NationStates Jolt Archive

I realize that the title may turn some people off, but just hear me out:


NOTING that as this resolution was one of the original NSUN resolutions and therefore had no legislative paragon to follow, and

PRAISING the original resolution's determination to end slavery throughout the world, but

DEEPLY DISTURBED that the original resolution's wording outlaws the following:
1) Any police officer arresting a domestic criminal or suspect;
2) Any type of prison system whatsoever;
3) Any type of criminal suspect surveillance;
4) Any quarantine for the purpose of controlling epidemics, hereby:

REPEALS United Nations Resolution #6 "End Slavery" with the full purpose of replacement with a more specific, practical, and enforceable resolution.



Trust me, this isn't some underhanded scheme to reintroduce slavery into the world. I just think that it would be nice if nations could have a prison system without violating UN law.

End slavery


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Monocerous

Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.

- The right to own possessions.

- The right to travel freely throughout their country.

- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.

- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

Votes For: 6939

Votes Against: 1753

Implemented: Tue Jan 21 2003


I would disagree with your premise - this clearly refers to the act of slavery, and so the actions relate to people who are bought and sold. I can't see how it relates to law enforcement activities, but if you can explain it further....

You can easily justify exceptions to these rights for criminals without repeal.

(A RL comparison would be that the US constitution guarantees the right to bear arms, and yet it is not deemed unconstitutional to deny prisoners guns)

The original resolution guarantees those rights to "all peoples." If it had worded it to say "all citizens," then I would be fine. The reason constitutional conflicts don't exist in your USA example is that criminals are considered to have lowered citizenship status.

Honestly, I don't think that there's any problem with fudging such a subtle technicality to produce the result that is clearly what was intended.