal precedent supporting additional legislation that may institute mandates unjustly applied to one group but not another. This reveals a deep misunderstanding of how legal precedent operates in the General Assembly. The legality of such legislation cannot be affected by the passage of the target. The General Assembly Secretariat deduces legailty solely from its proposal rules and how those rules apply to the resolution in question. To argue that this somehow makes any discriminatory legislation--beyond mandates that directly contradict its protection of equal marriage rights--any more or less legal is to further uniquely absurd assertions.

Most importantly, the author of this repeal has neither prepared a replacement resolution to protect equal marriage rights, nor has indicated any support for a replacement resolution protecting such rights, nor has included any language at all supporting such rights on principle. Considering such a failure to support non-heteronormative marriage, alongside the author's choice to repeal the target rather than introduce additional legislation to address exceptions, we must conclude that this repeal is merely a veiled attack on LGBT+ rights and equal marriage. Of all the target's faults, this key element is absolutely essential. We refuse to endorse resolutions furthering bigoted agendas such as the dismantlement of equal marriage rights.

For these reasons, we recommend firm opposition to the repeal now at Vote.

RawReport