NationStates Jolt Archive

In the same spirit as the recent spate of 'why single out whales, dolphins, humans etc', Bahgum has noticed that for many nations, there is a hole in the coverage of equal trading rights. As such the Nation of Bahgum has the following draft proposal (almost ready for submission):

Fair Trading for Partners.

Preamble & issues: It is common practice in many warmer countries to trade in the precious commodity of wives. However this trade is largely unregulated and a timely intervention by a binding proposal could solve a number of inherent problems. These are:
1) The locally accepted currency for wives has traditionally been the camel. leading to an unfair advantage to warmer countries.
2) The practice is discriminatory to none-married partners, as well as ignoring same-sex issues.
3) No regulations cover trade description, leading to possible misstrading of wives and accompanying unknown mother in law issues.

Actions
In order to tackle the points above:
1) Wives and partners to be pegged against the leading world currencies. This should also help alleviate pressures on the worlds camel stocks, as well as remove the unpleasant whiff of camel from a partners 'big day'.
2) Trading should be stipulated to be in partners, not wives, so as to correctly update this trade with modern times.
3) Each, trade should be accompanied with signed documentation of extra features, including a Mother in Law appraisal.

Extra additions to this resolution proposal can and should be debated as and when the need arises......

Um....ban trading of persons (or whatever that incoherent resolution was called) anyone?

We had a problem like this of trading our women... The war came along and gave them a little advantage over men population wise.. Thus we had to come to some common ground and all trading in humans, man or woman wise,.. as they wanted to trade men.. since they had the majority... Today we men rule with a gentle hand, only because there are more women here thus they have more hands to keep us..... So for the sack of my own sanity and healt I must not support you on this..

?
Avant-garde at the least. To treat it seriously, which may or may not be the bigger mistake!

- You should maybe remove ALL references to 'wives' and deal exclusivley in terms of 'life-partner'.
-Maybe include an article on ensuring that the item for sale... ahem, excuse me, the potential life partner... should also be a willing signatory to the 'contract' to avoid issues with slavery, human trafficking etc.
-To avoid offending cultural sensitivities, allow traditional modes of barter to continue as they are, provided that the equivalent cost of the animals used (which you should note is generally camels in middle-eastern countries, a larger proportion includes business assets/goats etc. in countries such as traditionally done in India and elsewhere, though this should not be directly mentioned as it could be a violation of the real-world reference rule) is in line with the market price.

Any help?!

OOC: one of your finest, Bahgum!

Hmm - wife trading you say? - sounds like the definition of marraige act to me


OOC: Anyone else thinking of "the league of gentlemen's Papa Lazarou "You're my wife now!!"

OOC: one of your finest, Bahgum!

OOC: Agreed. Made me smile, it did. :)

The honourable nations suggestion to use the term 'life partners' is very useful, sickeningly politically correct, but a must do for the proposal. And thank you for mentioning goats, how could we have forgotten? There is a whole unfair advantage to mountainous regions to contend with now!
Bahgum thanks those nations for kind words, and asks the question 'is this proposal technically legal'? Not sure we care, but thought it may be a fun question to ask *wink*.

Baghum, this is a fine proposal. I salute you!

:salutes:

:D

Bahgum, I must take issue with you on clause (2) of your preamble, specifically the statement, "The practice is discriminatory to none-married partners ...".

(a) Do you mean 'non-married' partners?

(b) If so, does 'non-married' mean 'not currently married' or 'never married'? Also, should you not draw a distinction between 'married' (ie, joined by some form of legally recognised civil or religious ceremony) and 'partnered' (ie, having entered a partnership that may exist de facto, but differs from those that exist de jure, either in absolute terms of recognition or in terms of differing civil, legal or political rights)?

Furthermore, this resolution gives rise to the following caveats:

[1]I feel that a sub-committee should be established as a matter of urgency to categorise, sub-categorise, regularise, regulate, legislate, communicate and examine the terminology employed. The term "pre-loved" may well be more appropriate, though considerations of accuracy must not be forgotten.

[2]The existence and extent of appurtenances such as in-laws, children, siblings, pets and inheritances (whether physical or financial) might well be considered part of the trade description. It may be necessary to discuss whether descriptions such as "proven performer" or "immensely popular" lend themselves to appropriate classification under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Reet, lad. Reckon I've given 'ee enough gobbledegook to show I'm takin' it seriously. Now let's tak oorsels off ter t'rubbity-dub.

Why aren't humans included in other things

Because Humans Hate Humans!

How often have we watched a tv show where thousands of people get killed in a horrible disaster? we watch unfased by the carnage, our only concern that the doggie makes it to safety. he makes it just in time and we take a sigh of relief! theres Human wreckage every where but hey its ok! The Dog Made it. :D

Well, that's hardly suprising. After all, the average dog is much more likeable than the average human. Damn primates.

Say, is there any way that we could abuse this proposal to create a giant wife bubble? I'm really interested in trying out some unethical business practices, and the potential for a U.N.-created world financial panic seems like a damn lot of fun.

Why pick on giant wives, little ones are good for trading too?