Proposal:
This proposal aims to ban the “Gay Panic Defense”, an action in which an offender uses force upon discovery of another person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, in an attempt to end the violence based on said sexual orientation and gender identity.

Opinions:

For:

Marxist germany wrote:

"The idea that murder is acceptable for any reason other than self-defence is absurd; this gets my full support."

Ardiveds wrote:

"We maintain that gay/trans panic defense is inherently in violation of CoCR and any court in a member nation accepting such defense is also in violation, but we shall support this proposal nonetheless."

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would cover for serious discrimination, with this being more of a more specific gap-filler that could always be repealed and replaced later.

Against:

Elwher wrote:

The validity of any defense should be a matter of fact for a jury to decide, and a matter of circumstance for a judge to consider at sentencing. An attorney should have the right to present any defense of his client's actions to the deciding bodies without let or hindrance, therefore Elwher is strongly opposed to this restriction.

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.