NationStates Jolt Archive

The Commonwealth of Pablovorsk, after discussions with it's fellow regional nations, wishes to table for discussion a draft proposal amending the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003). As a result of these preliminary discussions, the draft proposal reads thusly:

Sexual Freedom Amendment
To ammend the previous Sexual Freedom Resolution (2003)

Category: Human Rights, Strength: Significant

Description:

ACKNOWLEDGING the spirit of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) as constituting an understanding of the desire to right social injustices based on random biological traits or free choice,

UNDERSTANDING the desire for privacy by all individuals regardless of race, religion, creed, gender, or sexuality, such that there is a clear and distinct separation between public and private affairs, but

REALISING that relationships conducted in private have public expressions and implications, it is further

CLARIFIED that the categories outlined in the aforementioned Resolution on Sexual Freedom impigne upon an individual's rights to freedom from social injustices based on random biological traits or free choice,

THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, do hereby resolve the following.

1: The primary clause of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) is upheld.

(a): this is to be understood as a distinction between the private and the public in political life.

(b): governments, and public associations, have no claim to inquire into or interfere with the activites that constitute private associations, whether these occur within or without a private residence, subject to 1 (c), and Article 4.

(c): the claim against interference shall not be valid in cases where the activities conducted in private associations are in violation of the criminal code of the relative nations, subject to 1 (d).

(d): the extent to which a criminal code of a respective nation can impinge on this freedom of private association is limited by the Bill of Human Rights.


2: The secondary clause of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) is denied and repealed.

(a): the primary identifier of exclusion from the donotion of biological matter for the use in organ, blood, or other medical donation is regarded as being those individuals that carry pathogens or other medical deficiencies such that the donation would cause harm to the recipient of that donation.

(b): to remove a specific class of people as result of increased representation in a statistical demographic unfairly and unjustly excludes this class from donotion of biological matter by extending the premise that all individuals of said class carry a pathogen or harmful medical deficiency, when in fact they do not.

(c): circumstances described in 2 (b) constitute a violation of an individuals entitlement to engage in public life and to contribute in a positive way to national interests.

(d): a medical deficiency causing harm to a patient must be recognised as such by the medical profession, and is, as such, recognised by the World Health Organisation as a sufficient medical deficiency.

(i): in disputed cases, nations may submit a proposal for research into the alleged deficiency to the World Health Organisation, who may then dictate research into that field to discern the realty of the alleged deficiency.

(ii): the World Health Organisation is not required to execute such research, but must account for its reasons not to proceed with an investigation in such a case.


3: The right to privacy, and entitlement to sexual freedom, as underpins the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003), is not limited to a private domicile.

(a): There shall be no legal imperative, outlined in any criminal code, compromising the freedom of any individual the right to express or enjoy their private associations in public life or areas (subject to 3 (a) (i) & (ii)).

(i): it is permitted for nations to limit the public expressions of private associations in the interests of public decency, subject to 3 (a) (ii).

(ii): any limitations on public expressions of private associations must be legislated and exercised without prejudice to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or creed of the individual person or persons.

(b): There shall be no institutional or de facto toleration of extra-legal activities that also undermine the activities described in 3 (a).


4: Private Associations are to be defined as those activities between persons of a given nation conducted outside the purview of public life, including, but not limited to, government.

(a): examples of such private associations are

(i): close personal relationships, such as marital, de facto, or casual relations.

(ii): associations based around ideology or public interest, such as religious congregations, political parties, or public interest groups.

(iii): business associations.

While most of these articles are straight-forward, it seems evident that Article 3 in particular requires some clarification.

It is in the opinion of the Commonwealth of Pablovorsk that the intention of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) was to provide effective tolerance of all activities conducted in the private lives of individuals, primarily those of a sexual nature.

The draft proposal, above, suggests that one's private life is not limited merely to one's home, thus, the phrase "what one does in the privacy of one's own home, is one's own business" is redundant in the face of this realisation.

Furthermore, the Commonwealth observes that the above assertion ("what one does...") may, in fact, be legitmately construed to give reason to limit such activity to a particular location. This is, in fact, no toleration of any sort. It is a marginalising stipulation, and rather than giving freedom to individuals to pursue their private interests, it more clearly defines the domains in which such activities may be exercised. Requiring people to constrain private associations in a certain place in fact limits freedom, rather than granting it.

That said, however, in discussions with the fellow nations of the region, it was thought that perhaps such observations could be used to give justification to public lewdness, or other inappropriate, or unwelcome displays. The Commonwealth recognises that many different nations have a different degree of tolerance for such activities, and as a result of the additions of sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of Article 3, paragraph (a), this may be effectively regulated by differing nations so long as there is an equality of application of such laws.

The Commonwealth, having tabled this draft proposal, now invites any comments or suggestions from members of the United Nations, and would welcome signals of support from regional delegates.

Thank you,
Venjarni Olgarosk,
Minister of the Exterior,
Commonwealth of Pablovorsk.

Note: please find below a copy of the aforementioned Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) for comparison.
Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003)
Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Strong Proposed by: Armstrongonia
Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2538

Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003

There should definitely be sexual freedom. :wink:

Wyrmia supports this amendment of Resolution of Sexual Freedoms. Government should let citizens decide what shall they do in trier private life. Unless it threatens and/or endangers other citizens.

Thank you for your support, were there any objections, observations, or suggestions that people would like to make before a final proposal is submitted to the United Nations?

OK, this is an obvious problem right here:

Sexual Freedom Amendment2: The secondary clause of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) is denied and repealed.

Thing is, repeals of past resolutions aren't allowed. Now, I appreciate that this proposal isn't so much a repeal of the Sexual Freedom resolution as an amendment to it, so it would probably be best to change the wording of this to reflect that fact. While you can't really repeal this clause, you could, say, put very strict limits on what inquiries the government can make and in what circumstances it can make them.

Sorry that's not more helpful - I would suggest a draft wording myself but I'm too tired to come up with anything.

Thing is, the forum moderators already have to spend an awful lot of their time weeding out illegal repeal suggestions. If just one proposal passes with the word "repeal" in it - even if that's misleading and it's not a repeal - the UN forum is going to be flooded with nations wondering why they can't submit repeal proposals when one's already gone through.

So our suggestion is to carefully reword this and - more importantly - check it with Enodia the forum moderator before submitting it. If you don't check it with him, and he decides that this is indeed a repeal, you could be booted out of the UN for breaking the rules.

I like this proposal as it clarifies the old resolution, but as the delegate from East Hackney said, get it checked by Enodia (the forum moderator) to ensure that it is legal under NationStates rules.

Excellent work.

the incorporated states of procrasination completely agrees with this issue and i think you should put it to theun for a vote you've got my vote for definate good luck.!! :D

What EH said. Change the "repeal" wording to "amendment" and you might get past the eagle eyes of Enodia and company.

Might.

Thanks for the support and input again, I would, then like to change the wording of the stipulation of the first article to read the following.

2: The secondary clause of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) is amended

The denial and repealing, I think you're right, is a bit too strong (and against the rules). It was only meant as a clarification and a slight correction, not a complete re-write. And thanks for the heads-up re: the mod.

You have the full support of Great Hackers. Any help you need please keep me informed.

The Commonwealth of Pablovorsk, after talking with Enodia, has settled on a new version of the proposal at hand. We have changed the wording of Article 2 (bolded and underlined appropriately below), and hope that this meets with approval.

The Commonwealth will now begin to draw the attention of regional delegates to this proposal before tabling it officially. Member nations are encouraged to indicate this draft to their regional delegates, in order to secure further comments and/or expressions of support.

Sexual Freedom Amendment
To expand and ammend the previous Sexual Freedom Resolution (2003)

Category: Human Rights, Strength: Significant

Description:

ACKNOWLEDGING the spirit of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) as constituting an understanding of the desire to right social injustices based on random biological traits or free choice,

UNDERSTANDING the desire for privacy by all individuals regardless of race, religion, creed, gender, or sexuality, such that there is a clear and distinct separation between public and private affairs, but

REALISING that relationships conducted in private have public expressions and implications, it is further

CLARIFIED that the categories outlined in the aforementioned Resolution on Sexual Freedom impigne upon an individual's rights to freedom from social injustices based on random biological traits or free choice,

THE MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE UNITED NATIONS, do hereby resolve the following.

1: The primary clause of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) is endorsed.
(a): this is to be understood as a distinction between the private and the public in political life.
(b): governments, and public associations, have no claim to inquire into or interfere with the activites that constitute private associations, whether these occur within or without a private residence, subject to 1 (c), and Article 4.
(c): the claim against interference shall not be valid in cases where the activities conducted in private associations are in violation of the criminal code of the relative nations, subject to 1 (d).
(d): the extent to which a criminal code of a respective nation can impinge on this freedom of private association is limited by the Bill of Human Rights.

2: The secondary clause of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) is further clarified and extended.
(a): the primary identifier of exclusion from the donotion of biological matter for the use in organ, blood, or other medical donation is regarded as being those individuals that carry pathogens or other medical deficiencies such that the donation would cause harm to the recipient of that donation.
(b): to remove a specific class of people as result of increased representation in a statistical demographic unfairly and unjustly excludes this class from donotion of biological matter by extending the premise that all individuals of said class carry a pathogen or harmful medical deficiency, when in fact they do not.
(c): circumstances described in 2 (b) constitute a violation of an individuals entitlement to engage in public life and to contribute in a positive way to national interests.
(d): a medical deficiency causing harm to a patient must be recognised as such by the medical profession, and is, as such, recognised by the World Health Organisation as a sufficient medical deficiency.
(i): in disputed cases, nations may submit a proposal for research into the alleged deficiency to the World Health Organisation, who may then dictate research into that field to discern the reality of the alleged deficiency.
(ii): the World Health Organisation is not required to execute such research, but must account for its reasons not to proceed with an investigation in such a case.

3: The right to privacy, and entitlement to sexual freedom, as underpins the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003), is not limited to a private domicile.
(a): There shall be no legal imperative, outlined in any criminal code, compromising the freedom of any individual the right to express or enjoy their private associations in public life or areas (subject to 3 (a) (i) & (ii)).
(i): it is permitted for nations to limit the public expressions of private associations in the interests of public decency, subject to 3 (a) (ii).
(ii): any limitations on public expressions of private associations must be legislated and exercised without prejudice to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or creed of the individual person or persons.
(b): There shall be no institutional or de facto toleration of extra-legal activities that also undermine the activities described in 3 (a).

4: Private Associations are to be defined as those activities between persons of a given nation conducted outside the purview of public life, including, but not limited to, government.
(a): examples of such private associations are
(i): close personal relationships, such as marital, de facto, or casual relations.
(ii): associations based around ideology or public interest, such as religious congregations, political parties, or public interest groups.
(iii): business associations.

The Kingdom of Joneax would support this amendment, however a flaw / loophole was discovered. If this resolution would be passed, it would void out a multitude of laws created by nations about the world concerning several things 'that happen behind closed doors.' King Geoffry I of Joneax is a firm supporter of civil rights, however he doesn't believe that this should be passed. Upon reading it, King Geoffry I saw that upon the passage; rape, incest, beastiality, and etc would be allowable. The Kingdom of Joneax would support this resolution only if the previous items were examined in a clause, and disallowed.

Signed,

King Geoffry I
The Kingdom of Jonex

The Kingdom of Joneax would support this amendment, however a flaw / loophole was discovered. If this resolution would be passed, it would void out a multitude of laws created by nations about the world concerning several things 'that happen behind closed doors.' King Geoffry I of Joneax is a firm supporter of civil rights, however he doesn't believe that this should be passed. Upon reading it, King Geoffry I saw that upon the passage; rape, incest, beastiality, and etc would be allowable. The Kingdom of Joneax would support this resolution only if the previous items were examined in a clause, and disallowed.

Under the current forumlation of the Proposal a government would be permitted to interfere with the private exercise of those activities (which the Commonwealth of Pablovorsk recognises as being deeply immoral and unconcsionable activites) under the provisions of Article 1 (c), insofar as those acts are deemed to be criminal under the criminal code of relative nations.

The only restriction on this is the follow paragraph (d) that they must be in accordance with the Bill of Rights. As far as I am aware, there is no way that the Bill of Rights could be construed as to condone, or provide protection for, such acts.

The Commonwealth would be curious to know whether this observation addresses your concerns.

We the duly elected Theocratic council of Malagonia do hereby place our support and approval toward this proposition.

Thanks for the support and input again, I would, then like to change the wording of the stipulation of the first article to read the following.

2: The secondary clause of the Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003) is amended

The denial and repealing, I think you're right, is a bit too strong (and against the rules). It was only meant as a clarification and a slight correction, not a complete re-write. And thanks for the heads-up re: the mod.

I'm not sure I understand how repealing is forbidden. Within game mechanics, is it not effectively possible to invalidate the effects of prior resolutions over time?

Does not each resolution, make some small tweak to one's national stats when applied? If this is so, some stats that were decrased by an earlier resolution might be increased by a newer resolution. This would effectively overwrite earlier resolutions.

By the very fact that older resolutions are 'amended' means older resolutions may essentially be rendered pointless by newer resolutions (ie. when they lacked in scope or definition).

Why shouldn't a newer resolution void a section of an older resolution that was found to have negative long-term effects? Within the very limited game mechanics, there is no reason even this sort of change can't be affected--nor accepted in writing.

If this is so, then it basically violates the ability for newer generations of nations to have a legitimate stake in the governance and steering of NS UN policy.

Whils't almost everyone else seems to believe that sexual freedoms should be allowed, i think some what differently. Why should all persons be entitled to such a right at all. Instead of giving an ever increasing number of rights, perhaps we should do the opposite. More and more copuntries within the un are finding it increasingly difficult to maintian police control. In the iterests of fairness to the people, we/they shopuld not allowed to do what they want when they want. I feel that if such an ammendmant were to be passed, that it would be a step in the wrong direction.
More over, surely this ammendmant would lead to civil indecenceies and stir up the lesser members of society into criminilisation. This would undoubtedly result in yet a further strain on the memeber states police systems. If such an act was ever passed, it would undoubtedly lead to civil unrest. i believe that thias ammendmant should never even go to the vote and strongly urge you all, "protect your nations, reduce your peoples civikl rights, increase your control, improve your country, the un and the WORLD" do something good today, and apply what i have said to the real world, and ask yourseklf this question. f i am right and more civil right = lower economy. How is your countries economy, how are your civil rights.

Whils't almost everyone else seems to believe that sexual freedoms should be allowed, i think some what differently. Why should all persons be entitled to such a right at all. Instead of giving an ever increasing number of rights, perhaps we should do the opposite. More and more copuntries within the un are finding it increasingly difficult to maintian police control. In the iterests of fairness to the people, we/they shopuld not allowed to do what they want when they want. I feel that if such an ammendmant were to be passed, that it would be a step in the wrong direction.
More over, surely this ammendmant would lead to civil indecenceies and stir up the lesser members of society into criminilisation. This would undoubtedly result in yet a further strain on the memeber states police systems. If such an act was ever passed, it would undoubtedly lead to civil unrest. i believe that thias ammendmant should never even go to the vote and strongly urge you all, "protect your nations, reduce your peoples civikl rights, increase your control, improve your country, the un and the WORLD" do something good today, and apply what i have said to the real world, and ask yourseklf this question. f i am right and more civil right = lower economy. How is your countries economy, how are your civil rights.

I like this, too, very well-written!

I fail to see the need for this.

I fail to see the need for this.

I fail to see the need for this.

The Commonwealth of Pablovorsk wishes to respond to the following comments on the proposed resolution.

Whils't almost everyone else seems to believe that sexual freedoms should be allowed, i think some what differently. Why should all persons be entitled to such a right at all. Instead of giving an ever increasing number of rights, perhaps we should do the opposite. More and more copuntries within the un are finding it increasingly difficult to maintian police control. In the iterests of fairness to the people, we/they shopuld not allowed to do what they want when they want. I feel that if such an ammendmant were to be passed, that it would be a step in the wrong direction.

More over, surely this ammendmant would lead to civil indecenceies and stir up the lesser members of society into criminilisation. This would undoubtedly result in yet a further strain on the memeber states police systems. If such an act was ever passed, it would undoubtedly lead to civil unrest. i believe that thias ammendmant should never even go to the vote and strongly urge you all, "protect your nations, reduce your peoples civikl rights, increase your control, improve your country, the un and the WORLD" do something good today, and apply what i have said to the real world, and ask yourseklf this question. f i am right and more civil right = lower economy. How is your countries economy, how are your civil rights.

The proposed resolution does not permit individuals to do "whatever they want, whenever they want" it merely makes clearer the distinction between the private and public spheres with regards to legislation. It places clearer limits on the extent to which governments can interfere with the private lives of private citizens, not only in the are of sexual freedom (it is my intention to rename the proposal Political Freedom on final submission).

In no way does the amendment jeopordise police control of criminal activity, and due deference is given to the individual criminal codes of nations, asking only that they apply these codes equally, and with due reference to the private lives of its individual citizens. Furthermore, I fail to see how this proposal will lead to civil indecency as there is an explict provision for laws governing public decency in the resolution, allowing a nation to be as liberal or conservative as they wish with regards to public decency, as well only wishing these laws to be applied equally.

The claim of the Jovian Worlds that such a proposal would undoubtedly lead to civil unrest is false, because I have doubts about that assertion. I would invite the Jovian worlds to further clarify their argument so that I may understand how greater civil and political freedom may lead to a serious undermining of a liberal democratic nation.

Pablovorsk promotes political rights above all else, and does not claim to have the best civil rights record, but our economy is healthy and vibrant. The enablement of civil rights does not necessarily lead to a decline in economy.

I fail to see the need for this.

The Commonwealth has taken issue with two underlying points in the previous Resolution on Sexual Freedom (2003). The first is that of privacy. The claim that "so long as it happens behind closed doors, it's okay" ignores the fact that many lasting and committed relationships desire public expression, and on occasion, recognition. It was hoped that this proposal would clarify this issue.

The second issue was that on the donation of blood. The previous resolution may be construed to disallow individuals the ability to donate blood based on private activities, rather than whether there are any deficiencies in the blood of the donor. This, we believe, was another claim that needed further clarification.

As the Commonwealth sees it, these two oversights indicated a need for further clarification, which it is hoped this proposal will receive.

"President Herschel, we have to discuss the matter of sexual freedom."
"I'm not in favor of it."
"Excuse me?"
"What about the people who like handcuffs? They aren't free at all during sex. If they pass this act, what happens to the people who use handcuffs?"
"Mr. President, its a figure of speech."
"No, they are quite real, trust me. Cut's off the circulation after awhile."
"Not the handcuffs, the freedom..."
"That reminds me, send the first lady in. Tell her to bring 'those things'."
"But Mr. President, the resolution..."
"What resolution?"
"I'll send in the first lady."

i ate now i do eat i are eating