NationStates Jolt Archive

I've made a proposal to end racism and it is currently in the proposal list in the UN. I hope that it gets approved and would appreciate all approvals from delegates. Here is my proposal:

Many countries have allowed racist policies and attitudes within their people. They claim that to take these away they are infringing on liberties. Freedom of speech can only go so far until it becomes dangerous and racism is an example of this. It may well allow liberty for the ignorant it persecutes those from other nations and religions by living their lives free of discrimination and hatred. This ban will include:
No neo-nazi organisations or organisation with racist policies.
Equal rights to all
No racism on TV
Harsher punishments for racially motivated crimes

Please, if there are any delegates reading this, could you approve it.

i agree, those who disagree or even infact committ such stupidity should be thrown in the hole full of crap, solitary confindment would do well, in my country (and planet), if people committ such crimes as this and perhaps the same offensive level, they go to the strictest prison on my land for life without bail, Borloth!.

this proposal (when it becomes one) has my vote.

fair enough, but this proposal does not cover enough ground.

I would suggest that education should take it's place in educating minors in equal rights, tolerance and respect of liberties.

But then again I think education should do that for everything, not just racism, but others including sexism, homophobia, and religous intolerance.

fair enough, but this proposal does not cover enough ground.

I would suggest that education should take it's place in educating minors in equal rights, tolerance and respect of liberties.

But then again I think education should do that for everything, not just racism, but others including sexism, homophobia, and religous intolerance.

Well there has already beena gay rights and religious tolerance resoultion passed in the UN although I have not found anything on sexism but it seems bizzare that even though people have been standing up for these minorities that they have not tried to combat racism.

fair enough, but this proposal does not cover enough ground.

I would suggest that education should take it's place in educating minors in equal rights, tolerance and respect of liberties.

But then again I think education should do that for everything, not just racism, but others including sexism, homophobia, and religous intolerance.

Well there has already beena gay rights and religious tolerance resoultion passed in the UN although I have not found anything on sexism but it seems bizzare that even though people have been standing up for these minorities that they have not tried to combat racism.

You are probably right, and somethign does need to be done about racism, but I think this proposal needs to be refined first....I'll have a think about it.

I believe that there should be no limit to the number of word heavy, trite resolutions to forcibly change the minds of millions of supposedly "free" people by the UN, because I'm bored.

Approved by Cassopia.

I respect the intent of this proposal, but I cannot approve it.
It is my opinion that racism is easiest to counter when it is out in the open - that is, when it can be clearly seen for what it is. How can reasonable people of good will counter racist arguments if they don't know what arguments are being used?
As to banning racism from TV - it is surely possible for a show to have apparent racism in it, and yet not be racist in intent. It is even possible for rational adults to watch something produced in a time when racism was considered more acceptable, and not acquire racist opinions. To attempt a ban would require us to accept somebody else's opinion as to what is worthwhile and what is racist, and it is not clear to me that enough good would be done by this ban to compensate for what might inadvertently be lost.

quote="Caryopteris"]I respect the intent of this proposal, but I cannot approve it.
It is my opinion that racism is easiest to counter when it is out in the open - that is, when it can be clearly seen for what it is. How can reasonable people of good will counter racist arguments if they don't know what arguments are being used?
As to banning racism from TV - it is surely possible for a show to have apparent racism in it, and yet not be racist in intent. It is even possible for rational adults to watch something produced in a time when racism was considered more acceptable, and not acquire racist opinions. To attempt a ban would require us to accept somebody else's opinion as to what is worthwhile and what is racist, and it is not clear to me that enough good would be done by this ban to compensate for what might inadvertently be lost.[/quote]
I believe you have a good point, but children are greatly influenced by telvison and while adults may be able to accept the programs without going out to join the Klan but children may see racism as acceptable. By banning the TV programmes I don't intend in banning tv programmes that confront racism and treat it as a problem, but rather shows that are simply outright racist and treat it as a casual and acceptable.

Hmm. A tricky issue. On the one hand, if you ban racism outright, you risk driving it underground, leading to accusations that a "liberal elite" is stifling the legitimate views of a self-proclaimed "silent majority".
On the other hand, do you want to extend the right to free speech to the point where racist groups can use it to intimidate others?

And another point to throw up - this proposal would need a very carefully worded definition of racism. Thing is, if you define racism too broadly you can end up stifling all sorts of legitimate discussion. A couple of real-world examples:
- Supporters of Israel are using the fact that *some* opponents of Israel are anti-semitic (which is certainly true) to try to stomp out all criticism of Israel's treatment of Palestine on the grounds that all who oppose Israel's foreign policy are anti-semitic and should be ignored.
- There's a link, in Britain at least, between high crime rates and areas with large African/Caribbean immigrant populations. Now, only an extreme racist would claim that's because black people are more disposed to commit crime. It's down to all sorts of factors, including political disenfranchisement and discrimination in schools and workplaces leading to poverty and underachievement.
But you do get the odd person - no doubt well-meaning - who cries "racism" at the faintest suggestion that crime is higher in immigrant communities. This stifles legitimate debate and, ultimately, hurts the very people you're trying to protect as you're unable to debate the issues rationally.

-DP-

People would have to understand that there is a difference in saying
"Afro-Caribbean commit more crimes" and "Afro-Caribbean are criminals" Also you would have to make sure that by 'banning racism' you are not simply ignoring that there are people from different backgrounds, to ignore and disregard a culture would also be wrong. Racism is to disrespect a culture, to look down on someone because of his or her skin or race. You also mentioned that crimes within afro-Caribbean is not because of there race, this may not be true as it could be the torment from others because of them being black leads them to under achieve and turn to crime and it is exactly this which I hope to stop with my proposal.

Yes, quite. But I would want this to be made clear in the proposal itself - that racism is an attack on someone purely on the basis of their innate identity - the stuff they have no choice about, like skin colour and country of birth.
Introducing "culture" into the mix complicates things, too. To some extent a person's culture should be just as open to criticism as, say, their political views, since you have a choice about it. I want my country to have the right to outlaw female "circumcision", for example, without us being told that we're disrespecting a culture.
I'm not attacking your proposal - I support its aims. But, assuming that the UN doesn't pass it, I suggest you bring it to these forums so we can discuss it, amend it and resubmit a greatly strengthened version of it.

This proposal is far too broad and is at best poorly written.

No neo-nazi organisations or organisation with racist policies.
What will be the standard for judging a group racist? Does this apply to groups that market themselves as being for a certain race or is it just for groups that are against certain races? If a group is pro-green, at what point are they considered anti-orange?


No racism on TV
What determines whether or not a show is racist? What about shows that are set in times where racism is common? Is there an exemption for documentaries about history? Does this also apply to comedians who tell jokes about different races? Since only TV is mentioned, does this mean that movies in theaters are exempt? Does this apply only to broadcast TV or are cable, satellite, etc included?

If there aren’t enough actors of each race, does that make a show racist? If so, isn’t this establishing a quota system which is in itself racist?


Harsher punishments for racially motivated crimes
How is a crime determined to be racially motivated? Just because someone commits a crime against a person of a different race, doesn’t mean that the criminal was motivated by race. Only the person who committed the crime knows if he was motivated by race and it’s doubtful that he’ll admit it if faced with extra punishment. If a crime is somehow found to be racially motivated, how much hasher will the penalty be?

Yes well, East Hakney, I did intend to put it on the forum but I couldnt get on it, which is why at the bottom of the proposal it asks for suggestions because it was copied and pasted off a forum entry.. oops

I hope that it gets approved

You know what? I don't. This proposal has good intentions, but needs work on it's purpose, on it's wording, and review by the various members within the UN to improve it further.

This proposal needs a LOT of work before a general consensus on it can be made. I personally think that proposals should be submitted for review on here first of all anyway - they would benefit from it.

Paradise road, by a racist organisation I mean an organisation that attacks a race, such as neo-nazis, the Klu Klux Klan and the BNP. There is no doubt that such organisations are racist and it is obvious to most these organisations are discrimintive and racist.

As for your second point I agree it is... lacking and when/if I redraft the proposal I shall be sure to change it. As for the idea of quota i would not agree to that because, as you say they themselves are racist and people shou;ld be hired on their skills, rather then their race.

Crimes today can be seen as racially motivated "Hate Crimes" so even if a criminal does not admit to it being a hate crime it can be decieded what is and isnt a hate crime in court.

Some interesting points there. I'm not sure it necessarily is obvious when an organisation is racist - the BNP in particular are very good at hiding their prejudice behind legitimate arguments about immigration levels and friction between cultures. That's why there needs to be a clear definition of racism, so as to avoid blurring the line between unacceptable racism and legitimate discussion of political issues. I'll have a think about how the wording should go and maybe post some suggestions here.

As to affirmative action - in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary. But until you remove all the discrimination that holds back ethnic minorities, affirmative action seems to us to be a legitimate way of redressing the balance. On the specific point about quotas in TV shows, maybe the best way to deal with it would be to have a clause urging (not commanding) nations to strive for TV shows etc which reflect the ethnic makeup of their society. Quotas are a bit of a blunt instrument and probably counterproductive.

Here's a much, much better idea:

Don't punish people for what they think or for the peaceful expression of those ideas.

You're just a fucking fascist, you know that?

Speak for yourself, G Bugles. We're peaceful democratic socialists. And this is not a question of telling people what to think. It's a question of protecting our citizens from being publicly vilified, discriminated against, turned down for jobs, abused and attacked for characteristics, such as skin colour, that they cannot help and are not rational grounds for discrimination.

Paradise road, by a racist organisation I mean an organisation that attacks a race, such as neo-nazis, the Klu Klux Klan and the BNP.
There needs to be a clear definition to be certain that groups such as MEChA and the Black Panthers will be included as racist. They're racist for minorities, but that doesn't make them any less racist.

Crimes today can be seen as racially motivated "Hate Crimes" so even if a criminal does not admit to it being a hate crime it can be decieded what is and isnt a hate crime in court.
Many people have different ideas about how one would go about determining a hate crime. This is why a definition would be needed in a proposal. Furthermore, you still haven't described how much harsher the punishments would be.

As to affirmative action - in an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary. But until you remove all the discrimination that holds back ethnic minorities, affirmative action seems to us to be a legitimate way of redressing the balance.
Even if racism was the problem for the actors not reflecting race, affirmative action is by definition racist and may simply make matters worse by breeding actual racism. Not to mention that it may actually be illegal according to the proposal. Professional sports are televised so they must be made to follow the same retrictions as well.

okay so you are saying that we need to fix this problem by pretending it isn't a problem? no racism on tv...that fixez it..after all censorship is the best way to go(note the sarcasm)...i think the best way to fix this issue is to confront it..there are always going to be people who do not get along it is human nature...and there is no such thing as not being racist...because of the fact that there is a word racism...there will be racism...its only natural for humans to be discriminate upon others according to their looks...I myself do not support this as a way of judging people...I do not support judging people actually but thats another issue all together...I say you let things play out...eventually a leader from each group will form and they will reach an agreement...its only a matter of time...its human nature to try and fix every problem...proved by the fact that thats exactly what you are doing now...but instead of solving the problem they seem to just make new ones...strange how the world works...

Or the two groups get trigger happy and you get a civil war. Having read the critiscims and issues put forward Ive decieded that the ideas in my proposal may not be the right way to go about confronting racism and it was to brief, and its been very helpful and intresting, apart from the person who called me a fucking facist, he/she is an idiot. Anyway, I plan to redraft my proposal and resubmit it in the future and hope it becomes a resolution. If anyone does have any more suggestions for the redraft post it on the forum or telegram me.

How would this be enforced? What are the penalties, who enforces them, how is the process monitored and procedural fairness ensured?

The guy who called you a facist did raise a good point. What about groups that are racist, but not voilent? Would this preposal make it illigal to, say, have a group meet in someone's house and be racist and talk about how they hate all black people and how black people suck and are the cause of all of the world's problems, but never accually cause violence or threaten any black people? I beliave it is not the UN's place (or any gov's place) to prevet citizens from peacfully expressing their views. And this preposal wouldm't solve the problem. It should also have some stuff about educateing children in schools about racism and how it's wrong.

"Oh, "facists" and "racists", mummy, can I stay up and watch?"

...

Nice to see all is well and every-one fallen to name calling, this entire proposal not only lost its credibility as such a thing, but it also just dragged quite alot of us down with it seems...

:wink:

That blather of mine aside, I fail to see how one proposes to brain wash (seemingly) the entire population of U.N. member countries...

Something about this sounds all to 1984-esque to me...

- The Rep of Komokom.

Wondering, where did all the free speech go apart from the Forums?

fair enough, but this proposal does not cover enough ground.

I would suggest that education should take it's place in educating minors in equal rights, tolerance and respect of liberties.

But then again I think education should do that for everything, not just racism, but others including sexism, homophobia, and religous intolerance.

Amen.

Good intentions, but if you make harsher punishments for hate crimes the people who just happen to hit a guy because he is being an ass, and the guy who got hit is black and the other guy is white is it a hate crime. Most people would say yes but in fact it is not. Also keeping certain things special to some countries make this world unique. and about racism on tv it's all just fun and games if ypu have aproblem with it change the channel. As I said before good intentions but it should be reviewed a bit more before moving ahead

This won't work because you cannot stop people from having their own individual thoughts least you control them totally and completely. As long as people an think and others can teach hatred, tehre will be racism. A mere legislation and tougher punishments won't help because of the nature of humanity.

Doesn't this proposal go against the "Right to Choose?"

After all...
One has the right to feel hatred and prejudice against anyone if they CHOOSE to. As long as they do not cause harm, physically and Mentally, it is ok according to the recently passed resolution.

By banning specific groups, you are REMOVING that group member's RIGHT TO CHOOSE to meet and gather and share their thoughts and opinions and experiences... again as long as they do not cause harm, physically and Mentally, to anyone.

by singling out those types of groups, this resolution is showing it's racism/prejudice against others by holding them accountable for what they think, which by the RIGHT TO CHOOSE resolution, is safeguarded to them as (yet again) they do not cause harm, physically and Mentally, to anyone. Therefore this resolution is hyprocritical in nature.

Therefore, anyone supporting this proposal (including the author) is in direct violation of the recently passed RIGHT TO CHOOSE resolution.

There's a lot to read here, and I don't have the time to do it now.
I'll put in my 2 cents worth, though.

I believe banning racist acts, such as lynching and the like, would be great.

However, just as the enlightenment thinkers, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

The freedom of speech is as precious as the freedom of religion and thought.

I will never support placing a restriction on it.

NOT EVER.

Another point to make:

If people don't like hearing something, they'll stop listening.
They'll walk away.
They'll change the radio or tv channel.
Whatever.

Most people these days dispise the idea of racism, and won't tolerate hearing it. It doesn't have all that big effect on our society today.

An admirable idea, but it contradicts the principles upon which freedom and democracy are based, and while that might not be important to everyone, it is to me.

By posting this, I'm in no way suppporting racism.

I feel it is discusting and should be gotten rid of, but we can only do that through education.

Good intentions, yet the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Doesn't this proposal go against the "Right to Choose?"

After all...
One has the right to feel hatred and prejudice against anyone if they CHOOSE to. As long as they do not cause harm, physically and Mentally, it is ok according to the recently passed resolution.

By banning specific groups, you are REMOVING that group member's RIGHT TO CHOOSE to meet and gather and share their thoughts and opinions and experiences... again as long as they do not cause harm, physically and Mentally, to anyone.

by singling out those types of groups, this resolution is showing it's racism/prejudice against others by holding them accountable for what they think, which by the RIGHT TO CHOOSE resolution, is safeguarded to them as (yet again) they do not cause harm, physically and Mentally, to anyone. Therefore this resolution is hyprocritical in nature.

Therefore, anyone supporting this proposal (including the author) is in direct violation of the recently passed RIGHT TO CHOOSE resolution.

In which case don't all proposals under Moral decency go against this 'Right to choose'?

What problems are you trying to address?

Is it the unhappiness of your cultural/ethnic minorities?
In that case, give them power, freedom, and a primer on telling their attackers to screw themselves.

Is it the incorrect beliefs associated with prejudice?
Increase your education and awareness, and perhaps tighten restrictions on childraising if you are right-wing.

Shutting people up may help part of that, but it is inefficient effort.
Let us say that I think Latinos are Unattractive (for example).
In that case, perhaps some laws could be implemented whereby a Latino-friendly institution must exist to allow these people to fulfil their potential,
and a process by which I cannot force others to be Latino-unfriendly (say by firing them if they attacked my point of view).

I'd never support that (I'm more inclined to support a 'tolerance colony' where racist attitudes are outcast to the greater society), but it solves the problem moreso than forcing me to hire people that will make my work experience unpleasurable (Perhaps leading to further hatred!).

I support the censorship of racism only in single-influence households (where the child learns only from its parents), but my government will have community childcare so the point is moot.

I would agree, if it weren't for jews. Jews have been running America's economy for so long, and I won't let them get mine, when and if I get a choice to ban them, I will do so.

Racial and religious tolerance are the ingredents of a peaceful world. Intolerance breeds hate, crime, and leads to killings, war and destruction of the human race. There should be of one opinion and that is we are of one race the HUMAN race- and the sooner the better.