NationStates Jolt Archive

With the Universal Bill of Rights going null and void shortly, here is it's replacement draft:


The World Assembly,

WHEREAS many human beings still are subject to atrocities worldwide,

RECOGNISING that all people need firm rules to protect their human and civil rights,

CONCERNED that no such resolution exists,

HEREBY-

- DECLARES that all humans worldwide have the following rights:

1. The right to speak freely, as long as such speech could genuinely endanger public security.

2. The right to assemble peacefully in public.

3. The right to not be tortured or subjected to cruel, unusual or humiliating punishment.

4. No person shall be forced or go into slavery.

5. No person shall be discriminated against because of their race, sex, skin colour or beliefs.

6. Every person is under and must abide by the law.

7. Every person is entitled to a fair trial, and is innocent before proven guilty.

8. Every person has the right to a nationality, and may not be deprived of it, or be refused the right to change from it.

9. Every person may hold property and may not be unreasonably deprived of it.

10. The authority of any government should be based on the will of the people.

11. Every person has the right to work for equitable pay, to leisure time, adequate living standards and an education.

12. Every person has the right to reasonable privacy.

- MANDATES that all states and people of the world are to respect these rights.

- COMMISSIONS the International Board of Human Rights (IBHR) to ensure that all people have and respect these rights.

The way this is written, it crosses over multiple categories. You may think they all belong under the header of "human rights" (and you may be right), but they don't all belong under the Category "Human Rights". There is a difference.

Don't try to solve all the world's ills in a single resolution. Pick a category, making careful notes of ALL the other categories available, and write your proposal so that EVERYTHING fits in one category and not in any other.

I pretty good start, but let me mention that some nations prefer the death penalty for murder because it is the most correctional punishment.

Perhaps change 'The right to not be tortured or subjected to cruel, unusual or humiliating punishment' to 'The right not to be tortured or subject to punishment without reasonable grounds for justification.'

Perhaps change 'Every person is entitled to a fair trial, and is innocent before proven guilty' to 'Every person is entitled to a fair trial, and assumed innocent before proven guilty, unless the guilt has been openly proven'

(i.e: the whole crowd saw the person kill another and was shortly caught by the police in the same scene; therefore that person is truly guilty by default and we would save money by simply saying that they are guilty without a trial and we simply carry out the prescribed punishment (death in our case)!)

Last thing I'd like to suggest is 'The right to advertisement-free TV and radio', because that would be good for parents who do not want children exposed to the likes of Frosties and Fast Food. Yeah, the parents have the right for their children to be raised appropriately!

By torture, it means alive. Death penalty is allowed. And if evryone said they did kill, that would mean they'd been proved guilty.

It's submitted:
http://************/28eaef

I've approved it, but if it doesn't go through, then you need to add that 'TV clause' for that crazy effect.

I will. And thanks for the approval.

I agree with the concerns putting all of these rights in one resolution. I think it would much more meaningful to go over each right one at a time.

I will inquire about the purpose of #8. What does this prohibit? Does it forbid nations to exile citizens as punishment?

This is only base legislation. And no, it's about citizenships, not residence.

In that case, I would have to disagree with that section. The Republic of Havensky uses exile as a punishment and when we do it revokes citizenship.

While we have no problem with individuals being able to revoke their citizenship or being able to apply for citizenship elsewhere; we don't feel comfortable with the way it's currently worded. It's too brief and could be misconstrued. If our government can't deprive somebody of citizenship then how does it justify turning people down for citizenship? How does a government handle immigration?

Additionally, and I confess this creeps into a possible metagaming issue, how would the this affect regional governments who ban and eject regions? In many regional governments, citizenship is defined as being a resident of that region. (Possibly certain rights, such as running for regional cabinet positions, being granted after the nation has resided in that region for a set amount of time). If we can not deprive a person citizenship, then how is ejecting a nation from a region justified? ( I'm not sure how far this creeps into the metagaming taboo, but since delegates are elected by member nations in that region, I did want to point this out)

Ambassador Christopher Windcharmer
Republic of Havensky

If you've already posted this, then it's a submission, not a draft. You should always seek input before submitting.

I'll look over this more carefully this evening if I can, but chances are it will be deleted for Category violation.

OK, I'm finetuning it and going over it for possible resubmission.

I would not approve this unless #10 was taken out. The people don't know what's best for them, they need a strong guiding hand much of the time.

I also disagree with point 10. Not all Member States are democracies, you know.

The World Assembly,

WHEREAS many human beings still are subject to atrocities worldwide,

RECOGNISING that all people need firm rules to protect their human and civil rights,

CONCERNED that no such resolution exists,

HEREBY-

- DECLARES that all humans worldwide have the following rights:

[quote]1. The right to speak freely, as long as such speech could genuinely endanger public security.
Really? Free speech is all right so long as it could endanger the public?

3. The right to not be tortured or subjected to cruel, unusual or humiliating punishment.
Hmm..

4. No person shall be forced or go into slavery.
The definition of slavery would be need here.

5. No person shall be discriminated against because of their race, sex, skin colour or beliefs.
You would want an "except" clause here to deal with ideas/beliefs that present a clear and immediate danger.

6. Every person is under and must abide by the law.
I believe this is unnecessary. This would be something attributed to the laws of individual nations.

7. Every person is entitled to a fair trial, and is innocent before proven guilty.


8. Every person has the right to a nationality, and may not be deprived of it, or be refused the right to change from it.
I do not find this clause to be a working one at all. For example, one must gain nationality for the first time. Who would they get it from? Which government would you extort nationality from? Perhaps you would answer the nation in which they were born. But if they were there illegally? In any case, I believe that to mandate that a nation, whichever it may be, to extend nationality to any specific person is a violation of the sovereignty of nations.

9. Every person may hold property and may not be unreasonably deprived of it.
What of communist nations?

10. The authority of any government should be based on the will of the people.
Not all Member States are democracies.

11. Every person has the right to work for equitable pay, to leisure time, adequate living standards and an education.
I dislike this clause. It is rather superfluous. When would anyone ever invoke the right to leisure time? Also, no one has the right to "adequate" living standards. We are not setting up all Assembly Member States to be socialist nations here. Also, you would want to be more clear on what type of education.

12. Every person has the right to reasonable privacy.[.quote]
How vague.

[quote]- MANDATES that all states and people of the world are to respect these rights.
The Assembly does not have the power to enforce such a mandate, as this proposal would only apply to Member States to the Assembly.

In closing, this proposal seems to be far too broad, covering many subjects, which should have the text appropriation they deserve. Also, with so many different ideas in a single proposal, I find it likely that many nations may vote against it because of just one or two ideas. Therefore, it is more sensible to create separate resolutions for each major idea, such as slavery. Furthermore, there is already a Rights of Sentients Act in the making, so it would be logical to collaborate with the nation responsible for that (United States?), unless you wish to make it a race and submit your proposal before that nation submits theirs.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

5. No person shall be discriminated against because of their race, sex, skin colour or beliefs.

This should include age, are we forgetting the rights of children?

The Democratic Republic of Willagee, would like to question upon grounds are these rights given to humans? What virtue of our species entitles us to these rights? If it is by virtue of our rationality then surely the senile and very young are not entitle to these rights as they are not considered rational. Also shouldn't the rights be extended to animals and advanced computers who are also capable of rational thought processes. If you say it is because of our humanity then it is nothing more then a form of speciesm equivalent to racism or sexism.

Also the suggestion that they are inalienable and invioable suggests that we have always had them. If this is so that means that nations who have committed 'atrocities' by the terms of this document in the past must be punished as the statement that human beings have always had these rights means that the law you wish to pass is retroactive. Does that mean we should punish current governments for the past transgressions of previous government.

Furthermore point 10 gives Nations a means to undermine the whole Decleration. For what if "the will of the people" is to eradicate a small majority? A nation could argue that they where simply obeying the charter when they exterminated the ethinic group.

As a result of this the Democratic Republic of Willagee while agreeing with the overall sentiment of 'Human' Rights, we believe them to be unjustifiable and potentially damaging to current governments of nations that have in the past committed atrocities. Also we don't belive that they can be practically enforced by any super-national body without infringing on the right to liberty. Furthermore in its current form this Charter does not fulfill it intended purpose, as it legitimizes certain acts that many would regard as haenous.

5. No person shall be discriminated against because of their race, sex, skin colour or beliefs.
You would want an "except" clause here to deal with ideas/beliefs that present a clear and immediate danger.

Or the word "unfairly" inserted between "against" and "because".

5. No person shall be discriminated against because of their race, sex, skin colour or beliefs.

This should include age, are we forgetting the rights of children?

There are many situations in which discrimination on the basis of age is perfectly fair and reasonable: educational systems, employment law, pension schemes, insurance (based on actuarial calculations), voting rights, marriage rights, use of legally allowed drugs, and so on...


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
speaking for the government of
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic.

I absolutely disagree.

Unfairly should go before discriminated.

OOC: I'm with Fris; please don't do this. We don't need omnibus resolutions that do a very bad job of covering a huge area. We've done them, and they were a pain in the arse when you came to try and do a proper job of (for example) anti-discrimination legislation.

Please, go at it the other way round. Pick a right, figure out what the exceptions and the edge cases are, and write a resolution that fully covers that area in as much detail as it needs. Something like that will last. Something like this will have to be repealed first.

only human rights?:(

The World Assembly,

WHEREAS many human beings still are subject to atrocities worldwide,

RECOGNISING that all people need firm rules to protect their human and civil rights,

CONCERNED that no such resolution exists,

HEREBY-

- DECLARES that all humans worldwide have the following rights:

1. The right to speak freely, as long as such speech could genuinely endanger public security.

Speech that endangers public security is protected...interesting

2. The right to assemble peacefully in public.

3. The right to not be tortured or subjected to cruel, unusual or humiliating punishment.

Too broad - pkease define "cruel, unusual or humiliating punishment."

4. No person shall be forced or go into slavery.

No go, TMZ has penal slavery. so this clause alone will see our No vote

5. No person shall be discriminated against because of their race, sex, skin colour or beliefs.

6. Every person is under and must abide by the law.

7. Every person is entitled to a fair trial, and is innocent before proven guilty.

Please define a 'fair trial', and is innocent before proven guilty - and take a look at the Napoleionic Codes

8. Every person has the right to a nationality, and may not be deprived of it, or be refused the right to change from it.

Nations must have the right to deny citiszenship to whom they chose

9. Every person may hold property and may not be unreasonably deprived of it.

10. The authority of any government should be based on the will of the people.

The WA must NOT infringe upon a nation's choice of type of government

11. Every person has the right to work for equitable pay, to leisure time, adequate living standards and an education.

Vastly disagree

12. Every person has the right to reasonable privacy.

- MANDATES that all states and people of the world are to respect these rights.

Too broad over all, and all the WA can mandate to is WA members.

1. The right to speak freely, as long as such speech could genuinely endanger public security. So long as it just speech and not a physical act of some sort then we believe a citizens has that right.. However as stated here we can't support this as it allows person to rebel and compromise the security of our nation and it citizens.

2. The right to assemble peacefully in public.And to do so peacefully they must be welcome by those who pay to keep the place up.. the citizens of that area or nation. Thus must have proper permits saying the citizens want them there... NO permits no assembling..

3. The right to not be tortured or subjected to cruel, unusual or humiliating punishment.We consider it not torture to let a child rapist hand or murder for a day to let his soul depart his body.. and to ease the departure he is hung naked by the feet and his throat cut to let the life fluids return to the earth..

4. No person shall be forced or go into slavery.Simple to the point we like it and can see no problems with this.. also committing crimes and placement in prison and forced to work is not to us slavery.. it a matter of punishment for criminals who must pay for their crimes of lesser nature than those we hang them for..

5. No person shall be discriminated against because of their race, sex, skin colour or beliefs.This is a start but already can see some issues not included that one could be discriminated for. Handicaps, diablilities, age... are a few... and if beliefs cover 'marriages' and 'dining choices' then that area can be left out.. also 'creation' in regards to how they came to be alive... cloning, birth, test tube, however.. as race is like a human and doesn't distinguish between those born of the womb or clones as both are of the human race...

6. Every person is under and must abide by the law.Thus under the law has rights but once they stop following the laws they are criminals and give up their rights on being found guilty of said crimes.

7. Every person is entitled to a fair trial, and is innocent before proven guilty.This one is a problem for us.. As it is consider not proper to arrest a person and lock them up or fine them is they have done no crime. Thus police can't arrest and lock up accused persons and judges can't fine them until the trial is over and they are convicted. So accused rapest, murders, terrorists will be free until trail and convection... as they are innocent until such time so can't be punished as a quilty person would..

8. Every person has the right to a nationality, and may not be deprived of it, or be refused the right to change from it.We fully agree with the intent of this but see problems. As it doesn't define how one becomes a 'citizen' of a nation.. Here a child born here begins once they enter school at age five to earn citizenship.. thus by age ten they have limited rights of citizenship until the complete the final nation service or two years.. then and only then are they full citizens. Those not born here or who have not been living here long enough to complete required courses set in our schools must complete them before the become citizens as well as the two years of national service as well a denounce citizenship in other nations and have loyality only to our nation.. Otherwise they are not granted citizenship.. A citizen can only hold citizenship in one nation so any person who desires to leave out nation and become a citizen of another nation is no longer a citizen here, and must denounce citizenship of any other nation before reclaiming and gaining citizenship here again.. Violations of or citizenship laws mean one is a criminal and thus can not gain such citizenship..

9. Every person may hold property and may not be unreasonably deprived of it.Another simply stated measure we find we can live with as it.

10. The authority of any government should be based on the will of the people. This is the biggest problem for us. As we base our government on the church faith not state order so are ruled by a higher power than just the people as a whole..

11. Every person has the right to work for equitable pay, to leisure time, adequate living standards and an education.We see this as okay but will have to send it to the council as they may have some objections to it..

12. Every person has the right to reasonable privacy. I always love it when I hear the word reasonable as I recall a former Elder in the high council who wanted cameras in all the public baths so the people could enjoy watching them even if they couldn't get to a public bath.. To him it was a reasonable idea.. as it would cut down evil actions in such places by a few.. and let the public see they were safe....