Re: [soac-mapo] Please participate - Poll on updated recommendations

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 16 September 2010 13:56, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:


> What do you see as the essential differences between what we're proposing
> regarding the expert panel and what's in the AGB now?
>


The difference is quite substantial

The AGB's DRSP, as described, was expected to judge moral relativisim --
whether the desirability, rights/sensibilities infringed, perceived threat
of harm, level of abhorrence etc of the objectors outweighed the rights of
expression of the applicant. The current AGB would charge the DRSP, for
instance, with determining whether the existence of .gay -- a description of
a characteristic/behaviour whose illegality still merits a death sentence in
many countries -- is sufficiently repugnant to a sufficiently large number
of people to justify a ban. By being charged with the whole role of dispute
resolution, the DRSP must hear both sides and pass judgement, at significant
cost to both objector and defender.

(Not all may see it that way, but by my reading the AGB could certainly
enable such a scenario.)

By contrast, the expert role being proposed by us is to do a factual
examination of existing treaty and multinational declarations and laws as
applicable to the string. No hearings. No requirements for judgement. All
that is asked is a objective, dispassionate answer to the question "does
this string contravene existing international principles of law?".

One task requires a philosopher-king, the other a researcher.

- Evan