RefugiaBoard

Melenavenia wrote:

Do you want your patriotism stats to be low or high?

難しい選択。

There's a fine line between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is ok so long as it's keep to a decent level that doesn't promote xenophobia. Nationalism on the other hand is bad. I don't need to say why.

In nationstate, I'd prefer it to be low. Avoid any risk of patriotism turning into nationalism

Melenavenia wrote:

Do you want your patriotism stats to be low or high?

Depends. Patriotism and Nationalism are two different things, from my point of view. Patriotism is when you accept your country's flaws and still love your country and want to live in it. Nationalism is when you tout that your country is the greatest despite the amount of atrocious acts your country's government does. Yes on patriotism, no on nationalism. Sadly, in my home country of the USA, people tend to confuse patriotism for nationalism and has lead to myriad problems.

Melenavenia wrote:

I don't understand the issue that talks about the "limit to the length of campaigns". This concept seems foreign to me, as far as I'm aware people can announce their candidacy for something as far out as they want, but campaign season (in the States) really ramps up in the months leading up to an actual election. I'm confused by what it means and I finally remembered to ask about it.

My understanding of the US is that campaigning is happening for about 18 months, if not longer (how many people are randomly in Iowa three years before a general election?). The debates even start a year before the election. That's madness.

Our campaign season cannot last longer than 50 days. In fact, our longest election even before the Elections Act mandated that limit was our second one in 1872, which still only lasted 96 days.

Limiting your campaign length forces the people in your government to spend their time doing their jobs instead of spending half their term (or most of their term for US House members) selling to their voters why they should go back.

Inaros OPA wrote:

Because patriotism is blind loyalty to a country. Your people are obviously loyal, but not blindly loyal.

Patriotism isn't necessarily blind loyalty. It can just be liking your country and having an appreciation for it.

As a British person I will relentlessly criticise my own country, but as soon as someone else bad mouths it, I get mad.

It may be a sh*t hole, but it's my sh*t hole.

Vikoland wrote:

As a British person I will relentlessly criticise my own country, but as soon as someone else bad mouths it, I get mad.

It may be a sh*t hole, but it's my sh*t hole.

Bruh you ain't seen USA, at least you guys have cheaper health care than we do.

Sylh Alanor wrote:

Maybe the other side of the 'my country is the best in the world don't even try to compare' coin is 'my country is the worst in the world don't even try to compare' :P

so true

Lower French Gregballs wrote:

We had our ruler, the McGregory, certified insane and replaced ..., and patients' rights respected.

Patients' rights? That's oddly specific and not remotely expected. What were these rulers up to??

Hey all, just wanted to make a quick statement on why I'm voting against the current resolution-at-vote, Tinhampton's End Conversion Therapy. I thought I should make a statement because, obviously, the idea of ending conversion therapy is one that the world desperately needs. It's a horrific practise that inflicts trauma on untold amounts of people.

Tin has a tendency to throw things into her resolutions that take good ideas and warps them to the point that I can no longer be comfortable that they're good. If this proposal was limited to only clauses A (definition of conversion therapy) and B (total ban on conversion therapy), I would support it 100%. I would have been one of the first to vote for it. But it doesn't, it also has clauses C and D. Let's take a look at them.

wrote:

[C] clarifies that this resolution does not affect the right of willing individuals to seek and receive gender-adequation or -affirmation procedures, and

[D] strongly recommends that members provide all necessary and relevant support to those who have already undergone, or are likely to undergo, conversion therapy.

C on its own wouldn't block me from voting in favour, but it still bothers me. It simply makes no sense- conversion therapy is defined as "interventions meant to alter or reverse any person's sexual orientation or gender identity". Gender-affirming procedures, be they hormone treatments or surgeries, are not interventions meant to reverse someone's gender identity. They're, as stated in their names, affirming that person's gender identity by making their body more closely match who they are.

D is where my problem lies. I don't like the phrase "or are likely to undergo, conversion therapy" in this. At all. Clause B fully bans conversion therapy, therefore if we believe in the strength of the resolution, nobody will ever go through conversion therapy in a World Assembly nation once this is passed. Now, me being a nosy busybody, I posted these concerns in Tin's GA thread for this before it was at vote. Tin replied that it's to provide support to people who are going to be travelling to a non-WA country to undergo conversion therapy. No. Absolutely not. That's such a terrible loophole, and I will not support the idea of providing support for people who are going to either be by choice (thereby negating the definition) leaving the country to undergo torture, or as a nation support the process of someone being forced to go, and being forced into 'consenting'. No no no, dealbreaker loophole. It just allows conversion therapy to continue.

Hard against.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Regarding your point on D, it is entirely non-binding. Nothing prevents (to my immediate knowledge) a person being exiled or what have you for their sexual orientation in either the status quo or the proposal. Nothing in particular incites it to happen really.

My point was more that as long as a person states that they're okay with undergoing conversion therapy, the government is now strongly recommended to support that person. Since people are almost never going into conversion therapy by choice, it seems that those private organisations which currently are able to operate in some countries as conversion therapy clinics or whatever would instead move to non-WA countries, and those people could still be just as forced by their family to make that trip. And the governments that allowed private industry to handle that under the current resolution would have clearance to allow it, because they would be providing support for those likely to undergo conversion therapy. Obviously this version gives those of us who would have already banned conversion therapy reinforcement.

I agree to your points about everything else, and I'm really on the fence about it one way or the other, it's just I feel that D removes the ban in countries that were already allowing private corporations to put adults through conversion therapy anyway.

Refuge Isle wrote:

Legal text is written from the perspective of the World Assembly. The World Assembly recommends that member nations support such persons, however those governments are not expected or obliged to do any action of substantive effect in the face of such a recommendation.

A recommendation may be an operative clause but, at the end of the day, it's nil for power.

Of course, I understand that a recommendation isn't legally binding. I'm stating that the proposal suggests this wink wink nudge nudge method of overriding/ignoring the ban (governments are recommended to still make allowances for people to be taken out of country to go through this anyway) that those of us who outlaw conversion therapy support, but those countries who support conversion therapy would more than gladly take. Doesn't it just add an extra step for those who would put people through conversion therapy?

If it doesn't, and this is actually a full-on ban that I'm misinterpreting, I'll reverse my vote gladly. I'm just having a hard time seeing past this as making conversion therapy easier for those countries that would allow it, because it would only require a plane ticket (and those governments can provide that transportation as providing support to those who are likely to undergo in a non-WA country).

Refuge Isle wrote:

There is no way to ignore or override the ban. The text of the document is that it is illegal in all circumstance. The scope of that ban is within member nations' territories. Within those territories there is no capacity for a private organisation or government proxy to preform conversion therapy.

Where your concerns are related to whether or not a person may be forced out of a country or whether a government may pay for someone to leave the country and have conversion therapy done in a non-WA government's territory, that is permissible. There's very limited ways on preventing that because the WA can't legislate on non-WA governments, and it would be especially strange to specifically say something like "Nations may not pay for a plain ticket to Karachi".

I think if you're concerned about persons being exiled for their LGBT status, that's a separate resolution topic. As it stands, GAR #437 makes no effort to approach this topic either. Perhaps it's already law, but I haven't been keeping up on GA as much lately.

Exile is not my concern, but I think I'm understanding what you're saying. I would hope for some stipulation that governments are not allowed to support citizens seeking out conversion therapy, but if B. properly forbids that to the best extent it could be forbidden, I'm okay with reversing my vote on this then.