NationStates Jolt Archive

[IF YOU WISH TO BYPASS MY ARGUMENT, THE PROPOSAL IS BELOW]

Well, everybody. We've done it. After I have thrice submitted an original proposal, the likes of which I have received nothing but good responses for, and have it fail to reach quorum all three times, I see this proposal run its course, reach quorum (no doubt by a farfetched amount of time telegramming delegates), and get passed by a ridiclulous margin. This is a proposal with good intentions and is putting the right foot forward toward eliminating discrimination. Unfortunately, the foot lands in a 2-foot-deep pothole from other resolutions which have already made that step (and, may I add, are still in effect). Congratulations, everyone! To my knowledge, this is the first proposal passed which achieves absolutely NOTHING! At least TWICE in this discussion, it was mentioned that the goals this resolution wished to achieve were already covered in past resolutions that still stand. Don't tell me that they weren't because I will point them out to you without hesitation. Not only is this resolution COMPLETELY useless, but now the United Nations has now taken sides in a specific belief by specifically defending its rights. This is just absurd. If I may, I'd like to break this proposal down to show you what it "does" and why it's ineffective:

UN Resolution #101 - Right to Learn about Evolution

REGRETTING the threat to human rights which is the suppression of learning about evolutionary theory;First off, where is the valid proof of this supression? If you could find any (and you can't), it'd be illegal, due to past resolutions (see proposal below). And nowhere is it defined as a "human right" to learn a specific belief. And it certainly is not a threat to human rights. We have the choice to learn whatever we want (as covered in past resolutions).

AWARE that some of causes of this suppression are political and/or religious based fears that evolution is an alternative to belief in a deity;Again, I'd like to see the proof of this "supression". Oh, and the data saying that people assume evolutionary theory contradicts any and all other beliefs.

NOTING that many religions do not feel threatened by evolutionary theory. Furthermore it is unlikely that God is so malevolent as to plant evidence that our planet is aged 3.5 billion years;Again, there is no valid data to prove such assumptions. Also, it states that there is a God (glorifying another specific belief) and that the planet is 3.5 billion years old. Nowhere (to my knowledge) is this information given about the NS world. You cannot make a real world reference in an NSUN Proposal.

EMPHASIZING the United Nations must collectively discourage the suppression of this grand unifying theme called evolutionary theory. Teachers of the idea should also be free from imprisonment and persecution.It already did... and they already were...

CLARIFIES it is not the intention of this proposal to enforce a curriculum upon nations which have varied cultural and societal tastes. Specifically a nation may decide to not include evolutionary theory in the classroom because a lack of interest by teachers and/or students. This will not be interpreted by the UN as evidence of suppression. Suppression is defined as written laws preventing the teaching of evolutionary theory or punishing those who teach it.No, but it is the intention of this proposal to glorifiy certain beliefs and reiterate what past resolutions have already enforced. Also, by saying that students have the option of learning it, but teachers do not have to teach it makes the proposal an absolute dud.

MANDATES a strong symbolical disapproval against any member state that persists to physically imprison / punish teachers or students for engaging in evolutionary studies.It is illegal to do so. Past resolutions have stated this. The UN already enforced it.

REITERATES the need for member nations to allow students to learn about evolutionary theory;There is no need to learn anything. The world would move on. The sun will rise tomorrow. And it's not because students now have the OPTION of learning a specific belief.

ASKS member nations work with world leaders to prevent the suppression of evolutionary theory in the classroom.No. Those outside of the UN can do as they damn well please. And the UN, by law, cannot supress any belief.

So there you have it. This resolution achieves absolutely nothing, breaking a number of UN standards in the process. Democracy is incredible. So I propose a repeal of this resolution. The following is my proposal, I am open to constructive criticism. (and if you wanna try to prove me wrong, by all means, please try.):

Repeal Resolution #101 - Right to Learn about Evolution

RECALLING United Nations Resolution #26 - The Universal Bill of Rights (passed 8 August 2003):

"The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows: Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state. Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."

ALSO RECALLING United Nations Resolution #99 - Discrimination Accord (passed 14 April 2005):

"The United Nations, NOTING the precedent of international law towards greater human rights and equality for all, [...] 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."

REITERATING and NOTING the UN's condemnation of discrimination of school of thought.

ALSO RECALLING The Enodian Protocols (placed into effect 10 March 2003; last amended 23 February 2005), NOTING that it is labeled a UN offense to defy said protocols:

"4. Real-Life Proposals - George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them. [...] You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [...] 8. Copied Proposals - There's no point in submitting a proposal that has already been made a resolution. So don't do it."

ARGUING the fact passing a resolution which defends a specific belief is just as discriminatory as as resolution which defames a specific belief.

ARGUING that United Nations Resolutions #26 (The Universal Bill of Rights) and #99 (Discrimination Accord) achieve what United Nations Resolution #101 (Right to Learn about Evolution) seeks to achieve, as stated in the aforementioned passages, and therefore rendering said Resolution #101 ineffective and expendable and worthy of repeal without having any affect on the rights of individuals to learn anything and everything they so choose.

CLAIMING that resolution in question violates United Nations Resolution #99 (Discrimination Accord) by discriminating against those religions and beliefs which do not have a deity, namely "God".

CLAIMING that resolution in question violates the Enodian Protocols by citing real-life references and data to argue its case.

STATING that the United Nations cannot and should not allow such violations go unnoticed and, therefore, must repeal resolution in question.

I doubt you'll be able to repeal this right away, no matter how good your argument is. The sheep won't like their judgment challenged so soon. Give them a few weeks to forget about it, then re-introduce this.

I doubt you'll be able to repeal this right away, no matter how good your argument is. The sheep won't like their judgment challenged so soon. Give them a few weeks to forget about it, then re-introduce this.That's why it's a draft ;)

hehe, sheep... that's mob mentality for ya...

This is a proposal with good intentions and is putting the right foot forward toward eliminating discrimination. Unfortunately, the foot lands in a 2-foot-deep pothole from other resolutions which have already made that step (and, may I add, are still in effect). Congratulations, everyone! To my knowledge, this is the first proposal passed which achieves absolutely NOTHING! At least TWICE in this discussion, it was mentioned that the goals this resolution wished to achieve were already covered in past resolutions that still stand. Don't tell me that they weren't because I will point them out to you without hesitation. Not only is this resolution COMPLETELY useless, but now the United Nations has now taken sides in a specific belief by specifically defending its rights. This is just absurd. If I may, I'd like to break this proposal down to show you what it "does" and why it's ineffective:
emphasis added

That is likely to be the largest challenge you’ll face in the repeal attempt. The general standard of apathy within the UN dictates that if a resolution does nothing, it’s more easily accepted. The evolution resolution has an easy majority in vote because those that fight for national sovereignty don’t feel a need to campaign against it actively (because of it doing little or nothing), and the fact that most, generally, tend to side with not suppressing evolution in schools.

That said, the thing I think your repeal, both in its writing and in its telegram campaigns (before and after quorum), needs is pressing need. You must convince at least 50% of UN members that this is not an issue the UN should be involved in. Kairos: that’s the word Aristotle used for the timeliness of an argument. You need to put a fire under UN members to convince them that it is urgent to repeal this resolution.

So, I think my response will serve you best by pointing out what appeals you use which serve you best and which ones aren’t really pulling their weight.

Repeal Resolution #101 - Right to Learn about Evolution

RECALLING United Nations Resolution #26 - The Universal Bill of Rights (passed 8 August 2003):

"The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows: Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state. Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference."

ALSO RECALLING United Nations Resolution #99 - Discrimination Accord (passed 14 April 2005):

"The United Nations, NOTING the precedent of international law towards greater human rights and equality for all, [...] 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."

REITERATING and NOTING the UN's condemnation of discrimination of school of thought.

ALSO RECALLING The Enodian Protocols (placed into effect 10 March 2003; last amended 23 February 2005), NOTING that it is labeled a UN offense to defy said protocols:

"4. Real-Life Proposals - George W Bush, John Ashcroft, Tony Blair and so on don't exist here. Feel free to argue for or against their actions on the General forum, but don't try to get the UN to sanction or promote them. [...] You may not, under any circumstances, quote real-life studies or reports to bolster your arguments. First, NationStates is not real life, so studies of real-life do not necessarily apply. Second, this is easier (and faster) to enforce than allowing some real-life documents and prohibiting others; allowing some real-life documents, but not others, places an added analytical burden on our part we don't feel that this is worth any potential benefit. [...] 8. Copied Proposals - There's no point in submitting a proposal that has already been made a resolution. So don't do it."


Alright, there are both effective and less effective appeals here. First, you need to remember that we live in a visual world. As ideal as it would be to believe that everyone reading the repeal will read through large quotations or, even better, have familiarity with the resolutions you cite above and beyond, it’s incredibly unlikely. The typical political apathy in general modern society is exacerbated by the impatience the modern consumer has for text. They just don’t read through things. They’d much rather watch TV or see an ad. Text needs to be visually appealing and easy for the consumer to consume; he has a lot of things to do with his day--How, in the 5 seconds you’ll get from him, will the visual structure of your proposal convince him to vote For?

So, in order for text to be visually appealing you need a couple of things: white space and changes in punctuation or case. First, white space (extra lines) focus reader attention in a more visual fashion on one article at a time--making it easier for them to consume the proposal piece by piece. Second, changes in case and punctuation provide pleasing variety to your text and draw readers’ attention to the crux(es) of your argument, or the influential claims. The UN voter will only glance at your proposal, you need to make sure that there’s a pleasing variety, appearing balanced, and that the most persuasive elements or visceral effects of your proposal are highlighted by such.

A reader is more likely to read, in his 5 seconds of text-reading, the line after NOTING ALSO, than the first NOTING line. Likewise, he or she is more likely to read a line which has several quotations opening and closing (integrated quotations) such as this:

NOTING ALSO that there is a “bag of peppered [Salmon]” in the butlers’ daily “salsa mixer”, as stated by Resolution #150 “Forever Young”,

To serve both of these, I think you need to break down the quotes and integrate them into your argument. Integrated quotes will most likely look something like this:

ALSO RECALLING UN Resolution #99, “Discrimination Accord”, which expresses “UN condemn[ation]” for “discrimination by governments" on the basis of "differences in…school of thought",

That got rid of the block quoting which will kill readers’ interest in the text, and allowed a nice variety of punctuation and capitalization. Let’s see how else this can be used:

ALSO RECALLING The Enodian Protocols, which define as ILLEGAL, “under any circumstances”, the inclusion of “real-life studies or reports…documents” in UN Proposals and Resolutions

I personally find that more visually attractive and if I had to choose a quote to take on a date, I’d pick my quote by a long shot ;).

It’s important I also point out what you’ve done effectively here. You’ve piled on a—er—pile of evidence which will serve to back up your future claim that the resolution is illegal or illegitimate. The reader isn’t interested in one source. He wants a second opinion; he wants to know that you aren’t just twisting the words of one document to repeal a resolution you don’t like. Recall as many sources as you can, up to four. Three or four is optimal. You retain enough reader attention keep them from feeling like they’re watching the Lawyer channel, but you’ve piled on enough triangulation to make your argument appear to be beyond rebuttal. Even if it really isn’t.


ARGUING that United Nations Resolutions #26 (The Universal Bill of Rights) and #99 (Discrimination Accord) achieve what United Nations Resolution #101 (Right to Learn about Evolution) seeks to achieve, as stated in the aforementioned passages, and therefore rendering said Resolution #101 ineffective and expendable and worthy of repeal without having any affect on the rights of individuals to learn anything and everything they so choose.

CLAIMING that resolution in question violates United Nations Resolution #99 (Discrimination Accord) by discriminating against those religions and beliefs which do not have a deity, namely "God".

CLAIMING that resolution in question violates the Enodian Protocols by citing real-life references and data to argue its case.


Okay, to continue with the visual nature of text, you need to shorten up your first argument, here. People don’t want to read through legal-speak, they want to get to the point. If you don’t get to the point soon, they’ll just stop reading, and vote For or Against for an arbitrary reason, such as how their coffee was this morning.

So, I think you need to cut the most slack in this section. Remember, a repeal’s only doing one thing, repealing. You only need to convince members that it needs to be repealed. Beyond that you’re just wasting yours and the readers’ time, and, more importantly, decreasing the likelihood that they’ll read through it. A few lines of good rhetorical appeal are better than a days worth of logical or legal analysis--at least in convincing the UN to vote For your proposal. Cut to the chase. Demonstrate the kairos. Answer the constant “so what” question your readers are asking.

As important as answering the “so what” question before the reader stops reading, is answering it “correctly”--or persuasively. You need to make certain that there is a common, easily recognized, solid doxa (or common assumption, such as “all humans are mortals”) you build your argument for repeal upon.

Reducing general size and replacing the crux of the argument, I think the sections may look something more like this:

DECLARING itself decidedly against resolutions which break the rules of the UN, and against resolutions which waste the UN’s collective time by repeating previously preserved rights,

DETERMINING that resolution in question violates Resolution #99, “Discrimination Accord” and The Enodian Protocols by discriminating against schools of though and by citing real-life references and data to argue its case,

REPEALS, in order to preserve the integrity of the UN’s rules about real-life and repeated proposals and resolution, “Right to Learn about Evolution”

In my opinion, that tends to deliver the urgency (according to your argument) of this repeal a little better.

These are just my impressions about what you can do to improve the repeal. Feel free to use them, use them partially, or mentally tell me to “stuff it” and continue on ignoring this post. It’s your proposal, your decision.

You might add the fact that the population of some NSUN nations and planets did not come to being through evolution. Some were, indeed, created in six days by a God.

You might add the fact that the population of some NSUN nations and planets did not come to being through evolution. Some were, indeed, created in six days by a God.

If some member states where created in 6 days by the hands of God (s) this in no way makes the study of evolution in this population null and void. Evolution is simply genotypic and phenotypic change over time.

In order for evolution to not apply in a given population the species population would have to be (a) unchangeable over time like a robot; (b) there would have to be no replication - i.e., no copies of materials transmitted to offspring; (c) no variability in copies and (d) unlimited resources. If condition (a) and (c) OR a combination of (b) and (a) or (d) exist that would be sufficient for evolution to have never occurred or never will occur.

Since all nation states exhibit population growth one would have to have God (s) production or machine replication of some sort. So (b) is violated. You can still salvage the no evolution hypothesis if there are no copying errors that get transmitted or that never allow the bearer of the copying error an advantage (i.e., unlimited resources). In essence all population growth would have to be exact clones (i.e., no variability) and live in an environment with unlimited resources.

Although such a situation may still result in evolutionary change between nation states because it would not take long for the hypothetical unconstrained nation state above to replace all others. I can see it now the world would become only made up of the same machines that are created without error and do not change or experience population crashes.

Hmmm, interesting twist (perhaps scary) on the game...

You forgot the possibilty that a God creates all babies independantly, and has stalks drop the babies down chimneys.
Just because it's physically impossible in RL doesn't mean it is in NS.

And what about the possibility that some future tech nations prooving that a theory other then Darwinist Evolution being true? That would render the original resolution as having as much point as a resolution about the "Right to learn Lamarkism"

I condemned the resolution when it was still a proposal, but my voice is weak and was drowned out by the "feel good" factor.

The resolution is short sighted and accomplishes next to nothing. I liked its ideal but I felt it lacked sufficient substance to make it worthy of UN attention. Now if they wanted to give all scientific knowledge free access then I'd be interested.

If you can convince some of the big boys, like DLE, then you will have a foot in the door as their opinions sway the thoughts off lesser nations.

I agree with Cobdenia.

R2LaE is a redundant proposal that breaks NSUN laws and does not take into account the non-RL nature of the NS universe.

I support the repeal.

it is up to the Mods to decide if it breaks the rules!

I would suggest a tightly worded title. Perhaps something like: "Repeal UN Resolution #101 as Redundant and Sub-Par." This does two things. First of all, it gives the gist of the proposal, in a very official-sounding way, without the substance - which means that those apathetic hordes out there will see the title and say "sure." (Therefore, keeping the proposal's long justification would be good, because people who read it will understand why res101 is being challenged, and other people will lose interest and just hit the "okay" button.) Secondly, it doesn't say that the proposal's about evolution, which is a good thing: introducing a proposal that's clearly against a resolution just passed will make people think it's just a backlash (which it is, but for the right reasons). I mean, the title you have now will never ever fly, because it basically reads "repeal the right to learn about evolution." I know that's not the point, but most people will read it that way and immediately kill the proposal. I hope this helps, and I hope your proposal makes it through; I will definitely vote for it, because res101 is really really stupid.

it is up to the Mods to decide if it breaks the rules!
Aye, but it is up to the UN to decide if they want to keep it around. This repeal request is entirely legal as well.

An aside - given the depth of International Law (over 100 resolutions passed) and the sheer number of daily proposals, Moderation staff frankly does not have the time to review each and every proposal against the body of UN law. If you spot illegailities in a proposal in or nearing queue, BRING IT TO OUR ATTENTION! Tell us WHY it is illegal, and we'll make a judgement.

Remember, there are dozens or hundreds of UN Forum readers, and only about 4 or 5 active UN moderators (all of whom have multiple other duties). We're not omniscient. You have to help.

it is up to the Mods to decide if it breaks the rules!

Yes, but I don't think Myxx isn't trying to 'decide' that it's against the rules, per se. He wants to argue that it is against UN rules to get it repealed. Whether it is against the rules enough for the mods to take or to have taken action against is really irrelevant. It's a resolution now, and Myxx, I believe, wants to argue that it is against UN rules to get it repealed--regardless of whether the mods or others think (or used to think) it's actually against the rules or not.

And it's a powerful argument too. Most, I believe, feel some sort of loyalty to rules, especially in the context of their place in creating peace and order. If executed correctly, it's a winning argument.

You've got my support.

In order for evolution to not apply in a given population the species population would have to be (a) unchangeable over time like a robot; (b) there would have to be no replication - i.e., no copies of materials transmitted to offspring; (c) no variability in copies and (d) unlimited resources. If condition (a) and (c) OR a combination of (b) and (a) or (d) exist that would be sufficient for evolution to have never occurred or never will occur.

Since all nation states exhibit population growth one would have to have God (s) production or machine replication of some sort. So (b) is violated. You can still salvage the no evolution hypothesis if there are no copying errors that get transmitted or that never allow the bearer of the copying error an advantage (i.e., unlimited resources). In essence all population growth would have to be exact clones (i.e., no variability) and live in an environment with unlimited resources.

First, the "nation" could represent a single individual, and the "population growth" could represent an increase in body mass. For the right kind of organism, such a model could work.

Second, where do you get the "unlimited resources" stipulation? If the original members of a population were created by one or more supernatural beings, and they were created in a state of perfection, then any alteration on that design would automatically be other than perfect and thus inferior. So, any mutants would automatically be at a disadvantage.

I would suggest a tightly worded title.
I would, too, but using the "Repeal" function writes the title for you.

Regarding the original resolution: I voted against RtLaE in the first place, and this repeal is well-thought-out. I'll approve the proposal when it's submitted, and I'll vote for it when it hits the head of the queue.

After I have thrice submitted an original proposal, the likes of which I have received nothing but good responses for, and have it fail to reach quorum all three times, I see this proposal run its course, reach quorum (no doubt by a farfetched amount of time telegramming delegates), and get passed by a ridiclulous margin. This is a proposal with good intentions and is putting the right foot forward toward eliminating discrimination.

Think how I feel. I submit a proposal three times, no luck. On the forth time, it reaches quorum and it fails because of a telegram campaign launched by a Non-UN nation to vote against this resolution and a large amount of stupidity/illeteracy on the part of delegates.

I agree with Cobdenia.

R2LaE is a redundant proposal that breaks NSUN laws and does not take into account the non-RL nature of the NS universe.

I support the repeal.

I feel these kind of statements miss the real excitement about evolutionary change. There is nothing preventing evolution occurring in the cultural realm. If units of cultural inheritance replicate, are variable, and have differential survival then adaptive change would likely occur. I think any planet, universe or even the imagination (surely a product of a brain or computation device of some sort) will allow for evolution (which is simply change over time).

What kind of NS would we have if there were no changes over time? Not a very interesting one. Basically I disagree with you that evolution takes the fun out of NS (if that is what you were trying to imply).

Indeed there is nothing preventing different evolutionary pathways for different universes, planets, or robotic realms. Think of the creative possibilities here...they are endless.

[QUOTE=Skredtch]First, the "nation" could represent a single individual, and the "population growth" could represent an increase in body mass. For the right kind of organism, such a model could work.QUOTE]

Interesting. Never thought of it that way. However, it makes the biographical sketches a tad tricky because they all deal with social interactants at some inferred level, no? Unless you want to define each interactant as a member of the larger individual (e.g., like social slime molds). Nonetheless I like the idea of the population numbers actually representing body mass.

In any event I think this repeal idea is not about what the supporters are claiming it to be about. But hey, who am I to judge?

Lucius Malfoy II

[QUOTE=Skredtch]First, the "nation" could represent a single individual, and the "population growth" could represent an increase in body mass. For the right kind of organism, such a model could work.QUOTE]

Interesting. Never thought of it that way. However, it makes the biographical sketches a tad tricky because they all deal with social interactants at some inferred level, no? Unless you want to define each interactant as a member of the larger individual (e.g., like social slime molds). Nonetheless I like the idea of the population numbers actually representing body mass.

In any event I think this repeal idea is not about what the supporters are claiming it to be about. But hey, who am I to judge?

Lucius Malfoy II

If you're insinuating that we're anti evolutionary theory, you're dead wrong. The vast majority of _Myopia_'s population subscribe to a secular scientific view of the world. We simply find it a disturbing precedent that politicians are wading into science and endorsing a specific theory in law. It's a small step to the outright distortion of science to meet political aims. If this wasn't enough, the text also sees the UN wading in on theological debate, by implying that member nations work on the presumption that a god exists and is not malevolent.

I feel these kind of statements miss the real excitement about evolutionary change. There is nothing preventing evolution occurring in the cultural realm. If units of cultural inheritance replicate, are variable, and have differential survival then adaptive change would likely occur. I think any planet, universe or even the imagination (surely a product of a brain or computation device of some sort) will allow for evolution (which is simply change over time).

What kind of NS would we have if there were no changes over time? Not a very interesting one. Basically I disagree with you that evolution takes the fun out of NS (if that is what you were trying to imply).

Indeed there is nothing preventing different evolutionary pathways for different universes, planets, or robotic realms. Think of the creative possibilities here...they are endless.Malfoy, I think you have the idea beat into your head that the people who want this repealed are against evolution. I guarantee you that I am not. I am arguing the fact that the resolution singles out a specific, arguably religious belief, and that is discrimination on the UN's part in passing such a resolution. It has also referenced real life, which you cannot do in a UN resolution. I feel as if I could say it a million times and still be accused of opposing evolution. Please understand my side of the argument.

I have introduced a compromise called "Free Speech in the Classroom" which repeals the resolution as is your purpose, but helps protect all ideas in a classroom setting while specifically protecting a nation's soverignty by not introducing a specific curriculam.

Here is the full text:
Free Speech in the Classroom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Brown Stick Men

Description: DEFINING The Classroom as any place where structured education takes place: including but not limited to, government sactioned primary (or elementary) schools, high schools or other places of secondary education and colleges and universities. As well as privately run counter-parts to the above.

ASSERTING Teachers, professors and other educators will be free from persecution, imprisonment, or other forms of harrassment from the government for what is taught in a classroom setting so long as such teaching or speech is does not violate established laws or limitation on speech in the individual nation.

NOTING this resolution does not affect an individual nation's right to set any curriculam they see fit or limit leaders or school officials from ensuring that educators follow established laws.

REPEALS The Right To Learn About Evolution as being too specific and out of the scope of the charter of the UN. The argument being that this resolution does a far better job of protecting all ideas in a classroom regardless of a nation's technical level or cultural, social and religious ideals. With this resolution in place, no nation can completely outlaw any educational idea without outlawing free speech in general, which is already outlawed by various other resolutions.

CONCLUSION The UN should be concerned that all citizens are properly educated, this resolution clarifies that a teacher's speech cannot be limited because of a educational setting.

I understand the intent of the Evolution proposal and so I submit this proposal as an alternative. The UN already prohibits limitations on speech in a variety of proposals and this one protects it specifically in an educational setting. It also protects soverignty by limiting by national laws already in place. In other words a nation won't be able to inact laws specifically targetting teachers or what they speak about. The government can still limit what is taught in government sanctioned schools but nothing can prevent citizens from forming a private school or homeschooling their children.

Nations not conforming to this proposal would be handled the same way the UN handles nations not conforming to other Free Speech/Free expression resolutions.

I have introduced a compromise called "Free Speech in the Classroom" which repeals the resolution as is your purpose, but helps protect all ideas in a classroom setting while specifically protecting a nation's soverignty by not introducing a specific curriculam.Sorry. It's illegal to repeal a resolution in another resolution. You have to repeal resolutions separately from normal resolutions.

Also, there is no need for such a resolution. Individuals (in UN member nations) are already allowed to learn as much or as little as they please without government interference. Also, the resolution I seek to repeal didn't introduce a specific curriculum. It made it illegal to supress evolution, which was illegal before the resolution even came about. We need only to repeal the resolution and NOT try to pass another do-nothing resolution.

Think how I feel. I submit a proposal three times, no luck. On the forth time, it reaches quorum and it fails because of a telegram campaign launched by a Non-UN nation to vote against this resolution and a large amount of stupidity/illeteracy on the part of delegates.that's just BS... it pisses me off to even hear such a story. Well, I'm beginning to wonder how much fun it will be to try and repeal a resolution that passed 3:1. (note the sarcasm)