NationStates Jolt Archive

I cannot fail to take notice that more nations have voted against the Cato acts than for them. To these nations I ask one question. What motivates you to deny your people basic civil rights? For what reason to you opt to opression. I feel these acts are the begining of global betterment, and those who oppose them are simply, and without question, corrupt.
Sincerly,
Parlimentry Chairperson of Xion Prime
Emp

I cannot fail to take notice that more nations have voted against the Cato acts than for them. To these nations I ask one question. What motivates you to deny your people basic civil rights? For what reason to you opt to opression. I feel these acts are the begining of global betterment, and those who oppose them are simply, and without question, corrupt.
Sincerly,
Parlimentry Chairperson of Xion Prime
Emp

The people of The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies do not oppress or stand against basic civil rights. Indeed, close examination of the Colonies themselves will show that they have a tradition of "Superb" civil and political rights, according to the UN itself. What the Colonies oppose are only certain, very targeted aspects of the proposal, such as Article IX. Even though our opposition is targeted only to a small part of the proposal, because we disagree with those parts, we cannot in good conciousness fully support it, and, should the vote still stand when our application to the UN is finalized, we will vote against it.

It would seem, at least to the people of the Colonies, that questioning and debating the finer aspects of the proposal in great detail would be much more conductive to producing a stronger and more viable document that could protect the rights and civil liberties of all humans, as opposed to just blindly accepting it on face value and labeling those who question it "corrupt" when the facts might suggest otherwise.

------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

Let me just add that part of the game here (let's not forget that this is just a game after all) is the idea of running your country in whatever way you see fit. If you decide to run your country as a theocracy or as a benevolent dictatorship, then you ought to be able to do so without interference from an ostensibly international body. The CATO proposal would remove that integral part of the game.

And on a personal note, take your opinion of those opposing this proposal and stuff it--there's no need for name-calling when people disagree on issues like this one. This proposal isn't Manichaean in make-up; there isn't a simple "you're with us or you're wrong" mentality at work here.

The people of The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies do not oppress or stand against basic civil rights. Indeed, close examination of the Colonies themselves will show that they have a tradition of "Superb" civil and political rights, according to the UN itself. What the Colonies oppose are only certain, very targeted aspects of the proposal, such as Article IX. Even though our opposition is targeted only to a small part of the proposal, because we disagree with those parts, we cannot in good conciousness fully support it, and, should the vote still stand when our application to the UN is finalized, we will vote against it.


An interesting point is raised here. Can one support a proposal that is, for the most part, laudable, if there are certain articles comprised within that one disagrees with? On the one hand, we are tempted to say that the positive outweighs the negative, but on the other, we feel that the temptation to slip in items for personal gain into an otherwise excellent proposition mght well increase if this position were taken.

Nonetheless, Pogin Dubh has cast its vote for the proposal, feeling that the good far outweighs possible harm, and that we will propose an amendment or a retraction should this turn out not to be the case.

Our thanks are extended to the Marineris Colonies, however, for giving us food for thought.

In Her own hand,
The Empress of the Empire of Pogin Dubh

The people of The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies do not oppress or stand against basic civil rights. Indeed, close examination of the Colonies themselves will show that they have a tradition of "Superb" civil and political rights, according to the UN itself. What the Colonies oppose are only certain, very targeted aspects of the proposal, such as Article IX. Even though our opposition is targeted only to a small part of the proposal, because we disagree with those parts, we cannot in good conciousness fully support it, and, should the vote still stand when our application to the UN is finalized, we will vote against it.


An interesting point is raised here. Can one support a proposal that is, for the most part, laudable, if there are certain articles comprised within that one disagrees with? On the one hand, we are tempted to say that the positive outweighs the negative, but on the other, we feel that the temptation to slip in items for personal gain into an otherwise excellent proposition mght well increase if this position were taken.

Nonetheless, Pogin Dubh has cast its vote for the proposal, feeling that the good far outweighs possible harm, and that we will propose an amendment or a retraction should this turn out not to be the case.

Our thanks are extended to the Marineris Colonies, however, for giving us food for thought.

In Her own hand,
The Empress of the Empire of Pogin Dubh

The people of The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies do not oppress or stand against basic civil rights. Indeed, close examination of the Colonies themselves will show that they have a tradition of "Superb" civil and political rights, according to the UN itself. What the Colonies oppose are only certain, very targeted aspects of the proposal, such as Article IX. Even though our opposition is targeted only to a small part of the proposal, because we disagree with those parts, we cannot in good conciousness fully support it, and, should the vote still stand when our application to the UN is finalized, we will vote against it.


An interesting point is raised here. Can one support a proposal that is, for the most part, laudable, if there are certain articles comprised within that one disagrees with? On the one hand, we are tempted to say that the positive outweighs the negative, but on the other, we feel that the temptation to slip in items for personal gain into an otherwise excellent proposition mght well increase if this position were taken.

Nonetheless, Pogin Dubh has cast its vote for the proposal, feeling that the good far outweighs possible harm, and that we will propose an amendment or a retraction should this turn out not to be the case.

Our thanks are extended to the Marineris Colonies, however, for giving us food for thought.

In Her own hand,
The Empress of the Empire of Pogin Dubh

The people of The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies do not oppress or stand against basic civil rights. Indeed, close examination of the Colonies themselves will show that they have a tradition of "Superb" civil and political rights, according to the UN itself. What the Colonies oppose are only certain, very targeted aspects of the proposal, such as Article IX. Even though our opposition is targeted only to a small part of the proposal, because we disagree with those parts, we cannot in good conciousness fully support it, and, should the vote still stand when our application to the UN is finalized, we will vote against it.


An interesting point is raised here. Can one support a proposal that is, for the most part, laudable, if there are certain articles comprised within that one disagrees with? On the one hand, we are tempted to say that the positive outweighs the negative, but on the other, we feel that the temptation to slip in items for personal gain into an otherwise excellent proposition mght well increase if this position were taken.


That is the exact issue brought up here by Article IX. It does nothing to guarentee basic civic and political freedoms, in fact, it does the exact opposite by dictating to countries how they will organize their systems of economy and by allowing the use of government to quash competition in the marketplace. It was simply added to appeal to special interests and economic allies, a special favor hidden among noble sounding words. A vote to support even noble and righteous causes of freedom, would, in this case, simply encourage such tactics.

------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/marineris_colonies.jpg
Representative-Elect, Colony Representative Council
The Commonwealth of Marineris Colonies

My nation supports this proposal for the facts that it outlines basic freedoms all people should be given, and although it can be amended it does in fact seem it would help those nations with few civil freedoms. If the proposal does not suit one specific aspect to your likings, why not propose an amendment to the proposition rather then slander the entire thing?
-Leader of the Allied States of Kristilin-

most of them I agree with. BUt they are to much an incroachment on national independence. Especally about the religion part. I am a Holy Empire. My gov. has an officla religion. I cannot deny my duty to God. If it were passed, me and many like me would have to resign. I will NOT change who I am to suit the needs of the rest of the world. The poupose of the UN is to provide security and basic human rights. This reselution is outside the boudries of UN power.

-Office of the Grand Seraph of
The Holy Empire of Katzistanza
and United Nations Delegate and
Religious Advisor for the Antarctic Archipelago

most of them I agree with. BUt they are to much an incroachment on national independence. Especally about the religion part. I am a Holy Empire. My gov. has an officla religion. I cannot deny my duty to God. If it were passed, me and many like me would have to resign. I will NOT change who I am to suit the needs of the rest of the world. The poupose of the UN is to provide security and basic human rights. This reselution is outside the boudries of UN power.

-Office of the Grand Seraph of
The Holy Empire of Katzistanza
and United Nations Delegate and
Religious Advisor for the Antarctic Archipelago

I cannot fail to take notice that more nations have voted against the Cato acts than for them. To these nations I ask one question. What motivates you to deny your people basic civil rights? For what reason to you opt to opression. I feel these acts are the begining of global betterment, and those who oppose them are simply, and without question, corrupt.
Sincerly,
Parlimentry Chairperson of Xion Prime
Emp

My nation is Libertarian Police State. my people currently have "superb" civil rights as classed by the UN. Ergo, you are inccorect in your assement, and your attack on nations character is thusly ignored.

One reason, Religous murder is still murder, and "being oppessed"can mean multiple things

The people of Ryhope have all the justice and civil rights they can afford. We're not interested in your handout Constitution. However, if you wish to pay a reading fee, and hire a Ryhopian political lobbyist, perhaps you could persuade the Ryhopian government to consider your proposal.

I opposed it as it goes too far into preventing nations from governing themselves. They are not children who are to have their hands held by the UN. They are governing bodies.

I posted this in my region as to why I, as the region delegate, was not voting for the CATO Act:

The Republic of Walden III has until now, chosen to abstain from voting on the CATO acts. However, the Republic will vote against the resolution the Republic sees as seriously flawed. The Delegate, as a student of Liberal Theory and Law has a plethora of problems with the CATO Act (as it is appropriately named).
The problems with the Act begin with Article I, and perpetuate as they nag at the very essence of freedom the whole way through the Act. Limiting freedom to those who pay taxes and placing all legal burdens on the plaintiff or prosecutor are unrealistic and would allow anarchy to come to fruition in any nation where they are established.
Additionally, even without evaluating the nature of individual articles, universal implementation of democracy is not necessarily healthy; Fukuyama’s principles of dynamic democracy have consistently been proven illegitimate and this Act attempts to further said principles. Many nations exist and democracy cannot be prescribed as a universal cure for all or even any of their woes. It can be noted that even the United States is not a Democracy, but rather a Federal Republic.
The Delegate from the Republic of Walden III encourages all nations in the Great Region of North Carolina to vote against this resolution in light of its threat to the sovereignty and stability of our region and individual nations.

Sorry, but I cannot accept the following section in the CATO acts:

"That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will"

There are countries in which this simply must be done.
Think about it, if the country is really small and threatened,
and its citizens refuse to defend it, many lives will inevitably
be at stake. Although it's not a utopian age when people must
bear arms, that is, nonetheless, the sorry reality we live in ...

The Rebels

I think it may be the part adressing forcefull military conscritption. It's self explainitory why one would be agaisnt it.

The Cato Acts are a prime example of why Wolfsreich refuses to join the UN. To subvert our sovereignty to the will of a few idealists in other lands goes against the ideal of self-determination of states under which the Wolfsreich alliance was founded.

We are phasing in a comprehensive effort to increase the role of police in our society, as our crime problem (brought on by leftist idealism) threatens to make organized crime Wolfsreich's largest industry.

Until the UN stops stepping on the basic rights of governments to govern as they see fit, Wolfsreich will continue to stand outside world affairs.

Our country is trying to improve our human rights and freedoms and so this act seems quite good for us. Never the less we can not support it due to the fact of out-lawing conscription, which has been mentioned by other countries. If that was removed we could support this.

In addition, Blamgolia uses Conscription for violent criminals who have gone too far...those on death row would just as soon serve the armed forces than die, and they tend to be the most loyal.

This proposal, while well intentioned, goes way too far on encroaching on governmental rights. The UN is designed to bring diplomacy before war, keep nations from doing wildly irrational things, and support nations in need - NOT to tell the governments of UN nations how to run their countries. While Ferrussia complies with most, if not all articles of this proposal, the sovereignty of UN nations must remain intact for it to have any power at all. Otherwise, everyone will leave the UN.

In particular, Article VII is completely unacceptable. In times of war, the draft MUST be initiated, and to deny every country in the UN this basic right to call their populace to arms is insane and moronic. If a country were forced to defend itself from a sizeable aggressor with ONLY it's volunteer military, the nation could quite possibly be overtaken.

Other restrictions, many of which have already been mentioned, also make the CATO acts unacceptable. We strongly advise others to vote against these acts, amend the flawed sections, or post a completely revised CATO act that does not infringe on national sovereignty so.

If the CATO acts pass as is and are not amended or revised promptly, the People's Republic of Ferrussia will be forced to leave the United Nations for good.

-Ambassador Mikhail Yetskerovich Ulyonneski
Representative to the UN
Ferrussian Department of Foreign Affairs

The Worker's State of Calapooya guarantees complete freedom of conscience to its citizens. Freedom of religion is included in the guarantee. The provisions of the Cato propposal are rooted in outmoded petit bourgeouis morays and have little relevance to the everyday lives of liberated workers. Vote no on this romantic attempt to turn the wheel backward.
The Supreme Worker's Council
United Socialist States of Calapooya

Forced Military conscription is a usuall thing in Great PolLand . As our country is still small we have to force young ppl to go to military and train in the arts of war ... for primary to extend the defence capability .... secondary to lower the crime rate in our youth !

So Great PolLand will never support Cato Acts in such a form !

Additionally I think that this ingerence is too much into sovereign politics of each and every country . UN is not a big country ... it is an organisation composed of countries who HAVE and MUST HAVE bc it is the base of this organisation their own inner policies not only the UN one !

In addition, Blamgolia uses Conscription for violent criminals who have gone too far...those on death row would just as soon serve the armed forces than die, and they tend to be the most loyal.

Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will, nor be forced into involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime for which the said individual shall have been duly convicted.

This policy is unaffected.

Article VII- That no person shall be enlisted in the armed forces against his will, nor be forced into involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime for which the said individual shall have been duly convicted.


Anacanapuna has enough criminals in the military, we do not wish to give them guns and training.

We voted against on the strength of article VII. We wish to retain our right to conscript able persons in a time of war.

We would like to point out that we are all for civil and political rights (As you can see from our country), but this resolution restricts government power that would help the country if a serious war was to ever pass.

This proposal, while well intentioned, goes way too far on encroaching on governmental rights. The UN is designed to bring diplomacy before war, keep nations from doing wildly irrational things, and support nations in need - NOT to tell the governments of UN nations how to run their countries. While Ferrussia complies with most, if not all articles of this proposal, the sovereignty of UN nations must remain intact for it to have any power at all. Otherwise, everyone will leave the UN.

In particular, Article VII is completely unacceptable. In times of war, the draft MUST be initiated, and to deny every country in the UN this basic right to call their populace to arms is insane and moronic. If a country were forced to defend itself from a sizeable aggressor with ONLY it's volunteer military, the nation could quite possibly be overtaken.

Other restrictions, many of which have already been mentioned, also make the CATO acts unacceptable. We strongly advise others to vote against these acts, amend the flawed sections, or post a completely revised CATO act that does not infringe on national sovereignty so.

If the CATO acts pass as is and are not amended or revised promptly, the People's Republic of Ferrussia will be forced to leave the United Nations for good.

-Ambassador Mikhail Yetskerovich Ulyonneski
Representative to the UN
Ferrussian Department of Foreign Affairs

Ferussia said it best; this is exactly how I feel over the resolution.
The UN's place is not to dictate government policy in its member nations.

We the newly formed Empire of Warnocks Wizards urge all fellow UN members to vote against this bill.

While we adhere to most articles and endorse the good and honorable intentions of the bill, we believe the bill violates national sovereignty. Forced democracy from above is simply not democracy. The citizens (whether they be man or woman, elf, dwarf, hobbit, orc, etc.) of a nation should have the ability to decide on their own form of government, laws, etc. and should not have these imposed from above from the UN. Therefore, we urge our friends in the UN to vote down the Cato Acts.

P.M. Felixopoulos of the Empire of Warnocks Wizards