NationStates Jolt Archive

I've yet to see a single supporter advocate or explain why the current resolution before this assembly is GOOD.

In fact, I've seen nothing but well reasoned opposition on a large number of the resolutions operative clauses. Very few people question the fact that the intent of the resolution is noble, but the implementation is constantly questioned.

What concerns us is that this resolution will pass. But not a single reply to any of the hundreds of nations opposed to it will be stated.

Why are you afraid to explain your position? Why did you vote yes?

The answer is simple... Sheep.

The vast majority of the 36,000 voting members of the UN are what some call sheep. They never enter the forums, and therefore are never exposed to negative arguments regarding resolutions. Their default for most proposals, since they are ALL for the betterment of mankind, is yes. I voted for this proposal at first, but amended my vote upon viewing reactions within the forum.

This is a fundamental problem with the game, and maybe someday it might change. I hope I have answered your question.

Sincerely;
Luke Beland, Patriarch
The Most Serene Republic of Lancamore

I wish it were as simple as them being sheep.

Maybe some of the people that voted for it wear blinders "made in the USA". I'm an American citizen (and proud of it) but it took years of college and travelling around the world to remove those Amero-central shades. The proposed resolution spanks of American judicial procedure and policy. Most Americans read it and instantly accept it.

Maybe some of the people that voted for it are playing the game as part of their 8th grade Civics project. This is disheartening, because when I was in 8th grade, I couldn't write a sentence without getting distracted by the girl sitting in front of me. I got a D in 8th grade Civics. I imagine this is simply "Fair Trial, looks good. Hey, who hit me with that spitball?". Then the class bell rings and the vote for is forgotten.

[I could probably do this forever, but for brevity I conclude...]

And yet, there's still probably some people that really believe in what the prop says; MPTT, but why would they waste their time justifying their vote to us when it is winning by a two-thirds margin?

I voted for it. In fact, I was the first Delegate to vote for it. And I'm sticking with my vote. Here's why.

Ninjadom did it right.

He put his proposal on the table and opened up a topic looking for discussion. He listened to responses and came back with counters and rationales that struck me as reasonable. His proposal was in queue for 4 days, and sitting in quorum for 3 or 4 additional days, and during that entire time, he only got a few responses.

Only a few responses. From you, the UN forum regulars.

At least a week you all had to post your complaints. A week in which people bitched and moaned about Passports. Bitched and moaned that it didn't have enough details, that it left open far too many holes. Legitimate bitching, IMHO - I added my share to the pile-up.

Suddenly, this proposal is on the main page, and dozens of topics pop up about how horrible it is, how it doesn't fit with game mechanics, how the word Venue is incorrectly used, etc. Where were you last week? Why wasn't it too specific last week, but this week it is? Can you even make up your minds which you want - general with lots of loopholes, or specific with too much to misinterpret?

Why didn't the mods wipe it out? I know for a fact that Enodia saw it - he swept the place of all sorts of nasties about 2-3 days ago. Seems like it was good enough to get by one of the most vigilant mods.

Frisbeeteria is one of the first to protest bad legislation, and is quite vocal about the designation sheep. In my opinion, the only reason that Passport Harmonisation and Save the forests even made it to the table is because people approving Ninjadom's far superior proposal clicked the Approve button on Passports and Forests, as they happened to be posted immediately ahead and behind of Fair Trials. But sheeplike, the Delegates went ahead and clicked on the adjacent proposals, and all 3 made it to quorum.

This is not the best proposal to make quorum, but it's far from the worst. If it impinges on the sovereignty of nations, well, so be it. ALL United Nations resolutions impinge on sovereignty - that's the way this game works. It's not going to work with everyone's system, granted. It's based on the American model, granted. It's being overwhelmingly approved, granted. It's not like we didn't already have a Fair Trial provision already - if you don't want fair trials, you shouldn't have joined in the first place.

I think Ninjadom did a fine job or preparing and promoting his resolution, and I wish him/her all the luck in having it passed. As for the rest of you, I just wish you'd make up your minds.

The proposed resolution spanks of American judicial procedure and policy.

Because only America has a court system interested in protecting tyrranical government? Only America has the concepts of juries, judges, or due process? Only America has judges who "shall apply the law as it is read?" Only America recognizes the need for adequate defense counsel?

Never mind that America frequently gets a bad rap in the international community for not having enough emphasis on the rights of defendants.

Let's go over each of the main clauses, shall we?

----------------
CRIMINAL TRIALS
----------------


1. Is speedy and efficient.

In place to prevent the government from holding a defendant at trial indefinitely -- equivalent to holding them without trial. If the government inprisons someone, that person has the right to a trial to present their case.


2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.

In place to prevent the government from creating myriad regulations for the sole purpose of confusing or tricking defendants. Whatever prosecuting force is present will obviously be trained to work in the court of law -- why should the defense be any different?


3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.

In place to prevent the government from making up witnesses. If defendants aren't allowed to cross-examine witnesses, the prosecution can essentially make up any story they want and have it get by. Juries must also be able to see witnesses to be expected to make proper judgements.

Think about it. If you want to be darned sure someone's telling the truth, do you write them a letter or talk to them in person?


4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

I rather hope I don't have to explain the need for this. If you can find defendants guilty who aren't obviously and patently so, what sort of justice system can you claim to have?


5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.

If we're looking for a jury of peers, the local population is more than likely a good place to start. I could see disagreement with this particular clause, but still support it. What need could the states have to move trials elsewhere? It is in the defendant's interest to hold the trial in their own community.


6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.

There must be some direct check on the government's ability to imprison and punish, else many democratic rights will come to nothing. The government has, in many senses, a vested interest in controlling the people -- and so the people must control the government. What use is freedom when the government can easily strip that freedom away with no more than a few words? Only by allowing the people to have a voice can such abuses be surely avoided.


7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.

In place for obvious reasons. Do you want judges who will interpret the law in any other way?


8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.

I assume that the word "sentences" was intended here. The government must not be allowed to render punishments which are disproportionate to crimes committed; if for some reason you object to this clause, you might do well to recognize that your country might well have a different definition of "proportional" than many others do.


9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.

Freedom of information is a key check against tyrannical government. What good is freedom if the people have no way of knowing when that freedom is infringed upon? What's to stop the government from doing anything except the public, and what's to allow the public the information needed to make judgements if they aren't allowed access to the courts?

Only through supervision is any accountability assured.


10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

This is critical. Most of the disagreements with the resolution, in my opinion, disappear with this clause. Essentially, any situation caused by this resolution which is disadvantageous to the defendant in a trial can be avoided by the use of this clause.


----------------
CIVIL TRIALS
----------------


1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.

A judge who will benefit from the victory of a particular group cannot reasonably be expected to be impartial. There may well be exceptions where judges are fair in such a situation, but clearly not all such situations will be so.


2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.

This holds essentially the same meaning as, "Innocent until proven guilty." I see no objection here.


3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.

This is analogous to the need for adequate defense counsel in criminal trials -- the people should not be expected to know all of the rules and regulations of a courthouse, and expert help should not be forbidden.


4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.

As before, excessive punishments must be avoided.


All that said, I originally saw this without the section on civil trials. I think I liked it a tad better then, but hey, I still support it for the time being/

I voted for it. In fact, I was the first Delegate to vote for it. And I'm sticking with my vote. Here's why.



This is not the best proposal to make quorum, but it's far from the worst. If it impinges on the sovereignty of nations, well, so be it. ALL United Nations resolutions impinge on sovereignty - that's the way this game works. It's not going to work with everyone's system, granted. It's based on the American model, granted. It's being overwhelmingly approved, granted. It's not like we didn't already have a Fair Trial provision already - if you don't want fair trials, you shouldn't have joined in the first place.

I think Ninjadom did a fine job or preparing and promoting his resolution, and I wish him/her all the luck in having it passed. As for the rest of you, I just wish you'd make up your minds.

Well, first off, it is our governments that pass along their wishes ... but naturally I'm taking your comments to apply to our governments.

Second, I think many of the complaints have been consistent. This isn't an issue of making up our minds. The complaints that I find logical are centered on the fact that this resolution implies a fairly specific judicial process that clearly does not exist in all nations. The complaints about passports included the same basic arguement: we are not so standard.

The difference however is that one resolution is establishing an international standard and the other (this one) is establishing national level standards. That is a pretty big difference and in my opinion explains why you might see people wanting more details in one resolution and less in another.

That said, my government does believe in a fair trial. If you don't believe me, check your intelligence on the Confederacy of Mikitivity -or- please feel free to come as a guest. I'll be sure to take you to our many snowboarding resorts as well as a tour of one of our spice mining operations (though we can not be responsible for a worm mishap).

10kmichael

OOC:
I'm not going to argue about the proposal in question here, I'm just to make a general remark about the UN resolutions and how they are discussed:

I've yet to see a single supporter advocate or explain why the current resolution before this assembly is GOOD.

I have realized thanks to your post that what I yet have to see is a proposal who doesn't get a topic about how wrong is everyone that votes in favor of it.

If you think is wrong and should not pass, write why you think it is, and ask everyone to vote against it. The same way works when you are in favor of a proposal, and you say why you like and ask everyone to support it.

When it gets to "You are wrong, I'm right: change your vote" it sickens me. Don't insult (as I gladly see you didn't, but has happened before) and don't threaten anyone's self-confidence or right to vote, like you did here:

Why are you afraid to explain your position? Why did you vote yes?

Everyone has the right to vote FOR, AGAINST or not to vote (even the people who doesn't even pay attention on what they are doing, you and I like it or not); and no one has the obligation to express their views on these forums, not to justify their vote, nor otherwise.

In respect to the topic: the answer given by Lancamore is accurate to say the least.

Lancamore would like to thank you for your agreement, and make another point.

The resolution, as several people have pointed out, is well thought out and crafted, and I have no objections to the content at all. However, I believe that these resolutions should be fairly general, since loopholes dont really do anything anyway. Nobody can escape the ACTUAL consequenses of the resolutions. Too many people are simply not sophisticated enough to understand and appreciate even abridged legal wording.

Thus is the humble opinion of the Most Serene Republic of Lancamore.

The resolution, as several people have pointed out, is well thought out and crafted, and I have no objections to the content at all. However, I believe that these resolutions should be fairly general, since loopholes dont really do anything anyway. Nobody can escape the ACTUAL consequenses of the resolutions. Too many people are simply not sophisticated enough to understand and appreciate even abridged legal wording.


I am confused. Are you suggesting that when we vote on resolutions we are voting on the spirit of the resolution and not the letter of the resolution?

And if this is the case, should a proponent say two or more different things in the course of the debate of the resolution, does this mean each of our own governments is free to pick and choose the implementation of the resolution that best matches our opinion of the resolution and related floor discussions?

In that case it might be benefial for the UN Compliance Ministry to collect the draft proposals and discussions as well, since they too would provide loopholes ... I mean add content to determining the true spirit of the resolutions.

As an aside, right now the lyrics from a Depeche Mode song are bouncing through my head, though I'm not sure why!

Without the right of Jury Nullification (which was used extensively in the Northern states prior to the American Civil War), the entire bill is utterly meaningless. Jury Nullification has a long history in English Common Law, and once had respect in the United States, where it has since been deprecated to the loss of the nation.

-Citizens of Morgain.

I must confess that I only gave the proposal cursory attention when it was being passed to the forum for approval and suggestions. I liked what I saw and had no reason to disapprove. Cursory attention - no excuse, really, I was just quite busy and my postings were targeted at other topics whose inflammatory nature appealed to me.

Since the proposal made quorum, it has been far more visible and I have found myself with the time to study it. I heartily approve of the spirit and intention but other postings along with my own interpretation persuade me that it is by no means perfect. Accordingly I have not voted 'yes'. That said, I am content for it to pass in the knowledge that it will not have an adverse affect on Ecopoeia, which already has a rigorous legal system in place that complies with the resolution.

I understand both Frisbeeteria's frustration and Mikitivity's concerns and hope that Ninjadom is not upset by the disapproval emanating from the forum this week.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations
The Community of Ecopoeia

The answer is simple... Sheep.

The vast majority of the 36,000 voting members of the UN are what some call sheep. They never enter the forums, and therefore are never exposed to negative arguments regarding resolutions.

Maybe that's got something to do with:
a) The forum rarely if ever working for most people- indeed until recently I couldn't access it at all and even now, it only works late evening for me.
b) People not actually caring what a bunch of sex obsessed little kiddies with too much spare time have to say? Some of the proposals and issues covered recently include people seriously supporting on a large scale the international legalisation of prostitution, incest and sodomy. As well, abortion, marriage, homosexuality and a plethora of other utterly irrelevant sex related topics keep popping up.

Now, given a choice between a few button clicks or immersing yourself amongst a group of pubescent perverts, on a forum that rarely works, I can hardly fault most people for acting like 'sheep' and not participating.

New eriu originally voted 'yes' because it supports an already existing resoloution, but more clearly defines it. However, we recinded our vote after reading the debate on this forum (Mostly the one about the defendant adressing the witness being a problem in rape cases, etcetera.).


Why do people vote yes? I agree with many of the reasons above. Some people vote' yes' to every resoloution. Some people vote yes because it makes sence, and don't bother to read the issues on the forum (mostly because this is laggy as hades.)


This happens again and again. There were MAJOR problems with Fair Treatment of the Mentally ill and it still passed because no one botherd to see the 'cons'. There were MAJOR problems with the UCPL and it still passed, because no one bothered to see the cons.

I personally didn't have much issue with the passport harmonization, but at that time, I was unable to view the forums in order to see the cons, so I abstained.

For fair trial we voted no. For the next two (the save the forests movement as well as the Rights and Duties proposal) we plan to vote yes unless there are issues that come up in the forums.

--------------------------------------------
Mediator Phineous Oakhurst - New Eriu's Delegate to the United Nations.

a bunch of sex obsessed little kiddies...people seriously supporting on a large scale the international legalisation of prostitution, incest and sodomy. As well, abortion, marriage, homosexuality and a plethora of other utterly irrelevant sex related topics keep popping up....a group of pubescent perverts

I really resent this generalisation. I'm a teenager, and yes I fully support the rights of all humans to do whatever the hell they like with their own bodies, and for consenting adults also to do whatever the hell they like together. If they want money to be involved, so be it. If they are of the same gender, so be it. If they're related, although it makes my stomach turn, so be it. It's called individual sovereignty, and I support these ideas because of a thought-out opinion on the rights of individuals, not because I want to project my sexual fantasies onto an online political simulator, of all things.


As to the resolution, I dislike the total media freedom thing. Defendants in certain cases should be allowed anonymity, because even if people accused of rape or child molestation are acquitted, there could still be a certain amount of prejudice against them. Equally, the claimed victims of rape should have their anonymity protected, because to have the story of such a traumatising experience plastered across the front pages of every newspaper is potentially psychologically damaging. Additionally, witnesses and jurors in organised crime cases are at risk of retribution if their identities are publicly known.

Also, the part about holding a trial in the crime venue, whilst usually a good idea, would prevent solutions to international problems, such as when the (Libyan?) Lockerbie bombers (who blew up a plane over Scotland) were put on trial under Scottish law but on neutral ground (Belgium, I think). (please correct me if I'm wrong about that, I don't remember it perfectly - was the reason that Libya refused to extradite them for trial unless it was on neutral ground?)

Finally, the resolution assumes all court systems work the same as the USA's, with Small Claims Courts (no idea what those are) and state and federal levels.

So _Myopia_ disagrees with certain parts of the spirit of the resolution (but if it passes, we think that it is non-specific enough at least to allow us to keep certain people's identities secret whilst still being fairly "open", and to rename certain parts of our judicial system so that the resolution can be applied)

If you'll allow me to step out of character in order to address an interesting point...

The Libyan prosecuted for the Lockerbie bombing may well be the subject of an appalling miscarriage of justice. There's a lot of evidence to suggest his innocence, or that he was at most complicit in the act without being the actual perpetrator. Actually, it's likely that there were multiple perpetrators of this atrocity.

It seems that Libya agreed to the prosecution and compensation in return for the greater reward of an end to sanctions.

For more info, I refer you to the British satirical journal Private Eye.

Toodle-pip

I understand both Frisbeeteria's frustration and Mikitivity's concerns and hope that Ninjadom is not upset by the disapproval emanating from the forum this week.

Frank Chalmers
Speaker for International Relations
The Community of Ecopoeia

Actually, I too should publically state that I personally hold Ninjadom in the highest regard. This is a well intentioned resolution and Ninjadom has done an excellent job in building consensus.

However, it my time (and my government's) is limited. This comes with being a small, liberally minded, developing nation. We don't have legions of lawyers to scan through every proposal or discussion. In fact, my small staff will shortly begin work on a Weak languaged proposal related to sustainable development and genetic diversity, something dear to my Confederation's citizen's hearts.

In short, I would have suggested improvements on the proposal when it was in draft form had I had the time. I've already done so for another proposal which thankfully was resubmitted today.

I with to remind everybody that it is a matter of the official record that we can NEVER go back and amend or repeal NationStates resolutions once they pass. This puts a terrible burden on each of us to look generations into the future and carefully word our draft proposals, then proposals, and hopefully resolutions such that they can stand the test of time. Surely if they don't, nations will leave the UN and rewrite their laws such that they do take into account changing times and history itself.

With this in mind, the very idea of a Fair Trial is noble and Ninjadom should be commended for bringing this discussion to the forefront of this assembly.

I primarily take issue with some of the imprecise wording of some of the clauses, in particular, clause 3 which implies that the defendant himself may confront the witness rather than the defendants' advocate. I assume he means the latter but it is an important point. This would be particularly dangerous in cases involving organised crime, corporate cases, or any trial where the witness may feel at threat from the defendant or any group he may belong to. Under such circumstances the witness would surely be less likely to testify.

Clause 5 is loosely worded "the venue where the crime is committed", I assume that he is referring to the district or area, but it may be interpreted to mean the exact location, which is of course unfeasible.

You cannot pass laws which are inexact and may be interpreted as people see fit, I am voting for the resolution because on the whole I think it is a good one, I just wish a little more time had been taken to make the language more exact.

The language was pretty exact!!! The issue here is whether people WANT it to be that exact. This statute is going to dictate how the judicial systems of each and every UN nation are run. There is great diversity here, so I believe that a more general statute is on order. The prevoius one was quite sufficient, and besides, no matter what the nations say, nobody escapes from the game effects of the resolution. The original resolution was one that is on an international level The new one will change government organization on a national level, just doing the same thing for all nations.

Lancamore,
The purpose of this is to guarentee NO ONE gets stuck with a kangaroo court at best, or nothing at worst.
Whilst I dislike the media coverage,preferring the Canadian way of if need be blcking coverage,I can live with it.
Also,I find secret trials which this bans to be non-Justice but an excuse for Dictators to remove "enemies."

I've yet to see a single supporter advocate or explain why the current resolution before this assembly is GOOD.

Generally we do not find that it makes too much of a difference what we state on the floor on these questions. However, we think that the times may be changing and that the debate in this chamber may once again be relevant. It is too late for a full statement at this time, but one will be made tomorrow.

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

I really resent this generalisation. I'm a teenager, and yes I fully support the rights of all humans to do whatever the hell they like with their own bodies, and for consenting adults also to do whatever the hell they like together. If they want money to be involved, so be it. If they are of the same gender, so be it. If they're related, although it makes my stomach turn, so be it. It's called individual sovereignty, and I support these ideas because of a thought-out opinion on the rights of individuals, not because I want to project my sexual fantasies onto an online political simulator, of all things.

Wow look everyone. It's a teenager with resent. Oo.. gotta watch those angts filled young ones.

You've obviously never been raped have you? Never sexually abused as a child? Never molested? Never kidnapped and used as a sex toy? Never sold as a sex slave?

Good for you angst filled kid, because a lot of other people haven't been so lucky. You go and explain to some 7 year old having a penis inserted into their colon against their will that it's in the name of civil liberties that daddy needs to have anal sex with them.

Once you've got a satisfactory explanation to the child why it is they need have that happen, then we can discuss peoples choices. Idiot.

Gigglealia, I don't think you've logically considered your argument. All of the situations you present are cases where someone's individual rights have been violated, not upheld. The essential rule of thumb to remember with any freedom is this: The right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins.

In essence, he said that consenting people should be able to do what they want, and you replied "ANGSTY STUPID RAPIST." I can hardly say I really follow that chain of events.

By the way, I noticed you referred to marriage as an "utterly irrelevant sex related topic." Further, debates concerning the legalization or illegalization of abortion and homosexuality are widely considered legitimate by all sides of those debates because of their inherent moral, societal, religious, political, and libertarian implications -- just because you stand on a particular side of an issue does not render that issue pointless.

The current 'amended' resolution makes a lot of suggestions but will never get my support while it contains 'Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant'.

Generally the witness will be the 'offended person', especially in crimes of a sexual nature or if someone has been found inside another persons home. These people have been put through a lot, alleged by the defendent, so to be confronted by your tormentor could push some people into not making a complaint and trying to get justice.

Victims of crime need to be protected more than the criminals, We do need a system for fair trials. We do not need victims to start being put in stressful situations that would mean the public stop filing complaints and criminals just get away with it and go out and do it again.

We support the proposal in its entirety.

To prevent a defendant in a rape case from confronting his accuser is tantamount to pronouncing him already guilty.. Otherwise there would be no need to shelter the complaining witness, would there?

Just because there is a serious and inflammatory charge made should never mean that the accused automatically loses his rights before even going to trial.

Vindictive litigants can and will misuse the legal process in the absence of these safeguards.

I really resent this generalisation. I'm a teenager, and yes I fully support the rights of all humans to do whatever the hell they like with their own bodies, and for consenting adults also to do whatever the hell they like together. If they want money to be involved, so be it. If they are of the same gender, so be it. If they're related, although it makes my stomach turn, so be it. It's called individual sovereignty, and I support these ideas because of a thought-out opinion on the rights of individuals, not because I want to project my sexual fantasies onto an online political simulator, of all things.

---TAKEN DOWN---

Mr. Secretary, I move that the words of the representative from Gigglealia be taken down.

GOOBERGUNCHIA: "Mr. Secretary, I move that the words of the representative from Gigglealia be taken down."

Actually, I suggest they remain as a testament to the representative's intolerance and bile. All this criticism of the younger participants is particularly galling given his/her own lack of grace and maturity.

Wow look everyone. It's a teenager with resent. Oo.. gotta watch those angts filled young ones.

You've obviously never been raped have you? Never sexually abused as a child? Never molested? Never kidnapped and used as a sex toy? Never sold as a sex slave?

Good for you angst filled kid, because a lot of other people haven't been so lucky. You go and explain to some 7 year old having a penis inserted into their colon against their will that it's in the name of civil liberties that daddy needs to have anal sex with them.

Once you've got a satisfactory explanation to the child why it is they need have that happen, then we can discuss peoples choices. Idiot.

Thanks for that offhand insult, and the immediate dismissal of the possibility that someone who hasn't yet reached adulthood might have something relevant to say. Clearly, you didn't read my post properly. At no point did I suggest that we legalise child molestation, rape, or any kind of sexual activity when one participant doesn't give consent (or is legally too young to give consent), and yet you accuse me of wanting to allow fathers to rape their sons.

I specifically said that I am a proponent of allowing all consensual sexual activity. Not of allowing rape, sex slavery (the prostitution resolution legalised prostitution specifically - the act of offering sex acts for money - not forced prostitution or anything like that, in fact such a change would make it easier to catch those people who were abusing or enslaving prostitutes), child molestation or anything of the sort.

As the esteemed delegate from Santin said, "The right to swing your fist ends where someone else's nose begins"

I suggest you start taking adolescents more seriously, and actually give due consideration to posts before you reply to them. And thanks to all those who are prepared to listen to someone younger than them.

Generally we do not find that it makes too much of a difference what we state on the floor on these questions. However, we think that the times may be changing and that the debate in this chamber may once again be relevant. It is too late for a full statement at this time, but one will be made tomorrow.


First, I'm eager to hear (read) your full statement.

Second, if people aren't reading the forum to see what the interpetation of resolutions are, perhaps those of us that do, should make greater use of the forums while creating draft proposals.

With my second point in mind, I would like to formally announce that the Confederation of Mikitivity is preparing a response and draft UN proposal to address the current Joccian Genocide. My government is sadly torn between putting together a careful statement and the need to act quickly.

Resolutions like the Fair Trial Amendments would strengthen any UN response to the current crisis in Joccia. While my nation has reservations about the current resolution, should it pass, we will not only faithfully adopt the resolution (and adhere to the good faith arguements made in this assembly), but we plan to use this resolution as yet another reason to cite the crimes being committed by the current Joccian Regime.

10k Michael
UN Ambassador
Confederation of Mikitivity

*Waites for mod *

Giggleaglia, the UN forum is a place for calm and rational debate: not flaming. Consider this a warning.

Mr. Secretary, I rise in support of this resolution.

On July 13, 2003, the UN passed the following resolution:

Fair trial

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The Outer Hebrides

Description: We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.

Votes For: 10713

Votes Against: 3069

Implemented: Sun Jul 13 2003

We voted in support of this resolution, although we did not participate in the debate given that we were preparing for the debate on our own resolution. However, it must be conceded that this resolution is rather vague, leaving the definition of a "fair trial" up to the individual member state. This resolution largely eliminates the vagarities of that resolution. It is divided rightly into two parts: criminal trials and civil trials.

CRIMINAL TRIALS

This resolution:

will prevent governments from delaying trials so that people are imprisoned indefinitely.
will give defendants the effective right of self-defense, something that is inherent in the concept of fairness.
allows defendants to cross-examine witnesses and helps prevent groundless accusations.
permits trials to be heard in open forums, preventing kangaroo courts
provides for the impartiality of judges hearing the case


CIVIL TRIALS

This resolution:

provides for the impartiality of the judge hearing the case
requires proportionate judgements
sets a standard for judgement


We therefore support this resolution and cast our vote for it. I yield the floor.

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

Because no certain person should have an advantage over another person in a court of law.

I usually just use the type of proposal to make my decision. It's all the server uses, so I just follow the server.

It may seem late for myself to once again review this agenda, as the votes are tallying against my favour despite the deadline. Yet, I find it urgent and neccessary to address this issue once again.

As myself and many others have repeatedly raised, the current resolution that is placed to a vote is one that is highly flawed and problematic. We do not object to the general principle of a resolution supporting the right of fair trials, but are we forgetting that there currently already exist a resolution supporting the rights of fair trials!

By rejecting this resolution, we are not contradicting the past resolution which we have all agreed upon, but we are simply saying that the terms of this resolution is simply not acceptable.

There are many honorable members of the UN, who seem troubled with resolutions only containing general principles. However, there is nothing neccessarily wrong with a resolution that only contains general principles, espeically when a choice has to be made between having one that is yet to be defined, and one that is poorly defining this general principle.

My stand is that it is better and stronger to have a resolution strongly supporting a principle that we all agree upon, than to have a resolution that is specific, but weak, flawed and problematic is achieving the aims of the general principle.

The current resolution may not be perfect, but to replace it with this new resolution that is currently placed to a vote, is to seriously undermine the commitment that we have already made towards supporting the right of fair trials.

I strongly urge all member to reconisder their current stance, and not simply agree to the current vote simply becuase they support the general idea of fair trials. We are not putting to a vote today, whether we support fair trials or not, as we have already decided on that in the previous resolution. We are here today, deciding whether this new definition of what a fair trial entails is one that is acceptable, and will aid towards achieving the aims of the former resolution.

This new resolution is flawed and problematic, and will serve not to aid the support of fair trials, but only undermine the achieving of justice. If it is justice which you believe in, then this resolution is not one that you should be accepting. If it is justice that ought to be served, than this resolution is only going to stand in its way.

Honorable member of the UN, this is the time to act. We must stop this resolution.

The Community of Winsdor
Knights of the Elm Table

The delegation from _Myopia_ gives the Knights of the Elm Table a standing ovation lasting a full 3 minutes. Sadly, we seem to be in the minority.

i love the notion of Gigglealiabeing a diplomat (i believe he respectfully used the term 'idiot') He is, although, of course right. As a teenager i resent the whole liberal 'two constenting people'. There seems to be no wrong or right. It seems odd that people can sit around arguing with the notion of a fair trial when two proposals ago whoring was legitmised... just cause its the 'world's oldest profession' doesn't actually make it not morally deplorable. Isn't the welfare state there to protect people from 'the necessity' to seel themselves? I digress.

My stand is that it is better and stronger to have a resolution strongly supporting a principle that we all agree upon, than to have a resolution that is specific, but weak, flawed and problematic is achieving the aims of the general principle.

The Community of Winsdor
Knights of the Elm Table

*cheering*
This is a belief that my government endorses!

10kMichael
UN Ambassador
Confederation of Mikitivity

i love the notion of Gigglealiabeing a diplomat (i believe he respectfully used the term 'idiot') He is, although, of course right. As a teenager i resent the whole liberal 'two constenting people'. There seems to be no wrong or right. It seems odd that people can sit around arguing with the notion of a fair trial when two proposals ago whoring was legitmised... just cause its the 'world's oldest profession' doesn't actually make it not morally deplorable. Isn't the welfare state there to protect people from 'the necessity' to seel themselves? I digress.

Yes, the welfare state is there to stop people descending into abject poverty, at least in _Myopia_. But it is noone's place to tell a human what they can and can't do with their bodies for purely moral reasons. If it could lead to direct effects on people who haven't given consent, then it's society's business.

Both fair trials and individual sovereignty are issues about which I feel strongly, so that's how I can argue about both.