NationStates Jolt Archive

NSUN Delegates and Members:
This proposal is basically all about ending the practice of all forms of mind control (as defined in the proposal). Even when intended to further a preceived good cause, this eliminates many rights that the people should have, while being arguably acceptable, even though it should not be.

---
NSUN Mind Control Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
-
NOTING resolution #6: End slavery, which grants the right to bodily safety from one's employer;

RECOGNIZING resolution #26: Universal Bill of Rights, which has made great strides in ending the constant curtailing of human rights;

AFFIRMING resolution #53: Universal freedom of choice, which condemns the practice of subliminal advertisement and other forms of indirect and direct influence;

ALARMED by the means by which military and political machines use mind control to perform coups and mock revolutions and rebellions in enemy nations, as well as our own studies into the art of mind control and its apparent ease;

RECALLING resolution #2: Scientific Freedom, by which some may attempt to reason that the technology required is their right to research and produce;

DEFINING the direct manipulation of one’s thoughts as any situation or scenario when the individual is entirely removed from the ability to reject and/or uphold an ideal, philosophy or other train of thought on a subconscious level by an outside source;

DECLARES that all forms of direct manipulation of thought processes are to be made illegal and nations that currently take part in these practices have one month to end the this practice and one year to destroy said technology (as well as schematics, factories, and companies devoted to these technologies), or be condemned by the passage of this Act;

PROVIDES that all citizens of the UN have the following unalienable rights:
1) The right to free thought, including but not limited to rebellious, murderous, traitorous, as well as other radical thoughts, without fear of persecution;
2) The right to free opinion; no outside source is permitted to have any direct effect on the thought processes that dictate one’s opinion;
3) The right to independent thought without the assistance or guidance of any outside influence;
4) The right to clear and serene thought, without any outside interference, such as mental broadcasting;
5) The right to meditate in some fashion without interruption from the outside world to clear one’s thoughts and reduce stress;
6) The right to deny any medical or surgical procedure that would limit in any way these rights.

IN ADDITION, any person who voluntarily undergoes any procedure that would limit these rights cannot be out at any physical, psychological or mental risk by the controller (be it a person, machine, etc.), must be given at least ten hours of rest each day, before and after which the individual must have a minimum of an hour of thought free from the controller. Strict records must be kept to ensure that the individual is being well taken care of, and any activity that the individual sites specifically that they wish not to partake in cannot be legally forced upon the individual during the time that the individual is being controlled.
---

Give advice, critisism, or just make fun, I don't really care, this thread is simply to increase awareness, but still, keep it clean, ok! :)

I thought that this sort of propsal would be good idea, because, while it's been hinted at and mentioned in other legeslation, it's never been directly overcome.

Have a nice day! :D

I agree with the proposal, and on the main it is well written and thought out. My one concern is:

"2) The right to free opinion; no outside source is permitted to have any direct effect on the thought processes that dictate one’s opinion;
3) The right to independent thought without the assistance or guidance of any outside influence;"

It's too vague. That basically says I'm not allowed to try and convince someone to do something or change their mind. Fair enough, don't let them do it with subliminal messages or mind control technology- but you need to say that. Don't leave it so open ended as to ban any form of influence. It would pretty much ban any form of debate/media/conversation.

What about interrogations of non-citizens? For example, I'm trying to interrogate a foreign terrorist. The information I get could save thousands of lives. With some mind-altering drugs, I could get this information. Under this resolution, I'd have to sit back and watch the terrorists attack Nargopia's University of Arts and Social Sciences, killing thousands of students in an act that could have been prevented.

I'll support it if a clause is inserted making provisions for government sanctioned interrogation.

The Triumvirate of Enn is in favour of the proposal, especially in the instance that the Nargopian refers to. The mind should remain a person's own, regardless of extenuating circumstances. Once you suggest lowering the rights of captives, how long will it be before those same rights are removed from your own citizens?

OOC: This is pretty much the same argument I used with Habeas Corpus. I refused to allow nations to extend the period between arrest and charging for terrorists, as I believe that once you start removing rights, it just becomes easier to continue doing so.

I'm with Enn on the subject of captives.
Some of the more crafty and militant of our fellow UN members could use a clause like that to use drugs and stuff to control anyone they could reason that was a "captive."
And in the hypothetical situation that a nation takes over another, all of those citizens could be labeled as captives as well.
I almost did put a clause in, but I thought better of it.
So I guess I'm saying I'm sorry I let you down, Nargopia.

And you're right, too, Gwen.
If it doesn't make it through this time, I'll modify it to your specifications (#2 is easy enough to fix, but any suggestions to #3?).
And if it does go through, I'll apologize in advance for the mishaps it'll cause.

Thanks for the input so far! :D

Scenario:

Krioval currently interrogates people arrested through a variety of mental scans. Not wanting to go into too much detail, these scans are designed to examine the person's thoughts specifically as they relate to a series of questions on the crime. While the subject's mind is left intact and uninjured, defenses to the scan may be bypassed temporarily. Would this proposal outlaw our current method of obtaining evidence for or against a person's guilt?

Yes, it would be legal, as long as you were able to accurately separate thoughts and fantasies from actual memories, so that no one was persecuted based on thought.

Also, I just thought of this in addition to my prior response to Gwen, but these are rights, which are not compulsory (at least in most places), so if you spoke about your opinion, the other person would be voluntarily lowering the protection of these rights if they let you continue and/or just stood there. Same principle with the press. It's only when the person does not have the choice to let you continue or not that their rights are in fact being violated.

I believe this bill will present a serious security crises in many nations.

Neoconland has averted many catastrophes on huge scales thanks to mind-control.

It seems to me outright banning of this is a bad idea. Rather, limitations should be placed to ensure that mind-control is used on no innocent parties.

We are generally in support of the proposal, and would be extremely happy to see the removal of states' ability to impose mind control on citizens.

However, we're less comfortable with this bit:

one year to destroy said technology (as well as schematics, factories, and companies devoted to these technologies), or be condemned by the passage of this Act;

Dismantling production facilities and organisations - fine. But with a strong tradition of supporting scientific endeavour, _Myopia_ is always wary about the destruction of knowledge itself. We'd prefer that schematics be allowed to survive, along with the scientific knowledge that underpins the technology, as there is always the potential for scientists to develop new applications of the same basic ideas - for instance, in mental health treatments, or in defenses against mind control.

Plus, the final clause seems a little over-specific, especially considering the differing needs of the many species found in UN nations, and the potential for extreme differences in the methods of various mind control techniques.

Well, it looks like I'll have time to make some changes, so don't worry.

Myopia: I'll change it, but the main idea behind that was to keep the information from falling into the wrong hands. And any suggestions for the final clause?

Neoconland: if your nation passed a law that made everyone 'volunteered' when the government needed to coordinate something like that, it would be legal, but the same restrictions apply.

I'll have the next draft done soon!

Myopia: I'll change it, but the main idea behind that was to keep the information from falling into the wrong hands.

You could urge nations to take appropriate measures to restrict the accessibility of mind control technologies, or something like that.

And any suggestions for the final clause?

Perhaps:

Those who voluntarily forfeit any of these rights and, uncoerced, submit to direct influence on their thought processes must be treated humanely - they must be allowed sufficient rest time and time awake and free from control in order that they may be consulted on further use of mind control techniques. The controller may not force any idea or activity upon the volunteer which the latter specifically objected to, or to which the controller has good reason to believe the volunteer would object.

Neoconland: if your nation passed a law that made everyone 'volunteered' when the government needed to coordinate something like that, it would be legal, but the same restrictions apply.

This isn't true - if UN legislation declares something a right, that right cannot be rescinded (except possibly under martial law - not sure of the specifics here). The proposed course of action is still rescinding the right, because the people have not actually volunteered. You may as well say that if there was a law against executing people who had not committed murder, that you could get round it by declaring that someone had confessed to murder without needing them to actually do so.

And frankly, I don't want to see loopholes left for unscrupulous governments to exploit.

Sorry, I should have said that people could sign up to automatically 'volunteer,' shouldn't I have? I didn't mean to upset you, Myopia. Thanks for the suggestions, by the way! :D

And frankly, I don't want to see loopholes left for unscrupulous governments to exploit.
I have tried to minimize this while not treading on other nation's customs too much! There is very little equilibrium in a subject such as this.

Sorry, I should have said that people could sign up to automatically 'volunteer,' shouldn't I have? I didn't mean to upset you, Myopia. Thanks for the suggestions, by the way! :D

Oh, so you mean that people might register as willing to undergo mind control in advance, whenever needed? I don't think you need to specify this, as they're still volunteers - just volunteering way in advance. The important thing is that they're willing.

I have tried to minimize this while not treading on other nation's customs too much! There is very little equilibrium in a subject such as this.

We're not big fans of respect for abuses of human rights - customs/traditions or not. But your proposal seems to be fine to us - as long as no leeway is given on the issue of consent being necessary.