NationStates Jolt Archive

Sadly this is a much cut down version of the original, but only in terms of verbosity, rather than content.


EON Convention On Genocide

A Resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong

The UN does hereby state that :-
The genocide is a heinous crime, and should be treated as a crime against all people.
It is a crime that exceeds the jurisdiction of any one nation.
Those who commit genocide should be brought to justice by the international community.

Article 1:Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion). Those covered by this resolution are those protected by The UBR.
§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.
§3. Genocide is committed or instigated by the state, or by groups acting on behalf of the state. Should there be a claim for a private group being responsible for genocide, this can also be brought before TPP (to be described later) to confirm the validity of the claim.
§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations.
§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

Article 2:The Pretenama Panel (TPP)

§1. TPP is a body that can be instituted by the UN when it requires it. It is not a standing panel, but one that is created when the UN requires its services. More than one TPP can be operational at the same time.
§2. TPP is made up of representatives from fifteen UN member nations. These representatives must be diplomats, or lawyers. Each nation can supply only two members to TPP. No nation can serve on more than one TPP at the same time. The members of TPP can be challenged by those accused as well as the accusers, as the independence of TPP is paramount.
§3. TPP is granted all the powers it requires to investigate Genocide and try people for the crime. It will have the powers to demand the extradition of suspects, witnesses and other people connected with the crime they are investigating. If the extradition is challenged TPP must show proof of the requirement. This power can only extend to the extradition from UN member nations.
§4. TPP will meet in a location decided by its members. The nation hosting TPP will be required to provide adequate security.

Article 3:Investigation and Intervention

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.
§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

Article 4:Legal Proceedings

§1. TPP will be the legal authority that brings those accused of genocide to justice. It will act in accordance with UN Resolutions.
§2. TPP will sentence those convicted, within current UN resolutions. TPP can not sentence people to death.
§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.
§4. TPP will choose where the sentence should be served, on the condition that the prisoner(s) will be held in accordance with The Wolfish Convention.
§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.


If I could ask you all to discuss it, and those who can, to approve it.

Thanks :}

(For those who have seen the previous one, the differences are mostly format - taking out bold stuff etc, and removing some of the extra words that don't really relate to something)

(This is the original copy http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7546712&postcount=17)

The DRA supports this resolution and will sponsor it. Well written!

This may help. It'll give you lots of delegates to contact, all of whom will likely approve it.

http://www.geocities.com/betty_guns/TilEnca.html

Good Luck!

Woah. Thanks!! Both of you!!

Bump

Nice.
I like it. I would support it but I am not delegate (one endorsement away though).

bumperooneelopolusness

Oh, and here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/58775/page=UN_proposal/start=75) is the link to it's place on page 16 (unless proposals ahead of it are deleted, in which case it'll move up to page 15 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/40045/page=UN_proposal/start=70))

(OOC - With perfect timing the laptop I was using had a tragedy last night, or I would have been doing more to promote this. So thanks to everyone, and I intend to get back to this as soon as I can).

(OOC - Using computers at work to change the UN is kind of fun, if somewhat against the acceptable use policiy!)

Now this is truely an international subject matter and something worth the UN's attention. I'd like to encourage other delegates to endorse this convention.

Remember, save a list of who has endorsed this so you can telegram them next time if necessary.

Beautiful. The Empire of Calvania and Hobbania and the region, the United States of Fleeg support this. Well done. ;)

The Emperor of Calvania and Hobbania

Sadly this is a much cut down version of the original, but only in terms of verbosity, rather than content.



If I could ask you all to discuss it, and those who can, to approve it.

Thanks :}

(For those who have seen the previous one, the differences are mostly format - taking out bold stuff etc, and removing some of the extra words that don't really relate to something)

(This is the original copy http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7546712&postcount=17)

Assuming murder is illegal in all UN nations, this resolution seems useless.

Article 1
§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

Article 4
§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.

§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.

These are the only things that could be problematic. It is universally accepted that the right of self-defense is never denied. art4-3 could be a violation of due process. art4-5 is not acceptable in that it denies rights to a proven innocent. Overall I think this to be an outstanding proposal. Just the few things mentioned that need tending to.

Assuming murder is illegal in all UN nations, this resolution seems useless.

So you are willing to try someone who murders one person on the same scale as someone who murders twenty thousand people.
That a government leader who sets about killing every single Christian in his nation should be tried in the same way as somone who kills his wife cause she is cheating on him?
That someone who takes every black person in to custody and tortures them until they dies, just because they are black, should be tried as an average murderer?

You really don't see a difference between killing one person and trying to wipe out an entire race?

Article 1
§5. If Genocide is used in self-defence, it is still considered genocide, and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action.

Article 4
§3. Those acquitted are free to go, and may not be tried for the crime by national states. However a person acquitted of Genocide can be retried by TPP should new evidence come to light.

§5. Once a prisoner has discharged their sentence, they will be free to go. However, in the interests of international security, the said prisoner will be forbidden from holding public office in any UN Member Nation from then on.

[QUOTE]
These are the only things that could be problematic. It is universally accepted that the right of self-defense is never denied.


And I never said it would be. I just said that if you murder twenty thousand people and claim it is self defence, you will have to prove there was no other way. I really am fine with a self-defence claim, but you can't murder an entire race and say "Self defence" and not expect to be tried for it, even if you are acquitted for it.


art4-3 could be a violation of due process.


Prove it :}



art4-5 is not acceptable in that it denies rights to a proven innocent. Overall I think this to be an outstanding proposal. Just the few things mentioned that need tending to.

Article 4.5 relates to somone who has been proven innocent. You do understand that "dishcharges their sentence" means they have been convicted, served their time and has been released, right? This is not someone who has been found innocent we are proventing - but someone who has been convicted of genocide. Which, honestly, is probably not someone you want to be put in to power anywhere ever again :}

I cannot support this because of Article 2, Section 5. As such, I must pressure the region delegate of Tiamat Taveril to vote against it.

The Conseilin of Enn wishes to register its support of this most excellent proposal.

I cannot support this because of Article 2, Section 5. As such, I must pressure the region delegate of Tiamat Taveril to vote against it.
Huh?

Article 2 only has 4 sections, unless I'm missing something...

Huh?

Article 2 only has 4 sections, unless I'm missing something...

Er, Article 1, Section 5. Somehow, I got my articles mixed up. In any case, I cannot support it because of that.

Huh?

Article 2 only has 4 sections, unless I'm missing something...

Perhaps there is a section only robot / android ambassadors can see! ;)


I have a suggestion. Nations are going to wonder about why this is called the Eon Convention On Genocide.

It would be nice to prepare a short paragraph on what the city of Eon is like, and include that in your final pro statement.

So you are willing to try someone who murders one person on the same scale as someone who murders twenty thousand people.
That a government leader who sets about killing every single Christian in his nation should be tried in the same way as somone who kills his wife cause she is cheating on him?
That someone who takes every black person in to custody and tortures them until they dies, just because they are black, should be tried as an average murderer?

You really don't see a difference between killing one person and trying to wipe out an entire race?

The outcome for such a trial, whether on an international scale or simple a national one, would probably be the same. Say the death penalty was allowed in Florida Oranges. He'd probably be put to death; as he probably would if he were judged by an international committee. I don't see why the need for a big fuss and a committee if he's going to die anyway. I refuse to support this resolution on the basis that it has little use.

Note : this is the other thread on the topic (for reference) : http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=374385

The outcome for such a trial, whether on an international scale or simple a national one, would probably be the same. Say the death penalty was allowed in Florida Oranges. He'd probably be put to death; as he probably would if he were judged by an international committee. I don't see why the need for a big fuss and a committee if he's going to die anyway. I refuse to support this resolution on the basis that it has little use.

Then to argue on another point - what if it is the leader of the government that is doing it (or ordering it). And the judges are refusing to step in to do anything about the mass slaughter.

Say you are a black male in GeminiLand, and you know that the leader is planning on killing every black male in the land, because he doesn't like black men (which is not unbelievable). Would you be happy to sit there and let it happen, knowing that no one will come and intervene because you voted against this proposal? (Not you personally, but your nation).

This is an attempt to stop the most heinous of crimes, and to bring those to justice who commit it.

But if you honestly believe the government sponsered murder of an entire race is the same as one person killing one other person, then I have no problem with you voting against it.

Er, Article 1, Section 5. Somehow, I got my articles mixed up. In any case, I cannot support it because of that.

May I be permitted to ask why? This does not say that you will be convicted if you commit genocide in self-defence. It only means that, should you wipe out an entire nation for any reason, you will be asked to account for yourself and your actions. If you can do that - if you can show that you had no other choice but to do it, then you will go free.

May I be permitted to ask why? This does not say that you will be convicted if you commit genocide in self-defence. It only means that, should you wipe out an entire nation for any reason, you will be asked to account for yourself and your actions. If you can do that - if you can show that you had no other choice but to do it, then you will go free.

The point is no nation should be brought to court for using a tactical move to ensure their survival. If I, say, dropped a nuclear bomb on one of their major military bases, I wouldn't be brought to court. So why should I be brought to court for destroying a people or species who I have deemed best eliminated entirely because I feel that is the only way to stop them?

Perhaps there is a section only robot / android ambassadors can see! ;)


I have a suggestion. Nations are going to wonder about why this is called the Eon Convention On Genocide.

It would be nice to prepare a short paragraph on what the city of Eon is like, and include that in your final pro statement.

Very well. Are we sitting comfortably, then I will begin :} (I figured I would do it here, because the proposal only just comes in under the length permitted, and I can't make it any longer!)


While most of TilEnca's history is full of hugs and puppy dogs, there was a period where The Church Of The Lords (the central religion of TilEnca) was corrupted by a fallen Lord (one of the divine beings) named Lucinda. She worked from inside it to make sure she became undeniable ruler of TilEnca, and the other realms of the world (Ellian and Morana). During her reign of terror she engineered the massacre of several thousand people - mostly magic users and clerics, and then anyone who opposed her point of view. It is the darkest period of TilEnca's past, and the only genocide to occur with in our history.

Near the end of her reign, a group named EON was formed to generally be a gang of heroes. It was founded by Nickolas and Toriella, and the members generally went around helping people, fighting monsters and making life better. A good comparison from other countries fiction might be Robin Hood and his Merry Men.

Eventually EON came in to conflict with The Church, and through Tori and Nick's hard work, Lucinda was overthrown and banished to Encana (more or less Hell).

In memory of their work and sacrifice, the President of TilEnca takes their name (Nickolas for men, Toriella for women) and this proposal - an attempt to ensure that genocide never happens again, or at least those who commit it are properly tried and punished for it - is named after their group.

The end.


If you are curious - that really is where the name comes from. Even though this is an international convention, the people of TilEnca hold the memory of Tori, Nick and EON in their hearts, and we thought this would be a nice name for a convention to stop mass murder, torture and general badness in the world :}

Then to argue on another point - what if it is the leader of the government that is doing it (or ordering it). And the judges are refusing to step in to do anything about the mass slaughter.

Oh, please. That is an extreme and very unlikely case. And my judges are unwilling to put him away? If he committed mass genocide, I imagine my judges AND people would be strongly against it. We're in the UN after all, where human equality is preached above all. It's very doubtful my judges would not step in.

Say you are a black male in GeminiLand, and you know that the leader is planning on killing every black male in the land, because he doesn't like black men (which is not unbelievable). Would you be happy to sit there and let it happen, knowing that no one will come and intervene because you voted against this proposal? (Not you personally, but your nation).

It is also doubtful that no one would intervene. Much like America stepped in to remove the genocidal Hussein, I imagine one of my allies (in the Conservative Bloc) would come in and remove my leader (or an all-black nation or some such) and then let my courts handle it from there.

This is an attempt to stop the most heinous of crimes, and to bring those to justice who commit it.

This is an attempt to make mass murder illegal. Which it already is. Whoops.

But if you honestly believe the government sponsered murder of an entire race is the same as one person killing one other person, then I have no problem with you voting against it.

Never said that. Said the outcome of a trial (national or internatonal based) would probably be the same. Perhaps instead of making a resolution that proclaims genocide "illegal", a proposal to form a UN Task force to remove genocidal leaders or dangerous rebellions would be in better order.

Oh, please. That is an extreme and very unlikely case. And my judges are unwilling to put him away? If he committed mass genocide, I imagine my judges AND people would be strongly against it. We're in the UN after all, where human equality is preached above all. It's very doubtful my judges would not step in.


OOC - Rwanda. (the government directed the murder of over 800,000 people in 100 days and no one tried to stop it)

IC : What if your judges are on the take? Or your nation is a dictatorship where the person rules with absolute power?

And you are aware that you are NOT the only nation in the UN?


It is also doubtful that no one would intervene. Much like America stepped in to remove the genocidal Hussein, I imagine one of my allies (in the Conservative Bloc) would come in and remove my leader (or an all-black nation or some such) and then let my courts handle it from there.


OOC - Rwanda. (The US backed out after ten of it's soldiers died, and that was prety much it for international intervention)


This is an attempt to make mass murder illegal. Which it already is. Whoops.


OOC - Rwanda. (And yet it happens)


Never said that. Said the outcome of a trial (national or internatonal based) would probably be the same. Perhaps instead of making a resolution that proclaims genocide "illegal", a proposal to form a UN Task force to remove genocidal leaders or dangerous rebellions would be in better order.

IC - The UN ca not have a standing military. The rules say so. And by the same point this is an attempt to strengthen justice, not retribution.

OOC - I take it writing "Rwanda" again would be pointless.

OOC - Also Chile, The Sudan, East Timor.......

IC :
I think there is enough evidence to suggest that genocide is not the same as murder. But like I said - if you want to vote against it because you can't see the difference, vote against it. It's what makes the UN what it is - democracy at it's best.

You also did notice the part about rape, torture, forced pregnancy, forced abortions, familial seperation and so forth? Things that are not actually covered by mass murder.

What would a UN committee decide that a jury could not? I don't classify rape and forced pregnancy under genocide. Anyway, I don't disagree with the whole thing. Just parts of it. Enough to not want to vote for it.

What would a UN committee decide that a jury could not? I don't classify rape and forced pregnancy under genocide. Anyway, I don't disagree with the whole thing. Just parts of it. Enough to not want to vote for it.

What parts of it do you agree with?

Thus far, I've seen little constructive advice coming from you, but perhaps if you could explain what parts you support and why, that we might be able to better meat your needs and gain your support.

Think about it ...

The point is no nation should be brought to court for using a tactical move to ensure their survival. If I, say, dropped a nuclear bomb on one of their major military bases, I wouldn't be brought to court. So why should I be brought to court for destroying a people or species who I have deemed best eliminated entirely because I feel that is the only way to stop them?

But how would you distinguish between a legitimate tactical reason to murder a whole society and someone just doing it cause they didn't like them?

DLE, a potentially genocidal group may think that what they are doing is justified, but they are not necessarily the best judges of what constitutes justice.

Florida Oranges, the point is that genocide is an inherently international concern. Time and time again we see that national courts cannot be relied upon to deliver justice in this area.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

OOC: In real life, we have the International Criminal Court. Well, assuming the US doesn't succeed in having it delivered stillborn.

But how would you distinguish between a legitimate tactical reason to murder a whole society and someone just doing it cause they didn't like them?

How do you distinguish between a legitimate tactical reason to turn the equivolent of a small city into a crater while spreading around dangerous radiation and someone doing it just for the fun of it?

How do you distinguish between a legitimate tactical reason to turn the equivolent of a small city into a crater while spreading around dangerous radiation and someone doing it just for the fun of it?

That is why The Panel would investigate it - cause they can distinguish between the two.

People who kill argue the self-defence defence, and are acquitted. What is the difference here?

Here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/33551/page=UN_proposal/start=40) it is today (wednesday), it 'll likely be here (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/33551/page=UN_proposal/start=20) tomorrow.

Approve it, please.

That is why The Panel would investigate it - cause they can distinguish between the two.

People who kill argue the self-defence defence, and are acquitted. What is the difference here?

The difference is we are talking nations and international law, which is mostly unregulated. You need something of a much higher scope than this in order to establish the idea of a court system as arguable. As it is, this establishes an irony of the UN determining that only the complete eradication of a people is justification for trying them in court.

The difference is we are talking nations and international law, which is mostly unregulated. You need something of a much higher scope than this in order to establish the idea of a court system as arguable. As it is, this establishes an irony of the UN determining that only the complete eradication of a people is justification for trying them in court.

Hold on. Firstly - I think I used the wrong word. "Validity" was not the right way to phrase A1 S5.

The Panel is empowered to try someone for genocide - as defined in A1 S1. This includes the attempted slaughter, rape, torture and so forth. However if someone can show a reason for doing this - self defence or the like - then you get acquitted and sent home again. If you can't show a reason for doing it - you were bored, you wanted to make a new car park for your shopping mall and the nation next door was big enough - then you don't get acquitted.

No one will be convicted of a crime when there is mittigation to show there was a reason for it.

Hold on. Firstly - I think I used the wrong word. "Validity" was not the right way to phrase A1 S5.

The Panel is empowered to try someone for genocide - as defined in A1 S1. This includes the attempted slaughter, rape, torture and so forth. However if someone can show a reason for doing this - self defence or the like - then you get acquitted and sent home again. If you can't show a reason for doing it - you were bored, you wanted to make a new car park for your shopping mall and the nation next door was big enough - then you don't get acquitted.

No one will be convicted of a crime when there is mittigation to show there was a reason for it.

As nice as all of this is, it actually doesn't answer my challenge: Why just genocide?

As nice as all of this is, it actually doesn't answer my challenge: Why just genocide?

Cause this is the convention on Genocide, and if I tried to cover more than that I think people would point and laugh :}

Cause this is the convention on Genocide, and if I tried to cover more than that I think people would point and laugh :}

The problem is that to establish a court, you need it to do much more than just what the one in this does. If you are going to establish a court, you need a separate resolution for it. Otherwise, it is laughable to some and questionable to others as to why you are just making one thing limited to court trials.

As nice as all of this is, it actually doesn't answer my challenge: Why just genocide?

I'll field why my government reserves this particular crime as warranting international attention ...

Genocide is in layman's terms the systematic destruction of a cultural or ethnic group. Most frequently it is a minority population, but only because the resources (political and military) required to extreminate entire peoples is extensive, but it actually could result in a situation were a minority controls those resources and is seeking to become the majority.

The international issue here, besides the humanitarian adversion to war and murder, is that all to frequently national borders were once drawn around culturally similar populations. But over the years cultural / ethnic groups have moved, which "nationstates" have not dynamically changed their physical borders (there are of course separations, most of which are associated with the disassociation, i.e. breaking up, of larger confederal and federal republics). Though governments hold a "social contract" or responsibility to protect primarily the citizens in their care, as individuals many sentients also hold family obligations that transcend international boundaries.

This means that a Miervatian may be a citizen of Mikitivity, but that Miervatian may in fact also have family and social ties to a Groot Goudian. Naturally if Groot Gouda were to begin to systematically hunt down a segement of the Goudian population (which is completely unlikely ... Groot Gouda is perhaps one of the strongest proponents of human rights my government has met), Mikitivity might be tempted to consider that program of extermination to be a domestic affair, but tens or even tens of thousands of Miervatians might take objection and call upon their government to protect their extended interests.

The result, a large scale civil and domestic extermination program can be used to plunge nations into larger ranging international conflicts. A minority that would be systematically hunted down, forced to wear silly little stars, and then tossed into camps with large "concentrations" of similar minority groups, could in fact, be a catalyst for a "World War".

That is the cold hard political reality, and separating out genocide and condemning it by promising an international response may help deter genocide (it will not be full proof, but don't make the mistake of assuming that this convention is without teeth ... it is not, and has provisions on how to actually response to genocide), we could help prevent larger conflicts and destruction.

The loss of one life is tragic. The loss of hundreds is still tragic. But there is a point where the loss of thousands or even millions, begs the question to each of our nations that stood by and watched ... what could we have done differently?

The issue with genocide, not murder or even capital punishment, really is a question of scales. My government and many others hold the believe that sentient life is sacred and deplores government sanctioned programms to kills large numbers of people.

But another political reality is as follows: a society that would stand by and slaughter millions simply because of religion or skin color or some other hate based crime, is not going to approach the international community as equals. Instead these nations will learn a hard lesson that the international community is not only divided, but simply self-motivated. The lesson might also suggest that murder and warfare are tolerated, and such a nation might not stop with just the minorities that are within its borders, but might look to exterminate the fleeing refugees that take up residence in other nations.

OOC: If you are serious about asking why genocide is treated separate from other international crimes, the United Nations has *extensive* reports and documents justifying conventions against genocide. In reality, we -- the proponents of this proposal -- recognized that genocide, unlike gay rights, abortion rights, or needle sharing (all domestic issues in the REAL world) -- ought to be (our opinion) an international issue, not just because of the humanitarian justifications, but also because of the complex political realities that we roleplay in NationStates.

You will also find that Kofi himself takes great shame in the fact that Rwanada is often cited as the LARGEST failure of the United Nations in its 59 years! Again, plenty of RL literature exists, and I'd be happy to dig up a few UN and UN related papers about 1994. :( The death toll was STAGGERING.

I understand that it is fun to get into yelling matches about homosexuality ... either for or against it. But at the risk of sounding like a class A jerk, the reason American voters spend so much time on sexual related issues, isn't because of morality ... it is because they are overwhelmed by the long-term issues. You can't easily jerk your knee and dig into a position about energy policy or food distribution or health care, because these are incredibly complex issues that the specialists in these real-life fields are divided on. But sex? That is a lame biological urge that most species (save robots) have and it is pretty easy to just adopt a position and make "meaning" arguments about these things.

In any event, genocide might seem like a "well meaning liberal attempt to save the world from itself", but there are, as I've outlined, real international security reasons to prevent it.

Don't believe me that governments have a social contract ...

In 2001 I was given a FAKE parking ticket from a company called Regional Parking, Inc. The ticket was placed on my car, but claimed that I was in another city, about 10 miles away, on a different street. My car was parked after hours in a private dentists' parking lot, and I noticed that cars BLOCKS around mine all shared the same $20 tickets.

I kept the ticket but refused to pay the fine to a private collection agency claiming to represent the city I was *NOT* even in.

I started getting letters from a lawyer, with no business address, but a P.O. Box to send their $20 to or face a "civil lawsuit". Being that my girlfriend at the time was with me (we were at Planet of the Apes), I had a witness and sent several letters back explaining why the ticket was not only invalid, but frauduent and any attempts at further harassment would be responded by my filing complaints to both cities: the one I was in at the time and the one they claimed I was in. Amazingly the letters STOPPED.

Fastforward 3 years from the last letter, 4 years from the event ... I found my old records, I kept it all, and started googling the firm.

Guess what happened? The two cities I was going to contact got HUNDREDS of very angry complaints. In response to the *need* of the citizens of those two cities about Regional Parking, Inc. one of the city attornies adviced the city council (politicians) that the city should BANISH Regional Parking, Inc. from the city. Furthermore, the lawyer for the city recommended that the city also pressure all city businesses to CUT all ties with the firm.

Stupid or not, the result was a political one. Regional Parking, Inc. was cut out of both cities for abuses with its tickets, and all because *governments* owe a social responsibility to meet the reasonable needs of their citizens.

The reason I bring up this story is because when you aren't working and paying taxes, you are pretty damn sheltered from real world politics. But in a democracy (direct or indirect), your government will respond to mass requests. I can promise you that if a small and wealthy city or town will do this to a bogus parking company / collection agency, that there certainly is a political benefit to at least waving our hands and saying "Genocide is really bad", because citizens want this.

I remember 1994 pretty vividly, and even at the time in the United States (in a "Red State" no less) there were many angry letters being written about the lack of US response to the largest genocide of our time.

I *firmly* stand behind our roleplayed Eon Convention against Genocide, and frankly I'm surprised nobody has managed to get a similar proposal to the UN floor to date.

:)

it is laughable to some and questionable to others as to why you are just making one thing limited to court trials.

No it is not laughable at all.

It is called being realistic.

I've not seen you argue that the Definition of Marriage resolution should be more detailed than just the four or ten sentences it provided. Surely marriage is a much more complex subject than that ... as illuminated by the debate in which many of the 1,000s of no votes came not because people are opposed to gay marriage, but rather that nations expressed concerns over concent and beastiality.

True or not, I think we need to be careful when we paint the world with a tiny brush in coming out publically too soon thereafter and advocating that the next canvas *must* be painted using a rolling brush or air gun.

In any event, my previous post outlines a very LONG national reasoning (and a very LONG out of character response to). I will reiterate that I have tremendous respect for TilEnca for spear heading this effort, and I also have reason to suspect that the Chipmunks are working hard behind the scenes too!

-10kMichael

The problem is that to establish a court, you need it to do much more than just what the one in this does. If you are going to establish a court, you need a separate resolution for it. Otherwise, it is laughable to some and questionable to others as to why you are just making one thing limited to court trials.

Hold on - this is going way outside the range of things I was covering. The Pretenama Panel will only exist to deal with the crime of genocide. Not general war crimes, or crimes against humanity - just genocide.

I have no desire to set up an International Court of any type of justice - no standing body to do this. Just a single panel that will deal with one specific instance of Genocide. Another instance will be dealt with by another panel.

So someone else can set up an international court, because war crimes and other such events are a bigger thing than this.

Plus trying to write a resolution for an ICC is a nightmare!

No it is not laughable at all.

It is called being realistic.

The reason behind the laughability is we have UN nations throwing nukes, or bigger, around like they are toys and the only reason someone can motivate themselves to actually create a court for it is to reach for the highest, most heinous thing they can. Nevermind the small nations turned into massive craters with people wandering around in a daze. Nevermind people suffering under radiation poisoning because the government and major military installations were nuked. We're basically saying that, unless you're out to purposefully kill everyone (it's hard not to when you have cannons firing black holes, but the resulting extermination is not intended), it's perfectly fine with us.

I've not seen you argue that the Definition of Marriage resolution should be more detailed than just the four or ten sentences it provided. Surely marriage is a much more complex subject than that ... as illuminated by the debate in which many of the 1,000s of no votes came not because people are opposed to gay marriage, but rather that nations expressed concerns over concent and beastiality.

There is an important difference between defining a term or word and trying to establish an international court. The rest of it I am fine with, but the message that one portion sends is far stronger than you would believe.

True or not, I think we need to be careful when we paint the world with a tiny brush in coming out publically too soon thereafter and advocating that the next canvas *must* be painted using a rolling brush or air gun.

In any event, my previous post outlines a very LONG national reasoning (and a very LONG out of character response to). I will reiterate that I have tremendous respect for TilEnca for spear heading this effort, and I also have reason to suspect that the Chipmunks are working hard behind the scenes too!

You're long post was very convincing, but still did not really answer the question: If we are going to have an international court, why just genocide? The mere fact a court is brought up at all opens the door for something far more to evolve from it, but in this case also sends the message that anything below genocide is perfectly fine.

Hold on - this is going way outside the range of things I was covering. The Pretenama Panel will only exist to deal with the crime of genocide. Not general war crimes, or crimes against humanity - just genocide.

It still lays the bricks for a true NSICC while at the same time sending the message that you do not feel that anything beneath genocide is worthy of holding a nation accountable for. Stop and count the number of strong, broadstroke resolutions before this proposal that include a mention of a court to oversee it.

I have no desire to set up an International Court of any type of justice - no standing body to do this. Just a single panel that will deal with one specific instance of Genocide. Another instance will be dealt with by another panel.

A rose by any other name. This is still an international court, despite the fact it only deals with one crime.

So someone else can set up an international court, because war crimes and other such events are a bigger thing than this.

Bigger? You can't get much bigger than wiping out an entire people without destablizing large portions of a world or blowing up planets. You've pretty grabbed one of the biggest things in NS for your proposal. And, see above about the court issue.

[qupte]Plus trying to write a resolution for an ICC is a nightmare![/quote]

Yes, it is. That is part of why I must question the panel created by this being one.

The reason behind the laughability is we have UN nations throwing nukes, or bigger, around like they are toys and the only reason someone can motivate themselves to actually create a court for it is to reach for the highest, most heinous thing they can. Nevermind the small nations turned into massive craters with people wandering around in a daze. Nevermind people suffering under radiation poisoning because the government and major military installations were nuked. We're basically saying that, unless you're out to purposefully kill everyone (it's hard not to when you have cannons firing black holes, but the resulting extermination is not intended), it's perfectly fine with us.


Yeah. But if you are throwing them around as part of a war, it is something else. And if you accidentally set of a chain reaction that destroys the world, it is something else. But if you steal the children of an entire nation and raise them as your own, you are setting out to destroy the culture.

This is a situation outside of war. Because it is the only way it can be.


There is an important difference between defining a term or word and trying to establish an international court. The rest of it I am fine with, but the message that one portion sends is far stronger than you would believe.


Ah. Which part is that? (You might have told me that already, but I am getting lost in all this!)


You're long post was very convincing, but still did not really answer the question: If we are going to have an international court, why just genocide? The mere fact a court is brought up at all opens the door for something far more to evolve from it, but in this case also sends the message that anything below genocide is perfectly fine.


No. To me it sends the message that anything below genocide is for another body to investigate.


It still lays the bricks for a true NSICC while at the same time sending the message that you do not feel that anything beneath genocide is worthy of holding a nation accountable for. Stop and count the number of strong, broadstroke resolutions before this proposal that include a mention of a court to oversee it.


Again - this is a convention on Genocide, not a convention on international war crimes.


A rose by any other name. This is still an international court, despite the fact it only deals with one crime.


I know, but given the whole basis of this was genocide is not a national crimes I could not make it a national court.



Bigger? You can't get much bigger than wiping out an entire people without destablizing large portions of a world or blowing up planets. You've pretty grabbed one of the biggest things in NS for your proposal. And, see above about the court issue.


Ok - bigger was the wrong word. The scope of war crimes - whether killing civilians while bombing military bases is acceptable, whether dropping atom bombs to avoid losing more troops is acceptable, whether sending in black-ops snipers to kill foreign leaders is acceptable - these are all big questions that are outside the scope of a government trying to wipe out part of it's own, or another, population.

Would it be better if it was only internal? So that if Nation A tries to wipe out Nation B it would not come under the terms of this convention?

Or should the whole thing be scrapped and the impossible dream of an ICC be put in to place?


Yes, it is. That is part of why I must question the panel created by this being one.

I guess I didn't mean for The Panel to be an international court. I realise it can be read like that, but it wasn't the idea. (I know - you are going to ask me what the idea was. And hopefully when you do I will have an answer for you)

Yeah. But if you are throwing them around as part of a war, it is something else. And if you accidentally set of a chain reaction that destroys the world, it is something else. But if you steal the children of an entire nation and raise them as your own, you are setting out to destroy the culture.

This is a situation outside of war. Because it is the only way it can be.

Launching a surprise attack with WMD to start a war, ending up accidentally killing off most of the nation and poisoning the rest in such of a way they won't survive long enough to rebuild. Is that genocide or an accident of war?

Ah. Which part is that? (You might have told me that already, but I am getting lost in all this!)

Article 1, Section 5.

No. To me it sends the message that anything below genocide is for another body to investigate.

Two interpretations. Part of the problem of any UN proposal.

Again - this is a convention on Genocide, not a convention on international war crimes.

Yes, which is why I feel the panel having the ability to try people for it should not be included.

I know, but given the whole basis of this was genocide is not a national crimes I could not make it a national court.

This is a convention on genocide, not a convention on international war crimes.

Ok - bigger was the wrong word. The scope of war crimes - whether killing civilians while bombing military bases is acceptable, whether dropping atom bombs to avoid losing more troops is acceptable, whether sending in black-ops snipers to kill foreign leaders is acceptable - these are all big questions that are outside the scope of a government trying to wipe out part of it's own, or another, population.

Would it be better if it was only internal? So that if Nation A tries to wipe out Nation B it would not come under the terms of this convention?

Or should the whole thing be scrapped and the impossible dream of an ICC be put in to place?

Just removing people being forced to come before the panel removes my complaint about it. The teeth portion is not really needed, as the proposal becomes international law and enforced the moment it is passed.

I guess I didn't mean for The Panel to be an international court. I realise it can be read like that, but it wasn't the idea. (I know - you are going to ask me what the idea was. And hopefully when you do I will have an answer for you)

The idea was to give a case of RP teeth to the proposal and make it seem more realistic, all the while having RP results for people that break international law. The idea is good, but if we're going to have an ICC, let's have an actual ICC and not just something limited in its scope.

You're long post was very convincing, but still did not really answer the question: If we are going to have an international court, why just genocide? The mere fact a court is brought up at all opens the door for something far more to evolve from it, but in this case also sends the message that anything below genocide is perfectly fine.



For the same reason trival details like spelling out a definition of marriage weren't included in a larger civil rights resolution, like the rights of minorities and women (which is still pretty darn similar -- different, but could have been combined).


You speak that we should be worried about nations tossing nukes, why did you not also object to the various gay rights issues for the same reason?

I think the answer is you didn't see a connection between the two and recognize that resolutions are collectively an incremental attempt for our UN to slowly improve the living conditions in all of our societies (or in the case of a few nations to come here and be grumps ... er I mean champions of sovereignty).

In any event, there is nothing in the Definition of Marriage resolution nor the Stem Cell Research Funding resolution that prohibited the formation of a larger international court. This proposal doesn't stop that from happening either.

But it does address a serious problem and one that many of our populations (I think that in addition to speaking for the people of Mikitivity that those of TilEnca have made it clear that genocide is unconsciionable to them) feel need to be address for both humanitarian and global security justifications!

The objection I'm seeing you raise isn't one of denying the importance of an international statement against genocide, but more of a technical matter. Frankly, as the old Barada saying goes, "I think you are putting the horse before the cart."

Bear in mind the history of this proposal. TilEnca and other nations (mine included) wanted to create a simple resolution condemning genocide, much like the resolutions we have against land mines and bio-weapons and pedophilia. Each of those resolutions I believe your nation supports, right?

But during the early debates in Eon, representatives from several of the nations felt that a UN Convention needed enforcement in order to be meaningful. To have teeth. But those comments were tempered with other comments suggesting that the UN should not be in the business of starting nor supporting wars. It was in fact IMHO a brilliant move on the part of the TilEncian representative at the Eon Meetings to suggest that a specialized court could be created ad hoc (meaning only as needed) to deal with the unique circumstances associated with charges of genocide and more importantly that the UN would have authority to hold those found guilty accountable.


*pausing for a second*

A normal international court might one day be established, but unlike genocide, that court certainly has less of a need to meet on an ad hoc basis as something so unqiue and that is such a political powder keg as the subject of genocide, with a few possible exceptions ... all of which I will dare to speculate also are unqiue due to what I'd describe as being "the systematic loss of life on a significant scale".

You almost could call this the Miervatian Provision or something of the such, but what makes genocide (and also the use of weapons of mass destruction -- another subject you will see my government is strongly opposed to -- for reference see the Meet the Reps thread) so henious really is the loss of life associated with these events.

I dare say that when problems and conflicts threaten to spill over from just regional conflicts to world wide conflicts, that special courts and experts are much better equipped to deal with resolution in these situations.

However, there is no reason why any court called under this so called "Miervatian Provision" (i.e. a scaling argument) couldn't be aided or physically housed in some world body. But let's focus on the original task at hand ... finding a meaningful statement against mass murder.

For the same reason trival details like spelling out a definition of marriage weren't included in a larger civil rights resolution, like the rights of minorities and women (which is still pretty darn similar -- different, but could have been combined).

You speak that we should be worried about nations tossing nukes, why did you not also object to the various gay rights issues for the same reason?

Gay Rights issue didn't include a ICC.

I think the answer is you didn't see a connection between the two and recognize that resolutions are collectively an incremental attempt for our UN to slowly improve the living conditions in all of our societies (or in the case of a few nations to come here and be grumps ... er I mean champions of sovereignty).

In any event, there is nothing in the Definition of Marriage resolution nor the Stem Cell Research Funding resolution that prohibited the formation of a larger international court. This proposal doesn't stop that from happening either.

No, but there is a suspicious lack of them attempting it. This one does something many others don't: It establishes a court. That is what makes this one a special case.

But it does address a serious problem and one that many of our populations (I think that in addition to speaking for the people of Mikitivity that those of TilEnca have made it clear that genocide is unconsciionable to them) feel need to be address for both humanitarian and global security justifications!

My own people only feel it is to be used for defensive purposes when other options are obviously not viable or present too much of a risk in implementation. For example, genocide is socially justifiable if the people exterminated are on their way to steal antimatter bombs and have proven they can take out the military ground forces and get past security measures with ease. That comes under national security.

The objection I'm seeing you raise isn't one of denying the importance of an international statement against genocide, but more of a technical matter. Frankly, as the old Barada saying goes, "I think you are putting the horse before the cart."

I'm dealing with something that, frankly, is a completely new thing to the NSUN. An international court has not been established up to this point for a reason.

Bear in mind the history of this proposal. TilEnca and other nations (mine included) wanted to create a simple resolution condemning genocide, much like the resolutions we have against land mines and bio-weapons and pedophilia. Each of those resolutions I believe your nation supports, right?

Actually, we oppose banning land mines and bioweapons. But that is because I originally voted in favor of bioweapons, only to see non UN nations use them effectively against small UN nations in the days following its passing. It was a military disaster for the devastated nations.

But during the early debates in Eon, representatives from several of the nations felt that a UN Convention needed enforcement in order to be meaningful. To have teeth. But those comments were tempered with other comments suggesting that the UN should not be in the business of starting nor supporting wars. It was in fact IMHO a brilliant move on the part of the TilEncian representative at the Eon Meetings to suggest that a specialized court could be created ad hoc (meaning only as needed) to deal with the unique circumstances associated with charges of genocide and more importantly that the UN would have authority to hold those found guilty accountable.

Thus, creating something that has never been attempted before with questionable legality. Is it legal? Is it illegal?

*pausing for a second*

A normal international court might one day be established, but unlike genocide, that court certainly has less of a need to meet on an ad hoc basis as something so unqiue and that is such a political powder keg as the subject of genocide, with a few possible exceptions ... all of which I will dare to speculate also are unqiue due to what I'd describe as being "the systematic loss of life on a significant scale".

How unique will they be? Anyone of sufficient advancement can "accidentally" exterminate an entire culture.

You almost could call this the Miervatian Provision or something of the such, but what makes genocide (and also the use of weapons of mass destruction -- another subject you will see my government is strongly opposed to -- for reference see the Meet the Reps thread) so henious really is the loss of life associated with these events.

No, it's the fact it is knowingly done. Loss of life in massive amounts happens every day. Someone knowingly causing it on that level is what makes this one so heinous.

I dare say that when problems and conflicts threaten to spill over from just regional conflicts to world wide conflicts, that special courts and experts are much better equipped to deal with resolution in these situations.

However, there is no reason why any court called under this so called "Miervatian Provision" (i.e. a scaling argument) couldn't be aided or physically housed in some world body. But let's focus on the original task at hand ... finding a meaningful statement against mass murder.

There is a way to do it. Make it illegal unless it is a tactical situation similar to what I stated way above when I included my example about antimatter bombs.

Having looked over some of the (quite lengthy) posts, my nation has weighed all arguments and decided to support this proposal and will encourage our delegate to endorse it.

i oppose comon man genocide fun :gundge: :p

But that is because I originally voted in favor of bioweapons, only to see non UN nations use them effectively against small UN nations in the days following its passing. It was a military disaster for the devastated nations.


Find a single instance in the II forum prior to today where the UN restriction on bioweapons has been anything remotely related to a military disaster for UN members.



For example, genocide is socially justifiable if the people exterminated are on their way to steal antimatter bombs and have proven they can take out the military ground forces and get past security measures with ease.

Listen to what you are justifying ...


"Those pesky Jews! They were going to plant a time bomb under the Brandenburg Gate! We had to exterminate them all! Every last one of them represented a risk to our security!"

I've never in my life heard genocide associated with the killing of military combatants. I guess there is a first time.

I think since it is clear you neither respect nor read my own posts, I'll borrow from others ...

http://www.edwebproject.org/sideshow/genocide/

Genocide is a word that stirs up the deepest emotion, an uncanny chill that makes one realize how inhumane humanity can sometimes be. Incredibly, the word did not even exist until the 1944, when the Polish Jewish scholar Raphael Lemkin used it to describe the anti-semitic atrocities of of Hitler's Nazi Germany. In a period of less than six years the Nazis murdered over 10 million people: Slavs, Roma, and six million Jews. This wasn't the first time that a regime attempted to wipe out so many innocent people. Throughout history there are records of the mass slaughter of civilian populations, but it wasn't until the world's collective recognition of Hitler's "final solution" that we were able to give such destruction its own name.

Genocide, the murder of an entire people. Murder as policy.

Too liberal of a site, let's then look at what a Turkish site has to say (because everybody knows Turks are flaming liberals):

http://www.turkishforum.com/armenian/10q/q5.html


This key-description helps to differentiate between genocide and other forms of homicide, which are the consequences of other motives such as in the case of wars, uprisings etc. Homicide becomes genocide when the latent or apparent intention of physical destruction is directed at members of any one of the national, ethnic, racial or religious groups simply because they happen to be members of that group. The concept of numbers only becomes significant when it can be taken as sign of such an intention against the group. That is why, as Sartre said in speaking of genocide on the occasion of the Russell Tribunal on the Vietnam War, that one must study the facts objectively in order to prove if this intention exists, even in an implicit manner. (23)

I included the entire quote, because this supports the "Miervatian Provision" I mentioned earlier. That genocide is in fact related to issues of scale. Furthermore the above information points to a need for the decision of when to separate homicide from genocide as a very careful matter. The proposed resolution before us forms ad hoc panels to evaluate suspected cases of genocide in order to separate:

"Ohhhh, my government regrets having to kill those arabs terrorists, but they did have suitcase nukes. It isn't like we do this to all arabs."

from ...

"Arabs, who needs them! If we don't kill them as children, they are going to grow up and have their revenge upon us. Let's sterlize the women and kill all the males. That will eliminate the problem forever ... unless some magic using race reincarnates them ... hmmm, perhaps we should kill all spell-casters too? And since elves are spell-casters, we need to kill all elves. Of course elves are fairies, and fairy is nasty word for gay, so let's chop them up too. It is OK, since that arab over there carried a suitcase nuke around ya know."

TilEnca has managed to impress upon my government that the panel is necessary to investigate and differentiate between protection and a massive hate crime.


And since I challenged you to find proof of the UN resolution on bio-weapons having a negative impact, I will site a specific example where a roleplayed lack of a genocide convention resulted in UN "justified" exterminations of massive amounts of people.

In Feb. 2004, Joccia rounded up all of its prostitutes following the legalize prostitution resolution (which I'm amazed hasn't been recalled yet ... actually I'm not, most nations here like to talk about sex and other issues related to it ... it is easier than most things). Joccia claimed that the desire to sell your body for sex, while legal was in and of itself an illness. Furthermore Joccia claimed that the legalization of euthanasia was the most humane way to deal with permanent medical conditions, and immediately killed 10,000s of prostitutes. The government then extended its euthanasia program to the elves, claiming that they too enjoyed sex. They were killed, not based on any test of this assumption, but simply because they were elves. The government killing extended to homosexuals, because they were friends of the elves, and nobody could be a friend (according to that government) with an elf knowing that they were terminally ill without being "infected" as well. All told 100,000s of Joccians were killed, and 100,000s more fled the country. My nation and other North Pacific nations accepted the Joccian refugees, many of whom have a zero tolerance to the acts your government is attempting to legalize.

In any event, we need this convention. NationStates history has shown us this ... in fact, having been extremely active here in the UN, this is probably one of the few cases where I'd say that there is an active need for international action.

Find a single instance in the II forum prior to today where the UN restriction on bioweapons has been anything remotely related to a military disaster for UN members.

Searching, not finding right now. Looks like my evidence isn't present. There goes that point down the drain.

:flushes:

Listen to what you are justifying ...

Hey, my people once burned a person at the stake for being a terrorist leader and I had to use tanks to force them to move so the police could get through. I'm not exactly claiming they are civilized.

Searching, not finding right now. Looks like my evidence isn't present. There goes that point down the drain.


Even if you can't find a link, I think that retelling NationStates events related to this would help your case. Some of the older nations may be able to help.

I honestly don't think there is such an example, but this isn't a "rush" request. Post on some of the other forums and ask if any other nation can point you to an example of the UN ban on bioweapons resulting in a military disaster for a UN nation or if they'd like to come here and retell the story themselves.

OOC: During the Joccian crisis, a number of even non-UN nations started looking through the old resolutions and finding ways to work them into roleplay. The embargos on medicine was one of the issues I felt fit nicely into the military conflict that resulted. I've also seen Frisbeeteria drop references to the Wolfish Convention and IRCO in his Dodgeball War. Perhaps bioweapons have played a role, but I don't think so ... and here is the real reason why: with some many silly tech levels floating around, any weapons of mass destruction can be countered with a magical or technology defense. WMD are really about as effective in NationStates as PMD (persons of mass destruction) <--- of which I originally used in roleplay via one Captain Mikitivity. I honestly think that there is some valid roleplay benefit from this particular resolution via the panel. Since it can be formed ad hoc, that means after you and I have lost interest in the game, a unique panel can be formed and played as necessary by NS players. Aside from the UNSC, few UN committees really see activity after the flurry of their resolutions, UNCIAT and the UNEC might be exceptions in the next few months. I'd like to eventually organize and strengthen the IRCO, and as that happens, many of you who dislike me will see less of me here. But the concept of a "variable" committee to come and go offers a new aspect to potential roleplay ... it means continuity isn't necessary, and I think it actually is a brilliant idea for the problems it seeks to solve.

It's so good to see some proper debate in the UN. I'm still firmly behind the proposal (and 10k Michael has done a brilliant job of reassuring me that I am right to do so), but I'm grateful for DLE's contributions: much food for thought.

This is an excellent idea. I've asked my delegate to endorse it and I'll try and get some more on side.

EXTRA!! EXTRA!!

Eon Genocide Convention makes front page (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/28936/page=UN_proposal/start=0)!

Please endorse!

I will go back to debating the proposal in a moment, but first I have to say a big thanks to EVERYONE who has approved it so far. When left work for lunch at 1ish it had a total of 41 approvals. That has nearly tripled in the hours between then and now. So thank you to everyone who has approved it.

And a big thanks to Powerhungry Chipmunks and Serconea for assisting with getting the word out. I swear the next time I submit this (I am not so optimistic as to assume it will pass tonight with 30 votes to go) I will try to ensure my computer does not crap out on me half an hour after I do it!!

Seriously - BIG THANKS!!!

DLE - if I were to present a redraft of the proposal without any refernce to the Pretenama panel having the power to sentence people, would you be willing to review it?

I still think that all attempts of genocide should be brought before the panel, even when it is claimed it is self defence.

But the power would not be able to send people to jail. It would, however, have the power to recommend a trial if the evidence warrents it. So then an ICC could be set up to do the trying, and the panel would only do the investigating and so forth.

I would have to think about the wording of it, and how much power it would take out of the proposal, and make it more or less toothless, but in the spirit of international co-operation it might be worth looking in to it.

If you have to resubmit, either drop EON from the title or explain it in the text. If you're selling a product (and you are), shorter and clearer is better.

If you have to resubmit, either drop EON from the title or explain it in the text. If you're selling a product (and you are), shorter and clearer is better.

I realise that now, but quite honestly cutting out any more text would be nigh on impossible. I had to reduce it to two thirds it's size to post it originally.

I can take EON out - that is not really important (it was mostly just put there in memory of those who fought). On the other hand if I remove the stuff about the court imposing sentences then I can put in vast acres of text.

22 votes to go, and around what? two hours?

Well - it looks like I am going to have to re-submit it again. I am sadly being called away on urgent matters of state (OOC - read it's 1:16am and I should be asleep since I have work in the morning) and the proposal is currently 13 votes shy of it's target. So unless something unexpected happens over night, I think I will resubmit it on Saturday night, so that I catch those delegates who come here on Sunday, and the ones at the start of the week.

And, if the Lords are willing, I will NOT have a stupid computer crash!!! (OOC - I am going to be ranting about that in my diary for a while. If there wasn't that crash then I think I could have spent Monday night canvassing for votes, and not reinstalling XP and dealing with the most god-awful virus infection I have seen since the Nimda Crisis of 2002, but that is a whole other topic!).

Thank you to everyone who has discussed it, made suggestions or supported it. And again - a big thanks to everyone who approved it and worked on getting more approvals for it. The people of TilEnca, and my Councilors thank you greatly!

Approvals: 141 (Powerhungry Chipmunks, JS Nijmegen, WZ Forums, Sesian, Arkheinia, Al-Zar, Coolet, Melmond, Monditouey, Yangzhou, Frisbeeteria, Alexein, North Central America, Saloman, Beboland, Fenor, Nerrethans, The Marine Infantry, Tekania, Callisdrun, Krigerania, Jo-nineveh, Savrocadia, Belchingburg, Majsju, Mikeswill, Master Tom, Geeop, Yelda, JAKstad, Draeken, The Supreme Rabbit, Pilot, Lucritz, Acirema Detinu, Morrissette, StalkLand, Oniram, Emperor Norton, Rouyn, Cricket Fans, Weslinski, Aston, Eeoreland, Anniju, Setibos, VikingMojo, Hellieville, Ald Rhun, VDO, Eurotopian, Glorious Phoenix, Absolut Liberty, Nanuists, SsEnDDaM, Cremare, Queensland Ontario, The Southern Wastes, Flammable Walruses, Phazania, Bloodsbane, Haven14, Kalamov, Massive Mechanical, Benzantium, Infinityx, Penguitalia, Leporid, The Cardinal freon, Stansfeldland, Otakopia, Feiferville, Newfreestates, Teken, Bharata, Roadrunners, Fayria, Elsilento, Anatonia, Devastia, Atenveldt, Zombie Lagoon, Sargonastan, Jaxonia, Satanic Golfers, Alexantis, NewfoundCana, Hersfold, Western Jinks, No power structure, North Colinland, Jenderoslavia, Minkytonia, Servenia, The Talisman, North Koster, Her Lady The Chicken, Nisk, Peaonusahl, The Fishery Institute, Rielle, Hybredia, Villendia, Shrimpy-UB, Musk Ox, The Two-Headed Dragon, Jonchastan, HauteCouture, DougIsGodLand, Kakuta, Crvena Zvezda, Ocean County NJ, Brunelian BG advocates, Nochte, Najora, No Na Me, Dyvan, DragonSpeartopia, Drowning Pool Fans, UltimateEnd, Disith, Armed Liberal States, Free Soviets, Destolov, Novantus, MitchUtopia, Yotomo kiwii, Ishi-i, Penguitoria, The Dancing Butterfly, SovietRepublicofRussia, Maya-Marduk, Mu La Flaga, Juosh, Novus Terra Reborn, Ninjadom Revival, Absolute Northerness, Pixiedance, Desertica, Traffic light, Montissori)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Congratulations!

Good Work, and a well-deserved approval. All of it, in spite of having a day late start and computer problems. Quite the achievement!

Again, Congratulations!

Now's when I shrink away so as not to become embroiled in the conflict over how many problems people can make up with proposals on the floor.

Congratulations!

Good Work, and a well-deserved approval. All of it, in spite of having a day late start and computer problems. Quite the achievement!

Again, Congratulations!

Now's when I shrink away so as not to become embroiled in the conflict over how many problems people can make up with proposals on the floor.

This news is most fitting for today actually is "Mikitivity Day".

A small request: please post a link to this and the draft proposal threads in whatever official thread starts. In addition to the final text used.

I'd rather (for clarity) that the actual discussion start with a simple post of just the resolution / convention text, and with that said, I myself will be retiring for the night soon ... so if a nation is on-line soon, maybe starting a nice neutral (i.e. non leading thread title) with the text of the resolution first, and then links to background threads second, would be a clean way to do things in an orderly fashion.

And again, congrats to all involved! This is very good news today indeed! :)

Looks good. I think I'll vote yes. If I ever regain power after the crippling invasion.

I am delighted and somewhat surprised to see this marvellous proposal reach quorum. Congratulations.

EDIT - sorry, wrong thread...