NationStates Jolt Archive

I call upon all delegates that are in agreement to pledge their approval to the following proposal:

Ban the promotion of terrorism
Description: This is a proposal to preserve the world of acts of hatred and terrorism. Currently all are allowed the right to free speech; this includes those who promote the idea of terrorism and religious/racist hatred. If this act were approved it would:
1) Make it illegal to speak out against an entire race or religion with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against that race/religion
2) Allow police the power to arrest, question and prosecute anyone who they suspect of speaking out against race(s)/religion(s) with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against those race(s)/Religion(s)
3) Prevent anyone using the defence of freedom of speech in a court of law when prosecuted for crimes linked to terrorism in any way.

Many may argue that this resolution if passed would be oppressive because all should have the right to free speech. The argument against this is that firstly, safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all. Secondly, only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races. Thirdly, the proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn’t immoral and unjustified. And finally speaking out against either religions or races is an act of racism and therefore is classed breaking the law and is unjust.

Thank you for those in support of this proposal, if you wish to pledge approval please visit the 3rd page on the list of proposals.

Ban the promotion of terrorism
Description: This is a proposal to preserve the world of acts of hatred and terrorism. Currently all are allowed the right to free speech; this includes those who promote the idea of terrorism and religious/racist hatred. If this act were approved it would:

Really? I thought otherwise....

1) Make it illegal to speak out against an entire race or religion with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against that race/religion

Agreed

2) Allow police the power to arrest, question and prosecute anyone who they suspect of speaking out against race(s)/religion(s) with the explicit purpose to encourage acts of terrorism against those race(s)/Religion(s)

Um....no. They should be held to the same standard of any other crime

3) Prevent anyone using the defence of freedom of speech in a court of law when prosecuted for crimes linked to terrorism in any way.

...

Many may argue that this resolution if passed would be oppressive because all should have the right to free speech. The argument against this is that firstly, safety of people is more important than freedom of speech to all.

This I would agree with

Secondly, only a very small minority would be affected by this resolution since few speak out against religions and/or races.

This would actually make me vote against your resolution outright. I don't care how small the minority is, you don't say "oh, it's only 10/100/1000 people". You can go "the one act made by this minority infringes upon the right of the rest of society", but that isn't what you said here.

Thirdly, the proportion of people who believe speaking out against races/religions is immoral and unjustified is far greater than the proportion of those who believe that it isn’t immoral and unjustified.

Morality has little to do with law

And finally speaking out against either religions or races is an act of racism and therefore is classed breaking the law and is unjust.

Agreed

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

Is this resolution legal? I'm thinking duplication issues.

ok clearly ive hit a nerve there so i'll not bother getting into a heated arguement, i'll just let you wallow in your own annoyance

Just one thing, morality does have a lot to do with law. Laws are in place to attempt to ensure a moral world. Murder- immoral, Stealing- immoral, Manslaughter- immoral; and laws against them all, coincidence i think not.

Apologies if it came off that way, but annoyed I am not. I am just.....strict about what I feel makes a good proposal, and terrorism proposals I am REALLY strict on.

BTW, regarding morality......if you want a heated argument, continue arguing morality. We were just debating that in the repeal 91 thread, and you'll find that a majority of the people on the forum agreed with me on the topic of laws != morality.

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

Perhaps it could be argued that human rights is, in itself, a morality issue, though in most cases, its a "how would I want to be treated" issue. While initially, laws were founded upon the morals and wishes of the leaders, in the past 2 centuries, we've seen a general drift away from the concept of "what is moral" to "what is right". The interesting thing is that at face value, "what is right" looks exactly like "what is moral".

The concept of rights ended up founding around "you have the right to anything you want, provided that it doesn't infringe upon his right". Now once you get into situations where both have a few rights, but they are both infringing upon each others, that's where we see the debates (Same Sex marriage, Abortion, Treatment of intruders, Right to arms, Drug use, Capital punishment, etc) and it ends up becoming a question of which right is greater than another. For example, the right to kill (which you brought forth) infringes upon the person's right to life, right to live without bodily harm, etc. This of course, is the universal case, and no matter what reason you use, it will always be that case. Thus we outlawed murder. HOWEVER, we made exceptions, because we realized there were alternative cases:
1) Right to self-protection. When your life and well being is at risk, you have the right to protect yourself. Basically, if they're infringing upon your right to not be harmed or your right to life, you have the right to prevent this with due force. In many cases, this can be in the form of actually responding and the very rights he is infringing upon you, you can infringe upon for him. In other cases, you disable him, and as long as he doesn't present a further threat, you can do no more than that.
2) Capital Punishment. This one is practically impossible to argue on the moral level. The vengence argument is generally "he infringed upon such an important right that he should no longer have a right or priveledge of life". The money argument is "we should not have to lose our right to X amount of our money because this scumbag is in jail". Others exist for other cases.
3) Euthanasia. Euthanasia is, without a doubt, the hardest one for me to argue. If you want to have someone kill you, I think that's your business. Suicide, I believe, is the business of the individual. The moral argument actually opposes suicide, and we rarely see it being illegal in society. The rights argument is that everyone has the right to revoke any of their own rights at any time. So self-euthanasia is a rather simple ordeal.

Euthanasia of someone else, is a much more difficult issue to deal with. From a moral argument, it is absolutely illegal with, perhaps, exception to a certain length of time in a coma (even if he/she came out of it, he/she would practically be dead and suffer horrendously with what little life he/she had left). From a rights argument, it becomes "I have been entrusted with the right to decide his/her medical fate", and then he/she has the right to revoke that person's right if he/she feels so. Like I said, a very difficult position, because that person's rights are being revoked in the process, and that's why Euthanasia (even the resolution that was passed on the floor) is such a contentious issue. There are other streams of thought that make Euthanasia less or more acceptable, but this is a basic one.

On another note, Moral Decency category is one of the least respected categories in the UN, and there are many jokes about the chances a Moral Decency resolution has on the UN floor.