by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

2

DispatchMetaReference

by The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation. . 12 reads.

GA Recommendation Archive: Vote FOR 'Gay Panic Defense Ban' | OWL

.

————
·

·
·
—— —— ——
·


'Gay Panic Defense Ban'
·
·
—..—
·

Background Information

Proposal title: 'Gay Panic Defense Ban'
Author: Crowheim
Purpose: To ban the use of the Gay Panic Defense and other defenses rooted in discrimination against certain sexes, sexual orientations, or gender identities as an excuse or justification for criminal conduct.

Links


Vote .For.
·

The Office's Analysis

Citing previous efforts by the World Assembly to act against discrimination of members of the LGTBQ+ community (e.g. in GA 35 "The Charter of Civil Rights" or GA 91 "A Convention on Gender", among others), the at-vote resolution, "Gay Panic Defense Ban", reaffirms those advances, itself focusing on the area of criminal law. While previous WA law on this topic mainly dealt with an accused person's rights, the resolution at hand protects the victims of criminal offences by banning someone's sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity from somehow making a discriminatory difference in court proceedings, thereby prohibiting practices such as the notorious "Gay Panic Defense" (where a defendant, who is arraigned for a physical attack on an individual identifying as a member of the LGBTQ+ community, would claim a perceived sexual assault by that individual in order to make a calculated crime committed out of bigotry look like self-defense). The proposal is short and to the point, while also presenting satisfactory arguments and upholding a good level of writing. Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Gay Panic Defense Ban".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
—FOR— | —AGAINST—
·

For

From TSP Citizens

Arvan Irawer is a Citizen of the South Pacific.

Arvan Irawer wrote:Any form of discrimination is awful. This proposal will reduce the amount of discrimination, creating a better life for all, by making nations more peaceful.

Tepertopia is a Deputy Chair of the South Pacific and the Director of OWL.

Tepertopia wrote:The WA has acted in the past to combat discrimination of any sort, and in combination with standing WA gender identity and orientation laws, I don't think there's room for harm to be done by passing this proposal ‒ in the worst case, if this proposal were to prove ineffective, extant legislation would cover for serious discrimination, with this being more of a more specific gap-filler that could always be repealed and replaced later.

From the World

Maowi is a Citizen of Europeia, and a multi-time WA author. On the NS forums, they stated:

Maowi wrote:We are in support of the enactment of these measures - extant World Assembly resolutions may potentially have some impact on the subject matter, already, but should this pass I firmly believe the worst-case scenario would be no harm done, and the best-case scenario the implementation of highly important protections.

Junitaki-cho is the Councilor of WA Affairs of Refugia. They lodged the following on Refugia's RMB:

Junitaki-cho wrote:This one does what it says on the tin. If passed, it would ban the perception of a person's sex, gender, or sexuality as justification or defense of a crime. It's refreshing to see a progressive, pro-LGBT piece of legislation in the chamber, and I don't see anything objectionable in its two operative clauses. That's really all there to say here; the rest is ideological, but any decent person ought to be in favour of this. And credit where credit is due, IA actually made a proposal significantly cleaner and easier to understand.

Against

From TSP Citizens

Amerion is the outgoing Delegate of the South Pacific and a member of the Council on Regional Security.

Amerion wrote:While the Admiral Delegate General is wholly supportive of efforts to protect LGBTQIA members—having served as the honorary Master of Ceremonies in the last several Mardi Gras parades—this ban seems more appropriate to be put into effect at a domestic level (as is already the case in Amerion) rather than broadly outlined in what is an otherwise poorly written proposal with a mere two clauses addressing the matter at heart. To give a point of reference, the Dictatorship of Amerion has 42 clauses, segmented into 18 articles, and spread across 6 laws, on the question of how to properly address the Supreme Leader. Surely, one might have thought an issue of such importance should warrant a more complete proposal with greater mechanisms of enforcement than that currently proffered by the resolution's author? The Great Leader resolves to give his full support on a future resolution which goes into more detail should this proposal rightfully fail to pass.

From the World

Guy is a commended former Delegate of The Rejected Realms. On TRR's forums, they posted:

Guy wrote:I’m not sure the proposal is strong enough. As written, if the offender already knows a person is (eg) gay when the offender perceives the person wants to have sex with them, the defence could still be open to the offender if allowed for under national law. […] It's not the "perception ... of a person's ... sexual orientation" that is the defence. D[efendant]'s claim is they panicked when they were 'hit on'. They didn't commit the offence because of the victim's sexual orientation, but because of the victim's actions. Nothing in the proposal covers that.



·

·
—Link—Link
·
·

RawReport