NationStates Jolt Archive

Deceased Desecration Directive


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

DEFINING desecration, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual or violent act, performed on a deceased sapient individual, that is not done for either religious, medical, or preservation purposes, as permitted by national statute, [ie: still allows embalming, autopsy and organ harvesting for the puposes of transplant]

DISTURBED by the occurrence of desecration, including the practice of necrophilia, within the member nations of the UN,

OBSERVING many cases of emotional damage to the families of deceased sapient individuals in cases of all desecration, and,

BELIEVING that the health risks associated with necrophilia are of public concern, and thus needs to be immediately addressed,

ENCOURAGES member nations to outlaw the desecration of corpses,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.

Any constructive advice and criticism welcome.

Ceorana will not support unless "unauthorized" is added to the definition in clause 1, so that people can ask what is to be done to them when the decease.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ceorana will not support unless "unauthorized" is added to the definition in clause 1, so that people can ask what is to be done to them when the decease.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Added into the definition.

Alright then. We support.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

You have our support.

Nah.

Micromanagement.
High 'ewwwww' factor.
Failure to define 'corpse' (is carving a turkey a 'violent act against a corpse?)
What medical risks?
Under this ruleset, having someone die on you whilst making love is probably a felony.

Nah.

Under this ruleset, having someone die on you whilst making love is probably a felony.

So worth it, though.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I strongly oppose this, a country should be able to make its own descisions about necrophilia and doesnt need the UN breathing down its neck about it. I think this will flop.

doesnt need the UN breathing down its neck ... think this will flop.
Was that intended to be humorous? Because it was.

[quote]Micromanagement.

Could you kindly expand on this. How is this micromanagement?

High 'ewwwww' factor.

*sigh* Yes I know. I'm really hoping that people can get past the 'ewww' factor.

Failure to define 'corpse' (is carving a turkey a 'violent act against a corpse?)

How's this? DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, corpse as the dead body of an individual.
It's late. That's the best I can come up with right now. I'll work on it some more.

What medical risks?

Alot of the bacteria that is found in a living individual may still be around within the corpse, meaning it would be possible to contract anything from a fresh corpse. It may be something as small as a cold or, it could be something much worse.

Under this ruleset, having someone die on you whilst making love is probably a felony.

I agree with the HotRodian UN Representative on this statement.


Is there anything else?

Could you kindly expand on this. How is this micromanagement?
It's micromanagement to attempt to pass wide-reaching international law for an issue that has no international component whatsoever. Necrophilia is person-on-person crime, not person-on-nation or person-on-world. You're micromanaging national law with the blunt instrument of international law.

Furthermore, it's micromanagement to legislate Moral Decency proposals that offend you, with the thought that it must therefore offend EVERYONE. I've never been fond of the "one size fits all" solution, particularly on moral issues.

Finally, it's micromanagement to legislate on an issue that has an absolutely microscopic footprint on the national, much less international stage. If you can locate statistics (real world is fine) that shows that more than .001% of people are affected in any way by necrophilia (whether participants or close relatives of the deceased), I'll be astonished. Horror movies don't count.

Passing a Moral Decency UN resolution, even a Mild one, will have repercussions to your civil freedoms that far outweigh the moral cost of leaving this in the hands of the nations. You're hitting a thumbtack with a sledgehammer. Yes, the tack will be driven, but what else will you damage in the process?

Under this ruleset, having someone die on you whilst making love is probably a felony.

Maybe when it is Frisbeeterian style (and we do not need a description of the process), but Vulcan style love making simply involves touching two fingers and spouting off equations -- it might even be considered poetic irony if a love making form so boring resulted in death.

http://www.wsu.edu/~sarek/sar&amda.jpg

See, boring. No danger here.

It's micromanagement to attempt to pass wide-reaching international law for an issue that has no international component whatsoever.Heh. Par for the course, ain't it? Outlaw Pedophilia, as it made no mention of child porn, did the same thing.

Furthermore, it's micromanagement to legislate Moral Decency proposals that offend you, with the thought that it must therefore offend EVERYONE.Meh. All MD proposals do that.

If you can locate statistics (real world is fine) that shows that more than .001% of people are affected in any way by necrophilia (whether participants or close relatives of the deceased), I'll be astonished.Hmm...

After a good amount a creepy research, all I could find was "[a]lthough assumed rare, many have argued that necrophilia may be more prevalent than statistics imply," which doesn't help with true numbers. Still, I don't think 3000 people (for the US) is too much of a stretch, or 60k world-wide.

I've never been fond of the "one size fits all" solution, particularly on moral issues.


Same here, although on this particular issue I can't imagine any nation not wanting to outlaw necrophilia - which in turn brings us to the question, is there any need to legislate internationally on a matter which is probably already covered in the national legislation of virtually all UN member states?

One thing this proposal does do is outlaw cannibalism, except where the victim consented. Some countries may not be happy with that.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I did some research as well, and I came up with the same thing as Hack.

How can they come up with statistics when the 'victim' can't report the crime that has been committed?

Nah.
Under this ruleset, having someone die on you whilst making love is probably a felony.


It should be pointed out that if you are making love and your partner dies you probably need to stop making love at that point. Delaying the reporting of a dead person is probably also a felony.

Then it needs to be pointed out that the precise definition of a corpse is not completely defined. Most organs remain alive hours after "death" so the question of whether or not a person who just had heart failure 30 second ago is technically yet a corpse. And if you are still making love several hours later to someone who just died you deserve the felony charge!

Personally this passes my general filters. Is it an international issue? No. Is it an issue of fundamental human rights? Yes. I know this resolution may prevent us from beating a dead horse, but isn't that a good thing?

I did some research as well, and I came up with the same thing as Hack.

How can they come up with statistics when the 'victim' can't report the crime that has been committed?

Seances, obviously. :p

Seances, obviously. :p

:p

Thank you. I would have never thought of that one myself. (Has my sarcasm come through clear enough?)

Is it an issue of fundamental human rights? Yes.


Uh... :confused:

Is it an issue of fundamental human rights? Yes.

*Checks the proposals category*

Um....no. Moral Decency. Unless, of course, there is a violation here, which, there really shouldn't be. I see nothing of 'Human Rights'. Look again. :confused:

Heh. Par for the course, ain't it? Outlaw Pedophilia, as it made no mention of child porn, did the same thing.

Meh. All MD proposals do that.


OOC: I disagree. Good Samaritan Laws and Epidemic Prevention Protocols both were Moral Decency resolutions that incorporated international scope. Fris's (the player in this context) opinion seemed to be that this resolution didn't have any international scope.

That said, I totally agree with you on Goober's resolution. It did not really have international scope.

I think in most situtations, UN proposals (not the same as resolutions) are written with a similar intent as the daily issues and that the idea of tying a discussion to international standing is often neglected. I'll point out that even though I'm a strong advocate of international standing in resolutions, Needle Sharing Prevention (one of mine) made use of the weak argument that HIV/AIDS represent a significant risk on a transboundary scale ... but that is of course something we can NEVER prove in the context of NationStates, where Death Stars and Harry Potter square off face to face in "Who Would Win" battles daily. ;)

In other words, I think ultimately I agree with you ... there is plenty of micromanagement and that alone isn't worth making a big fuss about. 'sides, Valitz canton seers will probably make a killing providing seance services to all the CSI units wishing to confirm if a corpse died during sex or not.

*Checks the proposals category*

Um....no. Moral Decency. Unless, of course, there is a violation here, which, there really shouldn't be. I see nothing of 'Human Rights'. Look again. :confused:

Unless Tzors is referring to the right to not have your corpse defiled after your death, otherwise I'm just as confused as the rest of you.

This isn't about if they died during sex. It's irrelevent to the proposal.

We are talking about desecrating a corpse. An individual who has already been proven deceased.

Most cases of necrophilia involve those who have jobs in fields where they have easy access to a corpse(gravediggers, morticians, funeral directors. I think you get the picture.)

Yeah, I've done my research.

Yeah, I've done my research.

And that we find disturbing. That said, I think I'm going to turn this one over to my deputy, Bala, as I'm sure she is more familiar with certain um...sexual deviations than I am.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Unless Tzors is referring to the right to not have your corpse defiled after your death, otherwise I'm just as confused as the rest of you.

Yes I wasn't talking about the category. Most of the resolutions in the category "moral decency" turn out to be inalienable human rights and thus worth defending on a universal scale.

So let's consider the alternatives. There was a time, (Sherman to the way back machine, make the settings for Old RW London) when a corpse wasn't property, so technically stealing one wasn't a crime. People ironically called "resurrectionists" or "body snatchers" would steal corpses (but not the clothes because technically that was property) right from the graves and give them to medical hospitals so students had enough corpses to disect and study from.

Yes I wasn't talking about the category. Most of the resolutions in the category "moral decency" turn out to be inalienable human rights and thus worth defending on a universal scale.

So let's consider the alternatives. There was a time, (Sherman to the way back machine, make the settings for Old RW London) when a corpse wasn't property, so technically stealing one wasn't a crime. People ironically called "resurrectionists" or "body snatchers" would steal corpses (but not the clothes because technically that was property) right from the graves and give them to medical hospitals so students had enough corpses to disect and study from.

OOC:
Actually we don't need to ride a cartoon time machine all that far back:
http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2004/03/11/scandal_at_ucla_reveals_cadaver_trade_as_big_business/

A few years ago in my town of Davis, a Sacramento based Coroner student was stealing bodies from Sacramento County and bringing them home to "practice". When he was done, he was dumping hands, legs, and heads in dumpsters around Davis. At first the police thought there may have been a serial killer at work.

Unless Tzors is referring to the right to not have your corpse defiled after your death, otherwise I'm just as confused as the rest of you.Since rights are inextricably linked with citizen responsibilities, one wonders exactly what responsibilities a corpse must fulfill in order to enjoy such non-defilation. One even suggests that non-living things can have no rights.

This isn't about if they died during sex. It's irrelevent to the proposal.

We are talking about desecrating a corpse. An individual who has already been proven deceased.

Most cases of necrophilia involve those who have jobs in fields where they have easy access to a corpse(gravediggers, morticians, funeral directors. I think you get the picture.)

Yeah, I've done my research.And it becomes quite clear that this proposal isn't really about defiling corpses in a general way. It's about letting your morality meter swing into others' nations. At least be honest and call the proposal "Banning Necrophilia"--sadly enough, you'd have an easier time passing it so-titled, once it gained queue.

OOC: Who are Will and Boogie?

OOC: Who are Will and Boogie?

OOC: What Gruen said.

OOC: I googled it. Apparently Gruen and I are being likened to two guys on the CBS version of Big Brother, but since I've never watched that piece of shite, I have no idea why, though I'm assuming it's meant as a jab.

EDIT:

Will (left) and Boogie

http://z.about.com/d/realitytv/1/6/s/s/Will.jpg http://z.about.com/d/realitytv/1/6/p/s/MikeBoogie.jpg

I did some research as well, and I came up with the same thing as Hack.

How can they come up with statistics when the 'victim' can't report the crime that has been committed?

Murder victims can't report the crime, either. Purchasers of illegal drugs won't. Not all crime statistics are dependent on victim reporting -- just as not all criminal investigations are begun after the victim (if there is one) reports the crime.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: ... I'm assuming it's meant as a jab.
OOC: A jab? Will and Boogie are richly rewarded for "manipulating the fluffies" for want of a suitable euphemism; an ability of which you and Gruenberg are quite proud it seems. Sig'ing you is an acknowledgement of your superiority in that area.

At least be honest and call the proposal "Banning Necrophilia"--sadly enough, you'd have an easier time passing it so-titled, once it gained queue.

That was the original title of the proposal. Well, not Banning Necrophilia. It was simply Ban Necrophilia.

Maybe I should have listened when I was told to change it back.

OOC: A jab? Will and Boogie are richly rewarded for "manipulating the fluffies" for want of a suitable euphemism; an ability of which you and Gruenberg are quite proud it seems. Sig'ing you is an acknowledgement of your superiority in that area.

OOC: Ah, very well then. :D I just assumed, since they were guys from that nitwit show, that it was a jab. Sorry 'bout that. ;)

GIVEN that one of our Ambassadors is a nice old lady who was accidentally resurrected by her hamfisted necromancer grandson, and

GIVEN that the nation in which she represents us is Omigodtheykilledkenny, and

GIVEN that all ambassadors to that nation (except the Ausserland rep) are likely to be subjected to random violence and/or sexual approaches of various kinds, and anybody who sends them an ambassador is well aware of that; and

DESPITE that fact that President Manuela assures us he hasn't even thought of Granny Dhurigh in that way, thanks largely, we suspect, to her intelligent use of her duck-handled umbrella;

NEVERTHELESS we find ourselves unable to support this proposal, as, were it adopted, it could well have serious international diplomatic repercussions and limit the professional options available to a well-respected member of our diplomatic corps.

OOC: To stand as a proposal for an international body, I think this should be shorn of the values-loaded terms "abhorrent" and "desecrate" (nations may not, for example, regard a corpse as in any way sacred; urging them to act against its desecration would be implicitly insisting that they change their outlook and regard it as such).

'sides, Valitz canton seers will probably make a killing providing seance services to all the CSI units wishing to confirm if a corpse died during sex or not.

St Edmund's mediums could probably also provide help with determining this.

How's this? "DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution, corpse as the dead body of an individual."

"... of a sapient individual."
Otherwise the meat & leather industries are ruined.

"... of a sapient individual."
Otherwise the meat & leather industries are ruined.

Would sentient be acceptable?

Would sentient be acceptable?

We discussed the meaning of the words 'sapient' & 'sentient' in this forum back around the New Year, during a wider discussion on extending 'Human Rights' to cover all sapient beings, and the general consenus then was that the definition of 'sentient' was too wide for that use as it would probably cover many non-'intelligent' animals as well as the truly 'intelligent' species: I'd say that the same arguments applied in this case too, so my answer is "No".

Alright. I understand now. I will change 'individuals' to 'sapient individuals.

The changes will be edited into the first post shortly

Done and edited into first post.

AM I the only person here who thinks this is insane? Many people in my nation consciously elect to have their spouse continue their "relationship" after death (OOC: I don't have statistics, but I saw a TV interview on the Discovery Channel about a guy whose wife wrote in her will that he could still have sex with her after her death).

This resolution is an infringement on the rights of my people, dead and alive, to enjoy sexual relationships as they wish. If you want to protect human rights, write a resolution allowing necrophilia in circumstances where both parties consent (OOC: No, I'm not a necrophiliac. It's disgusting. But I won't stop someone else from doing it).

Even if you completely disagree with what I've said before, this proposal in effect does absolutely nothing.

ENCOURAGES member nations to outlaw the desecration of corpses,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.

You can ENCOURAGE, STRONGLY ENCOURAGE, and CALL UPON me all you want. That doesn't mean I have to do it. If this passes, my people will still be free to have relations with deceased people. If fact, all you're doing is bringing the issue to light and letting people know that although discouraged, it is in fact still legal. This may convince people who were otherwise scared of the consequences to realize that there will be no punishment.

How about a resolution making it illegal unless consented to in writing by both parties? I would support that, but this resolution is wrong and pointless.

(OOC: Don't see my postcount as a reason to ignore this. For your information, I've been playing for over a year, and I understand quite well how the UN works. For those of you who care enough to check my nation population to see if I'm telling the truth, this is a reincarnation, not my first nation.)

Female Genital Mutilation (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030178&postcount=63) did not ban female genital mutilation, and you should find out why the author chose not to include a ban.

(OOC: I don't have statistics, but I saw a TV interview on the Discovery Channel about a guy whose wife wrote in her will that he could still have sex with her after her death).


http://www.hkedcity.net/article/develop/031204-001/vomit.gif

Why is the Alice Cooper tune, “Cold Ethel”, suddenly running through the back of my mind? :eek:

What about those nations that eat their dead? If I'm not mistaken, this would screw them over.

(OMG I just made a pun)

Okay, this is the original proposal. I've decided to go back to it. Take a look, read it and then have at it.



Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild

The NationStates United Nations,

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,

DISTURBED by the occurrence of necrophilia within the member nations of the UN,

NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

OBSERVING many cases of emotional damage to the families of deceased individuals in cases of necrophilia,

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.

Are there any reasons for using this body to micromanage beyond subjective ideas as "disgusting," "disgraceful," "abhorrent," or other synonyms?

Because the consent clause is a stretch. A tailpipe doesn't consent, but screwing one doesn't entail rape. Beyond that, consent laws are not present in all nations. Beyond that, in many nations and cultures, a corpse has already returned to earth and is no longer human in any way.

And emotional damage can happen from anything, and despite the Child Pornography Act passing, I maintain that the potential for something as little as emotional damage to happen is a poor means of necessitating legislation.

Furthermore, health risks of screwing a dead person are not public, as screwing a dead person will not necessitate a quarantine of a building, or such. It is no more a public concern than any living people giving eachother STDs. Awareness is raised, but people aren't disallowed from having sex with anyone.

I see no reasoned (or at least, consistent with analogue concepts) arguments for banning necrophilia. I think the motivation is one of disgust, and thus, entirely subjective.

I see no reasoned (or at least, consistent with analogue concepts) arguments for banning necrophilia. I think the motivation is one of disgust, and thus, entirely subjective.Ever heard of hepatitis?

Not only that, but you can still catch the common cold from a corpse. Not only is the bacteria that the body had before death still there, but there would be a slew of new bacteria.

Not only that, but you can still catch the common cold from a corpse. Not only is the bacteria that the body had before death still there, but there would be a slew of new bacteria.By that rationale we should be attempting to ban public educational facilities and shopping malls, and requiring all social interaction be performed while clothed in environmental isolation suits.

Ever heard of hepatitis?Granted, corpses aren't very forthcoming about their state of health prior to a sexual encounter, but then again live partners are known to conceal their disease status as well.

The health/spread of disease argument is better suited to a Hygienic Processing of Dead Bodies resolution than this "eww, sex with dead guys" proposal.

*Jones sits down only to jump up quickly after an aide whispers in his ear.*

It, of course, goes without saying that I have never personally bumped uglies with the dead or near-dead, nor am I inclined to do so.

By that rationale we should be attempting to ban public educational facilities and shopping malls, and requiring all social interaction be performed while clothed in environmental isolation suits.

You do have a point. Meh. Have any suggestions on how to fix the clause?

It, of course, goes without saying that I have never personally bumped uglies with the dead or near-dead, nor am I inclined to do so.

Good to know. :)

One or two changes have been made. I believe that this will be getting submitted soon.

OOC: Just an aside, but if Necrophilia doesn't cut it as a UN resolution, this would be perhaps one of the funniest daily issues to role around.

Imagine players want to keep it legal (for the obvious civil rights boost) ... their game text would change to something like ... ", where necrophilia has become such the rage,".

That would be pretty funny.

Despite the persuasive arguments and accommodating text changes of the delegate from Karmicaria, the basic proposal is unchanged -- and still unacceptable to my government.

However you alter the details, this proposal still holds to two fundamental concepts: that a corpse is something that can be desecrated, and that performing a sexual act is an act of desecration per se.

In Ardchoille, a corpse is a biodegradable object, the components of which can be recycled. Sex with a corpse would be vaguely equivalent to sex with a discarded fish-and-chip wrapper -- which, while high on both the "eeewww" factor and the health risk, is scarcely "desecration".

From my observations in the Strangers' Bar, there are very few things that UN member nations don't do to corpses. From that same basis, there are very few things that somebody or other doesn't have some sort of sex with.

While generally favouring internationalist and even interventionist UN legislation, we cannot support a proposal that does not accommodate the vast variety of individual attitudes on a matter that is so subjective. Nor do we believe that such a proposal can be written.

And, for the record and for the delectation of Rubina's admirable Mr Jones, I would like to point out that I, too, prefer a bit more liveliness in my partners.
________________________

-- Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

I would like to thank the representative from Ardchoille for being diplomatic in their response. It is a nice change.

I understand your point of view and respect it.

However, I am going ahead with the proposal.

Dahlia Black
Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Norderia will be approving this proposal, nor voting for it should it go to the GA.

Our reasons are as eloquently put by the representative from Ardchoille. We simply do not feel that the health risk from having sex with a corpse is any more legislation worthy than the more numerous health risks of sex with living people. I can call the Hack's Hepatitis, and raise him every sexually transmitted disease that requires a living host to subsist.

I will not be making any statements about my sex life. I did so enjoy the presumptive looks given me during the Ban Child Pornography debate.

Would you rather we take the clause about the health risks out? Can you think of something better to put there? Is there another way that you would like to see it worded?

Speaking only for Rubina, we would rather see you remove the health effects clause. It's irrelevant to the actual intent of your resolution. To be honest we don't see ourselves ever voting for such a resolution with or without that clause.

ooc: I think the idea of submitting this as a daily issue rather than UN proposal is the way to go. You'll have much more effect on the game with it, since it would apply to non-UN members as well. :)

Speaking only for Rubina, we would rather see you remove the health effects clause. It's irrelevant to the actual intent of your resolution. To be honest we don't see ourselves ever voting for such a resolution with or without that clause.

In all honesty, we have been considering removing the clause for some time now. We just wanted to see what other said about it.

ooc: I think the idea of submitting this as a daily issue rather than UN proposal is the way to go. You'll have much more effect on the game with it, since it would apply to non-UN members as well. :)

ooc: I hadn't actually thought about submitting it as a daily issue. Thank you. :)

The clause about the health risks has been removed.

Despite the rather strong opposition, this will be submitted shortly.

Last chance for people to help with rewording and the like.

With some reluctance I have to place Compadria AGAINST this proposal, not I hasten to add out of any predilection for necrophilia or support for necrophiles, perverted and weird though they may be.

The problem with enacting a law against desecration in this manner is that it is difficult to argue as to what we would be banning necrophilia for other than the obvious yuck factor. With regards to health grounds, we could ban it because it is harmful to persons undertaking sex with a corpse, but then again this raises the spectre of dictating people's sex lives for no obvious benefit to the health of others. Equally, as has been pointed out, it isn't rape and the 'victim' won't really notice or be affected by the crime because they're...erm...dead.

Of course, I am in banning necrophilia at a national level and I would be glad if valid scientific, human rights and strong ethical issues could be presented, but based purely on the strength of moral feeling I don't feel the U.N. could or should legislate with only that as a justification. It could open up a whole can of worms that would be most unwelcome.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Submitted.

Did you have to use that misleading title?

Did you have to use that misleading title?

:confused: Misleading title? I really don't think that 'Ban Necrophilia' is a misleading title.

If you're talking about the thread title, then yes, it is misleading. That is why the title has been changed. I'll see about getting the thread renamed.

It's misleading because you intentionally wrote the proposal in a way that doesn't ban necrophilia:
RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses

Um, and just look at Compadria's reply! :p

We just think it would be hysterically funny to have something like this on the books.

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN

We appreciate the good intentions and considerable effort that have gone into this proposal, but we must regretfully oppose it. It fails every test we use to determine the propriety of NSUN legislation.

1. Does it address an activity which transcends national borders and demands NSUN attention? Clearly not. There is nothing international whatever about corpse desecration.

2. Does it address a matter of fundamental human rights? No. We would be hard-pressed to consider a corpse as having rights.

3. Is there a substantial problem which both merits and requires action beyond the capabilities of individual nations? No. The health threat is is miniscule compared with many, many others unaddressed by this body. And nations are perfectly capable of outlawing this activity and enforcing such laws. It neither deserves nor needs action by the NSUN.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We just think it would be hysterically funny to have something like this on the books.

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN

Thanks.....:(

We rise in support of this worthwhile and much needed legislation! Corpse desecration is a sign of anti-social behaviour and should be dealt with severely. Desecrating corpses today, attempting to undermine the State Security Apparatus tomorrow I always say. These miscreants should be shot, their families (and close associates) sent to work in a salt mine.

Thanks.....:(


That wasn't meant in a derogatory manner.

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN

That wasn't meant in a derogatory manner.

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN


Can never be too sure. :)

I would like to thank those who have helped with this.

We appreciate the good intentions and considerable effort that have gone into this proposal, but we must regretfully oppose it. It fails every test we use to determine the propriety of NSUN legislation.

1. Does it address an activity which transcends national borders and demands NSUN attention? Clearly not. There is nothing international whatever about corpse desecration.

2. Does it address a matter of fundamental human rights? No. We would be hard-pressed to consider a corpse as having rights.

3. Is there a substantial problem which both merits and requires action beyond the capabilities of individual nations? No. The health threat is is miniscule compared with many, many others unaddressed by this body. And nations are perfectly capable of outlawing this activity and enforcing such laws. It neither deserves nor needs action by the NSUN.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
I concur.

Benedictions,

In all honesty, we have been considering removing the clause for some time now. We just wanted to see what other said about it.



ooc: I hadn't actually thought about submitting it as a daily issue. Thank you. :)

OOC: Actually, I'd really recommend doing it as a daily issue. That's an excellent idea.

OOC: Actually, I'd really recommend doing it as a daily issue. That's an excellent idea.


Noted. Doesn't look like this is going to reach quorum anyway.

Actually that's a horrid idea. For a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that by their very nature daily issues tend to go off the wall, with a number of options that go in opposite directions. In order to make this a daily issue you're going to have to put in a pro necrophilia option. :eek:

(Smilie note: Too many guns, not enough gag puke)

Plus the fact that submitting a daily issue is like dumping your work into a black hole, never to be seen or heard from again unless suddenly, you get published. (At least that's supposed to happen, I've never seen that event so I just assume it's a myth. It all goes into the circular file recycle bin right?) There is no cutthroat debate, no yelling, screaming; in short no fun!

This hasn't exactly been fun. Far from it. It's been annoying and kind of pointless.

Note to self: refrain from posting when in a mood.

Noted. Doesn't look like this is going to reach quorum anyway.

Just let me know if you want any help writing it.

Just let me know if you want any help writing it.

Will do. Thanks.

The clause about health risks removed does nothing to garner support from Norderia.

I concur with Ausserland and Dashanzi. I also contend that there is no compelling reason to ban necrophilia. It is unlegislated in Norderia, and I see no reason to change that.

Thank you for your input, but I think we've pretty much determined that this is pointless. Norderia or any other nation, for that matter, has nothing to worry about.

Think of the Zombie's!

There are got to be some zombie nations, surely?

Zombie nations tend to be deadbeats anyway.

Think of the Zombies!

There are got to be some zombie nations, surely?

Ah yes, the zombies. The zombies would not be affected by this, as they are able to give their authorization.

We took that into account when drafting the proposal. So, someone did think of the zombies.

Zombie nations tend to be deadbeats anyway.

You lose for one of the worst puns I have ever heard. Although, I do have to admit, it did give me a chuckle.

Approvals: 37; lacking in support.

Well, at least it hasn't been greeted with a deathly silence. Or buried under a pile of opprobrium.

Approvals: 37; lacking in support.

Well, at least it hasn't been greeted with a deathly silence. Or buried under a pile of opprobrium.

The effort does seem to be moribund. What happens now remains to be seen.

:p

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The effort does seem to be moribund.Speaking of bad puns...

Plus the fact that submitting a daily issue is like dumping your work into a black hole, never to be seen or heard from again unless suddenly, you get published. (At least that's supposed to happen, I've never seen that event so I just assume it's a myth.There are 200 issues in the game, and Max wrote at least the first 30. That means that there have been no more than 170 of those nice telegrams in the history of the game. I've been modding for over a year, and I just saw my first one ever (in a telegram spam request). It was dated 2004. Yeah, I'd have kept it too.

There is no cutthroat debate, no yelling, screaming; in short no fun!This part is entirely true.

Actually that's a horrid idea. For a number of reasons. The biggest reason is that by their very nature daily issues tend to go off the wall, with a number of options that go in opposite directions. In order to make this a daily issue you're going to have to put in a pro necrophilia option. :eek:


That is the fun part. :)

Making a daily issue isn't about getting your issue accepted. I too feel I've submitted some really excellent daily issues and feel it is more about "who" you know. If the admins like you, they'll probably spend a bit more time on a promising issue ... if they don't, oh well. The point is exploring the idea.

Besides, I have a feeling *this* issue would at least be reviewed for 15-minutes or more and thus would have a shot.

The effort does seem to be moribund. What happens now remains to be seen.

:p

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

And second prize for worse pun ever goes to......

If the admins like you, they'll probably spend a bit more time on a promising issue ... if they don't, oh well. The point is exploring the idea.Nah. Siro pays little attention to who wrote the issue. His main concern is A) quality (for the love of God, use spellcheck) and B) workability.

Easter Eggs, are another story.

Easter Eggs, are another story.
Still only two?

DEFINING desecration, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual or violent act, performed on a deceased sapient individual, that is not done for either religious, medical, or preservation purposes, as permitted by national statute, [ie: still allows embalming, autopsy and organ harvesting for the puposes of transplant]


Two points:

Firstly, who exactly has power to authorise desecration? The state? The corpse, via last will and testament? The corpse's family members?

Secondly, I would be happier if "research" was added the list of purposes - while this could be covered by medical purposes, I think this would add clarity.

Two points:

Firstly, who exactly has power to authorise desecration? The state? The corpse, via last will and testament? The corpse's family members?

Secondly, I would be happier if "research" was added the list of purposes - while this could be covered by medical purposes, I think this would add clarity.

The corpse would authorize the desecration via last will and testament. I never really thought about what would happen if there is no will. A good thing to keep in mind when redrafting.

I would love to add that to the list of purposes, but this has already been submitted. I will however, keep it in mind for if and when I decide to resubmit it.

Thank you.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Still only two?Yes, still only two, and they tend to get seriously reworked by Sal. [/hijack]

Yes, still only two, and they tend to get seriously reworked by Sal. [/hijack]

Wow, I'm suprised that issue 200 didn't get turned into an easter egg.[/hijack]

GAH! Another hijack! :headbang: Whatever.