Post by Asairia on Jan 22, 2019 17:25:12 GMT
WORLD ASSEMBLY SECURITY COUNCIL
REPEAL: "DEBTOR VOTING RIGHTS"
DELEGATE IS VOTING: AGAINST ☒
FINAL RESULTS:
10,936 (68.3%) FOR
5,079 (31.7%) AGAINST
Overview
Repeal: Debtor Voting Rights seeks to repeal the resolution recently passed that, "Bars member nations from invoking a person's debts as reason to deprive that person of the right to vote."
Author's Justification
The author of this resolution, Nagatar Karumuttu Chettiar of Sonindia, "Acknowledges the efforts of GA Resolution #454 to prevent debts from inhibiting a citizen's right to vote ... [but understands] the extreme it was brought to in this resolution was counter productive," and:
[Sees] numerous loopholes in the resolution that more cruel states could employ, such as, but not limited to:
1. Criminalizing outstanding debt under specific conditions to imprison the individual for the duration of the voting;
2. Making outstanding debt punishable by law through a choice of forfeiture of voting rights or imprisonment;
3. Passing legislation revoking the citizenship of a citizen, and thus their right to vote if they are indebted.
[Understands] that the rights of those living in autocratic nations in regards to their political rights are not addressed;
[Notices] the resolution does not specify on what debtors can not be stripped of the right to vote on;
[Sees] that such a loosely worded clause is open to exploitation;
[Believes] the World Assembly Delegation of the nation which passed the legislation could write a more conclusive piece of legislation for this issue;
[Hopes] that member nations will create thoughtful and articulate legislation with regards to unforeseen consequences and in consideration to the variety of member states' cultural normalities on this issue; and
[Wishes] that in the period the legislation is active its loopholes will not be exploited at the expense of the citizenry of nations across the multiverse.
1. Criminalizing outstanding debt under specific conditions to imprison the individual for the duration of the voting;
2. Making outstanding debt punishable by law through a choice of forfeiture of voting rights or imprisonment;
3. Passing legislation revoking the citizenship of a citizen, and thus their right to vote if they are indebted.
[Understands] that the rights of those living in autocratic nations in regards to their political rights are not addressed;
[Notices] the resolution does not specify on what debtors can not be stripped of the right to vote on;
[Sees] that such a loosely worded clause is open to exploitation;
[Believes] the World Assembly Delegation of the nation which passed the legislation could write a more conclusive piece of legislation for this issue;
[Hopes] that member nations will create thoughtful and articulate legislation with regards to unforeseen consequences and in consideration to the variety of member states' cultural normalities on this issue; and
[Wishes] that in the period the legislation is active its loopholes will not be exploited at the expense of the citizenry of nations across the multiverse.
My Decision
The resolution being repealed can be viewed as incomplete, sure, but incomplete does not equal ineffective. 'Debtor Voting Rights' and its subsequent repeal have revealed the two key issues of this subject: the first being debtors and disenfranchisement and the second being debtors and incarceration. 'Debtor Voting Rights' does what it set out to do: ban nations from invoking debt as the sole reason to disenfranchise people. One of the most noteworthy arguments against the resolution being repealed is that a nation can easily charge a debtor with additional crimes or simply imprison them to circumvent this ban. While this is true, this can be easily addressed through the adoption of supplementary legislation banning or setting restrictions on nations imprisoning individuals because of their debt. Another solution to this problem would be to address the permitted and continued disenfranchisement of the imprisoned.
I understand the World Assembly's desire to have a one-bill-fits-all solution to these issues, but without such a bill having enough support to reach the voting floor, is it really worth disenfranchising those that this bill does protect for an uncertain amount of time? Normally and ideally, I would side with the majority of voters in our region, but since this is an issue dealing with human rights, specifically the right to vote, I feel an obligation to vote against this repeal to help protect the rights of others. While 'Debtor Voting Rights' may not be ideal, it does provide partial protection, and while it isn't full protection, partial protection is better than no protection in cases where there are no viable alternatives capable of being considered at this time.
Current Regional support at time of publication.
Current Delegate support at time of publication.