NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTING that the wellbeing of innocent citizens is dependent upon the stability of their government.

NOTING that the most effective, moral means of changing one's government is to become a participant in that government.

NOTING that organized spoken and written dissent routinely leads to violent action.

ZEALOUSLY NOTING that the success of business enterprises is of utmost importance to a nation's political stabilty.

AWARE that many member nations consider freedom of speach to be an essential human right.

Upon enactment of this resolution, UN members will have the right to -

1) Arrest and/or indefinitley detain any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent.

2) Deny due process of trial to any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent.

3) Execute any practitioner of written or spoken dissent that a government deems to be of significant danger to the stability of the nation.

4) Grant corporations above a $900 billion yearly gross the right to determine which citizens pose a threat to political stability and to take whatever action those corporations feel is appropriate to rectify the matter.

5) Temporarily suspend civil liberties to any and all citizens of a nation should that nation's government feel such action would be in the best interest of the people.

You'll want to start by repealing: The Universal Bill of Rights (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029642&postcount=27), Due Process (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029652&postcount=28), Definition of 'Fair Trial' (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030080&postcount=48), Freedom of Press (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030185&postcount=64), Habeas Corpus (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030245&postcount=74) and Freedom of Conscience (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385208&postcount=116). Otherwise it's Illegal. There are probably others, I got tired of looking. Have fun.

Grant corporations above a $900 billion yearly gross the right to determine which citizens pose a threat to political stability and to take whatever action those corporations feel is appropriate to rectify the matter.
Are you seriously suggesting giving corporations not only the ability to declare civilians enemies of the state (with no defined parameters), and then going and giving them the right to 'take action'?

What type of action is appropriate? Slander? Libel? Kidnapping? Or can they go the full way for execution, all independent of the courts?

The Triumvirate of Enn will never support any such resolution that would concentrate so much power in the hands of the plutocrats.

After reading the proposal, Joshua Lin, the USSEA Minister of Foreign Affairs laughed hysterically. "This will NEVER, in ETERNITY, be passed through the hallways of the UN." as he wiped tears from his eyes.

Very...original...to say the least. Nice proposal. I can't support it, but you'll find that I say that to almost all the proposal authors.

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Are you seriously suggesting giving corporations not only the ability to declare civilians enemies of the state (with no defined parameters), and then going and giving them the right to 'take action'?

What type of action is appropriate? Slander? Libel? Kidnapping? Or can they go the full way for execution, all independent of the courts?

The Triumvirate of Enn will never support any such resolution that would concentrate so much power in the hands of the plutocrats.All the power we have already concentrated in the hands of UN bureaucrats notwithstanding? ...

We are in agreement with Yelda; this proposal directly contradicts standing UN resolutions and is probably illegal.

Brief cut shot to Leonard Otterby, who is reading the text of the proposal. As he reads further down the page, his face gets steadily redder, until finally, unable to hold back any longer, he bursts out laughing and doesn't stop for five minutes. When he finally recovers his composure he leans towards his microphone and somewhat unevenly, gives his governments response.

The people of Compadria pride their liberty and freedoms of speech, press, expression and political oversight. We are in concordance with the statement by the honourable delegate from Yeldan U.N. Mission, who stated that this would require the repeal of The Universal Bill of Rights, Due Process, Definition of 'Fair Trial', Freedom of Press, Habeas Corpus and Freedom of Conscience. Equally, we supported these texts and thus oppose any attempt to restrict them in the name of political expediency. We are unsurprised that a nation listed as 'Iron Fisted Consumerists' would put forwards such an idea and in order to foster a debate we will pose a counter-argument to each separate proposal.

"NOTING that the most effective, moral means of changing one's government is to become a participant in that government."

If the government in question is corrupt or totalitarian, then sometimes joining it may not have any real impact at all and direct action is the sole means to effect necessary change.

"NOTING that organized spoken and written dissent routinely leads to violent action."

Sometimes, but not always, in fact it can be a substitute for an action that might overwise only be expressed violently. In fact, as a human right, this should not be infringed, because free dissent is often the best form of oversight with regards to state power.

"ZEALOUSLY NOTING that the success of business enterprises is of utmost importance to a nation's political stabilty."

Evidence please.

"1) Arrest and/or indefinitley detain any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent."

Define: "disrupt the stability of a nation through written and spoken dissent', what kind of dissent?

"2) Deny due process of trial to any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent."

Illegal and contrary to international law and principle.

"3) Execute any practitioner of written or spoken dissent that a government deems to be of significant danger to the stability of the nation."

See above.

"4) Grant corporations above a $900 billion yearly gross the right to determine which citizens pose a threat to political stability and to take whatever action those corporations feel is appropriate to rectify the matter."

Which corporations and with what sort of oversight to ensure they don't abuse this power and use it to restrict criticism of their practices or methods as well as those undertaking libel suits, or class actions against them. Or for that matter, trade unions.

"5) Temporarily suspend civil liberties to any and all citizens of a nation should that nation's government feel such action would be in the best interest of the people.[/QUOTE]"

Freedom and liberty are in the best interests of the people, not madness and authoritarianism, remember that all dictatorships fall eventually, no matter how draconian they try to be.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live Free Compadria!

NOTING that the wellbeing of innocent citizens is dependent upon the stability of their government.

Ignoring the hundreds of natural disasters. You should alter that statement to be something about preventable harm.

NOTING that the most effective, moral means of changing one's government is to become a participant in that government.

Drop this portion. There is the morality that states that the most effective means of changing one's government is through warfare. The United States was founded by people who held that opinion.

NOTING that organized spoken and written dissent routinely leads to violent action.

Drop this portion. The question of evidence comes to mind. You don't want people asking you for proof this early in your document.

ZEALOUSLY NOTING that the success of business enterprises is of utmost importance to a nation's political stabilty.

I question this portion. Depending on the government type, business enterprises may not be needed at all.

AWARE that many member nations consider freedom of speach to be an essential human right.

Upon enactment of this resolution, UN members will have the right to -

1) Arrest and/or indefinitley detain any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent.

As mentioned, you need to repeal the Universal Bill of Rights for #1. You may want to drop it until such time as you can get a repeal through. There's also the question of due process, but I do not wish to go into it.

2) Deny due process of trial to any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent.

Question of due process again.

3) Execute any practitioner of written or spoken dissent that a government deems to be of significant danger to the stability of the nation.

Question of due process. You want to drop this portion because of the part about execution. My own researches have indicated it to be a topic that gets violent.

4) Grant corporations above a $900 billion yearly gross the right to determine which citizens pose a threat to political stability and to take whatever action those corporations feel is appropriate to rectify the matter.

I'm not sure this works well without going all of the way and giving them the same rights as nations.

5) Temporarily suspend civil liberties to any and all citizens of a nation should that nation's government feel such action would be in the best interest of the people.

Hmm. I do not think this one should be included, due to other questions.

This was a refreshing read. It's not often I see an idea from Shadowrun on here.

NOTING that the wellbeing of innocent citizens is dependent upon the stability of their government.

Hardly. The wellbeing of innocent citizens is dependent upon the fear of the government losing total control of the country. This is true for even the most oppressive dictatorships, just they respond by inciting more opposition and sooner or later, will be overthrown anyways. Stable dictatorships, however, are much more considerate of their people because they are afraid of inciting a revolt.

NOTING that the most effective, moral means of changing one's government is to become a participant in that government.

And in many countries, the only way to become a participant of the government is to overthrow it - dictatorships being one of them.

NOTING that organized spoken and written dissent routinely leads to violent action.

Because a small percentage of those who dissent against the government are idiots and like to use violence to get their message heard. However, even more often the violent action that results from the dissent is from the government being dissented against attacking those that are protesting - often killing them.

ZEALOUSLY NOTING that the success of business enterprises is of utmost importance to a nation's political stabilty.

Not the utmost important. The utmost importance is respect for the citizen. That doesn't mean you necessarily have to give them all 5000 rights the UN passes, it means that you don't go beating them just because they said something behind your back. Basically, there are three other resolutions that protect what is of utmost importance.

AWARE that many member nations consider freedom of speach to be an essential human right.

As well as the UN

Upon enactment of this resolution, UN members will have the right to -

1) Arrest and/or indefinitley detain any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent.

Illegality aside, this is what I mean by not respecting the citizen

2) Deny due process of trial to any individual seeking to disrupt the stability of a nation through written or spoken dissent.

Now that's just being petty

3) Execute any practitioner of written or spoken dissent that a government deems to be of significant danger to the stability of the nation.

Assuming, of course, that the government allowed capital punishment. Or are you now saying all governments now employ capital punishment?

4) Grant corporations above a $900 billion yearly gross the right to determine which citizens pose a threat to political stability and to take whatever action those corporations feel is appropriate to rectify the matter.

"Yeah, those guys who are the heads of my competitors, they pose a thread to political stability"

5) Temporarily suspend civil liberties to any and all citizens of a nation should that nation's government feel such action would be in the best interest of the people.

This one is actually supportable....kinda.

Sorry, but we are just a tad averse to totalitarian corporatism.

Query:
How is it that this resolution would promote stability? In most classic examples of governments that have employed tactics such as these, conflict, needless bloodshed, and in some cases even revolution ensue. But in many democratic systems that allow people with dissenting viewpoints to speak their mind and have a say, there really isn't a problem with political stability.
We are not so sure this resolutino would promote stability so much as promote instability.

We would, however, compliment you on writing a resolution which we haven't seen one quite like before.

MEMO
TO: MEMBERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY
FROM: CHAIRWOMAN DEBRA MACKENSAY, FOREIGN RELATIONS MINISTER, CEO OF BIOGEN INDUSTRIES

While the wholesale objection to this resolution on the part of the international community was entirely anticipated - given your decidedly weak, bumbling and generally incompetent nature - we the members of the Board feel that it is only appropriate to express the great measure of discouragement and sympathy we feel for you. The extent to which the international community has been blinded by the useless, detrimental causes of human rights, pro-environment activism and business regulation serves only to underscore the desperate need for a stronger, centralized voice of authority than the UN is able to provide.

In time, we believe you will come to find that the Federation has more than filled that particular role.

Thank you, and God bless the almighty Dollar.

(OOC: Isn't she just the sweetest li'l thang? lol)

The Oppressed Peoples of Anglo-Saxia do not support this proposal.

This proposal will undermine the fundamental rights of citizens and put the power of statehood into the hands of large corporations.