NationStates Jolt Archive

This way makes it less scary, but also weakens it a little.

The whole resolution is very realistic I must say. Just like in the real UN its made up out of so many consessions it has become an utterly empty and useless mass of bureaucratic poetry. That's good though, because if you're pro or con, its no reason to step out of the UN - whatever the result of the vote is.

In my opinion this displays the utter weakness of modern day consession democracy and law: getting tangled up in the loopholes of the web it weaves around itself.

"§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation. "

--Nice thought--however, Genocide should not be used to describe crimes of all but murder, and/or the infertalization of an entire race (as per your definition of 'race' in #1).


I did not invent these definitions. Some are from the "real UN" definition of genocide (which I did not mention as it is against proposal rules, but I just thought I would mention it now because of that) and some I do believe would lead to the end of a society or a part of it.


This is because these are the ONLY two forms of extermination that ARE extermination. If you rape someone, you're not eliminating them. Separation from your family doens't get rid of you. torture is not killing, enslavement removes citizenship and basic human rites, but isn't killing. Finally, forced pregnancy. this one is actually just absurd--how, pretell, can one exterminate a race if one is forcing that race to procreate?


Again - not so much. If the women of GeminiLand are forced to carry the children of LeoLand, and only those children, then the future of the GeminiLand society will be very short lived indeed.
If your children are kidnapped and raised by people in another nation then the end of your race will come quickly.
Forcing an entire society in to slavery of another will wipe out that society as it exists. (OOC - the slaves in the USA, before they were released, did not live in the same way they would have lived if they had been left in the nations they came from originally).

All of these actions can lead to the destruction of a race or a society. And, as I said, I am not the only person to think so.



Now, that having been said--I support this proposal, though I will *not* vote in favour of it unless the above article is changed to encompass only those crimes which can justifiably be linked to genocide.


Even though I understand your comments, I am not willing to exclude those crimes listed, because I do believe they should be included.

(OOC)

To continue the point from my previous post :-


In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.


This is taken from here : http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human%20Rights%20Documents/UN_GenocideConven.html

I realise that most people consider genocide to be murder - killing someone because of who they are, not what they have done. But if you limit it to that then all sorts of other alternatives become open to those who would wipe out a society or part of it.

You could easily sit down and torture every christian in the country until they converted. They would not be dead, but you woudl be setting out to destory Christianity in your nation, which by any definition should be considered a genocide.

Anyway - this is just provided by way of information.

Originally I was going to write it so that UN members would not have a choice, but given that I was already jumping up and down on the sovereignty of member nations, I thought better of it.

This is the UN. We rape National Sovereignity on an hourly basis.

(OOC - it will leave open a lot of opportunities for roleplaying I guess)

OOC: True.

(IC)

I thought that if I made it too strong - that if I gave The Panel the power to take people related to the case without extradition proceedings, that almost everyone would object to it on the grounds of Big Brother/"The UN is a bunch of fascists".

This way makes it less scary, but also weakens it a little.

Look at it this way: You can propose something that involves you tapdancing on their faces while weariing baseball cleats and it can pass. We have several resolutions that do just that.

I was being retorical :P

I was joking.

If you had bothered to read his posts you'd have noticed that his state is his religion and vice versa, and that the population gives 100% support - your basic Theocracy. Furthermore, the actions he admitted to commit are inherent to his religion, as part of the practice, rituals, experiences and dogmas.

And taking him out is part of the religious practices of the religion that suddenly appeared in my nation (I mentioned the name of it in a reply to him about that), and Enigma is a temporary convert. So, really, that point can be used to justify me wiping out his people as much as his people wiping out those who don't agree. I considered it one hell of a way to make a point.

To take out the state, you'd need to take out the religion and to take out the religion you'd have to take out the people - which would come down to retributing genocide on someone else with genocide: basically giving the entire culture the death sentence for genocide by the power vested in you by yourself.

Nah. I just wait until he's not paying attention to a certain ship, hit his capital with a few torpedos and maybe a missile or two, and install one of my people with a peace-keeping force to oversee the election of an athiest. I don't have the title Dictator for nothing.

Besides the problem that you are denying his state freedom of religion and practice you are also on a vigilante action against his state: you are sentencing him without trial. You only have his short comments to go by, perhaps there's much more of a story to the thing.

If there was much more of a story, he seriously needs to post it. Also, under DLE law I don't have to give him a trial. I have his confession and all available evidence supports the confession. Thus, legally I just skip to the sentencing phase. In this case, the forced removal of his government and it being replaced with one more agreeable to UN regulations.

I guess you just proved what I've been trying to say here: this resolution will only endorce such actions by powerful states like yours against weaker ones. If fact I'd say that his actions don't sound much worse then the ones you admitted to committing yourself. That plus the other illegal actions by you in this matter would make you up for the same treatment yourself, by your own reasoning. - which brought up my retorical question. :D

One of the main differences is I try to at least obey most UN resolutions. A few I ban from the majority of my empire due to them either being impractical or, given the region of space I am in, suicidal. He, however, blatantly violated several resolutions in a horrendous way that make my few actions pale in comparison. Note I'm not the only one willing to forcibly remove his government, just the one not willing to play games with him and prance around while he tries to delay and commits more crimes against his people.

Yeah, that's always a biatch.. we could start making clucking noises at this point if you want. :P

Nay. If he chooses not to accept, no honor on his side is lost. Sometimes, not showing up to battle someone with a much bigger and much more advanced military is a better action than sending your soldiers to their deaths.

One weakness of this entire resolution I've been trying to point out all along. Powerful nations will still do as they please, cause no-one can do anything about it. They will also abuse this resolution to invade weaker countries "to save the people" - as you just declared to want to do in this thread.

Ah, but note I am not the only one to threaten it. In fact, if you search around the time of when I said that you will find more evidence to support this.

"It is removing Saddam from power and putting someone else in. Not that difficult to do." - G.W.Bush

Its not all that easy unless you are prepared to be a bigger oppressor then what you are trying to replace.

I never said keeping them in power would be easy. Keeping them in power and remolding the nation would take decades, if not centuries, of keeping a constant eye on them and dealing with uprisings. That is something I would require help with.

We Dont Need That I Think It Is Wrong

We Dont Need That I Think It Is Wrong

That is not a convincing arguement. Post why you think it is wrong and support it.

I think that this resolution is completely weak. It mimics the real U.N. process of handling genocide. But it only has power after it happens and the power is minimal after that. Let's take a case study of Rwanda in 1994. Real place, real time. Genocide happened and the U.N. denied it. They did nothing to prevent a million people from being massacred. They cannot try the instigators because of lack of evidence. The killers are everyone. The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) has 'refugees' living at it's borders who are many of the instigators and supporters of the genocide who fled after the new government prevailed. For 10 years, the U.N. has done nothing about them other than aid them with food and supplies. The U.N. will never do anything about them and cannot. This resolution is crap and genocide CANNOT be dealt with in this way.

I think that this resolution is completely weak. It mimics the real U.N. process of handling genocide. But it only has power after it happens and the power is minimal after that. Let's take a case study of Rwanda in 1994. Real place, real time. Genocide happened and the U.N. denied it. They did nothing to prevent a million people from being massacred. They cannot try the instigators because of lack of evidence. The killers are everyone. The Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) has 'refugees' living at it's borders who are many of the instigators and supporters of the genocide who fled after the new government prevailed. For 10 years, the U.N. has done nothing about them other than aid them with food and supplies. The U.N. will never do anything about them and cannot. This resolution is crap and genocide CANNOT be dealt with in this way.

What is this "Rwanda" you speak of, strange one?

(OOC: The Real Life UN has nothing to do with this UN. And real life places don't exist in NationStates)

I am currently in the act of sending a message to every delegate who has signed in favor of The Eon Convention On Genocide. As this resolution affects us all I will also post, word for word, my telegram here.

Hello, I am sending this telegram to you concerning the current UN resolution. I know that you have voted in favor of this resolution and I am sure that you considered your stance on this subject very carfully before casting your vote, however, I would like to enumerate some problems I see in it that I think will concern you as well.

One: Arcticle One Subsection Four of "The Eon Convention on Genocide" states that

"§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations."

While this may seem to be a point in the issues favor there is a disturbing element as well. Through out history many nations have been responsible for genocide and or attempted
genocide. If you don't belive me look into the Early history of the Americas. In South America when the spanish first invaded tribes of Native people were wiped out and after a
number of generations the culture of the lands original was basicly extinct. In North America the prarie wars against indian nations wiped out entire tribes. Later the remaining
indians were forced into reservations that activly tried to wipe out their culture by denying them the right to practice their religous beliefs and by making it a crime to speak their own language. In fact the United States of America would be gulity under this proposed resolution as they tried to "re-educate" young indian children and often forced the
speration, via boarding schools, from their families. These two actions would be in direct violation of Arcticle One Subsections One and Two. So as there is no Statue of limitations on this document both the United States as well as Spain could be indicted, along with Australia, England, and just about any other country you'd care to mention. It is for this reason that I implore you to read this bill very carefully as it could have much broader consequences than the original authors intended.

Sincerely Yours,

Diplomatic Representative Of
The Kingdom Of Good Judgment

I am currently in the act of sending a message to every delegate who has signed in favor of The Eon Convention On Genocide. As this resolution affects us all I will also post, word for word, my telegram here.

Hello, I am sending this telegram to you concerning the current UN resolution. I know that you have voted in favor of this resolution and I am sure that you considered your stance on this subject very carfully before casting your vote, however, I would like to enumerate some problems I see in it that I think will concern you as well.

One: Arcticle One Subsection Four of "The Eon Convention on Genocide" states that

"§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations."

While this may seem to be a point in the issues favor there is a disturbing element as well. Through out history many nations have been responsible for genocide and or attempted
genocide. If you don't belive me look into the Early history of the Americas. In South America when the spanish first invaded tribes of Native people were wiped out and after a
number of generations the culture of the lands original was basicly extinct. In North America the prarie wars against indian nations wiped out entire tribes. Later the remaining
indians were forced into reservations that activly tried to wipe out their culture by denying them the right to practice their religous beliefs and by making it a crime to speak their own language. In fact the United States of America would be gulity under this proposed resolution as they tried to "re-educate" young indian children and often forced the
speration, via boarding schools, from their families. These two actions would be in direct violation of Arcticle One Subsections One and Two. So as there is no Statue of limitations on this document both the United States as well as Spain could be indicted, along with Australia, England, and just about any other country you'd care to mention. It is for this reason that I implore you to read this bill very carefully as it could have much broader consequences than the original authors intended.

Sincerely Yours,

Diplomatic Representative Of
The Kingdom Of Good Judgment

Nice, but those nations do not exist in NS. Thus, they don't apply.

The real concern is this resolution may violate a previous resolution. Look at them all and tell me which one you see that looks like it is being violated.

Were I in the U.N. I'm sure I'd provide my vote for it ...

That is nice. However, that Nations vote for or against it does not change the legality of the resolution with respect to current UN Law.

You have 7 million people total. I can easily field an army that size. I call in my puppets, I can probably double that if I tried. All Sancta Torquemadans are dedicated to fighting unbelievers, nobelievers, disbelievers and unbelievers wherever they are. We have the aid of god and need not concern ourselves about the numbers opposing us. We have engaged successfully in thermonuclear ecumenical conferences before now.

You are commiting multiple violations of human rights. You are interfering in our divine right to spread the true religion with extreme prejudice and to annihilate, eliminate, obliterate, exterminate, eviscerate, extirpate and- if need be- kill those who resist, think of resisting or look as if they are thinking of resisting our sacred mission.

Violation of NSUN resolutions mentioned before... State sanctioned religious persecution is an international crime.

Push it any further Mr. and the Constitutional Republic of Tekania will declare you a false government, and subject to Peacekeeping actions by this great an glorius Republic.
Hah! A set of cruel and persecuting heretics/unbelievers/nonbelievers/disbelievers/pagans/falsebelievers [strike out where not applicable]. With the aid of GOD [Global Obliteration Device] we will deal with you when the time is ripe. You are 65923rd on our list of Things To Be Done And Generally Disposed OF.

DLE, two quotes from you...

[inventing new weapons] ...would be techwanking and godmoding
and

And taking him out is part of the religious practices of the religion that suddenly appeared in my nation (I mentioned the name of it in a reply to him about that), and Enigma is a temporary convert. So, really, that point can be used to justify me wiping out his people as much as his people wiping out those who don't agree. I considered it one hell of a way to make a point.

I think Someone just became rather guilty of aforementioned crimes... But anyway, back to the debate on Genocide please? Arguing over one tiny nation of religious nuts isn't going to change anyone's views in either direction.

Why does everyone seem to think executing one person because he commits a crime automatically equates to genocide?

I don't think that.
I didn't suggest killing paedophiles.
If you re-educate a paedophile to stop wanting to sexually abuse children, you are removing a part of the paedophile society. Which is a society. It's not and organisation, like M$, it's a society, like satanism, or homosexuality.

Try reeducating a gay man that being gay is morally wrong and see how far you get.

I know a lot of paedophiles want to change, but that just adds more weight to my argument, since that implies that had no choice in being a paedophile, much like a homosexual person.

So if you attempt to reeducate all paedophiles, by the definintions of the proposal, you area commiting, or aleast attempting, genocide.

I will not support that.

OOC: I don't support paedophillia, I'm just trying to make a point.

I am currently in the act of sending a message to every delegate who has signed in favor of The Eon Convention On Genocide. As this resolution affects us all I will also post, word for word, my telegram here.

Hello, I am sending this telegram to you concerning the current UN resolution. I know that you have voted in favor of this resolution and I am sure that you considered your stance on this subject very carfully before casting your vote, however, I would like to enumerate some problems I see in it that I think will concern you as well.

One: Arcticle One Subsection Four of "The Eon Convention on Genocide" states that

"§4. Genocide has no statute of limitations."

While this may seem to be a point in the issues favor there is a disturbing element as well. Through out history many nations have been responsible for genocide and or attempted
genocide. If you don't belive me look into the Early history of the Americas. In South America when the spanish first invaded tribes of Native people were wiped out and after a
number of generations the culture of the lands original was basicly extinct. In North America the prarie wars against indian nations wiped out entire tribes. Later the remaining
indians were forced into reservations that activly tried to wipe out their culture by denying them the right to practice their religous beliefs and by making it a crime to speak their own language. In fact the United States of America would be gulity under this proposed resolution as they tried to "re-educate" young indian children and often forced the
speration, via boarding schools, from their families. These two actions would be in direct violation of Arcticle One Subsections One and Two. So as there is no Statue of limitations on this document both the United States as well as Spain could be indicted, along with Australia, England, and just about any other country you'd care to mention. It is for this reason that I implore you to read this bill very carefully as it could have much broader consequences than the original authors intended.

Sincerely Yours,

Diplomatic Representative Of
The Kingdom Of Good Judgment


Ok - just to explain why this is not the issue you think it is.

Although genocide is a crime committed by a state, it is a person that is held responsible. So that if the leader of GeminiLand murders thousands of his people, and then drops dead or kills himself, no one else (see note below) would be held responsible.

So (to reply to your comments) the USA would not be guilty, because the people responsible are dead. England could not be held responsible cause the people are dead.

So if you would like to re-telegram the delegates and tell them that you misunderstood, it would be most helpful :}

I don't think that.
I didn't suggest killing paedophiles.
If you re-educate a paedophile to stop wanting to sexually abuse children, you are removing a part of the paedophile society. Which is a society. It's not and organisation, like M$, it's a society, like satanism, or homosexuality.

Try reeducating a gay man that being gay is morally wrong and see how far you get.

I know a lot of paedophiles want to change, but that just adds more weight to my argument, since that implies that had no choice in being a paedophile, much like a homosexual person.

So if you attempt to reeducate all paedophiles, by the definintions of the proposal, you area commiting, or aleast attempting, genocide.

I will not support that.

OOC: I don't support paedophillia, I'm just trying to make a point.

Are you doing this to every single pedophile you meet in a systematic way, or just the ones who commit a crime?

I find that the resolution is weak in many areas. The need for such a resolution is very necessary, however this resolution becomes mute if you can not extradite the cause of the genocide. In a portion of the article it states that genocide is not an exscuse to invade another nation, but what if force of arms is the only way left to protect the threatened people(s) and to bring the cause of the enthnic or religious cleansing to justice?

-King Muldon d'Correia

I find that the resolution is weak in many areas. The need for such a resolution is very necessary, however this resolution becomes mute if you can not extradite the cause of the genocide. In a portion of the article it states that genocide is not an exscuse to invade another nation, but what if force of arms is the only way left to protect the threatened people(s) and to bring the cause of the enthnic or religious cleansing to justice?

-King Muldon d'Correia

The idea behind that section was not to prevent nations from invading other nations to prevent or intervene in Genocide. However it was phrased so that people could invade another nation under the authority of this resolution, it could be tantamount to saying the UN has military power to intervene in genocide - which is against game rules as the UN can not have a standing military body, or even any military power at all.

May I ask what other areas you think this proposal is lacking in?

While I agree with what this resolution is attempting to achieve, I just think that it defines genocide as to many action (§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.)

Genocide is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." not rape, forced pregnancy, or torture. Beyond this, it would be harmful to the countrys in the UN if they lost the right to choose how someone is punished for their crimes.

Furthermore, some countrys (Chinpakistaniaville included) allow torture when used for information gathering purposes. Adopting this bill as-is would result in a loss of such policy, which would hurt the governments in question.

All Sancta Torquemadans are dedicated to fighting unbelievers, nobelievers, disbelievers and unbelievers wherever they are. We have the aid of god and need not concern ourselves about the numbers opposing us. We have engaged successfully in thermonuclear ecumenical conferences before now.

Thermonuclear doesn't impress me. I have bigger. And, personally, I'm not impressed with the "aid of god" type thing either.

You are interfering in our divine right to spread the true religion with extreme prejudice and to annihilate, eliminate, obliterate, exterminate, eviscerate, extirpate and- if need be- kill those who resist, think of resisting or look as if they are thinking of resisting our sacred mission.

This is the UN. The only "divine right" you have is what the UN allows. You might really want to read the passed UN resolutions.

DLE, two quotes from you...

[inventing new weapons]

...would be techwanking and godmoding

and

And taking him out is part of the religious practices of the religion that suddenly appeared in my nation (I mentioned the name of it in a reply to him about that), and Enigma is a temporary convert. So, really, that point can be used to justify me wiping out his people as much as his people wiping out those who don't agree. I considered it one hell of a way to make a point.

I think Someone just became rather guilty of aforementioned crimes... But anyway, back to the debate on Genocide please? Arguing over one tiny nation of religious nuts isn't going to change anyone's views in either direction.

I think someone just became guilty of missing the obvious.

1) Religion != technology.

2) Anyone who was reading it, and actually read the name of the religion, could figure out whether or not the religion actually popped up in my nation.

3) If you check my posting history (there is a lot of it), you'll find I have a justification for just about every piece of technology I have that is more advanced than post modern (originally, I intended DLE to be a postmodern Earth nation, but that didn't happen).

4) Really, you missed something overly, overly obvious. Go back and read the name of the religion, separate the name into multiple words, and then tell me if you honestly believe it's real or just me being evil.

5) The nation is being used as an example, and also as part of two different examples, of areas in which the resolution is weak or fails. In the case of the nation itself, we have a genocidal nation we may have to commit genocide against in order to bring it to justice. In the second case, it is pointing out how nations may use this as a justification for committing genocide. In the third case, it is being used as part of an arguement that the stronger nations may abuse it to take over weaker nations. So, really, that nation is a very important part of this arguement.

Ahh, but any newcomers to this thread won't pick up on that- they'll see a number of RP posts about a honky theocracy and other nations stating they want to move in and abolish it... which, let's face it, *is* a valid demonstration of the points at hand but the points at hand have been handed about several times by several different people already. :P

Ahh, but any newcomers to this thread won't pick up on that- they'll see a number of RP posts about a honky theocracy and other nations stating they want to move in and abolish it... which, let's face it, *is* a valid demonstration of the points at hand but the points at hand have been handed about several times by several different people already. :P

Who cares about the new members who can't figure it out? We can always ridicule them as they come in. It'll be a learning and growing experience for them.

Perhaps the demonstration of the arguement is the best method of showing it. I can say "Guns are dangerous!!!" until my face turns blue, but shooting a geletan dummy in the forehead is still a far more effective arguement. Nothing like seeing a geletan head explode and the demonstrator turning to you and saying that's what your head will do.

While I agree with what this resolution is attempting to achieve, I just think that it defines genocide as to many action (§2. Extermination includes, but is not limited to:- murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and familial separation.)

Genocide is "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." not rape, forced pregnancy, or torture. Beyond this, it would be harmful to the countrys in the UN if they lost the right to choose how someone is punished for their crimes.

Furthermore, some countrys (Chinpakistaniaville included) allow torture when used for information gathering purposes. Adopting this bill as-is would result in a loss of such policy, which would hurt the governments in question.

Okay - you raise two points. One of which has a little merit (if not a lot) and the other which is once again a matter of scale and intent, and which has already been dealt with quite a lot in this thread (but eh - I can deal with it again. I don't have much else to do right now).

To deal with the second part - if you are using torture for information gathering purposes then you are quite possibly in violation of a few UN resolutions. And even if you aren't, you are doing it for a specific reason. You are not torturing random people because they are left-handed, but you are torturing someone who has information. This is not genocide, even though it is somewhat distateful and wrong.

To deal with the first part - these are not all my defintions. Some of the come from recognised bodies that define genocide this way, and all of them are ways you can destroy a nation, a culture of a part of a society.

And societies can (within reason and limitations of the UN) chose how to punish specific people for specific crimes. You can execute someone for stealing, and you can put some one in jail (away from their family) for murder. But if the specific crime is being black, or being a muslim, and you execute every single black person or islamic person in your nation just because of that then you are committing genocide, and will be punished for it.

We've been through this... No, you won't be punished.

OOC:
Corrupt dictators generally don't just sit around and wait to get hauled off to the international courts. Hell, look at the problems the world's had when trying to get paws on General Pinocett (sp?).

IC:
On the whole, the bill won't prevent Genocide (mad-type folk bent on destroying ethnic groups generally don't abide by normal logic and thought processess such as "oops, I'll get my bottom smacked!").

Nor will it truly be able to punish all those who DO commit genocide- at least, not without committing near-genocide in the process as the original perps. are locked up, "dealt with" etc.

To deal with the first part - these are not all my defintions. Some of the come from recognised bodies that define genocide this way, and all of them are ways you can destroy a nation, a culture of a part of a society.

And societies can (within reason and limitations of the UN) chose how to punish specific people for specific crimes. You can execute someone for stealing, and you can put some one in jail (away from their family) for murder. But if the specific crime is being black, or being a muslim, and you execute every single black person or islamic person in your nation just because of that then you are committing genocide, and will be punished for it.

But this still leaves the problems of if rape and forced pregnancy can be considered genocide. It really isnt a planned and systematic extermination of a race or people, its just a unexcusable act by a person with no merit. Why should the UN get involved in these matters? All I'm trying to say is that unless you specify genocide the UN would hold the right at determining which IS genocide and which isnt. Such loose construction is shoddy at best.

(almost) everything in that is a great idea.

I am voting against it.

Extermination includes forced pregnancy. ???? forced Pregnancy????

Sounds more like proliferation instead of exterminaton to me.

Article 2:

§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.

If the accused can challenge the legitimancy of the TTP, wouldn't this just be used as a stalling tactic to prevent justice beiing carried out? Or would some rule be put in place to prevent too many challenges?

Are you doing this to every single pedophile you meet in a systematic way, or just the ones who commit a crime?
Every single paedophile needs to be educated into realising wanting to abuse children is not a valid lifestyle choice. They all need to stop abusing children.

The lack of their society in mine is a desire. It would also seem this is the desire of the UN, from the resolutions, although no formal outlawing of "being a paedophile" is in place.

even if this resolution passes it wont stop anyone from commiting genocide if they so wish to

But this still leaves the problems of if rape and forced pregnancy can be considered genocide. It really isnt a planned and systematic extermination of a race or people, its just a unexcusable act by a person with no merit. Why should the UN get involved in these matters? All I'm trying to say is that unless you specify genocide the UN would hold the right at determining which IS genocide and which isnt. Such loose construction is shoddy at best.

Just say you find a society where extra marital sex is considered a sin - one that can not be faced and one that is unforgivable.

You rape twenty thousand members of that society, they kill themselves. And while you have not murdered a single one of them, you are the direct cause of their death.

And if you find a society, rape all of it's women and force them to carry the children of another nation, not their own, then are you not destroying their society in the same way as if you were killing them?

The definitions stay, because removing them would just make it easier to escape justice for such an horrific crime.

(almost) everything in that is a great idea.

I am voting against it.

Extermination includes forced pregnancy. ???? forced Pregnancy????

Sounds more like proliferation instead of exterminaton to me.

See my MANY previous comments on why this is a legitimate part of the resolution.

Article 2:

§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.

If the accused can challenge the legitimancy of the TTP, wouldn't this just be used as a stalling tactic to prevent justice beiing carried out? Or would some rule be put in place to prevent too many challenges?

It's possible yes. But if this is meant to bring the people who commit genocide to justice, then the panel has to be seen to be unbiased from both sides. I am not an expert on how jurours are picked for criminal trials, but I think it works in more or less the same way.

If the panel is stacked with people who already think the accussed is guilty, why would we be bothering with the panel at all?

Every single paedophile needs to be educated into realising wanting to abuse children is not a valid lifestyle choice. They all need to stop abusing children.

The lack of their society in mine is a desire. It would also seem this is the desire of the UN, from the resolutions, although no formal outlawing of "being a paedophile" is in place.

Here's the thing - you can stop people's thoughts. You can stop there actions, and Resoltuion #22 (Outlaw Pedophillia) does that, but you can't stop their thoughts.

When I was drafting this I did not consider pedophiles as "a society" and as such did not think they would be under the protection of this. Because honestly I really don't think any reasonable person would class them as being protected by the fact they want to have sex with children.

If you think that they should be protected - that this convention should put in the dock those who want to stop people having sex with children - then repeal it, or try to. Because it is a ludicrous example of what genocide is, and not one I am willing to entertain.

Sorry :}

As I have said previously - it does not say "every single tiny piece of evidence will cause a new case to be brought". It says "...... can be retried....." - meaning that if the evidence would not support a new trial, a new trial would not be brought. But if a mass grave of twenty thousand bodies was found in the back yard of the person acquitted, that would be enough evidence to justify retrying them.
The mass grave of twenty thousand bodies in the backyard should have been found during the original investigation, and if it wasn't, that level of genocide certainly should have produced enough evidence that the one committing it should have been convicted in the first place. If, on the other hand, it is the result of a new act of genocide, then certainly it ought to be brought to the court. My objection is not against bringing new cases to court - it is against reopening cases that have already been closed. A man might be found "not guilty" on committing a particular murder, but that does not mean he can never be brought to trial for future murders of which he might be accused. The danger comes about when we have clauses in place that in effect never allow these cases to truly be "closed".

Again - can, not must. Flimsy evidence will not necessarily lead to another collapsed trial.
The flimsiness of evidence is not necessarily obvious. In fact, in most cases it will most likely only be apparent in the midst of the hearings or the tribunals. If a certain "standard" must be present for a case to be brought before the tribunal, then a double jeopardy rule isn't really needed. The fact that trials are able to be reopened implies that it is possible for trials to be held on flimsy evidence in the first place. Perhaps standards ought to be raised to avoid this.



The bit that will cause the problems is the bit that refuses to allow someone to get away with mass murder because of a lack of evidence at the original trial date.

And - on a sort of related note that is kind of off at a tangent - there is this to consider.

If Mr Jones of GeminiLand is setting about slaughtering all of the right-handed red-heads (because he was dumped by a right-handed red-head five years before) and is brought to trial before all the evidence can be gathered, it might bring an end to the slaughter because he knows that people know what he is doing and care enough to do something about it. By this point around ten thousand people have been killed.
The Pretenama Panel is brought to order, but Mr Jones is acquitted due to the lack of evidence. But he does not go back to murdering most of his people because he knows he is being watched for it and someone is bound to notice. Then - two years later, more evidence surfaces and Mr Jones is brought before another panel to answer futher charges. And convicted.
This is the case in my scenario too. Just because you do not leave the system open to retrials does not mean that you close it to the possibility of brand new ones. Like I said, if a man is acquitted for murder, that does not mean he can never be put on trial for murder again - just not that original murder for which he was acquitted. By not allowing for double jeopardy, we keep the standard under which cases can be brought forward at a higher level than would otherwise be the case.

If you wait until there is evidence to support a case then the slaughter could continue for another five, ten years - the lives of twenty to thirty million people could hang in the balance. And Mr Jones would still be convicted, but twenty million people have died because the international community waited.
Pre-emptive action is necessary at times - that is not under dispute. However, there is a line of distinction between the peacekeeping efforts necessary to bring a leader to justice and the actual trial itself. Conclusive evidence is obviously not necessary for UN Peacekeeping forces to enter a country, just like it is not necessary for police to know a criminal is guilty before detaining him. Warrants to detain suspects and to run an investigation are based on reasonable suspicion. The same should be the case on the international level. UN Peacekeeping forces can enter a nation on reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. Once present, they can detain offenders and run the necessary investigations.

However, the standard ought to be higher for actually bringing suspects to trial. No nation that calls itself civilized tries people on the basis of "suspicion". We try people on the basis of evidence that we believe proves that they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The same should be true for the UN as an international body if we are to truly consider it "civilized".


Is this not more of a danger than anything else you can think up?
I can think of a greater danger. Double Jeopardy is a violation of human rights. It is a fundamental human right that one should not be left open to lengthy court cases that are never really closed. Application of double jeopardy rules on the international level leaves a precidence for it to be open on the national level as well, in cases far less atrocious than genocide. Once a court finds a man "not guilty" of a crime, he ought to be considered "not guilty".

even if this resolution passes it wont stop anyone from commiting genocide if they so wish to

You are not the first person to raise that point, and this is not the first time I will fail to deny it.

You can't make laws that will stop someone doing something. You can only make laws that will hopefully deter them, or punish them afterwards.

Or - and this is a bit of a radical idea - you can sign up to the "Toriella is a Goddess" proposal I am drafting, which puts me in control of the hearts and minds of every single person in the UN. Which means I can stop genocide.


(Note - that last part might have been a touch sarcastic, and not based in reality)

Like I said, if a man is acquitted for murder, that does not mean he can never be put on trial for murder again - just not that original murder for which he was acquitted. By not allowing for double jeopardy, we keep the standard under which cases can be brought forward at a higher level than would otherwise be the case.


And with this paragraph you have effectively invalidated your whole arguement.

If The Panel tries someone for genocide, they try them up to that point. For the murders/rapes/etc already committed. If they are acquitted, but two thousand more bodies turn up, then they can be tried for those two thousand deaths. Which is a different crime, even if it is still genocide.

So this is not double jepordy at all - it is just stating that the international community will not let someone get away if there is evidence to show that person is guilty.

Thank you. You have done a wonderful service here today :}

And with this paragraph you have effectively invalidated your whole arguement.

If The Panel tries someone for genocide, they try them up to that point. For the murders/rapes/etc already committed. If they are acquitted, but two thousand more bodies turn up, then they can be tried for those two thousand deaths. Which is a different crime, even if it is still genocide.

So this is not double jepordy at all - it is just stating that the international community will not let someone get away if there is evidence to show that person is guilty.

Thank you. You have done a wonderful service here today :}
It didn't invalidate my entire argument, but it has shown that we are more in agreement than I had previously thought, at least in intention.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the proposal is as clear as it ought to be, at least in that section. I see it potentially creating problems for future generations, when those of us who knew what the proposal meant are no longer around. Intentions must be crystalized in words, which I think this proposal fails to do.

Wouldn't it be all simpler if anyone involved in a "genocide" would be arrested and trialed locally for murder anyways? If he/she killed 2000 people, you'd have 2000 possible seperate cases in which to get a conviction. In most nations that would also get the culprit more then just a slap on the wrist from the UN.

In case the own nation doesn't procecute an international warrant or extradition request would allow any other nation to arrest him/her on sight (no more holidays >:) ) AND its no longer an excuse for invasions etc.

Wouldn't it be all simpler if anyone involved in a "genocide" would be arrested and trialed locally for murder anyways? If he/she killed 2000 people, you'd have 2000 possible seperate cases in which to get a conviction. In most nations that would also get the culprit more then just a slap on the wrist from the UN.

In case the own nation doesn't procecute an international warrant or extradition request would allow any other nation to arrest him/her on sight (no more holidays >:) ) AND its no longer an excuse for invasions etc.
The problem there is that the acts of genocide are most often being committed by those in power or subsidized by those in power... local laws don't affect you if you ARE the local law.

Just say you find a society where extra marital sex is considered a sin - one that can not be faced and one that is unforgivable.

You rape twenty thousand members of that society, they kill themselves. And while you have not murdered a single one of them, you are the direct cause of their death.

And if you find a society, rape all of it's women and force them to carry the children of another nation, not their own, then are you not destroying their society in the same way as if you were killing them?

The definitions stay, because removing them would just make it easier to escape justice for such an horrific crime.

While I see the ligitiment arguement behind this, you also have to concider that you may not be destroying a civilization in the process of mass forced pregnancy. While some may see it as destorying a society, it could also be seen as the forming of a new one, or the addtion of one to the other. The old may fail, but Darwin says that this will happen. Now, I agree that mass genocide must be stopped, you cant just assume that everyone has the same definition. You have to SET a standard, define in full context that which should be considered genocide.

Official Comunique From: The Theocracy of Nevadastan

Now everyone in Nevadastan thinks Genocide is an awful thing, but in the subtext of the bill on the table is a provision calling seperation of families a type of genocide.

Nevadastan does not agree with this provision.

Vote against this bill as it stands.

Champion of Tyr, Imperator of Nevadastan, Interim President of the Imperial Planet ADnD.

We can see many of you are very polarized on this issue.

We must point out that this legislation is extremely vital in the interest of human rights. You may disagree with your neighbor on a myriad of issues, but you have no right to kill them because you feel like it.

This is an action to protect everyone.

The point of this resolution is to ensure that all people, regardless of their affiliation or persuasion, are protected from being eliminated by their neighbors. It also assigns accountability to those who seek to harm others out of personal or political malice.

Now you may disagree on how to punish those who commit genocide, but let us not cloud the issue by focusing on an effect and not the cause. We can always amend the resolution on how it should enforce, but we should not debate on what. Let us agree to ensure those nations or individuals who exterminate a great many people, do not go unpunished.

Genocide legislation protects all of us. If you vote against this, please consider that one day you may be in a group that has been singled out for purging. It would be at that moment that you would hope that some would come to your aid.

We would also like to submit for consideration an addition to the resolution.

We suggest that once you have been tried and convicted of crimes against humanity, you also be registered and tracked. This would put public political pressure, on those nations that may be sympathetic to the convicted or their cause, from hiring or posting these individuals in positions where they could exert their hateful ideologies. Through the registration system Human Rights organizations could monitor theses criminals, create public awareness, and even use the mass media to keep these people from finding a new place to spread their hateful practices.

Yours respectfully,

The Republic of Alleman

Wouldn't it be all simpler if anyone involved in a "genocide" would be arrested and trialed locally for murder anyways? If he/she killed 2000 people, you'd have 2000 possible seperate cases in which to get a conviction. In most nations that would also get the culprit more then just a slap on the wrist from the UN.

In case the own nation doesn't procecute an international warrant or extradition request would allow any other nation to arrest him/her on sight (no more holidays >:) ) AND its no longer an excuse for invasions etc.

Erm - no. Because even with the various resolutions in the UN, I am in NO WAY convinced that if someone is on trial for two thousand murders that anyone in the nation will be capable of giving them a fair trial. They will either support it or be against it. Where as a group of nations that have no vested interest in the outcome can probably render a fair and balanced and just verdict.

And - on a similar topic - it should not be down to any single nation to try someone for genocide. Not the nation it occured in, and not any other nation that acts outside of the international community. It has to be the community, in the form of The Panel, that tries someone accused.

While I see the ligitiment arguement behind this, you also have to concider that you may not be destroying a civilization in the process of mass forced pregnancy. While some may see it as destorying a society, it could also be seen as the forming of a new one, or the addtion of one to the other. The old may fail, but Darwin says that this will happen. Now, I agree that mass genocide must be stopped, you cant just assume that everyone has the same definition. You have to SET a standard, define in full context that which should be considered genocide.

Two things.

The first part is a matter of perspective. If the forced pregnancy is something the the women want want, because it is part of becoming a new society, then it's not really forced. But iof the forced pregnancy is not something the women want, regardless of whether the rest of the society want it or not, then it should be addressed as a crime.

Secondly The Panel is not going to convict everyone who comes before it. So if it turns out that the accusation of genocide is wrong - that it is actually a good thing going on rather than a bad thing - then the person accused will be set free and life will be all good and proper again.

But I believe that even in the case it's a good and wonderful thing, it should be investigated by The Panel. Otherwise Mr Smith of SmithsonLand can just say "oh yeah - those twenty thousand women we impregnanted really wanted it" and that would be that. And since Mr Smith would be open to charges of genocide, there is the possible chance he could lie about it.

Official Comunique From: The Theocracy of Nevadastan

Now everyone in Nevadastan thinks Genocide is an awful thing, but in the subtext of the bill on the table is a provision calling seperation of families a type of genocide.

Nevadastan does not agree with this provision.

Vote against this bill as it stands.

Champion of Tyr, Imperator of Nevadastan, Interim President of the Imperial Planet ADnD.

May I ask you to explain why you do not agree with this?

We can see many of you are very polarized on this issue.

We must point out that this legislation is extremely vital in the interest of human rights. You may disagree with your neighbor on a myriad of issues, but you have no right to kill them because you feel like it.

This is an action to protect everyone.

The point of this resolution is to ensure that all people, regardless of their affiliation or persuasion, are protected from being eliminated by their neighbors. It also assigns accountability to those who seek to harm others out of personal or political malice.

Now you may disagree on how to punish those who commit genocide, but let us not cloud the issue by focusing on an effect and not the cause. We can always amend the resolution on how it should enforce, but we should not debate on what. Let us agree to ensure those nations or individuals who exterminate a great many people, do not go unpunished.

Genocide legislation protects all of us. If you vote against this, please consider that one day you may be in a group that has been singled out for purging. It would be at that moment that you would hope that some would come to your aid.

We would also like to submit for consideration an addition to the resolution.

We suggest that once you have been tried and convicted of crimes against humanity, you also be registered and tracked. This would put public political pressure, on those nations that may be sympathetic to the convicted or their cause, from hiring or posting these individuals in positions where they could exert their hateful ideologies. Through the registration system Human Rights organizations could monitor theses criminals, create public awareness, and even use the mass media to keep these people from finding a new place to spread their hateful practices.

Yours respectfully,

The Republic of Alleman


Thank you for your comments, and advice. However proposals can not be modified once they have been submitted.

However it might be possible to add a new proposal later to extend this one, as long as it does not attempt to restrict it.

Anyways - I think once someone has been tried for genocide on the international level, it's possible they might actually become well known enough to be recognised :}

I dont think anyone really wants to be known for commiting genocide.


Its probably a splendid idea to extend/repost the resolution, many people found it vague and to lienient, and many others just thought it wouldn't work at all. Perhaps a little changes and add-ons here and there could make this resolution a great one that everyone can agree on.

I dont think anyone really wants to be known for commiting genocide.


Its probably a splendid idea to extend/repost the resolution, many people found it vague and to lienient, and many others just thought it wouldn't work at all. Perhaps a little changes and add-ons here and there could make this resolution a great one that everyone can agree on.

Ok - the thing is, and I mean no offence to you, or to anyone else with this next comment, but this proposal was not created last Thursday when it came to the floor. It had been in the proposal queue for five days before that, and before I submitted it there was a lot of discussion about it - the first post relating to this was on the 13/11/2004 - over three weeks ago now.

So it has been discussed, debated, refined and altered a lot. But it appears that people only want to discuss it now, when it can't be changed. Which is just a tad annoying.

No offense taken my friend.

I agree with you, I dont think theres to many things wrong with it, and its certainly not perfect, but if people had things to say, they could've said it at your discussion thread before you posted the resolution.

People still have a right to complain though, not that theres any major reason to, but it is their right to argue with some points of the resolution that dont agree with them or their country.

No offense taken my friend.

I agree with you, I dont think theres to many things wrong with it, and its certainly not perfect, but if people had things to say, they could've said it at your discussion thread before you posted the resolution.

People still have a right to complain though, not that theres any major reason to, but it is their right to argue with some points of the resolution that dont agree with them or their country.

Yeah. I was just having a tiny little rant. I will get over it in the morning and get back to defending the wonder of my proposal in all of it's contraversial glory.

heheh, if it was me it'd be much more than a "tiny rant"

-sigh- thats probably why I'll never get any where in the political world, people piss me off to easily... :(

Erm - no. Because even with the various resolutions in the UN, I am in NO WAY convinced that if someone is on trial for two thousand murders that anyone in the nation will be capable of giving them a fair trial. They will either support it or be against it. Where as a group of nations that have no vested interest in the outcome can probably render a fair and balanced and just verdict.
So we ave no vested interest in the outcome? Why would we have interest in voting for this resolution then? You are claiming after all that we all have an interest in condemning genocide via this bill. ;)

The point you are making here also assumes that the rest of the world would be capable of giving such a person a fair trial... which I'd say runs up to the same problems as you just indicated for a single nation... especially since those involved in the trial will be fullly up to date on the antrocities and the world media will yell for heads to roll just as much as national media would.

In reality: All people that have been trialed or even just indited for genocidal actions had either lost a war (and would just be put up against the wall "in the olden days" anyways, making the genocide trials show trials) or were given immunity (Pinochet, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Sharon, etc) or were trialed by their own government (sovereignity) and near instantly pardonned (Lt. William Calley) or given incredibly low sentences, even in countries that have the capital punishment. (Abu Graib trials come to mind)

And - on a similar topic - it should not be down to any single nation to try someone for genocide. Not the nation it occured in, and not any other nation that acts outside of the international community. It has to be the community, in the form of The Panel, that tries someone accused.

A single nation, like Israel putting Eichmann on trial, may be the only one still interested or actually involved enough to actually be able to try anyone involved. What reason would Surinam for example have to try Stalin? (=random example).

ALSO: single (RL) nations have recently been pretty successful in dealing with their own genocidal pasts without outside help (South Africa's truth commission comes to mind) - other nations barging in on such processes would only disrupt them and probably make matters worse.

As these countries have shown: restribution and punishment aren't the only ways to deal with this. WWII Warcriminals were given the same treatment in China and that worked out pretty well as well. (for reference watch the movie the Last Emperor). What you are suggesting is utterly culture based and as such against resolutions that protect not as much national sovereignity but at least cultural identity.

By ignoring other's cultural identity and imposing your own solutions and culture of trial and punishment upon the rest of the nations you are therefor actually going against this same resolution because by doing so you are in fact exterminating those cultures - just in the more subtle manner of cultural imperialism... which actually comes down to genocide just as much as for example the forced pregnancies noted in the resolution.

A People is not defined by its genes, color or ethinicity (or any notion of "melting pot" and "integration" would be bull) but by its culture. YOU are defined by your culture - and by your own cultural view on how to deal with this matter you are in fact just as bad as what you are trying to condemn.

So we ave no vested interest in the outcome? Why would we have interest in voting for this resolution then? You are claiming after all that we all have an interest in condemning genocide via this bill. ;)


There is a difference between wanting to see justice done and wanting to see someone convicted just because they were accused. Or wanting to see someone acquitted because you like them.

There are (ish) thirty seven THOUSAND nations in the UN. I think finding fifteen of them who have no ulterior motive in trying someone accused of genocide should not be an impossible task.

And what is the alternative? Letting a leader be tried by his own people - the very people he put in power or the very people he was (until the day before) butchering? Neither side would be capable of dis-interest in the outcome - the first might not even agree there is a case to answer, and the second would probably just string him up without bothering with the fun of the court case.

Secondly - you are assuming this is happening in one country. What if Mr Smith (leader of Leo Land) decides to massacre all the French-Speaking Jews in GeminiLand, and gets a little help from Mr Jones (leader of GeminiLand). Who gets jurisdiction then? Leo Land because it's their leader, or GeminiLand because it is their people? Or does it go in two legs - home and away with the result being an aggregate of the two?

SCO-lands right... in some aspects

Exactly, as my history teacher would say "judge a person not by our culture and times, but by how people viewed him in his times"

What columbus did to the natives of the islands in the 1400s was technically genocide, when Cortez ended up slaughtering the entire Aztec empire, it was Genocide. We're these men and others put on trial for this? Of course not, they were hailed as heroes, conquerers of the savages. Karma caught up to most of them, as many died prematurely or penniless beggars on the streets, but they were the greatest of heroes in there time, all for killing millions upon millions of people.

There is a difference between wanting to see justice done and wanting to see someone convicted just because they were accused. Or wanting to see someone acquitted because you like them.
Which will be the problem in all such trials... even following your pannel construction
There are (ish) thirty seven THOUSAND nations in the UN. I think finding fifteen of them who have no ulterior motive in trying someone accused of genocide should not be an impossible task.
A "completely unrelated" nation agreeing to get itself involved in the dirty business of a genocide and all side related matters (not even counting riscs of getting involved in a messy business and costs) suggests that this nation indeed has some ulterior motive or is perhaps not as unrelated to the matter, or it would stay the hell out of it. Especially in the case of genocide there's no "uninvolved" and "unrelated" - no matter the amount of nations. Ones that are truely unrelated are very likely also completely uninterested in becoming related to such problems.
And what is the alternative? Letting a leader be tried by his own people - the very people he put in power or the very people he was (until the day before) butchering? Neither side would be capable of dis-interest in the outcome - the first might not even agree there is a case to answer, and the second would probably just string him up without bothering with the fun of the court case.
I gave you the alternatives that South Africa and China have used, sucsessfully. You utter and complete focus on having a trial at all smells of cultural imperialism and cultural supremacy feelings from your end.

Also your focus on only going after the leaders of a genocide speaks of your own culture again and of blatant naïvité as well: what about the actual butchers, the guys that didn't just signed a paper but actually took the personal decision to follow such sick orders? People have their own responsibility: Some nut may have given you the order to fire, but its your own brain that orders your hand to pull the trigger.

The fact that you did not get what I was trying to put across here only shows how far you are embedded into your own cultural supremacy feelings, which are just as evil as racial ones. Putting this westernite cultural resolution upon all nations will make you just as bad as a soldier that kills one family during a genocide and are hammering in another few nails into the coffins of all non-western cultures.

Secondly - you are assuming this is happening in one country. What if Mr Smith (leader of Leo Land) decides to massacre all the French-Speaking Jews in GeminiLand, and gets a little help from Mr Jones (leader of GeminiLand). Who gets jurisdiction then? Leo Land because it's their leader, or GeminiLand because it is their people? Or does it go in two legs - home and away with the result being an aggregate of the two?
That is exactly what happened in China in WWII, and which was dealt with quite humanely. Go watch that movie.

Although your views seem to enjoy poking holes through this resolution, I don't see anything wrong with that.

I take my leave, gentlemen, I shall see your on the morrow.

Laskon, the deal is not that I'm pro-genocide, I'm just a lot more anti-genocide then this resolution.

I think a better option, and one that everyone could have agreed with a lot more easily was not this resolution, but one that basically made clear that the UN heavily condemns genocide plus a definition of the word.

This resolution went too far when it also added a whole trial process, pannels and whatnot - with that it also suddenly got the appearance of wanting to prevent genocide actively instead of just discouraging it AND went against earlier resolutions in the process.

Actions taken after a genocide to resolve the matter are depending on the situation... and the situation is by definition a very complex one.

Cut the whole action-which-is-no-real-action-anyways bit and its a sound resolution.

what's this ubr/tpp thing? does someone have a hidden agenda here??
genocide is one thing......................

he wants to put on trial "criminals" on the premise of genocide, however in past historical reference, the ones to blame for genocide are usually the national leaders, which is then acted out by the people (examples: the native american genocide enacted by america, the jewish genocide enacted by the natzis). I think this law should be amended to acknowledge this, and provide specific consequence for both of the previewously stated situations(the two situations being the consequences for the national leader's, and the consequences for the people who act out his order).

-The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

I dont' have time to read and reply to 310 posts so I'll just say I'm repulsed by the idea that the U.N. now favors double jeopardy and I quote from the resolution:

§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.

For those of you who wish to argue "new evidence" means it is not double jeopardy, please do some study on "double jeopardy." You'll find it is still double jeopardy. Once acquitted, always acquitted. I'm disgusted and repulsed that my fellow UN members would even consider such an affront to human rights. With all due respect, if you fail to recongnize the fallacy of your vote in favor of this issue, you have no understanding of what legal justice and human rights in the criminal justice process is.

OOC: I'm a lawyer with 15 years experience in RL and have spent the past 5 of those doing nothing but criminal defense work and appeals, including several in which double jeopardy was an issue. This is an affront to that concept and would be struck down in RL in a heart beat.

I dont' have time to read and reply to 310 posts so I'll just say I'm repulsed by the idea that the U.N. now favors double jeopardy
It's been brought up, discussed, decided that had it been caught would be a deal-breaker, but not worth the code hassle to remove it. The workaround we've decided to use is that any new evidence would be tried as a new crime, not retrying as the original. (20,000 dead, then another 30,000 bodies are found? New case.)

Yeah, it's a lot of reading, but we're not all blind accepting fools here. It would be helpful if legal minds such as yours would help in the crafting of resolutions and not just comment on the voting.

he wants to put on trial "criminals" on the premise of genocide, however in past historical reference, the ones to blame for genocide are usually the national leaders, which is then acted out by the people (examples: the native american genocide enacted by america, the jewish genocide enacted by the natzis). I think this law should be amended to acknowledge this, and provide specific consequence for both of the previewously stated situations(the two situations being the consequences for the national leader's, and the consequences for the people who act out his order).

-The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Your point is well taken. However, the typical definition of genocide doesn't encompass or single-out the government as being responsible. A massive systematic elimination of people of a certain race or belief can certainly occur in a country without the country's government bearing responsibility for it. In many cases, genocide occurs against the government's will and outside of their control. Sometimes, the genocide may be committed on behalf of insurgents or insurrectionists that rise up against the government or a group that the government supports. You can hardly blame the national leaders in those situations. All you can really blame them for is being unable to stop the violence. However, it's not very compassionate to place blame on people that have already suffered from genocide. We don't want to end up blaming the victims for what they are. That's why I think the proposition should remain up to such interpretation so that we can actually blame and prosecute those who are culpable of such a heinous crime.

It's been brought up, discussed, decided that had it been caught would be a deal-breaker, but not worth the code hassle to remove it. The workaround we've decided to use is that any new evidence would be tried as a new crime, not retrying as the original. (20,000 dead, then another 30,000 bodies are found? New case.)

Yeah, it's a lot of reading, but we're not all blind accepting fools here. It would be helpful if legal minds such as yours would help in the crafting of resolutions and not just comment on the voting.


Thank you for your reply and reasoned request, I'll start trying to do more keeping up with UN stuff. I've focused more on regular RP's in the international incident's thread, but this bugs me no end due to my RL background. Hmmm, I think I'll look into an ammendment so there is no misunderstanding - how would that fly?

I really appreciate a post that was calm and rational rather than a "You stupid f***, read they s*** and you'll know we've already talked about that. Some f*******ng lawyer you are!!!" I've seen too many like that in other places.

I dont' have time to read and reply to 310 posts so I'll just say I'm repulsed by the idea that the U.N. now favors double jeopardy and I quote from the resolution:

§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.

For those of you who wish to argue "new evidence" means it is not double jeopardy, please do some study on "double jeopardy." You'll find it is still double jeopardy. Once acquitted, always acquitted. I'm disgusted and repulsed that my fellow UN members would even consider such an affront to human rights. With all due respect, if you fail to recongnize the fallacy of your vote in favor of this issue, you have no understanding of what legal justice and human rights in the criminal justice process is.

OOC: I'm a lawyer with 15 years experience in RL and have spent the past 5 of those doing nothing but criminal defense work and appeals, including several in which double jeopardy was an issue. This is an affront to that concept and would be struck down in RL in a heart beat.

For one, I doubt that the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should apply to all situations, in all countries, everywhere. Genocide is not a minor offense. I am far to the left on the spectrum but despite the fact that it may infringe on civil liberties to an extent, I still believe that those responsible for mass-murder should be held accountable, in any situation. The families or the friends of the countless victims deserve nothing less. Though double jeopardy should not apply to any other situation, it must apply to genocide.

For one, I doubt that the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should apply to all situations, in all countries, everywhere. Genocide is not a minor offense. I am far to the left on the spectrum but despite the fact that it may infringe on civil liberties to an extent, I still believe that those responsible for mass-murder should be held accountable, in any situation. The families or the friends of the countless victims deserve nothing less. Though double jeopardy should not apply to any other situation, it must apply to genocide.

Sorry, but I disagree. While agree that Genocide is horrendous, the idea of sanctioned double jeopardy makes me ill. It invites abuse and to say it applies only to genocide and nothing else is the height of hypocracy.

Obviously there are serious problems with this "Eon Convention on Genocide" and it should be struck down. Unfortunately, it seems very likely to pass as it currently has over 9000 votes for and only 2000 votes against. Some delegates seem to be blind to the detail because they are dazzled by the seemingly reasonable premise that genocide be dealt with at an international level.


On several points, this proposal is unacceptable to The Consumerist Oligarchy of F2B:

* Firstly, genocide used in self-defense is no less subject to prosecution before the TPP. We consider self-defense to be prima facie an adequate justification.

* Secondly, the TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible - this could be very disruptive if, for example, national leaders are accused or if the suspected responsibility involves a very large number of people.

* Thirdly, it compromises the sovereignty of nations by effectively creating an international criminal court. Surely each of our national legal systems are capable of investigating and prosecuting criminal activities.

* Fourthly, it creates an unnecessary and superfluous crime of "genocide" when those who participate in such activities may already be charged under the existing Criminal Code, such as for murder or any other criminal activities that are involved.

* Fifthly, the proposal embraces double jeopardy and is thus illegal under existing UN conventions.

* Sixthly, even when the sentence is discharged, the convicted person remains a "prisoner" under the terminology of the Convention.

* Seventhly, the perpetual forbidding from holding public office in any UN Member Nation is inadequately defined and, as it stands, potentially draconian. For example, a member nation might have nationalized all industry and commerce, thus allowing no employment that is not a "public office."

* Eighthly, it allows for no action until complete extermination of a people is complete, which is clearly too late.

* Finally, it is misstated as a "resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" when there are no specific human or civil rights that are protected or improved. In fact, it is more likely to reduce human and civil rights, such as the right to defend oneself or one's country.


It is very disturbing that this resolution is likely to pass, disappointing that such a poorly drafted proposal was allowed to come this far, and TilEnca should be ashamed of it.

Yes, but you see, most members do not read the forums and vote with their sympathies rather then read the proposals.

It fits under "People are Stupid".


Obviously there are serious problems with this "Eon Convention on Genocide" and it should be struck down. Unfortunately, it seems very likely to pass as it currently has over 9000 votes for and only 2000 votes against. Some delegates seem to be blind to the detail because they are dazzled by the seemingly reasonable premise that genocide be dealt with at an international level.


On several points, this proposal is unacceptable to The Consumerist Oligarchy of F2B:

* Firstly, genocide used in self-defense is no less subject to prosecution before the TPP. We consider self-defense to be prima facie an adequate justification.

* Secondly, the TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible - this could be very disruptive if, for example, national leaders are accused or if the suspected responsibility involves a very large number of people.

* Thirdly, it compromises the sovereignty of nations by effectively creating an international criminal court. Surely each of our national legal systems are capable of investigating and prosecuting criminal activities.

* Fourthly, it creates an unnecessary and superfluous crime of "genocide" when those who participate in such activities may already be charged under the existing Criminal Code, such as for murder or any other criminal activities that are involved.

* Fifthly, the proposal embraces double jeopardy and is thus illegal under existing UN conventions.

* Sixthly, even when the sentence is discharged, the convicted person remains a "prisoner" under the terminology of the Convention.

* Seventhly, the perpetual forbidding from holding public office in any UN Member Nation is inadequately defined and, as it stands, potentially draconian. For example, a member nation might have nationalized all industry and commerce, thus allowing no employment that is not a "public office."

* Eighthly, it allows for no action until complete extermination of a people is complete, which is clearly too late.

* Finally, it is misstated as a "resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" when there are no specific human or civil rights that are protected or improved. In fact, it is more likely to reduce human and civil rights, such as the right to defend oneself or one's country.


It is very disturbing that this resolution is likely to pass, disappointing that such a poorly drafted proposal was allowed to come this far, and TilEnca should be ashamed of it.

Please see my post regarding the double jeopardy issue and proposed ammendment here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379268) There are many things I don't like about this resolution, but the idea of sanctioned double jeopardy really bites and is my harshest critcism of this "feel good" resolution.

Yes, but you see, most members do not read the forums and vote with their sympathies rather then read the proposals.

It fits under "People are Stupid".

The Umbrella Category :)

The adventures of dumb-guy:
- guy goes to UN page
- guy sees title of proposal
- guy doesn't read any further
- guy votes yes

And with the massive size of the UN (1000s of countries) this is the reason why the last time a proposal wasn't passed once it came to a vote is years ago.

I tried to suggest a more workable system by splitting the UN up in regional ones (and then perhaps only give these regional UN's a vote in the world one), but no real coding is getting done so that's off the table as well.

For now, as it stands... once you get enough delegates to support your resolution so far that it gets a vote, its sure to pass. This makes, what, 149 nations decide for all of us?

The adventures of dumb-guy:
- guy goes to UN page
- guy sees title of proposal
- guy doesn't read any further
- guy votes yes

And with the massive size of the UN (1000s of countries) this is the reason why the last time a proposal wasn't passed once it came to a vote is years ago.

I tried to suggest a more workable system by splitting the UN up in regional ones (and then perhaps only give these regional UN's a vote in the world one), but no real coding is getting done so that's off the table as well.

For now, as it stands... once you get enough delegates to support your resolution so far that it gets a vote, its sure to pass. This makes, what, 149 nations decide for all of us?

In the three months I have been here I have seen half the proposals that came to a vote fail to pass, and the other half pass (but I guess the maths were obvious on that). Not everything passes :}

A "completely unrelated" nation agreeing to get itself involved in the dirty business of a genocide and all side related matters (not even counting riscs of getting involved in a messy business and costs) suggests that this nation indeed has some ulterior motive or is perhaps not as unrelated to the matter, or it would stay the hell out of it. Especially in the case of genocide there's no "uninvolved" and "unrelated" - no matter the amount of nations. Ones that are truely unrelated are very likely also completely uninterested in becoming related to such problems.


You honestly don't believe a nation would be willing to stand up and say "yes - we want to see justice done" when they have nothing to get out of it?


I gave you the alternatives that South Africa and China have used, sucsessfully. You utter and complete focus on having a trial at all smells of cultural imperialism and cultural supremacy feelings from your end.


Wanting to see justice done is cultural imperialism? Fair enough.


Also your focus on only going after the leaders of a genocide speaks of your own culture again and of blatant naïvité as well: what about the actual butchers, the guys that didn't just signed a paper but actually took the personal decision to follow such sick orders? People have their own responsibility: Some nut may have given you the order to fire, but its your own brain that orders your hand to pull the trigger.


I am citing leaders as examples, but NO WHERE in the proposal does it mention leaders. It mentions "those responsible".


The fact that you did not get what I was trying to put across here only shows how far you are embedded into your own cultural supremacy feelings, which are just as evil as racial ones. Putting this westernite cultural resolution upon all nations will make you just as bad as a soldier that kills one family during a genocide and are hammering in another few nails into the coffins of all non-western cultures.


Thank you. It's been a very long while since someone told me I was genocidal. I have missed the feeling of warmth and love it brings to my heart.

he wants to put on trial "criminals" on the premise of genocide, however in past historical reference, the ones to blame for genocide are usually the national leaders, which is then acted out by the people (examples: the native american genocide enacted by america, the jewish genocide enacted by the natzis). I think this law should be amended to acknowledge this, and provide specific consequence for both of the previewously stated situations(the two situations being the consequences for the national leader's, and the consequences for the people who act out his order).

-The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

This proposal just says "the people responsible". If you kill someone on the order of someone else, you are equally responsible as the person who gave the order. Even if you are in fear of your life, you are still responsible.

Laskon, the deal is not that I'm pro-genocide, I'm just a lot more anti-genocide then this resolution.

I think a better option, and one that everyone could have agreed with a lot more easily was not this resolution, but one that basically made clear that the UN heavily condemns genocide plus a definition of the word.

This resolution went too far when it also added a whole trial process, pannels and whatnot - with that it also suddenly got the appearance of wanting to prevent genocide actively instead of just discouraging it AND went against earlier resolutions in the process.

Actions taken after a genocide to resolve the matter are depending on the situation... and the situation is by definition a very complex one.

Cut the whole action-which-is-no-real-action-anyways bit and its a sound resolution.


The thing is I am not sure that it is permitted to put a proposal that just, at it's core, says "genocide is bad, m'kay?" and doesn't suggest action. Cause that would be a more a statement of intent, rather than an actual resolution.

And - on a similar topic - I love this place. First the proposal gets yelled at for not doing enough to prevent genocide, then it gets yelled at for actually trying to do something to prevent genocide, then it gets yelled at for doing too much to prevent it.

Isn't life grand?

You honestly don't believe a nation would be willing to stand up and say "yes - we want to see justice done" when they have nothing to get out of it?
Its a pay off... by getting involved you get a lot of problems, those need to be compensated in some way or another. Such is life, especailly with countries.
Wanting to see justice done is cultural imperialism? Fair enough.
Yes, because its YOUR brand of justice. That you cannot see this makes my statement about you endangering other cultures all the more true.
I am citing leaders as examples, but NO WHERE in the proposal does it mention leaders. It mentions "those responsible".
Which is another term for leaders.
Thank you. It's been a very long while since someone told me I was genocidal. I have missed the feeling of warmth and love it brings to my heart.
Many genocides have only been possible because of folks acting as naïve as you do. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The thing is I am not sure that it is permitted to put a proposal that just, at it's core, says "genocide is bad, m'kay?" and doesn't suggest action. Cause that would be a more a statement of intent, rather than an actual resolution.

That would be a very realistic resolution if you look at the resolutions of the real UN. Most real UN resolutions only condemn a particular situation, they do not have a whole course of action included. That generally requires another seperate resolution aimed particulary at the situation at hand.

This is for example why we've seen about 40 resolutions condemning the actions of Israel but no action taken. This is why the USA was seen as breaking the law by not going for a twenty-somethingeth resolution before invading Iraq. This is why we now have seen 2 resolutions condemning the situation in the Sudan, without any real action taken.

And - on a similar topic - I love this place. First the proposal gets yelled at for not doing enough to prevent genocide, then it gets yelled at for actually trying to do something to prevent genocide, then it gets yelled at for doing too much to prevent it.

Isn't life grand?

Your problem is that you see a resolution as a world-wide law, which it isn't... its a world wide statement.

In the three months I have been here I have seen half the proposals that came to a vote fail to pass, and the other half pass (but I guess the maths were obvious on that). Not everything passes :}
That's not what my research shows. There's a difference between a vote for the delegates and a vote for everyone.. or they only record the ones passed - in which case i'm mistaken.

Obviously there are serious problems with this "Eon Convention on Genocide" and it should be struck down. Unfortunately, it seems very likely to pass as it currently has over 9000 votes for and only 2000 votes against. Some delegates seem to be blind to the detail because they are dazzled by the seemingly reasonable premise that genocide be dealt with at an international level.


Well - at least it was a sensible introduction.


* Firstly, genocide used in self-defense is no less subject to prosecution before the TPP. We consider self-defense to be prima facie an adequate justification.


In a case where you are being attacked by a guy with a machine gun, then self defense might be obvious. But if you have slaughtered twenty five thousand red-heads, I do not think it is beyond reason that you should be asked to prove why it was necessary.


* Secondly, the TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible - this could be very disruptive if, for example, national leaders are accused or if the suspected responsibility involves a very large number of people.


And the alternative is what? Leaving them on the street to continue raping and murdering?


* Thirdly, it compromises the sovereignty of nations by effectively creating an international criminal court. Surely each of our national legal systems are capable of investigating and prosecuting criminal activities.


Yeah - I can't deny this one. But if you read the proposal, and the previous discussions, I have already said that this is going to override national sovereignty, and that I don't really have a problem with people disliking it on that basis.


* Fourthly, it creates an unnecessary and superfluous crime of "genocide" when those who participate in such activities may already be charged under the existing Criminal Code, such as for murder or any other criminal activities that are involved


Erm?


* Fifthly, the proposal embraces double jeopardy and is thus illegal under existing UN conventions.


Turns out it isn't.


* Sixthly, even when the sentence is discharged, the convicted person remains a "prisoner" under the terminology of the Convention.


Where did you get that from? The text says "once a prisoner has discharged his sentence he is free to go" but that does not mean he is still a prisoner. Mostly because he is now out of prison. He does remain a convicted criminal of course, but there is not a lot that can be done about that.


* Seventhly, the perpetual forbidding from holding public office in any UN Member Nation is inadequately defined and, as it stands, potentially draconian. For example, a member nation might have nationalized all industry and commerce, thus allowing no employment that is not a "public office."


That is a rather wide reading of it. (OOC - I would not consider the head of the BBC as holding a public office, but I would consider the head of government as being a public office).


* Eighthly, it allows for no action until complete extermination of a people is complete, which is clearly too late.


That is patently not true, and I would ask you to explain where you got that idea from.


* Finally, it is misstated as a "resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" when there are no specific human or civil rights that are protected or improved. In fact, it is more likely to reduce human and civil rights, such as the right to defend oneself or one's country.


I think trying to stop people being killed for no other reason than they are black, or blonde, or have hemophillia, or they are gay is a somewhat large step forward for human and civil rights.

And this does not stop one from defending one's country. It just ensures that you don't wipe out half of europe while doing it.


It is very disturbing that this resolution is likely to pass, disappointing that such a poorly drafted proposal was allowed to come this far, and TilEnca should be ashamed of it.

Turns out I am not. Life's funny that way :}

That's not what my research shows. There's a difference between a vote for the delegates and a vote for everyone.. or they only record the ones passed - in which case i'm mistaken.

Only resolutions that pass are kept - the other ones are dumped and forgotten about.

And when I vote it does count as a vote, so non-delegates do get a say in things.

Can someone point this nice person to the UN Association, as I appear to have lost the link from my favourites? Thanks :}

That would be a very realistic resolution if you look at the resolutions of the real UN. Most real UN resolutions only condemn a particular situation, they do not have a whole course of action included. That generally requires another seperate resolution aimed particulary at the situation at hand.

This is for example why we've seen about 40 resolutions condemning the actions of Israel but no action taken. This is why the USA was seen as breaking the law by not going for a twenty-somethingeth resolution before invading Iraq. This is why we now have seen 2 resolutions condemning the situation in the Sudan, without any real action taken.



Your problem is that you see a resolution as a world-wide law, which it isn't... its a world wide statement.

Without wishing to sound like I am giving you orders, may I suggest that you re-read the UN faq for nationstates. Because everything you have said relates to the reaol UN, and not to the NSUN. NSUN resolutions ARE world wide (well UN wide) law which is why they have to do something.

Without wishing to sound like I am giving you orders, may I suggest that you re-read the UN faq for nationstates. Because everything you have said relates to that, and not to this. NSUN resolutions ARE world wide (well UN wide) law which is why they have to do something.
I know what you are trying to say: all member countries will automatically follow the resolutions passed. What I'm trying to say is that realisticaly a resolution can for example just condemn a situation or action w/o immediately including an action taken - something which you said was impossible, whicch it isn't.

I know what you are trying to say: all member countries will automatically follow the resolutions passed. What I'm trying to say is that realisticaly a resolution can for example just condemn a situation or action w/o immediately including an action taken - something which you said was impossible, whicch it isn't.

I will agree that it's not impossible, but I don't think it's likely it would be passed. In the NSUN resolutions have to do something, rather than just say they will do something. (Or that is the theory at least)

This is absurd! While we of The Dominion of GoatFeathers agree that genocide is an abomination before God, that does not give this body the right to go hauling the duly appointed rulers of any nation before some world court. For example if the last purple man on earth kills someone and is tried for murder and found guilty, then are we to be charged with genocide? As this resolution is written, anyone in this forum could be brought to trial for carrying out their lawful and God given right of execution of proven and dangerous criminals!

GoatFeathers the Great
Erm - huh?

If you execute one person for a crime they have committed, it is not genocide. Even if it causes the extinction of a race it is still not genocide, because you did not wipe out the whole species - just one member of it.

If however you set out to hunt down and kill every single purple guy just because you didn't like purple people, that would be a different matter.
Yes, but the resolution does not make that distinction so is flawed and should not be passed.

GoatFeathers

Firstly - why is it not strong enough?

Even though it has elimination of a society based on skin colour, genetic conditions or religion, it doesn't include other aspect like age, tastes, or other traits that could be used for starting a genecide.

Forced pregnancy as defined by you wouldn't commit genocide since the women of nation B still exist. Also the genetic baggage of nation B still exist in the children. Genocide is the elimination of genetic material to remove traits from society or the world. If you still have the genetic material reproducing with other people (even if they are of different genetic traits) you still have those genetic traits. If you have women from nation B reproducing only with nation B, along the line in the future you'll still get men with the genetic trait of nation B and thus nation B gets rebuilt over time. Forced pregnancy doesn't commit genocide, it's only control a population into reappearing after several generations.

Hah! A set of cruel and persecuting heretics/unbelievers/nonbelievers/disbelievers/pagans/falsebelievers [strike out where not applicable]. With the aid of GOD [Global Obliteration Device] we will deal with you when the time is ripe. You are 65923rd on our list of Things To Be Done And Generally Disposed OF.
And the nominations for 'Most Amusing UN Debut' are...

I can think of a greater danger. Double Jeopardy is a violation of human rights. It is a fundamental human right that one should not be left open to lengthy court cases that are never really closed. Application of double jeopardy rules on the international level leaves a precidence for it to be open on the national level as well, in cases far less atrocious than genocide. Once a court finds a man "not guilty" of a crime, he ought to be considered "not guilty".
OOC: Double jeopardy is not a universal principle acknowledged in all countries. I'm in the UK and I don't believe that we have it, though I'm open to being proven wrong here!

We appear to have reached the 'going-round-in-circles' stage of the debating process. Nonetheless, the quality of debate has been much higher than usual and we've even avoided flame-fests and declarations of war (well, apart from the ironic ones). I'm a little stunned...

Yes, but the resolution does not make that distinction so is flawed and should not be passed.

GoatFeathers

If I may be frank, I did not think that distinction needed making, because it's so bloody obvious.

Even though it has elimination of a society based on skin colour, genetic conditions or religion, it doesn't include other aspect like age, tastes, or other traits that could be used for starting a genecide.


The list is not exhaustive. It says so.

Allen Davis, the United Federation of Meriadoc's delagate to the United Nations, on the morning of December 6, 2004, announced his support for this resolution.

OOC: Yowsers! That is a landslide by which it is passing right now. More than (but very close to) 13 of every 16 votes are for! :eek:

...on the amendment topic. As it's relevant to the actual Eon Convention topic, I put it in here too (apologies if the majority of people are reading both threads).
----------
Mikitivity, your post was pretty insulting. As a nation who is anti-genocide and ALSO anti-Eon-Convention...
Second, the claims made by players that have said that the Eon Convention on Genocide is illegal, does not in fact have any "real world" standing nor is it consistent with the Fair Trial resolution. I personally think there claims are more of just sour grapes, in that somebody who isn't one of their close friends managed to get a resolution to the UN floor.
First, there's plenty of real-world examples that conventions against Genocide don't stop it. The UN has passed a huge number of resolutions condeming various actions- including genocide, and it still doesn't prevent it taking place.

Second, nor does the Internation War Crimes Tribunal (the RL version of the TPP, to all extents and purposes) has never bought a western government to trial beyond the Nuremburg trials. The UK and USA, both of whom have been called for questioning by a defence council at Slobadan's trial in the Hague- and guess what, neither are going to turn up and answer his questions about deliberate bombing of civililan facilities. Yes, Millosovich is an evil guy, yes his claims may well be an attempt to fudge his own trial- but if the IWCT worked, they'd be there defending themselves under cross-examination. They're not. Ergo, unless the TPP hoicks people in forcibily, powerful nations won't be held to account- and justice is no justice unless it applies to all.
Their other chief complaint is to talk about some stupid science fiction film: Independence Day.
Erm, some nations started on a debate of ID4. To my mind they were way off topic- and a fair few involved in the debate were supporters of the Eon Convention.
Killing somebody because he is waving a sharp hunters knife in your eye is murder. If that person happened to be a Jew, then you just saved your life by killing a Jew. If he was a Jew but didn't threaten you, then you may have committeed a hate crime.
Fully accepted by all sensible people partaking of the debate. Genocide is the attempt to eradicate a *race* of people. From my dictionary:
It is pretty damn easy when the death toll is massive and large to find a pattern and evidence that such a program is designed not as self defense, but as a massive hate crime. They know this, we know this ... but they are grabbing at anything they can for the simple reason that they don't like it when the resolution on the floor isn't one they lobbyied for.
That's, erm, how can I put this? Cow Effluent. Steer-Waste. Cattle-Excretea. That-which-remains-after-the-grass-has-passed-through-the-bull.

Yes, if a death toll after say a civil incident is huge, the victims are all of one ethnicity, the perps. are all of another ethnicity, then yes- well, freak-me if it isn't a racially-motivated slaughter. Genocide. Again, any of the more mature and more sensible nations using this board will accept that- that's what genocide IS. What *I* am objecting to is that:

-The Bill creates a multinational panel that all nations must subject themselves to, that appears to be accountable to no nations, and appears to be convened at the whim of virtually anyone.
-The Bill *possibly* violates double-jeopardy. I'm not sure, the wording isn't clear.
-The Bill could do far far more to combat the causes of genocide- inequality, fear, poor welfare, poor standards of living and lack of education. It makes no attempt to.
-The Bill *could* be used by large imperialistic nations to invade small, resource-rich nations.
-The Bill encourages the retributive-persecution of those who commit genocide, rather than reintergration and encouraging forgivness.

I'm not against TilEna proposing bills. Hell, I'd vote for THIS bill if it addressed the points I just outlined. Kindly don't apply limited labels to everyone who votes against a bill- or others will be inclined to do the same to you, and that's not right either.
In the real world courts have jurisdictions, they always have. In NationStates they do too.
Can't see anywhere where anyone has said they don't.
In any event, the parties against the author are grasping at straws.
Maybe some of them. Personally, I'm quite happy to outline my reasoning, just as I did above. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm saying "I don't agree, and this is why". I'm not even trying to get OTHERS to agree with me- I'm just Explaining, because if I didn't it seems I'd be grouped with the straw-grasping vindictive lobbiests that you claim are trying to shoot this bill down.
Much worse, I've seen a few of them insult the author by implying that TilEnca has not read the prior resolutions, when this is obviously false.
Unike your insults of those voting against the resolution, of course- which are justified, righteous and therefore fine to make.

Either way, kindly take some time and care to read every post on the debate before painting everyone against the bill with the same brush. Different people vote against the same resolution for different reasons- just like different people vote FOR a given bill for different reasons.

Laskon, the deal is not that I'm pro-genocide, I'm just a lot more anti-genocide then this resolution.

I think a better option, and one that everyone could have agreed with a lot more easily was not this resolution, but one that basically made clear that the UN heavily condemns genocide plus a definition of the word.

This resolution went too far when it also added a whole trial process, pannels and whatnot - with that it also suddenly got the appearance of wanting to prevent genocide actively instead of just discouraging it AND went against earlier resolutions in the process.

Actions taken after a genocide to resolve the matter are depending on the situation... and the situation is by definition a very complex one.

Cut the whole action-which-is-no-real-action-anyways bit and its a sound resolution.

I never accused you of being pro-genocide, but your right, there aren't exactly a lot of ways for this law to be enforced, it needs to be stricter, maybe all wars should be followed by others from the TPP or whatever to watch for infractions of the law.

The list is not exhaustive. It says so.

Which is why the language isn't strong enough. By being open and vague on what reasons are considered to be genocide then you leave the motion weak and it will be easy for a lawyer to get out of it for his client.
All the reasons for genecide need to be spelled out to add strength to this motion.

I agree. The term "etc." was used to often, and anyone under suspicision of a genocidal war crime could easily point out that the resolution didnt specify whatever they did as a crime. This might make the trial last a lot longer than it should.

Which is why the language isn't strong enough. By being open and vague on what reasons are considered to be genocide then you leave the motion weak and it will be easy for a lawyer to get out of it for his client.
All the reasons for genecide need to be spelled out to add strength to this motion.
There are long debates on virtually every resolution with one side saying "too specific" and the other side saying "too general". A bit of vagueness adds color to the game, as players can roleplay out their disagreements.

Were this an actual RL UN document, it would probably run to several hundred pages, with input from dozens of legal scholars and international lawyers. Given that we've got about 3500 characters in which to make our arguments, I think the author has struck a nice balance between "vague" and "all-encompasing".

No matter what anyone writes, it's not going to please all 37,353 member nations. Accept it as compromise, and vote for it or against it as suits you.

If I may be frank, I did not think that distinction needed making, because it's so bloody obvious.

I completely agree.


I still ask nations who seek to confuse others with the weak strawman arguement of "Independence Day" or any other Hollywood SciFi flick to actually seek out a true survivor of a genocide campaign. Many survivors exist today. If you can convince them that what Will Smith did in a fictional move is on the same order of magnitude of what Hitler, Pol Pot, and Slobodan Milosevic have done. (OOC: Curiously absent is a figurehead for the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. I left that out, because I've actually never heard of a name associated with that. Naturally if somebody has a link, I'd be happy to check it out.)

I completely agree.


I still ask nations who seek to confuse others with the weak strawman arguement of "Independence Day" or any other Hollywood SciFi flick to actually seek out a true survivor of a genocide campaign. Many survivors exist today. If you can convince them that what Will Smith did in a fictional move is on the same order of magnitude of what Hitler, Pol Pot, and Slobodan Milosevic have done. (OOC: Curiously absent is a figurehead for the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. I left that out, because I've actually never heard of a name associated with that. Naturally if somebody has a link, I'd be happy to check it out.)

You do realize that Independence Day has been brought up as an arguement that genocide can be justified, right? In fact, it's brought up because it presents the best way of showing one set of circumstances under which it can be justified.

I'm amazed I have to point this out, but it is pretty obvious that destroying an entire culture because they are about to destroy your entire species is far different from sentencing a people to death because you're paranoid you might be one of them and need a scapegoat to ride to power.

You do realize that Independence Day has been brought up as an arguement that genocide can be justified, right? In fact, it's brought up because it presents the best way of showing one set of circumstances under which it can be justified.

I'm amazed I have to point this out, but it is pretty obvious that destroying an entire culture because they are about to destroy your entire species is far different from sentencing a people to death because you're paranoid you might be one of them and need a scapegoat to ride to power.

You don't seem to realize that "genocide" is the deliberate killing of an entire cultural because they are simply different. It doesn't mean, "Oh look, there is a single passenger dove left and I just killed it because it was peaking my eyes out."

Do you understand the difference between the United State's "manslaughter" vs. "premeditated murder"? Seriously, do you?


I've stated this many times, and you and others have ignored this important difference.

Killing an space alien or whatever else because he was going to eat you is not a "hate based crime". Killing a space alien because he smells funny is. It is mindnumbingly simple if you understand the legal differences between manslaughter and premeditated murder!

Let's look at some real world examples that are commonly used in conjunction with "genocide" (I know ... Hollywood is so much easier, but I've addressed the Hollywood weak straw-man argument many times, I've yet to hear a reply to real-world historical situtations) ...

1940s Holocaust:
Jews: 6 million killed
Rom: 200,000 to 500,000 killed
Homosexuals: 10,000s

source: http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academic/history/cahr/holocaust.htm

Now tell me, what sort of THREAT did the Jews, Rom (Gypies), and Homosexuals pose to Nazi Germany? Better yet, why don't you find these survivors and explain how genocide "works".

Mik, you really seem to enjoy your own definition of "genocide" a lot but i'd like to burst your bubble here: Most genocides ever committed weren't "hate crimes" but "irrellevant crimes".. meaning the people wiped out weren't hated, they were simple irrelevant or not recognized as humans.

The native australians and americans weren't wiped out because they were hated all that much, in most cases they just were just in the way of resources the europeans needed and were cleared together with the rest of the wildlife. People that planned and ordered these things often didn't hate the natives at all, in many cases in america they'd even been able to say "hate them? not at all - I got indian friends!". 10s if not 100s of specifically destinct cultures and ethinicities were wiped out in this fashion.

Your utter focus on the holocaust as being the definition of genocide has warped your view on the definition of the actual word. In fact, if you want to throw in legal terms: the holocaust wasn't genocide - it was attempted genocide. And yes, that one was solely hate based.

I still ask nations who seek to confuse others with the weak strawman arguement of "Independence Day" or any other Hollywood SciFi flick to actually seek out a true survivor of a genocide campaign. Many survivors exist today.

You really need to get over your ID4 obsession.

(OOC: Curiously absent is a figurehead for the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. I left that out, because I've actually never heard of a name associated with that. Naturally if somebody has a link, I'd be happy to check it out.)

There is none, just like polish pogroms it was a mass movement, much like a lynching. A consistent mistake made in this thread is to assume every genocide has its "Hitler". This also makes quite a lot of the resolution useless because it wants to go after these leaders...

...or as it calls them "those responsible". News Flash: Responsible are usually 1000s or millions of people - billions if you consider that the world always looks on and does nothing with its responsibility.

For example the WW2 allies knew about the camps and other nazi policies and really never did anything to disrupt their running - especially not before Poland was attacked. The war was never to save the jews from extermination, it was to save Europe from German invaders. Before Poland was invaded the rest of the world sent jewish refugees back as well.

You and this resolution are underestimating the scale at which responsibility in genocide is spread. Its never doable to trial them all.

The native australians and americans weren't wiped out because they were hated all that much, in most cases they just were just in the way of resources the europeans needed and were cleared together with the rest of the wildlife. People that planned and ordered these things often didn't hate the natives at all, in many cases in america they'd even been able to say "hate them? not at all - I got indian fiends!".

Perhaps you are not familiar with the phrase, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." It's easy to read a textbook in which the author dispassionately opines that the "root cause" of the depopulation of a culture was economic in nature. It's another thing to realize that someone, somewhere had to find a good reason in his heart to line up the sights on a woman or child and pull the trigger.

American Indians were not considered to be non-humans, they were considered to be "lesser humans". And that isn't very different from the Nazi concept of Jews as "subhuman".

All things considered, Wang Chun thinks you are trying to split hairs here. Perhaps in 1608, the Indians posed a serious threat to the colonists. By the late 19th century, at best they posed a threat to specific settlements, not to the nation as a whole. Yet many of the Indians who were massacred did not belong to agressive, warmongering groups; arguably they did not pose a threat to anyone. Wang Chun things Mikitivity's analysis vis-a-vis the Holocaust stands.

You and this resolution are underestimating the scale at which responsibility in genocide is spread. Its never doable to trial them all.

Well, that's another reason to vote against this resolution. Some vagueness is a necessary evil, but this much vagueness is uncalled for.

May I ask, who decides down to what level to prosecute genocide? Let us postulate that some 80% of all Hutu males were responsible for the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsis. It would be just as easy for the TPP to decide that "responsibility" resided only at the top, and to prosecute only the handful of Hutu instigators who held positions in the largely Tutsi pre-slaughter government, as it is to decide that thousands of Hutus were responsible, and to round up most of the surviving male population as "suspects". I submit to you, neither instance would be "fair"...in the first, the guilty escape prosecution, in the second, rounding up an entire population would constitute a second genocide, one conducted in accordance with this resolution!

Genocide isn't always to kill the innocent.


There is no such thing as a "deserved" genocide.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

*kisses Wang-Chun* :fluffle:

Finally someone that gets it!

Wang, I'm affraid you're out there. Let's see what genocide REALLY is:
Genocide
gen·o·cide Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
(This is the word-for-word definition from three different dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary which is the "official" dictionary of the English Language).
The next quote is taken from the 1945 United Nations' indictment of 24 Nazi leaders: 'deliberate and systematic genocide— namely, the extermination of racial and national groups...’You see what I'm getting at? There's no mention of hatered, no mention of defence, or offence, or war, or anything else.

Genocide is the extermination of groups- the motives don't matter. "Geno" means peoples/races, "cide" means death of. litteraly, the death of races.

SCO-Land is entirely right to say that most genocide occurs out of non-feeling for the victims. Generally, genocide only occurs after many years of increasing seperation of the groups involved- usually as a result of one group first pointing out that they're different, then ostracizing the other group, then blaming various situations upon them, then punishing them for the situations, then punishing them for being who they are.

I can provide examples of laws and speeches from Hitler's Germany that show the escalation and progression from one step to the next if required... (sorry to come back to Hitler again, but it IS the most convient and most studied and documented attempted genocide to date.)

I can provide examples of laws and speeches from Hitler's Germany that show the escalation and progression from one step to the next if required... (sorry to come back to Hitler again, but it IS the most convient and most studied and documented attempted genocide to date.)

I agree. Many aspects of the Holocaust is well documented, but I think that the escalation that Hitler's speeches will show will suggest the importance of this Convention in hopefully detering these crimes.

(So please, I'll certainly read whatever historical examples you wish to show ... and feel that you will find no better NationStates thread to do this in.)

However, I do feel that intent and motive are important, since the very definition you presented even spoke of "systematic and planned". For a mass killing to be planned, implies premeditation (which also implies that in addition to the witnesses of the killing, there may be something of a limited trail of physical evidence as well that might help establish intent).

The state of "mind" of the group that participates in genocide is surely something that must be considered, which is why a panel is being called upon to review any evidence and testmony that is presented.

No, Hitler wasn't deterred by protocol existing back in 1934 when the first anti-Jewish law went through. Nor did it stop him in '36, when the next big raft of anti-Jewish legislation went through. It didn't stop him in '39, when Jews were first sent to concentration camps in huge numbers. Nor did it stop him in '40, when the outright killing of Jews became the "answer" to his "problem".

Hitler did not set out in January 1933 to start killing all Jews. He didn't even escalate anti-Jewish law so he could get to the "endpoint" of killing all Jews. Jews started out as a scapegoat, an election-campaign rider. By blaming the fall of Germany as a world power on Jews, he had a minority he could blame for the decline of Germany, and by saying he'd put Germans into Jewish jobs, he gained popular support. Jews at the time tended to be in affluent jobs- densitry, medicine, tailoring, money-lending. This meant that even in the depression, they still had far more than the average German- it made them a target for everyone elses' problems.

Gradually, as it became more accepted that the Jews were to blame, this made it more "acceptable" to carry out acts of violence and hatred against them- yes, hatred- at this time, Jews were depicited as being fearsome and worthy of hate.

Slowly, as it became more "acceptable" to carry out these acts, it became more "acceptable" for the government to legislate against Jews- see where this is going? Basically it feeds off itself until:

Jews no longer became "human", and the "problem" of 10 million jews in the newly captured lands became huge. Deporting them (one of the big original plans of Nazi Germany- encourage the Jews to move out) had failed- because the Jews moved into places like Czechslovakia and Austria, and those places had become German... So, killing them became viewed as the "best" way to "cure" the "problem" (scuse all the " but I don't want anyone to think I agree with the twisted logic behind ay of this...) So in the end, death camps became The Best Way to get rid of the Jews, because they were subhuman and not worth the effort to house etc etc.

All this, I remind you, was illegal under international law of the period....

Which is why the language isn't strong enough. By being open and vague on what reasons are considered to be genocide then you leave the motion weak and it will be easy for a lawyer to get out of it for his client.
All the reasons for genecide need to be spelled out to add strength to this motion.

And if every single case is spelt out then what of the ones that are missing? The only alternative would be to say every single crime that is done against a group is genocide, when clearly that is not the case

Genocide=Bad Bad Mojo. Think of the children...

Even though I am blonde haired and blue eyed I am still scared....

I mean I know some hot brown eyed ladies. :-D

You don't seem to realize that "genocide" is the deliberate killing of an entire cultural because they are simply different. It doesn't mean, "Oh look, there is a single passenger dove left and I just killed it because it was peaking my eyes out."

You don't seem to get a simple fact: That is not mentioned in this proposal. There is no evidence to back up the idea it does. In fact, there is evidence you did not read the resolution. Let me post it:

§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.

Try reading the resolution instead of arguing what you don't know about.

Do you understand the difference between the United State's "manslaughter" vs. "premeditated murder"? Seriously, do you?

Yes. Do you understand the fact this resolution doesn't include a difference for self-defense and openly attacking in its defiinition? Obviously, not, so I advise you to read the entire thing six hundred times or until that fact sinks in, whichever comes last.

I've stated this many times, and you and others have ignored this important difference.

We haven't ignored it. In fact, you have ignored two essential facts of the resolution. Try reading it before arguing with those of us who already have read it.

Killing an space alien or whatever else because he was going to eat you is not a "hate based crime". Killing a space alien because he smells funny is. It is mindnumbingly simple if you understand the legal differences between manslaughter and premeditated murder!

Here's what is so mind-numbingly clear you should feel insulted that I have to post it.

§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.

No mention of it being hate-based.

§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.

This means that even if you are defending yourself, you're committing genocide.

Stop arguing with me about it, as the facts of the case are that your arguement is invalid. No matter how strongly you wish otherwise, it is invalid and does not apply. In fact, the resolution itself specifically invalidates it in the first article. You're wasting my time with your arguement that is ignoring the reality of the resolution you are fighting for and proving you have yet to read the entire thing.

Let's look at some real world examples that are commonly used in conjunction with "genocide" (I know ... Hollywood is so much easier, but I've addressed the Hollywood weak straw-man argument many times, I've yet to hear a reply to real-world historical situtations) ...

1940s Holocaust:
Jews: 6 million killed
Rom: 200,000 to 500,000 killed
Homosexuals: 10,000s

source: http://www.uca.edu/divisions/academic/history/cahr/holocaust.htm

Now tell me, what sort of THREAT did the Jews, Rom (Gypies), and Homosexuals pose to Nazi Germany? Better yet, why don't you find these survivors and explain how genocide "works".

Congrats. You just posted an arguement against TilEnca's resolution. Why? He defined genocide for this and the rest of us, excluding you, have been arguing using that definition. I would suggest you bothered reading the resolution. In fact, don't bother replying until you do. I'll accept your apology for wasting my time then.

There is no such thing as a "deserved" genocide.

The movie Independence Day provides, under the definition and portions of the articles of this resolution, an example of deserved genocide.

That's not what my research shows. There's a difference between a vote for the delegates and a vote for everyone.. or they only record the ones passed - in which case i'm mistaken.
Here's the list, including failures (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).

2004 Failed and removed resolutions
Failed - Internet Advertising Pop-ups Jan 10 2004
Failed - Space Defense Initiative Apr 20 2004
Failed - End Nuclear Proliferation Act Jun 10 2004
Failed - Ban of Death Penalty Jun 27 2004
Removed for mechanics reasons: Olympic Games - Aug 28 2004
Failed - No Marriage Under Age of 15 - Sep 27 2004
Removed by moderators - Disallow torture - Nov 7 2004
Failed - Ban nuclear weapons - Nov 9 2004
Removed by moderators - Preventing human trafficking - Nov 12 2004

§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.

Who writes this stuff? I mean, I understand that its a non-trivial task, but this definition could mean ANYTHING.

"a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria" - so any group of one or more social animals

"includes, but is not limited to: murder... familial separation" - so being mean to people. Well what else does it mean? Including such diverse subjects as murder, torture, and familial separation, and THEN adding the "but is not limited to" line? And note that even without that line it specifically includes the government of any nation which has the death penalty, imprisons criminals, or takes children away from child-molesting parents.

And the only other specification is that it is committed by or on behalf of the state... except where it isn't, which we'll treat exactly the same.

Honestly, with this definition you could try someone for genocide for taking candy off a baby or having the house fumigated for termites. And any nation which signs up for it has given up the right to try or punish criminals within the bounds of their own nation.

Being mean to people isn't nice, and trying to stop people from being mean is laudable, but it isn't always genocide folks; sometimes you have to actually narrow things down to define them.

- Sir Real.

Who writes this stuff? I mean, I understand that its a non-trivial task, but this definition could mean ANYTHING.

I write this stuff, and some people think I do it pretty well. But since you have decided to randomly attack my ability to write, I am going to randomly rebutt it. If that's okay with you, of course?


"a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria" - so any group of one or more social animals


Read further. The part about the UBR. You know - the rest of the proposal.


"includes, but is not limited to: murder... familial separation" - so being mean to people. Well what else does it mean? Including such diverse subjects as murder, torture, and familial separation, and THEN adding the "but is not limited to" line? And note that even without that line it specifically includes the government of any nation which has the death penalty, imprisons criminals, or takes children away from child-molesting parents.


Oh my. I am sorry. I mistook you for someone who read things before commenting on them. And didn't read them in little bits, but read the whole thing in context.

If you read these two sections as having nothing to do with each other, then yes - it does look quite bad. But if you read the first part - the systematic extermination - then the second part - murder, torture and so forth - then you see that has to be done as part of a systematic attempt to destroy the society. So taking one child away from a father who rapes it every night, executing one criminal or imprisoning one person who stole a goat is clearly not genocide and clearly not covered by this proposal.


And the only other specification is that it is committed by or on behalf of the state... except where it isn't, which we'll treat exactly the same.


Again - read the words that are written, not what you think is there. If a private group (such as The Army Of The Powers) blows up Catriana High School and kills three hundred children, it is an act of terrorism, not genocide. However the government of TilEnca (in which Catriana is located) can ask The Panel to judge whether it should be classed as genocide, and tried under this proposal.

The point being it is treated differently, or has the potential to be.

Like it says in the proposal.


Honestly, with this definition you could try someone for genocide for taking candy off a baby or having the house fumigated for termites. And any nation which signs up for it has given up the right to try or punish criminals within the bounds of their own nation.


I think I have dealt with this part already, but since you are repeating things that are patently not true I think I can reepeat things that are actually true.

Unless termites are considered citizens of your nation, you can actually fumigate your house without any cause of genocide going on.
And if you take candy off a baby you should be ashamed of yourself (unless it's poisoned candy, but what are the odds?) but since it is one baby, and not a whole nation of babies, it's probably not prosecutable. And even if it is a whole nation of babies, it's still not really genocide, and I can't imagine anyone thinking it is.


Being mean to people isn't nice, and trying to stop people from being mean is laudable, but it isn't always genocide folks; sometimes you have to actually narrow things down to define them.


It is defined. And no where does this not say that you can't be mean to someone. Which is a good job, because some people might consider this a mean response, but I was actually being quite polite.

The movie Independence Day provides, under the definition and portions of the articles of this resolution, an example of deserved genocide.





Oh you MORON. Your last post had such good arguements until you came to my comment. First of all, INDEPENDENCE DAY is a FRIGGEN MOVIE! if thats your "evidence" then you have no business posting on this board. SECOND OF ALL, "independence day" NEVER said that the alien ships attacking earth was the entire race of aliens, it was an army. THIRD OF ALL, even if the aliens in that movie were killing humans, that doesnt mean the aliens back on their homeworld deserve the same fate. undeserved hatred like has caused historical atrocities("besides, if you answer a genocide with a genocide, you are a hypocrite arent you?"). the fact of the matter is that NO race, no matter what, "deserves" genocide.

and Fourth of all, if this proposal does support the idea of "deserved" genocide, then it has no business in the UN without some serious revisions.

--The Dominion OF Wentworthian Hegemon

Oh you MORON. Your last post had such good arguements until you came to my comment. First of all, INDEPENDENCE DAY is a FRIGGEN MOVIE! if thats your "evidence" then you have no business posting on this board. SECOND OF ALL, "independence day" NEVER said that the alien ships attacking earth was the entire race of aliens, it was an army. THIRD OF ALL, even if the aliens in that movie were killing humans, that doesnt mean the aliens back on their homeworld deserve the same fate. undeserved hatred like has caused historical atrocities("besides, if you answer a genocide with a genocide, you are a hypocrite arent you?"). the fact of the matter is that NO race, no matter what, "deserves" genocide.

and Fourth of all, if this proposal does support the idea of "deserved" genocide, then it has no business in the UN without some serious revisions.

--The Dominion OF Wentworthian Hegemon

It does not support the idea of a deserved genocide. Simply because if you are forced, for whatever reason, to wipe out a whole society because you have no other choice (which I am not convinced can happen, but not convinced it can't) then you would not be guilty of genocide. Only those convincted by the panel are classed as having committed this crime, and it should be/would be unlikely that self defence would lead to conviction.

And I realise ID4 was a movie. I think that everyone reaslises it was a movie. But can you name ANY other time in NS history (or real history for that matter) that acts as a suitable example? Cause if not then it will do :}

Oh you MORON.

Cheap flaming. If I wanted to be evil, I'd use this to invalidate your arguement. You might want to check up on the reality of NationStates before arguing.

Your last post had such good arguements until you came to my comment. First of all, INDEPENDENCE DAY is a FRIGGEN MOVIE! if thats your "evidence" then you have no business posting on this board.

If you can't be bothered to note I said it was an example, you don't deserve any of my time to actually take you seriously.

Second of all, I dare you to find a historical example of justified genocide in human history in the real world. You can't.

Third of all, read my factbook in my signature. There are many alien nations in NS that make those in Independence Day look like children using slingshots. "International" does not mean "Earth only."

SECOND OF ALL, "independence day" NEVER said that the alien ships attacking earth was the entire race of aliens, it was an army.

Another person not paying attention.

Go to the scene where they try to disect the alien Will Smith brought in. Watch until after the President arrives, "talks" with the alien, and it is shot. It's there where they say it.

Seriously, how can people miss that scene? Must be the shooting towards the end.

THIRD OF ALL, even if the aliens in that movie were killing humans, that doesnt mean the aliens back on their homeworld deserve the same fate.

Their "homeworld" was that big mothership in orbit near the Moon. I'd say they pretty much deserved it.

undeserved hatred like has caused historical atrocities("besides, if you answer a genocide with a genocide, you are a hypocrite arent you?"). the fact of the matter is that NO race, no matter what, "deserves" genocide.

Sadly, humanity did not have the technology or the numbers to prevent having to use genocide in the movie. Since it was the entire species attacking, they used it.

and Fourth of all, if this proposal does support the idea of "deserved" genocide, then it has no business in the UN without some serious revisions.

I direct you to this quote:

§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.

And I realise ID4 was a movie. I think that everyone reaslises it was a movie. But can you name ANY other time in NS history (or real history for that matter) that acts as a suitable example? Cause if not then it will do :}

I can. I can even provide a link to it. Nevermind the fact I'm the one commiting the genocide. ID4 is just a better example.

I can. I can even provide a link to it. Nevermind the fact I'm the one commiting the genocide. ID4 is just a better example.

Then I will shut up and crawl back in to my cave :}

Another thought. Does this apply to attempted Genocide? I can not remember.

If you bring someone to court, and a member of that expansive group that is now considered killed or subjugated under Genocide is still alive and free, the person tried is not guilty.

I ask because we would have to allow Genocide to occur before invoking such an illegal (:)) resolution.

You don't seem to get a simple fact: That is not mentioned in this proposal. There is no evidence to back up the idea it does. In fact, there is evidence you did not read the resolution. Let me post it:


So anybody who disagrees with you hasn't read the resolution???


I think you are so "dug in" with your "Independence Day" defense (and I think it is a VERY POOR example), that it is you that is ignoring the first clause:


§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.


I'll put this into "Science Fiction" gibberish:

Battlestar Gallactica's Cylons come after you. They plan to destroy every last one of you because you are human.

This is a premeditated crime based on genetic conditions. This is genocide on the part of the Cylons. The humans of course fight back, but they are not planning the systematic and deliberate extermination of the Cylons based on their culture, but rather the thread.

If you are a SciFi fan (and I honestly don't know if you are or not), you may recall that the Cylons and humans had been at war on and off, but were at peace at the time of the start of Battlestar Gallactica. The Cylons broke that peace on their belief that they'd never be safe with the humans around, but they didn't stop at just taking away the humans ability to wage war ... they would stop at nothing but the complete destruction of all human "tribes".

[I'll talk more about BattleStar Galactica again later.]



The key here isn't killing another species, it is tied to deliberately killing an entire species not based on its actions (or future actions) but its existence. This is a clause 1 "test".




Clause 5 is not a carte blanche statement that stands alone. It is a condition appended to the full definition, that fulls UNDER clause 1. Meaning it modifies, but doesn't replace clause 1 (this is how legalese works ... even in many ScienceFiction stories):


§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.


So how does this work with Clause 1? Let's look at a historical example:

Hitler starts killing Jews. He claims that their culture was sinful and their evil ways would corrupt the German people. He claims that it wasn't their existence that promoted concentration camps and justified millions of murders, but rather that if he didn't stop them now that their culture would destroy his culture. In effect he'd be saying he acted in "self-defense" against a future act.

The key here is that the mass murders are made possible because one group is ultimately defenseless against another group. In this case the Jews had no military power and were decentralized (and possibly disliked by even populations in neighboring nations). Did they pose a real threat? No way.

Now for BattleStar Galactica ... Clause 5 says, "You can't kill cultures in self-defense." This isn't to say, if Cylon is going to kill you, but is the last surviving Cylon you can't gun him down when he fires at you, because to do so would be genocide. That is STUPID. No that is beyond STUPID.

You can always stop an immediate threat.

Clause 5 isn't what you've suggested, but a message to the Cylons that they can't say, "Gee, though we are at peace with the humans, they might one day be at war with us again. In self-defense we need to kill them all. Every last one of them."

Or from your favorite example: Independence Day ...

Clause 5 isn't there to say, "Will Smith was wrong to defend himself and his family." In order for any act to be considered genocide, the reason / justification behind the murders need to first apply to clause one. Then Clause 5 can be considered as well.

I think the important questions are:

Are you killing a group of people because they are different and only because they "might" come after you?

Are you killing a group of people because they are actively killing you, and just happen to be different?


Moving back to the real-world:

My examples of manslaughter and premeditated murder apply here ...

People can be found guilty of manslaughter when they kill somebody, but the judgement is passed because there was no intent to kill that individual or type of person. If for some example you woke up and said, "Gee I want to kill an African American today." That would no longer be manslaughter, because while you don't have a specific individual in mind, you most certainly have a "group" of people selected and are actively engaged in conspiracy to commit murder. This is the beginnings of premeditated murder.

It does not support the idea of a deserved genocide. Simply because if you are forced, for whatever reason, to wipe out a whole society because you have no other choice (which I am not convinced can happen, but not convinced it can't) then you would not be guilty of genocide. Only those convincted by the panel are classed as having committed this crime, and it should be/would be unlikely that self defence would lead to conviction.

And I realise ID4 was a movie. I think that everyone reaslises it was a movie. But can you name ANY other time in NS history (or real history for that matter) that acts as a suitable example? Cause if not then it will do :}

See, I don't see your article five as relating to that film at all.

I see it as a way to prevent pre-emptive attacks based on "cultural" assimilation.

Why did Hitler kill the Jews? The answer isn't really that the Jewish faith was going to organize a conspiracy and kill the Nazis. It is that by alienating them and a few other minority groups they were able to consolidate power and shift attention from a larger campaign of national aggression.

But moving onto Yugoslavia, the ethnic cleansing there is much more difficult to really understand, because the conflict did not spill into outright war. But what if the Serbians populations claimed that their involvement was in "self-defense" of their culture?


Let's look at the other side of the coin and assume clause 5 is about the "last alien" situation.

I'm on a planet with 10 humans and we stumble upon the last angry robot of a species that has sworn to kill all humans. We know that all he other angry robots are dead.

This robot has one eye, that glows red with anger and it comes after us claiming, "I will kill you! I will kill all humans."

We start to fight back, but then one among us says, "Gee, if that is the last angry robot and if we fight back and kill it, we will have committed genocide. We have no choice but to flee."

So the humans run, but the robot blows up their space ship stranding them on the planet, and one by one the robot starts to pick off the humans, until there is one human left. That human then says, "I am the last of my kind. We did not fight back because you were the last of your kind and it would be genocide for us to fight back and kill you in self-defense. Let's be friends now."

Silly? Incredibly. Is this a movie? I think so actually. It certainly is a Battlestar Galactica episode or something similar to one.

As the author, I'll defer to the intent of clause 5, but I've always assumed when I read that clause that it isn't staying nations from protecting themselves, but really a vieled way to prevent aggressive actions, i.e. taking that first shot.

Is it possible that tempers are getting a little frayed here?

I respect the both of you (this is mostly aimed at DLE and Mikitivity) and would not want to see either of you banned from this forum for getting overly passionate in a deabte :}

Then again - it's kind of fun watching so...... (smirk)

As the author, I'll defer to the intent of clause 5, but I've always assumed when I read that clause that it isn't staying nations from protecting themselves, but really a vieled way to prevent aggressive actions, i.e. taking that first shot.

Mostly it was there to prevent pre-emptive strikes. The arguement that "all the red-heads are going to rise up and kill us so we must kill all the red-heads now in self defence" is not one that (in my view) would be accepted as justifiable.

But if it turns out that every single red-head did rise up, and they attacked, and didn't stop attacking no matter how many of them died, and every single one of them fought until they were killed, then yes - you would have wiped out a part of the society, but not because they were red-headed, but because they were trying to wipe you out.

Just out of curiousity (for EVERYONE who has replied to this) did everyone see the "arbitrary" part in the first article? Fighting someone who has attacked you, and is attacking you, is not arbitrary. However carrying that war on and wiping out the civilians who are not attacking you crosses that line.

So anybody who disagrees with you hasn't read the resolution???

No, most of the people who I have argued with on here have read it. You are throwing words in my mouth and once again proving your lack of knowledge on the arguement. In fact, I specifically stated at one point that you're the only one who hasn't read it. Hell, even the n00bs have read it.

I think you are so "dug in" with your "Independence Day" defense (and I think it is a VERY POOR example), that it is you that is ignoring the first clause:

Invalid arguement due to not bothering to read everything I have said. Anyone who has read this topic and the topic about amending it should be laughing at you right now. They know ID4 was not used as a defense against EON.

I'll put this into "Science Fiction" gibberish:

Just leave your reality crap at home.

Battlestar Gallactica's Cylons come after you. They plan to destroy every last one of you because you are human.

This is a premeditated crime based on genetic conditions. This is genocide on the part of the Cylons. The humans of course fight back, but they are not planning the systematic and deliberate extermination of the Cylons based on their culture, but rather the thread.

Doesn't matter. If the humans exterminate them, Section 5 of Article 1 still still has the humans going to trial. The difference is that humans are not going to be convicted of anything.

Also, nowhere does it state that destroying a race/people/species/whatever cannot be in self-defense when being considered gemnocide. In fact, the inclusion of Section 5 makes it so they have to be.

If you are a SciFi fan (and I honestly don't know if you are or not), you may recall that the Cylons and humans had been at war on and off, but were at peace at the time of the start of Battlestar Gallactica. The Cylons broke that peace on their belief that they'd never be safe with the humans around, but they didn't stop at just taking away the humans ability to wage war ... they would stop at nothing but the complete destruction of all human "tribes".

[I'll talk more about BattleStar Galactica again later.]

This shall be interesting.

The key here isn't killing another species, it is tied to deliberately killing an entire species not based on its actions (or future actions) but its existence. This is a clause 1 "test".

This is not supported by evidence in the resolution. Arguement invalid.

Clause 5 is not a carte blanche statement that stands alone. It is a condition appended to the full definition, that fulls UNDER clause 1. Meaning it modifies, but doesn't replace clause 1 (this is how legalese works ... even in many ScienceFiction stories):

And clause one defines how it is. Clause 1 does not include actions as an exception, and it will be impossible for you to find evidence in the resolution to the contrary.

So how does this work with Clause 1? Let's look at a historical example:

Hitler starts killing Jews. He claims that their culture was sinful and their evil ways would corrupt the German people. He claims that it wasn't their existence that promoted concentration camps and justified millions of murders, but rather that if he didn't stop them now that their culture would destroy his culture. In effect he'd be saying he acted in "self-defense" against a future act.

The key here is that the mass murders are made possible because one group is ultimately defenseless against another group. In this case the Jews had no military power and were decentralized (and possibly disliked by even populations in neighboring nations). Did they pose a real threat? No way.

In which case, under Section 5 they would check it out to see the truth, discover that, and promptly try to throw him in jail.

Now for BattleStar Galactica ... Clause 5 says, "You can't kill cultures in self-defense." This isn't to say, if Cylon is going to kill you, but is the last surviving Cylon you can't gun him down when he fires at you, because to do so would be genocide. That is STUPID. No that is beyond STUPID.

WRONG. Nowhere does it say "you can't kill in self-defense." In fact, it specifically that if you destroy a culture in self-defense it is still considered genocide. They will be brought to trial to determine the validity of that claim and, once proven valid, set free. That is exactly what it states. Where you got your interpretation from is nowhere in my posts.

You can always stop an immediate threat.

Section 5 allows that.

Clause 5 isn't what you've suggested, but a message to the Cylons that they can't say, "Gee, though we are at peace with the humans, they might one day be at war with us again. In self-defense we need to kill them all. Every last one of them."

Once again, where the hell are you getting this crap? It's not from my posts. Nowhere did I say that's what I meant. I haven't thrown around the words "justified genocide" just because I like them.

Or from your favorite example: Independence Day ...

Clause 5 isn't there to say, "Will Smith was wrong to defend himself and his family." In order for any act to be considered genocide, the reason / justification behind the murders need to first apply to clause one. Then Clause 5 can be considered as well.

Under Section 1, they destroyed an entire culture. That is a fact. Under Section 5, they were justified. Also a fact. Section 1 does not allow for such differentiations as them trying to destroy you when you look at Section 5. You have to take the article as a whole, not in pieces, to get the truth of the matter.

I think the important questions are:

Are you killing a group of people because they are different and only because they "might" come after you?

Are you killing a group of people because they are actively killing you, and just happen to be different?

Those are only important for justification. For the definition of genocide, they are not.

Moving back to the real-world:

My examples of manslaughter and premeditated murder apply here ...

People can be found guilty of manslaughter when they kill somebody, but the judgement is passed because there was no intent to kill that individual or type of person. If for some example you woke up and said, "Gee I want to kill an African American today." That would no longer be manslaughter, because while you don't have a specific individual in mind, you most certainly have a "group" of people selected and are actively engaged in conspiracy to commit murder. This is the beginnings of premeditated murder.

Both of which still have you going to trial to prove it. That is what Section 5 does. It forces you to prove it was justified in trial. Hell, TilEnca supported this and basically said it himself a few pages back.

Just out of curiousity (for EVERYONE who has replied to this) did everyone see the "arbitrary" part in the first article? Fighting someone who has attacked you, and is attacking you, is not arbitrary. However carrying that war on and wiping out the civilians who are not attacking you crosses that line.

I provided a definition of it about a dozen pages back or so.

Main Entry: ar·bi·trary
Pronunciation: 'är-b&-"trer-E
Function: adjective
1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments -- A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary -- Nehemiah Jordan>
- ar·bi·trari·ly /"är-b&-'trer-&-lE/ adverb
- ar·bi·trar·i·ness /'är-b&-"trer-E-n&s/ noun

I bolded the part that applies to warfare, as there are few rules to govern it.

Please direct your attention here (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379268) if you have not done so already.

Second of all, I dare you to find a historical example of justified genocide in human history in the real world. You can't.
:

ok maybe the "moron" comment was undeserved, but regardless, going back to the quote i took from you.

your above quote proves my point completely. there is no such thing as a justified genocide because if something is justified, that means it was deserved, and like i said, there is no such thing as a "deserved" genocide.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Just leave your reality crap at home.

Once again, where the hell are you getting this crap?


The minute you start telling people to leave bits of their reality crap at home you really are just dissing anything you don't want to deal with you've gone overboard.

This is a political game, you have to take the good with the bad ... real world historical examples are just as valid as your made up on the fly science fiction universe.

ok maybe the "moron" comment was undeserved, but regardless, going back to the quote i took from you.

your above quote proves my point completely. there is no such thing as a justified genocide because if something is justified, that means it was deserved, and like i said, there is no such thing as a "deserved" genocide.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Which is ignoring being forced to exterminate a country in order for your own to survive. This is NS, where that happens on a regular basis, not reality. Big difference.

The minute you start telling people to leave bits of their reality crap at home you really are just dissing anything you don't want to deal with you've gone overboard.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

The evidence:

I'll put this into "Science Fiction" gibberish:

Don't complain just because someone uses your own tactic against you.

This is a political game, you have to take the good with the bad ... real world historical examples are just as valid as your made up on the fly science fiction universe.

Dude, you're preaching to the choir when you need to be speaking in a mirror. You're the one who started the whole thing of the "dissing" something you don't like. If you don't like it when people turn that against you, then don't do it yourself. That is my point with the reality comment.

First of, let me compliament you for being so rational and mature. :) I also appreciate your hard work here. It is nations like yours that I stick around here for.

Mostly it was there to prevent pre-emptive strikes. The arguement that "all the red-heads are going to rise up and kill us so we must kill all the red-heads now in self defence" is not one that (in my view) would be accepted as justifiable.

But if it turns out that every single red-head did rise up, and they attacked, and didn't stop attacking no matter how many of them died, and every single one of them fought until they were killed, then yes - you would have wiped out a part of the society, but not because they were red-headed, but because they were trying to wipe you out.

Just out of curiousity (for EVERYONE who has replied to this) did everyone see the "arbitrary" part in the first article? Fighting someone who has attacked you, and is attacking you, is not arbitrary. However carrying that war on and wiping out the civilians who are not attacking you crosses that line.


It sounds to me like the phrase "but because they were trying to wipe you out" means that by clause 1, that we aren't talking about planned genocide.

And yes, I've read the first clause, and consider it the main point behind this entire convention. :) I think the key has always been in being able to provide a solid case that the justification for the action was in fact based on these ethnic or racial differences.

Wow

Didnt think this is how the UN runs its debates.

The real UN doesn't do crap about the actually genocide going on in other nations.

For example.

200 Executive Outcomes (Mercernaries) had stopped a rebellion in Africa (dunno which nation).

Where as 50,000 UN Troops Couldnt do a damn thing.

Personally the real UN is all about talk and no action.

Maybe off topic but oh well. :rolleyes:

oh Executive Outcomes was or still is a private military business. In short They are soldiers for Hire. They dont take crap from anyone.

Which is ignoring being forced to exterminate a country in order for your own to survive. This is NS, where that happens on a regular basis, not reality. Big difference.


irrelevant.

on this planet, in reality, people are human beings before they are a given nationality, and no race of human being "deserves" to be victim of a genocide, which ends the problem of genocide alltogether. no nation has the right to make a race of people victim to a genocide, and even if a nation does commit such an atrocity, they no more deserve such a fate than the people they were attacking. and besides, just like you said before, "pot. kettle. black". a nation can not answer a genocide with a genocide. as long as were using metaphors, how about this one; "two wrongs dont make a right"


--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

I've been racking my brains for days trying to come up with a RL situation where genocide could be/has been justified in the name of self-defense and the best I can do would be mass executions of street mimes. :rolleyes:

Article 1 sub-section 5 states 'If used in self-defence, it is still genocide'.

If the mexicans, or blacks, or whites in your country rise as a whole, what, are you going to let them take you over? Or suffer at the hands of the U.N.?

I'm all for protecting minorities, but for christs sake, it wouldnt be fair, it would kind of have a hint of apartide! We know this is bad from South Africa!

(OOC. REALLY OOC. SO OOC you have no idea!)

Something really funny did just occur to me.

Moderators are capable of deleting nations from the game, aren't they?

So would wiping out a nation in the game class as genocide?

Anyway - now that I have had my one insanely funny thought for the day, I am going to bed. Night all!!

Article 1 sub-section 5 states 'If used in self-defence, it is still genocide'.

If the mexicans, or blacks, or whites in your country rise as a whole, what, are you going to let them take you over? Or suffer at the hands of the U.N.?

I'm all for protecting minorities, but for christs sake, it wouldnt be fair, it would kind of have a hint of apartide! We know this is bad from South Africa!

Out of curiousity, did you actually read any of the other posts in the thread? Cause this has been covered once or twice (or ten thousand times) already :}

And if you are going to quote from the proposal, PLEASE quote all of the relevent section. Especially the bit that says and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action. cause then you will have an answer to your question without the need for actually asking it :}

irrelevant.

on this planet, in reality, people are human beings before they are a given nationality, and no race of human being "deserves" to be victim of a genocide, which ends the problem of genocide alltogether.

This is NS, not reality. This resolution only affects NS. Arguements about what is true in reality do not apply to what happens in NS when NS contradicts them.

no nation has the right to make a race of people victim to a genocide, and even if a nation does commit such an atrocity, they no more deserve such a fate than the people they were attacking. and besides, just like you said before, "pot. kettle. black". a nation can not answer a genocide with a genocide. as long as were using metaphors, how about this one; "two wrongs dont make a right"

Ignore reality for this. It doesn't apply when the nation you are arguing with clearly defies it on a daily basis.

While true that two wrongs don't make a right, does it matter to the survivors? We're in a game where people use weapons capable of blowing up portions of planets. The only necessity of NS is that your nation survives. How you go about it is not that important unless it causes you to be ganged up on and destroyed.

Justified genocides happen because one country is attacked and the only way they can survive is to destroy the other. In some cases, it is a case of one group getting violent, then murderous, and the only way the country can stop them from causing massive amounts of death is to kill them all.

Article 1 sub-section 5 states 'If used in self-defence, it is still genocide'.

If the mexicans, or blacks, or whites in your country rise as a whole, what, are you going to let them take you over? Or suffer at the hands of the U.N.?

I'm all for protecting minorities, but for christs sake, it wouldnt be fair, it would kind of have a hint of apartide! We know this is bad from South Africa!

i understand your arguement, but a genocide isnt the answer. if the {insert race of people here} rose up as a whole, the answer isnt genocide. if it was bush would be killing more innocent iraqis than he already is. the answer is to, yes, stop the rebellion, but a genocide is the systematic slaughter of a race just for existing, and that isnt right. no race of people "deserves" genocide.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Out of curiousity, did you actually read any of the other posts in the thread? Cause this has been covered once or twice (or ten thousand times) already :}

And if you are going to quote from the proposal, PLEASE quote all of the relevent section. Especially the bit that says and will be brought to TPP to confirm the validity of the action. cause then you will have an answer to your question without the need for actually asking it :}

I'm too lazy to read other posts :)

Yeah, I shoulda done that, but I didnt think that sub-section applied for...that sub-section. I just noticed, this forum has a british .co.uk

If the mexicans, or blacks, or whites in your country rise as a whole, what, are you going to let them take you over? Or suffer at the hands of the U.N.? If it is "used in self defense" i dont think that would be genocide.. i agree with the above.. if its used in self defense, it CANNOT be genocide.. i think this resolution definitely needs to be re-written before it is passed, but then again, there are those people who dont even read the forums and are doing a largely bad thing by not discussing this.. Im against this one until it is modified

i understand your arguement, but a genocide isnt the answer. if the {insert race of people here} rose up as a whole, the answer isnt genocide. if it was bush would be killing more innocent iraqis than he already is. the answer is to, yes, stop the rebellion, but a genocide is the systematic slaughter of a race just for existing, and that isnt right. no race of people "deserves" genocide.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon



Very well put. Isnt Shadow of the Hegemon an Orson Scott Card book?

If it is "used in self defense" i dont think that would be genocide.. i agree with the above.. if its used in self defense, it CANNOT be genocide.. i think this resolution definitely needs to be re-written before it is passed, but then again, there are those people who dont even read the forums and are doing a largely bad thing by not discussing this.. Im against this one until it is modified

It depends a lot on your perspective I guess. I would consider wiping out an entire race genocide, in the same way I would consider shooting someone in cold blood murder. But in both cases they can be mittigated by circumstances that would accept it was a bad thing, but it was not punishable.

So it is still classed as genocide, even if someone is acquitted and cleared of all counts, mostly because it should at least be noted that this happened (and maybe we would learn how to avoid it in the future).

Don't complain just because someone uses your own tactic against you.


That gibberish is my material ... me quoting Battlestar Galactica. Did you post that earlier in this thread too? If so, I missed that. But the above is me trying to find some way to communicate with a player that only wants to talk about robots, aliens and space ships.

In fact, you've said in several of these threads that real world arguments don't apply at all in NationStates. So why the hell should anybody care about your roleplayed universe is the minute things aren't going your way, you say "irrelevant, real-world doesn't apply here"???

Furthermore, your continued references to ID4 are inappropriate in this debate. They don't really apply to this resolution. Not one bit.



Dude, you're preaching to the choir when you need to be speaking in a mirror. You're the one who started the whole thing of the "dissing" something you don't like. If you don't like it when people turn that against you, then don't do it yourself. That is my point with the reality comment.

My claim that ID4 is a bad example? It is a bad example. I've even called it a HORRIBLE example. The worst part, is when its misuse is corrected, the response isn't to debate the ID4 example but to change tactics and go for petty attacks instead. *nodding head*

It isn't that I don't like the film. I happen to like it OK. But I think it is a very poor example. And days ago I explained why.

Bottomline, I don't mind fantasy roleplaying or even godmoding. But I do take issue with people that completely disreguard real-world politics, when I think there are valuable lessons and points raised.

I think that the Holocaust and real-life genocides are prefectly good examples for discussions when in a POLITICAL game we are trying to address the subjects.

the best I can do would be mass executions of street mimes.
TPP exemption granted. Go for it.

see, i think genocide could be justifiable if it were under certain circumstances.. i mean, yes, things can be justified.. i think genocide could be justified.. i am still asking for an amendment to this resolution.. i dont think that we should be bullied around by the UN making our choices.. and as someone said earlier, somthin like this "The UN is mostly all-talk and no-act".. i think this is completely true.. they need to amend this resolution! at least to a certain degree.. please, thats all im asking

This is NS, not reality. This resolution only affects NS. Arguements about what is true in reality do not apply to what happens in NS when NS contradicts them.



Ignore reality for this. It doesn't apply when the nation you are arguing with clearly defies it on a daily basis.

While true that two wrongs don't make a right, does it matter to the survivors? We're in a game where people use weapons capable of blowing up portions of planets. The only necessity of NS is that your nation survives. How you go about it is not that important unless it causes you to be ganged up on and destroyed.

Justified genocides happen because one country is attacked and the only way they can survive is to destroy the other. In some cases, it is a case of one group getting violent, then murderous, and the only way the country can stop them from causing massive amounts of death is to kill them all.


NS or reality, people are people, and my arguement applies. NS is designed to be a representation/example of the real world so when deciding on decisions that happen in NS, one must partially view it in terms of the world.

"justified" genocides? they dont exist. you cant every REALLY justify a genocide. you can tell yourself otherwise, but the result is that you slaughtered people. someof them might have resisted, some of them might have been trying to kill you, but if even ONE person whose innocent is killed in a genocide, its not right or just, and, at least in all examples that exist in reality, there has been more than one innocent person, because no race of people "deserves" genocide, and no entire race of people is bad.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Very well put. Isnt Shadow of the Hegemon an Orson Scott Card book?



YES!! OH geeze! your my buddy! lol! the word hegemon just sounds so cool, and the books are great. ty btw.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

because no race of people "deserves" genocide, and no entire race of people is bad.
this is entirely true.. no entire race is bad, and an entire race doesnt deserve genocide..but if you are a part of a race of people that decide to revolt, and you DONT want to revolt, then maybe you should stand up to your own people and tell them to stop before they all get killed!! its just a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.. if you dont want to be killed by genocide, simply go to the gov't and tell them you are with them, and essentially that you are going against the group you are in, and dont agree with the cause of genocide.. and i dont think you can call a mass killing for PROTECTION genocide.. its more like a murder for self defense-- in court, those ARE justified by giving shorter sentences, or none at all.. so isnt genocide for protection just a rather large case of 3rd degree murder, a murder in self defense?

TPP exemption granted. Go for it.

At least someone has a sense of humor :D

this is entirely true.. no entire race is bad, and an entire race doesnt deserve genocide..but if you are a part of a race of people that decide to revolt, and you DONT want to revolt, then maybe you should stand up to your own people and tell them to stop before they all get killed!! its just a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.. if you dont want to be killed by genocide, simply go to the gov't and tell them you are with them, and essentially that you are going against the group you are in, and dont agree with the cause of genocide.. and i dont think you can call a mass killing for PROTECTION genocide.. its more like a murder for self defense-- in court, those ARE justified by giving shorter sentences, or none at all.. so isnt genocide for protection just a rather large case of 3rd degree murder, a murder in self defense?



well we arent talking about 3rd degree murder, were talking about genocide. genocide is the destruction of an entire race just for existing, not quelling a rebellion for self defence.

and as for going to the govt. and telling them your on their side yadda yadda yadda-- that didnt work out too well during the pacific conflict, when innocent japanese americans wanted no part of the war, but america responded by throwing them in terrible internment camps where they were murdered, poisoned, and poorly treated.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

§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.

See, this is the only thing i find wrong with this resolution.. all i ask is that this is removed because when a killing is used in self defense, it CANT be genocide! its just self defense! use the Iraq war for instance.. if you see someone with a booksack and they walk up to a car and blow themselves up, wouldnt it make you wanna stay away, apprehend, take into custody, search, and possibly kill ALL people wearing booksacks?

See, this is the only thing i find wrong with this resolution.. all i ask is that this is removed because when a killing is used in self defense, it CANT be genocide! its just self defense! use the Iraq war for instance.. if you see someone with a booksack and they walk up to a car and blow themselves up, wouldnt it make you wanna stay away, apprehend, take into custody, search, and possibly kill ALL people wearing booksacks?


i think the whole thing ought be looked over/re-written more closely. this decision is to vaigue for such a UN-important topic.

--The Dominion Of Wentworthian Hegemon

Thank you, i feel the same way.. this resolution needs to be re-written to be very specific.. there are too many loopholes.. PLEASE, PLEASE consider re-writing this everyone... we really need it changed

Thank you, i feel the same way.. this resolution needs to be re-written to be very specific.. there are too many loopholes.. PLEASE, PLEASE consider re-writing this everyone... we really need it changed

I promise to not get defensive since I'm asking this (right now I have my hands full with one player calling me full of crap) ... ;)

Could you make a few suggestions? Please keep in mind that the resolution is rather long in its current state, so if we add more detail in some places, we might have to take away detail in others. And are there parts other than clause 5 that you feel need work?


I'll quickly point out that "technically" we can't change a resolution once it has hit the UN floor. I'm happy with the way it is, but I am not adverse to hearing others talk about how they think it should be changed.

I will state that in my opinion, clause 5 is a modifier to Article 1, clause 1. Meaning in the case of Iraq, I'd say that is not a genocide.

Thanks!
10kMichael

That gibberish is my material ... me quoting Battlestar Galactica. Did you post that earlier in this thread too? If so, I missed that. But the above is me trying to find some way to communicate with a player that only wants to talk about robots, aliens and space ships.

Which is a case of you not bothering to read the player's posts and see the context of what he is saying. Once again, not paying attention.

In fact, you've said in several of these threads that real world arguments don't apply at all in NationStates. So why the hell should anybody care about your roleplayed universe is the minute things aren't going your way, you say "irrelevant, real-world doesn't apply here"???

Do you even know what "context" means? It's very important to the majority of those posts.

You'll find I use that often when people rely heavily on the real world for their arguement and don't bother to consider, in said arguement, that NS is as far from reality as you can get. Or, in a few cases, such as yours, where I'm just being evil and using a similar tactic in return.

Furthermore, your continued references to ID4 are inappropriate in this debate. They don't really apply to this resolution. Not one bit.

They were not intended to. They were intended to apply to the arguement that no justified genocide exists, which is a subset of the main arguement. I said that several posts ago, and on the other thread as well.

My claim that ID4 is a bad example? It is a bad example. I've even called it a HORRIBLE example. The worst part, is when its misuse is corrected, the response isn't to debate the ID4 example but to change tactics and go for petty attacks instead. *nodding head*

You're not innocent of petty attacks yourself, so don't try to play it.

Actually, you never corrected the use. In fact, I remember correcting you on how it was originally used. Read on the other thread to see.

ID4 is, with the use I have put it to, a pretty good example. There may be better, but that one is what people are familiar with. In the use you have assumed, which is not the use it was put to, it was a non sequitor arguement. And if you claim victory on this, I'll point out how you misinterpreted the purpose by not bothering to read the entire arguement involving it.

It isn't that I don't like the film. I happen to like it OK. But I think it is a very poor example. And days ago I explained why.

You explained why using a false assumption about the use it was put to.

Bottomline, I don't mind fantasy roleplaying or even godmoding. But I do take issue with people that completely disreguard real-world politics, when I think there are valuable lessons and points raised.

Yes, there are valuable lessons and points raised. But you are just as guilty, if not more so, of ignoring them as I am.

Part of real-world politics is paying attention to exact wordings and context. I have seen you repeatedly take things out of context in your arguements against me, in some cases ignoring points I have made in favor of continuing on with your arguement. I at least give you the courtesy of addressing your points.

I think that the Holocaust and real-life genocides are prefectly good examples for discussions when in a POLITICAL game we are trying to address the subjects.

In a game that also includes magic and scifi as a basis, anything that uses them and has the subject involved as a major theme is also valid. But if one is invalid, then all should be invalid. That is part of the game.

NS or reality, people are people, and my arguement applies. NS is designed to be a representation/example of the real world so when deciding on decisions that happen in NS, one must partially view it in terms of the world.

NS is also something that moved far beyond the original design. We have nations that do things with the game now the designers did not even think of attempting to address. In accounting for the real world, you must keep in mind it gives way to the pseudophysics of NS.

"justified" genocides? they dont exist. you cant every REALLY justify a genocide. you can tell yourself otherwise, but the result is that you slaughtered people. someof them might have resisted, some of them might have been trying to kill you, but if even ONE person whose innocent is killed in a genocide, its not right or just, and, at least in all examples that exist in reality, there has been more than one innocent person, because no race of people "deserves" genocide, and no entire race of people is bad.

Actually, a good point there.

All i am asking is that once this resolution is voted upon, if it passes, i would like to repeal it, and make a NEW resolution that is more specific, and does NOT contain the current Article 1, Clause 5.. Clause 5 is the only thing i find wrong with this! please, repeal this resolution when it passes, and create a new one with more detail, and do not include the current Clause 5..

Make love not war ... Lets not fight... All we need is love.. Genocide is not a good plan. Someone or thing or race has to get killed and I do not want the gun pointed to me or anything else. So vote no genocide. Just :fluffle:. Then everything will be better.

Please.... :(

Vote no for Genocide...

(I am Head of Pandaia and I support this ad) :D

Very well put. Isnt Shadow of the Hegemon an Orson Scott Card book?

This is perhaps a good moment to bring a fictional example up that actually explains this whole "genocide by self defence" to even Mik, the "Hierarchy of Exclusion." The classification is based on how much understanding between peoples or species is possible:

1 Utlanning (Otherlander): the stranger we recognize as a human of our world, but of another city or country.

2 Framling: the stranger we recognize as human, but of another world.

3 Raman: the stranger we recognize as human, but of another species.

4 Varelse: the true alien, which includes all the animals, for with them no conversation is possible. They live, but we cannot guess what purposes or causes make them act. They might be intelligent, they might be self-aware, but we cannot know it.

The source that uses this Hierarchy (Orson Scott Card's Ender Books) argues that in case a Varelse is a direct danger to the continued existance of Humans (for example the HIV virus) we are allowed, perhaps even required, to exterminate that species.

In case the species is (clearly) intelligent this may also be considered genocide, but the self-defence clause would become active. This is to me the only reason why any extermination of any species may be excused with. (may it be intellent or not.) It is only natural (if not our biologic duty) to put the continueing survival of our own species above that of any other. As long as another species poses no threat to humanity at large extermination would obviously be criminal and x/genocide.

In theory it is even possible that a (large) group of homo sapiens sapiens might be utterly deranged and unreachable and intent on destroying the rest of humanity, a particular ethnic group or even all of humanity including themselves. The fact that they are completely unreachable would make them Varelse and as such allowed to get destroyed in (self) defence of others... basically creating a situation of genocide in self defence.

Its a matter of the many taking priority over the few and the (biological) duty of any species to survive. Calling this genocide may be correct, but to treat it like a criminal offence would be strange (as in fact (part of) humanity was saved, which is heroic act.) - although I'd say that any claim of genocide by self defence would require a far going examination weather all other possible options were really closed off.

This is why I'd call DLE's vaping of a culturally specific city still a genocide because I'm quite sure there would've been different options open to him.
Weather for example ceteans are Ramen or Varelse may change if someone happens to open a line of communication to them, in which case whaling may go into history as one of the biggest x/genocides ever.

Yes, this is an example and arguement from a piece of fiction, just like ID4, however: the Bible is to me just as much a piece of fiction and people haven't gone on an obsessive ongoing rant about usage of that source in this thread.

Often fiction is a very good way to bring actual ideas across, often preferable to long boring essays or history texts with lots of big words - that no-one reads or watches. Throughout history great thinkers (Plato, Eramus, More, Nietsche,...) have used fiction as a medium to get their ideas across. Throughout history not so great thinkers have done the same.

Its a basic form of propaganda and a good way to be more specific and strong about the issues you want to address, because you can put them under a magnifying glass. Its also been a way to try and avoid procecution for the spreading of different ideas since writing (and probably just storytelling) was invented and is actually the first way there ever was a freedom of press.

Now can we please get off this ID4 non-issue?

Lets say, for instance, that every possible option had been tried.. then would you allow genocide for self defense? i do not understand why the killing of people to defend the greater half of other people isnt justifiable, and why it would be wrong.. come on, just remove Clause 5! this resolution is WAY too vague! how can you vote for such a thing that has so many holes in it?

Lets say, for instance, that every possible option had been tried.. then would you allow genocide for self defense? i do not understand why the killing of people to defend the greater half of other people isnt justifiable, and why it would be wrong.. come on, just remove Clause 5! this resolution is WAY too vague! how can you vote for such a thing that has so many holes in it?

I think that my government agrees with you, but that is why we have a different interpetation of Article 1, Clause 5.

To us it works like this ...

If a nation wants to kill another ethnic or cultural group that is not an immediate threat they might try and say something like:

Look at all those fairies. They completely are disrupting the will of God with their fairy like ways. Elfin kind will eventually destroy our culture so in "self-defense" we have no choice but to kill them all now.

Clause 5 expands upon Clause 1. Clause 1 says, killing an entire culture just (key word) because they are simply different is wrong. Clause 5 says, you can't even do this in the claims of self-defense.

TilEnca will have a much better idea if this (my government's interpetation) is right or not. :)

Lets say, for instance, that every possible option had been tried.. then would you allow genocide for self defense? i do not understand why the killing of people to defend the greater half of other people isnt justifiable, and why it would be wrong.. come on, just remove Clause 5! this resolution is WAY too vague! how can you vote for such a thing that has so many holes in it?

Actually, number 5 allows you to justify it before the world. Then, you can say to the world it is justified and point to a court the UN elected as your evidence that the UN agrees.

That said, I would advise you to go with Mekivity's definition and try to avoid it as much as possible. If you have no choice, absolutely no choice imaginable, then exterminate.

That said, try to not follow my example of blowing up an entire city to stop a group unless all other options have been exhausted.

This is perhaps a good moment to bring a fictional example up that actually explains this whole "genocide by self defence" to even Mik, the "Hierarchy of Exclusion."

The source that uses this Hierarchy (Orson Scott Card's Ender Books) argues that in case a Varelse is a direct danger to the continued existance of Humans (for example the HIV virus) we are allowed, perhaps even required, to exterminate that species.

In case the species is (clearly) intelligent this may also be considered genocide, but the self-defence clause would become active.

In theory it is even possible that a (large) group of homo sapiens sapiens might be utterly deranged and unreachable and intent on destroying the rest of humanity, a particular ethnic group or even all of humanity including themselves.

Its a matter of the many taking priority over the few and the (biological) duty of any species to survive. Calling this genocide may be correct, but to treat it like a criminal offence would be strange (as in fact (part of) humanity was saved, which is heroic act.) - although I'd say that any claim of genocide by self defence would require a far going examination weather all other possible options were really closed off.

This is why I'd call DLE's vaping of a culturally specific city still a genocide because I'm quite sure there would've been different options open to him.
Weather for example ceteans are Ramen or Varelse may change if someone happens to open a line of communication to them, in which case whaling may go into history as one of the biggest x/genocides ever.

Yes, this is an example and arguement from a piece of fiction, just like ID4, however: the Bible is to me just as much a piece of fiction and people haven't gone on an obsessive ongoing rant about usage of that source in this thread.

Now can we please get off this ID4 non-issue?

Well it isn't that I object to fictional examples ... hell, somebody here might roleplay ID4 day and night. But I didn't feel that particular example was a sound case.

You are correct that whaling certainly could turn out to be a type of genocide beyond belief -- and now I'm having flash backs to the Whaling resolution late this summer!

In any event, your fictional example is IMHO well stated. The question remains in my mind, wouldn't article 1, clause 1 suggest that the sole criterion for singling out the HIV virus or feral humans not be based on their culture but an active threat?

I felt article 1, clause 5 was more about preventing pre-emptive actions with respect to cultural "threats", which may or may not be real.

I can't believe that a document with such bad wordage is actually going to pass.
As such...
"I accuse you all of genocide, now get off my world!" (refugees welcome)

I can't believe that a document with such bad wordage is actually going to pass.
Thanks for all your help in putting it together for the three weeks it was being tinkered with. It's nice to have the support of all the loyal UN members prior to submission, particularly when the author was kind enough to solicit input precisely to avoid nasty indictments from people who didn't show up to help.

Good job!

I write this stuff, and some people think I do it pretty well. But since you have decided to randomly attack my ability to write, I am going to randomly rebutt it. If that's okay with you, of course?

I'd hardly call it randomly attacking your writing if I comment when you post a document on a public discussion forum. I welcome your rebuttal, and even look forward to some discussion, but if you can't handle some criticism then you've got the wrong hobby...

Read further. The part about the UBR. You know - the rest of the proposal.

I did read it. Nowhere in the rest of the document does it describe in any more detail what a "a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria" means, nor does it define the term UBR. I assume that this stands for some sort of Universal Bill of Rights? The closest that the UN actually has to such a document is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Bill of Rights, neither of which defines a society, much the less the trickier issue of what a "part" of a society is. Perhaps there is a better definition in your UBR, but I didn't want to harp on using acronyms without defining them or referrences without citing them; this is, after all, just for fun.

Without that better definition, I'm stuck with "society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria". Every human being is an integral part of an almost infinite number of societies, from your family to your friends to your ethnicity and nationality. Its what a society is; you want it to mean something else, define it. Anyone who kills anyone is therefore exterminating a part of a society; by your definition, committing genocide.

The problem here is in two parts; first, you need to define what you mean by a society to encompass some larger group to qualify as genocide. How big is big enough? Heck, I don't know; I didn't say I thought this was easy, I just said I didn't agree with your answer. Does it matter how we've grouped them? If I kill a million people because of their religion is it genocide? How about if I kill a million people because of where they live, commonly known as a war? And if you mean people only, you'd better say so, because otherwise the environmentalists are going to have an absolute field day with this.

The second part of the problem is the use of the term"or part of a society". How big a part? I know you didn't /intend/ for this to include killing a single member of a society, but your definition includes it. I think the easiest way to deal with this is to simply say that genocide is wiping out the /entire/ group, and then make attempted genocide the crime you're persuing.

But if you read the first part - the systematic extermination - then the second part - murder, torture and so forth - then you see that has to be done as part of a systematic attempt to destroy the society.

Ah, but thats not what you said in the document! The document says genocide is systematic extermination of a society, and extermination includes rape, torture, etc. Which clearly means that systematic rape, torture, etc of a society with no intention of destroying the society is still genocide. Its not nice, but genocide it aint.

Again - read the words that are written, not what you think is there. If a private group (such as The Army Of The Powers) blows up Catriana High School and kills three hundred children, it is an act of terrorism, not genocide. However the government of TilEnca (in which Catriana is located) can ask The Panel to judge whether it should be classed as genocide, and tried under this proposal.

With respect mate, you read whats written, not what you meant to write. It says nothing about private groups having to be brought before the TPP by their own government, it only says that they can be brought before the TPP - which is exactly what happens to nations.

Unless termites are considered citizens of your nation, you can actually fumigate your house without any cause of genocide going on.

Now they have to be citizens, do they? Oh thats all right then; Nazi Germany disenfranchised the jews as citizens before it fired up the ovens, so they're safe.

- Sir Real.

I'd hardly call it randomly attacking your writing if I comment when you post a document on a public discussion forum. I welcome your rebuttal, and even look forward to some discussion, but if you can't handle some criticism then you've got the wrong hobby...


(ooc)
I will deal with the rest of this in a different post, but you are right about this. I didn't have a good day yesterday, and was in a bad mood. So - yeah - I am sorry about the way I phrased this.
(/ooc)

And if every single case is spelt out then what of the ones that are missing? The only alternative would be to say every single crime that is done against a group is genocide, when clearly that is not the case

If a case is found to be missing, you propose motions in the future to add those cases into the law (if passed). The law is an evolving process. Nobody is omniscient so we can't predict all motives, all crimes of the future.

I did read it. Nowhere in the rest of the document does it describe in any more detail what a "a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria" means, nor does it define the term UBR. I assume that this stands for some sort of Universal Bill of Rights? The closest that the UN actually has to such a document is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Bill of Rights, neither of which defines a society, much the less the trickier issue of what a "part" of a society is. Perhaps there is a better definition in your UBR, but I didn't want to harp on using acronyms without defining them or referrences without citing them; this is, after all, just for fun.


(The UBR is the Universal Bill Of Rights - one of the previous resolutions)

The implication was that anyone who is currently protected by the UBR is protected by this propsoal. And a society is just a lot of people. So all the elves in my nation would be part of the society of TilEnca - so killing them just because they are elves is not permitted. And to some extent killing people just because they are train spotters is not permitted either.

But putting someone in jail, away from their wife and kids - is permitted cause it's not covered by this.


Without that better definition, I'm stuck with "society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria". Every human being is an integral part of an almost infinite number of societies, from your family to your friends to your ethnicity and nationality. Its what a society is; you want it to mean something else, define it. Anyone who kills anyone is therefore exterminating a part of a society; by your definition, committing genocide.


Ok - I have explained why this reasoning is logically flawed a number of times, and quite honestly if people can not tell the difference between a single murder and the murder of two hundred thousand people there is not a lot I cna do about it.


The problem here is in two parts; first, you need to define what you mean by a society to encompass some larger group to qualify as genocide. How big is big enough? Heck, I don't know; I didn't say I thought this was easy, I just said I didn't agree with your answer. Does it matter how we've grouped them? If I kill a million people because of their religion is it genocide? How about if I kill a million people because of where they live, commonly known as a war? And if you mean people only, you'd better say so, because otherwise the environmentalists are going to have an absolute field day with this.


In the first case - yes, it's genocide. In the second case - a lot of that would depend on the way you did it. But if you kill a million civilians as part of a war, then you had better have a very good reason for doing it, since generally speaking civilians are not supposed to be targets.

And I covered the bit about humans (or sentients) already.


The second part of the problem is the use of the term"or part of a society". How big a part? I know you didn't /intend/ for this to include killing a single member of a society, but your definition includes it. I think the easiest way to deal with this is to simply say that genocide is wiping out the /entire/ group, and then make attempted genocide the crime you're persuing.


But if the society is TilEnca then killing only the elves would not be genocide cause they are only part of the society. And - if it can be defined as wiping out the entire group, how would you define "group"?



Ah, but thats not what you said in the document! The document says genocide is systematic extermination of a society, and extermination includes rape, torture, etc. Which clearly means that systematic rape, torture, etc of a society with no intention of destroying the society is still genocide. Its not nice, but genocide it aint.


I am sorry, but I disagree. If you are setting about inflicting massive amounts of damage (both physical and mental) on a specific group of people because you dislike them, then you are going to damage and, most likely, destroy the society.



With respect mate, you read whats written, not what you meant to write. It says nothing about private groups having to be brought before the TPP by their own government, it only says that they can be brought before the TPP - which is exactly what happens to nations.


You have lost me completely.

Genocide by the state must come before The Panel. There is no choice about it. You can not choose to deal with it on a national level, because it is an international crime.

If there is a claim that a private group (sich as the KKK) is committing genocide, then that can be brought before The Panel by the government of the nation in which it is happening. However it can be dealt with at a local (read : national) level without involving the international community. The reason this clause is here is because, personally, I do not believe that private groups to the nation should be dealt with on an international level - that genocide is committed only by the state - but there was a comment and a debate about it, so this was put in.



Now they have to be citizens, do they? Oh thats all right then; Nazi Germany disenfranchised the jews as citizens before it fired up the ovens, so they're safe.

I misspoke - forgive me :} If your nation considers termites "proected" under government law and UN law, then - as unlikely as it sounds - this would apply to them. However in order to prove that (for example if you wanted to bring "Dead Bugs R Us" before the panel, then you would have to show that what you are claiming is true, and that you have prosecuted people for murder when they stepped on a termite before.

On the international level I admit that is more complicated - I define elves as protected, but you might define them as food - and that would be for the panel to sort out.

Of course, you have to define people on how they live, where, and how their culture operates, not by your own standards. Where do most peoples standards come from ,at least in America? Society, and believe me, society can be very wrong sometimes.

Of course, you have to define people on how they live, where, and how their culture operates, not by your own standards. Where do most peoples standards come from ,at least in America? Society, and believe me, society can be very wrong sometimes.

If they can pass scientific ideals of alive, they are alive. If they can be tested and proven to be self-aware and capable of learning enough to have a society, they are sentient. Thus, the constant questions over whether humanity has societies or packs.

If they can pass scientific ideals of alive, they are alive. If they can be tested and proven to be self-aware and capable of learning enough to have a society, they are sentient. Thus, the constant questions over whether humanity has societies or packs.

How do you define alive? Would a society of sentient robots be considered alive?

Technically, of course, you couldn't say that, however, speaking in non-literal terms, a robot civilization is alive.

Technically, of course, you couldn't say that, however, speaking in non-literal terms, a robot civilization is alive.

Then what is the definition of alive?

Then what is the definition of alive?

I think if someone is speaking in "non-literal terms" then it doesn't really matter what the definition is. I could say (in non-literal terms) that robots are moose sweeping across the majestic plains of Higher Upper Middle GeminiLand. (Which would be a metaphor btw)

Then what is the definition of alive?
I would say that being alive is when you actually have a brain, and that it, in any level (this may be unconsciously) is aware of it's actions.

I must add that of course insects and organisms live without a brain, but on another level.

How do you define alive? Would a society of sentient robots be considered alive?
Didn't you have basic biology at school? :P

Biology attempts to answer the question scientifically, without resorting to philosophy or theology. Ultimately, science recognizes that a wholly biological answer is inadequate, and therefore, we try to characterize life rather than precisely define it.
What are the characteristics of life? There are a number of features that could be used to characterize life.


A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.
B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.
Are all seven of these essential characteristics? Some are debatable, such as item D. While it is definitely of adaptive value to have a stable internal environment, it is probably not absolutely essential. Small organisms tend to have a less stable internal environment than large organisms, yet they are definitely alive.

©1997 McGraw-Hill College Division

Hi TilEnca,

aside from all the debate about the definition of life, congratulations for an excellent resolution, which already has no chance to fail (currently some >14k FOR, some >3k against). Good work!

If I may be frank, I did not think that distinction needed making, because it's so bloody obvious.
What is bloody obvious to you today will be the legal loopholes used to lawers tomorrow!

GoatFeathers the Great

Better late than never I suppose.



Sorry. I guess I misunderstood, or didn't explain properly.



Yes. Or at least that is the intention behind the proposal. Banning abortion in and of itself it not an attempt or an act of genocide. However if the law banning it, or the order banning it, applies in such away that it would weaken or destroy part of the society that the order is applied to, then it could be considered asn act of genocide. If however it is just "you can't be having abortions no more" then that is not picking or attacking a specific group - it is just a law.



I do, and hopefully answered it above (I am doing this in a random order)



However it is a long phrase, and the proposal is two characters under the limit as it stands. And I think that the phrase "forced pregnancy" doesn't stand on it's own, but as a part of an article that says it must be done as part of a systematic attempt to wipe out the society.

I honestly believe that it will not be an issue.
Based on your response here, I will choose to trust both you and your greater knowledge of U.N. judgment application, and I will vote "YES" on this resolution.

Thank you for your attention to my concern.

P.S. - There's a "character limit" on resolutions?! That's good information to know.

Based on your response here, I will choose to trust both you and your greater knowledge of U.N. judgment application, and I will vote "YES" on this resolution.

Thank you for your attention to my concern.

P.S. - There's a "character limit" on resolutions?! That's good information to know.

The Convention started off at around 5000, which - it turns out - is around 1,500 too many. The original version was much more poetic and had a plot and.....

Ok - the original version was more wordy, and the words really didn't take anything away when they were gone (I wouldn't say they didn't add anything when they were there, but that is a judgement call)

Last UN Decision

The resolution The Eon Convention on Genocide was passed 15,001 votes to 3,139, and implemented in all UN member nations.

as was never in any doubt.. next up: "The law against murdurous torturing of little puppies"? (not many would read and vote against that either) :D

next up: "The law against murdurous torturing of little puppies"?
Nah. This one. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=379658)

Can I take this opportunity to say a big thank you to everyone who helped in the drafting of the original drafting of the proposal, and with the telegrams while it was on approval. And to everyone who debated it in this thread.

Thanks,
Toriella.

Didn't you have basic biology at school? :P

Actually, I have my bachelors degree in biology. I do know one thing is that science has no clear definition on life. If science could, we'd be able to agree if a human foetus is alive or not. But if we are to establish laws on defining what to do to genocide shouldn't we define what in a legal sense should be considered alive.


Biology attempts to answer the question scientifically, without resorting to philosophy or theology. Ultimately, science recognizes that a wholly biological answer is inadequate, and therefore, we try to characterize life rather than precisely define it.
What are the characteristics of life? There are a number of features that could be used to characterize life.

A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape. Within the ranges of normalcy, the billions of humans on earth all have pretty much a similar size and shape. It is true that some people are only four feet tall while others may tower as much as seven, but this still falls in the range of normalcy for humans. Besides, if normal, they all have two arms in the same place on the body, two legs in the same place, etc. A granite rockfall, on the other hand is quite different. The rocks are all of the same species, granite, but they vary widely in shape and size.


There's lots of creatures which are the same species but have different shapes and sizes. For example, a butterfly has different shapes, size and coloration based on its age. Another example would be the swan. Those are simple examples.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

That is wrong for several living creatures.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

Are you saying that the mule isn't alive?

I would say that being alive is when you actually have a brain, and that it, in any level (this may be unconsciously) is aware of it's actions.

I must add that of course insects and organisms live without a brain, but on another level.

Are you saying that plants, amoeba, starfish, sponges and bacteria aren't alive?

Now, to use this to provide why I consider AIs are sentient.

A. All the individuals of a given species tend to have a specific size and shape.

AIs tend to have a shape of being programming in a computer and an average size depending on the size of the computers supporting them.

B. All living things show growth. None, if healthy, stay the same size as when they were hatched, born, or subdivided.

They grow in size, processing power, etc.

C. All living things metabolize. That is, they all take in energy and they all in some way use energy to stay alive.

Okay, I shouldn't even have to state why this one applies.

D. All living things have a relatively homeostatic internal environment. That is, the conditions inside their bodies are relatively stable compared to the external environment.

Not true. All living things have a method by which their bodies are temperature controlled.

Using my correction, I shouldn't have to state why AIs fall under it. Keep in mind their bodies are the computers.

E. All living things reproduce. What's more, they reproduce their own kind, not something else.

In a surprising twist, one of the AIs my nation installed in an orbital platform divided itself into two programs. Since then, we have had a slowly-increasing population of AIs and they have figured out how to use factories to reproduce the computers needed.

F. All living things respond to environmental stimuli.

They have sensors that allow them to do so and have been observed to do so.

G. All living things adapt to a changing environment through evolutionary processes or they become extinct.

We have several AIs that have adapted and are improving the technology they are connected with as they grow and change. In fact, one AI is currently working on a way to upgrade the power systems of the orbital platforms to antimatter reactors in a much shorter time than projected while another is inventing plasma cannons to increase its defense. Also, one is actually considering reworking ship computers to use AIs so we don't have to rely on people all of the time, thus giving them another revenue of population increase.

Are you saying that the mule isn't alive?

Mules reproduce. There is now have scientific evidence of it. Originally, they were an unusual exception. Now, it is known mules can reproduce when mating with a donkey or a horse.

(ooc)
I will deal with the rest of this in a different post, but you are right about this. I didn't have a good day yesterday, and was in a bad mood. So - yeah - I am sorry about the way I phrased this.
(/ooc)

Apology accepted; and its big of you to admit it. I, in turn, apologise if I gave offence with my naturally sarcastic attitude.

- Sir Real.

But putting someone in jail, away from their wife and kids - is permitted cause it's not covered by this.
In what way aren't criminals a society or part of a society? Surely, grouping people by their behaviour (going to mosque, stealing stuff) or beliefs (Allah is good, I don't have to follow your laws) seems to be included in your definition. And since "extermination" includes "familial separation", then you have taken a society or part of society,delineated by its behaviour or beliefs, and attempted to exterminate them (and with, moreover, the express intent of actually wiping out that society.)

Now obviously I'm not saying that I think imprisoning criminals is the same thing as trying to wipe out religious people, but your definition of genocide doesn't sufficiently distinguish between the two.

Anyone who kills anyone is therefore exterminating a part of a society; by your definition, committing genocide.

Ok - I have explained why this reasoning is logically flawed a number of times, and quite honestly if people can not tell the difference between a single murder and the murder of two hundred thousand people there is not a lot I cna do about it.
Its not that I can't tell the difference, its that your definition can't. If I didn't disagree with a definition that can't tell the difference, we wouldn't be having this conversation... *wry smile*

depend on the way you did it. But if you kill a million civilians as part of a war, then you had better have a very good reason for doing it, since generally speaking civilians are not supposed to be targets.
I won't harp, but this is the same as the criminals. What? Your army isn't a society? Then I think you need a clearer definition of society that would exclude it, or else a subset of societies (soldiers, criminals) that its ok to try to wipe out. Most countries will balk at this in the real world, yet I actually find it perfectly suitable; if you (in a hypothetical sense; not accusing TilEnca of any such nonsense) are going to be so incredibly hypocritical as to say "killing indigenous people is obviously bad, but its ok for me to start wars and kill foreigners" then I think you at least ought to be up front enough about it to admit that thats what you're saying.

But if the society is TilEnca then killing only the elves would not be genocide cause they are only part of the society. And - if it can be defined as wiping out the entire group, how would you define "group"?
Precisely my point. Until you have a definition that makes it clear what sort of group constitutes genocide and what sort doesn't, you're saying that trying to exterminate ANY group is genocide, and I don't think thats what you mean.

I am sorry, but I disagree. If you are setting about inflicting massive amounts of damage (both physical and mental) on a specific group of people because you dislike them, then you are going to damage and, most likely, destroy the society.
But is it genocide to attempt to damage a society? We're going to get ourselves into a whole new can of worms if that is true. Teaching that the earth orbits the sun in schools clearly damages the society of religious nutjobs who think they're the centre of the universe. Mormon's on bicycles knocking on my door at 9am Sunday morning are clearly attempting to damage the society of athiests, not to mention the society of hang-over sufferers. I think I'd stick with genocide as actually trying to kill people, and pass some other - very explicit, very painful - laws about doorknocking sunday mornings.

If there is a claim that a private group (sich as the KKK) is committing genocide, then that can be brought before The Panel by the government of the nation in which it is happening. However it can be dealt with at a local (read : national) level without involving the international community.
Is there a whole different version of this proposal somewhere? That is not a sarcastic question; I really think we must be looking at two completely different documents. The one I've got says nothing at all about local governments having to be the ones to bring private groups before the panel, nor anything about them having the authority to overrule the panel within their own country; quite the opposite really. It just says that private groups can be brought before the panel. Presumably, because it doesn't say any differently, this can be done by anyone, and they are then treated exactly like a nation brought before the panel. I'm just going to apologise right now if I've somehow managed to get ahold of an outdated copy and this half of the discussion has been moot.

And yes, I realise that we - or at least I, still standing talking to myself in an empty room while the janitor sweeps up - are discussing something that has already passed. I'm happy to just drop it if you like, but I'm also enjoying the conversation...

- Sir Real.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I would just like to say what an honer it was to discuss with all of you this now great law. Perhaps we can soon begin planning for a new resolution.

I would like to thank everyone who participated, and who knows, perhaps this discussion will continue, with people still supporting and putting down the Eon Convention on Genocide.

-President of Laskon

As our nation's indigenous Hippos (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hippo) have been exterminated to probable extinction, we defy anyone to prosecute those responsible according to this new UN resolution. Let's see if it has teeth.

Although that is a terrible tradgedy, please look over to the pages where we spoke of sentinent genocide and non-sentinent genocide. The fact of the matter is, it was probably your governments fault in the first place. Its YOUR job to protect your OWN animals.

Whether Hippos were sentient or not is a moot point. It's difficult to ask them now that they are extinct. However, as several people managed long conversations with them and they sometimes posted on Internet messageboards (http://groups.msn.com/notf2b/yourwebpage1.msnw), it seems likely that they were sentient.

As for whether it is the government's fault, let's not start ascribing blame here. It's not going to bring back F2B's indigenous Hippos.

F2B, cut the flames. They're not called for.

Laskon, cut the harsh reaction. There is a way to tell him that that doesn't involve flames, and usually the person ends up feeling they made the mistake.

Anyway, F2B, you got samples of them? Pelts, furs, bones? If so, I can clone them and repopulate your country with them within a matter of two decades.

Although I don't believe my response was "harsh"


And F2B I really could care less about your little animals and your attitude problems, go complain somewhere else, or make a resolution to save animals, something useful instead of insulting me.

F2B, cut the flames. They're not called for.

Laskon, cut the harsh reaction. There is a way to tell him that that doesn't involve flames, and usually the person ends up feeling they made the mistake.

Anyway, F2B, you got samples of them? Pelts, furs, bones? If so, I can clone them and repopulate your country with them within a matter of two decades.

And here I was just starting to feel amused by this little charming dialog...

Yeah, DemonLordEnigma, stop spoiling our fun! Our next retort was going to be "Hey, Laskan, I could care less about your harsh responses. Why don't you write a resolution to ban shoelaces? It will save you learning how to tie them."

As for cloning, that's a good suggestion. But isn't it a solution to all genocides? Rather than prosecuting the culprits, we could clone the victims. Let's start working on a UN resolution to clone extinct tribes and a repeal of the far less practical Eon Convention on Genocide.

People like you amaze me, you try to turn this around and make me look like the bad guy by buddying up to the others. If your going to do something like that, do it somewhere else, other people may feel different, but your ability to snap and attack someone over small things wouldn't put you at the top of my list to make or talk about a resolution with.


Like he said however, the cloning process would take a long time, and you'd need a lot of well preserved samples...

People like you amaze me

Thank you.

Like he said however, the cloning process would take a long time, and you'd need a lot of well preserved samples...

Yes, to regain the genetic diversity of the Hippo group, we'd need a wide variety of samples from various specimens. However, our understanding is that we'd only need a single strand of DNA from each one, which would be obtainable at significant cost.

The Hippo was never a popular group, anyway, so we might just keep spending that money on rounding up, shooting and hanging poets, our national animal. Of course, some people consider poets to be sentient just as some considered the Hippo to be sentient, and thus subject to the Eon Convention on Genocide. However, we feel confident that the international community will continue to see things our way.

Poets are going the way the mime went, eh?


:eek: :mp5:


heheheh...