NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING that the votes for the passing of Resolution #115 were almost double of the votes aginst.

REGRETS that most of the votes were proberbly from nations who did not read the proposal or just skimmed through the proposal and just voted yes.

ARGUES that Resolution #115 is a direct threat to the security of every nation and that no nation can prosocute those involved in crimes such as Murder, Terrorism and Treason.

AGAIN ARGUES that any citizen arrested for any crime could, under Resolution #115, use the excuse that they believed the crime was the correct thing to do in their "conscience" or they were doing their crime for their religion or beliefs.

EMPHASISES that unless this resolution is repealed EVERY UN Nation cannot prosocute dangerous criminals and is at threat from terrorist attacks and can do nothing about it.

REALISING that this resolution was designed to protect those from repressive governments REGRETS that others would use this as a form of defense.

ASKS that this resolution be repealed for the good of all UN citizens.

From The Office Of President Of the Extraterrestrial Democracy of United States of Mars.

Above is my proposal to repeal the recent UN Proposal #115. Anyone who read the proposal must realise that by passing this proposal, criminals can use "conscience" or "religion" etc. as an excuse for their crimes. This would mean that Terrorists could not be arrested and neither could murders, rapists, pedophiles, in fact ANY CRIMINAL.

Please, for the good of every UN Citizen, UN Delegates, please endorse this proposal.

Err, you are saying that most people who voted for it did not read the resolution throughly, but did you read the resolution?
When I read it, I see that it has specifically defined a prisoner of conscience so that one can still arrest dangerous criminals.
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

Alright, let's bring the resolution in question onto this thread....

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.

And now to disprove the repeal:

NOTING that the votes for the passing of Resolution #115 were almost double of the votes aginst.

REGRETS that most of the votes were proberbly from nations who did not read the proposal or just skimmed through the proposal and just voted yes.

Making it one of the better resolutions as of late. If you are seriously using "laziness" as your argument, let's repeal every resolution on the books

ARGUES that Resolution #115 is a direct threat to the security of every nation and that no nation can prosocute those involved in crimes such as Murder, Terrorism and Treason.

Point one says that a prisoner of conscious is one that does not incite or use violence with their actions or beliefs. Terrorism and murder both fall under that category. Certain forms of treason likewise fall under that category.

How is this distinguished? If you're an American living in America, and you start complaining about America and wishing that the country would collapse so that it would stop being such an imperialistic nation, you are merely stating an opinion. By some standards, it is treasonous - but you are not inciting violence whatsoever (perhaps dissent), and thus your beliefs are valid and you should not be punished. If, however, you start telling people that they should all meet up and head over to the white house armed with several explosives.....THEN you are a terrorist, you are inciting violence and should be arrested for such a crime (and this act does not prevent it).

AGAIN ARGUES that any citizen arrested for any crime could, under Resolution #115, use the excuse that they believed the crime was the correct thing to do in their "conscience" or they were doing their crime for their religion or beliefs.

If you are arrested for robbing a bank, you're arrested for robbing a bank, not because you believe that God thinks it's your divine right to the money in that bank.

EMPHASISES that unless this resolution is repealed EVERY UN Nation cannot prosocute dangerous criminals and is at threat from terrorist attacks and can do nothing about it.

BS - already addressed

REALISING that this resolution was designed to protect those from repressive governments REGRETS that others would use this as a form of defense.

Quite frankly: "I would rather a guilty man be allowed to walk free than to see an innocent man go to jail". If you can find me an actual example that PROPERLY analyzes this resolution and finds a TRUE loophole where a man who would normally be sent to jail would be allowed to walk free, I might reconsider

ASKS that this resolution be repealed for the good of all UN citizens.

From The Office Of President Of the Extraterrestrial Democracy of United States of Mars.

And I shall respond with a "no"

Deleted for branding.

OOC: That was quick. I'm slightly disappointed - I would have hoped for a repeal of greater quality.

Deleted for branding.

Meh it's your decision. PS, what's branding. Just for future reference.

Err, you are saying that most people who voted for it did not read the resolution throughly, but did you read the resolution?
When I read it, I see that it has specifically defined a prisoner of conscience so that one can still arrest dangerous criminals.

Well if you read into it you will realise that the resolution doesn't actually stop at stating what counts as conscience.

Meh it's your decision. PS, what's branding. Just for future reference.
Branding is when you put your nations name into the actual text of your proposal/repeal. Your name is already listed, there's no need to write it again, and comes off as being arrogant or at least smug. It's listed in the Rules for UN Proposals, which you should read before submitting.

']Branding

Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of...").

Well if you read into it you will realise that the resolution doesn't actually stop at stating what counts as conscience.

Um....how?