Updated Proposal
I propose that all the nations get together and create a Homophobia educational center, where people with friends or family that are homosexual, if persuaded, can go to learn about homosexuals, hear the debates on why and where, and generally make whatever peace they can. Also, acts against homosexuals (including, but not limited to; discrimination, violent acts, harassment, and deflamation of character.) In other words, lets vote to just be nice to each other and get along, continuing to hold our beliefs, yet not pushing them onto others or making others hurt because of them. How's that sound? well, tell me what you think of the edited version and lets see where we can go with that.
NOTE: If you disagree with this motion, i would appreciate a reply on the message board. I would like to know why and hear your opinions! Thank you.
I am against this motion as my government would only advocate violence against anyone who opposes it (yep, that includes governments as well....)
Homosexuality is something that we believe our people can happily do behind closed doors (As long as they meet their production quotas of course) however my other belief is that the homosexuals of this world must accept police beatings just as happily as the heterosexuals of my land.
Basically we feel that enforcing citizens to go to any re-education centre not concerning the love of Killerland, or its glorious dictator, to be a waste of their time. It would seem that a person's sexuality is his/her own business, and whilst they have a right to their own views, so have others. The only thing we could possibly comprehend would be physical violence (We don't want to see our precious slaves damaged would we now....). But it would be out of character for our government to support any kind of human rights (unless our fortune 500 companies showed that homosexuals worked harder than non-homosexuals, in which case we might have to force the entire population to "go gay", not a good plan tho, we do like children, after all without them we wouldn't have a workforce)
We would be willing to support any research into this method of "persuading" people to visit the re-education centres however....
Just remember, this is all role-playing boys and girls, but feel free to flame :)
OOC: Nice Killerland, love the dictatorial tone. Killerland is l337!
IC: This government's position is in accordance with this particular proposal. However, why limit it to just homosexuals? Racial minorities are also accosted and harmed simply because of their skin colour in many countries; preferential treatment should not be given to homosexuals. This government proposes that racial minorities, religious minorities, and gender also be added to this list.
Rad Kom
UN Ambassador
The Fiefdom of Baron Porkonia
The Global Market
10-11-2003, 04:42
Homosexuals should have the same legal status as heterosexuals. No more, no less.
It's true that violence against homosexuals is a serious problem, but so are many other kinds of violence. I think the best and fairest way to go forward with this proposal is to divide it into two parts:
1. A proposal advocating the creation of these education centers you spoke of. It's a good idea, and it's something that not everyone can talk to someone about. Unfortunately, some people are only going to see this as furthering the "gay agenda," and the proposal would draw a lot of flak from this vocal minority. I would vote for it, but I wouldn't expect it to pass.
2. A proposal advocating anti-hate crime legislation, if no such resolution has been voted on before. You would need to define hate crime as pertains to any minority or grouping, and lay out steps that each nation can take to prevent and punish such crimes, and educate its public about diversity. This is more the kind of thing that belongs in a UN resolution, I think.
Esamopia
10-11-2003, 14:41
It's true that violence against homosexuals is a serious problem, but so are many other kinds of violence. I think the best and fairest way to go forward with this proposal is to divide it into two parts:
1. A proposal advocating the creation of these education centers you spoke of. It's a good idea, and it's something that not everyone can talk to someone about. Unfortunately, some people are only going to see this as furthering the "gay agenda," and the proposal would draw a lot of flak from this vocal minority. I would vote for it, but I wouldn't expect it to pass.
2. A proposal advocating anti-hate crime legislation, if no such resolution has been voted on before. You would need to define hate crime as pertains to any minority or grouping, and lay out steps that each nation can take to prevent and punish such crimes, and educate its public about diversity. This is more the kind of thing that belongs in a UN resolution, I think.
"Why is everyone so very concerned with the rights of homosexuals?" The old General's face was twinging with anger. "What makes them or other minorities so bloody special... why have specific "hate crimes" legislation when all that we should be doing is making sure that all citizens are protected equally and fairly under the law?"
The Esamopian Government cannot support any legislation that would label homosexuals or racial/religious/ethnic minorities or "groupings" in a special class because:
1. This would be official government recognition that these classes are either discriminated against or are inferior and in need of "special" protection under the law.
2. This would detract greatly from Esamopia's aim of equal protection for all under the laws of Esamopia... ALL laws should be enforced with regards to ALL people.
Moistwarmfish
10-11-2003, 15:06
My government cannot support such proposals. Surely to enact laws such as this simply increases discrimination. Why should any group of people be treated differently in the eyes of the law? Violence against any citizen of our country will be treated the same way regardless of the victim's race, gender, religion, politics or sexuality (or any other criteria that I've forgotten).
Collaboration
10-11-2003, 17:36
We oppose violence to any group based on the status of that group.
However the proposal needs to be more narrowly worded, to focus on violence. "But not limited to..." is so broad that anyone who decides he is offended by another could invoke this law. It would be better to spell out specific acts that would constitute discrimination.
This is a rediculous motion as it effectively bans all forms of violence against one group of citizens and not the rest! That is discriminatory! For example, should a Homosexual attack someone then the victim cannot defend themselves as all forms of violence against homosexuals are illegal! Any wars would be interesting as all homosexuals would, in effect, be untouchable without risk of comitting an international crime. However anyone else in that war would not necessarily have the same protection.
New Clarkhall
10-11-2003, 17:51
As laudable as the resolution's spirit is, the people of New Clarkhall beleive that homosexuality is a moot point when it comes to lawmaking. We beleive that homosexuals are legally equivalent to heterosexuals. Singling out a specific group, ANY specific group, and making 'educational' centers for it is our eyes, simple discrimination.
We also beleive that the Gay Rights Resolution, (Implemented: Sat May 3 2003), covers all that needs to be covered on this topic.
New Clarkhall stands opposed to this proposal.
I think that most of the objections to this proposal could be altered by broadening its focus. Make the educational center a general "Tolerance Educational Center" that promotes the rights of *any* group *anywhere* that is the victim of hate and discrimination (homosexuals certainly form one such group, so homophobia would be covered). Make a general hate crime legislation that makes it an aggrivating factor when another crime is commited out of hate for a group of which the victim is a member.
(I'd like to anticipate an objection to the latter: I imagine some people will think this contradicts my earlier statement that we in Gurthark do not ban opinions. It does not. We don't ban opinions, but when opinions motivate actions, they can become relevant to the punishment for those actions. We don't, for example, ban malice, but when it is part of the motivation for a homicide, it makes the homicide a worse offence than it would otherwise be.)
Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador
Community of Gurthark
My nation has just enacted a law require all homosexuals to report to re-education camps were we will first attempt to cure the homos of their disease. They have thirty days to report. The ones that do not will be rounded up and taken to liquidation centers.