NationStates Jolt Archive

Esteemed national representatives,

We present to you the Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia's draft proposal, the Freedom of Conscience Act, for review and comment. This draft, while framed by Ecopoeian legislators, has been shaped by input from a number of UN member states; we owe the contributors an enormous debt of gratitude.

The text (please note that this has been amended on numerous occasions to take into account concerns expressed by delegates):

Freedom of Conscience

Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant

We, the United Nations, recognise that freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some member states persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely express beliefs or thoughts that are not state-approved.

Accordingly, we hereby:

1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future.

2) DEFINE a ‘disappearance’ as an instance when a person has been taken into custody by government authorities or by an armed political group, when this person’s whereabouts and wellbeing are kept secret without the full, informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in question; and accordingly

INSIST that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘disappeared’ person.

3) CONDEMN extrajudicial executions by governments, killings caused by the unnecessary use of lethal force by law enforcement officials and killings of civilians in direct or indiscriminate attacks by governments or armed political groups.
We hope to submit the proposal within a week.

Respectfully,

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Please, please let this pass. The Rigans are about to arrest all my protestors.

One gripe.


1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, or encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting or recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similar reasons; and accordingly

"neither" is usually followed by "nor", not "or". So this would read:


1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, nor to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similar unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

... alright, so I added one word as well.

I'm not sure about the third 'nor' (is there a grammarian in the house?), but otherwise I accept your recommendations.

Thanks.

Ireland throws it considerable weight behind this UN proposal!!! :)

KNN Newsflash:

... in an usual statement, expressed its sympathy for the resolution. A spokesman for the nos Círdan administration (which has refrained from commenting on UN proposals ever since Knootoss left the UN over the imposition of fishing quotas per resolution) said that the Knootian UN office would be casting its vote in favour of this particular resolution.

The spokesman cited a "general concern for human rights" as one of the main reasons, praising the representatives of Ecopoeia for their humanitarian concerns as well as the quality of the resolution in general...

The Eternal Kawaii cannot support this resolution, and objects strongly to its wording. In particular, we take exception to the following:

...but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similar unjustifiable reasons...

We wish to know by whose standards a given imprisonment is supposed to be "unjustifiable"? We are quite confident in the justification of Our laws, and see this resolution as unnecessary and dangerous.

As worded, this resolution effectively abolishes a nation's right to make and enforce its own laws. This is an unacceptable infringement on national sovereignity.

Saint Uriel strongly supports this. We also thank the Ecopoeian delegation for introducing it.

Thank you to those representatives who have expressed their support.

We wish to know by whose standards a given imprisonment is supposed to be "unjustifiable"?
Why, the United Nations, naturally.

As worded, this resolution effectively abolishes a nation's right to make and enforce its own laws. This is an unacceptable infringement on national sovereignity.
No, it effectively abolishes a nation's right to imprison people simply on the basis of their ethnicity, gender, etc, or merely for expressing views that the government does not endorse, provided that such views are not inciting violence, or discrimination on the basis of hatred.

I do not view this is an unacceptable infringement of national sovereignty. Human rights transcend national borders.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

If you're going to add that "unjustifiable", I think that "similar" ought to become "similarly", so that it is clear that you mean reasons "unjustifiable" in the same way as the examples given. Of course, anything not directly specified probably won't count anyway, as nations will just be able to quibble over the similarity and justifiability.

I think you're right. Thanks (again - you deserve a special credit for this proposal, I feel!).

1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly.

I would be uneasy about that "similarly unjustifiable reasons" being there at all. If you can't specifically define what such reasons are I would recommend simply dropping that phrase altogether.

Also, technically I don't believe prisoners held for their ethnicity can be reasonably classified as prisoners of conscience. That would probably belong under different legislation, or at least a seperate article defining a different class of those unnacceptably imprisoned.

Istate gives a force of 14 million behind this draft proposal. We will support it until the end!

First of all, i believe this is a good resolution. However, when i was re-reading the draft (or proposal if you have already sent it in) I found a problem that my country would like to address


2) DEFINE a ‘disappearance’ as a person who has been taken into custody by government authorities or by armed political groups, but whose whereabouts and fate is kept secret; and accordingly



I believe this is a good definition, but how would you get proof that the government is taking them away? If the government is in fact doing this secreatly, then in many cases, the government won't be seen as the person doing the kidnapping, defeating the purpose of the resolution. However, on the flip side, a mad murderer may be kidnapping people, and a person who is upset or angry with the government may blame government officials or political groups, when in fact they had nothing to do with it. In this case, we would be blamed for a crime we didn't commit because of an angry citizen. I cannot think of a way to correct this problem without defeating the purpose of the resolution, but my country would greatly accept any way to fix the wording of this proposal to correct this problem.

Until this problem is fixed, my country will vote against this resolution.

I would be uneasy about that "similarly unjustifiable reasons" being there at all. If you can't specifically define what such reasons are I would recommend simply dropping that phrase altogether.

Also, technically I don't believe prisoners held for their ethnicity can be reasonably classified as prisoners of conscience. That would probably belong under different legislation, or at least a seperate article defining a different class of those unnacceptably imprisoned.
I'll see what others have to say before I amend this again (if at all), since the wording of this clause has already cause some problems.

Regarding the ethnicity aspect, we're doing the defining in the proposal itself, so I'm content to leave this in. [OOC: this is cribbed from RL and ethnicity is included there]

I believe this is a good definition, but how would you get proof that the government is taking them away? If the government is in fact doing this secreatly, then in many cases, the government won't be seen as the person doing the kidnapping, defeating the purpose of the resolution. However, on the flip side, a mad murderer may be kidnapping people, and a person who is upset or angry with the government may blame government officials or political groups, when in fact they had nothing to do with it. In this case, we would be blamed for a crime we didn't commit because of an angry citizen. I cannot think of a way to correct this problem without defeating the purpose of the resolution, but my country would greatly accept any way to fix the wording of this proposal to correct this problem.
Evidence of disappearances typically come from personal testimony and human rights workers 'on the ground'. I don't deny that the burden of proof is heavy but, sadly, human rights violations are frequently subtly concealed. Angry accusations will not be enough. Ultimately, the law - domestic, or if necessary, international - will arbitrate. [another OOC: remember that, in game compliance terms, govts will simply stop disappearing people. The subtleties of the issue may be explored in RPs, where, the legal implications will come to the fore, hopefully. This whole field is very messy; govts receiving occasional unjustified accusations is unfortunate, but a justifiable drawback in the grand scheme of things.]

Thanks again to contributors.

I'll see what others have to say before I amend this again (if at all), since the wording of this clause has already cause some problems.

Fair enough. The question I would ask to put it in perspective is what if any quantifiable benefit is gained from including that phrase which you lose if it is omitted?

I suspect it's there as a guard against some nagging concern that you might have left out something important in your list of 'offenses' which are unnacceptable causes for imprisonment... but more often than not when you toss in a nonspecific catch-all against such an eventuality you end up covering things by it that you really don't want to.

Regarding the ethnicity aspect, we're doing the defining in the proposal itself, so I'm content to leave this in. [OOC: this is cribbed from RL and ethnicity is included there]

Your call, it goes to style more than substance... it just doesn't seem to logically fit with the rest of your list.

In response to our question, "by whose standards will imprisonment be unjustified?":

Why, the United Nations, naturally.

Which raises another question. How does the UN expect to enforce this measure? Are we going to create a UN "court of appeal" with the authority to overturn verdicts handed down from the various nations' courts? We should like to point out that establishing such a court of appeal would be in direct violation of Article 1 of UN Resolution #49:

§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

"Legal powers" include the right of a nation to enforce its duly-instituted laws, and to punish offenders accordingly.

While the Enlightened Aardvarks agree with the spirit of your resolution, there are a few details you should address before submitting it as a proposal (My amendments to the text in Bold, other suggestions following each passage):

Freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right, yet the governments of some member states in the United Nations persecute those who express beliefs or thoughts that are not state-approved. We, the United Nations, recognise that freedom of conscience is a human right that transcends national borders and, accordingly, do hereby
I would avoid qualifiers like 'frequently', because they make the text of the resolution less specific and hence weaker. Also, you say that freedom of conscience is a human right twice.

1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similar unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly
There is a problem here in that you list the things people CAN be imprisoned for, but leave out huge swathes of crimes which even progressive governments would imprison their citizens for. Examples: corporate crime, fraud, theft... etc. I would recommend only listing the things people SHOULD NOT be imprisoned for, i.e. the second part of this clause.

Your list of these has a few problems in itself, for example should people be imprisoned for encouraging (coercing?) others to join a religion which encourages hate, violence, etc.? Note they would not be directly encouraging hate and violence, but their actions could ultimately lead to people committing hateful or violent acts. Similarly, what if a fascist, racist, violent, whatever organisation set itself up as a ‘legitimate’ political party? Members of this party charged with committing crimes could then claim they were being persecuted because of their political beliefs. So I think a little more detail is needed in this section.

CALL ON all member states to immediately and unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future

2) DEFINE a ‘disappearance’ as an instance when a person has been taken into custody by government authorities or by an armed political group, when this person’s whereabouts and wellbeing are kept secret; and accordingly

MANDATE that any institution or group holding such an individual to reveal the whereabouts and condition of the ‘disappeared’ person

3) CONDEMN extrajudicial executions by governments, killings caused by the unnecessary use of lethal force by law enforcement officials and killings of civilians in direct or indiscriminate attacks by governments or armed political groups
This last part is good, although again I think it could be a little more detailed. For example, how do you define ‘unnecessary’?

Good luck!

There is a problem here in that you list the things people CAN be imprisoned for, but leave out huge swathes of crimes which even progressive governments would imprison their citizens for. Examples: corporate crime, fraud, theft... etc. I would recommend only listing the things people SHOULD NOT be imprisoned for, i.e. the second part of this clause.

Your list of these has a few problems in itself, for example should people be imprisoned for encouraging (coercing?) others to join a religion which encourages hate, violence, etc.? Note they would not be directly encouraging hate and violence, but their actions could ultimately lead to people committing hateful or violent acts. Similarly, what if a fascist, racist, violent, whatever organisation set itself up as a ‘legitimate’ political party? Members of this party charged with committing crimes could then claim they were being persecuted because of their political beliefs. So I think a little more detail is needed in this section.

The point of including the part you recommend striking is precisely to clarify in the kinds of situations you talk about. If nations want to criminalise incitement to hatred or violence, or the use of violence, this text ensures that they can continue to deal with people who do these things, because it is effectively reassuring nations that these things are exempt from the resolution's protection.

It would therefore be illegal to imprison people simply for joining that hypothetical party, or for holding religious beliefs - but it would still be perfectly legal to imprison them for committing violent acts or egging on a lynch mob, if your nation is inclined to do so.

I think you're right. Thanks (again - you deserve a special credit for this proposal, I feel!).

:) Happy to help!

Fair enough. The question I would ask to put it in perspective is what if any quantifiable benefit is gained from including that phrase which you lose if it is omitted?

I suspect it's there as a guard against some nagging concern that you might have left out something important in your list of 'offenses' which are unnacceptable causes for imprisonment... but more often than not when you toss in a nonspecific catch-all against such an eventuality you end up covering things by it that you really don't want to.
You suspect right, partially. To specifically define each and every scenario is unfeasible, yet to leave the list of specifics only may allow loopholes. It's a tricky decision to make and I'm still open to persuasion.

Your call, it goes to style more than substance... it just doesn't seem to logically fit with the rest of your list.
I understand where you're coming from, but in what way is 'ethnicity' any differet to 'gender' in this regard? Thought these are not specifically conscience-related, they are factors I want covered by the legislation. I suspect the title ('The Cloud-Water Principles') is more of a problem than the inclusion of such terms.

Which raises another question. How does the UN expect to enforce this measure? Are we going to create a UN "court of appeal" with the authority to overturn verdicts handed down from the various nations' courts? We should like to point out that establishing such a court of appeal would be in direct violation of Article 1 of UN Resolution #49:

§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

"Legal powers" include the right of a nation to enforce its duly-instituted laws, and to punish offenders accordingly.
The UN Compliance Ministry is the final arbiter in such matters. I'm not creating a new court or committee here, especially as the proposal is as much a statement of principles as an enforcement measure.

That said, your comments on enforcement are making me reconsider the strength of the resolution. Perhaps it should be 'Significant', rather than 'Strong'.

Thank you both. Enlightened Aardvarks, your comments are also most welcome and I shall endeavour to address them shortly.

I would avoid qualifiers like 'frequently', because they make the text of the resolution less specific and hence weaker. Also, you say that freedom of conscience is a human right twice.
I agree, actually, and will make the appropriate changes.

I'll defer to _Myopia_'s comments on your second quibble. As for your proposed amendments to the disappearances article... I'm adopting them, too. However, I'm hesitant to 'call on' rather than 'mandate' in the prisoners of conscience section, though the national sovereignty advocates would probably appreciate my doing so. Consider me amenable to such a change, perhaps.

This last part is good, although again I think it could be a little more detailed. For example, how do you define ‘unnecessary’?
I'm adopting a similar position here to that taken by Texan Hotrodders for their 'Right to Self-Protection', in that the definition here can allow some leeway for nations with more... robust use of force. This isn't wholly satisfactory, of course, but I feel that it is a pragmatic approach. Most nations' standard of necessity ought to be pretty stringent when you consider the UN's prior legislation.

I'll note that I don't think this proposal is a 'be all and end all' in this area of human rights legislation. Further law strengthening and enforcing these protections may be prudent, but I'm looking really for an enshrining of basic principles (since many other areas I would have tackled alongside those listed, such as torture, have already been dealt with).

The concept behind this is something that Bitewaldi can support, (which, as I interpret your intent, is to illegalize "thoughtcrime" - being imprisoned for ones' thoughts rather than one's actions) but the wording isn't quite there yet. Forgive me for working from the first complete posted draft in this thread - I did read the entire thread to date before posting, so hopefully I won't be re-hashing things already discussed.

My first issue is with your definition - definitions that list things that the word is not are troublesome - I prefer to see definitions as what something is



1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons;

so this first paragraph might be phrased thusly:

1) Define a prisoner of conscience as a person who is detained or imprisoned for their thoughts or beliefs (expressed verbally or in written form, or even unexpressed thoughts detected by telepathy or other means), rather than for any actions, inducements, or incitements that might be against local laws.

This should cover a broad spectrum of "dangerous ideas" that might make certain governments uncomfortable, but are part-in-parcel of free speech, and deserve to be protected as a basic human right. This also avoids having to list a plethora of actual crimes that one might be in prison for legitimately.


3) CONDEMN extrajudicial executions by governments, killings caused by the unnecessary use of lethal force by law enforcement officials and killings of civilians in direct or indiscriminate attacks by governments or armed political groups

It is good to condemn these types of actions, but there doesn't seem to be any real consequenses for violations. Perhaps this resolution might be expanded to make the leaders of such governments prosecutable for "humanitarian crimes" by a world court (if we are allowed such things). You may want to reference the EON Convention resolution (which addresses genocide), and point out that this resolution fills in the gap for human rights violations on a smaller-than-genocide scale.

The UN Compliance Ministry is the final arbiter in such matters. I'm not creating a new court or committee here, especially as the proposal is as much a statement of principles as an enforcement measure.

That said, your comments on enforcement are making me reconsider the strength of the resolution. Perhaps it should be 'Significant', rather than 'Strong'.

We thank you for considering Our views on this matter. We'd like the nations of the UN to know that The Eternal Kawaii is not against "freedom of conscience". We fully agree with the sentiment of this measure. However, we are worried that it could be abused in culturally-insensitive ways.

For example, in Our nation politeness and propriety are prized virtues. Accordingly, Our government has strict laws regarding decency in public speech, dress, and behavior. It is accepted practice that people who use vulgar or obscene language, dress lewdly or provocatively, or behave in an indecent or improper manner are arrested and often jailed. This may seem harsh and illiberal to some nations here, but it is our cultural norm.

We are concerned that some well-meaning busybody at the UN will argue that, because they consider these offenses "nonviolent", Our nation is imprisoning these miscreants "unjustly". What assurances can We receive that this measure will not trample on Our nation's right to preserve the harmony of its public life?

Toothless.

Toothless.

Nope. If it was toothless, I would be supporting it, but I'm not supporting it.

The concept behind this is something that Bitewaldi can support, (which, as I interpret your intent, is to illegalize "thoughtcrime" - being imprisoned for ones' thoughts rather than one's actions) but the wording isn't quite there yet. Forgive me for working from the first complete posted draft in this thread - I did read the entire thread to date before posting, so hopefully I won't be re-hashing things already discussed.
Not really; the proposal is defending the right of expression.

Hmm. I may need to change the title. Freedom of Expression?

My first issue is with your definition - definitions that list things that the word is not are troublesome - I prefer to see definitions as what something is

so this first paragraph might be phrased thusly:

1) Define a prisoner of conscience as a person who is detained or imprisoned for their thoughts or beliefs (expressed verbally or in written form, or even unexpressed thoughts detected by telepathy or other means), rather than for any actions, inducements, or incitements that might be against local laws.

This should cover a broad spectrum of "dangerous ideas" that might make certain governments uncomfortable, but are part-in-parcel of free speech, and deserve to be protected as a basic human right. This also avoids having to list a plethora of actual crimes that one might be in prison for legitimately.

I don't think this goes far enough for my liking. For example, praying would be an action that I would like to defend. I also would rather not mention telepathy - I know other nations regard it as feasible, but I suspect Ecopoeians would be baffled at its inclusion.

I appreciate your concerns over the manner in which this has been defined and am considering the wording here [OOC: Blame Amnesty, their wording has been the inspiration behind this!].

It is good to condemn these types of actions, but there doesn't seem to be any real consequenses for violations. Perhaps this resolution might be expanded to make the leaders of such governments prosecutable for "humanitarian crimes" by a world court (if we are allowed such things). You may want to reference the EON Convention resolution (which addresses genocide), and point out that this resolution fills in the gap for human rights violations on a smaller-than-genocide scale.
As stated earlier (easily missed, I understand!), the proposal is as much a statement of principles as an enforcement measure. I'm not comfortable with referring to cases to a genocide court and the inception of an international criminal court deserves its own separate proposal. Should such a court be founded, then perhaps it could deal with cases pertinent to this proposal. That would be a matter for the UN to determine at the time, I feel.

With this proposal, we hope to enshrine the principles of freedom of conscience/expression and condemn associated violence and persecution, since UN human rights legislation has inexplicably failed to address this area thus far. Enforcement should only be considered if nations prove intransigent. I'd like to see nations trusted, at first, to honour the spirit and letter of the law. Perhaps I'm a hopeless idealist.

We thank you for considering Our views on this matter. We'd like the nations of the UN to know that The Eternal Kawaii is not against "freedom of conscience". We fully agree with the sentiment of this measure. However, we are worried that it could be abused in culturally-insensitive ways.

For example, in Our nation politeness and propriety are prized virtues. Accordingly, Our government has strict laws regarding decency in public speech, dress, and behavior. It is accepted practice that people who use vulgar or obscene language, dress lewdly or provocatively, or behave in an indecent or improper manner are arrested and often jailed. This may seem harsh and illiberal to some nations here, but it is our cultural norm.

We are concerned that some well-meaning busybody at the UN will argue that, because they consider these offenses "nonviolent", Our nation is imprisoning these miscreants "unjustly". What assurances can We receive that this measure will not trample on Our nation's right to preserve the harmony of its public life?
I've highlighted the only area of real concern for your nation. Here, I'm afraid, you would seem to have a problem. Put simply, I feel your nation's policy is excessive and, should this proposal come to pass, I hope to see it soften. I'm sincerely sorry if you feel this will cause your people distress, but I believe there is a greater good being served here.

Toothless.
Nope. If it was toothless, I would be supporting it, but I'm not supporting it.
There's just no pleasing some people... in all seriousness, I understand Mr Jones' position on this matter. I feel his nation's attachment to national sovereignty is, at times, excessive, but I respect his consistency and decency.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Hmm. I may need to change the title. Freedom of Expression?

I don't think this is appropriate. Clause 1 covers more than expression and clauses 2 and 3 have little or nothing to do with it. "Freedom of conscience" was better, because the proposal is mostly about freeing prisoners of conscience.

ooc: That'll teach me to deal with this sort of stuff in the wee hours of the morning. I've changed it back, but I'm not wholly satisfied with the title.

Well, you could do something not so directly related to the aims of the proposal, perhaps in the vein of the Eon Convention on Genocide, or something about basic principles of civil rights. I'd suggest "The Amnesty Principles" but that's inappropriate for NS.

How about "The DLE Convention of Conscience Rights"?

Seriously, just drop the "DLE" portion from that. We get the bonus of being able to refer to it as "The Convention" and confusing people later on down the line.

Convention of Conscience Rights

Not a bad idea (although shouldn't it be "on" not "of"?)

Not necessarily. It depends on what type of convention you are talking about. In this case, I think it's accurate.

We would like to announce that We are withdrawing our objection to Article 1 of this proposal:

1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

A copy of this draft was forwarded to Our capital, with a request that it be given a First Reading by Our Conclave of Joy to see whether it conflicted with Our legal codes regarding speech, dress, and deportment. They returned with a preliminary ruling that violations of those codes would constitute "supporting or recommending hatred", and therefore would not be subject to Article 1 here.

The Eternal Kawaii reserves Its vote on this matter until We see the final draft of this proposal, but for now, We have no problems with it.

A copy of this draft was forwarded to Our capital, with a request that it be given a First Reading by Our Conclave of Joy to see whether it conflicted with Our legal codes regarding speech, dress, and deportment. They returned with a preliminary ruling that violations of those codes would constitute "supporting or recommending hatred", and therefore would not be subject to Article 1 here.

I don't think you can sidestep that actually. Dressing lewdly, and in many cases use of vulgar language (e.g. "I'm really ill - I feel like shit"), which you previously said were illegal, cannot reasonably be construed as advocating hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons. If this proposal passes in its current form, you will not be able to continue to imprison people for such things (and I'll be glad to see it happen).

Mathieu Vergniaud morosely considered his ever-increasing duties as junior delegate and the ever-decreasing time in which he had to perform them. He slumped forward, his head meeting the table with a gentle bump.

OOC: Busy, busy - I'll attend to this after the weekend. In the meantime, please continue posting your thoughts.

By the way, Kawaii - your nation is great and I hope it isn't unduly affected by this in the end!

I don't think you can sidestep that actually. Dressing lewdly, and in many cases use of vulgar language (e.g. "I'm really ill - I feel like shit"), which you previously said were illegal, cannot reasonably be construed as advocating hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons. If this proposal passes in its current form, you will not be able to continue to imprison people for such things (and I'll be glad to see it happen).

On the contrary, We are facing this issue head-on. It is clear from reading the proposed article that the author intends to distinguish between two types of expression of thought: legitimate forms of expression that should be protected from government interference, and illegitimate forms--commonly lumped together under the term "hate speech"--that do not deserve such protection.

The Eternal Kawaii wishes to go on record as saying We utterly oppose hate speech in all its forms, and will not tolerate its presence in Our nation. Indeed, much of Our public decency legislation is aimed at precisely what the article refers to. Our laws against ethnic slurs (offensive to minorities), blasphemy (offensive to the religious faithful), and crude or explicit sexual or scatalogical references (offensive to children and parents) all closely parallel the denial of protection for "advocating hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons". Thus, there is no conflict to side-step.

Greetings.

We of Roathin wonder if perhaps there would be support for a 'Freedom From Conscience' Act. Such an Act would allow any NSUN member state to conduct internal affairs based on debate rules which specifically ban reference to 'conscience'. Our observation is that debates which do not invoke 'conscience' but stick to purely logical arguments based on mutually agreed premises are often shorter, less acrimonious in style, and more productive in outcome.

On the contrary, We are facing this issue head-on. It is clear from reading the proposed article that the author intends to distinguish between two types of expression of thought: legitimate forms of expression that should be protected from government interference, and illegitimate forms--commonly lumped together under the term "hate speech"--that do not deserve such protection.

The Eternal Kawaii wishes to go on record as saying We utterly oppose hate speech in all its forms, and will not tolerate its presence in Our nation. Indeed, much of Our public decency legislation is aimed at precisely what the article refers to. Our laws against ethnic slurs (offensive to minorities), blasphemy (offensive to the religious faithful), and crude or explicit sexual or scatalogical references (offensive to children and parents) all closely parallel the denial of protection for "advocating hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons". Thus, there is no conflict to side-step.

First, we ought to clarify that this resolution does not actually protect "hate speech" etc, it merely excludes such things from its own actions. Nations are left free to decide whether or not to criminalise hate speech. You probably know this, but I want to make sure that everyone recognises that.

Second, there is an important distinction here. Offending somebody is not the same as inciting hatred of them. My use of the name of a deity (e.g. crying out "Oh ___(insert deity here)___!" in anger) or my categorical denial of that deity's existence might be viewed as offensive blasphemy by its followers, but it cannot be construed as advocating hatred against them. Nor can swearing or sexual references be construed as advocating hatred against people who are offended by swearing or sexual references. On the other hand, if someone were to stand on a podium and announce that all members of a particular race, religion, or ethnic group were scum and deserved to die, that would clearly be an incitement to hatred.

Offending somebody is not the same as inciting hatred of them.

This statement appears to be making a distinction where no difference exists. If a person were not "openly supporting nor recommending hatred" of a particular group of people, why would they go out of their way to offend them?

This statement appears to be making a distinction where no difference exists. If a person were not "openly supporting nor recommending hatred" of a particular group of people, why would they go out of their way to offend them?

Depending on the person, yes. I know I would, just to see the looks on their faces.

This statement appears to be making a distinction where no difference exists. If a person were not "openly supporting nor recommending hatred" of a particular group of people, why would they go out of their way to offend them?

You don't have to try in order to offend most people. Use of coarse language does not usually spring from a desire to twist the minds of small children and horrify their parents, and people don't wear revealing clothes just to shock prudish people who'd prefer us all to be swaddled in head-to-toe black cloth. Nor do people take the names of various deities in vain with the express intent of offending the followers of those deities.

For just about any action or idea, there's bound to be someone, somewhere, who finds it offensive for some reason or other even if there is no malicious intent. We should not have to live in constant fear of being thrown into prison for violating other people's standards of etiquette.

BUMP - I will get around to this, I promise...

Right, I've overcome my fear of full stops and come up with the following preamble:

"We, the United Nations, recognise that freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some member states persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely express beliefs or thoughts that are not state-approved.

Accordingly, we hereby"

Additionally, in recognition of the duality of meaning of the word 'mandate', I've replaced it with 'insist'. This may also prove to be of some reassurance to sovereigntists, I hope.

the dominion of killahtron agrees with this proposal

Right, I've overcome my fear of full stops and come up with the following preamble:

"We, the United Nations, recognise that freedom of conscience is a fundamental human right that transcends national borders and note with regret that the governments of some member states persecute and commit acts of violence against those who merely express beliefs or thoughts that are not state-approved.

Accordingly, we hereby"

Additionally, in recognition of the duality of meaning of the word 'mandate', I've replaced it with 'insist'. This may also prove to be of some reassurance to sovereigntists, I hope.

Propbably not enough to vote FOR it, but maybe enough to abstain. Who knows, I may change my mind and vote FOR if I find compelling cause to do so, which for the record would probably be that I'm not likely to see any better proposals on this issue.

Propbably not enough to vote FOR it, but maybe enough to abstain. Who knows, I may change my mind and vote FOR if I find compelling cause to do so, which for the record would probably be that I'm not likely to see any better proposals on this issue.
In fairness, if this proposal was to garner your support yet retain the strength I've hoped for, then things are looking good.

OOC: The Freedom of Conscience epic continues: I'm about to submit. This is really a just a trial run to see how much basic support there is. If you are a delegate and like what you see then please endorse; if you are not a delegate and like what you see, then please persuade your regional delegate to endorse.

Search keywords: 'freedom' or 'conscience'

Thanks
Eco

Approved.

Approved.
I noticed - many thanks!

Bump.

I've posted the proposal in the offsite forum of the region I founded for the delegate to take a look at and hopefully endorse :).

Unfortunetly the delegate in the region Waterana lives in doesn't endorse proposals. He didn't even endorse mine :D.

I've posted the proposal in the offsite forum of the region I founded for the delegate to take a look at and hopefully endorse :).

Unfortunetly the delegate in the region Waterana lives in doesn't endorse proposals. He didn't even endorse mine :D.
Pah! Sack 'im!

Thanks for trying though.

Sorry about this belated response to the call for "a grammarian in the house," but the ors in the original draft are just fine. The fact that the alternative pairs are embedded in "not" phrases make the or/nor choice look tricky, but the ors have it. ;)

Sorry about this belated response to the call for "a grammarian in the house," but the ors in the original draft are just fine. The fact that the alternative pairs are embedded in "not" phrases make the or/nor choice look tricky, but the ors have it. ;)
OOC: Oh, bugger. Well, that's what you get from a science education... Thanks, I'll look at this if I need to submit again.

30 endorsements in 38 hours. Not enough, but not bad, especially with the front page some way off.

This should not prevent people from being imprisoned in situations where their activities in support of nonviolence or whatever violate other laws.

I"m not too certain if I wish to support this legislation, but in the interest in assisting others to bring it to a vote, we will approve it.

This should not prevent people from being imprisoned in situations where their activities in support of nonviolence or whatever violate other laws.
Nor will it, depending on the laws in question. It's really quite a specifically focused proposal.

I"m not too certain if I wish to support this legislation, but in the interest in assisting others to bring it to a vote, we will approve it.
Thank you, I'm very grateful.

40 approvals - just 100 to go... not sure when time expires, but it's no later than 11am GMT, Sunday, which gives me a little over 40 hours.

The Community of the Frozen Chosen wishes to add its support to this worthy proposal.

-Mark Heln
U.N. Delegate


OOC: I see one issue with this proposal:

2) DEFINE a ‘disappearance’ as an instance when a person has been taken into custody by government authorities or by an armed political group, when this person’s whereabouts and wellbeing are kept secret;

What about Witness Protection Programs? It might work better to condemn "government authorities" who keep a "person's whereabouts and wellbeing" secret against said person's will. Great proposal though.

The Community of the Frozen Chosen wishes to add its support to this worthy proposal.

-Mark Heln
U.N. Delegate


OOC: I see one issue with this proposal:

What about Witness Protection Programs? It might work better to condemn "government authorities" who keep a "person's whereabouts and wellbeing" secret against said person's will. Great proposal though.
Thanks, that's a vey decent point. I'll probably amend the proposal if it fails on this submission.

It probably ought to be more detailed than "against said person's will". How about "without the full, informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in question" and something about consent from a legal guardian in the case of minors or the mentally ill - but that would need to be worded so that a government agent couldn't be appointed legal guardian just to give consent for this.

Given the changes to the original bill, making it more specific and yet remaining strong enough the be useful, you have the support of the White Dwarf Dominion in supporting the freedom of conscience among UN member states.

Prime Minister Timothy McKenzie
Constitutional Monarchy of Bunny Pancake
UN Delegate of the White Dwarf Dominion

Many thanks. 54 approvals (so far) is very encouraging for a first submission with no TG campaign.

Many thanks. 54 approvals (so far) is very encouraging for a first submission with no TG campaign.

I certainly suggest you resubmit and telegram! :)

I disagree this is telling people how to run their government, it is like forcing people to accept and use Your government which makes this somewhat of an oximoron. The Nationstate shoud decide how to run its government not the UN.

I disagree this is telling people how to run their government, it is like forcing people to accept and use Your government which makes this somewhat of an oximoron. The Nationstate shoud decide how to run its government not the UN.
I fail to see how you could ever bring yourself to vote for any UN proposal, including your own 'Minimum Wage Act'.

-----

Unfortunately, I was unable to check the final approval count before the update this morning; however, a regional ally - Supercaria - was kind enough to record the count as of approximately an hour before the close of polls: 75. In other words, over halfway to quorum and with no TG campaign.

In light of comments made by the delegates from The Frozen Chosen and _Myopia_, I've made the following amendment:

2) DEFINE a ‘disappearance’ as an instance when a person has been taken into custody by government authorities or by an armed political group, when this person’s whereabouts and wellbeing are kept secret without the full, informed, uncoerced consent of the individual in question; and accordingly
I've not added any comment about legal guradians as I feel this may make too many assumptions over the legal status of minors and the mentally ill in certain countries, plus it does drag attention away from the central thrust of the proposal [OOC: I feel that, in light of recent debates over resolutions and proposals, we're all getting a bit bogged down in the potential legal ramifications of even the most innocuous statements; to do this issue justice, I'd need a lot more than 3,300-odd characters. Besides, I set out intending to draft a short, concise proposal - completely against character, as you may have realised... ramble... waffle... rhubarb...].

Ausserland, I'd be grateful for your comments on grammatical niceties - a clarification of the or/nor position would be most welcome!

Any other comments? Volunteers for helping with the TG campaign? [OOC: 'scuse my cheek!]]

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Greetings,

The Premier of Sarnatha has asked that I deliver notice of Sarnatha's approval of the current draft of this proposal. Further, we commend Ecopoeia for having the courage and wit to bring this proposal before the august body of the UN.

The Premier intends to deliver the votes of our region in support, as well.

Miles May
Ambassador to the United Nations
Republic of Sarnatha

Republic of Sarnatha (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=sarnatha )

Many thanks for your kind words, Ambassador May.

-----

The delegate of Ausserland has offered this alternative to the 'prisoners of conscience' article:

DEFINE, for the purposes of this resolution, a "prisoner of conscience" as a person who is taken into custody or imprisoned solely because of their maintenance or expression of political, religious or other beliefs, or solely because of their race, colour, sex or ethnic origin. This definition does not include persons taken into custody or imprisoned for advocating the violent overthrow of the legally constituted government or for incitement to violence.
Note, please that it recasts the definition in positive terms. Not also, though, that it leaves out the "discriminate" and "hostile" bits. I have reservations about those on freedom-of-speech grounds, but you could easily tack them on at the end, if you choose.
I'm concerned that this rewording seems to allow imprisonment for a combination of, say, ethnicity and religious beliefs. Regarding the 'discriminate' and 'hostile' sections, I personally agree with you, but wish to leave this open for nations to determine for themselves. A definition in positive terms is certainly very welcome and your suggestion is a great help.

The only other quibble I have is with the inclusion of a full stop (or period, if you prefer), as it doesn't sit well with the structure of the rest of the proposal.

I'm surprised that I didn't amend "...or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons..." in order to separately define gender and sexuality. I don't think it's enough to hope that sexuality will survive the 'similarly unjustifiable' test. This will now read "...or their ethnic origin, gender, colour, sexuality or similarly unjustifiable reasons".

Thanks again to Ausserland; as always, further input from anybody concerned is encouraged.

V Yefremova

Rather belated, but this meets with my approval. Approved it last time, will definitely support it again.

The Commonwealth of Pontinia supports this resolution in its essence, but would like to see some minor adjustments to the wording.
Firstly, the contoversial clause but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly should be replaced with but for reasons based on the individual's race, gender appearence or other such fact over which the individual has no control, or for their religious, political or other such beliefs which are protected by United Nations resolution #26 (Universal Bill of Rights)
Also, the term 'disappearence' is somewhat inelegant. We suggest 'governmental abduction' as a replacement.

We are very much in favor of this resolution, will vote for it, and will lobby our regional members to support it. Period. That being said, there is one item which makes us uncomfortable: the "disappearance" provision.

The addition of the informed consent language was a substantial improvement, but we're still concerned with the issue of minors. As another poster pointed out, there is a problem with obtaining informed consent of children. His suggestion to require informed consent of parents or legal guardians would probably take care of the witness protection issue (at least, in most cases). We're concerned, though, about the effect this might have on child protection programs. It is sometimes necessary to remove children from parents because of abuse or dangerous neglect. We've seen cases [RL] in which the whereabouts of the children had to be concealed from parents to prevent harm to them and their caretakers. Frankly, we don't know how to eliminate this concern. It's certainly far from a fatal flaw in the resolution, though.

[OOC aside to Ecopoeia:] There is nothing wrong with full stops (periods, to us Yanks). Full stops are nice. Full stops signal readers that one thought has ended and another is about to begin. Full stops allow readers to take a breath and mentally munch what they've just read. Full stops would be very nice at the end of each of the numbered sections. ;)

Actually I think the Child Protection Act probably already covers children's rights to be protected here, so it would probably be fine to just restrict the second clause to adults.

OOC: Regarding minors, I'm inclined to agree with _Myopia_ that the CPA offers the extra security needed, at least on the level at which NS can reasonably be expected to operate. Out in the real world... yeah, we'd need to have a long look at this. For the mentally disabled, I fear there's a possibility of some slipping through the net; however, I think the UN ought to tackle this issue head on and would welcome a solid proposal that also fills in the gap here.

To Pontinia, thank you for your comments. I believe them to be no weaker than the current format but I'm sticking with what I've got (out of respect to the source material as much as anything else). I'm unwilling to reference specific previous resolutions in case they get repealed.

Oh, yeah - I'm adding full stops.

Thank you, all.

Looks great. Ausserland, good catch on the issue of sexuality. Now I'm only disappointed that since I'm not a regional delegate I cant lend an official endorsement. Hopefully with a good TG campaign you can get this to a vote and passed. Good luck.

OOC: Thanks. Submission is imminent, social life for the next couple of nights looks... bleak!

Submitted. The proposal can be found by clicking the following link:

Clicky (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=freedom%20of%20conscience)

Alternatively, you can search the proposals list using the word 'conscience'.

Approved

The government of Telidia herewith offer it’s formal support for this very worthy proposal and wish our Ecopoeian colleagues every success with their campaign. If there is anything we can do to help please feel free to ask.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

If you need help with the telegram campaign to get this to the floor, I'm willing to assist, as I've plenty of free time for the next week or so.

Just TG me a draft of what you want the telegram to say (and let me know who you've already sent them to so I don't end up spamming anyone) and I can start sending some out later today.

I like this proposal and would love to see it make it to vote :).

34 endorsements in 23 hours - nice.

Many, many thanks, Waterana, I've TG'd you details.

This Proposal has the full support of the Theocracy of New Prospero. We offer our blessings and pray it succeeds. We will contact our allies for further support.






Isaac Dionysius,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Theocracy of New Prospero

This Proposal has the full support of the Theocracy of New Prospero. We offer our blessings and pray it succeeds. We will contact our allies for further support.






Isaac Dionysius,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Theocracy of New Prospero
Many thanks.

59 further approvals needed, some 48 hours of voting left.

Should this achieve quorum, I'd like to start a new thread for the resolution discussion, partly to keep things tidy (this thread would hopefully be closed but I'll link it to the new thread) and partly to set the terms of debate. However, I'm away when voting closes on proposals, so I'm not sure if I'll be back in time to start the new thread before voting begins.

So, a simple question: what time - GMT - will this come up for general vote (if it achieves quorum)?

59 further approvals needed, some 48 hours of voting left.

Should this achieve quorum, I'd like to start a new thread for the resolution discussion, partly to keep things tidy (this thread would hopefully be closed but I'll link it to the new thread) and partly to set the terms of debate. However, I'm away when voting closes on proposals, so I'm not sure if I'll be back in time to start the new thread before voting begins.

So, a simple question: what time - GMT - will this come up for general vote (if it achieves quorum)?

I honestly don't know, but I really appreciate you wanting to separate the proposal campaign from the resolution debate. However, please link back to this thread in any new thread.

If you aren't going to be awake when your proposal comes out of the queue and turns into a resolution (which happens sometime in the early morning on the US Pacific Coast ... so my guess is that nationstates.net might be driving the UN updates, not Jolt), if you start a dummy thread a day before it should be OK.

Best wishes! :) And 59 more endorsements is something I think you'll be able to get!

Thanks, Mik. Looks like I have my times wrong, because that would mean evening GMT... I'll check this evening.

Only 42 approvals need now! I may set up the resolution thread ('APPROACHING QUORUM', perhaps) tomorrow morning (GMT), complete with link to this thread and general introduction. With any luch, quorum will be in sight and I can attend my friends' wedding without any worries in this regard!

...Christ. What's wrong with me? Who gives a toss about a game proposal when your mates are tying the knot? Damn NS...

*gapes*

Christ, only 25 to go. Seriously, I never expected to be this, um, well, successful. Gosh.

I appear to have turned into Hugh Grant. Well. Gosh. Um.

If you have any comments to make on this proposal, please record them at the following link:

Resolution discussion thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=434708)

Hey Ecopoeia, you did it!
Approvals: 141 (Ecopoeia, Danitoria, Elika, Roathin, Gaiah, Seocc, Yeldan UN Mission, Groot Gouda, Avalya, Jjuulliiaann, Catsimboy, Tunick, Blah Meh To Death, Eve the First, The Faery Goddess, Dsjtuj, Tonca, Emiroth, Lanquassia, Brocklandia, DIVER STEVE, Quimp, Bunny Pancake, Kaivmena - Wes Islands, Kleinekatzen, Geektoria, Ackerenia, Missouriania, Seattletonia, Enn, Kilobugya, Aquarian Arcadia, Cally24, Jagraphess, Kypseli, InfoSoc, Monadnock, Rolling Stone, Punrovia, Endalor, Skandango, Splynn, Jezabell, Krioval, Caer Rialis, Hermitistan, Zouloukistan, Anarchist Canuckistan, Ukropina, Republic of Peoples, Buhnuf, Kapellen, Mayve, The Great UP, Cylea, Emerald Phoenix, Mommy D, Adasa, DragonSpeartopia, Glatialov, Novaya Zemlaya, Abbraccialbero, Greater Tiki, Gambloshia, Jiggy MaMerica, LeFleur, Venerable libertarians, Tuaisceart Eireann, Civilized Nations, Tiber City, Two Forks, Grande Comore, Logostan, Hogs Head, Arachnus, Republic of Freedonia, Caradune, Darkreigner, Nova Varsovia, Lunaria Mirandia, Lord Rayman, Liberal Tendencies, Darpatia, Mikeswill, Starps, New Rootopia, Juthopia, Komokom, BLACKGRUE, Gorff, Freedom For Most, Nerion, Binzer, Jacob_is_our_king, Perrygaye, Musselkanalia, Progarland, Legionis, Liberialand, HopelesslyLost, The Iron Curten, Conserative Allies, The Grand Mystic, Jimoria, Greater Holloway, Turanga Nui A Kiwa, Sceptical States, Fairbanks North Star, Of Cascadia, Antrium, Megaclan, Ness Snorlaxia, StapleSauce, Stankistia, Koiles, Julio Trigman, Morgazm, Meteorologica, SouthFerns, Mr tubbs, Gravlen, Taylornania, Blaming, Sensible ppl, Newcastle Seperate, DSM-IV, Macchiavellian Masons, Morvonia, Sean Sweeney, Lubbadub, Vintovia, MagMowerPSU, Richard2008, European Member States, AwalKB, Khadir, CNYSkinFan, Waddlingducks, Kyleshire, FatTron, Melmond)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Congratulations!

so when is it going to get voted on?

Congrats, Eco!

We support this proposal as it is clearly in the best interests of people everywhere, we would like to mention that we are surprised no other resolution like this exists.

This proposal has my seal of aproval.

I for one have not yet voted, i feel it is a highly political vote this one, if they are prisoners for just expressing their rights to freedom of speach then yes we need to vote in favour but if it includes prisoners of war ie: people who are dictators or mass murderess of genocide then they should be allowed to be hidden away and no one know where they are for fear of someone trying to rescue them and in that case we should vote against it

This has the BlueTiger seal of approval.

The government of ROADP is very committed to political freedom and believes that this resolution will enhance the overall rights of all individuals and reaffirm the dignity of each individual. The government is glad to announce that it has voted *FOR* this resolution.

Sincerely
Public Relation Spokesperson of ROADP , Samantha jones

As a new country my government opposes this resolution. There are far too many opportunities in this resolution for a large, international cabal of nations to impose their views on a fledgling country like ours. We do not feel that any group of nations and their representatives not from our country and not sharing our common history and heritage can properly determine if what we are doing is "right" when "they" are defining what right is. Our government is answerable to our courts and our people have full access to those courts. We prefer not to take the chance that some creative disidents who spent time in Hollywood may somehow sway the UN leadership into believing their propoganda, the result of which would be unwarranted action against our innocent and benevolant government.
While we continue to support human rights we remain opposed to this proposal.