NationStates Jolt Archive

hi I'm new to this game but love it.. I was wondering how I can submit proposals because I don't know how to get endorsements.. =/

here it is, btw:

1

The United Nations, Fall, 2005

NOTING that..
- extremism is the prerequisite to radicalism.
- radicalism has claimed many lives in this past decade.
- international terrorism has been on the rise.
- negotiations with ideological terrorists is impossible.
- poverty is high in countries that are riddled by radicalism

DRAWS that..
- hate speeches further terrorism.
- hate speeches often are publicly and socially accepted in 3rd world countries.
- hate speeches abuse religion, ideologies, social states and other factors to fuel and further radical ideologies.
- poverty contributes to radicalism and terrorism

ACKNOWLEDGING that..
- a ban on such material would slightly suffer civil liberty scores
- a ban on such material would greatly improve the international security of our nations
- a ban on such material would further democracy
- a ban on such material would protect minorities from a radical mobocracy
- financial help to radical countries risks the proliferation of weapons
- financial help to radical countries would draw funds out of modern treasuries
- financial help would ensure international safety and stability

DEMANDS that..
- All nations pay a flat amount of 0.1% of their national tax income to poor nations.
STRESSING that this money be monitored by UN Security Forces to ensure that it is spent on security and humanitarian aid

DEMANDS that..
- An international ban on hate-speeches be enplaced and enforced
STRESSING that this ban is supervised by the United Nations and ensured not to be abused.

hi I'm new to this game but love it.. I was wondering how I can submit proposals because I don't know how to get endorsements.. =/

Endorsements are given by people within your region who are members of the UN. Just ask for two people to give you endorsements and (especially if you're in a large region) you'll probably get it.

here it is, btw:

Alright, here's my conclusions:
http://img112.echo.cx/img112/7448/illegalproposal2yd.jpg

I also think that this one applies, but I'm not positive
http://img77.echo.cx/img77/4139/theredundancycard8bg.jpg

But, I'm not cruel enough just to leave you with two cards, details to follow

1

Title needs to be relevant to resolution. "1" doesn't make any sense (unless this is first draft)

The United Nations, Fall, 2005

Kill

NOTING that..
- extremism is the prerequisite to radicalism.
- radicalism has claimed many lives in this past decade.
- international terrorism has been on the rise.
- negotiations with ideological terrorists is impossible.
- poverty is high in countries that are riddled by radicalism

(mutters something about the US)

DRAWS that..
- hate speeches further terrorism.
- hate speeches often are publicly and socially accepted in 3rd world countries.

Hate speeches are often publicly and socially accepted in some industrialized countries - if they're homosexuals

- hate speeches abuse religion, ideologies, social states and other factors to fuel and further radical ideologies.
- poverty contributes to radicalism and terrorism

ACKNOWLEDGING that..
- a ban on such material would slightly suffer civil liberty scores
- a ban on such material would greatly improve the international security of our nations
- a ban on such material would further democracy
- a ban on such material would protect minorities from a radical mobocracy

I think that it's been done - but I'm not positive (I know the right to ban that material has been protected)

- financial help to radical countries risks the proliferation of weapons
- financial help to radical countries would draw funds out of modern treasuries
- financial help would ensure international safety and stability

False. They finally stopped funnelling money into Zimbabwe because it was quite clear that the financial help was just sustaining a corrupt government that was beating white land owners. Several dictatorships are known for holding onto any financial aid rather than giving it to their people.

DEMANDS that..
- All nations pay a flat amount of 0.1% of their national tax income to poor nations.
STRESSING that this money be monitored by UN Security Forces to ensure that it is spent on security and humanitarian aid

Illegal - the UN has no security force and is not allowed (by Hackian Laws) to create one.

DEMANDS that..
- An international ban on hate-speeches be enplaced and enforced
STRESSING that this ban is supervised by the United Nations and ensured not to be abused.

Like I said, I think that's been done.

------------------

I do like your style

DRAWS that..
- hate speeches further terrorism.
- hate speeches often are publicly and socially accepted in 3rd world countries.
- hate speeches abuse religion, ideologies, social states and other factors to fuel and further radical ideologies.
Are you talking about hate speech, or hate speeches (orations, addresses)? I'll assume you mean hate speech and if so that plural form doesn't sound right. Change it to:

DRAWS that..
- hate speech furthers terrorism.
- hate speech often is publicly and socially accepted in 3rd world countries.
- hate speech abuses religion, ideologies, social states and other factors to fuel and further radical ideologies.

speech doesn't make sense - plus discussions between two people - they can be as hate filled as they want because quite frankly, I'm not interested in monitoring what anyone says on a day to day business (and actually, I would oppose such an action under a "No Big Brother" campaign slogan). Speeches, on the other hand, I consider monitorable and not out of line to monitor

speech doesn't make sense - plus discussions between two people - they can be as hate filled as they want because quite frankly, I'm not interested in monitoring what anyone says on a day to day business (and actually, I would oppose such an action under a "No Big Brother" campaign slogan). Speeches, on the other hand, I consider monitorable and not out of line to monitor
True. I wasn't sure if he meant "speech" or "orations".

We are deeply troubled by this proposal.

First, the implication that radicalism is necessarily a bad thing, and necessarily linked to intolerance and terrorism. Radical political ideologies are merely ones which differ markedly from the norm and advocate fundamental or significant changes to the current state of affairs, whatever that might be. This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, in many of the less progressive societies which this proposal seems to be trying to deal with, tolerance (whether of different races, different beliefs, or different lifestyles) is itself radical when taken in the context of the rest of the society.

Second, the destruction of freedom of speech that is proposed is disgusting. Specifically, the assertion that a ban on expressing certain opinions would "further democracy" is absurd. Free exchange of opinions must be allowed - we cannot stifle ideas just because we find them appalling or because we believe they are linked to acts of violence and oppression. Quite apart from the affront to liberty, suppression of hate speech simply isn't a good way to deal with it. People will continue to hold and spread these opinions, and terrorist organisations will continue to recruit and indoctrinate new members in secret as they have always done. But there will be more venom, more anger, and claims of subjugation and imperialism will have more weight, more justification and more persuasive power. And by forcibly excluding extremist ideas from debate and thus from any legitimate political processes, you further feelings of frustration and powerlessness and encourage people to resort to other, less acceptable means of conveying their points (OOC: e.g. I'd rather that the BNP can stand in UK elections than have them forced underground).

Third, you have left hate speech completely undefined, allowing for all kinds of abuses and misinterpretations. Nations could use this legislation to help justify a ban on criticism of their leaders, or on hatred of the government's political agenda, or on hatred of cheese.

Fourth, you have specified no details on how these donations are to be distributed, and the specification of humanitarian or security is vague. An unscrupulous dictator could legitimately spend the money further arming his secret police. You've also ignored the fact that if aid is donated to non-UN nations (the proposal currently simply requires donations to any poor nations), the UN cannot control how the money is spent.

Finally, the assertion that negotiations with ideological terrorists is impossible. This is quite simply untrue. OOC: Although I am not nearly as knowlegable about Northern Ireland and the IRA as I ought to be, I do know that discussion and negotiation over the years has seen substantial progress.

It is important to remember that, whilst most of the demands of terrorists are not ones which should be fulfilled, in the absence of any real and legitimate grievances terrorist groups would be much less successful at recruiting support than many now are.