NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #TBD
The Global Literacy Act
A resolution to improve world conditions by boosting literacy and reading.

Category: Social Justice
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Josekistan
Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the value of literacy to promote people’s health, keep a nation technically up to date, to provide a capable workforce, to keep well informed, to improve emotional stability, and to encourage critical thinking,

NOTING the responsibility of nations to promote literacy and reading,

AFFIRMING the UN's role as example to the world,

1. PROHIBITS the banning or public destruction of publications and recordings solely on the grounds of political, philosophical, religious, or scientific content;

2. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY any national law or regulation to restrict the content of publications and recordings beyond prohibitions of the sexual exploitation of minors, of libelous attacks, of violations of copyright, of advocacy of the immediate violent overthrow of government institutions, or of the invasion of personal privacy;

3. CHARGES The UN to create a system of annual grants in the total of 10 million UNits for each of the 5 years following approval of this resolution to scientifically explore the relationship of literacy and reading to a nation’s net happiness, technological innovation and leadership, Gross Domestic Product and other measures of economic success, and mental and physical health of a nation’s citizens;

4.CHARGES The UN to create a UN task force on Reading and Literacy (UNTFRL) to administer the grants discussed in article 3 and to provide the member nations with an annual report summarizing the findings and context of reading and literacy and their impact on member nations;

5. CALLS UPON UN member nations through legislation and funding, to support the creation and maintenance of public libraries;

6. IDENTIFIES WITH and ENDORSES positive and responsible reading and literacy everywhere.

7. DEFINES a UN currency called the UNit, which due to space limitationons is actually defined in another resolution that if passed is also included in this one.

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the national law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.

I am looking for comments and criticism. I realize there is a problem with the wrap around of sentences that won't be present in the submitted draft.

Likewise anyone who has seen the gripes and comment about literacy or book reading as topics in past proposals/resolutions I would be grateful for the perspective.

Also any hints for attracting the attention of delegates would be appreciated, since there only seems to be a small core that really read and vote on proposals.

Thanks,

Joseki ruler of Josekistan because no one else wanted the job.

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the value of literacy to promote people’s health, keep a nation technologically up to date, to provide a capable workforce, to keep well informed, to improve emotional stability, and to encourage critical thinking,


I will buy the health and critical thinking aspects (to a degree - reading trashy romance novels all the time doesn't encourage thinking at all in my view, but I could be wrong) but what if the nation doesn't want to be technologically up to date? And - with no offence meant to manual professions - why do manual professions need to be literate to do their jobs right? And I have yet to see any proof of a link between literacy and emotional stability - could you provide some?


NOTING the responsibility of nations to promote literacy and reading,


Why should people be forced to read if they don't want to? I get why they should be literate, but there is a difference.


1. PROHIBITS the banning or public destruction of publications and recordings
due to political, philosophical, religious, or scientific content;

So you can never destroy any book? Even if it is so out of date nothing in it is true any more? (If it says TilEnca is made of cheese, and we know that not to be true, I would have to destroy it on the grounds of it's scientific content - which would be against the law).


2. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY any national law or regulation to restrict the content of publications and recordings beyond prohibitions of the sexual exploitation of those younger that 16 years of age, of libelous attacks, of violations of copyright, of advocacy of the immediate, violent overthrow of government institutions, or of the invasion of personal privacy;


16? People become adults (with all the rights and responsibilities therein) at the age of 14 in my nation.
And there are reasons I might want to restrict the content of a publication or recording - security grounds, the subjudice laws my nation has (and refuses to give up) and so on.


3. CHARGES The UN to create a system of annual grants in the total of 10 million Euros for each of the 5 years following approval of this resolution to scientifically explore the relationship of literacy and reading to a nation’s net happiness, technological innovation and leadership, Gross Domestic Product and other measures of economic success, and mental and physical health of a nation’s citizens;


Since the UN can't raise taxes, who is going to supply the 10 million..... what in the world are Euros anyway?


4.CHARGES The UN to create a UN Task Force on Reading and Literacy (UNTFRL) to administer the grants discussed in article 4 and provide the member nations with an annual report summarizing the findings and context of reading and literacy and their impact on member nations;


See above re: funding.
Also this IS article 4, the grants are discussed in article 3 (but that is a minor point - just for clarity mostly!)


5. CALLS UPON UN member nations to, through legislation and funding, support the creation and maintenance of public libraries;


And on the off chance we think hospitals would do more good than libraries?


6. IDENTIFIES WITH and ENDORSES positive and responsible reading and lliteracy everywhere.

Good for you! Except for the "responsible reading" part - that is a subjective term if ever I heard one.

I do support the general idea - literacy is a good thing and I wish more of my people would read rather than watch TV. But who am I to tell them what to do with their spare time?

2. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY any national law or regulation to restrict the content of publications and recordings beyond prohibitions of the sexual exploitation of those younger that 16 years of age, of libelous attacks, of violations of copyright, of advocacy of the immediate, violent overthrow of government institutions, or of the invasion of personal privacy;



The fact that this resolution will allow the sexual exploitation of children aged 16 is problematic for my nation's support. Resolution 25: The Child Protection Act states that children are persons aged 18 and younger.

ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)


This resolution allows for the exploitation of children aged 17 and 18 which is in contradiction of Resolution 25.

1. PROHIBITS the banning or public destruction of publications and recordings
due to political, philosophical, religious, or scientific content;


I think that this resolution is good, except for this part which I feel should be removed. Each nation works on different levels to maintain a stable government, to prohibit the ban of materials which could threaten the stability of a government would be asking for trouble. If this article is at least altered, I'll support it.

The fact that this resolution will allow the sexual exploitation of children aged 16 is problematic for my nation's support. Resolution 25: The Child Protection Act states that children are persons aged 18 and younger.

ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)


This resolution allows for the exploitation of children aged 17 and 18 which is in contradiction of Resolution 25.

Actually - it doesn't.


For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.


It says that children are eighteen or under, unless in the nation in question, the age of majority is lower. In my nation children become adults (with all the rights and responsiblities therein contained etc) at the age of 14, so that #25 only applies to those under that age, not to those who are 14 - 17.

(At least this is my interpretation of #25 - if I am wrong then someone should tell me cause otherwise I am in SERIOUS doo-doo!)

I think your interrpretation is correct.

However, this resolution should make some specific reference to this concept in order to apply to all nations, especially those which determine the age of majority by the maximum age set by the Child Protection Act. A clause similar to that needs to be put into this resolution in order to protect this.

So you can never destroy any book? Even if it is so out of date nothing in it is true any more? (If it says TilEnca is made of cheese, and we know that not to be true, I would have to destroy it on the grounds of it's scientific content - which would be against the law).


You need to re-read the language. "public decruction" is specifically aimed at the public ceremonial destruction of books (e.g. Nazi book burnings) the regulation says nothing about destroy publications privately. If one of your churches want to burn Harry Potter books behind their fence that is fine. Just don't do it in the public square.


16? People become adults (with all the rights and responsibilities therein) at the age of 14 in my nation.
And there are reasons I might want to restrict the content of a publication or recording - security grounds, the subjudice laws my nation has (and refuses to give up) and so on.


You may have a point here. I think I will use language such as you point in a later message that was used in resolution 25.


Since the UN can't raise taxes, who is going to supply the 10 million..... what in the world are Euros anyway?


I need clarification here. Member nations do not donate money if they chose to? Does the Nationstates simulation assumes there is absolutely no budget for the UN? For some reason I assumed many if not most nations gave some token amount - much like in the dreaded reality.

If Euros is dragging the real world into play here I am sure I can structure something to the effect of the monetary equivalent of the cost of 7 miillion loaves of bread in the largest (in population) capitlalist state in Nationstate.

In your mind is this really a problem or are you yanking my chain?


See above re: funding.
Also this IS article 4, the grants are discussed in article 3 (but that is a minor point - just for clarity mostly!)


Thank you! That is the type of typo I was counting on a new set of eyes to see.


And on the off chance we think hospitals would do more good than libraries?
[QUOTE=TilEnca]

I am of the opinion the "calls upon" is vague enough that if you like hospitals (or bear baiting for that matter) a nation can sucessfully avoid being in violation of this clause.

[QUOTE=TilEnca]
Good for you! Except for the "responsible reading" part - that is a subjective term if ever I heard one.


Again this is a motherhood and apple pie clause. There are no teeth in it to cause any nation to worry about. But it says something I think a vast majority of nations would agree with.

I think that this resolution is good, except for this part which I feel should be removed. Each nation works on different levels to maintain a stable government, to prohibit the ban of materials which could threaten the stability of a government would be asking for trouble. If this article is at least altered, I'll support it.

Just a clarification. You want to be able to ban political publications as they may threaten your governments stability? With all the other possible laws and secret police type organizations available to you a book or magazine has got you scared? Any technologically sophistocated police state loves opposition literature it gives them an above ground way to track potential enemies. If you don't have more sophistocated methods to remove those that oppose your government you just aren't trying. You should also note that article 2 seems to imply that the prohibition of materials suggesting the "immediate violent overthrow of any government institution" is allowable.

I ask all world leaders to recongnize the double edged sword of literacy.

If you empower them with knowledge pretty soon, they'll want political power. This cannot be allowed.

I demand a clause as such...

Guarantees a nations option and sovereign right and power to oversee all pieces of writing that disseminate among the population so that, if any government wills it, a piece of writing deemed subversive, antigovernment propaganda, and/or the alike, can be forbidden from disrupting the piece of the nation;

I wish we could add a clause to this stating that the proposals submitted to the UN must be written at least at the 7th grade level. I would support that Global Literacy Act to my last breath.

You need to re-read the language. "public decruction" is specifically aimed at the public ceremonial destruction of books (e.g. Nazi book burnings) the regulation says nothing about destroy publications privately. If one of your churches want to burn Harry Potter books behind their fence that is fine. Just don't do it in the public square.


So it would be acceptable to destroy all the "Laws Of God" books before they come to the shops, as long as I do it in private?


I need clarification here. Member nations do not donate money if they chose to? Does the Nationstates simulation assumes there is absolutely no budget for the UN? For some reason I assumed many if not most nations gave some token amount - much like in the dreaded reality.


I don't know how the UN is funded, but if they are going to give out grants I just thought it might be wise to find out first :]


If Euros is dragging the real world into play here I am sure I can structure something to the effect of the monetary equivalent of the cost of 7 miillion loaves of bread in the largest (in population) capitlalist state in Nationstate.


Fair enough.


In your mind is this really a problem or are you yanking my chain?


Maybe just a little :} It's just that a) not everyone uses Euros (TilEnca uses Gold Pieces) and b) not everyone could afford 10 million of them anyway



I am of the opinion the "calls upon" is vague enough that if you like hospitals (or bear baiting for that matter) a nation can sucessfully avoid being in violation of this clause.

Again this is a motherhood and apple pie clause. There are no teeth in it to cause any nation to worry about. But it says something I think a vast majority of nations would agree with.

That's fair enough.

So it would be acceptable to destroy all the "Laws Of God" books before they come to the shops, as long as I do it in private?


Pretty much. Certainly a violation of the spirit of the resolution, but clearly allowable. However, do note that banning "Laws of God" is not allowed. Depending upon your nation's laws regarding private property, due process, and free trade you may not be able to easily just seize the publication and destroy it.


Maybe just a little :} It's just that a) not everyone uses Euros (TilEnca uses Gold Pieces) and b) not everyone could afford 10 million of them anyway


Is this unclear, the intent is for the UN to adiminister just one pot of 10 Million Euros - not 10 million from each nation? How can I fix this? This really is a small amount of money considering that we have over 35,000 member nations and many have populations over 1/2 billion.

Pretty much. Certainly a violation of the spirit of the resolution, but clearly allowable. However, do note that banning "Laws of God" is not allowed. Depending upon your nation's laws regarding private property, due process, and free trade you may not be able to easily just seize the publication and destroy it.


"Laws Of God" was a subtitle for a book used to justify the murder of several thousand people in the space of about two and a half years. After The Liberation every copy was destroyed. Why would be not be allowed to ban it now?

On that topic - how can you prohibit the burning of books in a literacy act? What connection do these two things have with each other? People can be literate even if they are not allowed to read "Three Little Pigs".





Is this unclear, the intent is for the UN to adiminister just one pot of 10 Million Euros - not 10 million from each nation? How can I fix this? This really is a small amount of money considering that we have over 35,000 member nations and many have populations over 1/2 billion.

I did get that, but what if I don't have any money to spare? There are some new countries that have really small populations - should they be asked to pay the same as everyone else? Because in either way it's starting to sound like a tax, which is in voilation of at least one resolution I know of!

I did get that, but what if I don't have any money to spare? There are some new countries that have really small populations - should they be asked to pay the same as everyone else? Because in either way it's starting to sound like a tax, which is in voilation of at least one resolution I know of!

I have a discussion started about this on teh moderation forum. In my view these donations would be purely optional. As you mention many poor nations may not be able to afford it. Additionally, nations with a libertarian or heavily liassez faire capitalist orientation would oppose any donation to the UN.

I am beginning to believe I may need another clause to make these donations explicit and suggest a level of donation.

Also everyone should note (especially if they are just coming to this thread, that I have revised the first message to reflect changes suggested here and a few from some of the members of my region.

I have a discussion started about this on teh moderation forum. In my view these donations would be purely optional. As you mention many poor nations may not be able to afford it. Additionally, nations with a libertarian or heavily liassez faire capitalist orientation would oppose any donation to the UN.


It's not so much donations as demands I would oppose :}

And I am still curious as to how you got from literacy to banning the burning of books.

And I am still curious as to how you got from literacy to banning the burning of books.

Easy, fewer books, less to read.

Easy, fewer books, less to read.

(smirk).

But seriously - why does this proposal cover the rules governing destruction of books when it is supposed to be dealing with literacy?

Banning publications has an effect on the availablity of publications. That is why it is there. It creates an anti-reading atmosphere. It inhibits publishers, authors, retailers, and readers.

What publisher wants to risk her/his warehouse stock becoming so much firewood overnight? Authors can't eat if their books can't be sold. What retailer wants the jackboots storming in and clearing books off her/his shelves? What reader wants to step into such situations? Much easier to tune in the corporate or government approved TV pablum.

Banning publications has an effect on the availablity of publications. That is why it is there. It creates an anti-reading atmosphere. It inhibits publishers, authors, retailers, and readers.

What publisher wants to risk her/his warehouse stock becoming so much firewood overnight? Authors can't eat if their books can't be sold. What retailer wants the jackboots storming in and clearing books off her/his shelves? What reader wants to step into such situations? Much easier to tune in the corporate or government approved TV pablum.

Which is all well and good, but doesn't relate to literacy per-se. You can still be literate even if the book about how to have straight-sex is destroyed - you just read books about gay sex instead.

And you are also straying in to the effect on businesses as well which is a whole other category.

I am happy to support moves to boost literacy, but the first article is fairly strong - YOU PROHIBIT - and doesn't seem to have a lot to do with the rest of it.

I have two problems with the wording of this proposed resolution, and then some problems with the resolution as a whole.

1. PROHIBITS the banning or public destruction of publications and recordings on the grounds of political, philosophical, religious, or scientific content;

You really need to add the word 'solely' in between 'recordings' and 'on'. Otherwise a publication with religious content about overthrowing the goverment would not be bannable.


2. DISCOURAGES STRONGLY any national law or regulation to restrict the content of publications and recordings beyond prohibitions of the sexual exploitation of minors, of libelous attacks, of violations of copyright, of advocacy of the immediate violent overthrow of government institutions, or of the invasion of personal privacy;

You need to add publications and recordings that pose a clear and present danger to private citizens-- not just the government.

Making a list of reasons that you cannot ban and a list of reasons that you can ban runs into a host of problems. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence would be banned under #2, and a pedophile cult magazine would be safe from a ban under #1.


I would support a general resolution that says we morally condemn unjust censorship, but I cannot support this resolution. These matters are handled on a state-by-state basis for good reasons.

-Albert Thompson, UN Ambassador, Adam Island

Making a list of reasons that you cannot ban and a list of reasons that you can ban runs into a host of problems. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence would be banned under #2, and a pedophile cult magazine would be safe from a ban under #1.


Firstly this is way off topic, and secondly is it maybe just a touch of Lucinda's advocate in it (I think other's refer to it as devil's advocate, just for clarity)

But why should a pedophile cult magazine be banned? Surely the right to write about such things should be protected? Writing about it, even writing stories about pedophillia should not be illegal - only the act itself. (Otherwise how do you justify books where somone kills someone else?)

This resolution should not even try to prohibit books as it has nothing to do with promoting literacy.

You really need to add the word 'solely' in between 'recordings' and 'on'. Otherwise a publication with religious content about overthrowing the goverment would not be bannable.

Good point.

You need to add publications and recordings that pose a clear and present danger to private citizens-- not just the government.

I am not sure what you mean here. Can you give an example? Do you mean, lfor example, a pamphlet giving addresses to abortion doctors homes targeted at violent anti-abortion folks? If you can give me reasonably clear language that does this I will consider it. It seems like a massive gray area to me.

Making a list of reasons that you cannot ban and a list of reasons that you can ban runs into a host of problems. For one thing, the Declaration of Independence would be banned under #2, and a pedophile cult magazine would be safe from a ban under #1.


I see this very differently. The first is a set of circumstances where banning or wholesale destruction of documents is prohitited. I picture this to be teh circumstance where one or a few documents ar targeted (think about "The Satanic Verses" or the books discussing "orgone" therapy. The second is the discouragement of laws for the restricting access to entire classes of publications. That there are certain documents or circumstances where a such restriction are allowed is secondary to the purpose of the article. .

Yes, if you read the US Declaration of Independence as call for the immediate violent overthrow of the British occupation you are completely correct (and I do read it that way in the context of the time - it no longer carries that meaning).

If I drafted a similar document demanding G.W. Bush's head on a pike don't you think the US government would have a legitimate interest in restricting such a document? I feel that the British at that time would have justly prosecuted the authors and signers as well as restricted the document itself. Revolutions seldom follow the laws of the government under attack

The first article is aimed at wholesale rejection and destruction of specific publications, The second is aimed at more general laws restricting content. .

Right. If the wording on the first one is changed a bit, it should be very good and I'll support that part. (my concern was that child porn could be protected from a ban if it was considered 'religious')
Also, I think someone else mentioned this, but it should be specified that it would be the government destroying the books- I assume you don't intend to ban private citizens from burning phamplets in protest. Depends on how 'publically' is defined, I guess.

I just think its dangerous to create a list restricting which books can be banned. The list doesn't include things like court proceedings, passwords to top secret government military files, instructions on how to make a nuclear weapons, death threats like the abortion clinic one you mentioned, and probably others. I'm not entirely sure how to best re-write it. The best idea I could come up with is if it poses a "clear and present danger" to a citizen's rights of life, liberty, property and others.

I like the general idea, there are just some concerns I had with implementation. But hey, thats why this forum's here, and it seems like you're taking feedback into account.

Right. If the wording on the first one is changed a bit, it should be very good and I'll support that part. (my concern was that child porn could be protected from a ban if it was considered 'religious')
Also, I think someone else mentioned this, but it should be specified that it would be the government destroying the books- I assume you don't intend to ban private citizens from burning phamplets in protest. Depends on how 'publically' is defined, I guess.

I have incorporated "soley". In some nations major corporation actually perform the function we normally assign to government. I am leacing the proposal the way it stand in that reguard. If performed in a public manner private citizens could not burn pamphets in protest. Privately remains a decision for individual nations to decide.

I just think its dangerous to create a list restricting which books can be banned. The list doesn't include things like court proceedings, passwords to top secret government military files, instructions on how to make a nuclear weapons, death threats like the abortion clinic one you mentioned, and probably others. I'm not entirely sure how to best re-write it. The best idea I could come up with is if it poses a "clear and present danger" to a citizen's rights of life, liberty, property and others.

I of course disagree. I am not sure why a government would wish to ban publishing court proceedings. For "passwords to top secret government military files," I see the potential harm as the release or unauthorized pocession of such passwords - a criminal act for nations to resolve and independent of publications or literacy. I see threats to individuals as being unworkable in a resolution - that is why I asked you for a version. After some thought I realize the abortion doctor issue is handled by protection of privacy.

Ok - this is the third and final time I will ask this, and hopefully get an answer that is satisfactory, because so far - not so much.


This is a resolution dealing with literacy. Which I take to mean that it will (try to) ensure everyone in the UN can read.

How can you justify linking this with an article that is quite obviously a freedom of speach article? The first one that says books can not be banned is a step to stop censorship, and has nothing to do with promoting literacy.

It would be like producing a freedom to roam proposal with article one being "to ensure everyone has freedom to roam in the UN everyone can carry a gun to shoot anyone who tries to stop them ".

Not only is it not related to this proposal (the free speach thing, not the roam thing) it is a huge invasion of national sovereignty - decide what a government can and can not ban. And it has nothing to do with this proposal.

I admit I have no power to stop it, but I would like an explanation, or I will make every attempt and endeavour to stop it passing should it come to the floor.

Ok - this is the third and final time I will ask this, and hopefully get an answer that is satisfactory, because so far - not so much.


This is a resolution dealing with literacy. Which I take to mean that it will (try to) ensure everyone in the UN can read.

How can you justify linking this with an article that is quite obviously a freedom of speach article? The first one that says books can not be banned is a step to stop censorship, and has nothing to do with promoting literacy.


Because I can <grin>. I acknowledge your concern. However, I feel that censorship of publications and recordings and literacy are closely enough related that there is not a big disconnect involve here. If this is a convincing objection in your mind and you are not a dlegate, make sure your delegate knows your wishes. Alternatiely you could break this into two proposals (well three with the screwed up mess of defining the UNit) and sibmitted those.

Sorry, if you felt ignored, I really didn't see it as that different an issue. Restricting the ability of nations to arbitrarily ban books seemed a pro-literacy move (I see the potential flaws in this argument). However, by trying to put bounds on what cannot be restricted we leave the situation that does allow certain classes of materials to be banned.

If performed in a public manner private citizens could not burn pamphets in protest. Privately remains a decision for individual nations to decide.

I of course disagree. I am not sure why a government would wish to ban publishing court proceedings. For "passwords to top secret government military files," I see the potential harm as the release or unauthorized pocession of such passwords - a criminal act for nations to resolve and independent of publications or literacy. I see threats to individuals as being unworkable in a resolution - that is why I asked you for a version. After some thought I realize the abortion doctor issue is handled by protection of privacy.

I cannot support the resolution if it does not allow nations to protect the free speech of protestors to burn or destroy phamplets or recordings in public. (assuming they bought them of course, lol)

And what I'm saying is that the resolution as written would forbid any government from banning a phamplet that contained top secret government information.

If we can't figure out how to allow governments to ban publications that pose a clear and present danger to the rights and safeties of its citizens, this resolution would pose horrific consequences across the globe. That's what I don't like the list of exceptions-- if we forget one in the passed resolution, we're screwed. Perhaps a catch-all clause could be added somewhere? Like "unreasonable" censorship, although that does get too vague.

Because I can <grin>. I acknowledge your concern. However, I feel that censorship of publications and recordings and literacy are closely enough related that there is not a big disconnect involve here. If this is a convincing objection in your mind and you are not a dlegate, make sure your delegate knows your wishes. Alternatiely you could break this into two proposals (well three with the screwed up mess of defining the UNit) and sibmitted those.


I don't think they are - and if it is left in there I will openly oppose it and encourage others to do so.


Sorry, if you felt ignored, I really didn't see it as that different an issue. Restricting the ability of nations to arbitrarily ban books seemed a pro-literacy move (I see the potential flaws in this argument). However, by trying to put bounds on what cannot be restricted we leave the situation that does allow certain classes of materials to be banned.

Don't worry about it :}

I cannot support the resolution if it does not allow nations to protect the free speech of protestors to burn or destroy phamplets or recordings in public. (assuming they bought them of course, lol)

And what I'm saying is that the resolution as written would forbid any government from banning a phamplet that contained top secret government information.

If we can't figure out how to allow governments to ban publications that pose a clear and present danger to the rights and safeties of its citizens, this resolution would pose horrific consequences across the globe. That's what I don't like the list of exceptions-- if we forget one in the passed resolution, we're screwed. Perhaps a catch-all clause could be added somewhere? Like "unreasonable" censorship, although that does get too vague.

The government should not be permitted to ban free speach under the cover of literacy, and should not be permitted to ban publications just because they pose clear and present danger to the rights and safeties of citizens. Anything could come under that category - a book detailing how the TilVala strangler carried out her crimes could inspire a copycat, but I could not imagine banning it on those grounds - it would be an insult to the intelligence of my people.

As long as this proposal has an article that permits banning anything then it should be opposed and voted down.

The above proposal was removed by a mdderator because:

""The Global Literacy Act" did not seem to deal with "reducing income inequality" nor "increasing basic welfare" and thus doesn't fit the category of Social Justice. "

Of course the moderator did not see fit to tell me the category it did fit within. Any suggestion?

The above proposal was removed by a mdderator because:

""The Global Literacy Act" did not seem to deal with "reducing income inequality" nor "increasing basic welfare" and thus doesn't fit the category of Social Justice. "

Of course the moderator did not see fit to tell me the category it did fit within. Any suggestion?

I am not a moderator, but I can take a guess - improving literacy could be seen to reduce income inequality - you are teaching people to read so that they can get jobs - but even if one man and one elf can read and write to the same standard this would do nothing to stop someone discriminating between them because one is an elf and one is a man.

And (from my understanding anyway) Social Justice is making sure that people get what they deserve from their social status. So making sure the poor have food, clothes and a roof over their heads is social justice - teaching them to read isn't because literacy is not something that affects people by social class. (Millionaires are equally likely to be unable to read as someone on the dole).

Just supporting you here, TilEnca. You appear to be doing a good job.
(Millionaires are equally likely to be unable to read as someone on the dole).
Before anyone says anything about 'if they're illiterate, they couldn't have made any money, let alone become millionaires' I'll just point out that Kerry Packer and Richard Branson are both illiterate, and both doing fine.

And on the topic of categories: it isn't really the mods' job to decide what cateory things should be in. You can ask them if they deign to come to this thread, and putting up drafts certainly helps in that regard.
I agree that this doesn't really fit in 'Social Justice', but then again it is hard to fit in anywhere. Enodia (the retired UN mod) used to say if it doesn't fit, don't try.
If you are arguing that literacy is a basic human right (though many would argue against that) you might be able to slip it into Human Rights, but that would be a long shot.

Where does it fit? That is my question. I don't think there is any appeal for a modrator's decision. I just want to know where to put it. I really don't want to get anymore of these "strikes" that get one rejected from the UN.

A more cynical person than myself would note that it is MUCH, MUCH more difficult to submit an issue than a proposal. One would surmise because issues require editting, whereas prposals are rejected without anything but a terse message or allowed to die on the vine due to the poor writing skills of the authors (with they exceedingly rare exception that gets voted on as a resoution).

While this forum exists to "assist" authors with their drafts no one (over 4 days) noted any difficulties with the category.