NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, The Sexes Rights Law proposal has come up for open vote !

Feel free to cast your stones here, and your vote on the U.N. page, :D

* And even now, a huge thanks to all the delegates who helped make this happen, and my own delegate, whose own human rights related Sexes Rights Act will most likely be revised, and worked towards resolving, again. Once again, thank-you all, and lets see if we can really get this one on the books proper like.

:D

The Proposal : ( Up for open vote, did I mention ? ;) )

The Sexes Rights Law

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category : Social Justice
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Komokom

Description : The United Nations notes with much sorrow the precedent in both distant and recent history, as well as contemporary times, where cultures dominated by one or more sexes infringe upon the rights of one or more other sexes. The following document is intended to both relieve and resolve much of these discriminative actions, not for one sex, but for all, acting in the interests of promoting equality in all society and eliminating gender bias from said society at large.

The United Nations :

Is Deeply Disturbed By : The possibility or action of the with-holding of citizenship and ethnicity-recognition based on the sex of a individual or collective of other-ethnic origins or of origin within the borders of a nation state.

Does Formally Recognise and Declare : That the rights of all sexes in society are equal, excepting only in the conditions below and that this equality must be preserved in the interests of the social and community rights of all citizens of Nation States United Nation member states.

Thus the Nation States United Nations :

Re-affirms and Re-states : Article 4 of The Universal Bill of Rights, implemented by the Nation States United Nations on Fri Aug 8 2003.

Re-affirms and Re-states : Gay Rights, implemented by the Nation States United Nations on Sat May 3 2003.

RESOLVES :

1. The Nation States United Nations does here-by greatly encourage each member state to establish a minimum of one centre for each sex in their borders, in which people of the sex of the respective designated centre could seek shelter, medical care, and counselling for both themselves and their children or other dependants if they should find themselves without a home or shelter or reasonable support or care, due to any sexually motivated violence or discrimination from the home or work-place, or from such violence or lack of care stemming from society at large. These centres must be sensitive and cater to the needs of intersex people.

2. The Nation States United Nations calls upon all employers within member-states to abide by the following regulations :

a) Equal wages for all sexes.

b) Equal benefits for all sexes.

The above conditions are recommendations applicable within reason in that they are open to interpretation by a member states legal system in regards to each individual case, under the condition that the legal system must act in an un-biased fashion in regard to these cases.

3. The Nation States United Nations does applaud and protect the actions of
any charity based organisation that is dedicated to furthering the education of any and all sexes in countries where one or more sex may not given an equal chance at attaining an education in a society.

4. Said protection in clause 3 is to be considered symbolistic in nature, and this protection of said charity organisations is conditional in that they may only provide opportunity for equality, they may not raise one sex or sexes above another or others. Such would be contrary to the spirit of the legislation and is not encouraged.

5. The Nation States United Nations recognises that gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in.

Voting Ends: Sun Aug 15 2004

I think it's brilliant that someone has finally recognised that there aren't just two sexes! I think it would have been even better if you'd added in policy for governments of member states to formally recognise or allow for more than two sex classifications but overall... YAY!

Godiam

Glad you like it. We made this proposal so that further-evolved, non-human, and/or nations that recognize a third sex wouldn't be alienated.

I added parts to allow intersex individuals the same rights as everyone else on our second edit.

Plug: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=347655

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Good work, the pair of you, and good luck with getting these two proposals through.

I agree with equality of the sexes in principle, but I'm not comfortable with this resolution in this form. First of all, recognizing speculative future-genders seems a little silly, and not very useful. If there are people other than men and women you want to protect, it should be done explicitly. Also, Sections 3 and 4 are somewhat baffling to me. Section 3 is fairly limited in scope already, and Section 4 limits its scope even further.

If its sex equality we're after, I don't think this is right resolution to get it.

Also, Sections 3 and 4 are somewhat baffling to me. Section 3 is fairly limited in scope already, and Section 4 limits its scope even further.
I beg to differ. Section 3 is sufficient in the context of the proposal, while section 4 is entirely consistent with the proposal's aims. I applaud them.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

I agree with equality of the sexes in principle, but I'm not comfortable with this resolution in this form. First of all, recognizing speculative future-genders seems a little silly, and not very useful.

It is no secret that non-human species live in UN countries. Some 'human' countries also recognise a 3rd sex. We wanted this proposal to be applicable in all United Nations countries, not just the ones that are like the mythical real world.

Thank you for your comment.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The undead nation of Bloodfetish supports this proposal. The recognition of the rights of all genders -- past, present and future -- is important to us all.

I think this is, in general, a very good resolution. The overall goals are certanly goals that a majority of member states would agree with. The proposal is written with due respect to prior UN resolutions and reaffirms those resolutions that are related to it. The proposal does not impose hardships on any individual naiton state.

What "other" genders are we talking about here? According to the biological knowledge of 2004, there are females with two X chromosomes and males with an X and Y chromosome. There are no known "third" chromosomes, and thus no "third" or more combinations.

The Nomadic Peoples of Caesar Soze agrees with the concept of gender equality, and compliments the authors and contributors of the proposed bill for their intelligible proposal. The Nomadic Peoples also recognizes that this bill shall be passed based solely on the fact that 100% of the bills put up for vote are passed.

However the Nomadic Peoples would recommend to all reading nations to vote against this bill and take in to consideration that at least one bill shall be put up to vote and fail.

Thank you,
The Nomadic Peoples of Caesar Soze
Representing Gaviotas Paradise

The Nomadic Peoples also recognizes that this bill shall be passed based solely on the fact that 100% of the bills put up for vote are passed.

However the Nomadic Peoples would recommend to all reading nations to vote against this bill and take in to consideration that at least one bill shall be put up to vote and fail.


This is a common misconception. Many resolutions are not passed.

I find this bill very well thought out and is appropriate for a Yea vote.

Good job

What "other" genders are we talking about here? According to the biological knowledge of 2004, there are females with two X chromosomes and males with an X and Y chromosome. There are no known "third" chromosomes, and thus no "third" or more combinations.
Don't expect all nations to be living in 2004 If your country only has two sexes (or one, or seven) this proposal is compatible with that. And there are more combinations.

The Nomadic Peoples of Caesar Soze agrees with the concept of gender equality, and compliments the authors and contributors of the proposed bill for their intelligible proposal. The Nomadic Peoples also recognizes that this bill shall be passed based solely on the fact that 100% of the bills put up for vote are passed.

However the Nomadic Peoples would recommend to all reading nations to vote against this bill and take in to consideration that at least one bill shall be put up to vote and fail.

Thank you,

Proposals that reach the voting stage are not all passed but only the ones that are passed are recorded.

Thank you for your comment.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

It is no secret that non-human species live in UN countries. Some 'human' countries also recognise a 3rd sex. We wanted this proposal to be applicable in all United Nations countries, not just the ones that are like the mythical real world.


As somebody who has often been accused of having a mythical real world perspective / view (OOC: my resolutions have presumed that NS is somewhat similar to the real world), I'd like to say that I can appreciate this goal.

With that in mind, my nation has voted in favour of this resolution.

Congrats to both of your nations!

Thanks for your positive comments everyone.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

This is a common misconception. Many resolutions are not passed.

IIRC, the two most recent resolutions that failed:

Ban the Death Penalty (this resolution failed in June 2004)
Space Defense Initiative (this resolution failed in April or May 2004)

Now that my government's International Affairs Office has recieved more funding we will be recording the text and vote outcome (along with key UN Delegate votes) on future resolutions and sharing this information.

[OOC: Anybody know a good free site where I could store pdfs with the formatted resolution text and summary statistics? I'd like to start building a NS UN archive that it easier to use than our existing "past UN resolutions" archive.]

What "other" genders are we talking about here? According to the biological knowledge of 2004, there are females with two X chromosomes and males with an X and Y chromosome. There are no known "third" chromosomes, and thus no "third" or more combinations.

Thank you,
The Nomadic Peoples of Caesar Soze
Representing Gaviotas Paradise

In seeking a greater balance, I must note that some scholars and experts have recognized a "third gender" for many generations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender


Third gender
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Third gender was used from the late 19th century to describe people who did not fit into the then existing gender categories:
female genitalia = female identity = female behavior = desire male partner
male genitalia = male identity = male behavior = desires female partner

Today this scheme is also known as binary gender system or heteronormativity.

The third gender included (in modern terms):
Intersexual people
Gays and lesbians
transgendered people

Third gender was widely used until World War II in Europe. It never went completely out of use, but was kept alive in the subcultures of the people described by it. In recent years it has made a comeback. Occasionally other gender is used instead of third gender.

Non-Western cultures often had or have accepted gender roles for third-gendered people, for example the American Indian berdache and two-spirit people, or the Indian hijras (a.k.a. arivanna).

A warm-hearted congratulations to Komokom for a well-written proposal that's turned into a very well recepted resolution!

Our region votes "yes" for its passing and will promote it for passage.

Mik, I'd be willing to host your site on UN resolutions and such on my web server, just let me know the details if you're interested via TG.

What "other" genders are we talking about here? According to the biological knowledge of 2004, there are females with two X chromosomes and males with an X and Y chromosome. There are no known "third" chromosomes, and thus no "third" or more combinations.

Actually there are more combinations other than XX & XY, most of which involve a third element, XXY and XYY are the two common examples.

Secondly it's really a misnomer to equate XX/XY with gender. From a technical perspective, the chromosomes don't actually determine gender, rather they determine the hormone balances that determine gender. If you pump the right hormones into an average adult male, for example, you will get breast development to the point where they can actually lactate. In the same manner hormone imbalances during fetal development can cause the external genitalia not to match the genetic blueprint and sometimes the "gender" is decided surgically, although technically the true gender is neuter.

And finally there is the wierd case where you can genetically be both. Some people are chimeras. Generally this is the result of fraternal twins that somehow combined early in fetal development. It's impossible to say how frequently this occurs because we have only been DNA printing people recently, but this is a very annoying situation for law enforcement.

So to make a short argument even shorter; even in the real world there are more than two genders. Today most of these third genders tend to mold themselves in one of the two common genders.

Big hugs and thanks to Bloodfetish and Tzorsland!

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Paulizona is completely for equal rights for genders, however, Paulizona is not home to ANY native or immigrant "third gender" beings, natural or otherwise. We don't feel that imposing these laws onto all NationStates, seeing as problems with "third gender" equality is not a world issue, it is a nation-to-nation issue.

I had some questions regarding the institution of this and the other Sexes Rights proposal...

1. Would private companies be required to hire someone of another gender without bias in all cases?
Specifically, lets talk about rape crisis centers, where rape crisis workers are predominantly female since victims are predominantly female. Would that center be required to offer a male a job over a female if the male had better credentials in social work? What if the client base did not support the need for a male rape counselor?

2. Can private organizations like The Boy Scouts, or The Girls Scouts continue their operation and deny admittance based on gender? What about organizations like NOW? Will they still be allowed to continue their work?

3. Are scholarships based on gender to be allowed? Will the Ms (insert title here) pageants continue, or will they now be forced to admit males and third genders to the show?

why isn't a specific qualifier about race included? I know my nation being inherently evil has nothing to do with rights of people, but just having gender equality doesn't mean it's equal across the board.

also, what the hell is an "intergender", are we talking trannies?

all I have to say is..........You have got to be kidding, all of you.

Oh, and I am now the self-proclaimed gender "GuigNatz". Does that come under this proposal?

I simply don't understand what this resolution takes "sex" to mean. It seems clear to me that some Nation States have more than two "sexes". Other have only two. That's all well and good.

But let's say there is some identifiable group of individuals who, in Nation State A, are considered a third sex. Similar individuals may live in Nation State B, but there they aren't recognized as a thrid sex. Assuming NSA and NSB are both members of the UN, what affect would this resolution have? Would it require Nation State B to grant full equality to this group, even if they don't recognize them as a third sex?

If so, I think this resolution is too broad. If not, then I don't understand what purpose this resolution is intended to serve. Either way, I oppose this resolution as written, and I urge other Member Nations to do the same, despite the clearly noble intentions of its author.

Mr. President,

Lord Kea: Most Magnificent and Honoured Holy Father, Lord Protector and Sovererign Ruler of the Holy Republic of Keamanan; in accordince with our Holy Scripture, the Book of K, do herby condemn and repudiate all articles of this Resolution on the following grounds:

(1) Whereas, the first Resolution reads: 1. The Nation States United Nations does here-by greatly encourage each member state to establish a minimum of one centre for each sex in their borders, in which people of the sex of the respective designated centre could seek shelter, medical care, and counselling for both themselves and their children or other dependants if they should find themselves without a home or shelter or reasonable support or care, due to any sexually motivated violence or discrimination from the home or work-place, or from such violence or lack of care stemming from society at large. These centres must be sensitive and cater to the needs of intersex people. It is the most GREAT and HOLY word of the BOOK OF K that: No public acknowledgement shall exist (other than here in the Book of K wherein acknowledgement is necessary for the purposes of repudiation) that anyone ever hurts anyone within the Borders of The Holy Republic of Keamanan (Vol. I, Book the First, Article 3 "Definitions and Exclusions", §142,281.18)

(2) Whereas, the second Resolution reads: The Nation States United Nations calls upon all employers within member-states to abide by the following regulations : a) Equal wages for all sexes. b) Equal benefits for all sexes. The above conditions are recommendations applicable within reason in that they are open to interpretation by a member states legal system in regards to each individual case, under the condition that the legal system must act in an un-biased fashion in regard to these cases. It is once again the most GREAT and HOLY word of the BOOK OF K that: No office within the Most Glorious Government of the Holy Republic of Keamanan shall, at any time, hear argument of a Heretical and Blasphemous Nature against the Teachings of the HOLY BOOK OF K. (Vol. II, Book the Eighteenth, Article 74 "Some More things The Government WON'T Do", §204,192.79) On the grounds of this clause of our Holy Scripture we shall and can not adjudicate appeals made by lowly human... i mean citizens in response to perceived violations (don't get me started...) made by any of our nations Reverend Corporations.

(3) Whereas, the third Resolution reads: The Nation States United Nations does applaud and protect the actions of any charity based organisation that is dedicated to furthering the education of any and all sexes in countries where one or more sex may not given an equal chance at attaining an education in a society. It is the HOLY ORDER of our GREAT BOOK that At no time shall the government or any member of the government or duly and most reveredly beatified representative of our most BELOVED and HOLY REPUBLIC OF KEAMANAN reveal emotion of any kind, let alone do any, or anything remotely similar to the following: Applaud, Bow, Curtsy, Dance, Entertain, Fawn ... Kiss, Lament, Malign, Nurture, Offer, Please, Query, Respect, Serve ... etc etc etc. (Vol. XII, Book the Forty-second, Article 203 "You thought that was it? Nope! Here're even more things you absolutely will not do in public", §521,219.81) Therefore, we as a nation absolutely can and will not support any resolution calling for "applause" or any other type of adulation for any organisation, be they public or pseudo-private, within our or any borders.

(4) Resolution four is therefore ignored as a modifier to Resolution 3.

(5) Whereas, the fifth resolution states The Nation States United Nations recognises that gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in. It is the policy of the Soverign of Keamanan, his MOST HOLY and BENEVOLENT LORD PROTECTOR of the BOOK OF K and the WORTHLESS and WRETCHED who are NOT WORTHY to be but an AFTERTHOUGHT of ITS AUTHOR - and yet - are ITS MOST KEEN of INTERESTS, KEA: Soverign of ALL HE SEES... AND MUCH OF WHAT THEY WHO ARE CURSED TO LEAVE THE HOLY CITIDEL see as well... not to recognise ANY proclimation made the INFIDEL ROGUES of the Impetuous Swamps of our MOST HOLY REPUBLIC's North-by-North-East (and Some of the Upper Northeast, but not much) who PROUDLY and MOST HERETICALLY refer to their personal genders as JELLY DOUGHNUTS... whatever that is.

(Though, might I add on a personal note, that this assertation by this Insurgent Faction is not the reason for our most holy lord's ban on recognising their proclimations... mostly it has to do with their failure to adequately support the All Blacks' in their most recent test defeat against the wallabies).

THEREFORE it is the position of the HOLY REPUBLIC OF KEAMANAN to Vote AGAINST this bill and any subsequent incarnations -- and on these grounds Moves that the Item be VOTED DOWN by all member states.

Thank you, I yield my remaining time.

The representative from the HOLY REPUBLIC OF KEAMANAN takes his seat and yields his time

(I didn't spell check this, probably best as I'm fairly certain I made up a half dozen or more words in there... oh well.)

This is another blatent attempt for the United Nations interfering with National Soveregnty.

This resolution should be voted against even of you are FOR the equal treatement of the "sexes."

Theorcracies in the United Nations have the right to be theocracies, and these theocracies are based on the Word of (insert devine leader here). these theocracies a lot of times do NOT promote equal treatment of the sexes (whether it be homosexuality for Christains, or non-males for Islam), and the United Nations should NOT be interfering with them.


OOC: Pretend this is APWW Sucks, my UN nation. I don't want ot go through the hassle of the forum registering crap for it, so just PRETEND this is APWW Sucks.

[OOC: Anybody know a good free site where I could store pdfs with the formatted resolution text and summary statistics? I'd like to start building a NS UN archive that it easier to use than our existing "past UN resolutions" archive.]

Try www.freewebs.com

Under this resolution, anyone can just verbally say they are the other gender and be legally that.

This is too vague. Too much a states' rights issue. Let each nation deal with it.

The most honourable nation of Fankvania votes without any reservations against The Sexes Right Law in accordance with the will of the people of Grant County. The aforementioned peoples also decry any efforts by the United Nations to enforce equality of the genders. Man is not woman, and woman is not man, and any attempt to create such equality will have consequences of a most dire nature. For where will such forced equality stop, when men can give birth and women can be presidents. This absurd nonsense must stop forthwith.

Yet another attack upon nation's sovereignty by the UN. Oh well UN members, keep handing away your rights until you have none. Thank God I stay out of that socialist authoritarian world body.

I like this resolution, and my 6 votes (not 6 nations, I'm a delegate) have been cast in favor of it.

I praise God Almighty that I am not part of this secular, immoral NWO called "The United Nations." MAy God pass His Judgement upon all of you who ignore His word.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites wholeheartedly votes in favor of this proposed resloution.

I've voted AGAINST it for the same reasons that Keamanan and Derscon did. Additionally, I believe that this resolution is discriminatory towards certain cultures and religions.

I've voted AGAINST it for the same reasons that Keamanan and Derscon did. Additionally, I believe that this resolution is discriminatory towards certain cultures and religions.

That brings up another point. People keep trying to censor religious people because they do not agree with it. How about those religious trying to censor non-religious? It is the exact same thing -- just like affirmative action, but that is a different subject.

It is another attempt by athiests to destroy religion.

It needs to be canned. Religions have as much right to exist as atheism.

And, of course, this is a HUGE infringement on National Soveregnty.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

The Empire of Raventhrall deeply objects to, not the concept behind the issue at hand, but the idea of there being more than two sexes.

First, the idea of gays and lesbians considered as their own sex. This is completely absurd. Gay and lesbian is a sexual preference, not a sex. Gays are men, and lesbians are women. End of discussion.

Second, transsexuals are not their own sex. Women, no matter how much surgery they go under, are still women genetically. Men, no matter how much make-up and hormonal therapy they undergo, are still men genetically and cannot produce offspring: a vital part of being female.

Third are intersexuals; also known as hermaphrodites. It is our conclusion that hermaphrodites are female. The reasons are as follows:

a) There are more female sexual organs than male sexual organs on an intersexual.

b) The penis does not work.

c) An intersexual can produce offspring from it's vagina.

As we can see, there is no need for an issue to talk about more than two sexes. Therefore, even though the idea of equal rights between the TWO sexes is a very valid and important idea, the Empire of Raventhrall votes Nay and urges others to do so as well.

Of course this intrudes on national sovereignty. It is a proposal in the UN, that is what they do.

And, quite frankly, I don't care what religious values are harmed by this. I do care about the people who are harmed by those religious values. If a religious person believes that as part of there religion they must be submissive because of there sex, that's fine, good for them, but I don't see why people of different or no religion should be oppressed by a doctrine they don't believe in.

We are not trying to oppress peoples freedom of religion we are trying to government's forcing oppression based on a religion that is not necessarily shared by their people. If the government has faith in the truth of there chosen religion, and the devotion of it's people it should have nothing to worry about from this proposal.

Thank you for your comments.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The Empire of Raventhrall deeply objects to, not the concept behind the issue at hand, but the idea of there being more than two sexes.
Yet it is an idea that some countries hold. We said sexes instead of sex for that reason, If you have two you can apply it to your existing laws but if a 'sci-fi' nation has, say, five. they can apply this proposal without leaving anyone out. This resolution does not force recognition of a third sex but it allows countries who recognise a third sex to give them the same rights.

First, the idea of gays and lesbians considered as their own sex. This is completely absurd. Gay and lesbian is a sexual preference, not a sex. Gays are men, and lesbians are women. End of discussion.
Eh?

Second, transsexuals are not their own sex. Women, no matter how much surgery they go under, are still women genetically. Men, no matter how much make-up and hormonal therapy they undergo, are still men genetically and cannot produce offspring: a vital part of being female.
Without wringing your throat for that last remark. :p This proposal does not make a third sex for anyone, even transsexuals, unless such conditions exist already.

Third are intersexuals; also known as hermaphrodites. It is our conclusion that hermaphrodites are female. The reasons are as follows:

a) There are more female sexual organs than male sexual organs on an intersexual.

b) The penis does not work.

c) An intersexual can produce offspring from it's vagina.
Perhaps you should write a paper about your findings.

As we can see, there is no need for an issue to talk about more than two sexes. Therefore, even though the idea of equal rights between the TWO sexes is a very valid and important idea, the Empire of Raventhrall votes Nay and urges others to do so as well.
When countries exist with more then two sexes, I believe it is important to protect all of them, equally.

Once again:
This resolution does not force recognition of a third (or more) sex but it allows countries who recognise a third (or more) sex to give them the same rights.

Thank you for your comments.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

also, what the hell is an "intergender", are we talking trannies?

People who's biological sex is ambiguous.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/igm_circ.htm

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I'm voting against. I beleive each nation should be able to control wages as they see fit!

I'm voting against. I beleive each nation should be able to control wages as they see fit!

Even if the nation's policy is to pay women less than men for the same jobs?

If you want to be a member of the UN and reap its benefits, you should be required not discriminate based on sex.

Well, I'm back, but am out of time again ( Reality is really being far too real for my liking today, it really has ... :rolleyes: ) but suffice to say I am just amazed by the massive amounts of positive response I've gotten from so many people, and all the wonderful defence of my proposal from the forces of social oppression and in-equality for all.

To my critics, few who have left here with their credibility completely intact, I can only apologise I do not have enough time right now to take your ... concerns ... on a one on one basis ... in my usual fashion ... and I also apologise you cannot agree with me and the other representatives here in making the world a better place for people, regard-less of thie sexual orientation.

That said, thank-you all again, :)

* I will with any luck be able to get back online in a late 24 hours from now and really get down and dirty with the commentary provided here.

Kaiser Wilhelm VI of Gomostan doesnt support this law.This is a foolish law.Woman must be enslaved.Atleast in our country thye are enslaved.Its for the better.Thats how it should must be and it should be forever !Even I have slaves,something like 14 slaves.

Kaiser Wilhelm VI of Gomostan doesnt support this law.This is a foolish law.Woman must be enslaved.Atleast in our country thye are enslaved.Its for the better.Thats how it should must be and it should be forever !Even I have slaves,something like 14 slaves.

But I do have time to pull this apart, waste it will probably be ...

1) Thats nice dear, vote " no " and shuffle along.

2) ALL HEAR THIS !

Kaiser Wilhelm VI of Gomostan THINKS ALL WOMEN SHOULD BE THE SLAVES OF MEN. Is this right ? And might I point out, I'm not just asking men this one you know ... ;)

3) The U.N. already has anti-slave law passed. Which you must as a member obey. Because thats how the game works. You know have three options, leave the U.N. and keep your slaves, stay and release them, or be ignored by every serious player, while at the same time having your credibility ripped to bits.

Next please.

* To of course be responded to in about 24 hours ... :rolleyes:

And might I point out, I'm not just asking men this one you know

Quite.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

It is another attempt by athiests to destroy religion.

It needs to be canned. Religions have as much right to exist as atheism.


in patriarchal religions, while God is typically referred to in a male sense, and given the term "father," the diety is typically seen as genderless:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/t-19034

Satan, likewise, known as The Tempter, is also genderless

http://www.thelife.com/symbolism/tempter.html

And finally, Angels are genderless (Matt. 22: 30).

Being neither male nor female places these beings outside the two accepted genders, and are consistent with patriarchal religions.

Bloodfetish, however, is based on a matriarchal structure, and recognizes the anima and animus within each being.

http://www.cnr.edu/home/bmcmanus/anima.html

"The Anima is the personification of all feminine psychological tendencies within a man, the archetypal feminine symbolism within a man's unconscious. The Animus is the personification of all masculine psychological tendencies within a woman, the archetypal masculine symbolism within a woman's unconscious."

In recognizing the masculine and feminine within each being, we realize a merging of ourselves. Outwardly, we are female or male ... Inwardly, we are both.

As stated earlier, Bloodfetish supports the resolution.

Since my questions have gone unanswered, I must at this time decline my approval of this legislation, as well as any other sexes rights legislation.

I must also say that I am deeply moved by the arguments of certain nations on the issue of national sovereignty infringement. While we, the Democratic Republic of Whited Fields, feel that some infringement is wholly necessary, we also feel that this legislation does impede the freedom of religion of citizens as well.

Should a religiously run state, elected by the people and held in good standing with its people, decide that third gender should not receive equal rights based on moral argument, then I feel the UN has no right to impose our morals on them.

Now, if the representative would like to re-write this proposal again, excluding these requirements in cases where it goes in direct conflict with the established religious code of government, then I may be willing to give my approval.

I apologize that neither myself or and Komokon have not had the time to respond to your comments

As it has been stated countless times, This resolution does not force recognition of a third (or more) sex but it allows countries who recognise a third (or more) sex to give them the same rights. It is no secret that I don't care for the national sovereignty issue, especially when it is used as an excuse to continue the suppression of people. And I wonder how many of these religiously run states, if they are democratic, allow the suppressed sex to vote or even if they allow anyone outside their religion to run for office.

At this stage a rewrite is out of the question unless it is rejected. We did ask for comments on the forums from the moment this proposal was conceived.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

In Norbert Wiener's "Human Use of Human Beings," the notion of hybrids is brought forth, and not purely in a futuristic manner. Some of the technology discussed is within the reach of today's scientists and researchers.

With stem cell cloning, the production of genderless beings is possible. Were these beings brought to term, should they be denied the same rights as any other living creature?

Currently, a human heart can be encased within a metal shell and made to beat. Not yet quite human ... but with the addition of a brain, the being is alive. Some in this thread have made the arguement that reproductive organs determine the gender of a being. If heart and brain are encased within a metal shell -- and no chance of reproduction exists -- what gender does this being assign itself? Should anyone have the right to tell it what it is and is not based purely upon religious speculation?

1. Would private companies be required to hire someone of another gender without bias in all cases?
Specifically, lets talk about rape crisis centers, where rape crisis workers are predominantly female since victims are predominantly female. Would that center be required to offer a male a job over a female if the male had better credentials in social work? What if the client base did not support the need for a male rape counselor?
Good question. However, in such a scenario I imagine that the rape crisis centre offers the victim a choice of whether or not they wish to have a man deal with their case.

2. Can private organizations like The Boy Scouts, or The Girls Scouts continue their operation and deny admittance based on gender? What about organizations like NOW? Will they still be allowed to continue their work?
The resolution makes no reference to such organisations, thus, the answer is yes. Who, incidentally, are NOW?

3. Are scholarships based on gender to be allowed? Will the Ms (insert title here) pageants continue, or will they now be forced to admit males and third genders to the show?
The resolution makes no reference to such awards and events.

If you accept that human rights are international concerns and transcend national sovereignty then there is no reason for you to withhold your support. This resolution simply puts in place the mechanisms to ensure that discrimination is not carried out in UN states on a gender basis.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

If this proposal does not seek to force the recognition of third gender on any nation, then the argument of national sovereignty does not apply.

But still, my questions are not satisfactorily answered.

Should I decide to recognize third gender, what impact will it have on the situations and possibilities listed in my questions?

I am speaking not only in the case of this proposal, but in the other sexes rights proposals that are seeking endorsement and quorum.

NOW: National Organization of Women, the women's rights movement that was established in the 1960s (?). They are more prone to a hard-nosed approach, and have been known to endorse a war on the sexes to get women's rights approved.

Thanks Ecopoeia.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

It is another attempt by athiests to destroy religion.
Where is your proof that the representatives of Komokom and The Black New World are atheists? Have they declared as much here in these halls? Is religion the target of this religion, or gender-based discrimination?

Religious feeling is no excuse for irrationality.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Should I decide to recognize third gender, what impact will it have on the situations and possibilities listed in my questions?
None. My responses remain unaltered.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

...I don't see why people of different or no religion should be oppressed by a doctrine they don't believe in.


The HOLY REPUBLIC OF KEAMANAN proudly reports a population of that is deeply devout. Though the margin of error may be off, we feel confident that our internal studies that suggest no fewer than 122% of our population are not only 'believers', but 'strong believers' in the FANTASTIC and SUPER-GREAT WORD of the BOOK OF K.

Were I permitted by our HOLY BOOK to do so, I would take offense to your suggestion that the directives of the HOLY BOOK OF K are not only the driving force of our Governmental Policy - but also the accepted and beloved bedrock of our very CULTURE.

There is no force, indoctrination, or otherwise malevolent efforts on the part of our GREAT and NOBLE GOD... I mean SOVEREIGN RULER... Lord Kea is a good and just ruler who loves all of his childre.... subject.... citizens equally!

In Keamanan the words "Religion" and "Ethnicity" and "Culture" (and "Government") are all the same -- there is no concept of what you speak of. Even if the Government WERE to have a policy of acting against heretics - we would not need to as the PEOPLE would gladly do it before we had the chance. However there is no Policy - As it is our Government's Foreign Policy not to discuss any dissention that may or may not... but doesn't... go on within our borders.

It seems we missed each other in crossing.

2 & 3: NOW, the Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts, as well as too many organizations to list all have charitable aims to lift one sex up or give one sex an advantage with their own system.

While they tend to back off on the matter of dominant sex (well the scouts do, NOW may or may not), they still provide their charitable funding based on gender.

Again, I am not just asking about this proposal, but the other Sexes Rights proposals that have been written.

Where is your proof that the representatives of Komokom and The Black New World are atheists? Have they declared as much here in these halls?
I can't speak for Komokom, he does that for himself, but I can point you to a thread on the first page were my religious preference is brought up.

I don't like to mention it in discussion because I don't just represent the people of my religion.

Giordano, if you must know, is Catholic.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

It seems we missed each other in crossing.

2 & 3: NOW, the Boy Scouts, and the Girl Scouts, as well as too many organizations to list all have charitable aims to lift one sex up or give one sex an advantage with their own system.

While they tend to back off on the matter of dominant sex (well the scouts do, NOW may or may not), they still provide their charitable funding based on gender.

Again, I am not just asking about this proposal, but the other Sexes Rights proposals that have been written.

There is nothing about charitable organizations in 'Equality…' I believe they are permitted in this resolution as long as they don't present the gender they support as the best.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The HOLY REPUBLIC OF KEAMANAN proudly reports a population of that is deeply devout. Though the margin of error may be off, we feel confident that our internal studies that suggest no fewer than 122% of our population are not only 'believers', but 'strong believers' in the FANTASTIC and SUPER-GREAT WORD of the BOOK OF K.

Were I permitted by our HOLY BOOK to do so, I would take offense to your suggestion that the directives of the HOLY BOOK OF K are not only the driving force of our Governmental Policy - but also the accepted and beloved bedrock of our very CULTURE.

There is no force, indoctrination, or otherwise malevolent efforts on the part of our GREAT and NOBLE GOD... I mean SOVEREIGN RULER... Lord Kea is a good and just ruler who loves all of his childre.... subject.... citizens equally!

In Keamanan the words "Religion" and "Ethnicity" and "Culture" (and "Government") are all the same -- there is no concept of what you speak of. Even if the Government WERE to have a policy of acting against heretics - we would not need to as the PEOPLE would gladly do it before we had the chance. However there is no Policy - As it is our Government's Foreign Policy not to discuss any dissention that may or may not... but doesn't... go on within our borders.

You quote me and miss of the parts most relevant to your comment.

If a religious person believes that as part of there religion they must be submissive because of there sex, that's fine, good for them.

If the government has faith in the truth of there chosen religion, and the devotion of it's people it should have nothing to worry about from this proposal.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Please understand that I am only able to answer your questions through the prism of US courts' interpretation of nondiscrimination law. With that caveat, however:

1. Would private companies be required to hire someone of another gender without bias in all cases?
Specifically, lets talk about rape crisis centers, where rape crisis workers are predominantly female since victims are predominantly female. Would that center be required to offer a male a job over a female if the male had better credentials in social work? What if the client base did not support the need for a male rape counselor?
In order to hire with gender preference, an employer would have to demonstrate that there was a compelling reason related to job performance. This is an exceptionally difficult burden of proof to meet, but IMHO a rape crisis center could quite possibly show that because its public service function is dependent on the trust of clients who have been subjected to sexual abuse, having female counselors serves a compelling interest. But the bar would be set exceptionally high for such preferential hiring.
2. Can private organizations like The Boy Scouts, or The Girls Scouts continue their operation and deny admittance based on gender? What about organizations like NOW? Will they still be allowed to continue their work?
A close reading of the proposal indicates that it addresses equal employment and educational opportunity, but does not address other aspects - such as membership in such privately run organizations. There isn't even a common carrier provision here. So I'd say the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and the National Organization for Women have nothing to worry about. (Note to non-yanks: NOW is an educational and lobbying organization promoting women's rights and political activism.)
3. Are scholarships based on gender to be allowed? Will the Ms (insert title here) pageants continue, or will they now be forced to admit males and third genders to the show?
The resolution seeks to "applaud and protect" non-discriminatory nonprofit educational organizations, but makes no effort that I can see to prohibit single-sex educational opportunities of any sort.

I am still awaiting the decision of my region on whether this will receive our vote.

Therefore I can not guarantee approval. However, I do feel my fears settled by your answers.

Thank you.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I am still awaiting the decision of my region on whether this will receive our vote.

Therefore I can not guarantee approval. However, I do feel my fears settled by your answers.
I, for one, am grateful for your questioning as a security against complacency.

Best wishes.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

The Region of Amber, with its literate and occasionally nitpicky population, notes with mild dismay that many of the objections raised to the language of this resolution could have been resolved by substituting the term "gender" for "sex" wherever the latter appears, in that 'sex' is purely a biological/physiological matter and 'gender' is a nexus of physiological, psychological and social concepts, including orientation. While the existence of more than two 'sexes' is debatable, the existence of more than two 'genders' is not, even with annoyingly binary terrestrial sentients. We regret that we became active only after the markup phase of proposal preparation.

However, upon consideration, it is the sense of the region that the semantic issue does not impede logical and consistent application in societies recognizing only two sexes.

Therefore, the Region and all its UN member nations thus far reporting vote in favor of the resolution.

The Confederacy is constitutionally bound by the principles of equal rights for all, regardless of sex, colour, political ideals or sexual preference. Therefore, we support this resolution 100% -- especially noting that it is not limited to the two sexes.

Booger burger must vote against this resolution if for no other reason than it infringes upon religious freedoms.

This is just a gigantic infringement on national soveregnty.

Even so, there is a way to get around that. Do not recognize the "sexes" you don't want.

The only sexes I officially recognize are male and female, which people give free treatement, but there is no law providing it. It is just common sense.

Regardless, Derscon is not in the UN, but my vote of "No" will go for my puppet, APWW Sucks.

Let me see if I understand the logic here.

You're aggressively in favor of national sovereignty, so you've opted out of the UN.

You're so aggressively in favor of national sovereignty that you have a puppet government voting against resolutions in order to obstruct other nations from exercising their own sovereign right to support an international agreement, rather than pursuing the simple and obvious alternative of persuading nations that agree with you to vote with their feet and leave the UN.

That is to say, you're so aggressively in favor of national sovereignty that you'll impair other nations' sovereign decisions to promote it.

Here's your sign.

Let me see if I understand the logic here.

You're aggressively in favor of national sovereignty, so you've opted out of the UN.

You're so aggressively in favor of national sovereignty that you have a puppet government voting against resolutions in order to obstruct other nations from exercising their own sovereign right to support an international agreement, rather than pursuing the simple and obvious alternative of persuading nations that agree with you to vote with their feet and leave the UN.

That is to say, you're so aggressively in favor of national sovereignty that you'll impair other nations' sovereign decisions to promote it.

Here's your sign.

I understand your concern. I created the puppet government just to see what would happen to it. As a test, of sorts.

I dont' honestly see how you could get kicked out of the UN by not recognizing the "third" gender, the United States which is part of the UN has failed to recognize many of these such provisions.

No, you wouldn't get 'kicked out'. The way I see the logic applying is something like this. You don't recognize more than two sexes. So everyone in your jurisdiction would be classified as one of the two. As long as no one is discriminated against on the basis of that classification - or on the basis of sexual orientation, per UN resolution previously passed - you've got no problem. Individuals may insist that they're something else besides the two recognized sexes. So what? As long as they're not discriminated against because of their self-identification, you're in compliance with this resolution. The only issue I could see coming out of this is if a government office refused to accept some paperwork or other where an individual refused to check the M or F box.

It appears a majority of the residents in the Republic of Blendt Toast will support this resolution, although some members feel it is their right to oppress whoever they want - based on religion, sex or what-have-you.

Still, I believe most in the nation view this as social freedom and not social limitations, so I think most likely you'll get a "FOR" vote from the Republic of Blendt Toast.

Hopefully this first vote our small, young nation casts won't raise such an uproar that we're forced to resign our membership in the UN.

Thanks for listening to the voice of one, single vote.

OOC: I haven't read this entire thread, but I have read the resolution and voted against it.

IC:
BROADCAST:
The Kingdom of Mauiwowee urges and implores world leaders to vote AGAINST the "Sexes Rights Law" currently pending before the U.N. We do not condemn the motiviation behind the law of equal rights for men and women, we do condemn, as the STUPIDIST statement we've ever read in a proposal the following statement from the proposal, to wit:

"5. The Nation States United Nations recognises that gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in."

Gender IS a physical manifestation. It is biological. Biology can be changed (i.e. a sex change operation and the use of various drugs and hormone therapy), but that doesn't make gender a "mental manifestation." Next someone will claim that species is a "mental manifestation" and demand rights as a protected species!! (look at me, I'm a snail darter, you can't attack me!!) This is stupid!!! Males and Females have COMPLETELY different biological and genetic makeups. They may mentally operate on par with each other, but their physical differences make them different. MEN CAN'T HAVE BABIES! I don't give a damn whether they "think" they are female or not. Self-proclaiming I'm a woman doesn't make me one!! Vote this idiocy down!!!! The U.N. already has enough rules regarding equal treatment of BIOLOGICALLY differentiated males and females, we don't need laws to protect the "self proclaimed" and "mentally" opposite sexes.

We urge in our strongest terms a vote AGAINST this lunatic's proposal!!!

Respectfully,
His Royal Highness,
King 'Lude II

END OF LINE

Amazing how wound up people can get over semantics, isn't it?

Sex is biological.

Gender is a combination of biology, psychology and socialization. Gender includes orientation.

Get it yet?

It helps if you read the whole thread. Really.

We have no Wellfare in our fine country.
For us to add wellfare for this issue would set a precedent, thus forcing us to set up new wellfare for other groups.

Or else we will be discriminating against the other groups wanting goverment hand outs.

In the spirt of this law to stop discrimnation we will have to deny it's validity in our country.

Will we need to remove ourselfs from the UN over such a minor bill?

This may not be a problem as it seems to be a issue we can ignore.

"1. The Nation States United Nations does here-by greatly encourage each member state to establish a minimum of one centre"

Ok, we are encouraged to do it.... Ummm thank you but no.

Encouraged to establish the centers. Required to outlaw workplace discrimination.

"The above conditions are recommendations applicable within reason in that they are open to interpretation by a member states legal system in regards to each individual case, under the condition that the legal system must act in an un-biased fashion in regard to these cases"

Note the use of the word "recommendations". Not required.

I have a hard time belive most of the countrys have seen or understood the last part.

"5. The Nation States United Nations recognises that gender is not just a physical manifestation but also a mental manifestation, and recognises that people of self proclaimed gender are also equally protected by the regulations and recommendations bound here in."

This would require all nations to allow things such as gay marriage.
While we do not care about this part, I have a funny feeling most of the "God fearing" countrys would.

Amazing how wound up people can get over semantics, isn't it?

Sex is biological.

Gender is a combination of biology, psychology and socialization. Gender includes orientation.

Get it yet?

It helps if you read the whole thread. Really.

BULLSHIT!!!

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Gen´der Pronunciation: jĕn´dẽr
n. 1.
1. Kind; sort.
2. Sex, male or female.
3. (Gram.) A classification of nouns, primarily according to sex; and secondarily according to some fancied or imputed quality associated with sex.
Gender is a grammatical distinction and applies to words only. Sex is natural distinction and applies to living objects.
- R. Morris.
v. t. 1. To beget; to engender.
[imp. & p. p. Gendered ; p. pr. & vb. n. Gendering.]
v. i. 1. To copulate; to breed.

WordNet Dictionary
Noun 1. gender - a grammatical category in inflected languages governing the agreement between nouns and pronouns and adjectives; in some languages it is quite arbitrary but in Indo-European languages it is usually based on sex or animateness
Synonyms: grammatical gender
2. gender - the properties that distinguish organisms on the basis of their reproductive roles; "she didn't want to know the sex of the foetus"
Synonyms: sexuality, sex

Legal Dictionary
GENDER. That which designates the sexes.
2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the feminine, as, man (q. v.) sometimes includes women. This is the general rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the feminine, the latter is not in general included. 3 C. & P. 225. An instance to the contrary, however, may be found in the construction, 25 Ed. III, st. 5, c. 2, Sec. 1, which declares it to be high treason, "When a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the king," &c. These words, "our lord the king," have been construed to include a queen regnant. 2 Inst. 7, 8, 9; H. P. C. 12; 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 17; Bac. Ab. Treason, D.
3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the feminine never includes the masculine; that according to this rule if a man were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the legacy; but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be included. Poth. Introd. au titre 16, des Testaments et Donations Testamentaires, n. 170; 3 Brev. R. 9. In the Louisiana code in the French language, it is provided that the word fils, sons, comprehends filles, daughters. Art. 3522, n. 1. Vide Ayl. Pand. 57; 4 Car. & Payne, 216; S. C. 19 Engl. Com. Law R. 351; Barr. on the Stat. 216, note; Feme; Feme covert; Feminine; Male; Man; Sex; Women; Worthiest of blood.

HyperDictionary
Definition: a cultural construct consisting of the set of distinguishable characteristics associated with each sex

You can't make a word mean something other than what it means anymore than I can think I am a woman and therefore I am one. Gender IS the characteristic of one sex or another. You cannot be of the female gender in a biological sense unless you are a woman and vice-versa for men. The wording of laws, etc. can be gender specific or gender neutral, but LIVING CREATURES are of one gender or another by way of biology, not by way of their "mental manifestations."

I apologise to the confusion. I simply was calling attention to your entire post by reposting the italicised portion. I assumed that, as both your and my posts were on the same page, finding the reference would have been an easy task.




You quote me and miss of the parts most relevant to your comment.



Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

This would require all nations to allow things such as gay marriage.


I've got news for you. If their in the UN they already have to.

Gay Rights

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

This would require all nations to allow things such as gay marriage. While we do not care about this part, I have a funny feeling most of the "God fearing" countrys would.
For better or for worse, gay marriage is already legal in all UN countries.

You nay-sayers make some valid points.

What's the point of a resolution that "encourages" and "recommends?"

What about nations who consider welfare "unconstitutional" or whatever?

If I feel like being one sex/gender this week and another sex/gender next week, can I do that since it's being categorized as a "mental manifestation?"

Suddenly I'm thinking Blendt Toast may be voting "nay."

President Maffret.....

This is an outrage! A law forcing pay to be equal? Have you all gone mad? Pay should depend solely on a persons ability to do the job, the persons experience in the job(or related field), and a companies financial standards. NO-ONE, should get payed more(or Less)because he or she is a he or she!! Sex of an employee should not be a determining factor in ones pay. This resolution will attempt to change that. This resolution wants everyone to get payed equal, even if one person has more experience or is just plain better at the job than the other. I cant and refuse to beleive that anyone with half a brain would vote for this resolution. The nation of Lacomb is against this resolution, As should you be!!

1. The Nation States United Nations does here-by greatly encourage each member state to establish a minimum of one centre for each sex in their borders, in which people of the sex of the respective designated centre could seek shelter, medical care, and counselling for both themselves and their children or other dependants if they should find themselves without a home or shelter or reasonable support or care, due to any sexually motivated violence or discrimination from the home or work-place, or from such violence or lack of care stemming from society at large. These centres must be sensitive and cater to the needs of intersex people.

I have been trying to get an explanation of this out of the author of this proposal for quite some time. Time is of the essence, and this is how the Kingdom of Tihland interprets this point in the resolution:

It basically encourages the segregation of sexes by requiring a center for each seperate sex. I believe in making centers for those that have been abused, but requiring one for each sex is segregrationalist and could even encourage homosexuality. Tihland and Tcherbra, of who I am the U.N. delegate of, will not support a segregationalist proposal such as this.

We highly encourage all to vote AGAINST this proposal!

We also encourage all U.N. authors to format, spell-check, and grammar-check ALL proposals before submitting them before your U.N. colleagues. It is disgusting trying to interpret something on the screen that is misformatted and doesn't make sense!

We have no Wellfare in our fine country.
For us to add wellfare for this issue would set a precedent, thus forcing us to set up new wellfare for other groups.

Or else we will be discriminating against the other groups wanting goverment hand outs.

In the spirt of this law to stop discrimnation we will have to deny it's validity in our country.

Will we need to remove ourselfs from the UN over such a minor bill?

How can I disagree with this? In addition, whoever said that the genders are equal? They clearly are not, so says the God-Emperor, of whom I am a servant. In his ancient and wise saying, he clearly states that the genders are different, and each have their own blessings and curses. It is for individual societies to decide their own fate, and not that of an elitist group of high-minded atheists, blind to the will of Mankind, as expressed by the Emperor.

Artificially altering societies has never in thr history of Man ever worked. If anyone thinks that the building of a few such 'gender facilities' and the establishment of a gender rights commision or whatever will ACTUALLY cause any kind of chnage, then they must unplug their unbelieving minds from their reality, and sep into ours.

May the blessing of the God Emperor be with those who oppose such abhorrent practices.

We also encourage all U.N. authors to format, spell-check, and grammar-check ALL proposals before submitting them before your U.N. colleagues. It is disgusting trying to interpret something on the screen that is misformatted and doesn't make sense!
If this refers to the Resolution at Vote, would you be so kind as to list the offences to spelling and /or grammar? We would appreciate it. Apart from a tendency to over-hyphenate, Komokom's only variant is the use of centre and organisations. Both of those are acceptable alternates in the common vernacular.

If you are referring to the list of UN Resolutions Throughout History, please note that the NationStates UN, in a stunning lack of common sense, strips all passed Resolutions of formatting before adding then to the annals of our history. Like so many traditions, this one can't be easily changed.

If your diatribe refers to other, less worthy proposals currently undergoing review, we would agree wholeheartedly whilst questioning why this was being raised in this particular venue. It seems inappropriate to rail against Komokom for the offences of others.

Frisbeeteria relinquishes the Floor.

The tyranny of the UN must come to an end. My coutry's policies are not to be determined by an international council, but by ME!

The tyranny of the UN must come to an end. My coutry's policies are not to be determined by an international council, but by ME!
As is always the case with such statements, resignation from the UN would be your best option. You signed up for Tyranny, you may resign from it at your whim. Actually doesn't sound much like Tyranny when you put it that way, now does it?

Sure, ignore the content of my voting against the proposal. Just shoot for the general grammar part. So here comes the "murdering" of this resolution, brought to you by yours truly:

There is one thing that is consistent with this resolution, and that is the use of run-on sentences. For crying out loud, if your sentence is more than 2 lines (give or take a few words) across the screen, it is too long and will be too hard to understand.

This is a whole sentence in the resolution:
The following document is intended to both relieve and resolve much of these discriminative actions, not for one sex, but for all, acting in the interests of promoting equality in all society and eliminating gender bias from said society at large.

Some hyphens are used completely inappropiately.
And what about all those redundancies? It fogs everything up!

"respective designated centre": Not only should there be a comma between respective and designated, but is the word respective really necessary?

"without a home or shelter": A home is a shelter, is it not? Remove home, and you have more clarity.

"any and all sexes": You could take out 'any and', and it would mean pretty much the same thing.

Those are few redundancies we could have done without. Moving on...
Let's just attack a few grammar errors. Though they are not of the nature of other proposals, including previously passed proposals, they are still grammar errors and are highly discouraged.

"a individual" in the second sentence should become "an individual"
"counselling" should become "counseling" in the first resolution
I normally spell "dependants" this way: "dependents". However, I guess it is acceptable either way.

"Does Formally Recognise and Declare : That the rights of all sexes in society are equal, excepting only in the conditions below and [...]": There should probably be a comma before the and. (My suggestion is this: Don't make such an absurdedly long sentence if you don't want to worry about all these comma rules!)

"if they should find themselves without a home or shelter or reasonable support or care, due": Remove that last comma. It changes the intended meaning, I'm sure.

"work-place, or from such violence or lack of care stemming from society at large.": There should probably be a comma between care and stemming.

"charity based": Now that's probably where you want a hyphen.

"where one or more sex may not given an equal": You're missing the helping verb: be between not and given.

"in that they may only provide opportunity for equality, they may": The comma is completely misused here. It needs to be replaced with a period, and they should be capitalized to start a new sentence.

"also a mental manifestation, and recognises": There needs to be no comma here at all. (Notice how very foggy the sentence becomes when you write it correctly.)

The very last "here in" should probably be one word.


Actually, you know what? Would you like me to post how I would write this resolution? Just request it, and I might do it (maintaining the intent of the original author, of course).

Thanks.

The most humble Kingdom of Traxtonia is honored to voice it's approval of this resolution. While we believe in a person's right to disagree with this resolution for whatever reason, we believe that toleration and acceptance are the virtues that need to be upheld in this honorable institution. In these turbulent times full of war and hate, it is our belief that compassion and understanding will soon become the foundation to a more peaceful world.

sincerely,

Traxtonian U.N. ambassador
Robert Anderson
A Place In The Sun Regional Member

As Ambassador General, it is my duty to inform you that the Republic of Propontus has voted against this proposal. To those of you who are unfamilliar with the workings of our government, foreign policy is decided by the upper house of the legislature (the Curia) and the Proconsul. Proconsul Aulus Vespucianus has indicated his displeasure with this proposal and was endorsed by majority vote in the Curia.
Propontus sees several problems with the resolution. First we believe that this resolution would be an endorsement of same-sex marriage. Propontus views marriage as a religous not a civil institution. We do not recognize "civil unions" nor do we recognize "common-law mariages". We refuse to recognize same sex marriage, or any "marriage" not endorsed by a recognized church.
Secondly, we do not recognize gender as a "mental manifestation", it is claerly a function of biology. We recognize the existance of two sexes, male and female.
We also view this resolution as an attempt by foreign powers to dictate our national laws. Propontus will not tolerate this.

Formally Lodged;
Spurrius Lavianus, Ambassador General, as directed by the Proconsul and the Curia for the people of Propontus

Right, put simply,

1) Leave off with the grammar, I ran a spell and grammar check several times, and came up with NO problems what-so-ever. To all who'd like to " murder " my proposal now, I fail to see how you are of any help here, and quite frankly, where the hell were you all when this proposal and its sister proposal were being written ? I did give it a week or more on the forum, plain as day on the first page. And lets face it, it has a majority vote even now, and I have enough faith in the U.N. member body in that they can see through minor grammatical errors to the heart and soul, the purpose of the proposal, and give it a yes vote for what it sets out to do, not because it suits their delicate sensibilities in the fields of the presentation of the english language.


2) The bloody U.N. already recognises bloody Gay Marriage, in the bloody Gay Rights resolution, long ago bloody passed, so quit your bloody screeching of " bad man, bad man " , and work it out, its already been done, this proposal just recognises that it has been done so as an affirming principle to the work and to provide referance to content and intent.

That said, thank you once again to those who have stood firm in defence of the proposal, and who have voted for it, my thanks.

- T.R. Kom, who can't believe how hard it is to find an affordable digital camera in his RL region ... :rolleyes:

Komokom, perhaps you should read your own thread before responding to it.

If this refers to the Resolution at Vote, would you be so kind as to list the offences to spelling and /or grammar?
I was merely fulfilling a request.

I ran a spell and grammar check several times.
I really don't care how many times you ran a spell and grammar check. Those things will only do so much. YOU need to know the rules of the English language to spell and grammar check correctly. Besides, with all those run-on sentences, I wouldn't be surprised if it got all confused in what you were saying either.

All in all, I really don't care for the use of legalese, or an imitation thereof. Use laymen terms as much as possible, for it is always clearer. Why do you think the justice system is so messed up?

Did some people change their vote on the proposal? I remember seeing about 9000 for it yesterday, or am I just imagining things?

On your second point, it sounds like you're getting angry. I sent you a couple of telegrams the other day asking for clarification on the first point in your resolution. You claimed that it would be discussed in this thread. I have yet to see it. You ignored my second telegram requesting again for that clarification. Did I do something to offend you? You seem to be going under the shell that just because a majority of the U.N. supports it at this very time (or even supported at the very beginning) that you don't have to argue or debate this issue anymore.

As for giving the proposal a week in the forum, I didn't look. Therefore, I didn't read. Are you going to hold that against me or something?

You claimed that it would be discussed in this thread. I have yet to see it. You ignored my second telegram requesting again for that clarification. Did I do something to offend you? You seem to be going under the shell that just because a majority of the U.N. supports it at this very time (or even supported at the very beginning) that you don't have to argue or debate this issue anymore.

First of all we can't do anything about the spelling and grammar now (some are style issues). Sorry. We just can't. We did ask for help during the drafting stage and after no-one could point us to our mistakes we submitted. We made mistakes, we're sorry but there is nothing we can do about it now. I'd just like to say that just because we messed something up doesn’t mean we don't know the rules, or we chose to ignore them. I have legitimate problems with my spelling and grammar that I wouldn't care to detail here.

Second, I'm sorry if you feel you are being ignored but Komokom is busy so he hasn't had much time to post on the thread. I've been trying to get on here daily but I can't respond to every comment. Luckily we have other people who are willing to help.

Now, I'll see what I can do about those concerns of yours.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

It basically encourages the segregation of sexes by requiring a center for each seperate sex. I believe in making centers for those that have been abused, but requiring one for each sex is segregrationalist
This was one of the ideas that came over from the women's rights proposal. The idea being that abused spouses will be able to seek help. With a centre for each sex they are able to cater to the needs of the residents more (such as having a gynaecologist). It's also the repressed sex (if there is one) can be given a leg up.

and could even encourage homosexuality.
Because women living together will become lesbians, because men living together become gay? I would think people in these centres wouldn't be prisoners and would be able to interact with society. If you are worried that these centres, through therapy, could encourage people who are already attracted to the same sex to be more happy with there sexuality. Well, I hope you are right.

Tihland and Tcherbra, of who I am the U.N. delegate of, will not support a segregationalist proposal such as this.
That is your choice.

Thank you for your comments.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Propontus sees several problems with the resolution. First we believe that this resolution would be an endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Actually it legalises it, and that was an entirely different resolution.


Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

When I look at the various resolution that are being proposed in the UN, I can't believe the arrogance of people who look at this resolution and complain that this gem of a resolution isn't perfect. Comming from the manure pile that most UN Proposals are where hlaf the proposed resolutions are actually direct violations of NationStates UN Rules, and the other half seem like they were written by a five year old (and then edited by a two year old) it is almost to the point of insanity to complain about a sentence taking up more than one line.

Everyone including the NationStates moderators admit that the fact that previous U.N. resolutions don't apply to nations joining the U.N. is a bug. Therefore any reaffirmation of a previous U.N. resolution is only right and proper. If you don't like that quit the U.N. In fact that's the way to avoid issues you don't like quit the U.N., wait for it to pass, than apply for readmission. Longevity has no benefits in the U.N.

Everyone complains about the "Tyrany" of the U.N. I would like to ask you what you think the U.N. is anyway? It's more than just a forum. If you want a forum where you can talk until the cows come home you can just declare war on someone and go to the appropriate forum. The U.N. is a game mechanic that is designed to ... well limit the choices of issues that an individual nation can come up with as well as be a sort of global issue in its own right. It's designed to work with the Game Mechanics. It is supposed to be a Tyrany. A Tyrany of the Majority, but a Tyrany none the less. Live with it.

Isnt this proposal already been approved ?Next proposal please !

The real problem with this resolution is that it accomplishes nothing. It takes a very firm stance and then provides a convenient loop hole with statements such as "The above conditions are recommendations applicable within reason in that they are open to interpretation by a member states legal system in regards to each individual case, under the condition that the legal system must act in an un-biased fashion in regard to these cases."

So the proceeding statement wages and benefits should be equal is merely a recommendation? And it is to be interpreted by the individual nation? Of course, providing that they remain unbiased...

If member nations could interpret the laws in an unbiased fashion, there would be no need for resolutions such as this.

And then we vow to protect those organizations which champion the cause of this proposal. With the understanding that such protection is symbolic in nature and even that symbolism is valid only if they provide for complete equality.

So when all is said and done this resolution encourages other nations to treat all people equally regardless of sex or gender (sex being a physically quanitfiable property). It further vows that wages should be paid equally to either gender provided that 1)they are doing the same work and 2)that the government of the member nation agrees that equal pay is appropriate. Then we boldly promise to protect those charitable organizations who uphold our ideals. And by protect we mean applaud their goals and sternly scold those people and groups which inhibit their performance. And, of course, we recind even this scant encouragement if the organization in anyway promotes one sex over the other. (So the National Associations for Women's Rights gets jack all.)

The bottom line is that your vote on this issue doesn't matter. Regardless of whether this resolution passes, the world will continue on its merry way. Nations who would be willing to abide by this proposal will do so with out it because its the right thing to do. And countries that will not follow this proposal won't care that you are shaking your head at them in disgust.

In accordance with paragraph #5 of the resolution. I have "self-proclaimed" myself to be a female and made my services as a surrogate mother available on the open market. However, my government refuses to provide the financial support to me that it provides to biological females that have placed themselves on the open market as surrogate mothers. Isn't this in violation of the resolution? Help!!

Sincerely,
John Smith


P.S. Please keep this communication confidential as I have logged on surreptiously to a government computer.

In CM, women have the following rights.

1: The right to remain silent. (Especially in church)

2: The right to cook and clean, whilst remaining silent.

3: The right to be married off by their father at the age of 16+.

4: The right to sign a legal document if a male relative approves.

5: The right to appear in public dressed in a manner becoming of a proper lady.

6: The right not to be pressured into working outside the home.

7: The right to have as many children as their husband deems appropriate.

8: The right for the government to give them 1 million dollars per child if they have more than 10 children. Up to a maximum of 15 million dollars.

9: The right to have sex in the privacy of their own home when their husband deems it appropriate.

10: The right to the good ole backhand when they need to be discouraged from stepping out of their place.


Ah... Women's rights. :D

Added: I forgot to mention, any woman convicted of having an abortion is stoned to death. I also forget to mention, any woman convicted of practicing witchcraft, is burned at the stake or hanged. Men can also be convicted of practicing sorcery.

Insert Communist Mississippi's Irrelevant Opinion Here.

And I'm sure once your an actual U.N. member we might actually care for your opinion. Until then, thats nice dear.

Next please.

:rolleyes:

And I'm sure once your an actual U.N. member we might actually care for your opinion. Until then, thats nice dear. Next please.


Just giving my thoughts... I cannot join the UN for obvious reasons, I will never conform to the New World Order and their laws of tyranny and anti-reason!

Just giving my thoughts... I cannot join the UN for obvious reasons, I will never conform to the New World Order and their laws of tyranny and anti-reason!

OOC: As Derscon, now.


I completely agree! The socialist New Secular Order will not enter the borders of Derscon!!!!

================
OOC: Coming of course from the person that is attempting to revive the Illuminati.

As we have just been accepted into the UN, the People of Integarted America, have voted for a NO vote, this concerning, that the Monarchy would have to allow females to rise to the throne if they were the first Born. This would not allow a direct line to the original Kings of Integrated America some thousands of years ago.

Even the Queen has stated she wants a direct line kept, plus if this law were to pass, the line will falter and will no longer be of the Brandt line.

So at this time we oppose the allowance of this amednment.

** remember this is an rpg to some extent.

Just giving my thoughts... I cannot join the UN for obvious reasons, I will never conform to the New World Order and their laws of tyranny and anti-reason!

Judging from your list of "women's rights" it sounds to me like you already have your own laws of tyranny and anti-reason.

Looks like the resolution's home and hosed, and hurrah, ses I. Just wanted to make a word-nerd's point: not all English-speaking nations use the same grammar or spelling. In Australian English, for example, one hardly ever uses grammatical constructions based on "one", unless one wants to get one's teeth knocked in. "Counselling" is correct spelling in Oz-spell, as are other double-L participles. We don't use Z half as much, either, so 'organise' is fine by us.
But why worry? It's the argument we're debating, not its spelling.

Actually I - am - Australian after all, :)

That pointed out, don't tell them to quit the spelling nazim Ardchoille ! Their having great fun ! And even if it is 100 % too late to change minor grammatical " errors " ( read as me not speaking fluent " Americanization " ;) ) at least they are enjoying themselves. That said, I wish I'd had the for-sight to set up a pool for how many times some one would have to say " but gay rights are already recognised " ... :rolleyes:

* Makes plans for tommorow after-noon :

" So, did my proposal pass into being a resolution ? "

" Yeah, it did, why you not go check yourself ? "

" Oh, I know it passed, I just like hearing people say it ! :D "

As we have just been accepted into the UN, the People of Integarted America, have voted for a NO vote, this concerning, that the Monarchy would have to allow females to rise to the throne if they were the first Born. This would not allow a direct line to the original Kings of Integrated America some thousands of years ago.

Even the Queen has stated she wants a direct line kept, plus if this law were to pass, the line will falter and will no longer be of the Brandt line.

So at this time we oppose the allowance of this amednment.

This proposal only give equal wages and benefits to people already in jobs, the equal chances of employment come in the sister resolution and there is a part saying monarchs don't have to work like that.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

The Republic of Desertica, having just been accepted into the UN, has voted against this resolution. Some of the terms of the resolution seem hard to enforce and "equailty" can be a very open-ended term. I also do not believe that the Desertican governement should recognize transexuals.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Republic of Desertica

I also do not believe that the Desertican governement should recognize transexuals.
The Desertican government is therefore likely to have a few rude surprises when it takes home 'girls' it picked up in bars. You might want to reconsider the recognition aspect of that statement. Just a thought.

My distinguish colleague from The Constitutional Monarchy of New Lombardy made the following statement to which I agree completly:

"Ok, first off, let me state that I am one-hundred-and-ten- percent for individual human rights and universal sufferage. However, I am also against all forms of social engineering. It's flat out coercion. This resolution is nothing but coercion. Instead of making a policy of having the gonvernment blind to issues such as race, sex, and sexual orientation, this proposal only worsens the said situation. Otherwise, passing a law is not going to change ages of cultural developement. Think; How long did it take for the USA to empliment universal sufferage? And why did it take so long? Because the culture had to develope far enough to accept the ideal that everyone who is atleast 18 years should have the right to vote. The same goes with the acceptance of treating people with respect, regardless of their race or sex. Really though, does anyone actually believe that some stupid proposal is going to make everyone stop judging others? The only stance a government should take is to be blind to these matters in the public sector, and not have ANY legislation at all in this area, except for those affirm that all humans have equal natural and civil rights."

The Desertican government is therefore likely to have a few rude surprises when it takes home 'girls' it picked up in bars. You might want to reconsider the recognition aspect of that statement. Just a thought.

The government can only recognize Male or Female sexes. There is no way we could add a third option to our documents and forms. If this vote stands, however, it sounds like we will be forced to pay for sex change operation and other services.


Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Republic of Desertica

The government can only recognize Male or Female sexes. There is no way we could add a third option to our documents and forms. If this vote stands, however, it sounds like we will be forced to pay for sex change operation and other services.

Thaddeus Larouche
President, The Republic of Desertica

Actually, I think it only applies to recognized sexes.

and could even encourage homosexuality.
Because women living together will become lesbians, because men living together become gay? I would think people in these centres wouldn't be prisoners and would be able to interact with society. If you are worried that these centres, through therapy, could encourage people who are already attracted to the same sex to be more happy with there sexuality. Well, I hope you are right.

I have no problem with creating centers for the said purposes in the now passed proposal. However, I have an extremely large problem with restricting the use of these centers to one sex. I don't know if you know this, but the U.S. back in the 60s and 70s restricted the use of the bathroom (and many other facilities) to one skin color. I consider this is unequality, and restricting centers to one sex basically does the same thing. Besides, doing so would not directly encourage homosexuality, and, if you had taken these ideas into consideration, I would not have questioned the intent of this resolution.


I can't believe the nits that are being picked here

When I look at the various resolution that are being proposed in the UN, I can't believe the arrogance of people who look at this resolution and complain that this gem of a resolution isn't perfect. Comming from the manure pile that most UN Proposals are where hlaf the proposed resolutions are actually direct violations of NationStates UN Rules, and the other half seem like they were written by a five year old (and then edited by a two year old) it is almost to the point of insanity to complain about a sentence taking up more than one line.

Why aren't you listening to ME?! I was REQUESTED ON THIS THREAD to inform you of the errors in it. AND I DID! NOW GET OFF MY BACK!! I did NOT base my vote on the grammar of this proposal, and I never will base my vote on the grammar of the proposal. However, if I don't understand it, I'm not going to vote for it. It took quite a long time for me to understand it.


more nits

Looks like the resolution's home and hosed, and hurrah, ses I. Just wanted to make a word-nerd's point: not all English-speaking nations use the same grammar or spelling. In Australian English, for example, one hardly ever uses grammatical constructions based on "one", unless one wants to get one's teeth knocked in. "Counselling" is correct spelling in Oz-spell, as are other double-L participles. We don't use Z half as much, either, so 'organise' is fine by us.
But why worry? It's the argument we're debating, not its spelling.

I am aware that not all English-speaking nations use the same spelling. (I was not aware, however, that they did not use the same grammar rules. I would like an example of how we use different grammar rules for verification purposes.) But I see that you want to put down the American because he's American. Besides, all you have to do is ignore the part about "counselling", and you'll still have a bunch of grammar errors to look at. This could all be avoided if you avoided trying to speak in legalese.


Actually I - am - Australian after all,

That pointed out, don't tell them to quit the spelling nazim Ardchoille ! Their having great fun ! And even if it is 100 % too late to change minor grammatical " errors " ( read as me not speaking fluent " Americanization " ) at least they are enjoying themselves. That said, I wish I'd had the for-sight to set up a pool for how many times some one would have to say " but gay rights are already recognised " ...

* Makes plans for tommorow after-noon :

" So, did my proposal pass into being a resolution ? "

" Yeah, it did, why you not go check yourself ? "

" Oh, I know it passed, I just like hearing people say it ! "

Now those of us who disapproved of your proposal aren't even here, are we? "Don't tell them" has a very negative conotation. How arrogant! As I said above, just put down the American because he's an American, eh? That's the defense you use when you know I'm correct about a lot of the grammar errors I pointed out, right? You don't even accept responsibility for your mistakes. You're too busy trying to defend yourself! How arrogant! At least your buddy, The Black New World, said "we're sorry" (about the errors). You're such a punk, Komokom. You shouldn't use your friends like that! Unfortunately, I cannot accept The Black New World's apology for you, as it is QUITE CLEAR you were not sincere.


You seem to be going under the shell that just because a majority of the U.N. supports it at this very time (or even supported at the very beginning) that you don't have to argue or debate this issue anymore.

I said this earlier, and I stick by it. (We are ignoring the fact that it was just passed.) You never said one argument to convince me to vote for this resolution. With all your quotes, I'd say you need an attitude adjustment or something!

Once again, this was never about the grammar. You guys brainwashed yourselves otherwise. And as proof that it was never about the grammar, Tihland will set up centers for the said purpose in the resolution; however, we will not segregate the sexes. But we will place a center in each regional area found in Tihland.

Thank you, and have a nice day!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Integrated America
As we have just been accepted into the UN, the People of Integarted America, have voted for a NO vote, this concerning, that the Monarchy would have to allow females to rise to the throne if they were the first Born. This would not allow a direct line to the original Kings of Integrated America some thousands of years ago.

Even the Queen has stated she wants a direct line kept, plus if this law were to pass, the line will falter and will no longer be of the Brandt line.

So at this time we oppose the allowance of this amednment.


This proposal only give equal wages and benefits to people already in jobs, the equal chances of employment come in the sister resolution and there is a part saying monarchs don't have to work like that.

Well at this Time Integrated America had been going to make a formal protest but, as having found this information wem will comply will all this law.

-Maximus Arturius Von Brandt,
Crown Prince of Integrated America,
~Foreign Affairs Office

Well, it passed, and soon with any luck we'll get the sister proposal up too, which should resolve some of the ... concerns ... formulated here ... curse of having to split the original to acommodate the rules I'm afraid. Since I'm at TAFE now and have little time to reply, I shall reply to the certain ... comments once I get home.

Oh, and yay ! :D

Despite our opposition to this resolution, The Republic of Desertica will honor the vote of the member states and fully comply with the resolution.

Rod Vanbergen
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Republic of Desertica

Now those of us who disapproved of your proposal aren't even here, are we? "Don't tell them" has a very negative conotation.
It was a mild joke Tihland, I don't remember mentioning your name, hell, its not like I'd even mention any names in the first place. I was mucking about with the point that for all its horrific grammatical errors, it was doing well, and it was not as if I could change these " errors ". I was assuming most people were able to work that one out, and considering the proposal ( now resolution ) was up for over a week on the forum before submition, possibly two weeks in-fact, and under-went a Moderator check, there was more then adequate time for people wishing to make constructive commentary to do so, rather then run about proclaiming " bad proposal, bad ! " when quite literally nothing could be done about it.How arrogant! As I said above, just put down the American because he's an American, eh?Ummm, no, because statistically the highest percentage, nationality wise, who play are, yes, American. And consequently, the usually assumed " only correct way of doing things spelling-wise and grammatically " is, yes, you guessed it, American. I even used the " z " instead of the usual Australian " s " in " i-z/s-ation " to high-light this. If I can't make light of being attacked over some-ones perception of how I should do things because of minor grammatical differances, literally down to the letter, at a time far too late to change it, then I am sorely tempted to give up here in injecting some worth-while material, and that is an honest promise.That's the defense you use when you know I'm correct about a lot of the grammar errors I pointed out, right? You don't even accept responsibility for your mistakes.Uh-huh. Right. Well actually, as I've pointed out, had I been able to change such minor things as the grammatical errors " pointed out ", I probably would have, even despite the lashing I've been given by some of the text based tongues running about here.You're too busy trying to defend yourself!When I constantly come up against this kind of blatant nonsense is it any wonder I would be forced into resorting so ? At least I can be bloody polite when I address some-one.How arrogant!Well, that seems to be your favourite tonight, yet, sticks and stones, Tihland, sticks and stones.At least your buddy, The Black New World, said "we're sorry" (about the errors).Yes well, as she may, I too apologise for errors percieved in the resolution, albeit at the stage which the errors were constantly thrown in our faces, we could do bugger all about it.You're such a punk, Komokom. Sticks and stones, yet again it seems.You shouldn't use your friends like that!Although, quite honestly, you can, ( Insert terminology I'd normally use were this not a site where certain rules apply, which you plainly can't seem to understand with all your name calling and provocational assaults ), there and then. I have not, " used my friends " and I take grave offence at that, at no time have I asked/requested for any assistance from those who spoke up to champion my work, they did so out of the good-ness of their hearts, not just for me, but because they really did appreciate the proposal itself. And I've not been able to, due to real world concerns. After all, just because I love this game, does not mean things occasionally happpen which draw me away from it, as much as I or other people here might dislike that fact.Unfortunately, I cannot accept The Black New World's apology for you, as it is QUITE CLEAR you were not sincere.Please, don't trick yourself into thinking I care.

That done, I'd like to thank every-body who helped this proposal happen, in both its initial preperation stage, the delegates who endorsed it, the open voters, the positive supporting comment made, and the civil, thought provoking, negative commentary, as well as every-one who stepped bravely up to the plate to meet these while I was other-wise disposed a-la RL at the time. My thanks, yet again. :)

It appears that the honourable delegate from Tihland is living in a glass house...

There is one thing that is consistent with this resolution, and that is the use of run-on sentences. For crying out loud, if your sentence is more than 2 lines (give or take a few words) across the screen, it is too long and will be too hard to understand.
I disagree.

This is a whole sentence in the resolution:
The following document is intended to both relieve and resolve much of these discriminative actions, not for one sex, but for all, acting in the interests of promoting equality in all society and eliminating gender bias from said society at large.
This is a perfectly reasonable sentence.

"respective designated centre": Not only should there be a comma between respective and designated, but is the word respective really necessary?
No comma is necessary, plus 'respective' is used in an appropriate fashion.

"without a home or shelter": A home is a shelter, is it not? Remove home, and you have more clarity.
An unnecessary quibble.

"any and all sexes": You could take out 'any and', and it would mean pretty much the same thing.
No, as the charity or organisation in question may well be working to aid members of a specific sex or all sexes.

"a individual" in the second sentence should become "an individual"
Correct.

"counselling" should become "counseling" in the first resolution
This is not universally true.

I normally spell "dependants" this way: "dependents". However, I guess it is acceptable either way.
Incorrect. In this circumstance, only 'dependant' is correct. One may be 'dependent' on others. One may be a 'dependant' of others. I'm surprised to see such a basic mistake from someone so critical of the grammar of others.

"Does Formally Recognise and Declare : That the rights of all sexes in society are equal, excepting only in the conditions below and [...]": There should probably be a comma before the and. (My suggestion is this: Don't make such an absurdedly long sentence if you don't want to worry about all these comma rules!)
I agree that a comma (or restructuring) is advisable, though I have no objection to long sentences.

"if they should find themselves without a home or shelter or reasonable support or care, due": Remove that last comma. It changes the intended meaning, I'm sure.
I'm inclined to agree.

"work-place, or from such violence or lack of care stemming from society at large.": There should probably be a comma between care and stemming.
Unnecessary.

"charity based": Now that's probably where you want a hyphen.

"where one or more sex may not given an equal": You're missing the helping verb: be between not and given.
Agreed on both counts.

"in that they may only provide opportunity for equality, they may": The comma is completely misused here. It needs to be replaced with a period, and they should be capitalized to start a new sentence.
I'd prefer a semi-colon.

"also a mental manifestation, and recognises": There needs to be no comma here at all. (Notice how very foggy the sentence becomes when you write it correctly.)
Comma is unnecessary, sentence is otherwise acceptable.

The very last "here in" should probably be one word.
Yes.

Actually, you know what? Would you like me to post how I would write this resolution?
I would advise against it. Pedantry is undeniably valuable in crafting UN resolutions. However, it ceases to useful when the pedant falls so far short of their own exacting standards.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

People, there were a few sentences in there that made me regret I wasn't around during the markup phase of drafting this proposal. However, sentient being that I am, I was able to get the sense of the thing and I voted on the meaning rather than the language mechanics. This is really not a difficult thing to do; we do it every day in conversation with imperfectly educated fellow humans.

For this kind of picayune sniping at language details to come up at this late stage is wasteful, spiteful and utterly pointless. I propose that this thread be closed.

The grammar difference I run into most frequently is the use of collective nouns. British English uses 'Parliament are ...'. Oz English uses 'Parliament is ... '. American English says, 'I bought a scissor' (or at least, it does on e-mail lists). Oz English (and, I think, UK) says, 'I bought a pair of scissors'. US says, 'a coat and a pant'. This one really causes problems in Australia, as it gives us a picture of someone with one leg tweedily clad and the other bare except for sock and shoe; we say, 'a pair of pants'. Then there's this oddity: in US English, practise is a noun. In Oz English, practise is a verb; the noun is practice. We could argue all night about '-ANT' and '-ENT', too. I use '-ANT' for nouns and '-ENT' for adjectives, but this seems to vary, not according to nationality, but according to age. The younger the writer, the more likely to pick one and stick to it regardless. Australia even has variations State to State. Queensland spells 'judgment' with no 'e'; in NSW, if you leave it out, you're illiterate. And oh, the joys of Indian English, Scots English, Irish English, NZ English, South African English, Canadian English . . .
My point: English is fun. Also funny. I'm glad we don't have an Academie Anglaise to keep us all on the right track. Unity in Diversity, eh?

OOC: My previous post was intended as a light dig at unwise pedantry, not a genuine attack or a call for strict perfection in UN resolutions. M. Vergniaud was replying in-character, hence the sneering, condescending tone. I actually agree for the most part with the sentiments expressed by Jovianica.

After all, life's too short.

"What big -ize you have, Grammar"

This made me chuckle. A lot.

My point: English is fun. Also funny. I'm glad we don't have an Academie Anglaise to keep us all on the right track. Unity in Diversity, eh?
Divided by a common language, that's us. As a Yank who owns several pairs of both pants and scissors, I share the sentiment - and since we're not going to pass a UN resolution standardizing English any time soon, maybe we can continue this in General. :cool:

Hello great leader of Komokom!

First of all, I would like to apologize about the words that I threw at you last night. I am very much sorry. I hope you can forgive me for that. I was just frustrated by the fact everyone was yelling at me for putting out mistakes (at least, what I thought were mistakes) that I was requested to put out. It was like a trap, really. The very first message I posted on this thread merely pointed out my opposition to the proposal and just an overall complaint with spelling and grammar mistakes. Your friend asked that I display the mistakes that I saw with it, and without much more thought, I did. At that point, everyone thought I was just being nitpicky and voting against it because it had mistakes. I said it in my previous post, and probably the one before that, and I'll say it again. It was never about the grammar or spelling mistakes. I did not point out alternative spellings as incorrect. I even put the resolution in my own spell checker. This was never about the grammar. It was never about the errors. It was about doing what I was asked. So I have one last question. Should I not do what is requested of me, even by your own friend?

I was irritated by the fact that you did not respond to my telegram in the fashion you claimed you would. I understand you had real life to tend to, and I'm not putting you down for that. However, I hope you understand where my anger came from.

Someone mentioned the spelling of dependant vs. dependent. I've seen it spelled both ways in both contexts, so I would assume either one is correct.

Well Tihland, I'm very glad we can both step back and remain friendly despite our past differances, and I too apologise for my taking your some-what justifiable displeasure to heart, a flaw of mine I normally try to refrain from.

( " I'm only 99 % perfect after all, :( " ... ;) )

That said, I apologise regarding the telegrams, there was a point at which every time I could manage to log on long enough to read and actually stay by my computer and reply, a new batch had shunted the " old " out, and by the time I had a moment to address them it was too late, as it had been done in-forum, or I was getting some rather questionable questions and statemtns ( " I WANT TO WAGE WAR !!!!! " from some one I never heard from amoung them :rolleyes:, people can be strange animals ... ) out of no-where was ... interesting ... if annoying in that these too effected my capacity.

That said, in future I'll be asking all people during campaign to refrain from direct tele-contact for questions and be linking them directly to a prepared U.N. Forum thread, I've learned that lesson well ... ;)

Regards,

T.R. Kom.

* In regards to your question, well, if they ask you too, then its your choice after all I suppose, just remember should you become some-what ... un-happy with their replies, I am not my friends, ;) , good as they are.