NationStates Jolt Archive

This proposal is cancelled.


I made one very important mistake and now I have to re submit it again. Sorry to bother you guys. The proposal will be resubmitted in a few days.

Just out of curiosity, how long are you going to keep grinding this axe?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Till it is passed. And dont tell me there is already an "issue" like this one, U.N resolutions are seperated from "daily issues." I am happy with my proposal and I am committed to have it passed.

But what you obviously (purposly) fail to see is that it's REDUNDANT, even a mod has told you that and you still completly ignore that unchangeable (or at least not easily changeable) fact.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

So are you saying I am NOT allowed to propose this? I also have to disagree with you. It is not redundant to me and I dont see how it is redundant. I thought U.N resolutions are seperated from "daily issues." Also, there are other things included in this resolution that are not mentioned on the "genderqueer" issue. And I dont understand your hostility nor do I appreciate it.

So are you saying I am NOT allowed to propose this?I'm not saying that you can't propose it, I'm just saying that this is covered under previously passed resolutions.
I also have to disagree with you. It is not redundant to me and I dont see how it is redundant.Perhaps this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9485755&postcount=6) will show you how it's redundant.
I thought U.N resolutions are seperated from "daily issues." Also, there are other things included in this resolution that are not mentioned on the "genderqueer" issue.
Yes resolutions can deal with the same things as the daily issues, but I'm not talking about the daily issues, the only reason I brought the issue on this topic up is because Groot Gouda was suggesting that you write this as an issue instead of a UN resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Perhaps you should read this:


you are not the first one to complain about this and unfortunately you wont be the last one. But fortunately, heres a thread that will explain it to you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=439041&highlight=duplication

Perhaps you should read this:


you are not the first one to complain about this and unfortunately you wont be the last one. But fortunately, heres a thread that will explain it to you.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=439041&highlight=duplication
Good, maybe if enough people do complain then this proposal will never see the floor.

Bob Flibble
Slightly annoyed UN Representative

I am hopeful that most people can tell the differences between sexes and gender identities and will realise that this resolution is not redundant.


:)

Yeah, and I'm hopeful that most people can read the passed resolution and understand that this
Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.
Applies to everyone reguardless of gender, sex, gender identity, whatever you want to fucking call it. :headbang:

The now royally pissed off
Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I think Forgotten Land's quote might be able to explain a concept to you: "Equal under the law means they are not to be discriminated against by the state - makes no consideration for the actual general populace"


And treated equally under the law..? What if a state doesnt allow freedom of gender expression and lock trannies up in a prison ? what rights would they have than? Wow, what a concept.

And I am happy that you have given up on quoting from the Sexes right Law , you are beginning to understand. Good job!

You know I was going to reply but then I decided, fuck this shit, I'm getting a drink.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well, you take care.

Well, you take care.
If I'm remembering correctly, second attempts at failed legislation don'thave a great track record in the UN. Death Penalty Legislation was voted down, and not one since has come to quorum. Nuclear bans have been repeatedly voted down, and that ended up having a resolution "going the other way" (Nuclear Armaments).

Don't get me wrong, there have been successful re-furbishings of failed or repealed resolutions. Or at least, ideas have been recycled from failed resolutions. The Nuclear Terrorism Act was originally inspired from a nuclear ban that never met quorum. The Global Library was passed, repealed and a new piece of legislation was put in place, passing fairly comfortably. Same thing with Legalize Prostitution, its repeal and replacement. Eventually, I hope, NSoT would be another notch for repeal and replacement.

Failure or Repeal of a resolution doesn't doom it or its subject. But my experience has indicated it signals a need for major restructuring. And, ususally, a fairly lengthy interim period between submissions.

Well, I think you also have to take into consideration that the last resolution had 49 percent of the support. My resolution has been restructured greatly and i have taken consideration of many different opinons. I really sincerely believe that most people will do the right thing and support this proposal.

After reading what kind of comments Agnostic Deeishpeople get on this thread, we just would like to express all the support they can get from the Republic of Cally24. It is right to do what you're trying to do with this resolution! Not loosing your temper and your trust in the UN when you are confronted with so much comments not expressing at least some respect for what you are trying to do (in this thread and others) makes a real rolemodel out of you to us!

Well, I think you also have to take into consideration that the last resolution had 49 percent of the support. My resolution has been restructured greatly and i have taken consideration of many different opinons. I'm still not sure you spent enough time with the fundamentals of the bill. But, I didn't participate in the discussions, so I really shouldn't be criticizing

I really sincerely believe that most people will do the right thing and support this proposal.Heh. Strangely, I have a feeling that most players who oppose this "really sincerely believe that most people will do the right thing and Vote Down this proposal". ;)

Asking all U.N delegates to please support this proposal!

Please don't, it's a bad proposal!


Believing that human right is rooted in the belief of human dignity; everyone deserves to be treated with dignity regardless of their gender identity and/or expression.

So why make such a deal of it?

Recognizes that Gender Dysphoria, also known as Gender Identity Disorder, is a recognized psychological condition that can be diagnosed by Mental Health Professionals

Please leave the medical stuff up to the doctors. This has no place in a UN resolution. What if medical insights change?

Convinced than adults who are diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria should have the right to seek for different types of treatment.

No, *everyone* has.

Article 1: Everyone has the legal right to express their genders freely without unreasonable interference from the state.

Article 2:

1.) Gender Identity and/or Expression alone are not grounds for any form of discrimination in the work place unless such identity/expression are clearly proven to preclude satisfactory performance of required duties; Discrimination includes, but is not limited to, unequal treatment in hiring, training, promotion and termination, be the source from other employees or employer(s).

Discrimination is already forbidden.

Article 4:

A.) The U.N is neutral on the subject of sex reassignment treatments; however, sex reassignment treatments must be legal options available to people diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria by mental health professionals.

Micromanagement. Don't do that.

B.) U.N countries reserve the right to determine the source of funding for sex reassignment treatments.

Good. So if a nation doesn't like this, it just makes the treatment extremely expensive.

C.) Health insurance companies do not have to include coverage for sex reassignment treatments but must not discriminate people simply because of their gender identity and/or expression.

They don't because discrimination is already forbidden.

D.)Gender identity and/or Expression alone are not justifiable grounds for hospitals and health care providers to refuse appropriate medical treatments to patients whose lives are at immediate risk.

Micromanagement again. Why do we need to put this in UN law?

Article 6:

Urges:

A.) Member nations to consider putting pre operative transsexuals in isolated cells if their personal safety are in danger.

Oh great. Now you're allowing nations to lock up transsexuals.

B.) Member nations to accommodate gender diversity if they haven’t already.

Man - woman is diverse.

Article 7: If any member nation has rights and protections that go beyond those enlisted in this resolution, the Gender Freedom Law will not remove them.

Of course not.

Your resolution is either micromanaging, which is undesirable, or a plain duplicate of other resolutions. Also, the loopholes will allow any terror nations are committing now to transgenders continue, or open up possibilities that where hitherto forbidden under UN law.

Not loosing your temper and your trust in the UN when you are confronted with so much comments not expressing at least some respect for what you are trying to do (in this thread and others) makes a real rolemodel out of you to us!

Yeah, great rolemodel. Someone polluting the UN with pointless resolutions on issue already covered by earlier resolutions, ignoring criticism and just proposing this because of some personal issue, refusing to see the wider scope of the UN, ignoring advice...

Wish all people in the UN were like that.

No really. The supporters of this resolutions are taking this too personal. They don't care about the UN, just about their little issue. The UN is just a vehicle for whatever you consider important, and it doesn't matter that previous resolutions have already covered this, it just matters that this crappy resolution with your name on it appears in the resolution list.

Oh crap.

Member nations to consider putting pre operative transsexuals in isolated cells if their personal safety are in danger.

:(

I cant believe i forgot to put the word "inmate" at the end of "pre operative transsexuals"

I will have to submit it again.

No really. The supporters of this resolutions are taking this too personal. They don't care about the UN, just about their little issue. The UN is just a vehicle for whatever you consider important, and it doesn't matter that previous resolutions have already covered this, it just matters that this crappy resolution with your name on it appears in the resolution list.

How can you say that? You don't even know half of the supporters. YOU think the resolution is crappy, that doesn't make it crappy. YOU think the ground it tries to cover in the UN is already covered. I DON'T! It would be absolutely GROUNDBREAKING on a social point of view if this resolution would pass. So don't tell me past UN-resolution already cover this! I care about this little issue and it isn't mine. Now don't tell me that, therefore, I don't care about the UN. You don't know who you're judging here, so simply don't!

This bill has NO place before the UN, as it is about as redundant as it can possibly get. I draw the attention of the Right Honourable Representative of the proposing nation's attention to the following pre-exisiting bills:

The Sexes Rights Law-which already cover most of what you want.
The Universal Bill of Rights-which cover alot of what you're calling for.
Freedom of Conscience Bill-which if applied correctly provides additional protection.

Nations which follow UN law, have already banned all forms of discrimination. Why then do we need this one? What is the purpose of re-distributing guarnteed rights, that are already enforced?

We urge the proposing power to re-issue this resolution in the form of a daily issue, so that each nation by conscience, according to their own traditions, and morality may vote.

We urge the proposing power to re-issue this resolution in the form of a daily issue, so that each nation by conscience, according to their own traditions, and morality may vote.
Greetings, I'm Timothy Schmidt, personal assistant to Bob Flibble, and I just like to point out to the UN Rep. from Ynys Dywyll that there is already an issue on this subject.

Timothy "Schmitty" Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

How can you say that? You don't even know half of the supporters. YOU think the resolution is crappy, that doesn't make it crappy. YOU think the ground it tries to cover in the UN is already covered. I DON'T! It would be absolutely GROUNDBREAKING on a social point of view if this resolution would pass. So don't tell me past UN-resolution already cover this! I care about this little issue and it isn't mine. Now don't tell me that, therefore, I don't care about the UN. You don't know who you're judging here, so simply don't!

Thanks for proving my point. I think this resolution is crappy because it is. And its supporters stare themselves blind on "ooh, how nice, protection of transgenders" while this is already covered by the UN. This has been pointed out several times, not just by me, and never has the author responded to them except in evasive ways. And each time that happens, it strengthens my belief that the author doesn't care. And those are the worst.

I fail to see how Yet Another Anti-Discrimination Resolution is groundbreaking. All that's breaking is, figuratively speaking, my clog (as we would say in Groot Gouda). By failing to see the uselessness of this resolution, you show no sign of even having looked at earlier resolutions. I can only judge you by what you write here, and really, you're not making a good impression.

Please show some care about the UN. Don't mess it up with private little issues.

I left a thread for people to say it in, but only one responded to which I disproved his claims and never got a response, so I guess I'll let the fight in here:

Which clauses of the past resolutions are being duplicated by this proposal?

It would be absolutely GROUNDBREAKING on a social point of view if this resolution would pass.

This is the very reason We campaigned against the previous incarnation of this resolution. The "groundbreaking" nature of it was to throw national sovereignity and religious freedom out the window, all in the name of enforcing a radical social agenda promoted by a handful of NationStates.

I will have to submit it again.Please don't.

Which clauses of the past resolutions are being duplicated by this proposal?
I refer you to this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9485755&postcount=6) by Man or Astroman (aka Hack's puppet). I believe it states quite clearly where the duplications lie.

Timothy "Schmitty" Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA