NationStates Jolt Archive

The peoples and their representatives of the Region of Hawaiian Brian's have empowered me to voice the following two concerns regarding the Univeral Choice proposition before us:

1. CONTRAVENES UNIVERSAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Whatever the merits or lack thereof of subliminal advertising, Clause (6) which declares a moratorium (a temporary ban, but a ban nonetheless) is violative of Article 2 of the Universal Bill of Human Rights, passed 8 August 2003 by this council, which held "

2. INTERFERES WITH JUDICATORY POWER OF JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS

Clause (4)'s statement that individuals should not be judged by society for the decisions they make is overly broad and imprecise in its language. One of many reasonable interpretations is that it would prevent courts from rendering judgment in cases dealing with the acts of a litigant. While the resoloution includes a caveat for physical and psychological harms, to be governed by "Normal Criminal Law", it purports only to apply criminal law to physical and psychological acts. Criminal law is far more inclusive, involving, inter alia, property rights, privacy rights and procedural rights (e.g. American Constitutional protections). The proposed resolution also makes no mention of a caveat for local civil tort law, and instead, with one broad stroke, would eliminate the power of adjudicatory tribunals to render judgment on any controversy.

We applaud the intention of the proposal's drafter, but remain gravely concerned about the aforesaid reservations. We urge all Member States to stay their support of the resolution pending redrafting, and, in lieu of such redrafting, to vote this resolution down.

SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brian's United Nations Delegate

The proposed resolution also makes no mention of a caveat for local civil tort law, and instead, with one broad stroke, would eliminate the power of adjudicatory tribunals to render judgment on any controversy.
You are asking a bit much, considering my Resolution only just made it under the character limit with a third of it edited out. Not everyone's laws work the same way either, there are countless theocracies out there with, presumably, religious courts, and if I made special reference to every convention, I would end up with several pages where only a couple of hundred words are permitted.

We applaud the intention of the proposal's drafter, but remain gravely concerned about the aforesaid reservations. We urge all Member States to stay their support of the resolution pending redrafting, and, in lieu of such redrafting, to vote this resolution down.
It cannot be redrafted now, I'm afraid, once it is in the UN mechanism, I lose all access. And should it fail, any redraft could not exceed the number of characters already in there, which greatly limits my room for maneuvre.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)

I'm posting this in all forums relating to this bill:

I see the main purpose of this bill, and please correct me if I'm horribly mistaken, as a protection of a person's right to think, feel, and believe as they want to, and sometimes act on it. I'm wondering why we need a bill such as this.

A person will already believe and think what they want to.

As for letting people do as they please, I recall a group of 19 people doing as they pleased a few years back. They ended up dying as a result, but were very happy that they made September 11, 2001 a day that none of us will ever forget.

As for not judging people by their actions, HOW IN TARNATION ARE WE GOING TO JUDGE THEM? I know! let's judge them by race! or religion! or both! how about we kill all the catholics, and jews, and blacks, and homosexuals, and the polish(hopefully you've seen the reference to Hitler, and 1930s-1940s Germany)! no one can judge us by our actions, so why not? Of course, that would only leave us with, eventually, a few blonde hair blue eyed people left. While the Sweedes(being blonde haired and blued eyed more often than not) might be very pleased with this idea, I'm not.
IF WE DON'T JUDGE PEOPLE BY THEIR ACTIONS, WE HAVE NO LOGICAL GROUNDS ON WHICH TO JUDGE THEM.

As for the political ideology, it seems to be an attempt to force people to have a democracy. Forcing people into a free state is getting rid of free choice. Let's take a step back and remember that this is only a game. It's also about thousands, perhaps even millions, of people worldwide to see what would happen if they were in control of a country, and to see what precedents they might set by accident.

Nationstates.net runs on the freedom to choose.

But who's freedom to chose?

Mine. And Your's. The guy how thinks just like you. The guy who disagrees with everything you've said. We all have the right to choose.

Isn't the freedom to choose what's right?

Well, this bill would undermine what's right and wrong, because it would change right and wrong from one person to the next.

I had mentioned the 9-11 terrorist attacks. To them this was not only right, but also and honor and a duty.

So was it right?

According to this bill? Yes.

According to what you might believe, no.

My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins. It's freedom limited by responsibility.

So what's my point?

We can't ever expect people to be responsible for themselves.

The whole reason for the government and nationstates.net is that people, individually will make mistakes, and won't know what's right.

Only society as a whole can decide what actions are needed.

But Wait! We don't have whole societies here! We only have us and our morals!

Exactly.

Therefore each one of us must go against reality and choose how each of us wants to run our own country.

It's our right to choose to do what we want.

Therefore, this resolution stands up for principles that it (the bill) itself goes against, and therefore undermines it's own effectiveness.

THIS BILL, WHILE TRYING TO GIVE EVERYONE FREEDOM OF CHOICE, TAKES THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AWAY FROM THE ONLY REAL PEOPLE IN THE GAME, THE NATION'S LEADERS!

I will forever allow the "citizens" of Aeolian to do as they please, and think a they want.

This will NEVER give me the right to make you do the same.

Let's vote down this bill, and bring some REAL freedom to this world.

I'm posting this in all forums relating to this bill:

We wondered why the representative from Aeolian was repeating himself; we were concerned that s/he had a speech or memory defect. ;)

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

[ooc: Please don't multi-post comments, it's spamming. It would be nice if we could confine all debate on this resolution to the 5 page thread already in progress.]

I'm posting this in all forums relating to this bill:

[ooc: Please don't multi-post comments, it's spamming. It would be nice if we could confine all debate on this resolution to the 5 page thread already in progress.]

[OOC: Actually Aeolian was responding in part to my request for substanstive debate, to which he/she provided. While I agree, I would suggest that it would have been more appropriate to just point me and others to the longer thread.

BTW: It is nice to see people discussing things. I would love for the only time the word "moron" or "stupid" is used in this debate to have been right now. I think there are some good points raised by both sides.]

1. The response by the drafter that he did not have enough room to deal with the various legal systems worldwide is amounts to a concession that this bill would circumvent the judicial systems of each Member State. He proposed to explanation, assurance or argument to suggest that my contention is ill-founded, rather he simply said he couldn't address that. This is a serious concern with the bill that is violative of each Member State's sovereign adjudicatory powers.

2. No response was given to the contention that the ban on subliminal advertising is in violation of Article II of the Universal Bill of Rights (ratified 8 August 2003) which states "Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference"

As it stands this bill is flawed and I urge those Member States concerned with their sovereignty and consistency with past UN resolutions to vote against it.

SCOS OJ
Hawaiian Brian's Delegate

The Cooperative Boardmembers of Moogi concur that this proposal should fail, and a new, more precise set(s) of proposals should take its place.

Stay Frosty.

Aeolian, I am having to say this over and over again, criminal justice is neither nullified nor circumvented by this Resolution. If you have chosen to believe that, you have that freedom of choice. :wink:

To the others - just because I have not listed every system of justice out there does not mean I have negated every system of justice out there. Such a conclusion would be deeply erroneous.

Replacing this with a new, more precise set of Proposals would only split the vote - I have been watching this happen for a long time, the only way anything like this is getting passed any time soon is if it is in the form of one general whole rather a multitude of specific parts. If people wish to build on it in future legislation, I have no problem with that, but voting against something because it does not (and cannot) contain all the desired detail is silly.

Tactical Grace
UN Delegate / Minister of War / Defence Consultancy
Mercia The Next Generation (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_region/region=Mercia_The_Next_Generation)