NationStates Jolt Archive

So here's the old thread: [http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390008]. Allow me a moment to get a copy of the proposal at its current status and post it.


Right to Self-Protection

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Texan Hotrodders

Description:

NOTICING that there are persons who, individually or collectively, willingly cause harm to other persons.

RECOGNIZING that such persons engage in acts of violence which are harmful to both sovereign individuals and societies.

URGES member nations to enact the following:

1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.


Approvals: 27 (Venerable libertarians, Killtron, Ronamiana, Zhukhistan, North Central America, Romania-, NewTexas, Flibbleites, Gaiah, Wurttenburg, Sandra DeMaret, Robbopolis, Kubersland, WZ Forums, Boston, Melmond, Iznogoud, La Commune Quebecoise, Monadnock, Cihlar, The Kingsland, Nihilanarkovnia, Luther Dorms, The kevinngzh, Free Garza, La Tropicana, Loose Nuts)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 119 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Fri Feb 11 2005

Description: NOTICING that there are persons who, individually or collectively, willingly cause harm to other persons. How you define "harm"? phisical harm? spirtual harm? psychic harm? if anybody could say "he harm my feelings, let me shoot him" this will be disaster.

RECOGNIZING that such persons engage in acts of violence which are harmful to both sovereign individuals and societies.

I could ask you again: which kind of violence you aim? depite that I ask you: why you think states should let citizens response, when they could tell the police/army/goverment/choose your favorite.



URGES member nations to enact the following:

1. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend their person or their legally obtained property from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

2. All persons have the right to use reasonable force to defend other persons or the legally obtained property of other persons from imminent or current unlawful assaults.

did you mean reponse violence in other violence?
that way you will came very close to gang fights.
while you aren't tell what is violence, harm or reasonable force this proposal is way too vague.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PS- if you can copy your proposal from the previous thread, I can do the same with my post, since the proposal suffer from the same problems.

<snip>

The time for debating the proposal is kinda over. Finis. Terminada.

I think that would turn out to be a total disaster,

"How you define "harm"? phisical harm? spirtual harm? psychic harm? if anybody could say "he harm my feelings, let me shoot him" this will be disaster."

lol that is probably what will happen with many people.

I think that would turn out to be a total disaster,

"How you define "harm"? phisical harm? spirtual harm? psychic harm? if anybody could say "he harm my feelings, let me shoot him" this will be disaster."

lol that is probably what will happen with many people.

You do understand the concept of "reasonable force"? I take it?

Different people have different definitions of "reasonable force." Mine is "cockroaches can survive it."

The time for debating the proposal is kinda over. Finis. Terminada.
yes, the same arguments. maybe you should at least explain your goal (and proposal writing), before you try to ignore my comments, or even try (although you sure there is no problem) improve it?

yes, the same arguments. maybe you should at least explain your goal (and proposal writing), before you try to ignore my comments, or even try (although you sure there is no problem) improve it?

I originally brought this to the UN for discussion many months ago, and my purpose and my stance was quite clear at the time. There is only a small minority of people who are opposed to this proposal on the grounds that it lacks specificity, and since I can't please everyone, I'm not going to change it any further.

I originally brought this to the UN for discussion many months ago, and my purpose and my stance was quite clear at the time. There is only a small minority of people who are opposed to this proposal on the grounds that it lacks specificity, and since I can't please everyone, I'm not going to change it any further.
I understand it, but since your proposal can't get majority, maybe you should try to explain it to me as one who wasn't here when the original thread occured.
correct me if I wrong, but even the best never stop to improve themselves. all I wish is to get an answer even if you didn't like my comments (or you answer them to someone else). you realised that your goal is to convince people, are you?

I understand it, but since your proposal can't get majority, maybe you should try to explain it to me as one who wasn't here when the original thread occured.
correct me if I wrong, but even the best never stop to improve themselves. all I wish is to get an answer even if you didn't like my comments (or you answer them to someone else). you realised that your goal is to convince people, are you?

Not to speak for another member nation, but I have seen a more precise version of what he was suggesting, and it was terrifying. It took all the choice out of the hands of the people, made breaking and entering a capital offence and some of it was a lot scarier than that!

This proposal leaves it in the hands of the nations, and just as importantly it does not rule out involving law courts in the decisions (a serious flaw in the other one).

But anyway - I don't wish to speak for someone else :}

I understand it, but since your proposal can't get majority, maybe you should try to explain it to me as one who wasn't here when the original thread occured.
correct me if I wrong, but even the best never stop to improve themselves. all I wish is to get an answer even if you didn't like my comments (or you answer them to someone else). you realised that your goal is to convince people, are you?

Fair enough. Basically my argument against using specific language is this:

Nations have wildly differing cultures and laws/justice systems. Justice systems/laws that are appropriate for one culture or nation might be ineffective or harmful in another. If I were to make very specific provisions that are appropriate for a particular culture, I would likely be harming another culture where such provisions would be unnecessary or harmful.

For example, in my nation we simply have no laws, as everyone generally behaves themselves. If I were to make specific definitions and laws I would be making unnecessary laws in my nation and in countless other anarchist nations.

Furthermore, some nations have laws that are in place to control a very violent populace. In these nations, I could cause irreparable damage (if I were to go on defining and specifying) by eliminating all loopholes for that nation to get through. Such nations need loopholes in this case because without them violence would increase as the UN resolution was abused by citizens wanting to get vengeance at their neighbors.

OOC: Sorry I had to go before I endorsed this but I have done now.

Fair enough. Basically my argument against using specific language is this:

Nations have wildly differing cultures and laws/justice systems. Justice systems/laws that are appropriate for one culture or nation might be ineffective or harmful in another. If I were to make very specific provisions that are appropriate for a particular culture, I would likely be harming another culture where such provisions would be unnecessary or harmful.

For example, in my nation we simply have no laws, as everyone generally behaves themselves. If I were to make specific definitions and laws I would be making unnecessary laws in my nation and in countless other anarchist nations.

Furthermore, some nations have laws that are in place to control a very violent populace. In these nations, I could cause irreparable damage (if I were to go on defining and specifying) by eliminating all loopholes for that nation to get through. Such nations need loopholes in this case because without them violence would increase as the UN resolution was abused by citizens wanting to get vengeance at their neighbors.
well, that something I could agree with. differnt cultures, different views, my nation just take the regulating way and it will be fine.
at least in my nation, I could limit and clearified the proposal?

I was wondering how an anti-gun control proposal had gotten over 100 approvals.

Good work Texas; I'll go approve it too.

Approved, if for no other reason than it looks interesting and I believe that it would make for good debate.

well, that something I could agree with. differnt cultures, different views, my nation just take the regulating way and it will be fine.
at least in my nation, I could limit and clearified the proposal?

You certainly could.

No need to use imminent assault. Assault is a volitional, unauthorized, act done with the intent to place someone in reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive touching, coupled with the perceived ability to carry it out. (i.e. Harmful or offensive touching is imminent, and tortfeasor has the ability to cause the touching.)

Also, I would distinguish more between person and property. I did not catch this earlier, but it is hard to assault property. Perhaps reasonable force against trespassers/intermeddlers.

No need to use imminent assault. Assault is a volitional, unauthorized, act done with the intent to place someone in reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive touching, coupled with the perceived ability to carry it out. (i.e. Harmful or offensive touching is imminent, and tortfeasor has the ability to cause the touching.)

Also, I would distinguish more between person and property. I did not catch this earlier, but it is hard to assault property. Perhaps reasonable force against trespassers/intermeddlers.

Ummm...I appreciate the conceptual distinctions but it's rather late in the game to make changes... ;)

Your proposal expires any minute now, and you only have 118.

You should resubmit, taking into account some of the comments on this thread.
Once you resubmit, email these people and ask them to approve one more time (be nice, and tell them what page it's on too):

Approvals: 118 (Venerable libertarians, Ronamiana, Zhukhistan, North Central America, Romania-, NewTexas, Flibbleites, Gaiah, Wurttenburg, Sandra DeMaret, Robbopolis, Kubersland, WZ Forums, Boston, Melmond, Iznogoud, La Commune Quebecoise, Monadnock, Cihlar, The Kingsland, Nihilanarkovnia, The kevinngzh, Free Garza, La Tropicana, Loose Nuts, Zapvilla, Yelda, Pottervillia, Mikeswill, SSsEva, Luna Amore, Malagassia, Leothan, JayRoddia, Aston, New Cyberia, Mazinopolis, Constitutionals, Ophainia, Grays Harbor, The New 100 Donuts, Kadield, Theorb, Kandarin, Novostrano, Belaren, The Real Freedonia, Danubium, Nova Capitalia, Joven, Elomeras, The Bruce, Archoz, Suomen Turku, VirginIncursion, Hargrimmia, Melloway, Kaisereis, James Ellis, Neo-Pangaea, Forbsana, Trois Pont, Arro Gance, Palteau, JCJC, Cav, DarkJediX, Zadomians, Origins Returned, Greater Kamigawa, Team America World Cop, A Tortured Mind, Shaolindo, Great Maldovaria, Francaden, Loafsville, Euston, The lands Of Mann, Kemdoph, Grevanda, Awesomelandvania, The Black New World, Tartanzania, Mandaroonie, Klashonite, Sam99978, Dizziness, Bighead63656, Adam Island, Darkwater9, Cofer, Kreitzmoorland, The Elysian HolyEmpire, Amerieurostralia, Christinkitink, New Secundus, Cockeysville, Blijia, The-holy-grail, Czech Minutemen, Asshelmetta, Krioval, Bursch Kov, Metal Poets, Xqm, Cranberry Lambic Isles, The Talisman, The Wild Cards, Svezchlach, Andyman123456, Anti-Margarine, Honesty X, Erroneous Errol Island, Hussaini, Outlawed Pandas, Communist Socialists M, Baribeau, P-40Aces)

I will defenatly continue to approve this proposal until it reaches quorum.

It had 120 endorsements last I checked before it was automatically removed from the queue. *sigh*

Try try again.

You certainly could.
enough for me. if you bring it to the vote, I guess I will be for it.

Did you resubmit?

I don't see it on the proposal queue.

Did you resubmit?

I don't see it on the proposal queue.

I'll resubmit Monday morning.

since this proposal is 13 endoresments far from getting to the floor, I think some debate could be good.
this is good proposal and it should known better.

I have a question how to you approve a propesl?

I have a question how to you approve a propesl?

First, you need to be a Regional Delegate. Then you can click "approve" underneath a proposal that you would like to approve. If you're not a Regional Delegate, consider asking your delegate to approve the proposal.

Approvals: 139

Status: Lacking Support (requires 5 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Feb 17 2005
Oh! So! Close!

Huh? It reached Quorum about 20 minutes ago. :)

Huh? It reached Quorum about 20 minutes ago. :)
:fluffle:
Congratulations!

Woohoo...
Congrats Texan!

Good job guys. Best of luck.

Thanks! Now I just have to nurse my sore telegramming arm and wait for the vote. :)

I believe (and hope) this resolution passes easily.

I glad that proposal get it.
if the rewriting of the global library will pass too, it going to be busy period in the UN

My aprooval of this still stands,

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia.

Belated congratulations, Mr Jones.

I'm concerned about this, and won't be voting for it. It says people can use reasonable force to defend themselves from imminent or current assualts. No problem with that, but...

In the event of an 'imminent assualt' how will people be able to proove this? What I mean is, if an assualt is deemed imminent, it means that it is suspected but hasn't actually happened. Clearly, this proposal is suggesting that it is okay to apply force to individuals suspected, but who have not actually carried out an assualt. This could lead to a lot of innocent people getting hurt, don't you think?

There is nothing in the resolution that addresses this point.

It's a valid point, but I think the provision for 'reasonable force' relates to the reasonableness of believing an assault was imminent as well. To illustrate, consider imminent to be

'a menace of violence, with a present ability to commit it. The menace must either be accompanied by an intention to commit the violence or must raise an actual fear of violence in the mind of the person threatened.' (E&W tort of assault)

Ie you have reasonable belief to fear being punched/stabbed/shot etc AT THE TIME you can have recourse to pre-emptive self-defence.

I don't want this proposal to fail on misinterpretation, so hope that helps to clarify at least as far as I understand the wording. Although the proposer should maybe confirm this position.

Mickey.

Congratulations, Texan! Now let's see what happens at the vote.

I'm concerned about this, and won't be voting for it. It says people can use reasonable force to defend themselves from immemnent or current assualts. No problem with that, but...

In the event of an 'immemnet assualt' how will people be able to proove this? What I mean is, if an assualt is deemed immemnet, it means that it is suspected but hasn't actually happened. Clearly, this proposal is suggesting that it is okay to apply force to individuals suspected, but who have not actually carried out an assualt. This could lead to a lot of innocent people getting hurt, don't you think?

There is nothing in the resolution that addresses this point.

It seems (and I by no means am the "definitive" authority) that if it isn't spelled out in the resolution it would be up to nations to decide independently. Compliance in member nations is performed strictly on the content of the resolutions passed, not on intention of proposer, proposal opponents, peripheral documents, et al. If you find problems with the cateorization of an "imminent assault", your nation can set up whatever system it likes (I think) to judge between cases of imminent assault and non-imminent assault.

I personally like this, not because I want to abuse it (not at all, I wish Texanhotrodders the warmest congratulations), but becuase I think it allows nations honest leeway in their individual cases, rather than having pedantry dictated them from a far-removed, insensitive source.

It's a valid point, but I think the provision for 'reasonable force' relates to the reasonableness of believing an assault was imminent as well. To illustrate, consider imminent to be

'a menace of violence, with a present ability to commit it. The menace must either be accompanied by an intention to commit the violence or must raise an actual fear of violence in the mind of the person threatened.' (E&W tort of assault)

Ie you have reasonable belief to fear being punched/stabbed/shot etc AT THE TIME you can have recourse to pre-emptive self-defence.

I don't want this proposal to fail on misinterpretation, so hope that helps to clarify at least as far as I understand the wording. Although the proposer should maybe confirm this position.

Mickey.

Yes, he should.

So as i understand it from this thread, this proposal would allow people to defend themselves from attack. And the determination as to whether that defense would be justifiable would be given by the individual nation (yuck, judicial bureacracy, my favorite). Anyways, still seems like a kind of common sense kind of thing to me... unless you're an UBER-conservative nation or an extremely psychotic nation, in which case you probably aren't a member of the UN are you? As a side note the wording is very vague, but not enough for me not to vote for this. (unless the interpitation i'm getting out of it is wrong...)

By more or less "legalising" assault you are crating a new ground for people to say - "I attacked him because it's my right to do so." This means that people, in many ways can attack random people they see. Human rights or not, it's not going to happen.

We have to ask the author where in this resolution is the definition of "reasonable force"?

Nations without this resolution can reasonably decide on the matter already either through precedence and their legal system (common law).

Or by encoded law as part of their constiution.

Therefore we find this resolution firstly pointless to nations with a history and liking for violence and secondly but more importantly harmful to nations with no such tendency. Thirdly some nations have already dismissed the notion of property so how do you propose they apply this new mandate.

This resolution while appearing superficilally as if it supports human rights in fact reduces freedoms globally of the UN members.

We advise opposition to this resolution.

The concept of reasonable force has been discussed previously ad nauseam, I suggest you check out the link at the very beginning of this thread. The point is that reasonable force SHOULD NOT be defined because what is reasonable will depend on the circumstances of an individual case. Given that no cases are alike this is the only sensible way to legally provide for a jury to make a value judgement on ALL the evidence of a case.

It's a valid point, but I think the provision for 'reasonable force' relates to the reasonableness of believing an assault was imminent as well. To illustrate, consider imminent to be

'a menace of violence, with a present ability to commit it. The menace must either be accompanied by an intention to commit the violence or must raise an actual fear of violence in the mind of the person threatened.' (E&W tort of assault)

Ie you have reasonable belief to fear being punched/stabbed/shot etc AT THE TIME you can have recourse to pre-emptive self-defence.

I don't want this proposal to fail on misinterpretation, so hope that helps to clarify at least as far as I understand the wording. Although the proposer should maybe confirm this position.

Mickey.

It is now too late for the proposer to confirm this position within the resolution. For that reason, I cannot vote for it.

I agee with the principle of the right to self-defence, but, with the highly subjective 'imminent assualt' I cannot help but feel this would be a bad idea. An individual could end up using 'reasonable force' against a man who he believed was going to assult him, but was not. All of a sudden, this legal right to reasonable force, becomes unreasonable force.

We have to ask the author where in this resolution is the definition of "reasonable force"?

The definition changes depending on the nation. In DLE, "reasonable force" can include using missiles with nuclear warheads, depending on the threat. This is due to some native animals being more bullet-resistant than asteroids.

Nations without this resolution can reasonably decide on the matter already either through precedence and their legal system (common law).

Or by encoded law as part of their constiution.

True.

Therefore we find this resolution firstly pointless to nations with a history and liking for violence and secondly but more importantly harmful to nations with no such tendency. Thirdly some nations have already dismissed the notion of property so how do you propose they apply this new mandate.

The same way those who are in deserts or arctic wastelands handle deforestation.

This resolution while appearing superficilally as if it supports human rights in fact reduces freedoms globally of the UN members.

So do all of the rest that support human rights. Arguement illogical.

We advise opposition to this resolution.

You already know which way I'm leaning.

Of all the self-defence proposals I have seen, this is by far and away the best. It lets the nation decide what is reasonable, allows for the courts to require proof that the action was reasonable, and it doesn't let you shoot drunk people who are passed out on your sofa.

Fully support, with extra banners saying "WE VOTE YES" at the polling site.

The notoriously fluffy, tree-hugging, pinko, anarchic, liberal, commie (etc, etc) nation of Ecopoeia will possibly raise some eyebrows by casting its vote FOR this resolution. The right to defend oneself is an important one and this resolution wisely enshrines this right without wading any further into what is pretty murky territory.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN