NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been the Leader of Balbale Harbour for about a month now, so therefore, I am very new. I am a UN member and I have noticed the voting totals for the current proposal and I suppose I am a bit confused.

What does the new proposal mean to me? What I got from its description is equality for all and embracing life. Yet there are about 9000 votes AGAINST this proposal as opposed to only 6000 vote FOR it. I thought equality was a good thing.

The current polls lead me to two questions:

1)Are all the countries just evil, socially oppressive dictatorships?
or
2)Is having a dictatorship and few social freedoms a good way to be the most progressive nation?

Let me know your thoughts!

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to the discussion about EFA. Check this thread out http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=91120

As to your questions:

1. No
2. No.

I have been the Leader of Balbale Harbour for about a month now, so therefore, I am very new. I am a UN member and I have noticed the voting totals for the current proposal and I suppose I am a bit confused.

What does the new proposal mean to me? What I got from its description is equality for all and embracing life. Yet there are about 9000 votes AGAINST this proposal as opposed to only 6000 vote FOR it. I thought equality was a good thing.

The current polls lead me to two questions:

1)Are all the countries just evil, socially oppressive dictatorships?
or
2)Is having a dictatorship and few social freedoms a good way to be the most progressive nation?

Let me know your thoughts!
There is a great deal of debate about how this proposal is worded and where it stands in the lineage of the UN. I will start with the popular compaint first and then move to the others, if you are not so inclined to read through the reams and reams of threads that already cover the subject of why this proposal is being voted down.

First of all, this no vote is not a cry for oppression. We should start off with that before we procede. The UN majority is notorious for voting for civil rights, as is demonstrated if you go through the past resolutions.

The popular complaint is that the wording is unclear in it's definition. By granting these freedoms to all "living beings" some feel that this prevents them from harming anything that lives. At it's most liberal interpretation, by their estimation, this forces the nations into veganism and at it's worst it prevents them from eating anything at all.

That is the popular complaint.

Which leads into the other popular complaint. This is simply a poor retread of past proposals. I'll start with the aparthied complaint.

There are already two resolutions on the books, Sexual Freedom & Gay Rights, that grant protections to same-sex couples. This resolution aims to eleminate that classification from govenment discourse all together. Does this make a gay marriage anything other than a gay marriage? No. Does this solve the problem of homo-phobia? No, it simply provides a mechanism for the government to pretend that it doesn't exist. It doesn't end homo-phobia, it limits a nations ability to address it. By this standard, the proposal is dangerous.

Furthermore, the literalists contend that some sexual classifications are neccisary. There is a resolution on the books against Pedophelia, but the current resolution would inhibit the member states from enforcing this, the literalists say.

In UME's defense of the proposal, UME states that his land has many races that he feels do not qualify under the definition "human" in his nation and therefore are not afforded the protections of the numerous civil rights resolutions already on the books. His solution is again to nullify the extant and well thought out resolutions in light of his new open ended utopian ideal. While the previous resolutions provide clear definitions and rights, this one does not. UME would have been better served trying to pass a resolution that the self-aware members of his or other countries with recognizable societies (or some other definition) where protected under the rights afforded to "humans," rather than attempting to undo the good the UN has already accomplished.

As you can see, it is not that nations desire a dictatorship, they simply wish to protect the rights that they have fought for over the last year.

Lastly, and this has the least amount of support, the resolution contains a typo. There is a very old resolution condeming proposals with poor grammar. This resolution has never been enforced in the past, and it's own wording is suspect in how it is to be executed, but my nation has been attempting to campaign a new era of relavence regarding past proposals by attempting to enforce it now by compelling nations to vote no on this proposal.

While most nations agree that the intent of this resolution is indeed noble, we cannot vote blindly on intent if the UN is to have any relevance at all. We must look at the execution of the proposal and it's relevance in light of past proposals and vote for good resolutions, not good intentions.

Voting no on this proposal is not a vote for dictatorship, it is a vote for a new era of relavancy in the UN, and a vote to uphold the civil rights and standards that we have already established.

(an eye for the ironic would notice that I often mis-spell things. there is no resolution regarding the text in the threads, only the proposals)

We appreciate your time in carefully considering this issue and your "No" vote.

The Oppressed Peoples of Cannot think of a name thanks you.

-
The title of a proposal may not accurately describe its contents, or its consequences.

Those are some solid reasons for defeating equality.