NationStates Jolt Archive

this is the same that i proposed yesterday, with a few edits, most of which came from commentary about my proposal. More commentary is sought.

Items which have been changed from my original proposal are in RED

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

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 Nation may retaliate in any manner against any person or their family 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, nor does it prohibit government from punishing actions which are legally prohibited in that nation by laws that are in compliance with all UN regulations.

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), or any member(s) of that individual's family, in a less advantageous position than a similarly situated individual/family 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


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

NOTE: THE MOST RECENT DRAFT OF THIS PROPOSAL IS FOUND AT POST #35 ON PAGE 3 OF THIS THREAD

scrap "against any person or their family", that just clears the whole thing up and there's no retaliation against anyone whatsoever, family or not.

i could do that

would anyone have any objection about broadening the scope of the act in that way?

that last clause is problematic. i foresee people claiming they're gay or something and using that clause to claim that pre-existing policies are discriminatory and their children should now have redress in terms of college acceptance or scholarships or something. I could come up with 20 hypotheticals given half an hour.

and i'm not sure i support broadening it beyond the person and their immediate family. that would allow some sleazy lawyer to claim that the government is retaliating against a whole ethnic group, or a whole industry, because of the actions of one person.

nope, i'm sure i don't support broadening it beyond the person and their immediate family. in fact, "family" is too broad - this shouldn't be about second cousins once removed.

so you're saying that when I use a UN right, but this resolution doesn't allow my nation to strike back on me personally, they should be able to strike back on relatives instead? Or inhabitants of my community?
Cause that's exactly what would happen.

so you're saying that when I use a UN right, but this resolution doesn't allow my nation to strike back on me personally, they should be able to strike back on relatives instead? Or inhabitants of my community?
Cause that's exactly what would happen.
Yes. I'm saying that's preferable to opening up the can of worms of not limiting it to the individual and immediate family.

you do understand what I'm saying right?

If I use a UN right the government can't harm me or my close relatives, but they can arrest everybody in my street to retaliate... oh yeah, that seems right?!?

how about including a definition of family that includes only the following:

husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, and any-of-the-above-in-law

you do understand what I'm saying right?

If I use a UN right the government can't harm me or my close relatives, but they can arrest everybody in my street to retaliate... oh yeah, that seems right?!?

I'm with Tackisistan on this one; retaliation should be prohibited, period. Irrespecitve of the subject of retaliation.

In fact, I wonder if "retaliation" itself is a violation of Due Process rights guaranteed elsewhere in the roll of enacted resolutions.

how about including a definition of family that includes only the following:

husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, and any-of-the-above-in-law

What about a fiancee? how about adoptions? Godparents?

i don't believe it violates already-established rights.

or, if it does, it only does so in cases of fines or incarceration, whereas this would affect all governmental actions that could be taken in retaliation. We have to realize that a government can impact someones lives in far more ways than just criminally punishing them, and as it stands now, a government can retaliate pretty forcefully against a person without starting any court proceeding that would call due process rights into play.

or friends? or other people you don't want to be harmed?

you do understand what I'm saying right?

If I use a UN right the government can't harm me or my close relatives, but they can arrest everybody in my street to retaliate... oh yeah, that seems right?!?
I understand completely and agree.

But I think it opens a huge loophole for people to challenge any government policy they don't like if the scope is not tightly restricted.

Perfect is the enemy of better, and all that.

What about a fiancee? how about adoptions? Godparents?

personally, i don't believe it should necessarily be limited to family, but i'm perfectly willing to limit it in that way if that's what people want.

Can anyone think of another limiting factor that could address ashelmetta's concerns?

how about including a definition of family that includes only the following:

husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, granddaughter, brother, sister, and any-of-the-above-in-law
self, spouse, child, parent, sibling.

but that's just my 2 bits.

This is crazy! why limit that? Retaliation is BAD in every case, no need to "limit" the protection against it to only a few people.

This is crazy! why limit that? Retaliation is BAD in every case, no need to "limit" the protection against it to only a few people.

Again, Tackisistan reads the Cascadian mind. I also say that retaliation should be prohibted.

We need to ask if this is a deal breaker for people... or if people are willing to accept a "no retaliation, period" clause.

looking back at ashalmetta's original post, it looks like he is concerned about this being used as a tool by entire classes - industry, large minorities, etc.

what if we limited it to: retaliation against the individual themselves and others because of their personal relationship with the individual?

that seems to take care of it being used as a tool by classes, and it makes a personal relationship between the individual exercising their rights and the affected individual a necessary part of pleading a case of retaliation. I think that addresses ashelmetta's concerns without strictly limiting it to family

that still allows other retaliation which is totally unnecessary.
I don't understand your choice here, you can erradicate all retaliation but you won't allow it...

actually - i don't think i want people to have their places of business retaliated against for their claiming of human rights either.

that still allows other retaliation which is totally unnecessary.
I don't understand your choice here, you can erradicate all retaliation but you won't allow it...

if i can get passed a total non-retaliation statute, i'd love to.

actually - i don't think i want people to have their places of business retaliated against for their claiming of human rights either.

There you have it. Asshelmetta's concerns should be addressed whatever the wording because a plaintiff will have to show that the retaliation was caused by someone's attempt to exercise their rights.

It's this causation element that should be the limiting factor here; it should not matter who the government retaliates against. Causation is the cleanest and most prinicpled way to limit this resolution.

believe me, it's not a thing anyone will fall over. They're more likely to fall over the fact that you limit it.

There you have it. Asshelmetta's concerns should be addressed whatever the wording because a plaintiff will have to show that the retaliation was caused by someone's attempt to exercise their rights.

It's this causation element that should be the limiting factor here; it should not matter who the government retaliates against. Causation is the cleanest and most prinicpled way to limit this resolution.

i agree with that.

so i'll remove the family-only language and strengthen the causation language so as to make that clearer.

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 Nation may retaliate in any manner against any person or corporation for the exercize of any UN-recognized civil right, political right, or other individual right, by that person or another person.

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, nor does it prohibit government from punishing actions which are legally prohibited in that nation by laws that are in compliance with all UN regulations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for the purposes of this act, Retaliation is defined as: Any governmental action which is taken in response to an individual's exercise of UN-Guaranteed human rights, and which places the affected person or corporation in a less advantageous position than they would have been but for the individual's exercise of their civil rights . Retaliation includes, but is not limited to: incarceration, fines, deportation, denial of an opportunity to compete fairly for government contracts, and the denial of benefits to which the individual would otherwise be entitled

looks fine :) but perhaps a last remark

you could change Corporation to organisation, that way also non-corporative organisations count, organisations also includes corporations.

looks fine :) but perhaps a last remark

you could change Corporation to organisation, that way also non-corporative organisations count, organisations also includes corporations.

I agree with Tackisistan again! (Although, to make the draft clear that corporations are also covered, I might say, "person, organization, or corporation.").

And I would also say that I very much like the new edited version. It protects personal as well as economic interests. Both are interests which might be used to coerce a citizen.

I'll put Cascadia's language in for the next draft

other comments?

I think that's about as good as it'll get, nice piece of work!

I think that's about as good as it'll get, nice piece of work!

still, i'll leave this up for a couple days still, see if anybody else cares to weigh in on that or any other issues they might see with regard to this

I really would remove any stated limitations about retaliation. I know it makes it open to abuse, but if you limit who the government can strike back against, then there is a danger that governments will find ways to retaliate without breaking the rules.

But that's just me :}
(I mean that's just my opinion, not that is what I would do - sorry)

I really would remove any stated limitations about retaliation. I know it makes it open to abuse, but if you limit who the government can strike back against, then there is a danger that governments will find ways to retaliate without breaking the rules.

But that's just me :}
(I mean that's just my opinion, not that is what I would do - sorry)

i think that's pretty close to the resolution we came up with, unless you see any limitations in the current proposal you think should be removed.

I think any persons/organizations/corporations fairly sums it up, if they would indirectly target them they would still be retaliating on those persons, organizations or corporations, so eiter this or nothing at all would be about the same.

would anyone vote against the resolution as it stands right now?

if so, why?

Just reposting the current draft... leaving the editing color from the last one because those changes are recent enough...

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

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 Nation may retaliate in any manner against any person, organization, or corporation for the exercize of any UN-recognized civil right, political right, or other individual right, by that person or another person.

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, nor does it prohibit government from punishing actions which are legally prohibited in that nation by laws that are in compliance with all UN regulations.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for the purposes of this act, Retaliation is defined as: Any governmental action which is taken in response to an individual's exercise of UN-Guaranteed human rights, and which places the affected person, organization, or corporation in a less advantageous position than they would have been but for the individual's exercise of their civil rights . Retaliation includes, but is not limited to: incarceration, fines, deportation, denial of an opportunity to compete fairly for government contracts, and the denial of benefits to which the individual would otherwise be entitled.

I only really have a comment about style, rather than substance.

At some points you are saying "UN guarunteed individual right" and at others "UN guarunteed civil, political or individual right" (and you are probably spelling guarunteed properly when you do it) - it does sometimes make for confusing reading.

However, to me, that would not be a reason to vote against it. I just thought I would mention it :}

(Also - where it mentions legally prohibited thingies - I would suggest changing "UN regulations" to "UN resolutions" - just because resolutions sounds far less governmental than regulations, and it might put some people off who feel the UN has too much power already. But psycho-linguistics is not my field of expertese and I could be really wrong about that last part)

i was thinking that the category of "individual rights" comprised civil rights as well as political rights.... so i should say say "civil, political, and OTHER individual rights."

i will include that at the next edit

i will also change "regulations" to "resolutions" - that was just a mistake in typing on my part

bump - anyone else have anything to say?

Wow. A resolution that is well-worded, addresses an important issue, and whose author accepted suggestions and criticism? Is this the same NationStates I know and love? Seriously though, kudos to you. This is the best resolution I have read in a long time. As I am a regional delegate and must first consult my region's member nations, I cannot pledge my vote just yet. However, I can pledge my fullest support in doing everything I can to get the resolution passed.

I have one complaint you haven't addressed: Has it been submitted yet? If not, submit.

i submitted an earlier version of it - before i got all the commentary about it

i'm going to wait until that one expires (on wednesday) before submitting this one, so as to avoid confusion between the two. Until then, i'll leave it open for commentary

bump one more time before submission

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


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 or any persons or entities that they care about, 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 Nation may retaliate in any manner against any person, organization, or corporation for the exercize of any UN-recognized civil right, political right, or other individual right, by that person or another person.

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, nor does it prohibit government from punishing actions which are legally prohibited in that nation by laws that are in compliance with all UN resolutions.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, for the purposes of this act, Retaliation is defined as: Any governmental action which is taken in response to an individual's exercise of UN-Guaranteed human right(s), and which places the affected person, organization, or corporation in a less advantageous position than they would have been but for the individual's exercise of their human right(s) . Retaliation includes, but is not limited to: incarceration, fines, deportation, denial of an opportunity to compete fairly for government contracts, and the denial of benefits to which the individual, organization, or corporation would otherwise be entitled.

This is an absolutely wonderful proposal! Thank you for taking the time to have the vision to conceptualize the idea, make a concrete draft, discuss it with your fellow members, and redraft a great proposal.

I truly wish this proposal (and its author) the best!

Thanks again. The UN will be a better place with fine resolutions like this on the books.