NationStates Jolt Archive

I would like to call all nations to consider voting for the proposal submitted by the Ambassador of Zadania to the UN, The Declaration of Human Rights.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

You have our full support for this proposal.

John Boone
Speaker for Welfare
Community of Ecopoeia

Lets See that proposal.

Lets See that proposal.

This proposal is well written and makes its point well, It has the full backing of Nibbleton.

Yngwie Malmsteen,
Nibbleton UN Ambassador

i to would like to see this "proposal" to :roll:

Here is a copy of the proposal:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 7.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through chosen representatives.
Article 8.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 9.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 10.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 12.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

that looks familiar ;)

I would certainly vote for this resolution if it was endorsed sufficently.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/hirota.jpgThe Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

While Voof-land agrees with the overall tone of the resolution, we dispute several small parts of it.

"Article 5.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."
The freedom of religion is necessary. But to what point? If some cult comes back following the rites of the ancient Aztecs, saying the human sacrifice is part of their "religion" are they to be accomodated? Something should be added to this section adding that religion is only protected inasmuch as it does not harm ones neighbor, though I suppose what you do to yourself is between you and God.
I do particularly like one part of this resolutoin, the part about being able to practice your faith in public. I assume that that measn actions like that which France (in the real world) is taking, like banning yarmalukes, head scarves, and crucifixes would be a violation of the right to freedom of religion.

"(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work."
This seems nice on the surface, but is it really fair to pay a dad who has to suppost a wife and two kids the same as a guy who lives with his parents? They may both have the same job, but one obviously needs more money to support himself and his dependents. This should bechanged to "discrimination based on race, creed, sex, or age" however, it may be necessary to "discriminate" in favor of paying a living wage.

"(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free."
What education should be free? All education? We here in Voof-land don't have a public school system, instead we have a highly devolped educational private sector, in whcih parents choose the schoo which has the right program fro their child. This leads to more involvment by the parents and a better matching of the institution to the child, which is why our literacy rate is 99%. This sytem would not be possible if the government managed education, because it's bureacracy would inevitably mess stuff up.

Voof-land has spoken.

We respond specifically to the issues raised by Voof-land.

"The freedom of religion is necessary. But to what point? If some cult comes back following the rites of the ancient Aztecs, saying the human sacrifice is part of their "religion" are they to be accomodated? Something should be added to this section adding that religion is only protected inasmuch as it does not harm ones neighbor, though I suppose what you do to yourself is between you and God. "

Agreed. Your suggested amendment is good; however, we must be careful not to get bogged down in exceptions and clarifications. Any ideas for a concise way of putting this point across?

"'(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.'
This seems nice on the surface, but is it really fair to pay a dad who has to suppost a wife and two kids the same as a guy who lives with his parents? They may both have the same job, but one obviously needs more money to support himself and his dependents. This should bechanged to "discrimination based on race, creed, sex, or age" however, it may be necessary to "discriminate" in favor of paying a living wage."

I believe this would usually be resolved (if at all) though the welfare system. However, it's an interesting idea. I suspect that such an amendment may open up loopholes with regards to how an employer/nation may define what constitutes a 'living wage'.

"'(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free.'
What education should be free? All education? We here in Voof-land don't have a public school system, instead we have a highly devolped educational private sector, in whcih parents choose the schoo which has the right program fro their child. This leads to more involvment by the parents and a better matching of the institution to the child, which is why our literacy rate is 99%. This sytem would not be possible if the government managed education, because it's bureacracy would inevitably mess stuff up."

Ah. I think we disagree profoundly here. Measures of literacy aside (I'm sure we can all make such claims if we wish), it is not at all a given that government 'mess stuff up' while private schools operate perfectly. In our, ahem, 'Simulated World Programme' - used for analysing outcomes of potential government policy - we find that private education is no more cost-effective or efficient than state education (case study: UK, where the introduction of the private sector has generated widespread chaos and disruption). Indeed, efficiency is irrelevant as a goal. The proposal's intent is for equal access to education, which can only be provided when it is free (or everyone has exactly the same economic standing).

Of course, I don't deny that government may bugger things up...

We believe this proposal is otherwise good enough for submittal.

Best wishes
Art Randolph
Speaker on Law
Community of Ecopoeia

This is why I'm not a member of the UN. Resolutions often have conflicting issues within them:

[Article 5.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.]

Religion would interfere with the right to free speech and expression just as it does in the real world. This is why the constitution of Olwe specifies freedom FROM religion. Sometimes, you have to cancel out the worst of two things, and you'll find in a society where religion is banned, there's very little bigotry and intolerance, and, more importantly, no censorship. I know people are going to disagree with me, but my policy comes from personal experience -- I'm just sick of being judged.

Piñata
Thain of Olwe

I agree with this last comment wholeheartedly. religion does inhibit most of the freedoms set out in the declaration, but these as usual are swept under the carpet. In my own nation we are waging a war against violent nazis, and religious extremists bent on human sacrifice. The empiric provences will not vote for a declaration that removes its ability to purge those factions that would destroy us and our people.

I agree with this last comment wholeheartedly. religion does inhibit most of the freedoms set out in the declaration, but these as usual are swept under the carpet. In my own nation we are waging a war against violent nazis, and religious extremists bent on human sacrifice. The empiric provences will not vote for a declaration that removes its ability to purge those factions that would destroy us and our people.

Does anyone actually READ this stuff? Here's a short form version of what you're endorsing:

Article 1: Not too bad. Doesn't actually require any action. Can be ignored.
Article 2: Elimination of national borders. Your citizens can come and go as they will.
Article 3: Elimination of prisons and criminal offenses
Article 4: Elimination of marriage and childhood (they're both forms of inter-family slavery, aren't they?)
Article 5: Elimination of Theocracy as a form of government. No national religions allowed.
Article 6: Freedom to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre wihtout sanction
Article 7: Elimination of all non-democratic forms of government
Article 8: Imposition of national welfare program for all citizens of all nations, with no suggestion of how to pay for it
Article 9: Elimination of company's ability to fire anyone for any reason. Elimination of merit-based pay
Article 10: Free education again, but no one has to pay for it, not even the government
Article 11: Implemetation of the Thought Police, to protect "recognition" and "respect", as defined by the UN.
Article 12: Destruction of all national soverignty for all UN nations, for all time.

Take a close look at 7 and 12. Probably 70% of NationStates would have to have changes in government to comply with this law, and those that were already democratic would pretty much resign sovereignty to the UN. This isn't carefully-thought-out international rights, it's a socialist's dream world. Everyone has the right to everything, and nobody has to pay.

You pass this, and the UN will collapse upon itself in days. This is blanket-coverage absurdity. Go back and READ what it takes away, for Pete's sake!

The Confederacy of Caligatio thanks the nation of Frisbeteeria for the simple analysis of a resolution that, though seemingly positive in nature, has the destructive power of a nuclear weapon.

Caligatio associates this proposal with the UCPL bill passed recently, but hopes that unlike the UCPL bill, this one will not reach quorum and be passed.

Take and in-depth look, people. You won't like what you see.

Todd M.
President of the Confederacy of Caligatio

Does anyone actually READ this stuff? Here's a short form version of what you're endorsing:

Article 1: Not too bad. Doesn't actually require any action. Can be ignored.

You pass this, and the UN will collapse upon itself in days. This is blanket-coverage absurdity. Go back and READ what it takes away, for Pete's sake!


Since the proposed UN Declaration of Human Rights is fairly large, perhaps we can all agree that we should address the individual articles *before* looking at the proposed resolution as a whole and prematurely predicting its future (or as the delegate from Frisbeeteria might suggest its hand in the destruction of the UN). *grin*

Article 1 is actually a pretty fundamental article and something we all have agreed to a larger extent when we joined the UN. Each nation here to some degree is given equal voice (and a proportional vote) relative to other nations. Why is that? Simple, we all recognize that through unilateral talks we can accomplish more than through bi-lateral talks. And unilateral talks work well when even opposing view points are given a chance to be expressed.

It seems only natural to the C.C.S.M. (Confederation of the City States of Mikitivity) that we can take the spirit of all nations are equal down to the human level of which our nations are composed.

As for Frisbeeteria's claim that Article 1 can be ignored ... well sure. But *should* this proposal pass, future resolutions can and may very well, target specific international practices as violations of Article 1. In other words, a Declaration of Humans Rights is a very good thing, and should start with general principles from which stronger agreements can be built.

I think in time that Article 1 will perhaps be the LEAST ignored provision of the proposed UN Declaration of Human Rights.
If this forum had a proceedure for DIVIDING THE QUESTION, then I would have suggested separate discussions on the UN Declaration of Human. Certainly the C.C.S.M, which has an amazing track record with Civil Liberties and Human Rights, would speak and vote in favour of Article 1.

We would suggest that each article be submitted separately.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

(Mikitivity, have you not noticed that it takes outrageous hyperbole to get ANY sort of reaction from these complacent sheep?)

There's nothing wrong with Article 1. Only that we don't need it, or much of any of the rest of this. And if it DOES pass with Article 7 intact, it DOES mean the end of the UN (assuming anyone ever followed the dictates). At the very least, most of the active forum posters do not have democratic governments. It's all moot anyway, assuming anyone read the resolutions that have already passed. For example ...

The Universal Bill of Rights

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Free Porcupines
Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003

Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights, Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights, Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights, Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights, The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.
Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.
Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.
Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.
Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.
Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.
Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Do we really need to amplify this basically sound Bill of Rights into the socialist giveaway that Zadania proposes? Frisbeeteria doesn't think so, and would most assuredly leave the UN over this one. Speaking for myself, I'd be out of a job, a career, a government, and a functioning society. The Conglomerated Oligarcy of Frisbeeteria would cease to exist under this plan, and I'll have no part of it.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

[quote="Frisbeeteria"]Does anyone actually READ this stuff? Here's a short form version of what you're endorsing:

. Go back and READ what it takes away, for Pete's sake![/quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, this is not true, this declaration has a lot of faults, but not to this extent, it stating that humanity has rights, and the government is only there to protect those rights, which is true. Democracy will prevail throught this, and if u dont like it, leave the UN. this proposal does have its faults though, like no provision the the protection of property, which means the government could lawfully, confiscate your land for no reason, but this is a provision that gives the state some freedom from the resolution, for instance, those who want an extreme communist state where personall property does not exist, but this is an issue and a doctrine that is to be decided between the people and the government of the said nation, and at least leaves some more sovereignty, because capitalism cannot be forced on any one, especially if it doesnt work for a nation. Furthermore, the proposal in question does not oppose religion, it simply keeps it out of the state so that the thoughts and beliefs of any person cannot be persecuted. Lastly, The said proposal does not ammend for the eradication of jails, and of corrections, simply says that the government protects the rights of the people throught is laws, which means that if one infringes on someone else's rights, the government has its own responsibility that the person damaged gets justice and compensation for his or her loss. i am not asking anyone to vote for it or anything, i just wanted to clear up some of the mistakes in Fristbeetaria's research. Thanx, any questions, telegram me

- The united socialist states of Estebanotopia

Democracy will prevail throught this, and if u dont like it, leave the UN.
Don't tell ME to leave the UN, you arrogant pup! You like democracy? Fine. You practice democracy in your nation. We don't have it or want it in Frisbeeteria, and you have no more right to dictate our form of government than we have to demand that all your women be summarily executed. Keep your porcine nose out of Frisbeeteria's business.

As for the rest of your rambling answer, allow me to point out that what you list is what you WISH it said. What we posted was what it ACTUALLY says. You'd like to think that laws and free practice of religion were implied, but they weren't. This is a statement of what MUST be allowed, and granting "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." means NOBODY goes to prison. There is no distinction in EVERYBODY. Criminals and victims have identical rights to liberty and security.

Before you chastise us for "mistakes in research", you might take a moment to compare the concepts of "research" and "wishful thinking". Trust us, there's a difference.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria

(Mikitivity, have you not noticed that it takes outrageous hyperbole to get ANY sort of reaction from these complacent sheep?)

There's nothing wrong with Article 1. Only that we don't need it, or much of any of the rest of this. And if it DOES pass with Article 7 intact, it DOES mean the end of the UN (assuming anyone ever followed the dictates). At the very least, most of the active forum posters do not have democratic governments. It's all moot anyway, assuming anyone read the resolutions that have already passed. For example ...



Before I address your points related to Article 1 and later Article 7, you have raised an interesting question. What happens with the enforcement of passed UN resolutions. A related question is, are nations that joined *after* the passage of those resolutions subject to the provisions of those resolutions?

If the answer to the first question is that there is no enforcement of any sort, then perhaps the UN is nothing more than a giant debate forum? *wink*

But if there are plans to hold nations to the decisions agreed upon by this body, then it is true that every member state is resonsible for taking the time to read and be familiar with prior UN resolutions. Unfortunately as time passes, this will become a very difficult task.

While the search feature is nice, at some point when we (the Confederation of Mikitivity) can create proposals, would like to propose that UN commissions be created to evaluate the effectiveness of UN resolutions and to summarize the position of this global community.

(My apologies for not addressing your other comments first, however, I felt that there is an even larger issue at stake ... the very effectiveness of this body. And as an aside, having to *shudder* respect a dictator as an equal in this forum is difficult, but necessary towards building a consensus. Afterall, one can not ultimately FORCE REFORM.)

having to *shudder* respect a dictator as an equal in this forum is difficult, but necessary towards building a consensus.
Dictator, schmictator. I'm the current CEO, but effectively a peer to my fellow Directors. Every employee in Frisbeeteria, from Vice Presidents down to maintenence staff, is well-treated and happy, and we already have open borders should anyone be dissatisfied. All we require is standard two weeks notice. Is that so much to whine about?

Frisbeeteria is a financial and political success because we've evolved our own set of rights and duties. Something as broad and sweeping as this would negate al our sucessful business models and force the closing of many major businesses. Did you know that many of the most effective anti-viral genetic treatments came from open-source patents developed by TransScan Genetics of Frisbeeteria? Those research avenues would be closed by this plan.

We've got a system. It works. It benefits the international community as it is. We don't need these new, so-called 'rights'. And we're gonna fight against them in our own national interest, you better believe it.

MJ Donovan, speaking ex-cathedra from his bellybutton.

Does anyone actually READ this stuff? Here's a short form version of what you're endorsing:

Article 1: Not too bad. Doesn't actually require any action. Can be ignored.
Article 2: Elimination of national borders. Your citizens can come and go as they will.
Article 3: Elimination of prisons and criminal offenses
Article 4: Elimination of marriage and childhood (they're both forms of inter-family slavery, aren't they?)
Article 5: Elimination of Theocracy as a form of government. No national religions allowed.
Article 6: Freedom to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre wihtout sanction
Article 7: Elimination of all non-democratic forms of government
Article 8: Imposition of national welfare program for all citizens of all nations, with no suggestion of how to pay for it
Article 9: Elimination of company's ability to fire anyone for any reason. Elimination of merit-based pay
Article 10: Free education again, but no one has to pay for it, not even the government
Article 11: Implemetation of the Thought Police, to protect "recognition" and "respect", as defined by the UN.
Article 12: Destruction of all national soverignty for all UN nations, for all time.


You are deeply mistaken. You are correct Article 1 does not actually call for any direct action. It was a good way to open a UN proposal. You completely misunderstand Article 2. Article 2 states that all people are equal in respect to how the guidelines affect people. HOW DOES THAT RID NATIONAL BORDER?? Did you even read the second sentence? “Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” Article 3 addresses the basic social contract between man and government. It does not eliminate prisons and criminal offenses. If it was to do so…it would be stated. Have you ever read a true UN resolution? These are nothing like them….they tend to be specific. It is sad if you consider marriage and childhood a form of slavery. How does Article 5 eliminate Theocracy? It simply states that someone has the right to change a religion. In a Theocracy, one may be compelled to be of one religion….but that can change if they wish… You are simply wrong about Artile 6, if you would have read Article 11 (3) you would see a restriction from making mass hysteria could be made. You are once again wrong about Article 7. Yes it does imply a desire for nations to be democratic…but isn’t a dictator technically a representative of the people? About Article 8….do you not see that Social Security doesn’t mean money…but the security of one’s social vitality???? It does not state that companies may not fire workers, also you may have noticed that equal pay – equal work…. If one had merit…than one earned it… Thus contributing more work… Understand? Article 10 is free education. I meant to put free primary education. Do you have a problem with free education? I can’t believe how wrong you are about Article 11.

Do you have a problem with free education?
I have a problem with free ANYTHING. Memorise this sentence:

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

TANSTAAFL. We live by that sentence. Somebody, somewhere, has to pay for everything. NOTHING is free.
.... "I meant to put" ... "If it was to do so, it would be stated" ... " the basic social contract between man and government" ...

Waffling. If you meant to say it, you should have said it. This proposal doesn't SAY it at all - it's open-ended to whatever interpretation one chooses. I chose to point out all the horrible ways it could be interpreted. You chose to see only the positive. Trust me when I say this, Zadania - every UN nation will interpret each statement to THEIR best advantage, regardless of what you thought it meant.

I don't want your blessed rights. Most of them have already been granted in one form or another, and the rest take away far more than they give. By adopting this proposal, you grant individual sovereignty and UN sovereignty, but damn little in the way of national sovereignty. Take a look at where you are sitting, Zadania ...

The Great Assembly of the United Nations of NationStates

Not the assembly of individual CITIZENS, but States. We do not willingly or easily give up our rights as nations, no matter how well intentioned.

And I do believe this was well-intentioned, just not well presented. We applaud your intent, but not your delivery. We'll continue to oppose and rally to keep this from passing in its current form, no matter what.

MJ Donovan, CEO, Frisbeeteria.

Dictator, schmictator. I'm the current CEO, but effectively a peer to my fellow Directors. Every employee in Frisbeeteria, from Vice Presidents down to maintenence staff, is well-treated and happy, and we already have open borders should anyone be dissatisfied. All we require is standard two weeks notice. Is that so much to whine about?




*laughing* Nobody ever questioned Frisbeeteria's creditentials. In fact, we are inclined to trust all of your statements regarding the quality of life in Frisbeeteria. Or so our intelligence reports would seem to indicate.

But sadly the United Nations is not primarily a mutual admiration society. Instead, perhaps we BOTH could focus on sharing ideas and steering this body in a manner such that people from other countries can enjoy both the basic civil liberties and rights that Frisbeeterians and Michaels enjoy.

Blessings to you all from the Holy Republic of Beaumontia.

Myself, the Arch-Chancellor of the republic, and my ministers believe that this proposal is excellent in both composition and content.

The Holy Cleric of our church pointed out that tolerance, the provision of a just and fair society where the rich and strong look out for the weak and poor, and respect for the rights of individuals are all central to what the Beaumontian Church stand for.

He gives you all his blessings and prays for the success of this proposal.

Our region does not have a regional delegate, following the recent prostitution law. Once we have a new delegate I shall request that this proposal be endorsed.

Thank you for your time.

Does anyone actually READ this stuff? Here's a short form version of what you're endorsing:

Article 7: Elimination of all non-democratic forms of government



You are deeply mistaken. You are once again wrong about Article 7. Yes it does imply a desire for nations to be democratic?but isn?t a dictator technically a representative of the people?

A dictator the chosen representative of a people? Surely you jest? The very definition of a dictator is an individual who takes complete control *without* the consent of the people. The term originated for leaders who would take control during a crisis, but today it more typically is used to describe leaders who take no interest in the opinions of their followers.

The representative from Frisbeeteria is quite correct to assert that Article 7 will eliminate all non-democratic forms of government.

Fortunately the Confederacy of Mikitivity is not only a democratic society, but also supports the idea that everyone has the right to take an active role in the government of his or her country (notice that we prefer a gender neutral language as well). Article 7 is not a sticking point for CoM.

Oh my, thanks for the laugh Frisbeeteria. Your analysis is very interesting. I agree with Zadania's comments a few posts up from this one. Lets take a closer look..

Italics- Original proposal
Bold- Frisbeeteria Comments
Regular- My comments
********
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 1: Not too bad. Doesn't actually require any action. Can be ignored.

Alright, I can work with that.
********
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 2: Elimination of national borders. Your citizens can come and go as they will.

Ha ha, where does it say national borders will be eliminated? I don’t see it. For the simple minded, all Article 2 says is people should not denied rights and freedoms or treated differently because of the color of their skin, etc, or where they come from.
********
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 3: Elimination of prisons and criminal offenses

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person but when you violate the rights of others, your rights will be taken away...aka. You go to prison. Who gives you these rights in the first place? The government. (Besides, your argument is addressed in Article 11, so your argument is pointless because the resolution does cover this)
********
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 4: Elimination of marriage and childhood (they're both forms of inter-family slavery, aren't they?)

That is quite sad if you consider (thought I don’t really know if you consider it to be since you are asking a question) marrage and childhood “slavery.” When one is married, they are not slaves to their spouse. They are free to divorce if they want.
********
Article 5.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 5: Elimination of Theocracy as a form of government. No national religions allowed.

Ask yourself, can there be a government that supports one religion but gives citizens the freedom to support their own religions? Yes, there can be. Anyway, FREEDOM is the ultimate goal. If Theocracies violate that fundamental human right, they should not be in power.....(How does Article 5 eliminate Theocracy? It simply states that someone has the right to change a religion. In a Theocracy, one may be compelled to be of one religion….but that can change if they wish)
********
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 6: Freedom to shout "Fire" in a crowded theatre wihtout sanction

Again, people have the right to do stuff, unless it violates or endangers others. Then they no longer have the right. (Besides, your argument is addressed in Article 11, so your argument is pointless because the resolution does cover this)
********
Article 7.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through chosen representatives.

Article 7: Elimination of all non-democratic forms of government

Hmm, so are you arguing that people should be ruled without their consent? In ways, dictators represent the people.
********
Article 8.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 8: Imposition of national welfare program for all citizens of all nations, with no suggestion of how to pay for it

Pay for it? Hey, you are into “sovereignty”..go figure it out yourself.
********
Article 9.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favorable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 9: Elimination of company's ability to fire anyone for any reason. Elimination of merit-based pay

Um no, protection against unemployment...your boss can fire you, but the government guarantees you will have a job...even if it is at the local Burger King. This article holds the government to a standard, not businesses.
********
Article 10.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

Article 10: Free education again, but no one has to pay for it, not even the government

Hmm, well someone has to pay for it...it is the government’s duty to provide services to the people. And, as a member of the UN, you have committed your government to carrying out UN requirements.
********
Article 11.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 11: Implementation of the Thought Police, to protect "recognition" and "respect", as defined by the UN.

WTF? You break the law, you go to jail. You violate other’s rights, yours get taken away. Article 11 says nothing about Big Brother.
********
Article 12.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Article 12: Destruction of all national sovereignty for all UN nations, for all time.

You are a member of the UN. It was your choice to join the UN. Want absolute freedom? GET OUT OF THE UN! Article 12 states that countries and people cannot deny the above to anyone.

********
:arrow: Everyone, this is a good proposal. It is well written (unlike some vague propoals lately). The UN needs to adopt such a document clearly outlining basic human rights.

I urge a yes vote.

Key word: Declaration of Human Rights

Respectfully
-USSF

Noting that saying this resolution is "well written" is a little tongue in cheek since most of it is pirated directly from the actual UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Illaria opposes the resolution on the grounds of its impracticality.

The RW UNUDHR gets by on the fact that everyone just kinda pats the UN on its head and sends it on its merry way.

Here, We must all recognize that we are held responsible to what we endorse, in its entirety, as Frisbeeteria has pointed out. Both the good and the bad are taken. Even though this proposal is most certainly created in good faith, many of its resolutions are idealistic to the point of foolishness. The UN is NOT the body to enforce these things nor impose them on nations. Appealing to "universal" rights is another word for imposing your own morality on the masses. As this world is built on the principle of free reign, and the UN built on decency but not tyranny, Illaria cannot endorse nor support this proposal. Though the rights herein are in place in our nation, we will not support the coercion of member nations into this. Morality cannot be dictated to this great a degree.

The wording of the previous resolution concerning human rights is sufficient for "universal" rights. Anything as strong as this is utterly impractical.

I'm a little bewildered by some of the ferocious responses this proposal has triggered. How anyone can argue that this is not in the UN's remit...I'm baffled! If the UN cannot deal with these issues then it might as well just quietly walk into the sunset. OK, so maybe we can change 'free education' to 'free primary education' and tinker with a bit of wording here and there. However, it's hardly a document for the establishment of a 'socialist paradise'. Where in the, ahem, real world has it been interpreted as such?

In fact, the only problem I have with it is the use of 'he' to represent both genders but I appreciate that many would find this excessively picky...

Good luck Zadania, I shall look forward to pompous resignation speeches from offended nations.

Art Randolph
Speaker for Law
Community of Ecopoeia

Oh my, thanks for the laugh Frisbeeteria. Your analysis is very interesting.
I notice that your reverse "analysis" offers no actual counter to several of the points. Being unable to come up withe any legitimate rebuttal, you've resorted to dismissal and mockery. The prinicpal among these is number 7, which REQUIRES a democratic government. Take a look around and count the democracies, Faybian - you're outnumbered. Oh, and "dictators represent the people"? Are you really that clueless, or are you grasping at straws?

I really liked your classy rebuttal of Article 8. I, who oppose this law, am told to "go figure it out yourself". Well, we have figured it out with no help or need from help from the UN. That's exactly why this sort of thing shouldn't be law.

In short, Faybian, most of your rebuttal was as devoid of content as your accused my initial post of being. You want to argue? Provide some arguments. This emotional rebuttal holds no weight.
I'm a little bewildered by some of the ferocious responses this proposal has triggered. How anyone can argue that this is not in the UN's remit...I'm baffled!
Ecopoeia, every resolution deserves an opponent. When something like this is proposed and everyone looks at it thinking, "Ooooh, nice - human rights. I'll vote Yes," we end up with bad legislation that is subject to misinterpretation. The author needs to look at what he wrote and answer hard questions about it.

I'd object even if 90% of the UN is for this proposal. You claim to be freedom-loving nations? Then how about removing Article 7, and give nations the freedom to practice the government they have. You want democracy? Then show us through your actions, not your laws, that democracy is a better system.

Folks, this is NationStates, not the real UN. Borrowing material from them is fine as long as you tailor it for the game world. In this particular case, there is not one single superpower democracy calling the shots and inflicting democratic governments on nations against their will. In this world, corporate, communist and theocratic systems are not only tolerated but are part of the equation. They ain't all democracies.

Also, almost nothing in this proposal is new to the UN. If you read what's already been passed you'll see most of these have already been adopted. Zadania, did you even look before you copied this over from the UN? It doesn't need to be passed twice. Break out the parts that haven't been addressed and try it again.

In game terms, none of this matters. There will be some minor adjustment to some of my nation's stats. I don't care. If we accept this as roleplay, however, the NationStates UN is a powerful, mandatory lawgiver. This proposal might work in the real world where there is no enforcement, but here the language is too strong. It doesn't recognize the differences in governments, and the only recourse is to abandon the UN altogether. Democracy isn't really about imposing majority will on others - it's about letting everyone be heard.

[OOC] Frisbeeteria says what I tried to say so eloquently, heh. I do find it pretty interesting that one of the options of the UN is the furtherment of democracy... the UN's still got SOME backing from someone hehe.

[OOC] Frisbeeteria says what I tried to say so eloquently.
[OOC]Oops, totally missed your post among the socialist twaddle. Apologies. :)

FRISBEETERIA: "Ecopoeia, every resolution deserves an opponent. When something like this is proposed and everyone looks at it thinking, "Ooooh, nice - human rights. I'll vote Yes," we end up with bad legislation that is subject to misinterpretation. The author needs to look at what he wrote and answer hard questions about it. "

Sorry, I didn't intend to give the impression that this resolution shouldn't be opposed; I was merely countering the suggestion that it is not within the UN's remit to legislate on human rights.

I also accept your comments regarding Article 7, though I don't believe that 'taking part' equates to democracy. Essentially, we have a very odd system here in NS that does not lend itself to blanket statements such as this Article, perhaps. But, then again, what is this UN for? How do we possible draft any resolution that does not in some way mortally offend several nations?

At any rate, I'm glad this proposal is here as it at least allows us debate issues appropriate to this forum...

Finally, I'd like to apologise and retract my comment concerning 'pompous resignation speeches'. That was unfair; I can only explain it as deriving from my exasperation that a worthy issue for debate was being shunted aside while the majority of nations keep rambling on about prostitution.

Best wishes

Damn. My posting was made while Frisbeeteria made a comment about 'socialist twaddle'...I'll leave that be (as, to be fair, I'd been a little, erm, derogatory) except to painstakingly make clear that Ecopoeia is not a socialist state. Please do not make such sweeping generalisations.

Please do not make such sweeping generalisations.
Come now, Ecopoeia. You made a reasoned and polite comment, and got a reasoned and polite response from us. Faybian posted a belittling and emotionally charged rebuttal with almost no actual content and got snubbed, as they so richly deserved. There IS a lot of socialist twaddle in this topic, but yours and several others were not included in my condemnation.

Apologies if you considered it a blanket statement. We'll attempt to be more direct in our snubbing from now on.

Apologies again. 'Blanket statement' referred to the Article itself, not your assessment of it - so was in fact a criticism of the proposal, not of you.

I hadn't realised that your comment was specifically targeted at Faybian. Thanks for clearing that up.

Hmm..little chance of us agreeing, I fear. However, I'd like to cordially invite you spend a few hours in one of Ecopoeia's fine alehouses should you ever wish to pay our little island a visit. You're most welcome and, beside, there's nothing like the pub for an extended, friendly debate.

kind regards

While human rights is the central foundation of The Republic of Global Peoples, I regret to say that I would find it hard to vote in favor of this resolution.

While the overall fundamental goal of the UN may be to create a peaeful, utopian society, making a blanket resolution to form it all at once would do far more harm than good. Frisbeeteria is right that non-democratic forms of government are indeed part of the eqation. Weather it is a theocracy, dictatorship, monarchy or corporate takeover, I assure you that most nations would rather leave the UN than cede power to a system of government that their country has no experience with. What that creates is a planet split between a small democratic island (the UN) floating in a sea of nations answering to their own wills.

While i do feel that representative government, as we have here in the RGP, is morally "right," ripping the power structure out from the heart of a country will only create anarchy and be counterproductive to the goals of the UN.

There is an old Arab saying that a dictator for a century is better than anarchy for a day. Forcing an amendment such as this, though be it a noble goal, would create anarchy in non-democratic governments that do choose to accept it, and anarchy can destroy a culture faster than any dictator.

Perhaps if the proposals were to be amended one article at a time, one could gauge if the UN is ready for it yet. While the long-term goal of the UN might be peace and freedom, the first step is to create balance. Only when that is acheived can the process towards global human rights begin, but it will be a very slow process.

First of all let me address what I meant when I said a dictator is a representative of the people. Would not dictators say they are of the people...

Also, yes, I did look at all of the UN resolutions that have been passed. Yes, and that was before I "copied" it over from the UN. That is the reason why I posted the proposals. Yes I did copy it from the UN, altering it slightly. I did not claim it as my own. However, I was so disgusted at the so-called "World Organization" that I wanted to see if a document of the real world UN would pass. What would be much more useful in the Nation States scenario would be numerous international organizations. Obviously, with the situation here it would be impossible to have a functioning world body that tried to encompass all members. In a situation in which there are a myriad of nations and in which a large majority of them on-purpose, for fun, punish and enslave their people, Morality and Social Justics cannot be forced upon others. I recommend that you proceed and all vote for the proposal. That way, the ones dissatisfied with the UN will be happy when so many members quit that the admin of Nation States must consider other alternative international organizations. Nations that repsect the rights of the person will be happy for the proposal had been passed, and those against it have gone otherways.

I recommend that you proceed and all vote for the proposal. That way, the ones dissatisfied with the UN will be happy when so many members quit that the admin of Nation States must consider other alternative international organizations.
Soooo ....

Now you say we should vote for your proposal to cripple the UN organization? In the interest of preserving Human Rights? That you so fervently defended?


Zadania, why don't you just admit that this 'borrowed' set of rules isn't appropriate for this venue, and just let it die a natural death like most other proposals? You're going to trip over the hem of your ceremonial robes from backpedaling so hard, and we'd hate to see you injured.

I think too many assumptions are being made.

For example I dont think that a universal right to life, liberty and security of person means that people cant be sent to jail, it means that they some basic freedoms even if they are sent to jail.

I think people are making too many assumptions.

For example I dont think that a universal right to life, liberty and security of person means that people cant be sent to jail. It means that there are basic rights for people even if they are sent to jail.

Perhaps if this proposition is so heavily debated it would be better to split into several smaller propositions, each with just a couple of articles.
That way we could be more precise about the parts we like and dislike.

Perhaps if this proposition is so heavily debated it would be better to split into several smaller propositions, each with just a couple of articles.
Point - it isn't being heavily debated. It's mostly being ignored.

Point - Zadania posted the entirety of a RL UN document spread over three different proposals. They're currently on Page 9 of the proposals list.

Point - Here we actually somewhat agree with Zadania. Sometimes you need to include several seemingly different points in a single proposal. If you legislate a program you have to include the means to pay for it. You can't get the benefit without paying the price. Zadania wanted to cover ALL human rights in a single document. We think it's overkill and unnecessary, as many of these same points have in fact already been passed (Free Education has been passed at least twice), but that's the way they wanted to submit.

Point - had this been submitted to the Forums for review before posting, Zadania would have had the opportunity to tweak the proposals to better fir our world of NationStates. No guarantee they would have accepted any of the suggestions, but it would have been nice to try. No document is perfect.

Point - Judging by the current level of endorsements, Zadania will in fact have the opportunity to ask the UN forums for advice and suggestion. It does not appear to be making a strong run for quorum.

Final Point - Should Zadania decide to place this for review before resubmitting, Frisbeeteria promises to tone down the rhetoric and actually offer helpful suggestions and adjustments server lag permitting .

Now you say we should vote for your proposal to cripple the UN organization? In the interest of preserving Human Rights? That you so fervently defended?


Zadania, why don't you just admit that this 'borrowed' set of rules isn't appropriate for this venue, and just let it die a natural death like most other proposals? You're going to trip over the hem of your ceremonial robes from backpedaling so hard, and we'd hate to see you injured.

I was being sarcastic about that... I do however believe that in a roleplaying scenario it would be quite difficult to obtain steps in Human Rights, whilse still maintaining support of nearly all nations. No, I did not borrow, I did take direct words from the United Nations Universal Declaration for the Right's of Man. I honeslt ybelieve that this organization that we have created is essentially horrible in its action, especially when we lkook at what it stands for. So I simply put the declaration into three seperate proposals and submitted them. then I posted a simple post here in the forum asking for people to consider voting for it. I did this to see if something that every UN member in "real life" must agree to, would become passed here. I am sure all of you will agree that not all members of the UN obey this declaration....but it is still on the "books"

First of all let me address what I meant when I said a dictator is a representative of the people. Would not dictators say they are of the people...


But your Article 7 would give everyone the right to choose their representatives. Please look up the word dictator. Now reread your own proposal. Then take the time to survey how many nations in this body have free elections?

I see a real conflict of interest. While the Conferederacy of Mikitivity agrees with this prinicipal, we simply do not have the resources to "convince" true dictators, like the people calling themselves, "His Honorable President For Life" or "Supreme Representative and Protector of the People" that it is in their best interest to allow the population they surpress to have a free election.

Perhaps in another few years when the CoM is no longer considered a developing nation, we'll be able to buy human rights across the globe, but for now, we don't see how the proposed Declaration of Human Rights is going to really have any meaning, especially when its chief proponent enters into the record of the debate statements claiming that "Dictators are choosen by the people".

[OCC: We shouldn't get in the habit of making refereces to the real UN. As others have said here, we all have access to UN decisions. There is nothing wrong with lifting UN resolutions. In fact, I personally loved MUNing back in high school and college and think a number of the people drafting proposals would do well to borrow real UN structure and language. However, we've got a totally different creature and unique history. Let's explore that and let our unilateral international organization take its own course.]