NationStates Jolt Archive

the following proposal has been submitted, and is currently at the end of the list of proposals

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Hum Rights NonRetaliation Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

SEEING that most UN resolutions which guarantee indvidual rights do not include guarantees that a nation will not retaliate against an individual who seeks to exercise those rights.

UNDERSTANDING that an individual is far less likely to choose to exercise a UN-guaranteed individual right, or contest a violation thereof, if they fear that to do so would subject them to retaliation by their government

EXPRESSING CONCERN that a government may in this way deter an individual from exercising an individual right which the UN has guaranteed.

BE IT RESOLVED that no UN Member Institution may retaliate in any manner against any person for the exercize of any UN-recognized civil right, political right, or other individual right.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this act does not prohibit governmental retaliation for the exercise of any right which is not guaranteed by the UN.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for the purposes of this act, Retaliation is defined as: Any governmental action which places the individual who seeks to exercise their individual right(s) in a less advantageous position than a similarly situated individual who chose not to exercise the individual right(s) in question. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to: incarceration, fines, deportation, and the denial of benefits to which the individual would otherwise be entitled.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I ask for your support in approving this proposal so that we may better guarantee the human rights that the UN already recognizes from governments who may wish to deter their people from exercising those rights.

The People's Republic of Skinzania

Can you give me an example where this would be an issue? I am not seeing a need for this at the moment, but I might be missing something obvious!

For instance, unless this is passed, a nation could discriminate in its social welfare programs against citizens who assert their rights under the sexual freedom act or the fair trial act, or any of the other human rights acts that this body has adopted

this act would make in impermissible to discriminate against citizens who assert their rights in any way.

I could give examples from the real world, but i know that is frowned upon here.

Actually, in this case it may be relevant. If you can find an example that allows those freedoms but discriminates against people who practice them, post. It may help your point.

generally - this is not a problem in countries that actually recognize the civil rights - it is more a problem in countries that proclaim to recognize the rights but make life very difficult for any citizen who attempts to assert the right.

As such, this act would aid enforcement of the other human rights proposals that the UN has already adopted, and may continue to adopt, in that countries will not be able to attempt to discourage people from adopting those rights.

the way it stands now, a country could:

Allow euthanasia, but decree that any person who dies via euthanasia forfeits his right to decide what happens with his possessions after death.

Allow gay marriages, but decree that heterosexual couples have preference in adopting children.

Allow a criminal defendant to take the stand in his own defense, but increase his eventual conviction by 50% if he does.

Allow a person to practice his religion freely, but deny him a government educational scholarship which he would otherwise be entitled to because he does so - this last one is a real life incident that happened in the state of Washington, and which last year the US Supreme Court declared is constitutional.

I will continue to look for other examples from real life.

generally - this is not a problem in countries that actually recognize the civil rights - it is more a problem in countries that proclaim to recognize the rights but make life very difficult for any citizen who attempts to assert the right.

As such, this act would aid enforcement of the other human rights proposals that the UN has already adopted, and may continue to adopt, in that countries will not be able to attempt to discourage people from adopting those rights.

the way it stands now, a country could:

Allow euthanasia, but decree that any person who dies via euthanasia forfeits his right to decide what happens with his possessions after death.

Allow gay marriages, but decree that heterosexual couples have preference in adopting children.

Allow a criminal defendant to take the stand in his own defense, but increase his eventual conviction by 50% if he does.

Allow a person to practice his religion freely, but deny him a government educational scholarship which he would otherwise be entitled to because he does so - this last one is a real life incident that happened in the state of Washington, and which last year the US Supreme Court declared is constitutional.

I will continue to look for other examples from real life.

Not to sound like an evil dictator, but what if you know that - for example in the criminal/defence thing - that would be the case? You can't be retaliating against someone if they already know that if they try to do something, they will have some sort of punishment levied against them.

(Mostly this is Lucy's Advocate stuff - I just want to see what the arguement is).

i'm not sure that i understand the question.

the point of the criminal defense scenario i proposed is this:

the government does not want its criminal defendants to take the stand in their own defense, but the UN says they must. So the government says: Criminal Defendants can take the stand, but if they do, and are subsequently convicted, their time of incarceration and/or fine will be increased by 50%.

You could see this getting through a legislature that was thinking "well, we don't need guilty people taking the stand and telling a cock-and-bull story to get themselves off - so let's make it so that only innocent people have the motivation to take the stand"

to do so would be to pressure criminal defendants to give up their right to a fair trial, by retaliating against them if they choose to exercise it.

i just re-read your question and i understand it now

that would still be retaliation under the definition of retaliation that i put forth in the proposal.

This is not so much an attack on the idea of the proposal, just some suggestions about clarity and phrasing. Feel free to ignore them :}


the following proposal has been submitted, and is currently at the end of the list of proposals

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name: Hum Rights NonRetaliation Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

SEEING that most UN resolutions which guarantee indvidual rights do not include guarantees that a nation will not retaliate against an individual who seeks to exercise those rights.


This part indicates it is a nation that is doing the retaliating. Is that the government of the nation, or the people? (The reason for this question will become apparent later)


UNDERSTANDING that an individual is far less likely to choose to exercise a UN-guaranteed individual right, or contest a violation thereof, if they fear that to do so would subject them to retaliation by their government


Ah - the government is the one doing the retaliating?


EXPRESSING CONCERN that a government may in this way deter an individual from exercising an individual right which the UN has guaranteed.


Understandable :}


BE IT RESOLVED that no UN Member Institution may retaliate in any manner against any person for the exercize of any UN-recognized civil right, political right, or other individual right.


This is where I wanted clarification. A UN Member Institution could be anything. A library, a music club, a government agency - anything within a UN Member nation. So my questions from before were pointed towards this - does this apply only to governments within nations, or does it prevent other bodies from retaliating as well? (I don't know if there would be a problem in either case, but I would like to be sure!)

(Also - for the sake of it reading better, could I suggest "BE IT RESOLVED that no institution in a UN Member Nation may.....")

Also - does putting someone in jail count as retalition? For example I am sure that somewhere free speach and expression is defined as a right by the UN, but there are some circumstances where that is a crime (blowing up a building can be seen as freedom of expression, as does writing "TORIELLA BLOWS DEAD MONKEYS" on a wall, but I would like to arrest people who do blow things up or deface public property)


BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for the purposes of this act, Retaliation is defined as: Any governmental action which places the individual who seeks to exercise their individual right(s) in a less advantageous position than a similarly situated individual who chose not to exercise the individual right(s) in question. Retaliation includes, but is not limited to: incarceration, fines, deportation, and the denial of benefits to which the individual would otherwise be entitled.


Okay - it does include jail. So I am going to have to make a suggestion that somewhere in this whole thing you put something about the action being legal. So that the courts will not be filled with people who damage property claiming it was freedom of expression and my government is guilty of retaliation.

I know - it would seem like common sense that this proposal would not be able to justifty acting outside the law, but you would be surprised how common sense is actually neither in the NSUN.


Again - I totally agree with the proposal - it makes sense. There are just one or two niggles I have with it before I could give if my full support.

Although King Solomon of Cascadia Atlanticus took a long pause when he first realized how much this would broaden the scope of UN supervision of the members states, he nevertheless feels that this provision is necessary to create a robust respect of civil rights throughout all the nations of the UN.

Therefore, His Excellency would support this draft, should it come to the floor.

i just re-read your question and i understand it now

that would still be retaliation under the definition of retaliation that i put forth in the proposal.

Fair enough. I was just checking :}

is there a way i can edit my proposal?

i fully agree that the action should be legal for this to apply, and this should be restricted to UN member nations

is there a way i can edit my proposal?

i fully agree that the action should be legal for this to apply, and this should be restricted to UN member nations
If you can edit it, maybe you could fix the name.

"Hum Rights Non-Retaliation Act"?

it wouldn't let me add a single letter more to the name

oh, and yes. i think i will support it.

it wouldn't let me add a single letter more to the name
"Human Rights Non-Retaliation"

Doesn't make a catchy acronym, but your can't have everything, I guess.

HRNA almost looks like it should be pronounced "hernia", which isn't all that positive an association anyway.

actually - i don't think the law as written protects non-legal actions due to the language:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this act does not prohibit governmental retaliation for the exercise of any right which is not guaranteed by the UN.

i would presume that all non-legal actions would not be rights guaranteed by the UN - otherwise the nation has other problems with the UN

i couldn't find any way to edit the proposal

First you discuss it here, to get format/language/operative edits, then you submit it.

Usually, that's the better way to go.

forgive me, i'm relatively new

alright - why don't we let this one expire...

then i'll resubmit it once we work all the kinks out...

sound good?

Yeah - it is about the only way.