NationStates Jolt Archive

This appears to be the next resolution to vote on. It already has enough support that I'm willing to bet someone else's soul on it.

Discrimination Accord
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Belgrade-Beograd

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the precedent of international law towards greater human rights and equality for all,

RECALLING the sentiments of such documents as “Universal Bill of Rights”, “Definition of Marriage”, “Freedom and Equality”, and “Sexual Freedom” in the separation of governments from discriminatory practices and ideologies,

UPSET by the lack of previous legislation (at the time of this document’s composition) directly prohibiting governments from discriminatory practices,

CITING as a possible cause of such oversight the incorrect interpretation of the “Gay Rights” document, which in practice does virtually nothing to protect citizens’ rights:

RESOLVES upon protecting all persons and groups in member nations from discrimination by their respective member governments;

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,

2. The right to participate in government,

3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;

COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences;

URGES regional awareness of cultural, racial, and cultural differences, given the often close ties of a nation’s diversity with its region’s diversity;

CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following:

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

§ The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

§ The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.

Approvals: 110 (Liberal Fascism, Victoria the First, Republic of Freedonia, WZ Forums, The Cariebbean, Lunaria Mirandia, Svai, Knuckles Promised Land, Ancients Tomatoes, The Potatohead Tribe, Eurasian Workers, US Liberals, New Me, Danabunga, Laueria, Ahrahlzerine, Zouloukistan, Lesliedom, Damila Sur, Jjuulliiaann, Jacob_is_our_king, Ophainia, Shlaga, Mudrak, Beta Centaury, Baikonour, Jamesburgh, Tumaini, Clarity Of Thought, Pessimistic States, Nomansia, Kevin Islands, Ministria, Emerald Phoenix, Hellieville, Robin Lori and DJ, Canine Despotism, Windleheim, Grand Admiral Bennett, Drizuz, Loprestia, Wildtypes, Spirius, Mommy D, Dalumu, Freeze-dried Snacks, New Matrex, Lesser Jersey, Eldpollard, Non-Republican Reds, Flying Evil Pigs, Australus, Neo-Pangaea, Neo Esthar, Riegab, Keruvalia, StingingFlea, Master Tom, Srok Khmer, Saysomething, Sinitsyn, Dictator Richard III, Weserkyn, Krioval, RedCommunist, Ertitta, Rush-ia, Aztec National League, Northern Keldavia, Charles Henry Peare, JCJC, Ashala Rock, Dragaia, Ai2, -Atlantis, Hidlberg, Erroneous Errol Island, Candymanium, Nothing Inc, Xbabiboix, BLACKGRUE, Quhan, Bubuania, Kyott, The Herdstone, Unrealistic Utopia, Black Reading, Anciennitas, PIRILAO, Troll-la-la, Voyagous, Creaclia, Cockeysville, Spurland, Th Symbionese Army, Libertas de Poena, Female Leadership, Djambelandia, Honey Swiss, Jaghur, Khanrad, JMW12345, Zyphyr, Rick8925, Pantstavia, Wegason, Rot Krieger, Somnimia, Lries, THEM Central)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 39 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Apr 9 2005

Well, this one snuck up on us.

I hearby declare that the Militeristic Monarchy of the Yoopers is under a state of extreme security risk untill further notice.

I hearby declare that the Militeristic Monarchy of the Yoopers is under a state of extreme security risk untill further notice.

People have been using similar measures to get around 40 Hour workweek, too. Just declare a state of emergency, officially recognize all workers as civil servants or both (or something like that) and workers then qualify for an exemption from 40 Hour Workweek. I see nothing wrong with it, though. No legislation is really full-proof, nor should it be.

This resolution mandates creating large education programs about race. No way will I vote for it.

Honestly, what extreme security risks would constitute a just cause for discrimination? I'm sure someone will come up with a good example to prove me wrong, but I can't think of any that don't fall under making an unfair generalization. Also, with age and intelligence, some common rights are denied on the basis of age or intelligence. Most licenses to operate vehicles require a written test as well as having age requirements. Many substances are not legal to be sold to minors. In my opinion, the current proposal could be interpreted to ban these restrictions, which are very necessary for sound reasons.

Honestly, what extreme security risks would constitute a just cause for discrimination? I'm sure someone will come up with a good example to prove me wrong, but I can't think of any that don't fall under making an unfair generalization.

Simple: They're a different species and you're at war with them. Happens all of the time in NS.

Well, this certainly covers a lot of ground.

Bit confused about this one though..


The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.


Considering thats it's being 'reiterated', does this provision actually exist anywhere else? And I understand the wording as saying that discrimination based on intelligence is condemned.. how far does this extend? To governments being unable to discriminate according to intelligence when recruiting civil servants, or even extending this to private sector?
It'd be putting a lot of HR people out of a job, at the very least...

Anyone able to answer?

Well, this is the next resolution. From the proposals page:

Approvals: 177 (Liberal Fascism, Victoria the First, Republic of Freedonia, WZ Forums, The Cariebbean, Lunaria Mirandia, Svai, Knuckles Promised Land, Ancients Tomatoes, The Potatohead Tribe, Eurasian Workers, US Liberals, New Me, Danabunga, Laueria, Ahrahlzerine, Zouloukistan, Lesliedom, Jjuulliiaann, Jacob_is_our_king, Ophainia, Shlaga, Mudrak, Beta Centaury, Baikonour, Jamesburgh, Tumaini, Clarity Of Thought, Nomansia, Kevin Islands, Ministria, Emerald Phoenix, Hellieville, Robin Lori and DJ, Canine Despotism, Windleheim, Grand Admiral Bennett, Drizuz, Loprestia, Wildtypes, Spirius, Mommy D, Dalumu, Freeze-dried Snacks, New Matrex, Lesser Jersey, Eldpollard, Non-Republican Reds, Flying Evil Pigs, Australus, Neo-Pangaea, Neo Esthar, Riegab, Keruvalia, StingingFlea, Master Tom, Srok Khmer, Saysomething, Sinitsyn, Dictator Richard III, Weserkyn, Krioval, RedCommunist, Ertitta, Rush-ia, Aztec National League, Northern Keldavia, Charles Henry Peare, JCJC, Ashala Rock, Dragaia, Ai2, -Atlantis, Hidlberg, Erroneous Errol Island, Candymanium, Nothing Inc, Xbabiboix, BLACKGRUE, Quhan, Bubuania, Kyott, The Herdstone, Unrealistic Utopia, Black Reading, Anciennitas, PIRILAO, Troll-la-la, Voyagous, Creaclia, Cockeysville, Spurland, Th Symbionese Army, Libertas de Poena, Female Leadership, Djambelandia, Honey Swiss, Jaghur, Khanrad, JMW12345, Zyphyr, Rick8925, Pantstavia, Wegason, Rot Krieger, Somnimia, Lries, THEM Central, Cigaro, TechnocraticCityStates, East Sibir, Sidus, Brausi-mausi, Groot Gouda, Hergot, I Like Oranges, Sporkitorus, The Shadow-Kai, Domintora, Caventia, Bijanian Utopia, Finbergia, Kamikastan, Skarthaborg, Secondzflat, UN Peacekeepers, Poobarbia, The Mormon Church, LouFerringoland, The Pojonian Puppet, Eastern Coast America, Felysial, Pharan, Thordavia, Hogs Head, The Byzantine Church, Askalaria, Londingshire Islands, Mythila, JayRoddia, Callisdrun, Burkadurkastan, United Oceana, Those that Bibble, Tiqwah Ha Am, Willy Lump Lump, JS Nijmegen, Practical Ambiguity, Venerable libertarians, Turkimen, That place wot, Feight, World Utopia, Lior Liechtenstein, Connivence, Monkey Spankage, Many Eyes, Foil Shango, Abilenia, Cowschickens, New Schaffhausen, Caseylvania, Fu Su Lu, Bobswick, Christac, No power structure, French States, The Yoopers, Pommieville, Bordoria, United Necromancers, Kreitzmoorland, Naval Snipers, Felix Felicis, Denea, Joshisha, Emory)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Simple: They're a different species and you're at war with them. Happens all of the time in NS.
I still don't see the realivance. We kill our own race just as enthusiasticlly as other ones. My nation will do whatever needs to be done, reguardless of who we're fighting. The only thing this exception serves to protect as far as I can see reguarding to war is crusades or other simular wars waged solely because of a diffrence of some sort between the two sides and no real political or economic goal.

I still don't see the realivance. We kill our own race just as enthusiasticlly as other ones. My nation will do whatever needs to be done, reguardless of who we're fighting. The only thing this exception serves to protect as far as I can see reguarding to war is crusades or other simular wars waged solely because of a diffrence of some sort between the two sides and no real political or economic goal.

I meant a war on their entire race or species. In that case, anyone of that group is the enemy.

So? As long as you have valid reasons for going to war with them other than that they are different in whatever way they are different, this proposal should have no bearing on it. I knew what you meant. This just serves to create a unnecessary loophole.

I meant a war on their entire race or species. In that case, anyone of that group is the enemy.

It just can't be that the overriding goal is the annihilation of the other group. Otherwise EON might have a few things to say about the matter. Of course, EON already prohibits genocide, so it's not like a pro-genocide argument (if one exists!) could be used against this resolution-to-be.

So? As long as you have valid reasons for going to war with them other than that they are different in whatever way they are different, this proposal should have no bearing on it. I knew what you meant. This just serves to create a unnecessary loophole.

Meh. Good thing it's not my proposal.

It just can't be that the overriding goal is the annihilation of the other group. Otherwise EON might have a few things to say about the matter. Of course, EON already prohibits genocide, so it's not like a pro-genocide argument (if one exists!) could be used against this resolution-to-be.

Often, it's for resources or territory. However, in a few cases that does result (like the Shivan wars), in which case there is probably a good reason you are trying to exterminate them (like, say, they are trying to exterminate you and won't give up).

Often, it's for resources or territory. However, in a few cases that does result (like the Shivan wars), in which case there is probably a good reason you are trying to exterminate them (like, say, they are trying to exterminate you and won't give up).

True enough, but then, the goal isn't necessarily to eradicate them entirely (to obtain said resources or territory). As for the second case, if compelling evidence were to support that one was defending from annihilation and that the only way to survive was to destroy the aggressors entirely, I doubt TPP is really going to be a huge factor.

I must say that I am a little angry that this resolution seems to have been brought up without the sponsor being involved in any debate in this chamber. I recall the days of out-of-process resolutions, and do not seek to return to them. The pre-proposal debate stage is a good time to eradicate loopholes.

At first glance, I see no reason to oppose this resolution. However, I will conduct a more rigorous review overnight.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I must say that I am a little angry that this resolution seems to have been brought up without the sponsor being involved in any debate in this chamber. I recall the days of out-of-process resolutions, and do not seek to return to them. The pre-proposal debate stage is a good time to eradicate loopholes.

I think that is part of the problem though ... people consider the draft proposal stage to be a "debate" and have become rather arguementative (or in exceptional circumstances used this forum as a means to indirectly attack and insult individuals). If the draft proposal discussions where more constructive and polite in nature, then word might get out (via delegates) to use this forum as a refinement tool.

I too wish that draft proposals would be discussed here, but I'd rather not think of the UN as a "debate society".

This is a very well-written proposal and will be getting my vote (assuming I remember to vote this time)

This proposal will no way, no how be getting my vote. Mandating that cultural, ethnic and racial diversity programs and education be instituted? No. Should a person wish to immigrate and become a subject of the Queen and citizen of the Kingdom, then they can adopt our language and customs, NOT the other way around! Education money is better spent on real education, not 'feel-good' mandates forced upon them. Schools are not the place for social engineering, they are for educating and preparing the next generation. To mandate and force unwanted pseudo-education upon the education system and country as a whole is counter-productive to the proper mission of education. To have the views of the few forced upon the greater population is a travesty and a waste of educational funds. Better to spend the money on teachers, new science labs, textbooks, music and arts programs, athletics or any other number of things besides bogus sensitivity programs which serve only to divert much needed funds from what they should be used on.

This is a useless and redundant proposal as there have already been numerous resolutions passed mandating cultural awareness and equality. Another is not needed, especially one that serves only to divert education funds.

I must say that I am a little angry that this resolution seems to have been brought up without the sponsor being involved in any debate in this chamber. I recall the days of out-of-process resolutions, and do not seek to return to them. The pre-proposal debate stage is a good time to eradicate loopholes.

I agree that such a time would be almost a necessity, but this proposal has the signs of having already been editted for errors. I'm finding only the most common of technical errors in the writing itself, and those are errors I make on here on purpose and thus do not consider worthy of pointing out. The small amount of vagueness I see may actually be entirely on purpose, eliminating it as well. Finally, I note certain elements from discussions on here incorporated (such as the Gay Rights comment). Hell, they even covered an arguement before it was posted. The author knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote this.

I believe this is the only time I shall actually invite someone to come onto the forum. We have plenty of people to argue, but we never have enough people to revise a proposal (even though the ones we do have are excellent at their areas of expertise).

Now, I have an arguement to write.

This proposal will no way, no how be getting my vote. Mandating that cultural, ethnic and racial diversity programs and education be instituted? No.

Actually, it says:

MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

You don't actually have to create the programs.

Should a person wish to immigrate and become a subject of the Queen and citizen of the Kingdom, then they can adopt our language and customs, NOT the other way around! Education money is better spent on real education, not 'feel-good' mandates forced upon them. Schools are not the place for social engineering, they are for educating and preparing the next generation. To mandate and force unwanted pseudo-education upon the education system and country as a whole is counter-productive to the proper mission of education. To have the views of the few forced upon the greater population is a travesty and a waste of educational funds. Better to spend the money on teachers, new science labs, textbooks, music and arts programs, athletics or any other number of things besides bogus sensitivity programs which serve only to divert much needed funds from what they should be used on.

Note the word allow. You can choose to allow such programs and let others pay for it. If they're so concerned about teaching diversity, they can use their funds to do it.

This is a useless and redundant proposal as there have already been numerous resolutions passed mandating cultural awareness and equality. Another is not needed, especially one that serves only to divert education funds.

It only diverts funds if you choose to implement the programs yourself.

And, please point out in what ways it is redundant. I agree with you on that issue, but at the same time I have decided to take a neutral issue on this one since I am the one who posted the topic and, as such, am just asking you so that you can provide a detailed analysis for future readers to refer to.

I was all ready to push the "for" button until I read the last paragraph.

Essentially, it says:

EQUALITY GOOD! YAY! UN bad for not passing something like this. But all will be fixed now!

NO DISCRIMINATION. NONE. DISCRIMINATION IS BAD AND YOU WILL NOT DISCRMINIATE. CEASE ALL DISCRIMINATING!

Please also educate everyone about everyone, so that cultural differences won't lead to conflicts and discrimination. Discrimination is bad.

Be regionally aware, promoting happiness, love and peace for everyone, and crack down on hate crimes, which are bad.

Oh, and here's a loophole by which the main objective of this resolution can be completely ignored if you are nasty enough.


If only the writer had posted it here, we might have been able to get rid of that glaring loophole, which I assume it is because after reading it all, you get the idea that the author is against letting nations suspend the anti-discrimination things just because of a "threat".

Hmm... odd... It was explained to me during one of the drafts of Habeas Corpus that civil freedoms are already suspended during times of martial law, and as such I didn't need to put in anything about martial law. This proposer seems to have missed that.

I consider this bill an attack on my government. If I'm forced to accept non-Catholics in my government, I'll be forced to have a revolution and abandon the Empire. Further, the large-scale education systems on "diversity" this bill MANDATES is a fraudulent hijacking of our already-strained education resources.

If I must comply, I have already selected Mr. Cummings, our token Protestant, to be the dog catcher of the Emberlight City neighborhood within the Altogether. Hera Goldman, a token Jew, will be the chief of the Empire Loan Office of the slum of Maccleany. With those positions, we shall be in compliance concerning the anti-discrimination portions.

As for the nation of Belgrade-Beograd, his mere success in putting this on the floor shall be answered with a boycott. All white citizens of Belgrade-Beograd shall be forced out of my lands or will face imprisonment! This way, by allowing minority Belgrade-Beograd citizens, we will have better racial diversity.

Maximus IV
Emperor of Sidestreamer

This proposal will no way, no how be getting my vote. Mandating that cultural, ethnic and racial diversity programs and education be instituted? No. Should a person wish to immigrate and become a subject of the Queen and citizen of the Kingdom, then they can adopt our language and customs, NOT the other way around! Education money is better spent on real education, not 'feel-good' mandates forced upon them. Schools are not the place for social engineering, they are for educating and preparing the next generation. To mandate and force unwanted pseudo-education upon the education system and country as a whole is counter-productive to the proper mission of education. To have the views of the few forced upon the greater population is a travesty and a waste of educational funds. Better to spend the money on teachers, new science labs, textbooks, music and arts programs, athletics or any other number of things besides bogus sensitivity programs which serve only to divert much needed funds from what they should be used on.

This is a useless and redundant proposal as there have already been numerous resolutions passed mandating cultural awareness and equality. Another is not needed, especially one that serves only to divert education funds.
*nods of agreement*

And also, with the "equal opportunities" promised, that definitely implies Affirmitive Action. Affirmitive Action is a horrible system of employment, along with the fact that diversity will be forced on children in schools, is it really neccissary? This mandate will never get my vote-and I hope it dosen't get yours, either.

By the way, let it be known that Belgrade-Beograd sought support of this bill solely through a massive telegramming campaign. I initially told them that I was shocked, horrified and dismayed that he'd bring this bill and would do anything I can to destroy it.

That he didn't bring it here for an honest discussion is only expected from lowly feel-good, PC socialist liberal satanic Stalinist nations like Belgrade-Beograd.

This act of drive-by liberalism must be thwarted!

By the way, let it be known that Belgrade-Beograd sought support of this bill solely through a massive telegramming campaign. I initially told them that I was shocked, horrified and dismayed that he'd bring this bill and would do anything I can to destroy it.

That he didn't bring it here for an honest discussion is only expected from lowly feel-good, PC socialist liberal satanic Stalinist nations like Belgrade-Beograd.

This act of drive-by liberalism must be thwarted!
You do realise that your description of Belgrade-Beograd could be stretched to fit a large number of the nations who do use the UN forum?

My region and I stand firm on this issue: NO THANK YOU!

We do not have any problems with regards to ethnical discrimination and have not had any for decades. We acheived this by stating that other cultures coming into our nations MUST accept our culture into their lives (by that I mean that they can't sacrifice their first born child etc. and not that they have to change their dress code and give up their beliefs).
They have had to make sacrifices to fit in, but we have compromised. School uniforms for different religions have been created within the state system, places of worship have been built for them.
Why have we done this? Well it is because the UN passed several resolutions on these issues, so now we have a system to deal with the intergration of other cultures.
I think that the creator of this proposal has seen a problem where there isn't one. The laws, relating to the resolutions content, are complex enough already without having more added to them.

My government has come under pressure recently from "my people" with regards to some of the UNs recent resolutions. Whilst this is not yet a problem; there is growing unrest within the general population with regards to UN Resolutions.

I'm with you Goober, and there seem to be very good points raised both by supporters and opposition here. I'm on the fence for the time being.

You do realise that your description of Belgrade-Beograd could be stretched to fit a large number of the nations who do use the UN forum?

I am fully aware of that. And my accusations apply to them as well. Thank you for allowing me to clarify.

--Welsh

This is total lunacy. If this bill passes, I will withdraw from the U.N. immediately. And if that shall leave an already diminishing number of nations that form part of the U.N. to live in their demented and distorted world, so be it. This is the most ludicrous proposal I have yet read. GOD bless!

Well, this certainly covers a lot of ground.

Bit confused about this one though..



Considering thats it's being 'reiterated', does this provision actually exist anywhere else? And I understand the wording as saying that discrimination based on intelligence is condemned.. how far does this extend? To governments being unable to discriminate according to intelligence when recruiting civil servants, or even extending this to private sector?
It'd be putting a lot of HR people out of a job, at the very least...

Anyone able to answer?

Don't think I got an answer to this one, and it's pretty crucial. It is not clear as it stands.

This is total lunacy. If this bill passes, I will withdraw from the U.N. immediately. And if that shall leave an already diminishing number of nations that form part of the U.N. to live in their demented and distorted world, so be it. This is the most ludicrous proposal I have yet read. GOD bless!

Kudos to the Ambassador from Arnburg!

We have time and time again considered leaving the UN and ridding ourselves of this weapon of mass liberalism and leglislative tyrannical terrorism, but we feel it is our Christian duty to carry the sin of hedonism, sodomy and socialism in order to, as a UN Delegate, fight the demon from within. Hence we remain. We serve as the voice of God against the wicked abortionists, PC facists, peacemongerers, homosexuals, gun thieves, disarmament Nazis, and the feminist agenda, and with God's grace, we will prevail. For now, we must fight!

--Welsh
Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer
UN Delegate for the Militaristic Legions and Plans

I meant a war on their entire race or species. In that case, anyone of that group is the enemy.
"Any such declaration of war would be a violation of several previously passed resolutions. Unless said race is all machines of war, said genocide cannot be justified. If said race is all war machines, it is quite unlikely that they would A) Last long and B) be UN members.

Also, on another note. I feel most vehmently that a state should not quote religious books to prove or disprove a proposal, as that would technicall fall under the definition of religious bias, and therefore violate any and all UN anti-descrimination bills."

President General BlackLiger
Unitedia and associated Nations (Unitadia and Unitidia)
UNSC

Good to see intemperate tub-thumping is as prevalent as ever. My chief objection to this resolution is that it is, well, superfluous. There are no compliance issues, as it effects no changes, as far as I can see.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

"Aditionally noted is the fact that this proposal calls for education in other cultures. As has been noted many times in proposals submited to Unitedia's parliement, the strongest nations are usually the ones that are most cuturally diversified. Therefore, while there should be one national culture base, there should still be many sub cultures. Using the example of my own nation, Unitedia, Our northen region speak 4 languages, and are mostly farms. However, our southern regions are more educated and speak at least 7 languages, but are usually more overweight. This does not stop someone from the North who is inteligent getting a well paid job in the south.

As for immigration, any imigrants are educated in the base culture. Unitedia is culturally diverse enough that there is already a sub-culture of people from said refugee's countries anyway."

PG. BlackLiger
Unitedia and Associated Nations
UNSC

By the way, let it be known that Belgrade-Beograd sought support of this bill solely through a massive telegramming campaign. I initially told them that I was shocked, horrified and dismayed that he'd bring this bill and would do anything I can to destroy it.

OOC:
The problem I have is that the two proposal I have made (Diplomatic Immunity and Open Skies) were posted on the UN forum and were damn well written (although I say so myself! :D ), and should have got more approvals then they did didn't make quorum (or, rather in the case of Open Skies, is unlikely to at the moment unless some of you lot start approving the damn thing!). I've tried telegramming for this one, but I only have a 28.8Kbps connection so a huge campaign would take me three hours, so I solicited those who approved this one (easier and quicker then 'find region' or 'list all delegates' IMO).
And it still isn't going through. I'm getting disillutioned with the NSUN... :(

OOC:
The problem I have is that the two proposal I have made (Diplomatic Immunity and Open Skies) were posted on the UN forum and were damn well written (although I say so myself! :D ), and should have got more approvals then they did didn't make quorum (or, rather in the case of Open Skies, is unlikely to at the moment unless some of you lot start approving the damn thing!). I've tried telegramming for this one, but I only have a 28.8Kbps connection so a huge campaign would take me three hours, so I solicited those who approved this one (easier and quicker then 'find region' or 'list all delegates' IMO).
And it still isn't going through. I'm getting disillutioned with the NSUN... :(

OOC: I have no idea how to do this kind of thing either. I have tried to get approvals for the repeal of NSUN Resolution #7, and with my success, getting 30 endorsements would be an accomplishment. I used to think you needed a reputation and size to push it, using this forum first. However, this particular resolution is just flying from a 20-million person nation, without using the board for discussion!

We have alot of simpletons playing who will approve of anything that says "stop the hate! no bigotry! free sex! blah blah blah." I bet most of the people voting for these things don't even bother reading beyond the title. Just look at the resolution #7 I'm trying to dump. Its vague, poorly worded and doesn't define medical exceptions, making it difficult to prove that there is a medical necessity to inquire about your sexual habits. But it reads "Free Sex!" so it's going to pass.

The early resolutions are from a time when NS was young and had realitively few members so it was easier to pass resolutions. Yes, some poorly written resolutions still slip through, but not nearly as many. Refer to my last post on A Populous Proposal for my own thoughts on what should be done.

Not discriminating anyone for their intellect is completely ridiculous. The economy will just be the first victim of it..
The problem about extreme situations.. is that when they're already recognized as extreme.. it's too late. There are dangers when different genders or sexual orientations collide when they shouldn't. We just want to believe there aren't, until it's too late.

Stop this resolution, save ourselves from the dangers of pseudo-equality..

I really hope the majority of you vote against this ..... I'm all for racial diversity, but requiring nations to spend millions on large-scale racial education is not the answer to anything.

It's this kind of stuff that leads to ethno-centrism in schools, which does more harm to education than helping it.

There is a fine line between multi-culturalism, and entho-centrism, and this resolution does a fine job of crossing it.

Any attempt to force any kind of racial education system upon a nation is preposterous. Should a town with 99% christian residents have to pay to put up a giant menorah or other religious icon for the one family of a differnet ethnic group and vice versa. Besides, dictatorships have a right to ruun themselves as they wish due to their own national soveirgnty.

At least Cobdenia can still slaughter people who don't have silly surnames...

The Emirate of Jihadonyou takes religion seriously. We allow religious tolerance, though 99% of the nation is of one faith. How can we then allow tolerance for gays. Our beliefs do not tolerate such actions.

Supreme Lord Anthony Attalla votes against this.


_____________
Supreme Lord of The Emirate of Jihadonyou

If only the writer had posted it here, we might have been able to get rid of that glaring loophole, which I assume it is because after reading it all, you get the idea that the author is against letting nations suspend the anti-discrimination things just because of a "threat".

Okay, let's say my nation declares war on yours. You know fully well that Sarkarasetans are only found in DLE. And yet, you have several in your nation. If you arrest them, you are discriminating against them. If you don't, you are allowing spies to roam free. So, do you violate the resolution or your national security? That's potentially why behind that last part.

Further, the large-scale education systems on "diversity" this bill MANDATES is a fraudulent hijacking of our already-strained education resources.

It mandates you must create the programs or allow them to exist. That "or" allows you a big loophole for not paying for it. You allow them to exist and force those running them to pay the bills.

And also, with the "equal opportunities" promised, that definitely implies Affirmitive Action. Affirmitive Action is a horrible system of employment, along with the fact that diversity will be forced on children in schools, is it really neccissary? This mandate will never get my vote-and I hope it dosen't get yours, either.

See reply to Sidestreamer.

This is total lunacy. If this bill passes, I will withdraw from the U.N. immediately. And if that shall leave an already diminishing number of nations that form part of the U.N. to live in their demented and distorted world, so be it. This is the most ludicrous proposal I have yet read. GOD bless!

We don't respond well to threats of leaving.

~Grabs the Arnburg ambassador by the neck, drags him to the express elevator, and throws him down in it. Replaces his stuff with a small-yield nuclear device set to go off as soon as the box is opened and ships it to his nation.~

Also, flamebaiting the entire UN is bad.

Kudos to the Ambassador from Arnburg!

We have time and time again considered leaving the UN and ridding ourselves of this weapon of mass liberalism and leglislative tyrannical terrorism, but we feel it is our Christian duty to carry the sin of hedonism, sodomy and socialism in order to, as a UN Delegate, fight the demon from within. Hence we remain. We serve as the voice of God against the wicked abortionists, PC facists, peacemongerers, homosexuals, gun thieves, disarmament Nazis, and the feminist agenda, and with God's grace, we will prevail. For now, we must fight!

That's nice, but some of us are proud of being all of that. Besides, we find your view of religion to be in the minority and my people find it to be disgusting (they cannot separate the idea of symbolized cannibalism as symbolizing accepting a religious figure into yourself to accept his teachings and the crime of actually encouraging and practicing real cannibalism). And, yes, we did give it a shot, and that ended in people taking the views as they have and the resulting massacre. Police are still trying to straighten out who planned the massacre, but at this point they don't really feel an incentive to give that much of an effort anymore. Whoever planned it was also smart enough to plan an escape route, and as of yet we have not been able to find any suspects. That's part of why we have been destroying certain rainforests to make way for new communities as of late (don't worry about that, as we could destroy every piece of nature we own and it won't affect you).

In other words, religion isn't given much respect when used for an arguement or as a method to potentially insult the entire UN.

Any such declaration of war would be a violation of several previously passed resolutions. Unless said race is all machines of war, said genocide cannot be justified. If said race is all war machines, it is quite unlikely that they would A) Last long and B) be UN members.

Please note that UN resolutions apply to UN members, and that includes the interactions of UN members with nonmembers. And, by your own interpretation, you are prohibitted from ever declaring war on my nation, as my nation is of a separate species than yours. Now, since you cannot declare war on us, imagine in what ways our less scrupulous corporations can abuse your nation and get away with it.

Sometimes, the nation and the species are the same thing, even if they differ in name.

I really hope the majority of you vote against this ..... I'm all for racial diversity, but requiring nations to spend millions on large-scale racial education is not the answer to anything.

Prove that it requires you to spend the money. I've already dealt death blows to that arguement three times.

Any attempt to force any kind of racial education system upon a nation is preposterous. Should a town with 99% christian residents have to pay to put up a giant menorah or other religious icon for the one family of a differnet ethnic group and vice versa. Besides, dictatorships have a right to ruun themselves as they wish due to their own national soveirgnty.

Same "prove it" comment to you as to the previous person.

The Emirate of Jihadonyou takes religion seriously. We allow religious tolerance, though 99% of the nation is of one faith. How can we then allow tolerance for gays. Our beliefs do not tolerate such actions.

And yet your laws do tolerate such actions, as per previous UN resolutions.

Ah yes, another resolution for the high-and-mighty "religious" types to rail against while simultaneuosly pretending to not follow previous NSUN resolutions. Also, invoking faith against a resolution is just idiocy. Krioval has a state faith, effectively, but yet, we don't discriminate against people of other faiths. Frankly, it's bad for business.

Director Koro Vartek
Diplomacy and Trade
Armed Republic of Krioval

The Screwed Up By The UN Nation of Lemmistana votes FOR this resolution, based upon the recommendation of the Unified Capitalizt States of Commerce Heights.

This resolution states that “The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…age,” contradicting Resolution 28 Free education, which encourages government discrimination on the basis of age. We hope this causes significant confusion in UN member nations, possibly even bankruptcy as nations attempt to provide free education to everyone, regardless of age.
By disallowing “member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences,” this resolution requires UN member nations to extend “participation in government,” such as voting in a representative or democratic government, to everyone, regardless of age. We encourage young people, especially those under the age of 6, to go to the polls and vote for their preferred candidates, causing more problems within the UN.
By recognizing “the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions,” the UN encourages discrimination, perhaps to protect against the previously-mentioned flaws, but possibly to legitimize discriminatory regimes. It also encourages widespread spelling errors throughout UN member nations.

As a result of these significant flaws, Lemmistana has no choice but to vote FOR this resolution.

Huh? You see all of the flaws and you vote for it? That is screwed up. So all of those votes for this that I see piling up are from people who want to screw up the UN. Either that or their education system is woefully underfunded and they aren't smart enough to recognise the glaring holes in it. I'm just glad for the loophole I already pointed out.

The Screwed Up By The UN Nation of Lemmistana votes FOR this resolution, based upon the recommendation of the Unified Capitalizt States of Commerce Heights.

This resolution states that “The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in…age,” contradicting Resolution 28 Free education, which encourages government discrimination on the basis of age. We hope this causes significant confusion in UN member nations, possibly even bankruptcy as nations attempt to provide free education to everyone, regardless of age.

That's easy to deal with. Abolish your education system. They want free education? There's the library. That's how I've solved that problem, and I suspect I soon won't be alone.

By disallowing “member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences,” this resolution requires UN member nations to extend “participation in government,” such as voting in a representative or democratic government, to everyone, regardless of age. We encourage young people, especially those under the age of 6, to go to the polls and vote for their preferred candidates, causing more problems within the UN.

My people voted to give up their right to vote. Also, participation in government can be just about anything- including just standing around repeating a phrase on some street corner. People will find ways around that.

[quite] By recognizing “the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions,” the UN encourages discrimination, perhaps to protect against the previously-mentioned flaws, but possibly to legitimize discriminatory regimes. It also encourages widespread spelling errors throughout UN member nations.[/quote]

Main Entry: es·pe·cial
Pronunciation: is-'pe-sh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French -- more at SPECIAL
: being distinctive: as a : directed toward a particular individual, group, or end <sent especial greetings to his son> <took especial care to speak clearly> b : of special note or importance : unusually great or significant <a decision of especial relevance> c : highly distinctive or personal : PECULIAR <had an especial dislike for music> d : CLOSE, INTIMATE <his especial crony> e : SPECIFIC, PARTICULAR <had no especial destination in mind>
synonym see SPECIAL
- in especial : in particular

Nope. A measely mistake in not including an "s" but no actual spelling mistakes. And, I fail to see how this encourages spelling mistakes.

Also, if you are going to quote an article, quote it in full. Context is everything.

§ The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.

If you'll notice, it puts a limit on the recognization.

As a result of these significant flaws, Lemmistana has no choice but to vote FOR this resolution.

Go ahead. It'll enjoy the support and you'll fail to spread chaos.

The "racial education" isn't the only issue here, but also the idea of compulsory social security. This Accord impugns on my country's policy of stron, but limited, federal government. If the bill could be modifed to acommodate this, i would vote for it, but seing that it wont, im against it.

That's easy to deal with. Abolish your education system. They want free education? There's the library. That's how I've solved that problem, and I suspect I soon won't be alone.

Actually, in Krioval, we have free public education up to and including high school, which is defined by a curriculum approved by the Education Director. If a 45-year-old man feels that he needs remedial high school physics, he's welcome to take advantage of our free education system. Post-secondary education requires payment - equally for all citizens. As all can see, Krioval's free education system follows both the letter of the UN free education resolution and the spirit of having only high school-level education provided free of charge.

My people voted to give up their right to vote. Also, participation in government can be just about anything- including just standing around repeating a phrase on some street corner. People will find ways around that.

My way around that part of the resolution is to simply declare minors to be bound by the "other especial events or conditions" clause, whereupon "treatment of all returns to an equal state" occurs when the child reaches the age of majority. How delightfully effective.

So, as you and others have demonstrated, the resolution doesn't do half the things its opponents claim it does. Isn't that usually the way?

As for the education system, I'm not too worried about things in my own nation, everyone makes enough money to easily pay for their children's schooling. Other nations on the other hand aren't as successful as mine and as a delagate, I have to worry about the useless holes that can't buy their own toilet paper. Things aren't going to get better for them without education and there's no way their working class will be able to afford to send their children to school on their own funding. The governments themselves can barely afford the education systems they have.

There are VERY good reasons for some of the age restrictions in place for various things. If, suddenly, four year olds were allowed to start piloting shuttles with the autopilot off, there would be countless crashes per day. The same goes for a hundred and sixty year old grandmother who can't see three feet infront of herself.

The loophole is easily utilized and as far as I can see, there's nothing to stop me from declaring a state of emergency indefinately based on some trumped up threat as long as I don't do anything too aweful to the minorities.

So, as you and others have demonstrated, the resolution doesn't do half the things its opponents claim it does. Isn't that usually the way?

Half? The few arguements I have seen that look even remotely valid have not been given evidence to back them, making them beyond questionable. I think that maybe three have any real merit to them.

So, on to waiting for it to pass while dealing with arguements that are really worthless, while being overjoyed at the occasional gem.

Edit: And then you have those pointing out how to use the loopholes to their advantage.

This resolution mandates creating large education programs about race. No way will I vote for it.

Here, Here,
education programs are unnessesary, likly to damage the economy and likely to be twisted into a manditory goverment program for hiring minorities. Once we are through with that there will be no one left for the majority and isn't that who the goverment is for the people the majority?

This resolution needs to be killed then edited and put up for vote again!

Good Day!

Firstly, not being able to descriminate against intelligence sounds like a scary idea. Does this mean no more 'advanced placement' classes in schools? no remedial classes? Also are teachers allowed to fail a student "simply because he or she isn't as smart as the others"? wouldn't that be descrimination against intelligence?

Secondly, addressing not descriminating against different "schools of thought", is contradictory to the proposal itself because are not the Neo-nazis and the KKK different schools of thought, and thus banning their violent, hate-filled ideologies would be descimination against a school of thought.

Here, Here,
education programs are unnessesary, likly to damage the economy and likely to be twisted into a manditory goverment program for hiring minorities. Once we are through with that there will be no one left for the majority and isn't that who the goverment is for the people the majority?

This resolution needs to be killed then edited and put up for vote again!

Good Day!

Okay, now my niceness is gone.

Since being nice isn't helping, and the above poster put in enough effort to find a random quote to agree with without bothering to check to see if it was already dealt with, let's see how horribly wrong said poster is.

MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

Wait, what's that? It gives an option? And the option includes allowing the programs to exist while not having to pay for them yourselves? Why, it must be extremely hard to find in the proposal, being in the very section the above poster is talking about and being in plain English. Wait, being as it is in plain English and in the mandating section, that must mean the whole arguement of "government is forced to create education" is a complete fallacy not based on the actual resolution.

As for being unnecessary: So is oxygen. Or caring enough about others to feed them. The education portion is something you can work around with little effort. The rest of your statement isn't based on anything I have read in the resolution and seems to me to be attempting to play a fear card instead of presenting a real arguement.

Okay, does anyone have an arguement I haven't dealt with?

Firstly, not being able to descriminate against intelligence sounds like a scary idea. Does this mean no more 'advanced placement' classes in schools? no remedial classes? Also are teachers allowed to fail a student "simply because he or she isn't as smart as the others"? wouldn't that be descrimination against intelligence?

Those can fall under the "especial" exception the resolution provides.

Secondly, addressing not descriminating against different "schools of thought", is contradictory to the proposal itself because are not the Neo-nazis and the KKK different schools of thought, and thus banning their violent, hate-filled ideologies would be descimination against a school of thought.

It would actually be a violation of the Universal Bill of Rights, which protects free speech. All this does is extend that a bit and nothing more.

ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences;

I have disdain for this "encouraging." Intellectual growth should not be planned, and cannot be planned. Intellectualism only occurs from the counteracting forces within society, by which we gain knowledge. To "plan" for tolerance would require propaganda, to achieve a social goal.

Otherwise, the resolution is quite sound.

I tried to submit this message much earlier but my computer hates me -_-*. If some of the points I bring up have already been stated, forgive me. As I said, it was written much earlier than now.

I have to say that I was going to vote for this resolution until I came across the following three lines:

COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;

URGES regional awareness of cultural, racial, and cultural differences, given the often close ties of a nation’s diversity with its region’s diversity;

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

This resolution is simply an example of the school of (to quote another use) "psuedo-equality" that pervades our society. I couldn't care less what nationality, ethnicity, or race a person is: all that matters is the person's character, personality, and ability.

This resolution is why I disagree with Affirmative Action. The theory itself is self-destructive in that it makes the (stereotypical) assertion that two people of different races will automatically have different opinions. Is this true in any way? No. I have friends who are African-american, Asian, Indian, Native American, Hispanic, etc., but they all had a similar upbrining to mine. Does that mean that because I'm white and my friend, Sean Cardell, is black, we are going to have different opinions? No. We only have different opinions because we're different people, not because we're different races. Affirmative Action is also reverse discrimination. It basically says: just because of the color of your skin and the country from where your ancestors came, you are going to be given special treatment. Does this sound familiar? This is exactly like Apartheid and Segregation but with the victimizer-victim roles reversed. The Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements are over. Only during this time when people were actually discriminated against was it okay to use Affirmative Action; but now that we are an evolved society, we must realize that discrimination no longer exists, and that we must let go of the foolish pride and eventual hatred that comes from believing that race and ethnicity matter.

I don't agree with the cultural, ethnic, racial, etc. education part of this resolution because, in my opinion, it simply leads to racial pride, which leads to racial division, which leads to racial animosity. Until we can begin teaching that race, ethnicity, and ancestry don't matter at all, we can't hope to grow as a truly equal and tolerant society.

Also, the line about not discriminating against intelligence or age just serve as the final nails in the coffin for this resolution. Now that we've gotten rid of racial and ethnic discrimination, we must choose our applicants based on ability and character. If we weren't allowed to "discriminate" (I use quotation marks because it really isn't discriminating) against unintelligent people, we would have incompetent doctors, worthless business men and women, and unqualified teachers who would be corrupting the youth rather than helping them. Also, the line about not discriminating against age seems unnecessary. It would mean that I would have to allow a 6-year-old to run for office because he wants a law mandating we "give bigger hugs" and "provide snack-time in the Senate." I don't need to tell you how ludicrous this proposal is.

Well, I've put in my two cents. Sorry my first post was so long. :headbang:

I despise this!!!!
It takes away my rights to torture...I mean punish my people!!!
Just Kidding... :p
But still....I think that the governments of the nations can decide what's best for their people, yet this resolution has some quality....I guess... :(

I tried to submit this message much earlier but my computer hates me -_-*. If some of the points I bring up have already been stated, forgive me. As I said, it was written much earlier than now.

I have to say that I was going to vote for this resolution until I came across the following three lines:







This resolution is simply an example of the school of (to quote another use) "psuedo-equality" that pervades our society. I couldn't care less what nationality, ethnicity, or race a person is: all that matters is the person's character, personality, and ability.

This resolution is why I disagree with Affirmative Action. The theory itself is self-destructive in that it makes the (stereotypical) assertion that two people of different races will automatically have different opinions. Is this true in any way? No. I have friends who are African-american, Asian, Indian, Native American, Hispanic, etc., but they all had a similar upbrining to mine. Does that mean that because I'm white and my friend, Sean Cardell, is black, we are going to have different opinions? No. We only have different opinions because we're different people, not because we're different races. Affirmative Action is also reverse discrimination. It basically says: just because of the color of your skin and the country from where your ancestors came, you are going to be given special treatment. Does this sound familiar? This is exactly like Apartheid and Segregation but with the victimizer-victim roles reversed. The Civil Rights and Women's Rights movements are over. Only during this time when people were actually discriminated against was it okay to use Affirmative Action; but now that we are an evolved society, we must realize that discrimination no longer exists, and that we must let go of the foolish pride and eventual hatred that comes from believing that race and ethnicity matter.

I don't agree with the cultural, ethnic, racial, etc. education part of this resolution because, in my opinion, it simply leads to racial pride, which leads to racial division, which leads to racial animosity. Until we can begin teaching that race, ethnicity, and ancestry don't matter at all, we can't hope to grow as a truly equal and tolerant society.

Also, the line about not discriminating against intelligence or age just serve as the final nails in the coffin for this resolution. Now that we've gotten rid of racial and ethnic discrimination, we must choose our applicants based on ability and character. If we weren't allowed to "discriminate" (I use quotation marks because it really isn't discriminating) against unintelligent people, we would have incompetent doctors, worthless business men and women, and unqualified teachers who would be corrupting the youth rather than helping them. Also, the line about not discriminating against age seems unnecessary. It would mean that I would have to allow a 6-year-old to run for office because he wants a law mandating we "give bigger hugs" and "provide snack-time in the Senate." I don't need to tell you how ludicrous this proposal is.

Well, I've put in my two cents. Sorry my first post was so long. :headbang:

Your points would be good if this was the General forum or you had marked them as talking about reality. But as neither happened, they really are ignoring one thing: This is NS, not reality. In NS, racial discriminal, species discrimination, race-related executions, and most of the crimes of human history happen on a daily basis. Entire cultures get exterminated in a matter of hours with how we sometimes play.

While it is a problem in reality, you must ask yourself if it is such in NS. Even in the UN intolerance runs rampant. Hell, my own nation is a prime example of that.

Is discrimination a problem in NS nations? Yes. Is it happening often? Yes. Is it even in the UN? In a form, yes. Will this actually be rid of them? Not likely.

Stop by the International Incidents forum sometime and read some of the RPs there. You'll be surprised at what people do and get away with in thier nations. And you'll also have an idea of why this is going to be a problem for a very long time.

This matter was deemed to be of sufficient importance to Krioval to be forwarded to the Commander, who had the following incisive comments to make:

Are all you complainers reading the same resolution that I am? Affirmative action and racial quotas? I defy anybody to point out where in the resolution those are requirements. I fail to see how encouraging racial tolerance automatically mandates setting a strict percentage of positions based on race (or any other superficial quality). Now let me tell you how we currently deal with the problem in Krioval, and how we plan to deal with it after the resolution passes.

Right now, an application for a government position comes in. A low-ranking government employee takes the application and resume and assigns the name to a random number. From then on, the person's personal information not relevant to the position is hidden from the reviewers until a decision is reached. Then the applicant is contacted either for an interview or the application is denied. If the applicant feels that, after the interview, the interviewer was prejudiced based on issues other than direct competence for the position, that person can request a new interview for a similar position or complain to the government directly. Private corporations have similar processes simply because they tend to be best for their economies.

After this resolution passes, it will be done the exact same way - completely blind to superficial issues as long as feasible, and sensitive to any prejudices when said issues become common knowledge.

Let's look at the education system in Krioval, since it seems to be another unwarranted concern. The Director of Education, Vakia Pasko, is charged with developing a primary and secondary curriculum for all of Krioval. All public school districts are to follow this curriculum except where they choose to supplement elective requirements, like local history and culture. Any citizen of Krioval may choose any school district to which their children will be sent, which reflects back to the government which districts are getting the best results. For example, if Torokara District 14 is flooded with requests while Torokara District 12 has fewer than expected students, a critical examination into administrative and educational policies in both districts is undertaken, ostensibly with the goal of making TD12 look more like TD14. Even private schools have to follow the minimum required curriculum.

Post-secondary education is available to all citizens who meet the academic criteria set by the institutions in question. There are both public and private universities in Krioval, and each one gets to choose its own degree programs, which are then either validated or not by Krioval's Education directorship. Monetary aid is available on basis of both outstanding academic achievement and financial need.

After the passage of this resolution, I see no reason why any of this should change.

Finally, there seems to be a lot of bitching about racial and cultural awareness programs. Do governments out there really have a problem with allowing these programs? I mean, I'm no big fan of Christianity, as the God Solokaro can attest, but I'm not about to say that there shouldn't be some outreach toward the Christian minority in Krioval simply because I believe otherwise. Those nations who feel that oppression of cultural minorities is acceptable? See that button marked "Resign"? Hit it. Do the rest of us a tremendous favor.

Lord Raijin Dekker Darklighter, the Light
Commander and High Paladin of Krioval

Another Proposition hidden under the blanket pretending
to pass itself off in favor of Human Rights, but from an overtly liberalist standpoint.
WAKE UP folks, what we have passed in the past has covered these issues and needs no further augmentation.
Don't get caught up in the hype!
Vote NO!

We of the nation of Sawari fully support this proposal.

Krioval seems to already have pegged the rather odd dissenting opinions. This is a fine resolution that creates no serious conflicts, and I stand fully in favor of it.

I like this proposal for the most part. Item 4 concerns me greatly though. It reads:

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,

The definition of "social need" can be used to secure special privileges to certain groups. Representative Martin Calvin declared that "Equal rights are not special rights," during a debate on the issue. Due to this clause, The General Assembly of Latopei will vote against this issue. If item four is removed from the proposal, Latopei is willing to support it.

You have Canada world's full support on this.

Another Proposition hidden under the blanket pretending
to pass itself off in favor of Human Rights, but from an overtly liberalist standpoint.
WAKE UP folks, what we have passed in the past has covered these issues and needs no further augmentation.
Don't get caught up in the hype!
Vote NO!

The UN clearly thinks this needs to be voted on. And, really, attacking the ideals behind it isn't going to get any votes to switch.

OOC:
The problem I have is that the two proposal I have made (Diplomatic Immunity and Open Skies) were posted on the UN forum and were damn well written (although I say so myself! :D ), and should have got more approvals then they did didn't make quorum (or, rather in the case of Open Skies, is unlikely to at the moment unless some of you lot start approving the damn thing!). I've tried telegramming for this one, but I only have a 28.8Kbps connection so a huge campaign would take me three hours, so I solicited those who approved this one (easier and quicker then 'find region' or 'list all delegates' IMO).
And it still isn't going through. I'm getting disillutioned with the NSUN... :(

OOC:
Telegramming does take a lot of time. Sometimes if you can find an ally to split the work, it goes by twice as fast.

I've not read your two proposals, but I do share your frustration with this game and I'd like to apologize for not giving your ideas a bit of time as well.

I do however have a bit of constructive advice for all proposal authors ... a great way to get feedback on your proposals is to visit a few of the off-site feeder region forums as well as here. Some of the feeder regions (the West Pacific for example) have an extensive set of embassies. You might be able to see which UN Delegates or regions have recently been active and a personal telegram might help. *might*

But the best solution I've found is simply to spend the better part of an afternoon telegramming delegates. A short telegram that includes the link to the page your proposal currently only seems to help. :/

FIRSTLY,

FIRST FIVE PARAGRAPHS...

Why are they here? Shouldn't a proposal only include the actual proposal, saving the explanation/support for the thread?


SECONDLY,

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

UN Resolution 88, The Fairness and Equality resolution, renders everything except "requires member governments to apply the following" redundant.


THIRDLY,

"1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence"

How do you plan to enforce such protection? Is not all law FOUNDED upon governmental harassment and the threat of violence?


FOURTHLY,

"2. The right to participate in government"

If, among other things, governments are not to discriminate based upon age (as mentioned in the “U.N. position section", does this mean the right to vote should be extended to adolescents, toddlers, and newborns? What about intelligence? Should the mentally handicapped have such a commanding say as to what the rest of their fellow citizens can and cannot do?


FIFTHLY,

"3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,"

UN Resolution 88, The Fairness and Equality resolution, renders this article redundant.


SIXTHLY,

"4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law"

The "but not limited to" clause is in direct violation of Section one of UN Resolution 49, The Rights and Duties of UN States resolution.


SEVENTHLY,

"5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law"

Section 3 of UN Resolution 49, The Rights and Duties of UN States resolution renders this redundant.


EIGHTHLY,

"COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;"

"COMMITS...prejudice" is toothless verbiage should only be used in the thread if used at all.
"Mandating...diversity" is too general. For example, the individual interpretation of 'large-scale' could mean anything from local to international. Furthermore, ethnic, racial, and culturally diverse education programs could be based solely on demographics (i.e. not curriculum, which I assume was the intent).


NINTHLY,

"ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences"

Encouragement is nice. However, if the elimination of hate crimes is the goal, it is not nearly enough.


TENTHLY,

"URGES regional awareness of cultural, racial, and cultural differences, given the often close ties of a nation’s diversity with its region’s diversity;"

Same as encouragement, essentially meaningless.


ELEVENTHLY,

CLARIFIES the United Nation’s position by reiterating the following: The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence. The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.

As alluded to above in the reply to the second article, different niches have different needs. For example, as noted in the reply to the second article, should the mentally handicapped or immature be able to wield such a powerful and influential tool as the right to vote? If someone is strongly pro-life, should that someone vote for a candidate regardless of his/her position on abortion, (since discrimination based on school of thought is supposedly worthy of U.N. condemnation)? If a governmental candidate professes to belong to an organized religion that emphasizes eternal damnation to homosexuals, women subjugation, and Harry Potter, yoga, and pokemon as the devil incarnate (i.e. Christianity), should this not weigh into a voter's conscious?


TWELTHLY,

The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.

Consider the nations most likely to undermine this civil/political-rights-oriented proposal. Because their usual lack of civil/political rights and a jingoist, oppressive nature statistically go hand in hand, it is very likely that those nations most likely to rebel are those most likely to be in the situations which grant immunity. Therefore, the above stipulation provides an easily foiled loophole for everything mentioned prior to in the entire proposal.


FINALLY,

Despite the apparent humanitarian intentions of this proposal, I earnestly urge all UN Member States to vote against it. The large majority is either verbiage or redundancy. The small portion that is relevant is shortsighted or ludicrous. If passed, it will merely add to the massive exorbitance of superfluous material in the U.N. Constitution, in addition to enacting disdainful laws that are only mocking to the people that it is supposed to assist.

Skipping the first through tenth "points" as essentially nonissues or things covered earlier if one actually read all of the debate carefully, I will proceed to:

For example, as noted in the reply to the second article, should the mentally handicapped or immature be able to wield such a powerful and influential tool as the right to vote? If someone is strongly pro-life, should that someone vote for a candidate regardless of his/her position on abortion, (since discrimination based on school of thought is supposedly worthy of U.N. condemnation)? If a governmental candidate professes to belong to an organized religion that emphasizes eternal damnation to homosexuals, women subjugation, and Harry Potter, yoga, and pokemon as the devil incarnate (i.e. Christianity), should this not weigh into a voter's conscious?

In Krioval, children fall into the "especial" part of the resolution and are therefore ineligible to vote until they reach majority. As for the "mentally handicapped", they can vote if they are otherwise free. If they require high levels of care or are confined in a mental hospital, they also are in the "especial" part, with voting rights withheld until their condition improves. As it stands, Krioval allows anti-abortion and anti-homosexual candidates to run for office. Of course, over 99% are laughed at before losing in landslides, but when the odd one slips though, it's not like that person can violate the rules of the UN or disrupt the government of Krioval. And not all Christians in Krioval fit the caricature your government provides.

Consider the nations most likely to undermine this civil/political-rights-oriented proposal. Because their usual lack of civil/political rights and a jingoist, oppressive nature statistically go hand in hand, it is very likely that those nations most likely to rebel are those most likely to be in the situations which grant immunity. Therefore, the above stipulation provides an easily foiled loophole for everything mentioned prior to in the entire proposal.

Well, tighten it too much and people bitch. Broaden/loosen it too much, and people bitch. Leave it as it is...well, you get the point. Just about any resolution can be partially bypassed if one is feeling sufficiently willing to try. That's part of the reason some resolutions overlap - they're meant to reinforce one another to restrict the amount of "wiggle room" an intentional abuser can manipulate while leaving the rest of us a couple outs, so that newborns aren't attempting to vote, for example.

Despite the apparent humanitarian intentions of this proposal, I earnestly urge all UN Member States to vote against it. The large majority is either verbiage or redundancy. The small portion that is relevant is shortsighted or ludicrous. If passed, it will merely add to the massive exorbitance of superfluous material in the U.N. Constitution, in addition to enacting disdainful laws that are only mocking to the people that it is supposed to assist.

After pages of material, some relevant and some less so, we get it. You don't like the resolution. You think it's not necessary. Fine, but many of us think it is necessary. Besides, you have yet to show that the "redundant" parts serve no other useful functions, that the "verbiage" is, in fact, useless, and that the rest of your claims are true. I mean, if your people have trouble not electing newborns, your accusing finger is really pointing in the wrong direction. Finally, you used a lot of big words, which is fine so long as they all mean the right thing, which several of yours do not, like "disdainful laws". This resolution is not disdainful ("full of disdain"), the primary meaning of "exorbitance" means "outside the scope of law" (truly ironic that the UN "Constitution" should be labeled such), and your claims that the "Constitution" is both "massively exorbitant" and "superfluous" are redundant in said context, which is also entertaining considering that you rant against perceived redundancies elsewhere. Also, there is no UN "Constitution" as such, at least none that is specified by any resolution.

All of that said, you've got some potential in future UN debates. Your arguments are clear, at least, even if I disagree with them almost entirely, which is a blessing (the first, not necessarily the second). Stick around.

We find that really stupid people are more likely to discriminate than really intelligent ones, therefore where these education programmes are allowed to be implemented they will adversly affect the economy of that nation.

We vote for this resolution on the basis that by already having an intelligent and compassionate population it will give us an economic advantage over others.

Distinguished Representatives, Ambassadors, and Delegates,

I rise to express the opinion of the Constitutional Monarchy of Deredan, its Parliament, its Citizens, and the Crown on the current resolution up for consideration.

This is definitely one of those cases where one must look at what the resolution does and its intent separately. To vote for it simply to ensure that you are not against the "spirit" of the resolution is definitely a disservice to all member nations present and future.

Deredan fully supports the intent of this resolution and several of these stipulations are already in practice within our borders. It would definitely be a better world for all citizens if all nations were to embrace diversity and celebrate the wonderful differences we share instead of fearing them and/or trying to eradicate them.

A major concern that we have, coming not only from the members of Parliament but also from the Crown itself, is the final stipulation that all of this may be suspended if a particular nation were to find it appropriate. It is our opinion that if we are going to mandate non-discrimination worldwide, it is not fitting to, within the very document that makes these practices mandatory, essentially void the entire document by allowing individual governments to decide whether or not they want to enforce it. The United Nations is an opt-in organization and no nation is required to be a part of our quest for a better world, better regions and nations for our citizens to live in. Their decision on whether or not to be subject to the laws and resolutions passed by the United Nations is implicit in their membership in this organization. By being a member, they commit to enforce and apply all international laws and policies agreed to by a majority of our membership--if they don't agree they have the option to resign from the United Nations at any time--and that should be their only opt-out option.

Not only does this closing stipluation essentially make this resolution invalid in the eyes of Deredan, it also sets a precedent of opt-out resolutions that we simply cannot support. To do so attacks the integrity of any system of world governance and international law. Just as our citizens may not opt-out of certain sections of our constitution, no nation should be able to opt-out of any section of international law created here in these hallowed chambers.

Although many nations will vote in support of this resolution so as not to appear to be against its intended purpose or "spirit," therefore causing it to pass, we would like Deredan's objection and vote of NO on this resolution duly noted. If passed, Deredan would never use the clause allowing them to opt-out of these regulations and we feel that no one else should have that ability either.

Thank You.

----------------
Lord Admiral Nelson R. Deprez
Assistant Minister of State & Ambassador to the United Nations
Consitutional Monarchy of Deredan

After many meetings, and having viewed the arguments from the DemonLordEnigma, the Kriovallian ambassador and others, the Triumvirate has chosen to vote for this resolution. We are not concerned by the final clause, as we understand that all civil freedoms are already suspended during times of martial law (this was explained to us during the drafting of the Habeas Corpus resolution).

I don't like this! In our nation we have this race called The Brits which reside in our poorest areas, they are cheeky, disgusting upstarts who think they own everything. We disbanded their political party, excecuted the most influential ones and use the rest for our mines. And its free. It's very effective. So I don't like this bill. I wont support it.

What all of you fail to see is that by merely allowing for large-scale anti-bigotry programs, even if the government doesn't have to pay for it, it will take up too much time from our students who should be learning how to read, write, and perform mathematic computations.

1.

Skipping the first through tenth "points" as essentially nonissues or things covered earlier if one actually read all of the debate carefully, I will proceed to:

I wrote the previous entry right after the Discrimination Accord became a proposal. I tried to post it, but was rejected. Although my next attempt was successful, by that time many other posts had already been written on the topics I outlined. Therefore, I apologize for my consequent duplication of previous material. Nevertheless, I do not feel that the first through tenth points are essentially “nonissues or things covered if one actually read all of the debate carefully”. For example, although Krioval may disagree, I felt that the first five paragraphs were entirely unnecessary. Hence, because I also feel that the majority of the UN Constitution is already chockfull of such material, the proposal's abounding verbiage is not a "non-issue" and should play a role in whether or not it should be passed (since it could be edited and re-introduced in a more concise manner at a later time). Additionally, in the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 7th sections of my post, I documented past resolutions that UNEQUIVOCALLY made the corresponding articles of the D. Accord unnecessary or illegal. Moreover, the third section has not been previously discussed and I believe is a valid point. Likewise, the 8th section brings to light new additional redundancy and another loophole (i.e. demographics). Ninthly and tenthly are indeed repetitive of previous opinion, but I feel they are pertinent to my case and are worthy of such repetition.


2.

In Krioval, children fall into the "especial" part of the resolution and are therefore ineligible to vote until they reach majority. As for the "mentally handicapped", they can vote if they are otherwise free. If they require high levels of care or are confined in a mental hospital, they also are in the "especial" part, with voting rights withheld until their condition improves.

'Just my point. Why enact legislation if it can so easily be circumvented and provides no definitive call to action?


3.

As it stands, Krioval allows anti-abortion and anti-homosexual candidates to run for office. Of course, over 99% are laughed at before losing in landslides, but when the odd one slips though, it's not like that person can violate the rules of the UN or disrupt the government of Krioval.

Since all you (Krioval) mentioned about your candidates was that they were anti-abortion and anti-homosexual, I'm going to assume that they are "laughed at" because of those positions. Therefore, wouldn't your voters be in violation of discriminating based upon school of thought as outlined in the proposal you supposedly support?


4.

And not all Christians in Krioval fit the caricature your government provides.

'My bad. Because of the interpretative nature of their (i.e. Christians) written word, I suppose my caricature was indeed an overgeneralization. It just so happens that every Christian that I have ever met who claims to be reasonably conversant on the Bible has informed me that my 'caricature' is an accurate one. Obviously, this has clouded my objectivity, and I am sorry.


5.

Well, tighten it too much and people bitch. Broaden/loosen it too much, and people bitch. Leave it as it is...well, you get the point.

You can never make everyone happy. That is given. Therefore, just because people bitch doesn’t mean you can justify a meaningless law. Wasting people's time debating over inane material because you fear any bitchiness is pitiful to say the least. Why not try to pass something worthwhile? If it passes, all the bitchers can do is bitch. If it doesn't, it's still one-step better than muddling up the Constitution with a bunch of pussyfooting, poppy cocked gibberish.


6.

Just about any resolution can be partially bypassed if one is feeling sufficiently willing to try.

Yeah, but this does not negate the importance of the LEVEL of permeability. Say there are two resolutions that make marijuana illegal. The first resolution is full of utopian bombast with no real re-enforcement (like the one at hand), while the other has zero tolerance and threatens to cut off an offender's penus/breast while conscious with a blunt, rusted knife if he/she disobeys. Regardless of whether this is legal in NS, even though a few people will continue to illegally smoke it up, you can rationally assume that the second proposal will be much more effective in marijuana control than the first.


7.

That's part of the reason some resolutions overlap - they're meant to reinforce one another to restrict the amount of "wiggle room" an intentional abuser can manipulate while leaving the rest of us a couple outs, so that newborns aren't attempting to vote, for example

Pardon this short tirade of my own, but this is absurd. Is it just me, or should one issue have one resolution? Do not multiple resolutions just make information harder to find, laws more difficult to enforce, and the Constitution itself more chaotic and flaccid than it already is?


8.

After pages of material, some relevant and some less so, we get it. You don't like the resolution. You think it's not necessary. Fine, but many of us think it is necessary.

Would you have preferred that I had just left it at that, " don't like the resolution. [I] think it's not necessary."? I think that at least some of the points I previously mentioned are worth more than this evasive, cursory disapproval and a "too bad, it's my opinion!" finish...


9.

Besides, you have yet to show that the "redundant" parts serve no other useful functions, that the "verbiage" is, in fact, useless, and that the rest of your claims are true.

Redundant parts were proved redundant by referring to the Constitution. In addition, something that is redundant is in itself not useful because there is already some other something that performs its alleged task. As for the verbiage, would you mind explaining why any such language IS necessary (i.e. “not useless”)? As I see it, all it does is clutter the resolution and make it more difficult for the reader to find its real purpose. Finally, what “other” specific claims have I supposed made fallaciously?


10.

I mean, if your people have trouble not electing newborns, your accusing finger is really pointing in the wrong direction.

They don't have problems not electing newborns. They have trouble giving them the right to vote to newborns.


11.

Finally, you used a lot of big words, which is fine so long as they all mean the right thing, which several of yours do not, like "disdainful laws". This resolution is not disdainful ("full of disdain"),

Because this law is so poorly written, I feel it is quite disdainful (in other words, mocking, scornful, contemptuous, disparaging) of the people who it’s supposed to affect.


12.

the primary meaning of "exorbitance" means "outside the scope of law" (truly ironic that the UN "Constitution" should be labeled such),

[I]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., states;


"ex•or•bi•tance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zôrb-tns)
n.
Excessiveness, as of price or amount."

not "outside the scope of law".


13.

and your claims that the "Constitution" is both "massively exorbitant" and "superfluous" are redundant in said context, which is also entertaining considering that you rant against perceived redundancies elsewhere.

The actual quote is "it will merely add to the massive exorbitance of superfluous material in the U.N. Constitution", not the Constitution is both "massively exorbitant" and "superfluous. Therefore, in other words, the phrase can be re-written, "it will merely add to the LARGE EXCESSIVENESS of material that SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE in the U.N. Constitution", which is clearly NOT redundant.


14.

Also, there is no UN "Constitution" as such, at least none that is specified by any resolution.

I thought the U.N. Constitution was the list of previous U.N. resolutions available on the United Nations page. If I was wrong, I apologize. I'm new to NS, and therefore I'm not quite yet fluent with all its apparent jargon.


Finally,

I apologize for the relatively long length of my posts. I tried to edit out as much of them as I could, but I had a lot to say, and I would rather say it all in one post than five. For those of you who bore through it, I thank you. I'd also like to thank Krioval for its timely response to my first post. Thank you, Krioval.

The Free State of Bitewaldi applauds the sentiment behind this resolution and gives support to it. Knowledge of diversity is the first step to tolerance, and we encourage representatives of the various ethnic, racial and religious groups within our borders (and globally) to open schools (at their own expense) to educate non-members.

What all of you fail to see is that by merely allowing for large-scale anti-bigotry programs, even if the government doesn't have to pay for it, it will take up too much time from our students who should be learning how to read, write, and perform mathematic computations.

Allowing a education program and andating it are clearly seperate. Simply allowing a large-scale education program to exist is not going to take up too much time of students if it doesn't have to. And, if your nation really is set on promoting racism and cultural intolerance, it seems the government can create the system, which means you can put anything you darn well please in it.



Nevertheless, I do not feel that the first through tenth points are essentially “nonissues or things covered if one actually read all of the debate carefully”. For example, although Krioval may disagree, I felt that the first five paragraphs were entirely unnecessary.

You are free to feel that way, but I think if the author hadn't prefaced the proposal in the way he or she did, the reasoning behind introducing it would have been lost on many UN members. It would've been lost on me, at least.

But, I will review the original posts and try to understand why Krioval disagrees with your concerns.

SECONDLY,


REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

UN Resolution 88, The Fairness and Equality resolution, renders everything except "requires member governments to apply the following" redundant.


I disagree. According to my reading of "Fairness and Equality", only international organizations are reguired to treat fairly and equally--which would make a similar mandate for national governments easily warranted. I'll read it again, in case I'm mistaken.

FOURTHLY,


"2. The right to participate in government"

If, among other things, governments are not to discriminate based upon age (as mentioned in the “U.N. position section", does this mean the right to vote should be extended to adolescents, toddlers, and newborns? What about intelligence? Should the mentally handicapped have such a commanding say as to what the rest of their fellow citizens can and cannot do?

I don't see anything in the proposal mandating a level of participation in government. When I see "particiapation" in government I see it as implying "[some type] of participation in government". That said, I think it's warranted that youngsters be allowed to participate in government on some level. When I was in grade school, I was very troubled with the traffic patterns outside of our school (they were a mess, and incredibly busy around 2 to 3 when school got out). So, I wrote a letter to my representatitives in office and went to a town hall meeting. It was never changed, but I participated in government. That experience has definitely made me grow and spurned me to more and more participation in local government--now in my adult years.

I don't see where that level of participation in government should be allowed to be taken away.

EIGHTHLY,

"COMMITS to fighting ignorance and prejudice, MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity;"
"COMMITS...prejudice" is toothless verbiage should only be used in the thread if used at all.
"Mandating...diversity" is too general. For example, the individual interpretation of 'large-scale' could mean anything from local to international. Furthermore, ethnic, racial, and culturally diverse education programs could be based solely on demographics (i.e. not curriculum, which I assume was the intent).

NINTHLY,

"ENCOURAGES all nations to work towards eliminating “hate crimes”, or violent, malicious crimes spurned on by a lack of tolerance of cultural, ethnic, racial, or other differences"
Encouragement is nice. However, if the elimination of hate crimes is the goal, it is not nearly enough.

Just because clauses are "toothless" doesn't mean they aren't warranted. Eliminating hate crimes, or even classifying hate crimes as seperate from other crimes varies in agreement to much nation-to-nation, I find it warranted here that the author does not force anything upon individual nations, instead, merely stating the UN's position on them.

And the education programs, too are rightly recognized to be more national issues than not.





Additionally, in the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 7th sections of my post, I documented past resolutions that UNEQUIVOCALLY made the corresponding articles of the D. Accord unnecessary or illegal.

Actually, mentioning the resolutions you feel they violate is not equivelant to having "documented...unequivocally".

'Just my point. Why enact legislation if it can so easily be circumvented and provides no definitive call to action?

All resolutions can be circumvented. Also, individual national situations are almost always going to find some good reason for an exception to the rules. Acceptance of these, and recognition of the UN's quasi-powerless position in stopping such non-execution seems, to me, the most mature and enlightened thing to do. Passing an apparent "statement of opinion" seems much more reflective of the RL UN than not, which I'm certain has good reason for its lack of resolution-forcing.


Redundant parts were proved redundant by referring to the Constitution. In addition, something that is redundant is in itself not useful because there is already some other something that performs its alleged task. As for the verbiage, would you mind explaining why any such language IS necessary (i.e. “not useless”)? As I see it, all it does is clutter the resolution and make it more difficult for the reader to find its real purpose. Finally, what “other” specific claims have I supposed made fallaciously?

First off, it isn't a "constitution", it's a list of passed resolutions. Also, as I've pointed out before, I don't see where you've proven any redundancy. You need to be a little more specific in explaining what is redundant with what and why. Although sometimes I will go out of my way to investigate unsubstantiated claims, I simply don't have the time right now.


Since all you (Krioval) mentioned about your candidates was that they were anti-abortion and anti-homosexual, I'm going to assume that they are "laughed at" because of those positions. Therefore, wouldn't your voters be in violation of discriminating based upon school of thought as outlined in the proposal you supposedly support?

I don't see anything in the proposal which mandates that member nations' citizens aren't allowed to discriminate according to school of thought.

1.

STATEMENT:
I think if the author hadn't prefaced the proposal in the way he or she did, the reasoning behind introducing it would have been lost on many UN members. It would've been lost on me, at least.

RESPONSE:
Shouldn't a proposal only include the actual proposal, saving the explanation/support for the thread?
...The thread that's supposed to discuss whether or not a proposal/resolution should pass.


2.

STATEMENT:
I disagree. According to my reading of "Fairness and Equality", only international organizations are required to treat fairly and equally--which would make a similar mandate for national governments easily warranted. I'll read it again, in case I'm mistaken.

RESPONSE:
Perhaps you should. Here's the specific section I thought applied,
In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).
Since member states are both agencies and organizations of the U.N., this resolution applies.


3.

STATEMENTI don't see anything in the proposal mandating a level of participation in government. When I see "participation" in government I see it as implying "[some type] of participation in government". That said, I think it's warranted that youngsters be allowed to participate in government on some level. That said, I think it's warranted that youngsters be allowed to participate in government on some level. When I was in grade school, I was very troubled with the traffic patterns outside of our school (they were a mess, and incredibly busy around 2 to 3 when school got out). So, I wrote a letter to my representatives in office and went to a town hall meeting.

RESPONSE:
The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, AGE, language, school of thought, or intelligence [emphasis added].
The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT, etc.) based upon such differences [emphasis added].
So, the level of government you allow youngsters must be NO DIFFERENT from the level of government you allow everyone else. I suppose you could restrict everyone's political power to that of merely writing letters and attending town hall meetings, but that would just be another loophole around this more-loop-holes-than-a-shoe-store resolution.

4.

STATEMENT:
Just because clauses are "toothless" doesn't mean they aren't warranted. Eliminating hate crimes, or even classifying hate crimes as separate from other crimes varies in agreement to much nation-to-nation, I find it warranted here that the author does not force anything upon individual nations, instead, merely stating the UN's position on them.

RESPONSE:
Actually, I believe that if clauses are "toothless" (i.e. meaning they don't provide any call to action) they are completely "unwarranted" and undesirable. Why clog up the resolution with "U.N. positions" and other such dribble that only makes finding the few meaningful articles more time-consuming than it already is?


5.

STATEMENT:And the education programs, too are rightly recognized to be more national issues than not.

RESPONSE: What? Did I make a contradictory statement?


6.

STATEMENT:Actually, mentioning the resolutions you feel they violate is not equivelant to having "documented...unequivocally".

RESPONSE: I suppose you're right, but what really is unequivocal? From what I read, it seemed pretty obvious that the clauses noted either violated or repeated their corresponding past resolutions. I defy you or anyone else to prove me wrong...


7.

STATEMENT:
All resolutions can be circumvented. Also, individual national situations are almost always going to find some good reason for an exception to the rules. Acceptance of these, and recognition of the UN's quasi-powerless position in stopping such non-execution seems, to me, the most mature and enlightened thing to do. Passing an apparent "statement of opinion" seems much more reflective of the RL UN than not, which I'm certain has good reason for its lack of resolution-forcing.

RESPONSE:
Yeah, but this does not negate the importance of the LEVEL of permeability. Say there are two resolutions that make marijuana illegal. The first resolution is full of utopian bombast with no real re-enforcement (like the one at hand), while the other has zero tolerance and threatens to cut off an offender's penis/breasts while conscious with a blunt, rusted knife if he/she disobeys. Regardless of whether this is legal in NS, even though a few people will continue to illegally smoke it up, you can rationally assume that the second proposal will be much more effective in marijuana control than the first.


8.

STATEMENT:
First off, it isn't a "constitution", it's a list of passed resolutions.

RESPONSE:
"The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

con•sti•tu•tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knst-tshn, -ty-)
n.

3.
a. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution."

Therefore, I think that this proves that the list of passed resolutions is INDEED a constitution, although maybe not a Constitution by title.


9.

STATEMENT:
Also, as I've pointed out before, I don't see where you've proven any redundancy. You need to be a little more specific in explaining what is redundant with what and why. Although sometimes I will go out of my way to investigate unsubstantiated claims, I simply don't have the time right now

RESPONSE:
I thought that the past resolutions listed were quite self-explanatory, but if you'd like me to elaborate, so be it.
Since I've already taken care of the "REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally..." clause, I'll start with Article 3 under "FIFTHLY" of my original post;
"3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,"
U.N Resolution 88;
In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).
Since the judiciary branch and law enforcement of member states are indirectly agencies and organizations of the U.N., Article 3 of the Discrimination Accord is redundant of the regulations expressed in UN Resolution 88, namely, that such agencies/organizations shall "fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government".
Next, Article 4 under "SIXTHLY",
"4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law"
UN Resolution 49, Article II;
Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.
Therefore, "but not limited to those social dividends secured by international law" violates UN Resolution 49, Article II, primarily because "Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all PERSONS and things therein". Also, Article III;
Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law. So, no member state can make another member state pay social dividends to its citizens, even if such member states “deem” it so.
Next, Article 5 under "SEVENTHLY";
5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law
UN Resolution 49, Article 11;
Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.
In other words, what the U.N. says, goes, meaning that Article 5 of the D. Accord is redundant of UN Resolution 49, Article 11.


10.

STATEMENT:
I don't see anything in the proposal which mandates that member nations' citizens aren't allowed to discriminate according to school of thought.

RESPONSE:
The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.
and
The UN disallows member governments from discriminating the previously described rights (protection under law, participation in government, etc.) based upon such differences.
Since voters are very much part of the government (in an ideal democracy, people literally are the government), this includes them.

I just want to know. Is this gonna raise taxes again? :rolleyes:

I may have missed it. But I didnt feel like weeding through 6 pages of back and forth to try and find if some one already asked and/or answered it. It comes down to a point that I can no longer afford to have social programs of my own since the UN keeps raising my taxes. Isn't that a viloation of resolution #4, or does that not count any more. I used to be able to teach children how to kill a man from 6 paces, but that has been cut in favor of the UN Organ Donar fiasco.
Sincerely, Ujio
The Demons of Ujio.

Is this gonna raise taxes again?

It comes down to a point that I can no longer afford to have social programs of my own since the UN keeps raising my taxes. Isn't that a viloation of resolution #4, or does that not count any more.

I see two questions here:

First, "Will this resolution raise taxes?"

I honestly don't have a complete answer for you. However, here is what the moderators have written about "Human Rights" resolutions:

Human Rights
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Moral Decency
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

These are exactly opposed types of resolutions and affect Civil Freedoms. "Human Rights" increases these freedoms while "Moral Decency" reduces them. Remember that these freedoms primarily discuss the domestic Civil policies of UN member nations; Shall the UN require its members to exert more or less control over the personal aspects of the lives of their citizens/subjects? If it's an issue about how you choose to live your life (or if you have a choice), then it's Civil Freedoms. Total Personal/Civil Freedoms are one of the components of Anarchy. Zero Civil Freedoms are Totalitarian regimes.

"Mild" versions of either category will push nations in a particular direction, but only as far as the center. Stronger versions will push nations towards a more extreme end of the spectrum.


Though this text points out that Human Rights resolutions increase civil freedoms, I've had a small feeling that they might have a minor hidden impact on tax rates. I'm not sure though, but in either case, it is my recommendation to allow the resolution to stand or fall on its own merits and to consider changes in tax rates as a secondary sort of thing. <-- this is just how I choose to play the game.


I believe your second question about questioning the legality of *any* UN resolution increasing taxes in light of Resolution #4, "UN Taxation Ban". The irony here is that Resolution #4 is a "Social Justice" resolution. These resolutions most assuredly increase domestic taxes, which means that had our nations been in the UN at the time of the passage of Resolution #4, our taxes would have increased "significantly".

The text of the resolution reads, "The UN shall not be allowed to collect taxes directly from the citizens of any member state for any purpose." The point behind that resoluion wasn't to say that the UN can not tax member nations, as clearly Social Justice resolutions do this, and to say otherwise would be a Game Mechanics violation. However, the idea was to prevent the UN from sending bills or tax statements directly to citizens. Instead the UN needs to charge its member nations, who in turn can choose to tax their citizens however they like.

This is just my personal opinion, but you've brought up a good point about Resolution #4. It is confusing, and I personally think it should be repealed and that Sophista's and Frisbeeteria's draft proposal from 2004 about finacing the UN should be considered a better alternative.

I do have a Free Trade proposal that I'll bring to the floor soon enough, and ultimately I see it as an answer to the high tax rates. I don't like them either.

A few things for Arcadyanew:

I don't want to go through and do a seventeen-page point-by-point rebuttal (or acceptance, for that matter), so I'll try to summarize. Krioval's population typically abhors discrimination based on superficial things like skin color or religious belief; that's why we're in the NSUN (under the compilation of resolutions here). We would likely depart the UN if the resolutions were things like "ban same-sex marriage" and "segregate the races". Maybe it's Krioval's unusual racial mixture, which is predominantly Pacific Islander and Asian, but there are plenty of people of Caucasian and Africans descent, and racial mixing is prevalent. On the other hand, over 90% of Kriovalians are of the same faith, and the rest are a hodgepodge of their own, though Christians do make up most of the remaning less-than-10%.

As for the examples about a marijuana ban, I agree that one that involved the loss of one's penis or breast would likely drive marijuana use underground and decrease overall use more readily than a ban focused on idealistic reasoning. At the same time, the first ban is likely to encounter all manner of opposition from people who feel that such a punishment is "cruel and unusual" (read: banned by the NSUN) and that it's not really lowering crime rates - it just pushes certain activities into the "underworld".

Really, what I see as a motive force behind this resolution, like so many others, is the level of international pressure against an offender that can be wielded. I mean, sure, one's nation can essentially ignore certain provisions of this resolution, but does one's nation want to be constantly harangued by reporters and politicians from other countries because they don't want to end racist practices? Is someone willing to risk a lucrative trade agreement being diverted elsewhere, even given the size of the NS universe? Possibly, but I think that most will make at least a token effort to comply with the spirit of this resolution simply because it requires so little action by the national government but has the potential to alleviate some of the more obnoxious problems with marginalization of minority groups.

At present, the Council of Mayors has reviewed the current resolution and feels inclined to abstain. The City States will likely change our vote to match the vote of the International Democratic Union, however, we wanted to specifically state why we are abstaining.

First, this resolution mentions the "Definition of Marriage" resolution. While my government has no problem with same sex marriages, which were the driving force behind the "Definition of Marriage" resolution, the resolution itself is disrespectful of national rights and local customs. The resolution is also among one of the most poorly worded resolutions the Council has had the task of reviewing and finds it an undesirable reference.

Second, the City States actually promotes and supports limited affirmative action programs. The current resolution states:

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law:

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,

While the ideal behind this goal is laudable, in practice the creation and point behind affirmative action is the recognition that while people should be born equal in the eyes of the law, in economic terms people rarely are born equal. A child born to a wealthy family has a greater chance to make it into a number educational and recreational activities that can better prepare this individual for his or her professional life.

Acknowledging that economic background is in fact not equal, affirmative action programs are designed to target specific groups of the population ... namely poor people.

The concern of my government is that this resolution might become a means for opponents to affirmative action programs, such as scholarships and grants given to high school students from poor neighborhoods, to claim that a student's economic background should not be considered when determining economic need.

The reason we are abstaining, is that we may be misinterpeting the intent of this resolution, and we are prepared to change our vote based upon comments from either the sponsoring author or from other IDU members.

OOC: For those of you whom are interested in where I'm _really_ basing my decision, it is coming from classic US arguements in support of affirmative action programs. As a 30-something male of eastern european ancestry, I'm the type of person who one might think would "suffer" from reverse discrimination, and yet in education and in my professional life, I've found I've still had plenty of excellent opportunities and that affirmative action programs have not closed any real doors for me. :)

I believe the following, though an opinion piece, is a fair arguement in support of affirmative action:
http://www.now.org/issues/affirm/talking.html

As I said, the above is an opinion piece. It is not really supported by facts (even though it claims to be). But I do understand and agree with the general sentiments behind the statements.

Now here is what I'm *not* saying in character ... there is a larger debate around affirmative action (which does consider ethnic background and/or gender) on whether or not is should extend beyond economic need:

http://www.nwlc.org/details.cfm?id=111&section=employment

Here again, I think it should. The above site again presents some opinions, many of which I believe are true. However, I don't believe they are true in all fields. I work for the government, and I can assure you that being a white male is *not* a benefit, but being comfortable in speaking in public is.

These are just my opinions ... but my POINT is that an "international" resolution on discrimination and equality and fairness, could have local / domestic impacts on issues like affirmative action. Being a supporter of affirmative action and outreach, I could easily write a UN resolution to deal with these topics, but I also feel that much of the point of NationStates is to discover local ways to deal with these problems.

That is why I abstained. This resolution is pretty good actually. I like it and personally I agree with the author. But as Goober pointed out last week, no opportunity was given for us to discuss if this is an international issue or a domestic one. I'd honestly rather we talk about what this resolution will do to our domestic affirmative action programs before we are so quick to cast our votes and also think we should be very careful to draw a defensible line between international human rights and domestic sovereignty.

...The thread that's supposed to discuss whether or not a proposal/resolution should pass.

Proposals in the UN have--for a long time--been allowed, and even encouraged, to have pre-ambulatory clauses (the unimportant one's you're shrugging off). Proposals, I feel, need to explain why they do what they do. As a UN voter, I need to be convinced to follow a certain path. As a player, I don't have (or at least I sympathize with the thousands who don't have) the time to investigate the forum arguments for and against a proposal. The forum is a helpful tool, but it's important to remember that the mechanic of convincing UN members is directly between the proposal author and the UN voters.

I've used preambles in writing my proposals that eventually became resolutions--in fact repeals are, technically, all pre-ambulatory. Preambles are simply parts of the "modern" aesthetic for proposals. Few people come to the forum to understand a proposer's arguments, and many of those that do don't return to hear responses. Thus, pre-ambulatory clauses have sprung up to provide rhetorical context for the proposed actions, directly to the UN voter. The burden of proving a proposal as worthy is on the proposal author, and I think it's warranted that he or she do everything possible to explain his or her reasoning--even including some of that reasoning in the proposal.

I think it would be best if you save your criticism of the proposal for the proposal itself and not its style, which is more of a criticism of the current conventions of proposal writing that prevail today--which is not what we're here to discuss.


In the exercise of any power, the United Nations, and every agency, organization and officer thereof, acting on the behalf thereof, or acting with the authority thereof, shall fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government, without regard to the race, ethnicity, gender, of any person or any political consideration (including, but not limited to, the outcome of any conflict, or the ideology of any government).

Since member states are both agencies and organizations of the U.N., this resolution applies.


I do not see member nations as agencies and organizations of the UN. I believe that is where our interpretations differ. When I read that, I see it as applying specifically to the agencies and organizations made by the UN, not by nations that join the UN.


So, the level of government you allow youngsters must be NO DIFFERENT from the level of government you allow everyone else. I suppose you could restrict everyone's political power to that of merely writing letters and attending town hall meetings, but that would just be another loophole around this more-loop-holes-than-a-shoe-store resolution.

Before you indulge in name-calling, you need to hear my counter-arguments. The CLARIFIES clause you cited says that it reiterates the UN's position, implying that it was stated earlier. This previous statement is stated at the beginning of the proposal's "active" clauses as thus:

REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law: and then is mentioned the right of participation in government.

The later clause cannot contradict this earlier clause A) because contradictory legislation is illegal in the UN and B) because it labels itself as a "clarification" and a "reiteration". This makes me believe the later CLARIFICATION clause to be merely a statement on the degree of enforcement of earlier statements (we CONDEMN all discrimination, and DISALLOW nations from discriminating as detailed above). The correlation between the definition of discrimination and the REQUIRES clause seems entirely up to the nations, which means that they can decide that "fairly" and "equally" applying rights still encompasses disallowing underage voting, etc.

Also, it should be noted that "discrimination" is not defined in this document. If a national government does not find restricting of level of participation in government according to age to be discriminatory, then it would seem that the member government isn't disallowed from doing this. The oversight the UN has on nations putting these resolutions into effect is always a gray-area, chock full of role-play and never fully agreed upon.

As such my government doesn't see any reason we can't disallow children from running for government office under this proposal, seeing it as still "fair" and "equal", so we will continue to do so should this proposal is passed into resolution.



Why clog up the resolution with "U.N. positions" and other such dribble that only makes finding the few meaningful articles more time-consuming than it already is?

Because the UN isn't going to take an arbitrary stand on these minor issues (such as the creation of large-scale education programs, or investigation of regional racial dynamics), so it's going to keep the issue a national decision with a word of advice to national governments. It's preservation of national sovereignty.

RESPONSE: I suppose you're right, but what really is unequivocal? From what I read, it seemed pretty obvious that the clauses noted either violated or repeated their corresponding past resolutions. I defy you or anyone else to prove me wrong...

It isn't my responsibility to "prove you wrong"; it's your responsibility to prove yourself right. The effectiveness of an argument is measured by how well it convinces the audience, not by how well the author is convinced of it himself or herself.


"[I]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

-snip-

3.
a. The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution."

Therefore, I think that this proves that the list of passed resolutions is INDEED a constitution, although maybe not a Constitution by title.

The "system of fundamental laws...that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government" is much more aptly defined as the stickies at the top of the forum and the FAQ which detail the rules of the game and what can and cannot be allowed as a proposal. They create the system by which this government works; we pass laws (resolutions) according to that system.

U.N Resolution 88;

Since the judiciary branch and law enforcement of member states are indirectly agencies and organizations of the U.N., Article 3 of the Discrimination Accord is redundant of the regulations expressed in UN Resolution 88, namely, that such agencies/organizations shall "fairly, evenly, and appropriately exercise such power when interacting with any person or government".


The key word there is indirectly. Member can only be thought of as indirect extensions of the UN. They still have the right to decide for themselves in anything the UN doesn't say otherwise, so I do not think of them as functions of the international UN government. As such, my government has not applied "Fairness and Equality" to my sections of government. Since I, and many other nations, have interpreted it this way, it is only redundant for nations that have taken it upon themselves to apply this resolution to their own governments. Which, I might add, is not likely to be a majority of member governments.


Next, Article 4 under "SIXTHLY",

UN Resolution 49, Article II;

Therefore, "but not limited to those social dividends secured by international law" violates UN Resolution 49, Article II, primarily because "Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all PERSONS and things therein". Also, Article III;
So, no member state can make another member state pay social dividends to its citizens, even if such member states “deem” it so.

I don't understand why you see this as redundant or interpret it the way you do, you need to explain this more.



Since voters are very much part of the government (in an ideal democracy, people literally are the government), this includes them.

Only if you define voters as a part of government. In most democracies I've seen, there's a clear dividing line between public and private property, government and non-government officials, etc. If your nation wishes to define its government as the entirety of the people, it is free to do so. But mine won't, and, thus, will not be affected in the same way as yours.

Cabinia has long been a champion of civil liberties, and our original impression was that this was a resolution we could support. Unfornately, this is not the case.

2. The right to participate in government,

Cabinia recognizes no such right, and regularly disenfranchises those convicted of felony crimes or diagnosed with dangerous mental disorders. Cabinia also bars certain people from elective office, as detailed below.

§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence.

Cabinia's government recognizes the need to discriminate based on religion, age, language, and intelligence, particularly in its hiring procedures.

1) Religion: Members of ignorant, dangerous religious ideologies are barred from elective office, on the grounds that, for example, the half-baked rantings of pre-literate desert nomads are not an acceptable basis for the decisions of a modern government.

2) Age: Cabinia recognizes a minimum age requirement for full-time employment, and a maximum age requirement for entering active duty military service.

3) Language: Cabinia requires that all government employees must be able to communicate with their supervisors in the official language of Cabinia (English) to a degree necessary for the job at hand. This might be seen as severe discrimination to any outsider who did not realize that Cabinia has provided for free, universal education.

4) Intelligence: The Cabinian government regularly screens job applicants for aptitude, particularly for training/internship programs.

§ The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.

This clause has often been cited as the cure for concerns such as those we have mentioned previously, but those people are in error. The last sentence makes clear that exceptions are allowed in response to temporary conditions only. The exceptions Cabinia has listed are not temporary conditions, but part of everyday life. And Cabinia will not declare a permanent state of emergency just to get around one ill-considered piece of legislation.

Cabinia votes a most emphatic NO.

The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.

I seem to recall a few problems that arose from attitudes like this. Here goes my list: *deep breath* Siberian Gulags, Guantanamo Bay, Japanese Internment camps (in America), blatantly racist immigration policies, McCarthyism, Sacco and Vanzetti Trial, Red Scare, Liberty Cabbage, Prohibition, The Bonus Army, pregnant teens dropping out of high school and the abortion debate.

These problems all arose when we wanted to give people all of their rights only some of the time. Good sense was airlifted out of these situations to make room for drastic measures. The real measure of a nation's character is how consistent it is in doling out civil rights.

I know this sounds stupid, but I'm not sure which is which.
Is "for" THe promotion of civil rights towards homosexuals, blacks, etc or to vote FOR civil rights meaning I click "against"
I must have read the thing 10 times and I haven't the faintest clue how to vote.

I know this sounds stupid, but I'm not sure which is which.
Is "for" THe promotion of civil rights towards homosexuals, blacks, etc or to vote FOR civil rights meaning I click "against"
I must have read the thing 10 times and I haven't the faintest clue how to vote.

Out of Character:
A "FOR" vote means you agree with the ideas and text of this resolution. An "AGAINST" vote means you have some reservations.

I think my earlier arguement about affirmative action was a "neutral" point. Ultimately I honestly believe the intent of this resolution was to promote equality. However, I personally believe that sometimes governments have to engage in and support affirmative action programs to do this.

Here is the best example I can think of ... a blind person has certain physical limitations. If a sighted engineer and blind engineer were going to apply for a job, assuming both of them had equal engineering experience and skills, the sighted engineer is more likely to get the job. It is a fact that in the United States, blind people are legally not allowed to drive, and a blind engineer is going to have to work harder to get to job sites and to collect information.

Although governments are supposed to give out jobs based on "equality" and "fairness", governments also have a responsibility to protect its citizens ... and some people (me included) strongly believe that government can afford to take a minor hit in flexibility and hire the blind engineer who might be just as good as the sighted engineer, on the basis that he / she physically needs the larger infrastructure of the state.

Ultimately this is a hard call for me to make, so my country abstained. :)

Given that the point I've raised twice earlier about discrimination based on intelligence has gone substantially unanswered, I too will at the very least abstain.

I hardly believe the intention of the author is to not allow screening job applications as to perceived intelligence based on exam results and the like, but seeing as there is nothing in the resolution to suggest otherwise I am left with no other options, even if I do think the general gist of it is a good one. And to pre-empt any arguments as to the final 'reiteration' that 'especial' circumstances can suspend non-discrimination, this is clearly not sufficient, particularly given the condition 'provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.' To suggest that this article provides a general and permanent right of discrimination in certain circumstances is non sequitur.

Well, unless I've become like.. dislecsic or something, I chose to vote against because I believe in total civil rights, bearing in mind that the handicapped are a different story, e.g. a guy in a wheelchair his whole life won't make a very good employee in a facility invilving major physical activity.
So... what was written involved using mild discrimination, right? Cause if it didn't then I need to change my vote asap.

Oh, right, and I'm still new here so I am unaware... what is the UN's general standpoint on the topic of homosexual marriges?

Cabinia has long been a champion of civil liberties, and our original impression was that this was a resolution we could support. Unfornately, this is not the case.



Cabinia recognizes no such right, and regularly disenfranchises those convicted of felony crimes or diagnosed with dangerous mental disorders. Cabinia also bars certain people from elective office, as detailed below.



Cabinia's government recognizes the need to discriminate based on religion, age, language, and intelligence, particularly in its hiring procedures.

1) Religion: Members of ignorant, dangerous religious ideologies are barred from elective office, on the grounds that, for example, the half-baked rantings of pre-literate desert nomads are not an acceptable basis for the decisions of a modern government.

2) Age: Cabinia recognizes a minimum age requirement for full-time employment, and a maximum age requirement for entering active duty military service.

3) Language: Cabinia requires that all government employees must be able to communicate with their supervisors in the official language of Cabinia (English) to a degree necessary for the job at hand. This might be seen as severe discrimination to any outsider who did not realize that Cabinia has provided for free, universal education.

4) Intelligence: The Cabinian government regularly screens job applicants for aptitude, particularly for training/internship programs.



This clause has often been cited as the cure for concerns such as those we have mentioned previously, but those people are in error. The last sentence makes clear that exceptions are allowed in response to temporary conditions only. The exceptions Cabinia has listed are not temporary conditions, but part of everyday life. And Cabinia will not declare a permanent state of emergency just to get around one ill-considered piece of legislation.

Cabinia votes a most emphatic NO.

It doesn't set a time limit. Some threats can last centuries or even eons.

But, fine, I'm going to help you deal with this. I'm posting two battlecruisers in orbit over your nation. They will be targetting your nation's cities with the most destructive weapons at their disposal. They won't actually fire if you do not attack them, but at the same time your nation will be under a temporary threat and you can do as you will in this issue. I say it's temporary because all DLE ships have to leave to refuel, though another threat in the form of two different battlecruisers will replace those until they return.

There, happy?

I hardly believe the intention of the author is to not allow screening job applications as to perceived intelligence based on exam results and the like, but seeing as there is nothing in the resolution to suggest otherwise I am left with no other options, even if I do think the general gist of it is a good one. And to pre-empt any arguments as to the final 'reiteration' that 'especial' circumstances can suspend non-discrimination, this is clearly not sufficient, particularly given the condition 'provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.' To suggest that this article provides a general and permanent right of discrimination in certain circumstances is non sequitur.

That's only because you're not thinking creatively. You'd be surprised how easy it is to pay a few children to yell a couple of times and then declare your nation under threat of terrorism. The threat lasts until they grow up, then you find a new set of kids and a new "terrorist threat" to keep your citizens occupied. Hell, it's how I keep the few humans in my nation limited to just Earth.

Well, unless I've become like.. dislecsic or something, I chose to vote against because I believe in total civil rights, bearing in mind that the handicapped are a different story, e.g. a guy in a wheelchair his whole life won't make a very good employee in a facility invilving major physical activity.
So... what was written involved using mild discrimination, right? Cause if it didn't then I need to change my vote asap.

Actually, it involved major discrimination, like banning people from being able to help decide how they are ruled, as well.

Oh, right, and I'm still new here so I am unaware... what is the UN's general standpoint on the topic of homosexual marriges?

Homosexual marriages are mandated as legal in all UN nations. By not one, but at least three resolutions.

Oh, right, and I'm still new here so I am unaware... what is the UN's general standpoint on the topic of homosexual marriges?

In the game, the NS UN adopted a resolution titled "Gay Rights" back on May 3, 2003 by a vote of 12,705 to 7,734.

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/HR.pdf

That resolution included the following:

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

Later, the idea was revisited in the Definition of Marriage resolution (which I think was not needed because of the above clause) which passed by a vote of 11,904 to 7,473.

The reason I'm including the votes is I think there is some reason to believe that UN members aren't really in 100% agreement about the issue of gay marriage. It seems fair to assume that more nations support it than don't, but I don't feel there is a 2/3 majority that feels strong in its support.

That's only because you're not thinking creatively. You'd be surprised how easy it is to pay a few children to yell a couple of times and then declare your nation under threat of terrorism. The threat lasts until they grow up, then you find a new set of kids and a new "terrorist threat" to keep your citizens occupied. Hell, it's how I keep the few humans in my nation limited to just Earth.


Hmm.. Ah yes, I get it. I train a few chimps covertly to type up application letters for jobs as lawyers and nuclear engineers, they get the jobs (of course) - the blind lead the blind or, alternatively, the lawyer-chimp sues the nuclear-chimp for the new Chernobyl he's caused, they both cock it up, I can invoke 'especial conditions', hire humans again, the chimps both lose their jobs, things return to normal.. and I train another few chimps. Perhaps as jet pilots and doctors. Creative enough? ;)

Hmm.. Ah yes, I get it. I train a few chimps covertly to type up application letters for jobs as lawyers and nuclear engineers, they get the jobs (of course) - the blind lead the blind or, alternatively, the lawyer-chimp sues the nuclear-chimp for the new Chernobyl he's caused, they both cock it up, I can invoke 'especial conditions', hire humans again, the chimps both lose their jobs, things return to normal.. and I train another few chimps. Perhaps as jet pilots and doctors. Creative enough? ;)

Yes. I like. But I'm not going to steal it.

But, fine, I'm going to help you deal with this. I'm posting two battlecruisers in orbit over your nation. They will be targetting your nation's cities with the most destructive weapons at their disposal. They won't actually fire if you do not attack them, but at the same time your nation will be under a temporary threat and you can do as you will in this issue. I say it's temporary because all DLE ships have to leave to refuel, though another threat in the form of two different battlecruisers will replace those until they return.


If the chief defender of this resolution feels that the threat of violence is an acceptable solution to its shortcomings, then we have to say we've proven the bill to be fatally flawed. DLE cannot care about the condition of worldwide civil liberties while threatening to remove the same... though we have learned to expect no better from the blustering fool who represents DLE.

If the chief defender of this resolution feels that the threat of violence is an acceptable solution to its shortcomings, then we have to say we've proven the bill to be fatally flawed. DLE cannot care about the condition of worldwide civil liberties while threatening to remove the same... though we have learned to expect no better from the blustering fool who represents DLE.

Actually, if you have noticed, I never intended to be the chief defender. I specifically said I am neutral on this issue. My "defending" is mostly dealing with the bad arguements people put up, and so far that has put me on the side of defending the resolution.

And, I will note the unimaginative mejnot from Cabinia has not bothered to check the other responses that have been made to realize that there are ways around this and that my nation was just offering to help them work around it. After all, said mejnot could not even be bothered to listen when I mentioned the ships would not fire unless they are fired upon, which would hint to the more evolved people of the planet Earth that the ships are not there to be hostile but there to provide an excuse.

I would advise Cabinia to be rid of the delegate it has sent, for said delegate is not doing their job very well and is only managing to embarass the nation of Cabinia. If said delegate wishes to continue making their nation look like a joke, we will be forced to have said candidate removed by the guards. This is a serious matter, not a comedy show.

We do not expect an apology, but a candidate who knows how to think. If Cabinia cannot provide such a candidate, we must question their continued presence among those of us who take our positions seriously.

OOC: I love the RPs we sometimes get into on here...

And, I will note the unimaginative mejnot from Cabinia has not bothered to check the other responses that have been made to realize that there are ways around this and that my nation was just offering to help them work around it.

That the representative of DLE so often resorts to threats of violence as a solution to problems shows where the lack of imagination truly lies.

After all, said mejnot could not even be bothered to listen when I mentioned the ships would not fire unless they are fired upon, which would hint to the more evolved people of the planet Earth that the ships are not there to be hostile but there to provide an excuse.

The government of Cabinia does not consider a sword of Damocles an acceptable method of evading the letter of a UN resolution. The purpose of this bill is to increase civil liberties, and living under a state of emergency would drastically infringe upon them. But even if we did support this tactic, we would never accept the word of such a warmongering state, which had so recently, in these very UN halls, threatened invasion of Cabinia.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8577671&postcount=170
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8579728&postcount=179

I would advise Cabinia to be rid of the delegate it has sent, for said delegate is not doing their job very well and is only managing to embarass the nation of Cabinia. If said delegate wishes to continue making their nation look like a joke, we will be forced to have said candidate removed by the guards. This is a serious matter, not a comedy show.

The fact that Cabinia takes these remarks seriously shows where the lack of seriousness truly lies, and who considers these proceedings to be a "joke."

At this point I am instructed by my government to advise the representative from the DLE that any attempts to position weapons in Cabinian space will be considered an act of hostility. And I am instructed to cease any and all conversations with DLE in the UN, until such time as their government sees fit to appoint a delegate with a less rudimentary understanding of international relations.

That the representative of DLE so often resorts to threats of violence as a solution to problems shows where the lack of imagination truly lies.

Threaten you? Please. You have over twice our population and yet spend only 1/3 the amount that we do on the military. I don't have to resort to threats. I can just give an order and have your nation dealt with. Nor have I.

The government of Cabinia does not consider a sword of Damocles an acceptable method of evading the letter of a UN resolution. The purpose of this bill is to increase civil liberties, and living under a state of emergency would drastically infringe upon them. But even if we did support this tactic, we would never accept the word of such a warmongering state, which had so recently, in these very UN halls, threatened invasion of Cabinia.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8577671&postcount=170
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8579728&postcount=179

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Good one! You actually think those statements are evidence of what you are saying! Someone, please tell Cabinia that their delegate has no clue how to do their job on even the most basic of levels.

In the first, I was responding to you calling dictators "malicious" and no threat is present, while the second contains nothing that can be interpreted as a threat without creative misinterpretations of English. Please, keep it up. I am enjoying the humor the delegate from Cabinia is providing.

The fact that Cabinia takes these remarks seriously shows where the lack of seriousness truly lies, and who considers these proceedings to be a "joke."

At this point I am instructed by my government to advise the representative from the DLE that any attempts to position weapons in Cabinian space will be considered an act of hostility. And I am instructed to cease any and all conversations with DLE in the UN, until such time as their government sees fit to appoint a delegate with a less rudimentary understanding of international relations.

And at this point I am advised to tell you that any hostile move against DLE ships will result in our full attack fleet, plus the Graviton Destroyers from the other two fleets, being sent into your nation with orders to pacify all military capacity in whatever means they deem necessary. This, dearie, is a threat. Make a note of it so you have something to reference when trying to determine when I am threatening and when I am not.

Until such time as Cabinia decides to appoint a delegate who actually knows how to do their job, I have been ordered to treat all statements from Cabinia as though they are comming from a small child and, as such, point them out as such to the assembly or laugh at them. If the delegate from Cabinia is willing to learn how to do the job properly, let me know.

OOC: Geez, Cabinia. I thought you knew I prefer direct threats to insinuations. And, to be honest, those statements really don't support what you are saying.

Now, don't take the above personally. It's just a damned character with a large ego. That's all. Just remember that in this case we are pretty much in pure RP mode. Otherwise I wouldn't have said half that. If you did not intend that, let me know and I'll switch back.

OOC: Of course I don't take it personally, as it's all just RP in here. You have to realize that my nation doesn't have much respect for authority, even its own. Such threats would naturally not be dismissed casually, especially given your military budget. And of course, insinuations are as good as overt threats in the realms of international politics.

And though you do have a larger military, my nation would be much more technologically advanced (check out our relative rankings in worldwide education today). And it wouldn't stand alone, as it has some rather powerful regional allies. So while it is not militaristic in nature, it wouldn't exactly back down, either.

Of course you realize all of this has to be OOC, as I am forbidden from responding IC.

The High-Council of the Shadow-Kai has long followed Libertine principles, and has distinguished what is the Libertine principle, namely, laws should focus on what the people CAN do, not what they can't. The "can't" laws come into play when they restrict another's freedom in order to increase another's. I think that you are interpreting this proposal in way that is too pesimistic, uncreative, and unrecognizing of its "can't" nature. It is supposed to give freedoms to those it speaks of, not restrict ours. Whenever you decide whether to bring someone into the military, personal employment, or public service, you have the right to reject them based on thier ability to serve said office. Not allowing someone who is 102 to drive a tank is not discriminating against thier age, but thier ability to drive a tank. If he or she is 102 and physically fit to drive said tank, then it would be discrimintating against thier age if you still refused.

The question of a Member nation's treatment of its citizens, where no clear collateral impact on other Member's citizens can be demonstrated, is for us a matter properly left to the jurisidiction of the Member nations themselves. While Allemande would hope that the Members would be non-discriminatory in their treatment of their citizens, it does not feel that the NSUN should be mandating this.

Allemande votes "no" as a consequence of this.

OOC: Of course I don't take it personally, as it's all just RP in here. You have to realize that my nation doesn't have much respect for authority, even its own. Such threats would naturally not be dismissed casually, especially given your military budget. And of course, insinuations are as good as overt threats in the realms of international politics.

OOC: Which is why I try to only make direct threats when I want to threaten.

I can understand your position. I was posting that mainly so that any mod rulings on the subject have to take into account that it's pure RP.

And though you do have a larger military, my nation would be much more technologically advanced (check out our relative rankings in worldwide education today). And it wouldn't stand alone, as it has some rather powerful regional allies. So while it is not militaristic in nature, it wouldn't exactly back down, either.

Eh, I find that's a matter of opinion. After dealing with various groups for years as part of my job in advertising, I have to say intelligence doesn't always equal technology. About the only advantage I have is the fact I have plundered certain pieces (the graviton drives and the energy-diffusing crystal matrixes) and bought others. Very little of the technology I have originates with DLE. Note the crystal matrixes are a survival necessity due to ion storms.

And not backing down would be fun, but to be honest I do have another war to fight in the near-future. As soon as DLE is over 1 billion, it's going to war with Sarkaraseta. That will be a war to remember.

Of course you realize all of this has to be OOC, as I am forbidden from responding IC.

Of course. Same, in essense, here.

*little boy of about 10 years old stands up*

Thank you Mr. Speaker,

The proud nation of Lotsa-Money cannot abide by this resolution. My president, the Right and Honourable President for Life Ronald Quark III, has asked me to come down here personally do deal with our view in this matter. As Prime Minister of Lotsa-Money I take this job, nae, this honour with full seriousness!

The chief reason we oppose this resolution is because, like many resolutions, it clearly violates our Holiest of Books, the Rules of Acquisition. It is the book of highest laws in our land. Here are but a sample of the rules this resolution, and others like it, violate:

Rule 004 » A woman wearing clothes is like a man in the kitchen
Rule 042 » What's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine too.
Rule 069 » Lotsa-Moneyians are not responsible for the stupidity of other races
Rule 094 » Females and finances don't mix

If another resolution is forced upon us, we shall simply use a grammatical loophole. As the resolution says:

"§ The UN condemns discrimination by governments, discrimination on the basis of differences in recognized religion, race, sex, sexual orientation, age, language, school of thought, or intelligence."

The Right and Honourable President for Life Ronald Quark III has chosen to read is as the word "recognized" applying to everything in the mentioned list. Therefore she shall make a list of "recognized" religions, "recognized" race, "recognized" sex, etc etc.

I have been told that these lists shall be rather short.

I end, Mr. Speaker, as I can see my mom waiting for me to give me a ride back to the airport. Should Lotsa-Money need to make any further comment our actual representative will respond.

*packs up his pokémon gear and heads off*

This resolution is a blatant act by the UN to control the liberty of it's member states! The Kingdom of Huack has voted against this resolution and if it appears close to passing on the 14th then Huack will leave the UN.

We will not allow homosexual marriage in our state nor will we ever allow equal rights for Bigotopians! Furthermore it is my government's policy that we will one day take away womens right to vote!

This is not just the thoughts of the King of Huack but of everyone in the West Indies as well! Except for women, gays and bigotopians of course.

This resolution is a blatant act by the UN to control the liberty of it's member states! The Kingdom of Huack has voted against this resolution and if it appears close to passing on the 14th then Huack will leave the UN.

We will not allow homosexual marriage in our state nor will we ever allow equal rights for Bigotopians! Furthermore it is my government's policy that we will one day take away womens right to vote!

This is not just the thoughts of the King of Huack but of everyone in the West Indies as well! Except for women, gays and bigotopians of course.

1) Actually, yes. The UN has been doing this for years.

2) Gay marriage is already legal in your nation. The Gay Rights and Definition of Marriage resolutions.

3) Right to vote will be forced by this one.

4) Bigtopians are an example from the issues. We don't exactly know how real they are.

5) Here, let me help you out...

~Grabs the Huack delegate, drags him to the express elevator, and tosses him down the shaft. Then wonders who will get to his office first.~

My primary compplaint is the barring of discrimination based on intelligence. Though well-intentioned, this makes special education based on ability illegal, which I think would be detrimental to educational institutions, including schools for the disabled. Besides, how does one measure intelligence discrimination? President Bush is academically lacking but is a political genius. What will be the measure of intelligence? What kind of intelligence (emotional, intellectual, etc.)?

The Federation of Transoxistania, although a new member of this esteemed institution, would like to announce its emphatic support for this resolution. This work will reinforce civil rights throughout the world (or is it worlds?), help strengthen the UN as a body, and bring us to a more unified and just future.

Our delegates would like to second the point raised by the delegate from "Antiedepressant Users" concerning the designation of 'intelligence' and would suggest that an ammendment to clarify the meaning of this clause would help to strengthen an already excellent resolution.

The Federation of Transoxistania would also like to thank the UN as a whole for the nice office space that has been provided for our delegation.

We will yield the remainder of our time to the chair.

*Bows, and steps down.*

OOC:

Its really wierd reading resolutions like this. In the actual United Nations, most of the resolutions that I've read would actually have to be passed as ammendments to the UN Charter or the Declaration of Human Rights , etc. I suppose as international events are a little difficult in the Nation States format, this is the only sort of resolution that can be done, but many of the elements in this resolution in the real UN would be struck down as violations of national sovereignty. The General Assembly does not have the authority to impinge on a nation's right to self governance - its fundamentally contrary to the Charter, which is designed to be much looser than the sort of federal approach devised in resolutions like this one.

My primary complaint is that my posting (about 7 hs ago) was deleted without explanation! This is not the place for this so I'll leave it there.

Anyway, although it seems there's little hope I still wish this resolution didn't pass. For what's worth, this is what I posted earlier.

The initiative is welcomed and well-drafted but there are two points that seem misguided and are a problem:

"...MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity..."

In general, this sounds good. However, on a case by case basis this might lead already tolerant nations to suffer a shift in resources toward academic and public awareness programs that would only create divisive and unjustified identity politics. Additionally, those limited resources would be lost to other worthwhile policies with more urgent goals (poverty reduction, infrastructure maintenance, etc.). In terms of national welfare priorities, this could be a problem even for intolerant societies that could use such education programs. Intolerant societies might also be facing more urgent issues.

Second, this paragraph from the res is a little confused but still it is a clear contradiction the resolution's stated goals:

"The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed."

Supporting this resolution is a backdoor to justifying state discrimination in times of "risk" -a very subjective parameter similar to the "national security" bs in the US.

"...MANDATING member nations create or allow large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity..."

In general, this sounds good. However, on a case by case basis this might lead already tolerant nations to suffer a shift in resources toward academic and public awareness programs that would only create divisive and unjustified identity politics. Additionally, those limited resources would be lost to worthwhile policies favoring poverty reduction, infrastructure, etc. In terms of national welfare priorities, this might also be a problem even for intolerant societies in need of such education programs because they could be facing more urgent issues.

Or, the could just allow the programs and not spend a dime.

Second, this paragraph from the res is a little confused but still it is a clear contradiction the resolution's stated goals:

"The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed."

Supporting this resolution is a backdoor to justifying state discrimination in times of "risk" -a very subjective parameter similar to the "national security" bs in the US.

The reason that's thrown in is that some nations are also the entirety of their race, religion, species, or whatever.

OOC:

Its really wierd reading resolutions like this. In the actual United Nations, most of the resolutions that I've read would actually have to be passed as ammendments to the UN Charter or the Declaration of Human Rights , etc. I suppose as international events are a little difficult in the Nation States format, this is the only sort of resolution that can be done, but many of the elements in this resolution in the real UN would be struck down as violations of national sovereignty. The General Assembly does not have the authority to impinge on a nation's right to self governance - its fundamentally contrary to the Charter, which is designed to be much looser than the sort of federal approach devised in resolutions like this one.

:)
OOC:
I agree, NationStates UN is fairly different from the real world UN ... largely because the moderators have allowed us to have a free hand to venture forth into the realm of mandating domestic laws, which is a big no-no in the real world.

However, a number of players like myself believe that just how much seriousness our own national governments give to various UN resolutions is a matter of debate. For example, I really don't see too many people roleplaying or bothering to deal with the forestry resolutions from 2003 / 2004.

That said, it is OK to bring up the sovereign rights arguement against a resolution, just like you'd expect to hear in the real UN, but at the same time, that type of arguement isn't going to generate that much of a response.

Ultimately I like to think of NationStates UN resolutions have "recommendations". We can follow the spirit of the recommendation, but it is up to our own governments to really decide the course these changes will take.

The Nomadic Tribes of Warlord Norman strongly disagree with this UN resolution. It is a clear violation of national sovriegnty, and threatens the legitimacy of this body. If we allow the United Nations to become a legislative body then we lose the foundation of what the UN was made to be: a deterance to war. Any passage of such a law would allienate a large portion of this body.

-The delegate for the Nomadic Tribes of Warlord Norman

The Nomadic Tribes of Warlord Norman strongly disagree with this UN resolution. It is a clear violation of national sovriegnty, and threatens the legitimacy of this body. If we allow the United Nations to become a legislative body then we lose the foundation of what the UN was made to be: a deterance to war. Any passage of such a law would allienate a large portion of this body.

-The delegate for the Nomadic Tribes of Warlord Norman

The UN already is a legislative body. Take a look at the passed resolutions. A lot of what we do is pure legislation and little of it has to do with preventing war. Hell, we have a resolution on the books that allows for a small UN group to give you the legal okay to attack someone.

As for national sovereignity: That's not given much respect around here. Mainly because you choose to give it up when you join the UN.

Going on from what DLE said:

This UN isn't set up to be a deterance to war. Indeed, it would be almost impossible for this body to attempt any such thing - resolutions cannot target specific nations, or groups of nations.
Nor is the UN a world government - well, it could be theoretically, but I sincerely doubt most nations would allow it to get that far.

Off-Topic: A war between DLE and Sarkaraseta? That would be something to behold.

I agree with the majority of this resolution, but i feel that the government should be able to disscriminate on terms of intelligence. Smarter people are more naturally qualified than stupid people. My nation is a liberal one, but this politically correct attitude has gone to far!

Going on from what DLE said:

This UN isn't set up to be a deterance to war. Indeed, it would be almost impossible for this body to attempt any such thing - resolutions cannot target specific nations, or groups of nations.
Nor is the UN a world government - well, it could be theoretically, but I sincerely doubt most nations would allow it to get that far.

I would say it's pretty much the Soviet Union or United States of the NS world.

Off-Topic: A war between DLE and Sarkaraseta? That would be something to behold.

Let me put it this way: Mars, Venus, most of Jupiter's moons, Earth's Moon, and at least half of the nations on Earth need to have missile defense systems ready. Missiles sometimes miss ships, but the planets behind the ships are extremely hard to miss. And Sarkaraseta uses weapons unlike what DLE has.

Let me put it this way: Mars, Venus, most of Jupiter's moons, Earth's Moon, and at least half of the nations on Earth need to have missile defense systems ready. Missiles sometimes miss ships, but the planets behind the ships are extremely hard to miss. And Sarkaraseta uses weapons unlike what DLE has.In other words, you'd want to behold it from a safe distance. Any idea on what that would be?

In other words, you'd want to behold it from a safe distance. Any idea on what that would be?

The nearest parallel dimension.

In other words, you'd want to behold it from a safe distance. Any idea on what that would be?

The Andromeda Galaxy. And that's the minimum distance.

Basically put, you don't want to be around when the fighting starts. I've already estimated losses to include 7 entire planets.

The Andromeda Galaxy. And that's the minimum distance.

Basically put, you don't want to be around when the fighting starts. I've already estimated losses to include 7 entire planets.

"Light damage" then?

It appears the Discrimination Accord is another "Slam Dunk". At this time, it's 4:1 for.

Why must my Cousin's three year old daughter be given the same rights as than 30 year old Bob Jones?

Are you telling me she is capable of making the same kinds of informed decisions as Bob Jones?

Either remove age from the Resolution, or specify a reasonable lower limit for age, and you have my full support.

I will not give children the rights of adults - it makes no sense.
I will not let them vote. I will not let them work. I will not let them carry a gun. I will not let them have sex. I will not let them get married. I will not let them consume alchohol.

Need I continue?

The Nomadic Tribes of Warlord Norman strongly disagree with this UN resolution. It is a clear violation of national sovriegnty, and threatens the legitimacy of this body. If we allow the United Nations to become a legislative body then we lose the foundation of what the UN was made to be: a deterance to war. Any passage of such a law would allienate a large portion of this body.

-The delegate for the Nomadic Tribes of Warlord Norman
OOC: I like to use the "national sovriegnty" argument to annoy people, but in truth, that's kind of a weak case against any UN resolution. However, we can argue that this is a threat to quality education... Read it carefully. This bill is rife with foolishness and will undermine the education establishments in the name of attempting to be "multi-cultural," but claiming national sovereignty will never fly. As for being a deterrence to war, that simply isn't true for NationStates.

My primary complaint is that my posting (about 7 hs ago) was deleted without explanation! This is not the place for this so I'll leave it there.
I'll address this anyway.

Edit history on this topic shows two edits: The first when I changed the title, and the second when I made it a sticky. No posts have been deleted from this thread by moderators. I would not, however, rule out the concept of a server burp or database glitch. The forums have been having database problems lately, and I suspect that an occasional post may disappear into the vast maw that is Jolt's database. Sorry, but we can't pull a hat out of a rabbit and make it reappear.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

WHEREAS the proposed Resolution appears to bar discrimination on the basis of "school of thought" and "intelligence"; and

WHEREAS discrimination on the basis of "school of thought" and "intelligence" are deemed essential to the operation of certain government functions; and

WHEREAS such anti-discrimination measures constitute a serious infringement upon the sovereignity of the People's Republic of RockDCasbah:

The Delegate for RockDCasbah OPPOSES the Resolution, REGISTERS protest, and SHALL URGE the Free States of Gaia to do likewise.

Although not a member of the UN, I do see the need to implement new stronger laws that will allow citizens to have the "right to be free", if you will.
I believe that it is not up to the Government of any nation to dictate if a citizen can or can not marry or can or cant do anything as long as it will not "harm" another being. However you must understand that by "harm" I am in no away refering to any aspect of morality or moral coding that is currently or will eventually be implemented and/or is to be used by any other nation as a "scape-goat" if you will, to contradict the rules. I believe that it is the UN's obligation to ensure the liberty of every citizen currently under any nation that is part of the UN. Furthermore, I believe that no nation, under the pertences of religion and/or spirituality should discard or disobey the rules set by the UN.
I vote... not that I will count ... that this policy be implemented and upheld by the UNs' highest level of control.

It is hopeless. The UN body is full of lemmings! Anything that says "stop bigotry and be tolerant" will fly through the floor, no matter the fine print! God save us from you idiot librocratic whores in the Committee!

I voted against this resolution, because it has several glaring flaws. This will be my only post on the subject.

It is hopeless. The UN body is full of lemmings! Anything that says "stop bigotry and be tolerant" will fly through the floor, no matter the fine print! God save us from you idiot librocratic whores in the Committee!


Absolutely true. These sort of "feel good" pie-in-the-sky resolutions only hurt they never help. Not only are they impossible to enforce but they cause disruption in nations and can destablize entire regions.

Well, it occurs to me that all this goodwill could be spent far more productively. Keep an eye out for an upcoming working paper on economic enhancement.

I'm for stopping the prejudice and keeping these nations the way they were, free and full of liberty. ;)

I'll address this anyway.

Edit history on this topic shows two edits: The first when I changed the title, and the second when I made it a sticky. No posts have been deleted from this thread by moderators. I would not, however, rule out the concept of a server burp or database glitch. The forums have been having database problems lately, and I suspect that an occasional post may disappear into the vast maw that is Jolt's database. Sorry, but we can't pull a hat out of a rabbit and make it reappear.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator

Well, thanks for the unexpected response Frisbeeteria. My deleted post, however, was not in this thread. I had started a discussion thread (the one that was deleted or disappeared) on the resolution in question before this "official discussion topic" was posted. As I'm new to the forum, I did not know that discussions on resolutions had to be started "officially." I assume my post was deleted for that reason. Or Jolt's db just swallowed it. Whatever the case, sorry you thought I was asking you all to pull rabbits out of hats. Not at all.

And more on topic, my region voted against this resolution so I have that much to feel better.

Is it just me, or would this resolution essentially mean that an applicant's intelligence could no longer be taken into account in public university admissions?

Or - for that matter - K-12 classroom placement. So much for special education...

Well, thanks for the unexpected response Frisbeeteria. My deleted post, however, was not in this thread. I had started a discussion thread (the one that was deleted or disappeared) on the resolution in question before this "official discussion topic" was posted. As I'm new to the forum, I did not know that discussions on resolutions had to be started "officially." I assume my post was deleted for that reason. Or Jolt's db just swallowed it. Whatever the case, sorry you thought I was asking you all to pull rabbits out of hats. Not at all.

And more on topic, my region voted against this resolution so I have that much to feel better.
This topic has been going for over a week, are you sure you didn't just miss it?

Is it just me, or would this resolution essentially mean that an applicant's intelligence could no longer be taken into account in public university admissions?

Or - for that matter - K-12 classroom placement. So much for special education...
Come on - surely you know the difference between intelligence and knowledge? If you don't know the requisite knowledge for a course (whether it be PhD or Year 1), how can you be able to do the course?

This is a horrible bill. People do not have the right to recieve social welfare... in fact government redistribution of wealth is unjust. If this bill passes I'm out of the UN.

Can somebody sum up the entire idea/argument of the current bill? I am waaaaaaaaaay too lazy to read and understand that entire thing.

Damn the torpedoes.

Can somebody sum up the entire idea/argument of the current bill?

My general impression is that there are many more no votes than pro votes in this thread, though I don't think that is a reflection on the resolution ... in fact, I've seen the UN debate go the opposite direction of the vote. Typically nations send representatives here to the UN to protest resolutions, not praise them.

My region has voted yes, and the pro statements I've read in the International Democratic Union and in other regional forums is that the nations that support the resolution agree with the basic goal: decreasing discrimination. For the record, the City States have abstained.

Well, this looks like it'll be the first proposal my region wants me to accept, although I myself have issues with it. It just seems like a reiteration of everything we've established before, and doesn't really bring that much new to the table. Still, reaffirming the UN's policy against discrimination is not a bad idea in itself, as this is a topic that is worth ensuring that it is enforced.

It's the Mandating of programs that gets me flustered...

If that clause wasn't in, I'd support this all the way

This topic has been going for over a week, are you sure you didn't just miss it?

Alright, alright... I missed it. You happy? :)

Well, that would explain why my thread was deleted. Thanks.

It is hopeless. The UN body is full of lemmings! Anything that says "stop bigotry and be tolerant" will fly through the floor, no matter the fine print! God save us from you idiot librocratic whores in the Committee!

Actually, from careful study, I'd say that "lemmings" make up maybe less than 2000 votes overall. A resolution that states it is causing a beneficial effect but has problems can be shot down - for example, no lemming would vote against the U.N. Peace Prize, but hey, look!

It's not hopeless, it's just inevitable. This is a good resolution, and these problems that keep supposedly cropping up are related to "Hey, the system can be abused". Quite frankly, the system can always be abused.

So quit complaining, resolutions don't pass on sheep alone.

§ The UN also recognizes the need, at times, for member governments to differentiate upon these difference during extreme security risks or other especial events or conditions, and allows for member governments to differentiate treatment to a reasonable degree (as can be justified by the risk), provided the treatment of all returns to an equal state once the risk or state of extreme condition has passed.

The ambassador of the Kingdom of Geistes would like to note that this last clause actually permits a country to withhold rights granted by other NSUN Resolutions.

One could make the argument that any Resolution which interferes in the right of a country to self-determination, including of course legislative power, constitutes an extreme risk to the autonomy of said country and its population. Or, if extreme risk does not seem appropriate, it clearly falls under the aforementioned "especial events and conditions". And this risk, event or condition would last temporarily only as long as those resolutions are not repealed.

Thus, contrary to the intent of this proposal, which is to increase pressure on governments to respect the rights of individuals (bringing nothing new really), it actually permits any government to refuse any NSUN Resolution modifying its legislation and imposing those rights that are mentioned in the proposition (which, as near as we can tell, cover most of those voted by other resolutions).

This is a major loophole, and permits the abuse of this resolution, and would be a small problem if it only affected this proposal of a resolution. But it actually permits any government to go around any, and probably all, other resolutions granting rights to citizens of member nations.

Since the right to government was a major friction point for the Kingdom of Geistes, it shall be rightly considered to be a major threat to the stability and security of the population, and thus will be suspended for as long as the resolution is not repealed. This will permit my country to join the NSUN, without being forced to adhere to any rights mentioned in the proposal. We shall await with eagerness the passing of this resolution.

Actually, from careful study, I'd say that "lemmings" make up maybe less than 2000 votes overall. A resolution that states it is causing a beneficial effect but has problems can be shot down - for example, no lemming would vote against the U.N. Peace Prize, but hey, look!

Actually the United Nations Association agrees with your statement that UN members are actually reading resolutions and voting on more than just the category:

http://pweb.netcom.com/~mierzwa10k/una/una-200501.pdf

dear assorted people

It has come to my attention no proposals matter aside from ones that apply to the military or money. I dont like spending money and I dont like decreasing my military. Since my country doesnt need more human rights constraints I urge you all to vote against it. It will cost you money and it will cost me money. And I dont like it when I dont spend money on the military or law and order. Heres an idea for all you proposal fans make a proposal that limits the amount of stupid proposals coming in to the un.

We, the constitutionally elected government of Happy Happy Elfland, in recognition of the extreme importance of the Discrimination Accord being considered by the UN, find it appropriate, meet, and necessary based on our great and shared esteem of human (and elven) rights, to give an explanation of our vote against this resolution, with all due respect to those who support it.

WHEREAS, all crimes are hate crimes, and thus special treatment of a particular class of crimes based on what a government, tribunal, court, or body of the United Nations may BELIEVE may be the motivation of the criminal is not only a blow against personal liberty and the rights of the accused to retain an independence of thought and belief, but also at the same time mocks the very egalitarianism that the resolution claims to promote, because it differentiates between said "hate crimes" and other crimes, to the detriment of equal justice visited upon all who break the law; and

WHEREAS, that the United Nations would condemn discrimination on the basis of differences of RECOGNIZED religion, race, etc. thus implies that the UN has the power to NOT recognize a religion, race, etc., therefore claiming for itself the POWER to MARGINALIZE a religion, race, etc. to the detriment of their civil rights; and

WHEREAS, any clause in a resolution with such far-reaching consequences that allows for an "opt-out" during "extreme security risks" is a mistake of potentially deadly proportions that invites such abuse as was found in a similar loophole in the Weimar Republic, a lesson which World War II taught us and should be remembered,

THEREFORE we the government and people of Happy Happy Elfland categorically reject any such resolution with such vague and discriminatory language, which also would contain such "loophole" clauses that might be manipulated in such a manner that practically nullifies the purpose of the resolution itself.

AND WHEREAS we also suggest that the mandatory nature of this resolution contradicts its express purpose, as it claims to condemn discrimination on the basis of differences of schools of thought while in itself discriminating against governments of the UN which disagree with its basic assumptions,

WE ALSO THEREFORE recommend instead a progressive program which would allow, fund, monitor, and/or support citizens who feel themselves to be oppressed as per the discrimination so named in the resolution to relocate and/or be relocated at the expense of the offending government to a new nation of the citizen's choice, believing that this maintains a balance of civil rights, personal liberty, domestic national sovereignty, and international justice on behalf of the oppressed.

Signed,
The King and Parliament of Happy Happy Elfland

This is a horrible bill. People do not have the right to recieve social welfare... in fact government redistribution of wealth is unjust. If this bill passes I'm out of the UN.

~Skips the elevator and tosses the Gignosa delegate off the roof.~

Damn kids. Always threatening to leave like it is something we care about. And where the hell did he get his claims that it's redistributing wealth from?

It's the Mandating of programs that gets me flustered...

If that clause wasn't in, I'd support this all the way

You do know we covered that extensively in the first four pages, right?

It doesn't mandate you create programs. It mandates you create or allow programs. You can choose to allow them and move on.

The ambassador of the Kingdom of Geistes would like to note that this last clause actually permits a country to withhold rights granted by other NSUN Resolutions.

Nope. It allows you to work around this resolution. Others have their own problems.

It has come to my attention no proposals matter aside from ones that apply to the military or money. I dont like spending money and I dont like decreasing my military. Since my country doesnt need more human rights constraints I urge you all to vote against it. It will cost you money and it will cost me money. And I dont like it when I dont spend money on the military or law and order. Heres an idea for all you proposal fans make a proposal that limits the amount of stupid proposals coming in to the un.

~Sighs~

Prove it. Prove that all of the passed resolutions cost money or affect the military. The spending of money itself is easily counterbalanced by lowering taxes.

Oh, and your idea is illegal.

WHEREAS, all crimes are hate crimes, and thus special treatment of a particular class of crimes based on what a government, tribunal, court, or body of the United Nations may BELIEVE may be the motivation of the criminal is not only a blow against personal liberty and the rights of the accused to retain an independence of thought and belief, but also at the same time mocks the very egalitarianism that the resolution claims to promote, because it differentiates between said "hate crimes" and other crimes, to the detriment of equal justice visited upon all who break the law;

A hate crime has been defined, since before the existance of the original Sarkarasetan Empires, to be a crime committed solely because of the victim's race, religious beliefs, sex, species, nationality, ancestry, or political position. A crime involving just robbery can be entirely impersonal and involve not even knowing the victim. While we appreciate your view, we do find your definition of "hate crime" to be an error and a potential problem for your citizens.

WHEREAS, that the United Nations would condemn discrimination on the basis of differences of RECOGNIZED religion, race, etc. thus implies that the UN has the power to NOT recognize a religion, race, etc., therefore claiming for itself the POWER to MARGINALIZE a religion, race, etc. to the detriment of their civil rights;

The Universal Bill of Rights covers the religion issue. Also, I find this is throwing in more than is in the actual bill and a potential misinterpretation. Please point to exactly where you go this from.

WHEREAS, any clause in a resolution with such far-reaching consequences that allows for an "opt-out" during "extreme security risks" is a mistake of potentially deadly proportions that invites such abuse as was found in a similar loophole in the Weimar Republic, a lesson which World War II taught us and should be remembered,

We show no records of a World War 2 on the Earth on which this UN is based. We do show records of such an event, but our records of it are over 6 billion years old and the nations who committed it have been long dead for most of that time.

The opt-out deals with potential problems arising from the fact that some species or races are native only to certain nations and typically still maintain ties to those nations.

THEREFORE we the government and people of Happy Happy Elfland categorically reject any such resolution with such vague and discriminatory language, which also would contain such "loophole" clauses that might be manipulated in such a manner that practically nullifies the purpose of the resolution itself.

That can be done with any resolution. Complaining about it doesn't help.

AND WHEREAS we also suggest that the mandatory nature of this resolution contradicts its express purpose, as it claims to condemn discrimination on the basis of differences of schools of thought while in itself discriminating against governments of the UN which disagree with its basic assumptions,

Welcome to the UN. Please take this "I'm a victim because I didn't bother to consider the UN discriminates against nation governments" button and have a seat with the group over in the corner hollering out anti-Gay Rights propoganda. Yes, the ones in the sound-proof box.

WE ALSO THEREFORE recommend instead a progressive program which would allow, fund, monitor, and/or support citizens who feel themselves to be oppressed as per the discrimination so named in the resolution to relocate and/or be relocated at the expense of the offending government to a new nation of the citizen's choice, believing that this maintains a balance of civil rights, personal liberty, domestic national sovereignty, and international justice on behalf of the oppressed.

That is the worst idea I have seen. You realize they will use the cheapest relocation method possible, right? In many cases, I wouldn't expect those discriminated against to survive very long due to the cheapness. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some nations simply didn't strap them to missiles and launch the missiles at nations they don't like. They would be obeying the law, since they lose the money they invested in that missile.

hello all.

Im from gatesville and my point of view dont represent my region. Im not a crazy dictator that thinks that UN must be destroyed. I think it has is value but is abused by a left-wing majority that tries to push their point of view though the thoats of the rest of the world. this piece of crap some people fondly call "Resolution" is a clear example.

If you want to ensure that your country will be a left-wing paradise then its a beautiful piece of legislation, covering every possible issue at stake. If you want to spread human rights and civil liberties then the only thing this "resolution" is going to achieve is to make the UN weaker.

The UN accepts dictatorships as members. Dictatorships is a legitm way of government. but the "resolution" "REQUIRES member governments to fairly and equally apply the following rights of citizens as they are upheld by international and national law: (...) 2. The right to participate in government"

Well. it's kind of hard to sustain a dictatorship if every citzen has "The right to participate in government". the aproval of this "resolution" will force UN dictatorships to take one of these two measures:

1 - Quit UN. I dont see any worldwide improvent in human and civil rights being done here. In fact, it will probably make it worse for these nations wont have to comply with past civil rights resolutions, which is quite a good idea if you think about it...

or 2 - Twist the text of the resolution so that no improvment is done. For instance, an election with a single name in the ballot (which is also interesting for it permits a dictatorship pose as a democracy). Or the right to vote for representatives without power. The other articles can be likewise twisted, and the last paragraph can easily be abused, by declaring a permanent state of extreme security risks. Or even better, declaring an "other especial events" like "The Century of the Dictator", where all human and civil rights are suspended for a century....

I was going to tell you to repeal this "resolution", but now i realise that its approval is essential to mantain my iron fist rule with the blessing of the UN.
Endorse this "resolution"!!! The punjaaaaaaaaaabi people wont thank you.

In response to the comments to the delegate from Gatesville, I have trouble taking any response seriously that refers to UN legislation as "crap". %6 of UN delegates supported it, and they can be presumed to be rational human beings. I think the UN does have the right to create this legislation, because there are rights of sentient, rational beings, that are higher than any government of any kind, king, congress, or even the UN. Personally, I do not think it is legitimate that any sovereign oppresses a people fully capable of democracy. The way I see it, there are two possible UNs. In the first, it is a responsible, rational legislative body made up of the leadership of the world, and dedicated to aiding the progress of mankind and all sentient beings on Earth. The other possibility is that we, the leaders of the world, dedicate ourselves to Apathy, to bickering, and to blow smoke at each other while we wage war, oppress our fellow man, and let our differences rule our future. As a dictator who clearly has no respect for his people's rights and dignities, which UN you want, delegate of Gatesville is quite clear, but there are those who actually care about thier people. I humbly ask any nation that recognizes the unalienable rights of thier citizens to support this proposal, in order that we might forge a better future.

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/38926/page=display_nation/nation=belgrade-beograd

I present to my colleagues upon the floor evidence that the drafter of this bill has long ago departed the United Nations.

Can we only believe that the delegate from Belgrade-Beograd only joined to write this proposal and then depart?

Even Belgrade-Beograd knows this is a train wreck! That's why he proposed it and then ditched the United Nations! THIS BILL IS A TRAP!

Come on - surely you know the difference between intelligence and knowledge? If you don't know the requisite knowledge for a course (whether it be PhD or Year 1), how can you be able to do the course?We think a safe case can be made that, since the acquisition of knowledge requires intelligence, any "discrimination" based on knowledge implicity "discriminates" on a basis of intelligence.

Acually, we're surprised that weight and height didn't make the list. What about people who are vertically and metabolically challenged? No justice, no peace...

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/38926/page=display_nation/nation=belgrade-beograd

I present to my colleagues upon the floor evidence that the drafter of this bill has long ago departed the United Nations.

Can we only believe that the delegate from Belgrade-Beograd only joined to write this proposal and then depart?

Even Belgrade-Beograd knows this is a train wreck! That's why he proposed it and then ditched the United Nations! THIS BILL IS A TRAP!

We do not know the story behind why the proposal author is no longer in the UN. To assume they left is to make an erroneous judgement based on a lack of evidence.

I have one problem with his Accord, and it is this. It is a written contradiction. It's purpose is to ensure political freedoms to the people of the world, but this in itself is taking away the political freedoms of each independent country. This is the United Nations, not the United States of America. I find that this document takes a lot of its influence from that particular country and it offends me. The US is not the image of a perfect society and we as members of the UN should not force the world to adapt its policies. What makes us a unique and different world is our ability to govern our countries in the way we see fit. Take this away and all we are doing is creating a paradox in which a portion of the world is being forced to uphold morals and beliefs that we do not believe in.

I have one problem with his Accord, and it is this. It is a written contradiction. It's purpose is to ensure political freedoms to the people of the world, but this in itself is taking away the political freedoms of each independent country. This is the United Nations, not the United States of America. I find that this document takes a lot of its influence from that particular country and it offends me. The US is not the image of a perfect society and we as members of the UN should not force the world to adapt its policies. What makes us a unique and different world is our ability to govern our countries in the way we see fit. Take this away and all we are doing is creating a paradox in which a portion of the world is being forced to uphold morals and beliefs that we do not believe in.

Must not have read the passed proposals before posting here.

The UN has always forced member nations to go along with its dictations. That is simply how the system is set up. Nothing much we can do about it now.

This Accord will cost us lots! I'm already having Payment problems but this obstrositie could threaten to complete ruin the economy! And all these so called benefits will completely ruin my Government policy!

This Accord will cost us lots! I'm already having Payment problems but this obstrositie could threaten to complete ruin the economy! And all these so called benefits will completely ruin my Government policy!

How will these benefits ruin your government policy? Is your government based upon the ability to discriminate at will? And how does the accord cost you anything? You can simply decide to "allow" anti-discrimination programs to be set up.

Please excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly.
Is it true that I can declare war as long as it's not based on a discrimination of some sort.
If so I'm going to kill you all !!!
I'll just do it randomly and for no reason whatsoever.
Bring it on United Nations :mp5:

btw the United nations don't seem too United here.
Maybe the name should be changed to the arguing ass bandits
What about that for a proposal ? :D

Please excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly.
Is it true that I can declare war as long as it's not based on a discrimination of some sort.
If so I'm going to kill you all !!!
I'll just do it randomly and for no reason whatsoever.
Bring it on United Nations :mp5:

btw the United nations don't seem too United here.
Maybe the name should be changed to the arguing ass bandits
What about that for a proposal ? :D

Illegal. Questions of how worthy of the UN's attention.

Oh, and declaring war on the UN is grounds for mocking, followed by your nation being treated as a ping-pong ball by the others. Then we randomly annex you and divide your resources among the conquering nations. Finally, we execute your nation's leaders and dance Irish Jigs on their graves while singing the DLE National Anthem off key and with a drunken slur. Finally, with your people divided and without dignity, we go back to what we were doing and business returns to normal.

gundge: Please excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly.
Is it true that I can declare war as long as it's not based on a discrimination of some sort.
If so I'm going to kill you all !!!
I'll just do it randomly and for no reason whatsoever.
Bring it on United Nations :mp5:

btw the United nations don't seem too United here.
Maybe the name should be changed to the arguing ass bandits
What about that for a proposal ? :D

There's no point in bringing up that this resolution doesn't stop war. I think there's approximately 140 resolutions in the legislature today that don't stop war. But hey, if you're going to go to war against the entire U.N., keep this in mind: You have a population of six million citizens. I have a population of 1.468 billion. That rounds out to 244 2/3 times your population, not to mention my natural habitat serves as a pretty good defense against invaders. And yet I'm a fairly pacifist region: other nations who you might have offended, such as DemonLordEnigma, spend more money on their militaries than I could possibly fathom. Got that it in your head? Now count in the other 38,742 member nations, at least ninety percent of which have higher populations than you, and somewhere around 300 of which you have just attempted to declare war on publicly. I'd include helpful emoticons containing massive amounts of snipers and machine guns just to illustrate the point, but the forum won't let me include that many.

Lets all have a a round of applause for Sir_Boots, everyone!

What is the clear intent of the clause that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Does this mean, for example, that member governments would not be allowed from prohibiting their openly homosexual citizens from marrying or adopting children, or working with children? How broad is the interpretation here?

Regarding hate crimes, although I'm aware that there is a definition for them followed by the UN, I am simply registering a different opinion, in that every motivation for every crime ends up the same - causing the crime. Every crime requires a disregard for the humanity, dignity, and rights of the victim, no matter how "impersonal."

Regarding "recognized" religion, race, etc. I was merely pointing out that the use of the word "recognized" COULD BE USED as a means of ignoring a particular minority's rights simply because they don't have an official stamp of approval from the government. This isn't stated in the document and I'm certain it wasn't the sponsor's intention, but courts and demagogues can use any loophole they can find.

You're quite right about the ancient history of such a World War II, and we apologize. Being long-lived elves, we tend to forget how much the rest of the world has forgotten the past. Our concerns with the "extreme security risks" clause is like the one above, it could be manipulated, and we merely wanted to point out this concern. This was not a complaint, it was a criticism, and there is a difference. And if the UN wanted to quash all debate on topics because it didn't want to hear "complaints" then it wouldn't have a forum. Either that or the whole forum idea is a pretense.

You have illustrated the inherent problem exactly. It seems to happen nine times out of ten that the party in power, backed by a majority, tends to throw the minority into a "sound proof box" so it doesn't have to listen to them or consider their ideas anymore. That was the point of coming up with laws to protect minorities - INCLUDING those of a different sexual orientation from the majority - from being discriminated against, because obviously there are those who would wrongfully try to force them to "stay in the closet." However, I find it alarming that those claiming to champion minorities then turn around and effectively tell those who disagree with them - in this case a minority - to shut up. In the end, this is the same sort of attitude that homosexuals and others have had to put up with for years. Two wrongs don't make a right. Reversing the tables isn't justice, it's revenge.

Regarding the relocation idea, the problem you mentioned is why I suggested that the UN run the program, NOT the offending country! The offending country would be the problem in the first place, and should suffer the rebuke (both in words, fines, and loss of trade) from the rest of the UN. However, this allows them to maintain a certain amount of autonomy (even if they become pariahs) without the UN getting involved in the enormous and costly morass that would result from having to make so many changes on so many levels in so many governments. It is my understanding that another UN, billions of years ago and on another planet, from what I read once in an archaic magazine that was probably fiction and covered with dust in a museum somewhere in the West Pacific of this world, has had some success following this policy...

You will also note if you read carefully that I do not criticize the intent or the basic premise of the resolution, as I know it was done with the welfare of oppressed peoples in mind. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a process for amending resolutions. If we had one, I would offer amendments, and if they were approved, then great, and if they were denied, then fine, but at least the concerns would be brought to the attention of the UN.

The Armed Republic of Krioval, newly-restored Delegate of Chaotica, recasts its eleven votes FOR this resolution.

~ Commander Raijin Dekker

And yet I'm a fairly pacifist region: other nations who you might have offended, such as DemonLordEnigma, spend more money on their militaries than I could possibly fathom.

For clarity: I spend close to 4 trillion dollars on my military. These figures come from the Sunset calculator.

Regarding hate crimes, although I'm aware that there is a definition for them followed by the UN, I am simply registering a different opinion, in that every motivation for every crime ends up the same - causing the crime. Every crime requires a disregard for the humanity, dignity, and rights of the victim, no matter how "impersonal."

Thus, the problem with the definition. I don't have to commit a crime to disregard your humanity, dignity, and rights.

Regarding "recognized" religion, race, etc. I was merely pointing out that the use of the word "recognized" COULD BE USED as a means of ignoring a particular minority's rights simply because they don't have an official stamp of approval from the government. This isn't stated in the document and I'm certain it wasn't the sponsor's intention, but courts and demagogues can use any loophole they can find.

That comes with the problem of word limitations. No matter how you look at it, any proposal can be severely twisted in such of a way as to violate it. For example, I could define marriage as "becomming a political prisoner and then being beaten unconcious on a daily basis" and then disallow it under the Wolfish Convention. There's nothing we can really do about it.

You're quite right about the ancient history of such a World War II, and we apologize. Being long-lived elves, we tend to forget how much the rest of the world has forgotten the past. Our concerns with the "extreme security risks" clause is like the one above, it could be manipulated, and we merely wanted to point out this concern. This was not a complaint, it was a criticism, and there is a difference. And if the UN wanted to quash all debate on topics because it didn't want to hear "complaints" then it wouldn't have a forum. Either that or the whole forum idea is a pretense.

OOC: Actually, I was pointing out that World War 2, as we know it in reality, hasn't actually happened in NS and that, while a good example for use in reality, the roleplay aspects on here don't have it to rely on. And, yes, in NS it is concievable to have to stick everyone of an entire race in your nation in prison because you are at war with another nation.

You have illustrated the inherent problem exactly. It seems to happen nine times out of ten that the party in power, backed by a majority, tends to throw the minority into a "sound proof box" so it doesn't have to listen to them or consider their ideas anymore. That was the point of coming up with laws to protect minorities - INCLUDING those of a different sexual orientation from the majority - from being discriminated against, because obviously there are those who would wrongfully try to force them to "stay in the closet." However, I find it alarming that those claiming to champion minorities then turn around and effectively tell those who disagree with them - in this case a minority - to shut up. In the end, this is the same sort of attitude that homosexuals and others have had to put up with for years. Two wrongs don't make a right. Reversing the tables isn't justice, it's revenge.

Actually, I was mocking you. Those we lock in the sound-proof box are those who argue religion and national sovereignity like the topics are actually given respect and don't bother to listen when we tell them they're not. If they're not going to listen, no reason to listen to them.

The UN itself works like this: You have to obey the will of the majority. It's simple, it's effective, it's democracy in action. Don't you just love to see how human ideals really turn out?

You may not like the system, but this is how it is. If this was made optional, you'd be on here complaining about the fact it doesn't even have to apply to all nations, much like you have complained about it having loopholes. You can't have it both ways on this issue and must choose which one you are most comfortable with. And, in the end, accept that the system is not going to change just because you don't like it. Hell, I don't like it either, but I have to accept I cannot change it and be glad I share opinions with the majority.

Regarding the relocation idea, the problem you mentioned is why I suggested that the UN run the program, NOT the offending country! The offending country would be the problem in the first place, and should suffer the rebuke (both in words, fines, and loss of trade) from the rest of the UN. However, this allows them to maintain a certain amount of autonomy (even if they become pariahs) without the UN getting involved in the enormous and costly morass that would result from having to make so many changes on so many levels in so many governments. It is my understanding that another UN, billions of years ago and on another planet, from what I read once in an archaic magazine that was probably fiction and covered with dust in a museum somewhere in the West Pacific of this world, has had some success following this policy...

And how much money do you think the nations are going to give? Hell, if you are going to relocate people I don't want, I'll give you a quarter a fingerbone per person to help with costs. Considering my location, the cost is going to be the millions with ease. If you try to get more, you may find it being suggested -by way of cannon- that you eat the costs.

As for that other UN: That other UN was viewed as a powerless joke by many members. It was manipulated in all of the wars it was in and used as a tool by which people could strike at each other. In the end, it fell apart because the main nations holding it up went different directions and one of them fell apart in a civil war. Today, all that's left of that Earth is the occasional relic, a few data files, and the one group smart enough to escape it searching for their past. That UN may have succeeded in national sovereignity, but it failed to actually help its members in the end and that lack of unity is what killed them.

(OOC: I think now people know which Earth I'm using as the origin of the Sarkarasetans).

You will also note if you read carefully that I do not criticize the intent or the basic premise of the resolution, as I know it was done with the welfare of oppressed peoples in mind. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a process for amending resolutions. If we had one, I would offer amendments, and if they were approved, then great, and if they were denied, then fine, but at least the concerns would be brought to the attention of the UN.

I know. But as it stands, what you want is what we cannot create. You want a perfect resolution. That's been proven impossible to create.

We realized the Discrimination Accord has passed.

Upon the moment of its passing, I immediately filed for an appeal and will now make it a mission to remove this lemming bait from the Code.

--Welsh

*gaveling sound*

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the fourteenth day of April, 2005, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #99. Discrimination Accord, proposed by Belgrade-Beograd, a resolution to significantly improve worldwide human and civil rights.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: The resolution Discrimination Accord was passed 11,035 votes to 6,347, and implemented in all UN member nations. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

Pursuant to the resolution just passed, all member nations are hereby ordered to fairly and equally apply the right of their citizens to protection under law, participation in government, fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application, and any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international governments to be in social need, unless an extreme or especial condition or circumstance exists. All member nations are ordered to either create or permit large-scale education programs of ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity, if they do not already exist.

All officers of the United Nations shall see that member nations comply with the orders of this body.

Please excuse my ignorance but I'm not sure if I'm understanding this correctly.
Is it true that I can declare war as long as it's not based on a discrimination of some sort.
If so I'm going to kill you all !!!
I'll just do it randomly and for no reason whatsoever.
Bring it on United Nations :mp5:

btw the United nations don't seem too United here.
Maybe the name should be changed to the arguing ass bandits
What about that for a proposal ? :D
Note that if your people prove less stupid than their leaders, we will gladly take them in after your country is steamrolled by DLE.

I know. But as it stands, what you want is what we cannot create. You want a perfect resolution. That's been proven impossible to create.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I realize that this is true, but I can still argue from an idealistic standpoint, and maybe someone will look at things from a slightly different perspective than they did before. In some cases, that will be as much as I can hope for.

Yes, I realize that this is true, but I can still argue from an idealistic standpoint, and maybe someone will look at things from a slightly different perspective than they did before. In some cases, that will be as much as I can hope for.

The problem I have with idealism is that it doesn't stand up to actual practice. Idealistically, democracy is a good government style. For the actual practice, take a look at how the NSUN is run. That's pretty much what you can expect from democracy.

Idealism is fine, but only if it is tempered by looking at how it will actually work.