NationStates Jolt Archive

Office of International Affairs
25 Free Street
Free Place
Free City
FC 251A
Multiland

After perusing through the United Nations resolutions, the Leader of Multiland has came across the Universal Bill of Rights, which appears to give too much power to it's citizens.

Thre Leader believes that whilst people should be treated fairly and have their voices heard, there should be SOME limits on what they can say, and the Universal Bill of Rights, article 2, does not seem to allow for this. Reasons for limits include (but this is by no means exaustive) avoiding: incitement to terrorism, incitment to murder, incitement to other illegal acts, verbal abuse which could harm a person mentally [and unlike the United States of America, Multiland does NOT put the right of free speech above other, more important rights (such as the right to be free from harm)].

In addition, article 8 of the universal bill of rights does not seem to allow for the fact that a relative may be forced, tricked, or coerced into an illegal act.

It is for these reasons that Multiland must now withdraw from the United Nations. It is also suggested that others who are shocked by the Universal Bill of Rights withdraw too.

PJ Croad
Multiland Leader

ENC: Text of the Universal Bill of Rights:



Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,


The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

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.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

I'm glad to see that you are taking your membership in the UN seriously enough to know that you want to leave. I hope you will remain active and help change the UN into a more moderate and respectful body.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Of course, the only way to act on your opinions is to press for a repeal...for which you would need to be in the UN. Look at Gatesville: it openly encourages members to join the UN to bring down the demon from within, or some such. Many of us are unhappy about many UN resolutions, but recognise that UN membership is the only way to effect change.

Interesting: your commentary leads me to believe that the Bill of Rights could be repealed with no adverse effects because of the existence of subsequent legislation, including *coughhahemharrumph* Freedom of Conscience. How fortunate.

Mathieu Vergniaud
[irrepressibly smug] Deputy Speaker to the UN

I find that a small UN "protectorate" under Krioval's control allows the Armed Republic to remain active in UN affairs without the critical sectors of Krioval being dominated by UN legislation.

Director Yuri Sokolev
Armed Republic of Krioval

Hirota is a strong supporter of the universal bill of rights, but your arguement that such rights need to be tempered by certain issues does give pause for thought.

Hirota recognises the points expressed by Multiland, but notes their government may have failed to consider that whilst the person made their perform an illegal act is not directly responsible for the criminal act in question, the aformentioned induvidual may be performing other criminal acts such as blackmail, deception and a variety of other crimes depending on the law in your nation.

You see, whilst the universal bill of rights does allow people to do a variety of things, it does not address the consequences of those acts. At least that's how I remember the author's view.

I agree it could be tightened up, and it's a shame you were not here at the time to make such observations.

If a strong well written repeal was submitted, Hirota would consider arguing in favour of repeal, but only if a resubmission of a revised bill was in the pipeline.

If bill 2 was amended, would it be so the local goverment or the UN decided on cases of inciting riots and so on? If you feel it should be changed, luanch a repeal against it and perhaps your wish will come true. By leaving, you fail to help reform the UN or help many other countries who may need that repeal.

Jude
ruler of Cuation