NationStates Jolt Archive

(REVISING)

Concerning Human Rights, Moral Decency, Environment:
EXPLICIT PROHIBITION OF ALL FORMS OF ABUSE:

DECLARATION OF AIMS:

IN VIEW of the great deal of resolutions, laws, prohibitions, et al, against forms of abuse, this resolution shall uphold and extend these protections of rights, while simplifying and generalizing the terminologies and qualifications of previous UN Resolutions.

DEFINITION OF TERMS:

THE DEFINING TERMS of this resolution are listed in Article I and are the qualifications for an action to be deemed an abuse of, or at the expense of, another sentient creature within the extent of Section 3 of Article I:

Article I: Definition of Terms

1. Abuse is defined as the act or viable threat of any sort of "mental" or "physical" harm.
a. "Mental abuse" is any abuse that results in psychological trauma
i. castigation or persecution
ii. debasement or humiliation
iii. brainwashing or indoctrination
iv. negligence or refusal of vital needs
b. "Physical abuse" is any abuse that results in physical trauma
i. sexual, e.g. rape or molestation
ii. castigation or beating
iii. violence causing bodily harm
iv. negligence or refusal of vital needs
v. torture
c. Any other such abuse prohibited by previous resolutions
d. Any other such abuse deemed illegal by an individual nation on an individual basis
2. Expense is defined as causing psychological or bodily harm lasting or extending to a period of time longer than a simple altercation or well deserved smacking.
a. Requiring some form of medical treatment
i. (extensive) therapy
ii. hospitalization
iii. medical attention
iv. medication
3. Abuse is defined as an extreme form of mistreatment
a. Excessive
i. constant or daily
ii. unnecessary amount
b. Unwarrented
i. undeserved or uncalled for
ii. disproportional action in response to another
c. Inescapable
d. Lacking willing consent of all parties involved
4. Sentient creature as something capable of independent thought, feeling, and emotion.
a. There are no restrictions or qualifications for a type of individual that can be abused
b. Retarded and old people still count
c. Fetuses do not count

Article II: The Resolution

1. THIS RESOLUTION, in light of the Declaration of Aims and the Definition of Terms outlined in Article I, declares all forms of abuse of, or at the expense of, another sentient creature to be illegal.

Article III: Prosecution

1. The instance of abuse must be proven to have occured.
2. The intent of the abuser must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
a. Abuse in the form of self defense is a valid arguement of defense
i. Arguement of self defense must be proven beyond doubt
ii. The element of eminent danger must be proven beyond doubt
b. Abuse as a job requirement is not a valid arguement
i. Scientific research is not prohibited by this resolution
ii. (Unnecessary) abuse occuring due to scientific research is prohibited
3. The personal relationship of the abuser to the abused shall not be considered in prosecution
4. Prosecution shall extend to an abuser of those that have since become deceased, killed, or murdered after the time of abuse
5. Prosecution must be followed in accordance with due process
6. A statute of limitations can be no less than 10 years

Article IV: Punishment/"Rehabilitation"

1. The personal relationship of the abuser to the abused shall be considered in prosecution
2. The punishment of the abuser shall not be defined but limited by this resolution, and by previous UN Resolutions.
3. Extent of punishment is to be decided by individual nations on an individual basis.
4. In cases of murder, previous actions of abuse by the murderer shall be considered in punishment

Article V: Ramifications

1. The limitation of Article 3 of UN Resolution #134 Definition of Marriage concerning "species borders".
2. This resolution does not prohibit killing, murder, euthanasia, abortion, etc. in any way, solely the abuse of sentient creatures (before killing them).

Quite aside from the fact that I can't understand half of it, it appears to be outlawing smacking, which I am not convinced is a good thing.

Secondly I am not sure you can explicitly overturn a previous resolution, as this would be an amendment or an indirect repeal. Neither of which are permitted.

In light of the passing of the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, and the problematic phrase seemingly implying the legalization (or at least allowal) of beastiality, I decided to set about making the end-all of all UN resolutions against abuse.

That sounds like a good idea...unless you're like me and are on this "national sovereignty" kick.

I started out attempting to widen the definition of abuse, extending the definition of rape, and indiscriminantly allowing all entities fair protection under these laws, but common sense and fear of looking like a delusional tree hugger attempting to impose his beliefs on others (which I'm not; I have no concern about eating or killing anything that moves), I've decided to seek editing from experienced proposal makers.

Err...they are not here right now, so I'll try to help. ;)

Basically, I want there to be an explicity resolution against all forms of abuse for humans, and basic forms of abuse against animals... I want a resolution that won't let people rape trees, animals, or dead people, and I want a resolution that will clearly mandates parents not forcing their beliefs on their children.

Oh dear. I'll definitely be voting against it in that case. Interfering in domestic policies is a big no-no with me. That said, I'll set my personal opinions on sovereignty aside and try to help you out.

--------------------------------------------------
Concerning Human Rights, Moral Decency, Environment:
EXPLICIT PROHIBITION OF ALL FORMS OF ABUSE:

IN VIEW of the great deal of resolutions, laws, prohibitions, et al, against forms of abuse, this resolution SHALL UPHOLD and EXTEND these protections of rights, while FURTHERMORE simplifying and generalizing the terminologies and qualifications of previous UN Resolutions:

That's very nice.

----------
In short: This resolution DECLARES all forms of "abuse" ILLEGAL at the "expense" of "another".
----------

That could use a re-wording. Maybe:

This resolution DECLARES all forms of "abuse" at the "expense" of "another" to be ILLEGAL.


DEFINING:
----------
ABUSE: Any sort of harm, "mental" or "physical", that shall fall under said categories.
---
MENTAL: Extending to the ACT or VIABLE THREAT of brainwashing; the forcing or indoctrination of political, religious, sexual, cultural, or any other such ideological or philosophical view; excessive, unwarrented, and inescapable verbal/mental abuse and harrassment.
---
PHYSICAL: Extending to the ACT or VIABLE THREAT of rape; molestation; kidnapping; excessive, unwarrented, and inescapable physical abuse and harrassment.
-----
FURTHERMORE, any other such mental or physical abuse that has been DEEMED by PREVIOUS PASSED UN RESOLUTIONS as illegal or prohibited (that has not been mentioned explicitly or in generic terms) shall continue to be recognized as ILLEGAL or PROHIBITED.
----------
EXPENSE: Any sort of ABUSE that causes "permanent" "damage".
---
DAMAGE: Psychological or bodily harm.
---
"PERMANENT": Lasting or extending to a period of time longer than a simply altercation, and requiring some form of medical treatment (e.g. extensive therapy or hospitalization).
----------
ANOTHER: Any other person(s), animal(s), or form of "life".
---
LIFE: Extending to any species, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, religion, etc., in short, ALL ENTITIES DEEMED "ALIVE", be they or LIVING or DEAD.

Hmmm. More re-wording needed because you are including the DEAD entities. Maybe:

LIFE: Extending to any species, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, religion, etc., in short, ALL ENTITIES DEEMED IN THE PAST OR PRESENT TO BE "ALIVE", be they currently LIVING or DEAD.

----------
FURTHERMORE, the relationship of the abuser(s) to the abused SHALL NOT be considered in prosecution, but SHALL and MUST be CONSIDERED in punishment.
-
The PUNISHMENT of the abuser(s) SHALL NOT be defined BUT LIMITED by this resolution, and by PREVIOUS PASSED UN RESOLUTIONS.
-
PUNISHMENT may be decided by INDIVIDUAL nations on an INDIVIDUAL basis.
-
ABUSE in the form of "SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH" shall not be condoned, however INDIVIDUAL nations may decide on courses of action in response to said forms of abuse, if deemed worthy of falling under said category.
-
ABUSE in the form of accident or self defense, upon verification, is NOT ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED, or PUNISHABLE.
----------
This resolution SHALL NOT define or extend the terms of ABUSE to the murder or killing of another form of life, though it SHALL EXTEND PROSECUTION and PUNISHMENT to abuser(s) of forms of life that have since become deceased, murdered, or killed after the time of abuse.
----------

Meh.

This resolution FURTHERMORE EXPLICITLY OVERTURNS the problematic clause of the UN Resolution: Definition of Marriage, which states:

"FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit."

On the grounds allowing the rape of an animal, mentally and/or physically.
----------

You can't build a repeal into a resolution, unfortunately. You have to repeal the previous legislation separately from and before doing this resolution.

This law may be modified by later UN Resolutions, as it currently sounds like a vegan wrote it.

No it can't, and yes it does. :D

Keeping mind the concerns of other members whom have already posted, my interpretation is as follows: Someone chooses to do physical harm to an Ant or virus either through intent or research purposes and they will be committing a crime? I think the honourable member might want to consider what type of “life” should be covered under this proposal. Including ‘all life” presents a whole new problem with the definitions they are seeking to clarify in my humble opinion.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Well, for starters I don't think it's a good idea to have a proposal sponsored by a vodka brand ;)

In seriousness, though, I'm not an experienced proposal drafter but I am pretty good at picking holes in things so I'll give it a go. My immediate impression is that the proposal is simply too long, a lot of people will get turned off after the 10th paragraph. I'll see if I can offer some space saving suggestions.


--------------------------------------------------
Concerning Human Rights, Moral Decency, Environment:
EXPLICIT PROHIBITION OF ALL FORMS OF ABUSE:

IN VIEW of the great deal of resolutions, laws, prohibitions, et al, against forms of abuse, this resolution SHALL UPHOLD and EXTEND these protections of rights, while FURTHERMORE simplifying and generalizing the terminologies and qualifications of previous UN Resolutions:


No problems so far.


----------
In short: This resolution DECLARES all forms of "abuse" at the "expense" of "another" to be ILLEGAL.
----------


Your "in short:" actually makes the proposal longer, consider incorporating it into the main declaration of aims, or stating it as an article (probably the better option).



DEFINING:
----------
ABUSE: Any sort of harm, "mental" or "physical", that shall fall under said categories.
---
MENTAL: Extending to the ACT or VIABLE THREAT of brainwashing; the forcing or indoctrination of political, religious, sexual, cultural, or any other such ideological or philosophical view; excessive, unwarrented, and inescapable verbal/mental abuse and harrassment.
---
PHYSICAL: Extending to the ACT or VIABLE THREAT of rape; molestation; kidnapping; excessive, unwarrented, and inescapable physical abuse and harrassment.


Why not just define "MENTAL ABUSE" and "PHYSICAL ABUSE" to save space? Oh, and put something about consent in there, especially the physical abuse part. You really don't want the S&M crowd on your back.


----------
FURTHERMORE, any other such mental or physical abuse that has been DEEMED by PREVIOUS PASSED UN RESOLUTIONS as illegal or prohibited (that has not been mentioned explicitly or in generic terms) shall continue to be recognized as ILLEGAL or PROHIBITED.
----------


This is probably redundant unless there's an obvious conflict with a previous resolution. I can't see one at first glance.


EXPENSE: Any sort of ABUSE that causes "permanent" "damage".
---
DAMAGE: Psychological or bodily harm.
---
"PERMANENT": Lasting or extending to a period of time longer than a simple altercation or well deserved smacking, and requiring some form of medical treatment (e.g. extensive therapy or hospitalization).
----------
ANOTHER: Any other "sentient" entity.
---
SENTIENT: Extending to any vertebrate capable of independent thinking, feeling, and emotion. You "level up" for every spider you kill. :p
----------


This nesting of definitions is untidy and hard to follow. Incorporate those definitions you can into the article(s) of the proposal and set out those you can't as definitions *before* the article(s)


FURTHERMORE, the relationship of the abuser(s) to the abused SHALL NOT be considered in prosecution, but SHALL and MUST be CONSIDERED in punishment.


Ironically given the excessive number of earlier definitions it's not at all clear what you mean by relationship here. Be more specific (don't add another definition, there's already too many).


The PUNISHMENT of the abuser(s) SHALL NOT be defined BUT LIMITED by this resolution, and by PREVIOUS PASSED UN RESOLUTIONS.


Since you don't propose any such limitations this part is redundant on my reading of it (I may have misread it).


PUNISHMENT may be decided by INDIVIDUAL nations on an INDIVIDUAL basis.


Fair enough, but I'd suggest putting this at the end of the proposal


ABUSE in the form of "SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH" shall not be condoned, however INDIVIDUAL nations may decide on courses of action in response to said forms of abuse, if deemed worthy of falling under said category.


Dangerous loophole in the last statement. You need to either clearly set out what this form of abuse means or drop it.


ABUSE in the form of accident or self defense, upon verification, is NOT ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED, or PUNISHABLE.


Fair enough again.


This resolution SHALL NOT define or extend the terms of ABUSE to the murder or killing of another form of life, though it SHALL EXTEND PROSECUTION and PUNISHMENT to abuser(s) of forms of life that have since become deceased, murdered, or killed after the time of abuse.


Wording could be clearer. In fact, this could probably be dealt with better in the definitions of abuse. You don't need to include the part on extending punishment, that naturally follows from the act. Unless you mean that causing death would entail greater punishment, in which case you should probably include an article outlining levels of punishment.


This resolution FURTHERMORE EXPLICITLY OVERTURNS the problematic clause of the UN Resolution: Definition of Marriage, which states:

"FURTHER RECOGNIZES all nation's right to expand this definition beyond species borders as the individual governments see fit."

On the grounds allowing the rape of an animal, mentally and/or physically.


As has already been covered by Texan Hodtrotters, you can't do this. Besides, this is implicit in your proposal, you don't need to overturn the clause. Marriage would be legal, you just couldn't do the dirty with your poodle. ;)

The basic ideas behind the proposal are OK and the core wording is sound but it needs a serious reformatting, IMHO. Try to use the classic format:

Declaration of aims

Definition of terms

Article 1, 2, 3 etc.

Statement of compatibility with previous acts (if necessary)

Hope that all helps.

Well, for starters I don't think it's a good idea to have a proposal sponsored by a vodka brand

But its sounds so cool!

bump! bump. bump!

You want to make it so "Castigation" is illegal.

So saying "Timmy! You should study more and watch TV less!" would then be illegal.

Uhm - HELL NO.

Vastiva was right.
I wanted definitions to clarify resolutions.
The definitions presented are broad, and make little sense.
No reasoning is proffered that leads to the validity of the terms.
This resolution is the anti-thesis to my train thought.

Not a bad first try...

However:

LIFE: Extending to any species, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, age, religion, etc., in short, ALL ENTITIES DEEMED "ALIVE", be they or LIVING or DEAD.

Who wrote this? AP does not consider the author of this statement as a being fully capable of thought, and will physically abuse him or her with a stick as the being does not meet the qualifications of sentience.

Actually, depending upon what terms are currently in use (there is a jumbled mess of them in the thread) a fetus could be protected by this resolution, or infants are not. It is hard to tell.

Time to post a revision.

All entities deemed alive?

There goes meat eating. And plant eating, come to think of it.

Yowtch.

Yes, well, I did say I was going to keep posting the revision on the first post to save space...
So while you check out the revised, keep in mind the definition of terms and the parameters outlined by Article I, Section 3.
As per your other questions, look at Article I, Section 4, and Article V, Section 2.

Teaching (indoctrination) is a form of mental abuse now? What the hell is this world coming to!!!!

Teaching (indoctrination) is a form of mental abuse now? What the hell is this world coming to!!!!

We are entering a Brave New World Tekania. The transition began back in 1984, when fireman started burning books that children did not like to read.

Any form of educating or disciplinging children will result in your being deport to the soilent green factory for "re-patriotization."

Sorry, this one is way too broad to get support - it would make illegal just about everything that in any way offended anyone.

Political Correctness as LAW??? HELL NO!

The DRA supports the theory of this resolution but I would like to recommend a few changes to this resolution.

1. Add in the death penalty as physical abuse
2. Put in a clause that allows parents to physically dicipline a child by using an open hand only and that the parent can not strike the child in the head or genitals.
3. A clause dealing with animal rights
4. A clause dealing with acceptable means of killing animals for food
5. A definition of indoctrination. Will this for example apply to what a priest says in a church? What about teaching children about their flag and anthem? Does this apply to the military?

There are a lot of problems I have with this proposal, the least of which not being ii. The element of eminent danger must be proven beyond doubt In Adam Island a defendent is "innocent until proven guilty," meaning that we assume that they did not commit a crime until it is proven that they did. This clause would turn that around and make it so we assume they have committed a crim until they can prove beyond doubt that it was just self-defense.

There is also the problem of iv. negligence or refusal of vital needs. As written, if my refusal to feed every starving person that knocks on my door causes them physical or mental harm, I am guilty of abuse. Perhaps something like "of a legal dependent" can be added?

And, of course, 3. Extent of punishment is to be decided by individual nations on an individual basis., but I can't think of a way to close the loophole without just making things worse, so it might have to stay.

Good idea, just needs some more cleanup here and there, but it looks very good so far.