NationStates Jolt Archive

OOC: OK, this is a massive case of pre-emption, but I'm away for a couple of days and it looks like my proposal will succeed. This will be the official discussion thread for the soon-to-be-current resolution:
Freedom of Conscience

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ecopoeia

Description: 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.
Some preliminary remarks:

1) Where possible, I will be posting in character, that is, my comments are not necessarily my personal views but the views of my two delegates. One, Varia Yefremova (VY - the senior Speaker), is rather more diplomatic than the other, Mathieu Vergniaud (MV - Deputy Speaker). Any snarky comments made by the latter are not intended to be personal, merely the outbursts of a bombastic man with an inflated sense of self-importance. Of course, the moderators may view matters differently and I naturally defer to their judgement.

2) Contrary to how it may appear sometimes, I do have a life outside of NS, so I’m not going to be here responding to comments 24/7.

3) I am very grateful to numerous nations who have assisted in the drafting and promotion of this resolution, notably from the Anticapitalist Alliance, the UN Old Guard and the International Democratic Union. So, many thanks to: Orgybot, Rehochipe, Tavast-Carelia, Watfordshire, East Hackney, Knootoss, _Myopia_, Vastiva, Texan Hotrodders, DemonLordEnigma, Groot Gouda, Sober Thoughts, Grosseschnauzer, Mikitivity, The Eternal Kawaii, Reformentia, Holyboy and the 666s, Enlightened Aardvarks, Waterana, Ausserland, The Frozen Chosen, Pontinia and Telidia.

I would particularly like to emphasise the vital contributions made by _Myopia_ and Waterana.

4) Link to the draft proposal discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=425637). Please do not post any further comments in this thread – they won’t receive any attention from me. If you have a comment on the resolution, please post it here.

5) Why do I think this resolution is necessary? Well, UN legislation to date has somehow managed not to protect the rights of the dissenter, the individual (or group) that expresses - in a non-threatening manner - views that run contrary to the state's preferences. Such dissent should not, in my or Ecopoeia's eyes, be punished with imprisonment, concealment and/or violence, especially when the expression of such views are not designed to incite the populace to hatred or violence.

Essentially, this resolution seeks to offer protection for dissenters, be they political and/or religious, ethnic- and/or gender-based and so on.

-----

So, there you have it. Let’s keep this discussion civil, please; after all, this is only a game.

Many thanks
Eco

[Mark Heln hand delivers the following note]

Dear Ecopoeia;
I would like to personally congratulate you on drumming up enough support for your Freedom of Conscience proposal to reach a quorum. The people of my community have already enacted a proposal modeled after your resolution. We will continue to voice wholehearted support in the UN for your endevour to protect the freedoms of citizens everywhere. I wish you the best of luck.

Sincerely,
Kenny Lasalle
Communications Director
Sent on behalf of the Executive Department

OOC: It looks like you're the only one who currently has a quorum, so voting should be starting quite soon. Hopefully this will keep this board bumped to become the official board.

I have no doubt that this proposed resolution will pass.

Further, I have no doubt that the rate of executions will rise dramatically in many nations prior to its passage.

I, and my region, will not support this draconian piece of legislative trash.

The nation of Antillies, will not support the UN turning even more into a dictator orginization. This takes away the freedom of a country to be how it wants to be. Should this poor excuse of a law pass, Antillies, will withdraw, and urge all other nation's to follow.

I doubt there is a single clause to this resolution that has not alreeady been enacted. Might I refer you to Universal Bill of Rights, Fair Trial, Definition of Fair Trial, Habeas Corpus, etc.

I personally think that this is a good proposalsince it has pretty much been covered in other ones. Also for those who worry about revolution from this, then maybe they should run their country better.

It made it Eco, well done :).

I'll vote for as soon as it hits the floor for voting.

I doubt there is a single clause to this resolution that has not alreeady been enacted. Might I refer you to Universal Bill of Rights, Fair Trial, Definition of Fair Trial, Habeas Corpus, etc.
I'll take this one.

Habeas Corpus is only about charging people with a crime - that resolution makes absolutely no provisions about the types of crimes, as that lies outside the scope of Habeas Corpus as a legal concept.
Fair Trial and Definition of Fair Trial, as well, do not make any statement about what constitutes a crime.
Universal Bill of Rights - you can get many different interpretations, and while some of those would cover what Eco is proposing, others would not.

Dear Varia Yefremova,

Although BlueTiger is not yet a UN nation (we have applied and we feel that the UN would have no reason to keep us out), you can expect full support from us in any way we can supply it.

Sincerly,

Allan Smith,
Repersentive of The Republic of BlueTiger in
Region A Liberal Haven

This is a well-crafted resolution that I will be happy to support as soon as it reaches the floor.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador

I have no doubt that this proposed resolution will pass.

Further, I have no doubt that the rate of executions will rise dramatically in many nations prior to its passage.

I, and my region, will not support this draconian piece of legislative trash.

Our office was planning to abstain, but this comment, though rather harsh in its language, has caused us to reconsider the matter in terms of its practical effect, not solely with regard to the rise in executions but other practical matters as well.

We do wish to congratulate the Speaker and her Deputy on their substantial efforts and principled advocacy in this matter.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

The Principality of Ausserland has voted for this proposal. We carefully studied its text while it was in the "draft" stage of discussion. We are convinced that it will have excellent effect while leaving sovereign nations free to legislate against acts which would be harmful to their citizens and to enforce those laws effectively.

We congratulate the proposer and respectfully urge support for the proposal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

sure what the hell I'll vote for it

I'll take this one.

Habeas Corpus is only about charging people with a crime - that resolution makes absolutely no provisions about the types of crimes, as that lies outside the scope of Habeas Corpus as a legal concept.
Fair Trial and Definition of Fair Trial, as well, do not make any statement about what constitutes a crime.
Universal Bill of Rights - you can get many different interpretations, and while some of those would cover what Eco is proposing, others would not.

Show me one clause that is not covered by a past resolution.

Although we are a new UN member, the nation of Green Wik fully supports your proposal, and we can only hope the other nations in the Indian Ocean area follow suit.

Show me one clause that is not covered by a past resolution.

May we respectfully point out that the existence of an enactment that states general principles of law in no way disqualifies or invalidates subsequent legislation that adds specificity or expands its scope.


Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Show me one clause that is not covered by a past resolution.
Here's a better idea. Why don't you point out the clauses which you feel are covered by past resolutions and cite the relevant clauses from the earlier resolutions that cover them. We are unconvinced of the validity of your argument. We feel that this is a fine and well crafted resolution which addresses an important issue and have cast our vote FOR.

Wow... good proposal, Ecopeia... I support it. Do Fatus Maxian citizens imprisoned for refusing to munch on barbeque flavored potato chips count as prisoners of conscience?

OK, so lemme get this straight:DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, ... 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.The United Nations does not intend to protect individuals imprisoned simply for espousing ignorant, uninformed or unpopular beliefs??

And it seems to me that in the future I may well be accused of holding political prisoners, or "prisoners of conscience," because my prisons hold a disproportionate number of minority inmates. What is to happen if that is the case? What constitutues a violation under this act? What are the consequences? How will this be enforced? I'm sorry, but there are far too many outstanding questions on this legislation for the Federal Republic to offer its support.

And quite frankly, we know how to run our own judicial system, thank you very much. On behalf of my region, I cast my votes against this proposal.

Firstly, many thanks to those who have expressed their support.

I have no doubt that this proposed resolution will pass.

Further, I have no doubt that the rate of executions will rise dramatically in many nations prior to its passage.

I, and my region, will not support this draconian piece of legislative trash.
'Draconian'? 'Trash'? It saddens me that the representatives of a nation that I have long admired have so caustically condemned our resolution. I would be very interested to learn why anticipate a spate of executions in the next couple of days.

The nation of Antillies, will not support the UN turning even more into a dictator orginization. This takes away the freedom of a country to be how it wants to be. Should this poor excuse of a law pass, Antillies, will withdraw, and urge all other nation's to follow.
'Dictator orginization' [sic]? Your argument is suggestive of a predisposition to reject out of hand any resolution that sets out to achieve more than just woolly hand-waving.

I doubt there is a single clause to this resolution that has not alreeady been enacted. Might I refer you to Universal Bill of Rights, Fair Trial, Definition of Fair Trial, Habeas Corpus, etc.

-----

Show me one clause that is not covered by a past resolution.

The Ennish delegate is quite correct: the content of this resolution is substantively different to those you cite. We wouldn't have drafted this if we didn't feel that there was a need for legal protection in the areas concerned.

Our office was planning to abstain, but this comment, though rather harsh in its language, has caused us to reconsider the matter in terms of its practical effect, not solely with regard to the rise in executions but other practical matters as well.

We do wish to congratulate the Speaker and her Deputy on their substantial efforts and principled advocacy in this matter.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith
Thank you for your kind words. I beg you to reconsider, at least until the Wolfish delegate has offered justification for their alarming prediction.

Wow... good proposal, Ecopeia... I support it. Do Fatus Maxian citizens imprisoned for refusing to munch on barbeque flavored potato chips count as prisoners of conscience?
I suspect they might...

OK, so lemme get this straight:

DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, ... 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.
The United Nations does not intend to protect individuals imprisoned simply for espousing ignorant, uninformed or unpopular beliefs??
Not quite - the resolution is designed as a legal safeguard against grievous acts of oppression by the state. Member nations adopt greatly contrasting policies concerning hate speech, incitement, etc and we have no intention of forcing all UN nations to toe the same line in this specific field of law. Ecopoeia has no laws against, for example, Nazi rallies, but we accept that many nations choose to criminalise such activities. We believe it would be overly intrusive for the UN to legislate in this area.

Naturally, we do believe that the UN should concern itself with cases of people being incarcerated simply for what they believe, irrespective of whether or not they act on their beliefs.

And it seems to me that in the future I may well be accused of holding political prisoners, or "prisoners of conscience," because my prisons hold a disproportionate number of minority inmates. What is to happen if that is the case? What constitutues a violation under this act? What are the consequences? How will this be enforced? I'm sorry, but there are far too many outstanding questions on this legislation for the Federal Republic to offer its support.
'A disproportionate number of minority inmates' is not in itself a violation. The reasons for such a scenario may well be, however.

And quite frankly, we know how to run our own judicial system, thank you very much. On behalf of my region, I cast my votes against this proposal.
I would hope so, but this knowledge in itself is not, in my view, a compelling reason for the UN not to legislate in certain areas. Such an argument is a fairly meaningless statement that can be applied to virtually any example of UN activity.

VY

Great proposal, pending the opinions of my region members you have our support.

Firstly, many thanks to those who have expressed their support.

'Draconian'? 'Trash'? It saddens me that the representatives of a nation that I have long admired have so caustically condemned our resolution. I would be very interested to learn why anticipate a spate of executions in the next couple of days.


Agreed. That is yet another case of simple mud slinging. While I have reasons to suspect why that may be the case, I'd rather not air my personal speculations here in the UN halls.

There is nothing my government finds draconian in this resolution. In fact, the resolution is addressing a rather fundmental human right and in a rather direct way.

What saddens me the most is the growing trend for nations that aren't offering constructive advice to resort to this sort of approach.

For what it is worth, your government has long impressed my people and the strengths of your nation's high standing with the people of Mikitivity and this resolution itself have long had our support.

Description: 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.[/qoute]

Universal bill of Rights states:
Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

[qoute]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

Did you read the discrimination accord?

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

PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future.
this clause is redundant because all UN members must abide by UN law

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.

This doesn't have much to do with freedom of Conscience.

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.

Universal Bill of Right states:
Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

This resolution has good intention but the majority of it is redundant. The part about disappearance is a good idea, but it should be an individual resolution.

This is repetition and thus is not a legal proposal.

This resolution has good intention but the majority of it is redundant. The part about disappearance is a good idea, but it should be an individual resolution.

This is repetition and thus is not a legal proposal.

OOC: When players talk about and complain that the NationStates UN has become too legalistic they are really talking about two different things.

1) There is the camp that has a short attention span. They want resolutions that read, "NEW RULE: YOU WILL BOW BEFORE ZOD! I COMMAND IT!" Long posts they consider "legal", and unfun. Nothing wrong with that.

2) There is the camp that doesn't like the fact that every future debate is now hemmed in because of the prior 114 resolutions that have been adopted (minus those that have been repealed). You shouldn't have to read through everything ...

Bringing up a point about the legality of a resolution once it has reached the UN floor is actually a case of poor timing. This proposal was debated publically here for a week or two, and its author had spread drafts of the proposal to MANY regional forums (off-site). The legality should have been questioned and reported to a moderator when this was a proposal (even after reaching quorum).

While you can certainly *discuss* the legality now, your best bet is just to politely explain why *you* feel this is illegal and possibly use a repeal.

However, given the amount of turn over in NationStates (new players are constantly joining), I don't mind a resolution rehashing a 2003 or 2004 debate topic. I think constantly dealing with the same issues gets old ... for example, in the past year we've talked about HIV a few times. I think that topic should sit on the table for another few months. But debating the legal merits of a resolution while ignoring the spirit of the text is why that second camp complains that the NSUN has become too legalistic.

*shrug*

All that said, I'm not saying I disagree or agree with your claim on the legality ... I'll have to read those prior resolutions more closely and compare them. But I will restate that the idea is still IMHO worthy of a focused UN forum disucssion.

[P.S. to those that think I only want my own issues here, that is extremely FALSE. Everybody gets their chance, and while I had some RL reservations with Sunteria's Waste Water resolutions, I felt that the topic / idea was his and rather interesting to simply watch. I'd honestly like to see this topic have its 5 days in the limelight as well.]

The Holy Empire of Stay Puft Land has the good fortune of joing the United Nations in time to vote for this resolution, although we note with surprise its language. The Holy Empire has long sought to imprison those who express hatred and hostility toward our Great and Terrible Lord and His Religion and Theocracy by dissenting against His wise decrees. Yet the Holy Empire notes that the United Nations has previously encouraged people to express such dissent. The Holy Empire has never tolerated those who express religious hostility against the Marshmallowy Truth, and now sees that this resolution acknowledges its freedom to act against potentially violent and hostile anti-religious dissenters, because they would not be prisoners of conscience.

Not quite - the resolution is designed as a legal safeguard against grievous acts of oppression by the state. Member nations adopt greatly contrasting policies concerning hate speech, incitement, etc and we have no intention of forcing all UN nations to toe the same line in this specific field of law. Ecopoeia has no laws against, for example, Nazi rallies, but we accept that many nations choose to criminalise such activities. We believe it would be overly intrusive for the UN to legislate in this area.Oh, I see. So there is to be absolute freedom of conscience, so long as one's conscience is politically correct.Naturally, we do believe that the UN should concern itself with cases of people being incarcerated simply for what they believe, irrespective of whether or not they act on their beliefs.But only certain beliefs are to be protected, right? (See above.)'A disproportionate number of minority inmates' is not in itself a violation. The reasons for such a scenario may well be, however.So the U.N. intends to force my government to explain any detentions it finds unwholesome? Am I right in this? Or is there something I'm missing, because this proposal is so vague (and likely intentionally so) that in practice it could allow the Almighty Internationalistica to find "violations" in any country that detains members of ethnic and racial minorities.

If the Federal Republic imprisons a group of minority men for murder, the Insane-o World Court of Crackpot Justice (or whichever body is supposed to have a hand in enforcing this -- the proposal simply does not say) could simply disagree and find that the men were actually charged only because of their race/ethnicity. So tell me: What constitutes a violation? How is it decided? Who decides if it is a violation? What then is to happen if a nation is found in breech? You still have not spelled out the consequences.

In fact, the vagueness inherent in this proposal may in effect give the international community a blank check to harass and sanction nations whose judicial philosophies the left finds abhorrent.I would hope so, but this knowledge in itself is not, in my view, a compelling reason for the UN not to legislate in certain areas. Such an argument is a fairly meaningless statement that can be applied to virtually any example of UN activity.So any objection to a U.N. proposal based on national sovereignty is invalid? I would expect such sentiments from a member of the Anti-Capitalist Alliance.

BTW: Stay Puft Land, you rock. :D

The Dominion of The Goblin was initially against this bill, as any dictatorship would be. Simply because we hate people that have different political views in our Dominion, afterall, its his excellency's land, and not a retreat for desenters.

However, his emminance has decided to vote for this bill, as elections are illegal, and we are ready to deport any who live within our borders and disagree with our leader.

We hope that the UN does not decide to take away our right to deport people in the future.

The Dominion of The Goblin was initially against this bill, as any dictatorship would be. Simply because we hate people that have different political views in our Dominion, afterall, its his excellency's land, and not a retreat for desenters.

However, his emminance has decided to vote for this bill, as elections are illegal, and we are ready to deport any who live within our borders and disagree with our leader.

We hope that the UN does not decide to take away our right to deport people in the future.

Don't you mean exile? I always thought "deport" meant sending a non-citizen back to their nation of origin. As in deporting illegal immigrants.

As promised earlier, I've voted for this resolution :).

We are happy to inform supporters of this Bill that BlueTiger has, not only voted yes, but has convinced our regional delegate, The Republic of Ilyich, and the majority of UN nations in A Liberal Haven, to vote yes as well.

We feel we have done what we can for this Bill and can only hope that it passes.

Best of Luck,

Alex Johnson
Assistant to the UN Representative of BlueTiger

I have no doubt that this proposed resolution will pass.

Further, I have no doubt that the rate of executions will rise dramatically in many nations prior to its passage.

I, and my region, will not support this draconian piece of legislative trash.

Here we go again with the dumbass commie proposals telling us how to run our nations...In lew of getting into a long ass discussion I have decreed to have anybody sentenced with a hate type crime to receive a taped torturous death sentence and then I am going to forward these taped executions to the UN idiots who are in support of this thing. :upyours:

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

<snip>....In lew of<snip> :upyours:
I think the word you are searching for here is "lieu".

The Empire of malostair finds this resolution a complete waste of time. We do not know how this resolution got passed when there are more important resolutions to debate, even the Ban Cannibalism proposition should have been brought up before this. In the Empire of Malostair a person is not imprisoned for thier religious beliefs, their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, or colour, they are imprisoned because they comited a crime. The UN has no right to say that there is a chance that this gruop of people didn't comite any crime and were put in jail because they immigrated (or other reason). The Empire of Malostair will be voting against this reolution, because a nation should have the ability to control it's own justice system without outside interferrance.

Azul Raphman
Ambassador to the UN

If the Federal Republic imprisons a group of minority men for murder, the Insane-o World Court of Crackpot Justice (or whichever body is supposed to have a hand in enforcing this -- the proposal simply does not say) could simply disagree and find that the men were actually charged only because of their race/ethnicity. So tell me: What constitutes a violation? How is it decided? Who decides if it is a violation? What then is to happen if a nation is found in breech? You still have not spelled out the consequences.

And, again, I do believe the ambiguity is intentional, because I believe this proposal to be simply a blank check for the international community to harass and sanction nations whose judicial philosophies you personally find abhorrent.So any objection to a U.N. proposal based on national sovereignty is invalid? I would expect such sentiments from a member of the Anti-Capitalist Alliance.


Although Honorable delegate of Omigodtheykilledkenny refers to legimate UN organizations as insane-o crackpots to further demonstrate his obvious contempt for the UN as a whole, he does raise a legitimate question. When precisely is a state in violation of this proposal? Based on its language, the answer is clearly causality. If there are a disproportionate number of a certain ethnicity incarcerated in your country, you are not in violation of this proposal if you can show that they violated legitimate standing laws of your country. The international courts can't simply "disagree." This is not a subjective issue. Either you can prove it or you can't. And if you are cynical and paranoid enough to think that all effective pieces of UN legislation (namely, those that actually do something) are merely tools for those who wish to take over your country, then I can only ask: why did your country even join the UN in the first place if you don't like the idea of abiding by the majority every once in a while? National sovereignty is not a blank check on a nation's behavior.

And if you are cynical and paranoid enough to think that all effective pieces of UN legislation (namely, those that actually do something) are merely tools for those who wish to take over your country, then I can only ask: why did your country even join the UN in the first place if you don't like the idea of abiding by the majority every once in a while? National sovereignty is not a blank check on a nation's behavior.Meh. I just worded it in an unfortunate way. Clearly the left-wing here intends to impose its values on U.N. member states, as with this proposal (which for some reason only protects politically correct dissent). I can abide a majority, but that does not supercede my right to raise objection before the majority is certified.

Here we go again with the dumbass commie proposals telling us how to run our nations...In lew of getting into a long ass discussion I have decreed to have anybody sentenced with a hate type crime to receive a taped torturous death sentence and then I am going to forward these taped executions to the UN idiots who are in support of this thing. :upyours:

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
I'm curious. How is saying that people are to be protected from being imprisoned purely because of their political views 'commie'?
Isn't that a founding principle of law in western civilisation? As such, how is it related to a political ideology that is only ~150 years old?

Meh. I just worded it in an unfortunate way. Clearly the left-wing here intends to impose its values on U.N. member states, as with this proposal (which for some reason only protects politically correct dissent). I can abide a majority, but that does not supercede my right to raise objection before the majority is certified.
How is this proposal left-wing? It is making law something that is already law in many real world nations, and is a founding principle of law throughout most of western civilisation. As such, it is in fact conservative, and right-wing.

Maybe if I say this long enough, it might sink in. Certainly some of the objections to Habeas Corpus dried up after I pointed out that that had been part of law for at least 500 years.

What have we come to?

My nation, and the twenty nations which I represent cannot jail people they feel threatened by or enforce their own laws, whatever they may be, as they see fit?

This proposal was made with good intentions, but it leaves too much power in the air, and too much left to question.

I implore you, fellow members of the United Nations, to vote against this act as I have. Our nations freedom to govern themselves is at stake.

My nation, and the twenty nations which I represent cannot jail people they feel threatened by or enforce their own laws, whatever they may be, as they see fit?

That depends. If the people they feel threatened by have committed no crime other than to belong to an ideology different then that of the state, then no, they cannot be jailed. And if their own laws say that people who have done nothing but believe in a certain thing should be jailed, whether it is a religious belief or a political one, then yes, they cannot jail those people. Because those people clearly should NOT be jailed, Fatus Maximus supports this resolution.

The Allied States of Simrill will not support this legislation. It is far too broad in defining what qualifies in a "Prisoner of Conscience"

Don't you mean exile? I always thought "deport" meant sending a non-citizen back to their nation of origin. As in deporting illegal immigrants.

As promised earlier, I've voted for this resolution :).

We fully intended to revoke their citizenship. Afterall if they don't believe in our leader, then they certainly don't want to be part of our Dominion, however thank you for the technicality, we'll look into that to avoid future mishaps.

I see there is many concerned leaders of nations out there, feeling the UN is taking away their power to make people dissapear and/or execute. They complain that the UN is taking away their freedom to rule their people, and that left wing ideas are being forced upon their countries.

The Dominion of The Goblin, which I represent, has a long history of neglecting its citizens of its rights and freedoms. However as I have said, our nation will continue to support this bill. The only thing we have an issue with is that we can't kill people that have different political view points.

However, having denied them the right to vote, do we care? Spending so much in law and order, and in military, do we feel threatened? No.

We will support this bill, and show other nations, that we are strong enough to put up with our dissenters. We shall continue to neglect them and let them live. We deny free speech to any of our citizens, and have plans to implement Newspeak should we ever get around to it, so really if they can't voice their idea's, how would we know who to execute anyway?

Besides our people love us, and would never denounce our way of government, and if they do, we will gladly send them to some of the left wing nations whom these other weak dictatorships fear are stealing our power to kill people.

We, the government of BlueTiger, are shocked at some countries ignorance. No policies are being forced on you untill they are passed, before that you are encourage to do all in your power to stop them from passing outside of bribes.

And even after it passes, you can fight to have it repealed!

Please, if you do not like a bill, then do all you can to stop it. If you feel it is not worth your time, then don't bother to complain.

Sincerely,

Alex Johnson
Assistant to BlueTigers' UN Representive

As discussed previously, both my region and I will support this bill. While previous bills have indeed touched on the core concepts delineated here, this proposal is more specific and covers needed ground to avoid flagrant human rights' abuses.

Thank you for the time and effort to draft this resolution.

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

How is this proposal left-wing?Because it only protects politically correct dissent, and because of the proposal's seeming preoccupation with with the race and ethnicity of nations' prisoners.It is making law something that is already law in many real world nations, and is a founding principle of law throughout most of western civilisation.Human rights certainly is a laudable goal; that doesn't mean the United Nations should be instructing member states how best to enforce it.

what is a politically incorrect dissent? can i seek for an example?

and the point of the U.N is to try to influence local issues, thats what makes it FUN...why the hell would you join the U.N anyways if you dont want to try to influence other nations? I think this is the point of NS and thats whats fun about it.

This proposed resolution is far too absolute... It would, for example, restrict a nation from imprisoning a member of a volunteer army who refused to cary out the legal orders of the organization to which he belonged... There is a substantive and substantial difference between conscripiting an unwilling party and compelling a volunteer to do what he, or she, signed up to do. This resolution should be defeated and the Vote of my humble nation will be to do exactly that.

The Right Honourable David Hall
Prime Minister
The Constitutional Monarchy of New Davel

Because it only protects politically correct dissent, and because of the proposal's seeming preoccupation with with the race and ethnicity of nations' prisoners.
I fail to see how it only protects "politically correct" dissent. Please explain further. And the only time race or ethnicity are mentioned is in the first clause as part of the definition.

This proposed resolution is far too absolute... It would, for example, restrict a nation from imprisoning a member of a volunteer army who refused to cary out the legal orders of the organization to which he belonged... There is a substantive and substantial difference between conscripiting an unwilling party and compelling a volunteer to do what he, or she, signed up to do.
How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion? It does no such thing. You could still imprison them for violating the terms of their enlistment contract. You just couldn't imprison them (or "disappear" them) for joining a religious or political group which was opposed to service in your military. What you're talking about is simple breach of contract

This proposed resolution is far too absolute... It would, for example, restrict a nation from imprisoning a member of a volunteer army who refused to cary out the legal orders of the organization to which he belonged... There is a substantive and substantial difference between conscripiting an unwilling party and compelling a volunteer to do what he, or she, signed up to do. This resolution should be defeated and the Vote of my humble nation will be to do exactly that.

The Right Honourable David Hall
Prime Minister
The Constitutional Monarchy of New Davel

With all due respect to the right honorable Prime Minister, we disgree completely. There is absolutely nothing in this proposal that would preclude prosecuting such a person. He or she could properly be charged with failure to obey a direct order or disobedience of a lawful order, whichever would be appropriate.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

It is fairly obvious from the post in this forum that this proposal was either not read through or else it was interpreted to fit the readers viewpoints.

While the idea is sound; the proposal is not.

I fail to see how it only protects "politically correct" dissent. Please explain further.Gladly, my dear. It's in this provision: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 violentAs I've already explained, and the proposal's author has admitted, those imprisoned simply for espousing ignorant, bigoted or unpopular beliefs have no protection under this proposal. Saith the author: It's because some enlightened nations have outlawed hate speech. I'm happy those nations have achieved that plane of enlightenment, but I ask you: Should people be imprisoned for their unenlightened views? Or are the unenlightened entitled to free speech just like everybody else?

Gladly, my dear. It's in this provision:As I've already explained, and the proposal's author has admitted, those imprisoned simply for espousing ignorant, bigoted or unpopular beliefs have no protection under this proposal. Saith the author: It's because some enlightened nations have outlawed hate speech. I'm happy those nations have achieved that plane of enlightenment, but I ask you: Should people be imprisoned for their unenlightened views? Or are the unenlightened entitled to free speech just like everybody else?
Honeypie, you're grasping for straws. You still haven't addressed the second part of my post: "And the only time race or ethnicity are mentioned is in the first clause as part of the definition."

I'll go ahead and answer these questions from my own perspective.

Should people be imprisoned for their unenlightened views?

No, but does the resolution actually seek to see "unenlightened" folks imprisoned? If not, then that's good because it would be a violation of national sovereignty if it did, and I'm not exactly fond of the UN interfering in a nation's justice system, no matter how well-intentioned.

Or are the unenlightened entitled to free speech just like everybody else?

They are in the Federation.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

As I've already explained, and the proposal's author has admitted, those imprisoned simply for espousing ignorant, bigoted or unpopular beliefs have no protection under this proposal. Saith the author: It's because some enlightened nations have outlawed hate speech. I'm happy those nations have achieved that plane of enlightenment, but I ask you: Should people be imprisoned for their unenlightened views? Or are the unenlightened entitled to free speech just like everybody else?
IC:
Have you considered that by not covering those with ignorant, bigoted views, this resolution leaves that issue to the soverign nation? Your nation is free to allow free speech [ooc or ban hate speech] to whatever level they wish. This resolution is not intended to address the issue of whether hate speech is protected. The issue at hand is whether a government can detain and/or kill their citizens for political or other discriminatory reasons (race, religion, sexuality, gender). As there is no grounds for that kind of government action, I see no other reasonable action than to vote in favor of this wonderful resolution.

-Mark Heln

I have to agree. This resolution is not about granting rights to people with politically correct opinions. This is a resolution that protects people 's right to their own opinons. Any nation can decide for themselves whether or not if they would allow hate speech in their nations or not.

Prime Minister,
The Republic of Agnostic Deeishpeople.

We fully intended to revoke their citizenship. Afterall if they don't believe in our leader, then they certainly don't want to be part of our Dominion, however thank you for the technicality, we'll look into that to avoid future mishaps.

You may want to read these first. The mass exile of political opponants could also be considered a form of ethnic cleansing which is prohibited under a passed resolution as well (if I am remembering correctly)...

The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)
Universal Freedom of Choice (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030124&postcount=54)

I'm having a hard time understanding some of the opposition to this resolution. It doesn't in any way protect hate crimes. In fact it leaves the entire area of what is and isn't hate speech/crime up to the individual nation to decide and punish as they see fit.

All this does is prevent governments arresting/jailing/executing law abiding people who simply think or say their government stink (to put it in a very simplistic way).

First Of all I congratulate The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia on behalf of the Democratic Republic Of Indian Subcontinent and her people. The “Freedom of Conscience” resolution put forward by The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia is a step forward to the global unification of mankind and is a valid consideration to uphold the values of humanity. Hence, my nation pledges support to The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia.

There are concerns from various nations and regional grouping which may be right in their own judgments. Some Nation sights it as an act of dictatorship and questions the legality of the resolution. Though my Nation believes that, this resolution is part of the Magna Charta, which set up the UN. Though I have recently joined and have applied to join United Nation. The time my nation gets an UN membership I’ll put in favor of the resolution.


Dr.Lalit Mansingh
Charge `d Affair, UN
Ministry Of External Affairs
Democratic Republic of Indian Subcontinent

First Of all I congratulate The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia on behalf of the Democratic Republic Of Indian Subcontinent and her people. The “Freedom of Conscience” resolution put forward by The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia is a step forward to the global unification of mankind and is a valid consideration to uphold the values of humanity. Hence, my nation pledges support to The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia.

There are concerns from various nations and regional grouping which may be right in their own judgments. Some Nation sights it as an act of dictatorship and questions the legality of the resolution. Though my Nation believes that, this resolution is part of the Magna Charta, which set up the UN. Though I have recently joined and have applied to join United Nation. The time my nation gets an UN membership I’ll put in favor of the resolution.


Dr.Lalit Mansingh
Charge `d Affair, UN
Ministry Of External Affairs
Democratic Republic of Indian Subcontinent
Since you're obviously new around here (not that that's necessarily a bad thing) I'll point out to you that the NSUN does not equal the Real World UN. The Magna Carta doesn't apply here, unless you've got one in your own nation.
Just letting you know so that you won't embarass yourself later on. :)

The issue of incitement to hatred and violence was left unaffected by this proposal, as far as I know, because it's a slightly different issue. It would be best to deal with it in a separate proposal, and leaving it out of this one should ease its passage.

Plus, protecting outright and specific incitements to hatred (e.g. standing in front of the home of a gay person and rallying a lynch mob to go in and kill him) would be going too far. So drafting UN legislation to adequately draw a line between allowing nations to deal with this but still protecting the right to express bigoted opinions would be very difficult and will probably require separate legislation simply because the issue could not be satisfactorily defined within this proposal.

We support this proposal, it allows people to retain their honour and defy a corrupted or psychotic command that goes against the law of God.
We of Cthag-antil produce thinkers not robots.

No, but does the resolution actually seek to see "unenlightened" folks imprisoned?No, but it doesn't protect them either. Which is precisely my point: The law only protects politically correct speech. If you're gonna protect citizens' freedom of conscience, shouldn't you protect it for everyone, and not just those the international community finds acceptable?If not, then that's good because it would be a violation of national sovereignty if it did, and I'm not exactly fond of the UN interfering in a nation's justice system, no matter how well-intentioned.You took the words right out of my mouth, buddy boy.This resolution is not intended to address the issue of whether hate speech is protected. The issue at hand is whether a government can detain and/or kill their citizens for political or other discriminatory reasons (race, religion, sexuality, gender).No, that's only part of it. This is what the proposal actually states: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;You're only reading the latter clause. So:Have you considered that by not covering those with ignorant, bigoted views, this resolution leaves that issue to the soverign nation? Your nation is free to allow free speech [ooc or ban hate speech] to whatever level they wish.I'm afraid not, because under this proposal, all nations under U.N. jurisdiction will be forced to protect speech that it finds acceptable. Unpopular speech will be unprotected. Why should only speech that the oh-so-enlightened international community considers tolerable be protected?

And the thing about my nation being sovereign and entitled to "allow free speech ... on whatever level they wish" was my point to begin with, bro: My nation is protecting free speech just fine. Why do we need some proposal that seeks to impose politically correct values upon all U.N. nations?

I would like to see the author of the proposal address Mikitivity's convincing charge that the provisions of this act would be redundant.

Greetings for all representatives at the UN

Laietania is going to vote FOR this proposal. Mostly because we think that the world must have some standards of human rights. The UN is the neutral authority we have to give all us standars, this proposal is really on this way.

Also, we wanna put some benefits on the table, for countries that are thinking what to vote or re-considering their votes (freely, without risk to be punished for his conscience): this is good for all people and his happyness, really good for economy, absolutely stimulant for tourism and related activities...


Laietania recommends to vote YES.

I would like to see the author of the proposal address Mikitivity's convincing charge that the provisions of this act would be redundant.

Please note that the honorable representative of Mikitivity has spoken in favor of this resolution. It was the honorable representative from Comustan who charged that the resolution is redundant. On that issue....

When challenged to cite specific examples of redundancy, Comustan replied at post #23 in this thread. We do not find the evidence adduced to be convincing.

Commustan cites the "freedom of speech" clause of a prior resolution as duplicative of the definitions clause of this resolution. While there is some overlap, the definition in this resolution covers a much broader spectrum than that clause.

Commustan also cites the "presumption of innocence" clause of a prior resolution as equating to the "extralegal executions" clause of this resolution. The presumption of innocence applies in legal proceedings. The clause in this resolution addresses extralegal actions.

This resolution makes specific provisions on matters which may have been covered in general terms in prior resolutions. Our government's legal advisors tell us there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

We hope this will help you in forming your opinions on the resolution.

On Behalf of the Father and his children the good citizens of the tiny Kingdom of Retrostalgia I bring forth His word and opinions on this our third issue to cast a vote for since becoming members of this institution.
I will begin by quoting the Father.
“They what!? Prisoner of %*#$ Conscience what kind’s new age $@! &#% are they tryin’ to push now. I'll tell em %^#@ exactly where they can put $#@...”
At this point I offer a feeble attempt to paraphrase the great man’s words. Above all the Father wishes the U.N would concentrate more on the key issues of commerce and consumption.
The Father had, in response to what he considers another aggresive attack on his tiny kingdom by larger more powerful nations acting under the sheepskin skin of U.N. membership, called for the bombs and was angered to be reminded that the U.N had forced us to turn those over due to resolution #113; which was also why the Father had to jail or “disappeared” many of the scientists who worked for the Ministry of Kickin’ Ass.
The Father again respectfully asks U.N. members to consider before voting, that by passing this resolution they will in essence be making him a prisoner of conscience. The Father will once again be restricted, barred from acting as he sees fit based solely on his different political beliefs. Is this not persecution?
The fact that we his children do not get these same liberties is a moot point, we are children and the Father knows what is best for his children.
Therefore and because of reasons stated above Retrostalgia joins the rising chorus of voices such as Wolfish, Antillies and the most revered Ohmygodtheykilledkenny in saying No to this invasive resolution and strongly urge other nations, liberal and conservative or whatever, to do the same.
Respectfully
in the name of the Father, King of Retrostalgia
Ambassador Wilbur Post

You may want to read these first. The mass exile of political opponants could also be considered a form of ethnic cleansing which is prohibited under a passed resolution as well (if I am remembering correctly)...

The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27)
Universal Freedom of Choice (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030124&postcount=54)

I'm having a hard time understanding some of the opposition to this resolution. It doesn't in any way protect hate crimes. In fact it leaves the entire area of what is and isn't hate speech/crime up to the individual nation to decide and punish as they see fit.

All this does is prevent governments arresting/jailing/executing law abiding people who simply think or say their government stink (to put it in a very simplistic way).

It seems the Universal Bill of Rights would apply, though there was no violation of the 2nd going on.

The only objection our leader has falls solely upon the inability to persecute those with different political ideologies as they a threat to national security. However we shall work harder to maintain control over our dominion while abiding by UN sanctions.

I have to say, I think this is a terrible idea.

First of all, I don't think it's acceptable for this institution to be setting limits on who can or cannot be held prisoner. Nations have the right to set their own laws and enforce them. Without this fundamental freedom, there can be no claim to national sovreignty.

Second, this legislation would create serious practical concerns. For example: Imagine a case where a nation has decided to arrest the members of a revolutionary cell within its borders. This cell, in addition to its political ideology, has a unifying religion. As a result, when all believers of this faith have been imprisoned, observers from other countries might justly argue that the state in question is in violation of the "Freedom of Conscience" bill. But compliance with the bill would amount to a failure to defend oneself from sedition and violent overthrow!

Furthermore, not all cultures are alike. In Thudonia, for example, we place a high value on amusing our dictator with barbaric, gladatorial-style games...er....I mean, on cultural conformity. Disruption of that conformity is very distressing to our citizens and our way of life. Legal penalties for the creation of counter-cultural movements is the only way we can protect ourselves from these kinds of problems.

As for "disappearances", it should be considered that a number of people who "disappear" are in fact in hiding from the police! Further, "disappearing" a political insurgent is often more diplomatic than a public arrest. It is unreasonable to penalize a country trying to defend its ideology and security by imposing international sanctions. Therefore, I strongly urge the UN to reject this ill-conceived piece of legislation.

We fail to see the problem with this resolution, we see that it clearly defines its objectives, open judicial process must always apply in any circumstance where the state seeks to imprison or execute any citizen for whatever reason.
No problem there.
Our motto is 'Without law there can be no freedom' and that goes for the government as well as the people.
Well done to those who support this resolution, it is an honourable and fair one.

Respectfully
Primus of Cthag-antil

The government of Telidia herewith congratulates the Ecopoeian delegation in bringing this resolution to the member body for consideration. Having reviewed the debates here and during the proposal phase the Telidian government remain in support of this proposal and have therefore cast out vote in favour.

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

As the Imperial ambassador to the UN is away on personal business this weekend, it now falls to this representative to make a statement on behalf of the Holy Empire of Gravlen.

First and foremost, we would like to take a minute to adress the basic point about national sovreignty that the delegate from Thudonia has brought to the table. There is no dispute that it is any nations prerogative to set and enforce its own laws. On the other hand, when a nation joins the UN, that nation has freely relinquished some of its sovreignty. It is part of the price a nation pays for membership. As such, said nation has agreed to accept that the UN to some extent may create legislation that the nation has to implement at a national level, including restrictions put in place by previous resolutions. Experience shows that many governments use their power of arrests to abuse and breach human rights, so we would claim that it is not only acceptable but absolutely essential that there is UN regulations in this area.

Secondly, concerning the example that the delegate from Thudonia offered, we cannot see the need to arrest all believers of any particular faith when it is the political ideology which may cause danger.

Thirdly, there have been objections to this resolution because there is questions as to how it will be enforced. We expect that the answer to this is, as usual, by the will of the UN and its member states. If evidence is brought forward which suggest a breach has been committed, and conditions do not improve even after the offending state is presented with this evidence, then economic and other sanctions may be imposed on the offending state. We also want to remind the council that at least one war has started because of a nations unwilligness to submit to an approved resolution, without going into detail concerning our thoughts on that matter.

Finally, we seek clarification as to what delegates mean when they loathingly refer to something as "leftist" or "right-wing", as we do not quite see how these are arguements for or against resolutions.

In conclusion, we are in principle for this resolution, but have a duty as regional delegate to abstain until we have conferred with the UN members in our region.

Thank you for listening. All hail!

Vlad T. Hindenschmidt
Deputy ambassador to the UN
for the Holy Empire of Gravlen

Please note that the honorable representative of Mikitivity has spoken in favor of this resolution. It was the honorable representative from Comustan who charged that the resolution is redundant. On that issue....


This resolution makes specific provisions on matters which may have been covered in general terms in prior resolutions. Our government's legal advisors tell us there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

The above is absolutely correct. My government, has voted in favor of this resolution. Though we agree that Comustan may be correct that parts of this resolutiona are in fact redundant, the legality of the resolution is something which is better questioned when it is a proposal or after adopted via a repeal. While the argument could be brought up in debate, and has, my office agrees with the legal analysis from Farn Khoring, namely that this resolution has unique provisions and is legal.

Our small and humble tribe has voted for this resolution and supports it fully. People should not be held for there beliefs or something they have no control of;

HOWEVER we still believe people should be allowed to be held, remanded in custody whilst criminal investigations are being carried out to allow nations to bring offenders to justice, in order to prevent them disrupting the legal process, or reoffending. This however must be fair, and all UN members should realise the distinction.

Great job done in bringing up the resolution, i'm voting in favor of it. the arguments are inline with my national principle and those nations who are apprehensive might come up with a good reason, cuz i guess unless its a very trivial issue this resolution is getting the votes all the way.

Many thanks to the numerous representatives who have, in my view, comprehensively rebuffed all complaints thusfar levelled against the resolution. I wish now only to tackle a handful of objections made, ones that I feel may not have been fully dealt with.

First of all, I don't think it's acceptable for this institution to be setting limits on who can or cannot be held prisoner. Nations have the right to set their own laws and enforce them. Without this fundamental freedom, there can be no claim to national sovreignty.
I vehemently disagree. This institution is well within its rights to insist that, for example, a nation may not imprison an individual purely on the grounds of their race.

Second, this legislation would create serious practical concerns. For example: Imagine a case where a nation has decided to arrest the members of a revolutionary cell within its borders. This cell, in addition to its political ideology, has a unifying religion. As a result, when all believers of this faith have been imprisoned, observers from other countries might justly argue that the state in question is in violation of the "Freedom of Conscience" bill. But compliance with the bill would amount to a failure to defend oneself from sedition and violent overthrow!
You make the error of isolating the basis for imprisonment. Why have the members of the faith been imprisoned? Because they are plotting "violent overthrow". If your law enforcement and justice systems are competent, this should be of no concern.

As for "disappearances", it should be considered that a number of people who "disappear" are in fact in hiding from the police! Further, "disappearing" a political insurgent is often more diplomatic than a public arrest. It is unreasonable to penalize a country trying to defend its ideology and security by imposing international sanctions.
Your first point is irrelevant as someone in hiding is not classified as a 'disappearance' under the terms of this resolution. Your point concerning 'diplomacy' falls foul of not only this resolution, but also others already passed by the UN. As such, I regard it as being of little consequence.

The only objection our leader has falls solely upon the inability to persecute those with different political ideologies as they a threat to national security.
I assume you mean prosecute. Compliance simply requires that those prosecuted are done so not purely on the basis of their political beliefs, unless such beliefs specifically advocate violent behaviour.

The Father again respectfully asks U.N. members to consider before voting, that by passing this resolution they will in essence be making him a prisoner of conscience. The Father will once again be restricted, barred from acting as he sees fit based solely on his different political beliefs. Is this not persecution?
This resolution restricts The Father's actions only in his capacity as the Retrostalgic State, not as an individual.

No, but it doesn't protect them either. Which is precisely my point: The law only protects politically correct speech. If you're gonna protect citizens' freedom of conscience, shouldn't you protect it for everyone, and not just those the international community finds acceptable?
This statement coupled with your repeated denouncements of this resolution's intentions as 'left-wing' leads me to believe that you are labouring under the wholly erroneous assumption that hate speech is an intrinsically 'right-wing' trait, which strikes me as grossly slanderous. Nations are obliged to refrain from imprisoning on the basis of political/religious beliefs where such beliefs do not advocate violence. An individual cannot be a prisoner of conscience if they have used or encouraged others to use violence as a means to whatever end they wish to achieve.

I applaud the liberalism of your nation's laws wth respect to freedom of speech. Let me echo my compatriot: Ecopoeia has no laws against, for example, Nazi rallies, but we accept that many nations choose to criminalise such activities. For the UN to legislate in this area would be a step too far for us. We are not utterly in opposition to the Sovereigntists; we simply draw the line in a different patch of sand.

I'm afraid not, because under this proposal, all nations under U.N. jurisdiction will be forced to protect speech that it finds acceptable. Unpopular speech will be unprotected. Why should only speech that the oh-so-enlightened international community considers tolerable be protected?
You are mistaken in your assertions, as explained above. "Unpopular" is a wholly inappropriate - and frankly baffling - word to use here. This resolution guarantees non-violent freedom of speech. Nations may naturally go further and we encourage them to do so. You really ought to be pleased that this resolution will offer a degree of protection in this field that was previously missing. If you feel that it doesn't go far enough, then please make a proposal protecting inciteful speech, but for heaven's sake don't have the audacity to claim that you support national sovereignty.

A general gripe: would those who have been labelling this resolution 'politically correct' and 'left-wing' please cease using such fallacious and misleading terms? You devalue your own arguments with such nonsense.

MV

So what is the punishment for not upholding this piece of legislation?

So what is the punishment for not upholding this piece of legislation?
OOC: not sure I can adequately address this in character.

You can look at it in a number of ways. One is purely in terms of game mechanics, in which one can argue that there is no need for a punishment because compliance is automatic. Alternatively, you can take a role-playing perspective and look at it in pretty much any way you like, though be aware that flagrantly ignoring the resolution's instructions will be frowned on by many. So, nations not complying may be subjected to trade sanctions by other concerned nations, for example.

There's no easy solution to this dichotomy; unfortunately, this is the nature of the NS beast.

trade sanctions only occur in the form of role playing right? Just curious.

trade sanctions only occur in the form of role playing right? Just curious.

Yes, but they can lead to a short-lived, but interesting roleplay. :) The Confederated City States of Mikitivity have levied trade sanctions against a number of governments that have: (1) committed genocide or (2) started wars of aggression. Most players will point out that they are symbolic and have no economic bearing due to the large number of nations in play (most of which don't actively interact with nations outside their region) -- probably a fair point.

I'm curious. How is saying that people are to be protected from being imprisoned purely because of their political views 'commie'?
Isn't that a founding principle of law in western civilisation? As such, how is it related to a political ideology that is only ~150 years old?


First of all, I don't know where you come from, but my nation is only a few decades old. Now then, who I imprison and who I impose the death penalty to is the sole concern of The City by the Live Sea. If you want to impose your ideology on my nation then...well I was gonna give you the finger again, but instead let me say you might be a commie wanting to put your believes on my free-willed capitalist subjects.

So second of all to make sure that those in my nation are severly punished before you bedwetting lefty pinkos try to stop me through this poor excuse of a proposal, I have moved up all death sentences to right now.

In fact I will televise them for all to see how much torture we apply to these no good criminals.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

First of all, I don't know where you come from, but my nation is only a few decades old. Now then, who I imprison and who I impose the death penalty to is the sole concern of The City by the Live Sea. If you want to impose your ideology on my nation then...well I was gonna give you the finger again, but instead let me say you might be a commie wanting to put your believes on my free-willed capitalist subjects.

So second of all to make sure that those in my nation are severly punished before you bedwetting lefty pinkos try to stop me through this poor excuse of a proposal, I have moved up all death sentences to right now.

In fact I will televise them for all to see how much torture we apply to these no good criminals.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand


Just because someone has a leftist political orientation, it does not mean tthat they are "criminals." This is absolutely an outrageous comment , the government of ROADP wonders why Hassan the Chop is even part of the U.N.


Prime Minister of ROADP

I agree with City by the Live Sea. As it is our own diplomatic right to choose how we run our government. I every now and then put people to death for their outbursts on how they disapprove of my style of government. Though they just don't know what's best for them. As I know what is best for them.

This proposal should never have even been allowed on the floor. As it intreceeds with how we choose to play the game.

The nation of Antillies, will not support the UN turning even more into a dictator orginization. This takes away the freedom of a country to be how it wants to be. Should this poor excuse of a law pass, Antillies, will withdraw, and urge all other nation's to follow.
Same goes for me, why are so many people voting for it? What about pedophiles, rapists, violent cannibalists? Should we allow them to voice their opinion without any backlash, allow them to do what they want since even though they dissent from the majority. I can't believe people are voting for this, ergh this will not better NS it will allow the trash to continue filtering their trash to the public of one's nation. I'm begging people to vote agianst it!!!!!!!

I myself have problems with the following:

"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..."

Firstly, the resolution implies that it is all right for a person to be detained if they promote hate against certain groups. A misogynist, for example, is not considered a prisoner of conscience because he "promotes hate." How does this resolution define "hate" anyway? Secondly, there is a conflict of interests within this resolution. What if I am a member of a "Kill Black People" political party that promotes violence towards black people? If I am arrested, I can claim that I am a prisoner of conscience, as can all suspected members of my party. As a prisoner of conscience, the UN will "INSIST" that the state "unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining," and my cohorts and I will be free. So which am I: a violent, malicious thug, or a political prisoner? Thirdly, the resolution insists that all prisoners of conscience be released unconditionally. I might understand if it insisted on a retrial, but unconditional release is dangerous, especially if the person in custody has been arrested on charges not related to those mentioned in the resolution. I will be voting against this resolution, unless I see an outstanding argument or an overwhelming majority of my constituents in its favor.

Firstly, the resolution implies that it is all right for a person to be detained if they promote hate against certain groups. A misogynist, for example, is not considered a prisoner of conscience because he "promotes hate." How does this resolution define "hate" anyway? Secondly, there is a conflict of interests within this resolution. What if I am a member of a "Kill Black People" political party that promotes violence towards black people? If I am arrested, I can claim that I am a prisoner of conscience, as can all suspected members of my party.


Its real simple.

People who intend to take way other people's freedom lost their claim on freedom already.

If you act in a way that takes away another person's freedom, you lost your right to freedom yourself. You cant demand freedom and take away another's freedom at the same time, through inflicting violence on another person and thereby taking away another person's freedom.

Freedom is about giving and taking, you cant have only one group of people who are free and than another group of people who is not free. There's no freedom to give people who want to kill black people because giving freedom to such people GOES AGAINST FREEDOM.

It is fairly obvious from the post in this forum that this proposal was either not read through or else it was interpreted to fit the readers viewpoints.

While the idea is sound; the proposal is not.

Actually our reading skills are excellent and, in looking at the specific language of the proposal, we can come to no other conclusion. I draw your attention tho the definition of "prisoner of consience":

"1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence..."

By definition a soldier is one who may at times be required to use violence, and, by definition of what it is to be a prisoner of consience, the would be given a legal justification for not folowing orders.

One of my learned colleagues has suggested that it would be a simple matter of contract law, however, as we know, UN Resolutions supercedes local civil law as as such, even if the "consientious objector" was found to have committed a tortious act, the could not be held accountable because of the precedence of this resolution.

It may very well be that this was not the intent of the framers of this propsal, and I can only, suggest that that is due to shor-sightedness and an inablity to see all of the consequences of their overly vague and ill-considered draft legislation. We again implore this body to either defeat this legislation or to, at least, re-draft it with clearer more precise language.

I'm for it.

By definition a soldier is one who may at times be required to use violence, and, by definition of what it is to be a prisoner of consience, the would be given a legal justification for not folowing orders.
OOC: hmm, perhaps. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not certain whether or not you have a case here. You're the first to raise this issue.

One of my learned colleagues has suggested that it would be a simple matter of contract law, however, as we know, UN Resolutions supercedes local civil law as as such, even if the "consientious objector" was found to have committed a tortious act, the could not be held accountable because of the precedence of this resolution.
If they have been found to commit a tortious [sic] act, then they would not be a prisoner of conscience.

Firstly, the resolution implies that it is all right for a person to be detained if they promote hate against certain groups. A misogynist, for example, is not considered a prisoner of conscience because he "promotes hate." How does this resolution define "hate" anyway?
Incorrect. I repeat: Ecopoeia has no laws against, for example, Nazi rallies, but we accept that many nations choose to criminalise such activities. For the UN to legislate in this area would be a step too far for us. We are not utterly in opposition to the Sovereigntists; we simply draw the line in a different patch of sand.

This resolution provides protection that did not previously exist. If you wish to extend this protection further, be my guest. However, the Sovereigntists will most likely tear you apart.

Secondly, there is a conflict of interests within this resolution. What if I am a member of a "Kill Black People" political party that promotes violence towards black people? If I am arrested, I can claim that I am a prisoner of conscience, as can all suspected members of my party. As a prisoner of conscience, the UN will "INSIST" that the state "unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining," and my cohorts and I will be free. So which am I: a violent, malicious thug, or a political prisoner?
The former. The UN would certainly not insist that you be released and would not classify you as a prisoner of conscience since you are advocating violence against black people.

Thirdly, the resolution insists that all prisoners of conscience be released unconditionally. I might understand if it insisted on a retrial, but unconditional release is dangerous, especially if the person in custody has been arrested on charges not related to those mentioned in the resolution. I will be voting against this resolution, unless I see an outstanding argument or an overwhelming majority of my constituents in its favor.
If they have been arrested on other charges not related to this resolution then they would not qualify as a prisoner of conscience.

Same goes for me, why are so many people voting for it? What about pedophiles, rapists, violent cannibalists? Should we allow them to voice their opinion without any backlash, allow them to do what they want since even though they dissent from the majority. I can't believe people are voting for this, ergh this will not better NS it will allow the trash to continue filtering their trash to the public of one's nation. I'm begging people to vote agianst it!!!!!!!
Sigh. This resolution does not allow pedophiles, rapists and violent cannibalists to do what they want. You are making an extraordinary (il)logical leap in coming to this conclusion.

I agree with City by the Live Sea. As it is our own diplomatic right to choose how we run our government. I every now and then put people to death for their outbursts on how they disapprove of my style of government. Though they just don't know what's best for them. As I know what is best for them.
This is regrettable and I look forward to the day when you are unable to carry out this barbarous system of governance.

This proposal should never have even been allowed on the floor. As it intreceeds with how we choose to play the game.
OOC: It's a UN resolution, of course it intreceeds [sic] with how you choose to play the game.

First of all, I don't know where you come from, but my nation is only a few decades old. Now then, who I imprison and who I impose the death penalty to is the sole concern of The City by the Live Sea. If you want to impose your ideology on my nation then...well I was gonna give you the finger again, but instead let me say you might be a commie wanting to put your believes on my free-willed capitalist subjects.
Much as I wish this were not the case, the resolution makes no attempt to prevent you from applying the death penalty to convicted criminals.

So second of all to make sure that those in my nation are severly punished before you bedwetting lefty pinkos try to stop me through this poor excuse of a proposal, I have moved up all death sentences to right now.
Your histrionics do actually raise an interesting and saddening point. I had hoped that the delegate from Wolfish would return and expand upon their earlier claim, but they seem to have gone missing. I will anticipate their response.

Yes, it now seems likely that there will be some appalling abuses of human rights in the next couple of days, triggered by this resolution. However, this is not a reason to weaken our resolve. The passage of virtually any resolution will invariably induce disreputable types to exploit the interregnum between proposal and acceptance. Take a freedom of information bill, for instance. Chances are, an enormous amount of shredding will take place before the UN enforces compliance. Should we therefore balk at pushing through such legislation? No, for the long term good outweighs the short term ill.

Now, the circumstances described in relation to the current legislation are clearly more serious, yet I strongly believe that the principle still stands. From Wednesday, 3rd August 2005, UN peoples will be immune from prosecution purely on the grounds of their race, sexuality, creed and so on. This will be an enormous step for global human rights and I am proud to be a citizen of the nation that has made this so. Wednesday may prove to be the Cloud-Water Community's finest day.

For the victims of King Hasan's vile purges, I am deeply sorry. I encourage nations with higher moral standards than Hasan's to use every means at their disposal to persuade the errant King to back down.

In fact I will televise them for all to see how much torture we apply to these no good criminals.
Naturally you will abide by previous UN legislation outlawing torture and barbaric practices.

MV

I know our nation may seem like on that is going back and forth on the issue, but in listening to fellow delegates as to why they are against this bill, I'm wanting to vote for it more and more.

Firstly, by joining the UN you do give up some of your freedoms in how to govern. A state or province must listen to the nation it is apart of, and a nation that is in the United Nations must listen to the larger organization it is apart of.

Second, this piece of legislation only bans you from imprisoning, executing, or making people based on race, ethnicity, sexualty, which we firmly believe no government should. It also states that you can't do those things based on religious beliefs, which trust me your governments couldn't stop anyway. As we lack the technology to monitor peoples thoughts, they could believe in what ever religion they wanted and simply lie to keep the government from killing them. Lastly political affiliation and ideas.

If any of these people take violent action against your nation, you can execute them if they use violence. If they use violence, any of the other clauses don't mean anything. If there happens to be a group of blue skinned hetrosexuals that believe in socialism and worshipping clams, that breaks any other laws your nation has, such as you can't shoot people in the shopping mall before 3pm, you can execute those that broke that law as well as acessories connected to the crime.

If you are afraid the UN might think you killed them for being blue skinned, socialist, hetrosexual clam worshippers, and not for shooting people in the shopping mall before 3pm, then you have trust issues with your fellow leaders, and the UN as a whole.

Plus if you really want to do away with certain people based on any of these things, there are other ways about it. I won't disclose any of these ways because I don't want to promote it. Plus if you are that worried and your rule that fragile as not to sustain a single person saying "Wow I hate my leader", there are probably other problems in your nation.

Actually our reading skills are excellent and, in looking at the specific language of the proposal, we can come to no other conclusion. I draw your attention tho the definition of "prisoner of consience":

"1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence..."

By definition a soldier is one who may at times be required to use violence, and, by definition of what it is to be a prisoner of consience, the would be given a legal justification for not folowing orders.

One of my learned colleagues has suggested that it would be a simple matter of contract law, however, as we know, UN Resolutions supercedes local civil law as as such, even if the "consientious objector" was found to have committed a tortious act, the could not be held accountable because of the precedence of this resolution.

It may very well be that this was not the intent of the framers of this propsal, and I can only, suggest that that is due to shor-sightedness and an inablity to see all of the consequences of their overly vague and ill-considered draft legislation. We again implore this body to either defeat this legislation or to, at least, re-draft it with clearer more precise language.

The difficulty this honorable representative is having arises from his failure to distinguish between the inclusionary clauses of the proposal (what it covers) and the exclusionary clauses (what it does not cover). We sympathize, since we ourselves found the grammar of the definition overly complex and confusing. Stripped to its inclusionary text, the definition says that this resolution would prohibit detention or imprisonment of a person "for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, sex, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons."

Moving to your example....

We assume you have some sort of code of military law which your government has adopted and which applies to all members of your armed forces. In that code, it prohibits disobedience of direct and lawful orders. A soldier disobeys a direct order. You arrest and confine the soldier. The soldier claims he was acting in accordance with his religious/political/whatever beliefs. Are you in violation of this resolution? NO. You have arrested the soldier for disobedience of an order, not for his beliefs.

Your recourse against the disobedient soldier is under statutory law, not contract law. (Contract law might also apply, but that would depend on your country's legal system and enlistment/conscription procedures.) The soldier has committed an illegal act under your country's statutory law, and is being punished for it. You are taking action against him for what he did, not what he believes. The resolution has no effect in the case.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

OOC: Thank you, Ausserland.

Of course the Emperor will comply with this mandate, should it pass. However, please be aware that we are currently executing all such "prisoners" as this legislature is being debated. We had hoped to torture these terrorists for information to protect our citizens, however, the United Nations has forced our hand.

Since I only have limited internet acess at the moment until I get home later today, I will just express my views on the matter instead of reading the rest of this thread to know what's been said and what is being argued.


This proposal contradicts itself, and cannot work. By releasing all these "prisoners of conscience" and allowing them the right to express their own views, it also descriminates against others views and beliefs as it was they who imprisoned/descriminated against in the first place. Therefore by passing this resolution, you only help a minority, and condemn another minority; therefore making the resolution useless but to shift the power to another group.

Therefore I believe we should vote against this issue and leave it for national governments to deal with in their respected nations.

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.

Based on a communication sent to us by the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Mikitivity_Rote_Kreuz), we are under the impression that the following clause would suggest that any human rights non-governmental organization, like Amensty International or any of the humanitarian aid groups affliated with the International Red Cross Organization, would be able to request this information. Is this true?

Of course the Emperor will comply with this mandate, should it pass. However, please be aware that we are currently executing all such "prisoners" as this legislature is being debated. We had hoped to torture these terrorists for information to protect our citizens, however, the United Nations has forced our hand.
We condemn your abominable actions. Regarding the torture or 'terrorists', you would have been unable to commit such atrocities - irrespective of the passage of this resolution - thanks to prior UN legislation.

Since I only have limited internet acess at the moment until I get home later today, I will just express my views on the matter instead of reading the rest of this thread to know what's been said and what is being argued.


This proposal contradicts itself, and cannot work. By releasing all these "prisoners of conscience" and allowing them the right to express their own views, it also descriminates against others views and beliefs as it was they who imprisoned/descriminated against in the first place. Therefore by passing this resolution, you only help a minority, and condemn another minority; therefore making the resolution useless but to shift the power to another group.

Therefore I believe we should vote against this issue and leave it for national governments to deal with in their respected nations.
Apologies, but I'm not sure I've fully understood your argument. Are you saying that those who incarcerated the prisoners of conscience are now discriminated against? That the new condemned minority is the government?

Based on a communication sent to us by the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, we are under the impression that the following clause would suggest that any human rights non-governmental organization, like Amensty International or any of the humanitarian aid groups affliated with the International Red Cross Organization, would be able to request this information. Is this true?
This is indeed correct, though I think there is scope for nations being able to deny such a request should, for example, family members wish such knowledge to remain outside of the public domain. This would be an unusual scenario, I imagine.

VY

By definition a soldier is one who may at times be required to use violence, and, by definition of what it is to be a prisoner of consience, the would be given a legal justification for not folowing orders.OOC: hmm, perhaps. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not certain whether or not you have a case here. You're the first to raise this issue.
OOC: Whats he's talking about here (I believe) is an individual who volunteers for service, signs an enlistment contract, then for religious, moral or political reasons decides that he no longer wants to serve. While New Davel would not, under this resolution, be able to imprison this individual for his religious, moral or political beliefs, his government could still imprison him for failing to fullfill his enlistment obligation and failing to follow orders.

OOC: Thanks, Yelda. Actually, thanks to all who have helped defend the resolution. It's a relief to be able to defer to those who have more knowledge in certain fields (military affairs being an obvious example) than I do.

The Goblin, I really appreciate your willingness to consider the points I and others have been making. I'm very glad to have made a convert of you (or at least assuaged most of your concerns).

You have no idea what will happen if you introduce such a thing as people who are now kept as prisoners of conscience could be easily changed to be become normal prisoners under there government and then tortured and punished continually. Do you really think that a government and judicial system which has just spent a lot of time and money on capturing a trator to release them just because the UN says so. They are most likly to be shot or to have a "Nasty accident". You have no idea of the kind of suffering that you have just caused upon the world. You wouldve been better leaving it for the government of that country to release them or set up a system of lawyers etc to be placed globally to fight for these peoples fights for freedom rather than force the country to get rid of them.

Your an idiot
[sic]

I humbly submit to the mother-loving delegate that a less offensive tone may have helped elicit a response to his objections.

VY

[sic]

I humbly submit to the mother-loving delegate that a less offensive tone may have helped elicit a response to his objections.

VY
Off-topic: isn't "Oepidus Complex" also used to characterize daughters loving their fathers, even though that behavior doesn't conform with the complex's namesake?

[OOC and Off-Topic]

Off-topic: isn't "Oepidus Complex" also used to characterize daughters loving their fathers, even though that behavior doesn't conform with the complex's namesake?

Naw, Chipmunks. That's an Electra Complex. ;)

You have no idea what will happen if you introduce such a thing as people who are now kept as prisoners of conscience could be easily changed to be become normal prisoners under there government and then tortured and punished continually. Do you really think that a government and judicial system which has just spent a lot of time and money on capturing a trator to release them just because the UN says so. They are most likly to be shot or to have a "Nasty accident". You have no idea of the kind of suffering that you have just caused upon the world. You wouldve been better leaving it for the government of that country to release them or set up a system of lawyers etc to be placed globally to fight for these peoples fights for freedom rather than force the country to get rid of them.

I hadn't thought of that one, but it's very true. That part of the resolution is extremely dangerous.

The third part could also have some very bad effects. Under this resolution, every case of excessive force by a police officer becomes a UN violation, when under my country's current law, it is a local matter of disciplining individual officers. If this passes, no nation would dare host a WTO summit for fear that any rioting might put the host nation in violation.

:headbang:

From the office of the Pontificate General of the Holy Republic of Tobias Bartholomew;

In our Holy Republic, we respect and tolerate all religious beliefs, whether we agree with them or not. In our first vote in a U.N. referrendum, we have decided to go against our own delegation and the majority vote and vote against this resolution. Our reason being that this resolution is very vague in several point. It leaves room for interpretation. What is a dangerous belief to one person isn't dangerous to another. Therefore, we have decided to vote against the "Freedom of Conscience" act, and, by our constitution, cannot uphold it in our country.

Thank you.

OOC: Thanks, Yelda. Actually, thanks to all who have helped defend the resolution. It's a relief to be able to defer to those who have more knowledge in certain fields (military affairs being an obvious example) than I do.

The Goblin, I really appreciate your willingness to consider the points I and others have been making. I'm very glad to have made a convert of you (or at least assuaged most of your concerns).

It was more just concerns then a full conversion, as well as 'ways around the law' points, such as exile/deportation, which thankfully past UN legislation (that was passed well before I was admitted) covered issues such as nations exiling instead of arresting. It was not so much that we wished, to do such things, but more of a "what if", which others would of likely thought of as quickly as we did.

Now that any confusion, and "could we do this instead" have been covered, we're more then happy to fully support the bill, confident that it is good natured, well worded, and although we may occasionaly wish we could just shoot someone, will remember that we rarely ever did that in the first place, and those we really want to execute often have done more then told our leader he stinks.

Concern has been expressed by our fellow nations that the wording of this proposal is overbroad, and will preclude our nations' ability to persecute those who do not themselves advocate violence, but whose words and actions none-the-less result in violence.

Without discussing our own personal opinions on this resolution, We wish to hear the official response to this potential problem from Ecopoeia and other supporters of this bill.

Upon review of the prior posts, We have found a little discussion on this issue. However, the issue of an individual whose WORDS cause the violence, regardless of the themes of his speach has not been addressed.

We thank you for your consideration.

Written On behalf of her Royal Majesty,

Queen Feq.

Under No Circumstances will Brote support this Resolution. We feel that it is a clear violation of states-rights. It is the right and privilage of each individual state to protect itself from internal strife. While we do not support such violations of Politcal Rights, we feel that it is the right of the Individual State to determine their own politcal system. Beyond that, we agree with the sentiments of other nations in declaring this Resolution to be overbroad in nature.

Yours,
Andres Bolivar, UN Ambassador
The Dominion of Brote

We oppose this edict across all lines.

Political prisoners must be dealt with swiftly and sternly.

It is always neccesary to extract all subversive information from the detained so as to maintain the high level of order that our proud citizenry holds dear.

There is no room for dissent for those who love order.

The Rizzo Cops have spoken and are in no way associated with your crime-riddled United Nations.

-Frank L. Rizzo

Kiloran']I hadn't thought of that one, but it's very true. That part of the resolution is extremely dangerous.

The third part could also have some very bad effects. Under this resolution, every case of excessive force by a police officer becomes a UN violation, when under my country's current law, it is a local matter of disciplining individual officers. If this passes, no nation would dare host a WTO summit for fear that any rioting might put the host nation in violation.
The UN condemns such excesses. If your nation already has laws addressing the use of excessive force then the UN will have no reason to get involved, especially since this article is a statement of principle rather than a mandate for action.

Concern has been expressed by our fellow nations that the wording of this proposal is overbroad, and will preclude our nations' ability to persecute those who do not themselves advocate violence, but whose words and actions none-the-less result in violence.

Without discussing our own personal opinions on this resolution, We wish to hear the official response to this potential problem from Ecopoeia and other supporters of this bill.

Upon review of the prior posts, We have found a little discussion on this issue. However, the issue of an individual whose WORDS cause the violence, regardless of the themes of his speach has not been addressed.
I assume you mean prosecution, not persecution. Essentially, you are asking if you will be able to prosecute someone purely because their expressed views unintentionally cause others to commit violent acts.

In short, no. This does not mean you may never prosecute a person whose words cause violence, merely that you may not when taking such a circumstance in isolation.

Under No Circumstances will Brote support this Resolution. We feel that it is a clear violation of states-rights. It is the right and privilage of each individual state to protect itself from internal strife. While we do not support such violations of Politcal Rights, we feel that it is the right of the Individual State to determine their own politcal system. Beyond that, we agree with the sentiments of other nations in declaring this Resolution to be overbroad in nature.
As stated earlier, we take a different view of how far the UN's remit should extend.

MV

... or set up a system of lawyers etc to be placed globally to fight for these peoples fights for freedomNow that's something we could have endorsed: an international legal and political organization or commission to fight for the rights of political prisoners, not this silly finger-wagging draconian ban.

I assume you mean prosecution, not persecution. Essentially, you are asking if you will be able to prosecute someone purely because their expressed views unintentionally cause others to commit violent acts.

In short, no. This does not mean you may never prosecute a person whose words cause violence, merely that you may not when taking such a circumstance in isolation.


We thank you for the quick response and reasoned answer to our question.

We will return your comments to our regional discussion, and We will vote in accordance with the decision reached therein.

Regardless of the outcome of our Region's discussion, and therefore our eventual vote on the Resolution, We commend you for your handling of this debate, and We look forward to hearing from you in the future on political matters.

Written on Behalf of her Royal Majesty,

Queen Feq.

P.S. It is with great embarrassment that We acknowledge your assumption. The scribe has been docked three claws (measured as 1/10th of a Radyll) for each error, as is standard practice in the scribe industry of our Nation.

We wish to thank the honourable delegate from Ecopoeia for taking the time to adress the many arguments made by the other delegates.

We would further express our puzzlement concerning some of the problems raised by some of the delegates, as we utterly fail to see how this resolution in any way could be "extremely dangerous". The delegate from My Oedipus Complex claims, among other things, that one should leave it to a nations government to release their prisoners of conscience. At the same time the delegate also state that a government would disregard human rights and execute them rather then comply with this resolution. We fail to see the logic in this reasoning, as we cannot see that a government who would execute their citizens on the basis of these persons political or religious beliefs, their sexuality or ethnic origin etc. would be very forthcoming with regard to voluntarily releasing these same citizens.

Neither do we fully understand the resent argument made by the honourable delegate from [NS]Kiloran. We feel that some the delegates might not fully understand this resolution, and urge all to read through the earlier discussions in this thread, especially the explanatory posts by this proposals author.

The Holy Empire of Gravlen declares that it fully supports this resolution, and has also cast its wote in favor on behalf of our region.

All hail!
Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

[OOC and Off-Topic]

Naw, Chipmunks. That's an Electra Complex. ;)

OOC: Ooh, Thanks Ausserland! :D

This statement coupled with your repeated denouncements of this resolution's intentions as 'left-wing' leads me to believe that you are labouring under the wholly erroneous assumption that hate speech is an intrinsically 'right-wing' trait, which strikes me as grossly slanderous.Being that we are, by any measure, a "right-wing state" (OOC: and in real life I am considered a "right-winger"), I think not. I simply know the political spectrum. Fascism is right-wing. Racism is simply ignorant.Nations are obliged to refrain from imprisoning on the basis of political/religious beliefs where such beliefs do not advocate violence. An individual cannot be a prisoner of conscience if they have used or encouraged others to use violence as a means to whatever end they wish to achieve.Incitatory speech or speech advocating violence is widely considered unprotected political speech, but unfortunately your proposal does not just leave those forms of speech unprotected: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 violentAdvocating discriminiation may be despicable, and people who advocate discrimination or hostility toward racial or ethnic minorities may be ignorant, but that does not mean that, outside of advocating violence, they shouldn't have the right to express their views. This proposal may protect "acceptable" political speech, but in effect it allows governments to lock people up simply for thinking incorrectly. And the way you continually misread your own proposal in that regard really concerns me.I applaud the liberalism of your nation's laws wth respect to freedom of speech.Why thank you. :cool: ... but we accept that many nations choose to criminalise such activities. For the UN to legislate in this area would be a step too far for us.You've already made the point I was going to make. You realized that the many liberal, socialist, communist, and other left-wing governments that make up the majority of this body couldn't abide a resolution that protected politically incorrect speech as well as politically correct speech -- and even if you just didn't mention hate speech altogether, you'd get questions from these nations demanding to know if the proposal would force them to allow hate speech -- so you included the clause cited above, specifically to appease them.You are mistaken in your assertions, as explained above. "Unpopular" is a wholly inappropriate - and frankly baffling - word to use here.What? That advocating racism is unpopular? In most nations it is, as it surely is in most U.N. nations. Racism is no longer practiced by most democratic governments because the public eventually rejected racist ideals; that is, racism became an unpopular ideology. But it is still an ideology, albeit a discredited and uninformed one, and advocating it, outside of also advocating violence, is every bit as valid a form of protected speech as the acceptable forms this proposal uniquely protects.You really ought to be pleased that this resolution will offer a degree of protection in this field that was previously missing. If you feel that it doesn't go far enough, then please make a proposal protecting inciteful speech, but for heaven's sake don't have the audacity to claim that you support national sovereignty.I am not pleased, because this proposal irks me in two different ways: 1) It has the audacity to instruct sovereign nations what not to criminalize in their own borders; and 2) It is deliberately tilted toward acceptable speech, and excludes unsavory speech in order to deem itself more acceptable to the left-wing governments comprising the majority of U.N. membership.

Just because I argue the proposal's inconsistency doesn't mean I don't also disapprove of the proposal altogether. (And rest assured I do.)A general gripe: would those who have been labelling this resolution 'politically correct' and 'left-wing' please cease using such fallacious and misleading terms? You devalue your own arguments with such nonsense.Simply labeling something is not fallacious, and it certainly isn't misleading to suggest that a proposal is "left-wing" because it leaves out a class of speech that certain (left-wing) nations find unwholesome.

And my argument is no more "devalued" or "nonsensical" simply because you refuse to acknowledge that many nations find this proposal flawed, and with good reason.

Just because someone has a leftist political orientation, it does not mean tthat they are "criminals." This is absolutely an outrageous comment , the government of ROADP wonders why Hassan the Chop is even part of the U.N.


Prime Minister of ROADP

Because this Comunistic represntative doesn't like my speech, It (I call it an it for 2 reasons: 1) I can't tell which sex it is most likely because 2) It is a commie) wants my membership bannished from the UN.

Now it is a great thought to have every conservative and even centrist nation to just give up and leave this group of commies that want everybody to be like them, but I stay with hopes to see more conservatism in the UN and to be a thorn in the flesh of those such as the representative of roadp

Please help end such communistic attitudes in this UN

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

If you are afraid the UN might think you killed them for being blue skinned, socialist, hetrosexual clam worshippers, and not for shooting people in the shopping mall before 3pm, then you have trust issues with your fellow leaders, and the UN as a whole.

The City by the Live Sea welcomes anyone, without prejudice of skin color, sexual preferences, or pursuits in worshipping (as long as it does not effect anyone elses pursuit in happiness--such as enjoying a clambake).

The City by the Live Sea will indeed incarcinate and bring about a fitting death penalty to those that cause the termination of others trying to pursuit their own happiness (this time, as long as that pursuit does not cause harm to other citizens).

So what I am saying is that if someone (lets call her Ms Commie) steals all the clams from a Clambake and Ms. Commie happens to be blue-skinned. I don't want her to scream that she is a prisoner of Conscious because she is being punished not for being a Gobling, but for denying the right of others to their pursuit of happiness

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

First of all, I don't know where you come from, but my nation is only a few decades old. Now then, who I imprison and who I impose the death penalty to is the sole concern of The City by the Live Sea. If you want to impose your ideology on my nation then...well I was gonna give you the finger again, but instead let me say you might be a commie wanting to put your believes on my free-willed capitalist subjects.

So second of all to make sure that those in my nation are severly punished before you bedwetting lefty pinkos try to stop me through this poor excuse of a proposal, I have moved up all death sentences to right now.

In fact I will televise them for all to see how much torture we apply to these no good criminals.

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand
OOC: First off, I was referring to the real world. Apologies for confusing.

IC: You know, accusing all those who oppose you of being 'commies' really isn't the best way of getting your point across.

Plus, your use of torture is already illegal, regardless of whether Ecopoeia's proposal gets up or not. Have a look at the Passed Resolutions List, particularly END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS (NB - that's what the resolution is actually called, my caps lock didn't get stuck).

As a moralsitic democracy(and evil conservative) I cannot support this resolution. This is allowing big brother to legislate to me how to best rule my people. I am a firm believer in lesser goverment and extra-government interferance in our lives. If y'all aready have an international Bill of rights, then this is meaningless. Lets try a more novel approach. How about we enforce the laws already on the books before we add new ones. I fully realize this is a foreign concept to some of y'all. But guess what? It works and your citizens will thank you for not causing any additional legislation and complications in their lives. I fully endorse my regional representative Ohmygodtheykilledkenny's position on this piece of do-gooder claptrap. I have voted against this as well. However I have made preparations for passage. Taking a page from the Commie Fidel Castro, Iv''ve got a bunch of boats ready to place the "prisoners" on and a group of destroyers to escort them into international waters. There they can make their way to a more "tolerant" nation.(and I wish them the best of luck.) :mp5:

"Cry Havok! and let slip the Dogs of War!" :sniper:

The City by the Live Sea welcomes anyone, without prejudice of skin color, sexual preferences, or pursuits in worshipping (as long as it does not effect anyone elses pursuit in happiness--such as enjoying a clambake).

The City by the Live Sea will indeed incarcinate and bring about a fitting death penalty to those that cause the termination of others trying to pursuit their own happiness (this time, as long as that pursuit does not cause harm to other citizens).

So what I am saying is that if someone (lets call her Ms Commie) steals all the clams from a Clambake and Ms. Commie happens to be blue-skinned. I don't want her to scream that she is a prisoner of Conscious because she is being punished not for being a Gobling, but for denying the right of others to their pursuit of happiness

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own hand

Ms. Commie can say that all she wants, your nation and your leader wouldn't be in violation of this bill. If she is found guilty of stealing clams in your courts, and is imprisioned or executed for stealing clams then so be it. She could claim it was for being blue skinned, but when it goes before the UN court, the UN should agree that you were correct in arresting, trying, imprisoning, and shooting the clam theif. There is the chance that they might find in her favor, but I seriously hope that whoever reviews infractions of UN law would notice she was a clam theif and her execution was most just.

The God-Fearing Earthly Heaven of the Moravian Counties condemns this proposal because it believes that the state should choose the religion, and any heretics should in fact be extrajudicially executed before they corrupt the good people who follow their God.

The God-Fearing Earthly Heaven of the Moravian Counties condemns this proposal because it believes that the state should choose the religion, and any heretics should in fact be extrajudicially executed before they corrupt the good people who follow their God.
Could have sworn... Ah yes, here it is.

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.

You are already disobeying a passed resolution.

Well, I just don't like the wording of the last part...

I, Ambassador Kalil J'Thor of the Holy Empire of Xeth, speaking for the Holy Emperor and his servants, wish to express my dismay at this ill-thought out resolution. While its ideals are noble, in practice it will serve as a legal shield for extremists who claim that their words of hatred and intolerance are protected by religious freedom of conscience laws. This bill would also prevent the pre-emptive detainment of known trouble-makers during critical times. As those nations that are disrespectful of human rights surely will find means to work around the law, this resolution does nothing to enhance human rights, and shackles the hands of those governments willing and able to practice self-restraint and judicious use of accepted crime-fighting and intelligence techniques.

His Royal Majesty humbly asks his peers to oppose this resolution.

Apologies, but I'm not sure I've fully understood your argument. Are you saying that those who incarcerated the prisoners of conscience are now discriminated against? That the new condemned minority is the government?

VY

Yup that's what I meant, because now their views aren't allowed.

Yup that's what I meant, because now their views aren't allowed.
I think you are misreading the proposal. It was never about what views are allowed. This is not a proposal about stopping people talking about their views. This proposal is about the prevention of arrests solely on the basis of arbitrary criteria such as ethnicity, religion or anything else listed in the proposal.

Why do people think this is about arresting people for inflammatory speech? If that is illegal in your nation, you can still arrest them. If people are urging armed uprisings, then arrest them and charge them with conspiracy or whatever you charge such people with in your nation.

What you cannot do is decide 'So-and-so the terrorist is a Zoroastrianist. Therefore, all Zoroastrianists are terrorists. Therefore, we must arrest all Zoroastrianists'. That would be prevented by Ecopoeia's proposal. Clear enough?

Er... Eco, if I've got it wrong, please tell me!

OOC: I intend to address the latest comments more thoroughly later today, but would note now that many (though not all) points made recently are simply repetitions, so I may end up ignoring them (especially those that essentially boil down to 'I'm an uber-evil tyrant nation and the UN shouldn't be able to stop me from oppressing my subjects' - of course I want to mess with your system of governance, I want you to quit your repression).

I have to say, I'm quite amused that the most recent batch of complaints quite neatly contradict each other, but more on that later...

Thanks to Enn* and Gravlen - your support is much appreciated.

Finally, a wee reminder: you may have noticed that the posts signed off as MV are pretty snide - this is deliberate and very much in-character. Please don't take it personally.

*don't worry, you're correct!

I, Scissy the second, leader of the pack running the Slippery Slopes
to the honorable ambassador Kalil J'Thor and his Holy Emperor,

feel urged to disagree on your interpretation of this resolution as a "legal shield" for extremists who promote "hatred and intolerance".
As the resolution indeed forbids government to emprison anyone "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" it explicitly condones emprisonment (or detention) for exactly those reasons.
If your government chooses to take custody of those who act violently or who promote the use of violence, your government is explicitly NOT prevented from doing so.
Similarly, is it still allowed to jail individuals who pretend that their hatred or discrimination have a religious / sexual / racial "or similar" reason : hatred and discrimination are -in this resolution- explicitly mentioned as possible reasons for incarceration (if a government chooses to use that type of punishment)

As you say "known troublemakers", I believe you do NOT refer to people gathering in the streets, eventually in large masses blocking parts of a city and such, but to people going around smashing things and/or hurting other citizens. Those will fall under the ones who CAN be incarcerated "for using violence" etc.

The unchosen leader of the pack, therefor politely asks you to re-examine your view of this resolution. As seemingly many others here, I only read it as a protection against gross abuse of power, by governments, against those few people on their territory or elsewhere within the reach of their powers, to cut "the freedom of conscience and speech" where those freedoms do NOT result in violence, hatred or discrimination.

Where those uttered "opinions" are exposed to be merely the verbal tip of a violent iceberg, e.g. the planning of an attack, or the organisation of repression and/or discrimination etc, the government has its hands free to use almost any means to prevent this harmful plans being executed.

One of the rare limits to this "hands free" is : the government will not be allowed to kill the conspirers without giving them a fair trial. But if the conspiration is obvious enough, or clear enough AND its execution can be prevented, that trial will also SHOW that the conspiracy/violence/... was there.

If "known troublemakers" are in fact people calmly, but loudly, protesting against actions (or plans) of the govt, the govt can indeed do nothing but "let them talk".
As talk goes, it doesn't harm most governments.
Letting any individual or group dismantle a facility, anywhere, WILL ham the government and the society ruled by it, but then dismantling facilities (be it a building, internet line, park, sporting equipment, wha else ) can legally be categorized as "use of violence" so for your government there's no problem to act (unless you 'd have snipers shooting them in the neck, which can and will be interpreted by NSUN as refusal to give them a "fair trial" before execution)

I, Ambassador Kalil J'Thor of the Holy Empire of Xeth, speaking for the Holy Emperor and his servants, ... ill-thought out resolution. ... in practice it will serve as a legal shield for extremists who claim that their words of hatred and intolerance are protected by religious freedom of conscience laws. This bill would also prevent the pre-emptive detainment of known trouble-makers during critical times.

Good Morning to all Delegates
The Father has asked me to come forward once more for a quick comment and to respond with his guidance to Ecopoeia and countries who feel alike in their desire to see this resolution passed
Originally posted by Ecopoeia
This resolution restricts The Father's actions only in his capacity as the Retrostalgic State, not as an individual.
The Father would like it noted that in our Kingdom's case, as in many across the great world of NS, the individual is the state.
However the Father, is no longer worried. Sir James McCord, Minister of Law -n -*$#!@ Order, has made it quite clear to Him that we have plenty of laws on which to jail people who annoy his Personage. So we will not, of course, change, and it won't be as easy to track who is condemned for political or personal reasons, a double failure.
Respectfully
Ambassador
Wilbur Post

Why should I release any prisoners that I may have? What if upon release they cause more problems than they are right now sitting in a comfy cell.
The amount of tree-hugging that I have seen upon joining the UN is staggering.
Just shut up and let's vote on something worth while.

Why should I release any prisoners that I may have? What if upon release they cause more problems than they are right now sitting in a comfy cell.
The amount of tree-hugging that I have seen upon joining the UN is staggering.
Just shut up and let's vote on something worth while.
If you have any prisoners of conscience as defined by this proposal, then they aren't likely to cause trouble for you. Because they'd have been arrested purely on the basis of skin colour, or religion, or something else entirely arbitrary, not for any real crime. If they have been accused of actual crimes, then you do not have to release them. Is that clear?

I must vote against this because it intrudes on self governance and is so vague in definition and enforcement as to be exploited by other nations for political gain. If I have a Terrorist in prison for making bombs and he claims he is a prisoner of conscience by this law I will have to let him go? It is written too simplistic for me to support. This is like making a proposal that says all people are entitled to a fair trial making it law and after the fact you define a fair trial and how you will determine the trial was conducted in a fair manner. There are no solid definitions or procedures in place to be assessed or to protect a nation from being abused by the law used as a political tool. Without knowing HOW it is to be implemented I have to assume it will be used as a political tool to meddle with my national sovereignty. I think I would support this if the powers of UN enforcement were more clearly defined. In its current form I have to vote against it. I agree with many of the people on this board against this proposal and will go further.
If this resolution is passed my nation will have to reassess its role in the UN

Finally, a wee reminder: you may have noticed that the posts signed off as MV are pretty snide - this is deliberate and very much in-character. Please don't take it personally.OOC: What do MV and VY mean, anyway? And how do you pronounce your nation? I've been pronouncing it [ee-KO-pee-a].

OOC: What do MV and VY mean, anyway? And how do you pronounce your nation? I've been pronouncing it [ee-KO-pee-a].
OOC: MV = Mathieu Vergniaud, Deputy Speaker to the UN; VY = Varia Yefremova, Speaker to the UN - my opening post explains this, but it's possibly hidden away in a fair amount of rambling.

Pronouncing Ecopoeia... it's funny, the name is pretty weak but all I could think of when I first encountered the site. It's a 'countrified' (yeah, I'm making up words here) version of 'ecopoesis' (or 'poetry of the land'), a term used to describe a particular system of land/environmental management that's, well, all fluffy and nice. How pronounced? Erm, took me a while to work out, in truth! I don't know how to write this technically, but it's something like: ee-ko-po-wee-yuh, with a small emphasis on the initial 'ee'.

Yeah. We all make mistakes... I got my identity early on in the UN forum and never felt comfortable changing nation to get a better name. Ah well.

IC responses will follow in a few hours.

If you have any prisoners of conscience as defined by this proposal, then they aren't likely to cause trouble for you. Because they'd have been arrested purely on the basis of skin colour, or religion, or something else entirely arbitrary, not for any real crime. If they have been accused of actual crimes, then you do not have to release them. Is that clear? this was posted by Enn.

So according to him all my government has to do is convict them of real crime/s and hey presto there back in jail and theres nothing that the UN can do to stop me. So all i need to find is my eraser and pen, thanks Enn.

<The ambassador sighs, and gets slowly and wearily to the podium>

We would like to adress the emmisary from Taflagar:

Honourable delegate, you do not seem to understand this proposal. Your question has been answered previously, but for the sake of clarity allow me to reiterate.

No, you do not have to release a terrorist, because when he has violated your country's laws by making bombs he is not protected by this resolution. This resolution does not demand that a state automatically releases a criminal who claims he is prisoner of conscience. He may be kept in jail because he has broken your laws, given that your country actually has outlawed these kind of actions.

What this resolution states is that one may not arrest someone and keep them in jail purely because of "their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons". One may arrest someone with a religion one disagrees with and a skincolour one does not like if they break the nations law by, for eksample, killing someone or making bombs.

We do hope that this makes this resolution more understandable, and we want to yet again encourage delegates to read through the previous discussions to understand this resolution.

All hail!
Lyn Thorsson
Imperial ambassador to the UN

We condemn your abominable actions. Regarding the torture or 'terrorists', you would have been unable to commit such atrocities - irrespective of the passage of this resolution - thanks to prior UN legislation.


I apologize, I humbly offer my life for The Emperor as we have no such terrorists to torture. I have mispoken. All terrrorists who might have been tortured died during a training incident while being offered a tryout for our own military force....

**Photos of the ritual suicide will be provided to any news organization requesting them**

If I may be so bold as to express an opinion, this bill reduces the scope for malevolent or thoroughly right wing states to exercise their right towards the ill treatment and unjustified apprehension of civilians upon a whim. Why does the house repeatedly disregard the needs of the fascist, nationalist and generally Nazi states of the world?

Sirs,

Upon reviewing your answers and noting the repeated statement that one can punish a person under a duly enacted law, the nations of Dawnfire have requested that We, their delegate, vote in favor of this Resolution.

Written on behalf of her royal Majesty,

Queen Feq.

There are, at times, people, or associations, that for certain reasons must be removed from collective society, for society's, and for their own, good.

Now, sometimes, due to the innherient nature of these organisations, the public eye must be turned away from the matter, that is to say, it is often best for the masses to remain ignorant of what has happened to the heretic, the homosexual, or the just plain annoying.

It is the official stand of the Holy Empire of the Orthodox Synod to vote against this resolution.

Compadria is very much in favour of this resolution, believing it to enhance the sanctity of all people's free-thought. We are dismayed that some nations would not agree with this.

The blessings of our otters are not upon you. For shame.

Long live free Compadria!

Madames and Missures:

Vote against this terrible measure our you will be faced witha threat of a sharp stick in the eye!

Interesting resolution, but Ilklands submits political views be removed from the definition. Political prisoners are a legitimate threat to sensitive societies, and should include anarchists. Since the other merits are positive and these unstable personages are considered mentally ill by Ilkland and sent to known rehabilitation centers -- rather than prisons or jails; Ilkland supports this resolution on behalf of the small region of Redwood.

Supporters of the resolution, you continue to have the gratitude of myself, Ms Yefremova and the Ecopoeian people.


... or set up a system of lawyers etc to be placed globally to fight for these peoples fights for freedom
Now that's something we could have endorsed: an international legal and political organization or commission to fight for the rights of political prisoners, not this silly finger-wagging draconian ban.
Draconian? Hardly. Anyway, we also would support such a measure to supplement this resolution.

Being that we are, by any measure, a "right-wing state" (OOC: and in real life I am considered a "right-winger"), I think not. I simply know the political spectrum. Fascism is right-wing. Racism is simply ignorant.
You stated that the resolution only protected those who espoused views endorsed by the left. You excluded hate speech. I naturally drew the obvious conclusion.

Advocating discriminiation may be despicable, and people who advocate discrimination or hostility toward racial or ethnic minorities may be ignorant, but that does not mean that, outside of advocating violence, they shouldn't have the right to express their views. This proposal may protect "acceptable" political speech, but in effect it allows governments to lock people up simply for thinking incorrectly. And the way you continually misread your own proposal in that regard really concerns me.
You are wrong. I am not misreading the resolution. Yet again, I and most people in my nation agree with you that such people should have the right to express such views. However, we intended this to be a moderate resolution; we have effectively offered a sop to sovereigntists and authoritarians out of a degree of respect for their right to govern as they wish. Compromise in politics is inescapable.

Prior to this resolution, there was no protection. Now there will be a great deal more. If you wish to attempt to extend this protection further, we may well support your efforts but believe you will have little chance of success. We preferred the pragmatic approach.

You've already made the point I was going to make. You realized that the many liberal, socialist, communist, and other left-wing governments that make up the majority of this body couldn't abide a resolution that protected politically incorrect speech as well as politically correct speech -- and even if you just didn't mention hate speech altogether, you'd get questions from these nations demanding to know if the proposal would force them to allow hate speech -- so you included the clause cited above, specifically to appease them.
Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the left and right. I maintain that hates speech can come from the left as well as right. We're appeasing authoritarians rather than libertarians - and I count our nations in the latter's ranks. Incidentally, your use of the term 'liberal' to describe authoritarians (and leftists for that matter) exposes the absurdity of your argument. 'Liberals' would mostly likely wish this resolution to go further. [OOC: Are you using 'liberal' in the American sense of the word? I would regard your nation as 'liberal', but I suspect an American would not. Sorry, this is one of my little bugbears.]

What? That advocating racism is unpopular? In most nations it is, as it surely is in most U.N. nations. Racism is no longer practiced by most democratic governments because the public eventually rejected racist ideals; that is, racism became an unpopular ideology. But it is still an ideology, albeit a discredited and uninformed one, and advocating it, outside of also advocating violence, is every bit as valid a form of protected speech as the acceptable forms this proposal uniquely protects.
Apologies, I believe I may have misunderstood you in your previous post. Now, again, this is an extremely contentious issue for many nations of all stripes. Liberals, authoritarians, conservatives, socialists - the labels matter not since individuals and nations all take differing views on the subject, irrespective of their political affiliation. Omigodtheykilledkenny and Ecopoeia are in agreement that such indivduals should have the right to air such views. However, we are uneasy about imposing this more contentious right on all UN member states. Many, many nations make a distinction that we do not and we are reluctantly acknowledging and respecting this distinction.

This is, I repeat, not a matter of left and right.

I am not pleased, because this proposal irks me in two different ways: 1) It has the audacity to instruct sovereign nations what not to criminalize in their own borders; and 2) It is deliberately tilted toward acceptable speech, and excludes unsavory speech in order to deem itself more acceptable to the left-wing governments comprising the majority of U.N. membership.

Just because I argue the proposal's inconsistency doesn't mean I don't also disapprove of the proposal altogether. (And rest assured I do.)
Fine. I simply feel that your arguments are empty and serve only to distract and misinform. One last time: altering this article to protect all speech would make no discernible difference to the 'leftist' voters. It would, if anything, only antagonise the oppressive, who are at least as likely to be right wing as left wing.

You disapprove altogether, hmm? So, your arguments for protecting the rights of those incite violence are, in essence, a cloak to obscure your actual view that no one should be afforded any sort of protection?

Simply labeling something is not fallacious, and it certainly isn't misleading to suggest that a proposal is "left-wing" because it leaves out a class of speech that certain (left-wing) nations find unwholesome.

And my argument is no more "devalued" or "nonsensical" simply because you refuse to acknowledge that many nations find this proposal flawed, and with good reason.
No, this aspect of your argument is not nonsensical. Your insistence on attaching a left-right dichotomy to it is, however. That was my comment.
Because this Comunistic represntative doesn't like my speech, It (I call it an it for 2 reasons: 1) I can't tell which sex it is most likely because 2) It is a commie) wants my membership bannished from the UN.

Now it is a great thought to have every conservative and even centrist nation to just give up and leave this group of commies that want everybody to be like them, but I stay with hopes to see more conservatism in the UN and to be a thorn in the flesh of those such as the representative of roadp
Leftist nations don't vote en masse in a co-ordinated fashion. We do not condone the ROADP delegate's comments and have no wish to be associated with them.

The City by the Live Sea welcomes anyone, without prejudice of skin color, sexual preferences, or pursuits in worshipping (as long as it does not effect anyone elses pursuit in happiness--such as enjoying a clambake).

The City by the Live Sea will indeed incarcinate and bring about a fitting death penalty to those that cause the termination of others trying to pursuit their own happiness (this time, as long as that pursuit does not cause harm to other citizens).

So what I am saying is that if someone (lets call her Ms Commie) steals all the clams from a Clambake and Ms. Commie happens to be blue-skinned. I don't want her to scream that she is a prisoner of Conscious because she is being punished not for being a Gobling, but for denying the right of others to their pursuit of happiness
In other words, this resolution would rightly have no bearing on your course of action. You see, she would not be a prisoner of conscience, no matter her protestations.

Good grief. Is this really so hard to grasp?

I, Ambassador Kalil J'Thor of the Holy Empire of Xeth, speaking for the Holy Emperor and his servants, wish to express my dismay at this ill-thought out resolution. While its ideals are noble, in practice it will serve as a legal shield for extremists who claim that their words of hatred and intolerance are protected by religious freedom of conscience laws. This bill would also prevent the pre-emptive detainment of known trouble-makers during critical times. As those nations that are disrespectful of human rights surely will find means to work around the law, this resolution does nothing to enhance human rights, and shackles the hands of those governments willing and able to practice self-restraint and judicious use of accepted crime-fighting and intelligence techniques.
Interesting. This utterly contradicts the statements made by the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny. So, does it protect hate speech or not? I wish you lot would make your minds up.

See, I can assume that all the people on one side of the argument think alike, too.

Ambassador, the 'extremists' in question may claim that they are covered under this resolution, but it sounds to me that they would have no such protection.

Yup that's what I meant, because now their views aren't allowed.
I trust the delegate of Enn's response has helped you understand the resolution better.

As the resolution indeed forbids government to emprison anyone "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" it explicitly condones emprisonment (or detention) for exactly those reasons.
My emphasis. Not explicit, but your points are otherwise well made.

If you have any prisoners of conscience as defined by this proposal, then they aren't likely to cause trouble for you. Because they'd have been arrested purely on the basis of skin colour, or religion, or something else entirely arbitrary, not for any real crime. If they have been accused of actual crimes, then you do not have to release them. Is that clear? this was posted by Enn.

So according to him all my government has to do is convict them of real crime/s and hey presto there back in jail and theres nothing that the UN can do to stop me. So all i need to find is my eraser and pen, thanks Enn.
Assuming of course that they are convicted in a fair trial. You will have to do better than reach for your eraser and pen.

If I may be so bold as to express an opinion, this bill reduces the scope for malevolent or thoroughly right wing states to exercise their right towards the ill treatment and unjustified apprehension of civilians upon a whim. Why does the house repeatedly disregard the needs of the fascist, nationalist and generally Nazi states of the world?
I make no apologies for thwarting your attempts at oppression.

Sirs,

Upon reviewing your answers and noting the repeated statement that one can punish a person under a duly enacted law, the nations of Dawnfire have requested that We, their delegate, vote in favor of this Resolution.

Written on behalf of her royal Majesty,

Queen Feq.
Many thanks, your support is greatly appreciated.

There are, at times, people, or associations, that for certain reasons must be removed from collective society, for society's, and for their own, good.

Now, sometimes, due to the innherient nature of these organisations, the public eye must be turned away from the matter, that is to say, it is often best for the masses to remain ignorant of what has happened to the heretic, the homosexual, or the just plain annoying.

It is the official stand of the Holy Empire of the Orthodox Synod to vote against this resolution.
Excellent, more oppression thwarted.

MV

From His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland, to Her Royal Majesty, the Queen of Feq, in re:

Sirs,

Upon reviewing your answers and noting the repeated statement that one can punish a person under a duly enacted law, the nations of Dawnfire have requested that We, their delegate, vote in favor of this Resolution.

Written on behalf of her royal Majesty,

Queen Feq.

The Prince of Ausserland congratulates his royal cousin of Feq and the member nations of her region on their wise decision in this matter. He further expresses his admiration for their careful attention to and thoughtful consideration of the debate on the issue.

By direction of His Royal Highness:
Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the United Nations

Pardon me, Mr. Vergniaud, but at this time we intend to stand aside and allow the final stream of delegates to cast their votes. We congratulate the Cloud-water Community of Ecopoeia on a well-managed debate as well as the imminent passage of this legislation. It has indeed been an honor to serve as a leader of the opposition in this discussion.[OOC: Are you using 'liberal' in the American sense of the word? I would regard your nation as 'liberal', but I suspect an American would not. Sorry, this is one of my little bugbears.]OOC: Yes, and indeed, it is likely the crux of our misunderstanding.

While the final votes are being cast, please allow me to personally congratulate the delegation from Ecopoeia for thier efforts. You have done a supurb job of defending a worthy resolution.

My Community's executive council has empowered me to bestow upon you, in recognition of your great efforts to protect human rights and civil liberties in nations everywhere, the title of Order of the Platypus, Class 2. [presents the delegates with medals] It is the highest classification awarded by the executive office that may be given to a foreign national. Furthermore, know that The Community of the Frozen Chosen will always welcome you with open arms as our honored guests.

Thank you once again for your efforts.

Mark Heln
UN Delegate

Assuming of course that they are convicted in a fair trial. You will have to do better than reach for your eraser and pen.


MV

Fair trial now your opening a whole different kettle of fish and while browsing through my legal papers just the other day i found a nice loop hole in my law letting me change the documents of prisoners through only by the vote of my people. So i got my pen and eraser ready.

Fair trial now your opening a whole different kettle of fish and while browsing through my legal papers just the other day i found a nice loop hole in my law letting me change the documents of prisoners through only by the vote of my people. So i got my pen and eraser ready.
Please forgive me if I remain sceptical.

Pardon me, Mr. Vergniaud, but at this time we intend to stand aside and allow the final stream of delegates to cast their votes. We congratulate the Cloud-water Community of Ecopoeia on a well-managed debate as well as the imminent passage of this legislation. It has indeed been an honor to serve as a leader of the opposition in this discussion.OOC: Yes, and indeed, it is likely the crux of our misunderstanding.
On behalf of my Deputy, I offer my sincere thanks for your kind words.

[OOC: I thought as much. And the thanks really is sincere - I've particularly enjoyed your contributions to the discussion. I've really been kept on my toes.]

While the final votes are being cast, please allow me to personally congratulate the delegation from Ecopoeia for thier efforts. You have done a supurb job of defending a worthy resolution.

My Community's executive council has empowered me to bestow upon you, in recognition of your great efforts to protect human rights and civil liberties in nations everywhere, the title of Order of the Platypus, Class 2. [presents the delegates with medals] It is the highest classification awarded by the executive office that may be given to a foreign national. Furthermore, know that The Community of the Frozen Chosen will always welcome you with open arms as our honored guests.

Thank you once again for your efforts.

Mark Heln
UN Delegate
We deeply touched by your generosity; personally, I feel that we would have failed the UN community had we not taken the time to respond to all points raised. My only regret is that we were unable to assuage all concerns. I will say that, while discussion has on occasions been a little heated, I believe the conduct of delegates in this debate has been mostly exemplary.

Again, heartfelt thanks, Delegate Heln.

VY

We should be able to harshly rule over our own people without argument. If your in a region that does not let you have freedom of conscience that move to one that does. Why make all this fuss over something so trivial.

We should be able to harshly rule over our own people without argument. If your in a region that does not let you have freedom of conscience that move to one that does. Why make all this fuss over something so trivial.
Trivial? Try being arrested for expressing your views and then tell me these rights are trivial.

MV

Compadria wishes to present a gift of (synthetic) otter pelts to Ecopoeia, in light of this excellent resolution and their tireless work in passing it.

Long live free Compadria (and Ecopoeia).

The United Socialist States of Shirrad wholly supports this proposal and would like to send our compliments to our comrades in Ecopoeia for this excellent resolution.

Many thanks to Compadria and Shirrad. The otter pelts are lovely.

VY

Compadria is very much in favour of this resolution, believing it to enhance the sanctity of all people's free-thought. We are dismayed that some nations would not agree with this.

The blessings of our otters are not upon you. For shame.We need not the blessings of your otters. Our corporate sponsors care for us.

This is the worst idea in the sad shameful history of this organization. The UN now deems itself worthy of telling member states how to run their nations to the point of who is or is not a threat. What if if our conscience and belief demands that blasphemy against our God or Government is political violence against our security and country? What gives the UN the right to denounce that. I say that this should be amended at least to say that if you want us to release prisoners of "conscience" that you volunteer to take them when we expel them from our lands. Why is it that we must free those that we see as threats and let them roam free? Perhaps the "freedom" lovers would like the agitators to come inhabit their nations and protest their views.

This is the worst idea in the sad shameful history of this organization. The UN now deems itself worthy of telling member states how to run their nations to the point of who is or is not a threat. What if if our conscience and belief demands that blasphemy against our God or Government is political violence against our security and country? What gives the UN the right to denounce that. I say that this should be amended at least to say that if you want us to release prisoners of "conscience" that you volunteer to take them when we expel them from our lands. Why is it that we must free those that we see as threats and let them roam free? Perhaps the "freedom" lovers would like the agitators to come inhabit their nations and protest their views.
Blasphemy is among the most nonsensical of all legal concepts. I feel no sympathy for you. Neither do I have any time for your hyperbole.

MV

We congratulate The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia on the imminent passage of this worthy resolution.

Blasphemy is among the most nonsensical of all legal concepts. I feel no sympathy for you. Neither do I have any time for your hyperbole.

MV

So I should govern based on your subjective perception? Hey guess what good sir. You have your own nation which you can run as you see fit. Why do you insist upon forcing everyone else to bow down to your perception of reality? What kind of sick twisted tyrant are you?

So I should govern based on your subjective perception? Hey guess what good sir. You have your own nation which you can run as you see fit. Why do you insist upon forcing everyone else to bow down to your perception of reality? What kind of sick twisted tyrant are you?

I agree whole heartedly but i think that even now it is too late to sway the other members of the UN, i fear that resolutions such as this are taking power away from our countries and giving it to the UN. Which in my oppinion is dangerous as this leads to thoses in control of the UN controlling the world and all it would take is another hitler and the world would be screwed.

<snip> Which in my oppinion is dangerous as this leads to thoses in control of the UN controlling the world <snip>
And who are these nations that you feel control the UN?

We need not the blessings of your otters. Our corporate sponsors care for us.

I fear you underestimate the corporate power of our otters.

So I should govern based on your subjective perception? Hey guess what good sir. You have your own nation which you can run as you see fit. Why do you insist upon forcing everyone else to bow down to your perception of reality? What kind of sick twisted tyrant are you?
Please note that Mathieu was freely expressing his own views and not necessarily those of the nation of Ecopoeia. I must say, however, that I find your use of the word 'tyrant' somewhat ironic inder the circumstances.

For your information:

The resolution Freedom of Conscience was passed 9,892 votes to 4,179, and implemented in all UN member nations.

I humbly submit that this is a triumph for human rights. My deepest gratitude to those who voted in favour and argued for the resolution in these halls. My thanks also to those who clearly and honestly stated their objections. It is my sincere hope that your fears are not realised and that this resolution is looked on kindly by history.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm retiring to the Strangers' Bar for some celebratory drinks.

Varia Yefremova (VY)
Speaker to the UN
The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia

The Community of Espes wishes to congratulate the Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia on the passing of this much-needed resolution.

To those who voted against, the United Nationas is an organisation, and as an organisation there will be a goal and a "subjective perception of reality", if you wish to run your nation according to a different "subjective perception of reality" you have it in your power to leave this organisation.


-the Community of Espes- :D

I am sadened at the result as i hoped it would not have gone this way, oh well, im just goin to do a little er spring cleaning (yes thats a good term).

Congratulations Ecopoeia :).

Ausserland congratulates the distinguished representatives from the Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia for their excellent efforts in obtaining passage of this resolution.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Commonwealth of Kayros congratulates the nation of Ecopoeia and the entire United Nations for passing this resolution.

- K. Martin, Ambassador to the United Nations
- The Commonwealth of Kayros

My heartiest congratulations to both Varia and Mathieu. A fine proposal, nay, resolution, and you ably defended it against all comers. I'll be seeing you in the Strangers' Bar.

Stephanie Fulton,
Ennish Consul to the UN.

The Queendom of Anarane Melwasul will support this resolution. Well thought out argument, put forth in a very organized and clearly stated way. You will have our backing on this.

OOC:

*murmurs shyly*

Um, lovely moddies... I think this was a pretty good debate, as resolution discussion threads go. Is it worthy of archiving? Apologies if this is a bit arrogant or presumptious.

*shuffles off*