NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations,

NOTING: the following past resolutions: #2 Scientific Freedom, #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #25 The Child Protection Act, #36 Freedom of Humor, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #63 Freedom of Press, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #99 Discrimination Accord, #115 Freedom of Conscience, as well as many others, for their ability to expand upon basic and inherent human rights,

ALSO NOTING: Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, which states in Article II that: “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

CONSIDERING: That the rights of artists, authors, writers, and musicians were not covered in Resolution #26 or any other N.S.U.N. resolution.

HEREBY DECLARES:

1) The rights of all artists to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. whatever they wish shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

2) The rights of all authors and writers to write, print, publish, etc. whatever they wish shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

3) The rights of all musicians to sing, play, etc. whatever they wish shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

DEFINES:

1)An “artist” as one, such as a painter, sculptor, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic, personal, or sentimental value, especially in the fine arts. (Note: Though artistic practices include painting, sculpting, and drawing, artistic practices are not limited only to these activities.)

2) A “writer” or an “author” as one who writes books, stories, articles, etc, especially as an occupation or a profession.

3) A “musician” as one who sings or plays a musical instrument, especially as an occupation or profession.

SPECIAL CASES:

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.

2)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists that use quotations of individuals must receive the consent of this individual.

3)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists who use an individual as the direct inspiration for the piece (example: painting an individual), must receive the individual’s consent.

4)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists using nude portraits of minors will be prosecuted under N.S.U.N. Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia.

The United Nations,

NOTING: the following past resolutions: #2 Scientific Freedom, #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #25 The Child Protection Act, #36 Freedom of Humor, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #63 Freedom of Press, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #99 Discrimination Accord, #115 Freedom of Conscience, as well as many others, for their ability to expand upon basic and inherent human rights,

ALSO NOTING: Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, which states in Article II that: “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

CONSIDERING: That the rights of artists, authors, writers, and musicians were not covered in Resolution #26 or any other N.S.U.N. resolution.

HEREBY DECLARES:

1) The rights of all artists to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. whatever they wish shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

2) The rights of all authors and writers to write, print, publish, etc. whatever they wish shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

3) The rights of all musicians to sing, play, etc. whatever they wish shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

DEFINES:

1)An “artist” as one, such as a painter, sculptor, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic, personal, or sentimental value, especially in the fine arts. (Note: Though artistic practices include painting, sculpting, and drawing, artistic practices are not limited only to these activities.)

2) A “writer” or an “author” as one who writes books, stories, articles, etc, especially as an occupation or a profession.

3) A “musician” as one who sings or plays a musical instrument, especially as an occupation or profession.



What about people who do it as a hobby? Or people who do it for fun? Or do it but don't get paid? (I myself am a mean lute player, but in no way is it my occupation)


SPECIAL CASES:

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.



The murder of Leonara is one of our most famous events in history. And one of our most glorious. Would you prevent us from writing about such a glorious and honnourable events? (I can give you the details if you like)


2)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists that use quotations of individuals must receive the consent of this individual.


We have a fair use clause in copyright - you can quote one or two lines or paragraphs of an article if you do not try to claim it as your own. It's only when you get in to massive quotes or direct copying that the consent is required.


3)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists who use an individual as the direct inspiration for the piece (example: painting an individual), must receive the individual’s consent.


That I can agree with.


4)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists using nude portraits of minors will be prosecuted under N.S.U.N. Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia.
[/QUOTE]

Erm - people can take pictures and portraits of girls as long as they are not pornographic (which is decided by the Judiciary). And no one really has a problem with this.


All in all I am all for this, but, obviously, there are points I think need either modification or clarification :}

This is a ridiculous, badly-worded, badly-thought-out piece of nonsense that would simultaneously legalise graffiti while criminalising almost all free expression. Should anything remotely similar to this pass, Stealthmunchkania would have no option but to leave the UN immediately.

It is certainly a true statement that without artistic freedom, then society cannot be said to possess a soul. Our humanity is linked to our view of our world and environment and our artwork is a powerful means of communicating the deepest thoughts and insights we possess. To permit total freedom is essential.

Indeed, Compadria believes that freedom of expression and conscience should be applied to the artist, the mirror of the soul of society, yet it should be an unrestrained soul.

The restrictions that are proclaimed at the bottom of this resolution are far too restrictive (1,2,3) or simply too vague (4). I wish to note that we do not condone artwork that praises or urges criminal acts, nor do we condone paedophilia. It is merely that in the case of the first, this would eliminate much great artwork and in the second, so long as the portrayal is not sexual, then it can possess artistic merit.

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

Long live artistically-free Compadria!

This is a ridiculous, badly-worded, badly-thought-out piece of nonsense that would simultaneously legalise graffiti while criminalising almost all free expression. Should anything remotely similar to this pass, Stealthmunchkania would have no option but to leave the UN immediately.

Why? It has a few flaws, but the basis of the idea is good.

Quote: 3)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists who use an individual as the direct inspiration for the piece (example: painting an individual), must receive the individual’s consent. That I can agree with.
i can't agree with it.If someone want to draw a caricature that laugh on politicians,for example,why he need the consent of the politicians he draw?
this is restriction of political freedoms and civil rights!I can't agree with it!
William Jacques,
President and Foreign Minister,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria.

The things I notice lacking is any allowances for private and independent government companies (such as the BBC) to censor music and art (such as blanking swearing in songs, covering up breasts on childrens TV, etc), or to censor music that aids and comforts the enemy in times of war.

i can't agree with it.If someone want to draw a caricature that laugh on politicians,for example,why he need the consent of the politicians he draw?
this is restriction of political freedoms and civil rights!I can't agree with it!
William Jacques,
President and Foreign Minister,
Democratic Republic of Adnaria.

Mr esteemed colleague from Adnaria makes an excellent point.

This is a ridiculous, badly-worded, badly-thought-out piece of nonsense that would simultaneously legalise graffiti while criminalising almost all free expression. Should anything remotely similar to this pass, Stealthmunchkania would have no option but to leave the UN immediately.


While departing from the UN may be a bit rash, I must strongly agree with my colleague from Stealthmunkchkania. What if an artist decides his freedom of expression allows him to draw a picture depicting the beheading of the leader of a fellow UN country? Or writing a melody which praises the genocide of a race? This draft is extremely vague and unless beefed up with specifics, I will not support it.

our esteemed colleague Jay has made a few good points but i feel they need to be tightened up.

the special cases are an example of this.

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.

2)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists that use quotations of individuals must receive the consent of this individual.

3)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists who use an individual as the direct inspiration for the piece (example: painting an individual), must receive the individual’s consent.

4)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists using nude portraits of minors will be prosecuted under N.S.U.N. Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia.


point 1 i can agree with. Points 2 and 3 i can't agree with since once something is spoken its out in the open you can't call it back. using a quotation from written material is already covered by universal copyright laws.

point 4 is going to be dealt with by a local judge as its breaking a law.

Why? It has a few flaws, but the basis of the idea is good.
Only if you want to remove all freedom of speech:

"1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed."

(ooc)So all Beatles albums post Rubber Soul (condoning drug abuse), any film portraying the American War Of Independence in a positive light (dangerous terrorist subversives bringing down a government), Hamlet (it's clearly shown that murdering Claudius is the right thing to do) would all be banned.

"2)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists that use quotations of individuals must receive the consent of this individual."

So all reviews, parody, satire, criticism and post-modernism is to be banned, along with anything based on a work by someone now dead (can't get consent from a dead person).

"3)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists who use an individual as the direct inspiration for the piece (example: painting an individual), must receive the individual’s consent."

See notes for 2 above. This would also ban all political cartooning, any drama based on real events, any biography other than hagiography, any comedy that involved an impersonation of someone else, and in short anything even vaguely critical of any public figure.

"4)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists using nude portraits of minors will be prosecuted under N.S.U.N. Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia."
This is assuming that all nudity is in some way sexual, and even were that true, so long as no actual harm has been caused to anyone, why should this be banned? (ooc) This would also ban statues of cherubs, the "Love Is..." cartoons, the Nic Roeg film Walkabout, most baby photos...

Between those restrictions, this proposal, ostensibly aimed at promoting artistic freedom, would criminalise any art above the level of a Hallmark card...

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.

OOC:
So in RL this would of meant that M*A*S*H wouldn't have had the same theme, as its theme was entitled "Suicide is Painless" and therefor talked about Suicide which is illegal. Personally I find this clause to not be needed. Also it is a severe restriction of the the Right to Freedom of Expression. If they can say in anger or jest, "I hate that son of a bitch so much I feel like killing him". Why can't they sing about it.

As for the rest of the special cases they are covered by current UN resolutions. In fact in the case of number 4, you've already listed the resolution it would be illegal under "Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia."

I would happily support this proposal if the "Special Cases" section was struck from the proposal.

if condoning were changed to encouraging, it might be okay

Only if you want to remove all freedom of speech:

"1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed."

(ooc)So all Beatles albums post Rubber Soul (condoning drug abuse), any film portraying the American War Of Independence in a positive light (dangerous terrorist subversives bringing down a government), Hamlet (it's clearly shown that murdering Claudius is the right thing to do) would all be banned.

"2)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists that use quotations of individuals must receive the consent of this individual."

So all reviews, parody, satire, criticism and post-modernism is to be banned, along with anything based on a work by someone now dead (can't get consent from a dead person).

"3)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists who use an individual as the direct inspiration for the piece (example: painting an individual), must receive the individual’s consent."

See notes for 2 above. This would also ban all political cartooning, any drama based on real events, any biography other than hagiography, any comedy that involved an impersonation of someone else, and in short anything even vaguely critical of any public figure.

"4)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists using nude portraits of minors will be prosecuted under N.S.U.N. Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia."
This is assuming that all nudity is in some way sexual, and even were that true, so long as no actual harm has been caused to anyone, why should this be banned? (ooc) This would also ban statues of cherubs, the "Love Is..." cartoons, the Nic Roeg film Walkabout, most baby photos...

Between those restrictions, this proposal, ostensibly aimed at promoting artistic freedom, would criminalise any art above the level of a Hallmark card...


(grin) Like I said - it has a few flaws (ones I pointed out as well). But would you agree the basic idea is sound?

(grin) Like I said - it has a few flaws (ones I pointed out as well). But would you agree the basic idea is sound?
If the basic idea is to protect artistic freedoms (the actual proposal has precisely the opposite effect to that) then yes, the idea is sound. But the execution is horrible. With the "special cases" section it bans all art of any worth, without it the present wording would remove all copyright laws, laws against slander and libel, and laws against pornography - and while Stealthmunchkania has no such laws other than minimal copyright protection, we consider them a matter for individual nations to decide for themselves.

The things I notice lacking is any allowances for private and independent government companies (such as the BBC) to censor music and art (such as blanking swearing in songs, covering up breasts on childrens TV, etc), or to censor music that aids and comforts the enemy in times of war.

So just because we are at war with someone the people should give up free speech and freedom of expression?

And it doesn't prevent the national broadcasting body to censor itself - it just says that the NSUN can't censor it.

If the basic idea is to protect artistic freedoms (the actual proposal has precisely the opposite effect to that) then yes, the idea is sound. But the execution is horrible. With the "special cases" section it bans all art of any worth, without it the present wording would remove all copyright laws, laws against slander and libel, and laws against pornography - and while Stealthmunchkania has no such laws other than minimal copyright protection, we consider them a matter for individual nations to decide for themselves.

Actually - the fact it removes laws against porn is one of the reasons I like it - the government should not be the moral guardians of the people.

However the special cases are quite bad :}

the honourable delegate from Pallatium needs to take this proposal back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

as this stands it would give a green light to every dictator or father thinks best state to oppress artists, authors and musicians.

Actually - the fact it removes laws against porn is one of the reasons I like it - the government should not be the moral guardians of the people.

However the special cases are quite bad :}

I agree - in Stealthmunchkania we have unlimited freedom of speech except for some very lax copyright laws - but this would, without those exemptions, also quite probably make it impossible for there to be age-ratings on films, for example, something that we consider reasonable.

the honourable delegate from Pallatium needs to take this proposal back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

as this stands it would give a green light to every dictator or father thinks best state to oppress artists, authors and musicians.

To be fair, it's not actually my proposal. I just like the start of it and not so much the end of it.

I agree - in Stealthmunchkania we have unlimited freedom of speech except for some very lax copyright laws - but this would, without those exemptions, also quite probably make it impossible for there to be age-ratings on films, for example, something that we consider reasonable.

Not really - I can produce a film that is really graphic, but would be classified for adults only. My work is not being censored or limited, but the people who get to see it might be limited as well.

Further more Exception 1 - the one about condoning crimes - already exists in part. No flim maybe produced that requires a crime to be commited for the film to be made (ie you can't have someone having underage sex on film and argue the film is exempt from censorship, because to make the film you would have to commit a crime).

However the glorification and condoning part - I have issues with.

my mistake Pallatium.

the delegate from Jey should withdraw this until its been properly thought through.

as it stands Kirisubo will not endorse this.

This is a ridiculous, badly-worded, badly-thought-out piece of nonsense that would simultaneously legalise graffiti while criminalising almost all free expression. Should anything remotely similar to this pass, Stealthmunchkania would have no option but to leave the UN immediately.

While the Allied Empire of Jey realizes there are portions of this proposal that need to be ammended, we are appaled and angered at your words. When a nation submites a DRAFT of a proposal, constructive criticism and ideas for improvement are helpful and encouraged. Your words were in no way contructive and should have never been spoken.

While the Allied Empire of Jey realizes there are portions of this proposal that need to be ammended, we are appaled and angered at your words. When a nation submites a DRAFT of a proposal, constructive criticism and ideas for improvement are helpful and encouraged. Your words were in no way contructive and should have never been spoken.

And we of Stealthmunchkania were appaled and angered that someone should seriously suggest criminalising nearly all artistic expression under the guise of 'protecting artists' rights'. Your proposal was in no way constructive, and should never have been typed.

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel like very much the idea of "Artistic Freedom" and we really think it's very important, in the same manner as "scientific freedom".

i regret we are not an expert on this topic and cannot help much on the redaction, just maybe it will be better to avoid reference to others reolutions

We fully hope this proposal will succeed

And we of Stealthmunchkania were appaled and angered that someone should seriously suggest criminalising nearly all artistic expression under the guise of 'protecting artists' rights'. Your proposal was in no way constructive, and should never have been typed.

In her defence (I tend to call everyone her due to cultural bias. sorry) that wasn't the intention of the proposal. It was (I hope!) an honest mistake - that in attempting to stop people making films that glorify terrorism, rape and murder the proposal also manages to stop people making films about other things.

And if given a chance to revise it, the author (sorry to talk about you in the third person) might be able to ensure that your concerns are addressed (and my concerns for that matter)

Actually - the fact it removes laws against porn is one of the reasons I like it - the government should not be the moral guardians of the people.

The people of Cluichstan agree and support any removal of laws against so-called "pornography," for two reasons:

A) The definition of "pornography" is horribly subjective, and

B) We like porn.

Respectively,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

In her defence (I tend to call everyone her due to cultural bias. sorry)

A reasonable thing to do. Since we are speaking in a language which has the unfortunate effect of having to assume gender when talking about someone whose gender is unknown, assuming the gender which is traditionally looked down upon (though I would hope not by any of this august institution) is probably better than the alternative.

that wasn't the intention of the proposal. It was (I hope!) an honest mistake - that in attempting to stop people making films that glorify terrorism, rape and murder the proposal also manages to stop people making films about other things.

We of Stealthmunchkania consider attempting to stop people making those films in itself an unacceptable restriction, and one which would be detrimental to art. We would hope that no citizen of our land would *wish* to make such films, but we have no intention of stopping them from doing so.

While the Allied Empire of Jey realizes there are portions of this proposal that need to be ammended, we are appaled and angered at your words. When a nation submites a DRAFT of a proposal, constructive criticism and ideas for improvement are helpful and encouraged. Your words were in no way contructive and should have never been spoken.

May I suggest one or two things?


1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.


Instead of condoning - how about "music, writings, authored peices or artistic pieces that call for, or directly incite, a criminal act, or require a criminal act to be created, maybe subject to legal proceedings"


2)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists that use quotations of individuals must receive the consent of this individual.


Maybe alter this to only certain quotes to require consent.


3)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists who use an individual as the direct inspiration for the piece (example: painting an individual), must receive the individual’s consent.


Again - maybe modify this for only certain pieces, and put in clauses about legal action against those who break it.


4)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists using nude portraits of minors will be prosecuted under N.S.U.N. Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia.


I think you might have to put something about pornography in to here, as a lot of nations permit "artistic" drawings etc of underage children. Further more unless you want to deal with stories and so forth, this really doesn't relate to musicans, writers and authors.


These are just my suggestions, and you can ignore them to your hearts' content :}

This is a ridiculous, badly-worded, badly-thought-out piece of nonsense that would simultaneously legalise graffiti while criminalising almost all free expression. Should anything remotely similar to this pass, Stealthmunchkania would have no option but to leave the UN immediately.
I would echo this statement exactly, but I fear the Worldwide Media Act will have driven my people from the UN already.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I think you might have to put something about pornography in to here, as a lot of nations permit "artistic" drawings etc of underage children. Further more unless you want to deal with stories and so forth, this really doesn't relate to musicans, writers and authors.


These are just my suggestions, and you can ignore them to your hearts' content :}

Is everyone choosing to ignore that i placed the word "nude" in special case #4? If countries allow "nude" portraits of underage children, they are in direct violation of resolution #22, Outlaw Pedofilia.

Other then that, thanks for your suggestions. I shall have a revised edition soon.

Is everyone choosing to ignore that i placed the word "nude" in special case #4? If countries allow "nude" portraits of underage children, they are in direct violation of resolution #22, Outlaw Pedofilia.

Other then that, thanks for your suggestions. I shall have a revised edition soon.

I can show you nude pictures of children that are in no way abusive or pornographic, and that a lot of people would consider to be not obscene or offensive, or in anyway an attempt at molesting the children.

It could also prevent people from taking pictures of their kids in the bath and so forth.

Now - don't get me wrong - when it comes to preventing the abuse of children, I am right at the front of the line waving my boomerang. But there is (or should be) a line drawn between nudity and molestation and porn - on one side there is acceptable art, and on the other there is - well unacceptable art I guess.

Just sayin' :}

Is everyone choosing to ignore that i placed the word "nude" in special case #4? If countries allow "nude" portraits of underage children, they are in direct violation of resolution #22, Outlaw Pedofilia.
Incorrect.

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces condoning the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.
So you don't want any more books, songs, artworks about (as a small example) Beowulf, Achilles, Odysseus, Caesar...

Is everyone choosing to ignore that i placed the word "nude" in special case #4? If countries allow "nude" portraits of underage children, they are in direct violation of resolution #22, Outlaw Pedofilia.
Ah. So now you're also outlawing images of cherubs.

There is a new version of this on the submission queue, which has taken care of all the issues I had (I think)


Description: The United Nations,

NOTING:

The following past resolutions: #2 Scientific Freedom, #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #25 The Child Protection Act, #36 Freedom of Humor, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #63 Freedom of Press, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #99 Discrimination Accord, #115 Freedom of Conscience, as well as many others, for their ability to expand upon basic and inherent human rights,

ALSO NOTING:

Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, which states in Article II that: “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

CONSIDERING:

That the rights of artists, authors, writers, and musicians were not covered in Resolution #26 or any other N.S.U.N. resolution.

HEREBY DECLARES:

1) The rights of all artists to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their artistic abilities (example: painting murals on buildings) shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

2) The rights of all authors and writers to write, print, publish, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their writing ability, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

3) The rights of all musicians to sing, play, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their musical ability, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

DEFINES:

1)An “artist” as one, such as a painter, sculptor, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic, personal, or sentimental value, especially, but not limited to the fine arts. (Note: Though artistic practices include painting, sculpting, and drawing, artistic practices are not limited only to these activities.)

2) A “writer” or an “author” as one who writes books, stories, articles, etc, especially, but not limited to, as an occupation or a profession.

3) A “musician” as one who sings or plays a musical instrument, especially, but not limited to, as an occupation or profession.

SPECIAL CASES:

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces encouraging the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.

2)Musicians, writers, authors, or artists using pornographic portraits of a minor(s) will be prosecuted under N.S.U.N. Resolution #22, Outlaw Pedophilia.


May I ask people to consider supporting this, even though I am not the author of it, as I belive it does good work.

SPECIAL CASES:

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces encouraging the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.
Since this proposal would outlaw Mojo Nixon's wonderful "Burn Down The Malls" I'm afraid we won't be able to support it.

1)Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces encouraging the murder or any other criminal act of an individual or group of individual will not be allowed.
Like I said before.
No more Beowulf (killing of Grendel). No more Iliad (attack on nation, lots of killing, sacrifice, rape, mutilation of corpses etc etc). No more Odyssey (blinding, enslavement, cannibalism, murder, attempted rape, illicit drugs). Pretty much all of Shakespeare's out, even the comedies - after all, The Tempest deals with the deliberate, premeditated sinking of a ship. Aristophanes, Euripides, Sophocles and all other classical playwrights: all gone. Opera is right out. Morte d'Arthur? Forget about it!
West Side Story's now illegal, as is the entirety of Gothic mode. Death of a Salesman, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, hell, even Waltzing Mathilda's got to go under your proposal.

Do you get my point?

Like I said before.
No more Beowulf (killing of Grendel). No more Iliad (attack on nation, lots of killing, sacrifice, rape, mutilation of corpses etc etc). No more Odyssey (blinding, enslavement, cannibalism, murder, attempted rape, illicit drugs). Pretty much all of Shakespeare's out, even the comedies - after all, The Tempest deals with the deliberate, premeditated sinking of a ship. Aristophanes, Euripides, Sophocles and all other classical playwrights: all gone. Opera is right out. Morte d'Arthur? Forget about it!
West Side Story's now illegal, as is the entirety of Gothic mode. Death of a Salesman, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, hell, even Waltzing Mathilda's got to go under your proposal.

Do you get my point?

I can't speak for the rest, but I would say West Side Story does everything to DISCOURAGE criminal acts. The outcome obviously suggests there is a better way than gang warfare.

And this does not cover condoning, but encouraging. How does The Tempest ENCOURAGE the sinking of a ship? Is anyone saying that sinking ships is good? That people should go out and sink ships?

And in Waltzing Mathilda - is anyone saying suicide is good? Or that stuff jumbucks in your tucker bag is something people should do?

I think you are misreading encouraging for something else :}

I can't speak for the rest, but I would say West Side Story does everything to DISCOURAGE criminal acts. The outcome obviously suggests there is a better way than gang warfare.

And this does not cover condoning, but encouraging. How does The Tempest ENCOURAGE the sinking of a ship? Is anyone saying that sinking ships is good? That people should go out and sink ships?

And in Waltzing Mathilda - is anyone saying suicide is good? Or that stuff jumbucks in your tucker bag is something people should do?

I think you are misreading encouraging for something else :}
Alright, I'll give you them. But what about the many, many more I mentioned? Should this proposal pass, then it will be impossible to study any classical play or Homer. English speakers will be unable to study the first great poem in their language. No more Thomas Malory, or to be frank, pretty much any Mediaeval or Renaissance era text. An entire modern genre simply ceases to exist with the banning of Dracula and Frankenstein. The entire concept of musical theatre, from the reading of odes in Mediaeval courts, to Opera, to The Producers is pretty much gone.

Are you going to address my underlying concern, or are you simply going to pick out a couple I got wrong while ignoring my argument?

I, the delegate from Kirisubo broadly agree with this proposal but we still oppose the first special case. I agree whole heartedly with the 2nd special case.

I opposed the first draft of this because the language of the proposal was restricting artists rights. Now this has been rectified the broad language of the first special case causes me concern.

at the stroke of a pen this would stop a lot of pre-empire Kirisuban literature from being studied in our schools and well as most classic literature. If you've ever read Macbeth in Kirosuban you'd understand why we treasure great literature.

I submit that the first special case still needs more work on it.

I, the delegate from Kirisubo broadly agree with this proposal but we still oppose the first special case. I agree whole heartedly with the 2nd special case.

I opposed the first draft of this because the language of the proposal was restricting artists rights. Now this has been rectified the broad language of the first special case causes me concern.

at the stroke of a pen this would stop a lot of pre-empire Kirisuban literature from being studied in our schools and well as most classic literature. If you've ever read Macbeth in Kirosuban you'd understand why we treasure great literature.

I submit that the first special case still needs more work on it.

Again - I am unconvinced that Macbeth actually encourages criminal acts given the way it turns out.

Just out of curiousity (again - not my proposal so there is not a lot I can do) would it be beter with the phrase "explicitcly encourages" as opposed to just "encourages"?

Alright, I'll give you them. But what about the many, many more I mentioned? Should this proposal pass, then it will be impossible to study any classical play or Homer. English speakers will be unable to study the first great poem in their language. No more Thomas Malory, or to be frank, pretty much any Mediaeval or Renaissance era text. An entire modern genre simply ceases to exist with the banning of Dracula and Frankenstein. The entire concept of musical theatre, from the reading of odes in Mediaeval courts, to Opera, to The Producers is pretty much gone.

Are you going to address my underlying concern, or are you simply going to pick out a couple I got wrong while ignoring my argument?

(smile) I can address your underlying concern from my perspective.

We few plays, films etc actually encourage the commission of a crime. They might show them, but most times the person who commits the crim ends up badly, which would be a disuading factor.

Would "explicitly encourage" help? So that it has to say "Hey kids - go out and blow your father's head off" rather than showing someone blowing their fathers head off?

(OOC) I AM NOT encouraging peopel to blow their fathers' heads off. It is just an example :}

You don't seem to be getting it.

Beowulf encourages people to kill people who aren't normal. As does Dracula. Isn't that illegal?
Homer encourages people to join in a great crusade against enemies simply based upon one guy's wife running off. Isn't that illegal? After all, it's murder, isn't it?
In Julius Caesar, Mark Antony hunts down and causes the deaths of Cassius and Brutus. Isn't that illegal?

Just because it's the 'good' guys killing has no bearing upon the legality, if we are judging by today's standards.

You don't seem to be getting it.

Beowulf encourages people to kill people who aren't normal. As does Dracula. Isn't that illegal?
Homer encourages people to join in a great crusade against enemies simply based upon one guy's wife running off. Isn't that illegal? After all, it's murder, isn't it?
In Julius Caesar, Mark Antony hunts down and causes the deaths of Cassius and Brutus. Isn't that illegal?

Just because it's the 'good' guys killing has no bearing upon the legality, if we are judging by today's standards.

I do get it, I just get it a different way.

I would say that - for the examples you gave - they don't encourage it. They just tell a story about what happened one time.

I could read dracula and not have the urge to go and kill people. I can read Julius Ceaser and not think that it was encouraging me to hunt down two people and kill them.

I don't think it has to do with good guys and bad guys (The Godfather Trilogy could be argued to encourage murder, and they are obviously not the good guys by today's standards) but to do with what people can take as encouragement.

Telling a story is not encouragement. Saying "We did this, so you should and you can feel like a big man" is. And none of these stories do that, in my view.

Thank you all for your advice. It seems that most of the controversy in this proposal deals with Special Case #1. Do any of you have any suggestions on how to improve this? Or do you think it should be simply removed?

i still think you need it or something similar. what about :

Music, writings, authored pieces, or artistic pieces which incite hatred or any other criminal act towards an individual or group of individuals will not be allowed. If a local law exists that covers this then the local law will take precedence.

this way the proposal dosen't look so threathening to nations that fear erosion of sovereignty.

What about those of us who fear wasting the international community's time with proposals like this?

my view as a delegate is this draft proposal has as much right to be submitted to the queue as has anyother.

since its been reworked its more sensible than most proposals i've seen in the queue or had to debate.

The UN stands for free speech so the honourable delegate deserves their chance.

since its been reworked its more sensible than most proposals i've seen in the queue or had to debate.

I certainly concede this point to my esteemed colleague from Kirisubo. However, that's measuring it against things like Pizza Cannons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9806193&highlight=pizza+cannons#post9806193) and Emergency Midgets for All (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9806193&highlight=pizza+cannons#post9806193)...

my view as a delegate is this draft proposal has as much right to be submitted to the queue as has anyother.

since its been reworked its more sensible than most proposals i've seen in the queue or had to debate.

The UN stands for free speech so the honourable delegate deserves their chance.

hear, hear.

I certainly concede this point to my esteemed colleague from Kirisubo. However, that's measuring it against things like Pizza Cannons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9806193&highlight=pizza+cannons#post9806193) and Emergency Midgets for All (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9806193&highlight=pizza+cannons#post9806193)...
Bah. Nothing can compare with the Inflatable Gandalf Act.

We in the Allied Empire of Jey are strangely surprised at the tone of this feedback. Are artistic rights not important in your nations? Here in Jey, the fine arts are a multi-billion dollar industry.

All figures aside, this proposal deserves some respect in that it tries to protect a basic and inherent human right--to express yourself artistically with little to no boundaries. Therefore, we don't consider this proposal to be of the 'migits for all' type proposals by any stretch of the imagination.

We in the Allied Empire of Jey are strangely surprised at the tone of this feedback. Are artistic rights not important in your nations? Here in Jey, the fine arts are a multi-billion dollar industry.
It's not so much that. It's more to do with 'Is this really of International imporatance?'
Much of the rest of the argument has been over specifics within the proposal (such as Pallatium and I going toe-to-toe over the first exception).

Bah. Nothing can compare with the Inflatable Gandalf Act.

Sadly, Cluichstan was not a UN member at the time and, thus, has never seen this oft-cited piece of silliness.

Sadly, Cluichstan was not a UN member at the time and, thus, has never seen this oft-cited piece of silliness.
There's a copy in the silly proposals thread.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

There's a copy in the silly proposals thread.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Thanks, Mr. Flibble! I haven't laughed that hard in months! And while the Inflatable Gandalf Act never made it past the proposal stage, it has inspired Cluichstan to adopt a new national motto.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

Thanks, Mr. Flibble! I haven't laughed that hard in months! And while the Inflatable Gandalf Act never made it past the proposal stage, it has inspired Cluichstan to adopt a new national motto.

Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstan's Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala
No problem, that is I believe the most supported silly proposal ever. It even had it's own thread, which I'd provide a link to if the search function would actually work for me.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Got you covered.

For everyone's entertainment, I give you...The Inflatable Gandalf Act. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=423234&highlight=gandalf)

I do get it, I just get it a different way.

I would say that - for the examples you gave - they don't encourage it. They just tell a story about what happened one time.It's irrelevant if Enn or any other poster can cite a well-respected work that condones crime/violence (though I'm certain Die Rign Des Nibelungen would be well cited in that case: a) Siegfried kills Fafner, trangresses the laws of Wotan, b) Brunnhilde disobeys the law of Wotan as well, in trying to save Siegmund, c) Loge, at Brunnhilde's summoning, kills all The Gods in a fiery Walhalla at the very end). The point is that 1) if this proposal is trying to increase artists' rights, why is it introducing this form of across-the-board, blind censorship?

And the reason I don't like the proposal, 2) why is it creating one-size-fits-all regulations for every country, at all? Isn't this much more practically rendered at a national level? I mean, isn't one nation making this national policy universal policy among member nations robbing my citizens of their right to be represented in government?

Most of the works that all of you are citing are fictional works about fictional characters. The first case is meant to prevent artists from saying "go kill Mr. Smith at 123 Drive in USA", given that Mr. Smith is a real, living person. If an artist encourages the killing of a fictional character, say Hamlet, that's a different story.

why is it creating one-size-fits-all regulations for every country, at all? Isn't this much more practically rendered at a national level? I mean, isn't one nation making this national policy universal policy among member nations robbing my citizens of their right to be represented in government?

why then did the U.N. decide to create international rules based on: scientific and sexual freedom, freedom of choice, euthanasia, free trials, freedom of conscience, adoption, abortion, religious freedom, etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on

why then did the U.N. decide to create international rules based on: scientific and sexual freedom, freedom of choice, euthanasia, free trials, freedom of conscience, adoption, abortion, religious freedom, etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on

The point is that the UN shouldn't have.

It's irrelevant if Enn or any other poster can cite a well-respected work that condones crime/violence (though I'm certain Die Rign Des Nibelungen would be well cited in that case: a) Siegfried kills Fafner, trangresses the laws of Wotan, b) Brunnhilde disobeys the law of Wotan as well, in trying to save Siegmund, c) Loge, at Brunnhilde's summoning, kills all The Gods in a fiery Walhalla at the very end). The point is that 1) if this proposal is trying to increase artists' rights, why is it introducing this form of across-the-board, blind censorship?


This is not call against condoning - it is a call against encouraging or inciting.

there's a difference.


And the reason I don't like the proposal, 2) why is it creating one-size-fits-all regulations for every country, at all? Isn't this much more practically rendered at a national level? I mean, isn't one nation making this national policy universal policy among member nations robbing my citizens of their right to be represented in government?
[/QUOTE]

Well - it depends. You can argue that if you are in favour of freedom of expression, you should be in favour for it everwhere. The UN has set down a vast raft of resolutions that support this view - that the UN is in favour of freedom of various sorts, so why not freedom of expression?

The point is that the UN shouldn't have.

A MASSIVE majority of people obviously disagree with you.

A MASSIVE majority of people obviously disagree with you.

Because a massive majority obviously have the dim view that what is right for one nation must automatically be right for all. :rolleyes:

Because a massive majority obviously have the dim view that what is right for one nation must automatically be right for all. :rolleyes:

Well - yeah. That's what the UN was formed for. Did you not read the FAQ?

Further more - once again - the UN is not mandatory.

We believe that the following changes we have made to our proposal will satisfy all critics, except those who say that this issue is not worthy of the U.N., which is completely false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The General Assembly of the United Nations,

NOTING: the following past resolutions: #2 Scientific Freedom, #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #25 The Child Protection Act, #36 Freedom of Humor, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #63 Freedom of Press, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #99 Discrimination Accord, #115 Freedom of Conscience, as well as many others, for their ability to expand upon basic and inherent human rights,

ALSO NOTING: Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, which states in Article II that: “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

CONSIDERING: That the rights of artists, authors, writers, and musicians were not covered in Resolution #26 or any other N.S.U.N. resolution.

HEREBY DECLARES:

1) The rights of all artists to draw, paint, sculpt, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their artistic abilities (example: painting murals on buildings), and also given that these practices are in compliance with past U.N. resolutions as well as any local and/or national laws that may pertain to this, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

2) The rights of all authors and writers to write, print, publish, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their writing ability, and also given that these practices are in compliance with past U.N. resolutions as well as any local and/or national laws that may pertain to this, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

3) The rights of all musicians to sing, play, etc. whatever they wish, given that they are using their own properties in these acts, or properties loaned to them for their musical ability, and also given that these practices are in compliance with past U.N. resolutions as well as any local and/or national laws that may pertain to this, shall not be at all interfered with by any government of the N.S.U.N.

DEFINES:

1)An “artist” as one, such as a painter, sculptor, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic, personal, or sentimental value, especially, but not limited to the fine arts. (Note: Though artistic practices include painting, sculpting, and drawing, artistic practices are not limited only to these activities.)

2) A “writer” or an “author” as one who writes books, stories, articles, etc, especially, but not limited to, as an occupation or a profession.

3) A “musician” as one who sings, plays a musical instrument, etc, especially, but not limited to, as an occupation or profession.

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

-special cases were eliminated

-"hereby defines" section was expanded upon by including the necessity to comply with past N.S.U.N. resolution and national and/or local laws that may pertain to this proposal.

This is not call against condoning - it is a call against encouraging or inciting.

there's a difference.
Once again (perhaops I'm crossing threads) you're not responding to my post.

I'm not going to argue about the difference between condoning and inciting anf whatever. The point is that this is the opposite of securing the freedom of expression, it's censorship. And it, just like arbitrary, undemocratic laws imposed on my nation, are unwelcomed by my people, who happen to like a little gangster rap now and then ;)


Well - it depends. You can argue that if you are in favour of freedom of expression, you should be in favour for it everwhere. The UN has set down a vast raft of resolutions that support this view - that the UN is in favour of freedom of various sorts, so why not freedom of expression?
Because my people have a right to decide what falls under the freedom of expression and not. Becuase in my nation there will be exigencies and situations which, even with the honorable nation of Jey working on it, this proposal would never be able to properly address. It is too inflexible, and written in ignorance of my nations individual "freedom of expression situation".

I'm sorry but I would NEVER be able to support anything like this.

You should cut out all the extraneous citations. Begin at the beginning, as it were.

Does this cover all amateur artists equally to professional ones? Does a government have rights to pass laws of who is an authorized or licensed artist and is allowed to practice the trade?

Does this mean no government cannot pass any laws as to marking of content, presentation or sales, such as to note sexual or violent nature, strong language, or to prohibit sales to children? I don't think parents and teachers are going to like this.

Note you guarantee artist's rights, except you in the same sentence allow nations or even localities to make laws that make the act illegal.

What is an act of art? What is covered and what is not covered? Would this be more properly covered as a term 'expression?' Art is a form of expression, and is usually covered under freedoms of speech or expression.

Also we allow publishers, broadcasters, gallery and media owners and communities the right to censor what they allow go through their media. If anyone posted any sort of obnoxious content on a government web site, by this we would not be allowed to take off the "free expression." We also reserve the right for our national art galleries and museums to show or not show what we wish.

And we also write laws to allow gallery owners and publishers the right to choose what they wish to display or publish.

Nowhere do you mention issues of public versus private nature. What you artistically choose to demonstrate in your living room should not necessarily be the same, legally, as what you do in the town square.

The whole thing is somewhat of a conundrum, since you purport to guarantee rights while allowing their acts to be made unlawful by local or national law.

By limiting this to "artistic" freedom, without defining what "art" is, you limit this arguably from defending such authoring as scientific expression, information bases, and other works which are certainly "authored," but not truly "artistic" in nature.

Why not make this a more general "freedom of expression" law and generalize, rather than delineate only authors, musicians and (visual) artists?

Otherwise, dancers will wonder why they were not represented, and video arts or even basket weavers will wonder why their media was left off the list.

______
OOC Comment

While this is not the real UN, I thought it might be good to see how the real UN dealt with the issue.

Freedom of Expression internationally is upheld by international treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under Article 19:
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

You'll note that the UN tries to avoid specific media of expression, because there are so many and they change over time. There are also limited specific reasons a society may pass laws to restrict expression, for the above-stated causes.

3(a) is usually rendered "Your right to express yourself only extends so far as you are not impinging on the rights of others."

3(b) allows a state to arrest people "artistically" leaking the names of your foreign agents and nuclear weapons secrets, or to allow a private individual to ask the drummer next door to knock it off past 10pm before you call the police (public order), and to regulate violent and sexual content in video games sold to minors. However, it leaves to each nation to determine for itself what those specific laws should be.

You should also see how Article 20 might influence your thoughts, because that mandates laws against propaganda of war and "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

In other words, there are forms of artistic expression that are excluded and specifically not covered under such freedoms.

Sources

OHCHR: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm)

Article19.org (www.article19.org)

Well - yeah. That's what the UN was formed for. Did you not read the FAQ?
The FAQ, as the entire game, is heavily lathered in satire. If I say dentists are massochistic trolls who drink blood for tea, would you really expect your next dentist appointment to be under a bridge?

The FAQ, as the entire game, is heavily lathered in satire. If I say dentists are massochistic trolls who drink blood for tea, would you really expect your next dentist appointment to be under a bridge?

*smirk* Why wouldn't it be?

And eh - I think the UN is there to make things better for everyone. Not to protect petty dictators, bigots, racists, homophobes, genocidal maniacs and other such people. This is a perfect example of what they UN should be doing.

Love and esterel like very much the intentions of this proposal

but we don't understand at all what means in paragraph 1, 2 and 3:

"as well as any local and/or national laws that may pertain to this" ?

Love and esterel like very much the intentions of this proposal

but we don't understand at all what means in paragraph 1, 2 and 3:

"as well as any local and/or national laws that may pertain to this" ?

My best guess would be obscenity laws and so forth. For example you can produce a song with obscene lyrics, but you can't use this proposal to justify selling it to children, or use this to avoid putting warning labels on and so forth. Or you can write "dirty books", but you can't use this to claim they should be sold outside of licenced bookshops (if that is the law in the nation)

There might also be historical laws I guess. In Pallatium there was a Queen named Queen Leonara, who was a really, truly evil woman (and we are all glad she is dead). We generally frown on people who write books that defend her or try to paint her as misunderstood. We REALLY frown on people who deny she was evil and deny everything she did. So the clause about "local/national laws" would mean people couldn't get around these restrictions so easily.

(Just for all you freedom loving people, we don't actually BAN books like this. We just don't like them and try to convince the author that she can spend her time in a better way. But if she choses to write them anyway there is not much we can do)


(ooc - imagine books written by those who would deny the holocaust, or books that would praise Hitler for being the very-model of a modern major general. You can see why there might be laws in some nations that would forbid those).

(ic) But - like I said - that's just a guess :}

And eh - I think the UN is there to make things better for everyone. Not to protect petty dictators, bigots, racists, homophobes, genocidal maniacs and other such people. This is a perfect example of what they UN should be doing.
Saying the UN shouldn't miscarry democracy and representation isn't the same as saying the UN should protect every fascist dictator. It's just an acknowledgement of the detremental effect UN micromanagement (as I feel this proposal is pursuing) has on UN member states' citizenries.

NOTING: the following past resolutions: #2 Scientific Freedom, #6 End Slavery, #7 Sexual Freedom, #12 Gay Rights, #19 Religious Tolerance, #25 The Child Protection Act, #36 Freedom of Humor, #53 Universal Freedom of Choice, #61 Abortion Rights, #63 Freedom of Press, #80 Rights of Minorities and Women, #89 Rights of Indigenous Peoples, #99 Discrimination Accord, #115 Freedom of Conscience, as well as many others, for their ability to expand upon basic and inherent human rights,

ALSO NOTING: Resolution #26 The Universal Bill of Rights, which states in Article II that: “All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.”

CONSIDERING: That the rights of artists, authors, writers, and musicians were not covered in Resolution #26 or any other N.S.U.N. resolution.Forgive me; I haven't been able to read the entire thread, but has anyone bothered pointing out to our young Jey that this proposal is, like, totally illegal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465)??

House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

Currently, if you want to ban gay marriage, you have to repeal numerous Resolutions. Only a couple if you're talking about Resolutions that explicitly mention it; but a whole bunch if you have to Repeal every Resolution that references the few that deal explicitly with it.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones.Also, we are in total agreement with PC on this one: this is purely unnecessary micromanagement of previously passed human-rights legislation.

to our young Jey

hmm...when did i become young? Ill alert my girlfriend. If your referring to either my join date or my post number, those have no ramifications about age.

But, thank you all for your assisstance with this proposal. I will decide if i should re-submit soon.

Preamble: Leonard Otterby gave a sigh of relief, instability in his country had kept him away from the U.N. for a fortnight and he was relieved to be back in the wonderful diplomatic atmosphere. Ah, a resolution to discuss, why it was that artistic freedom one, that he'd commented on shortly before he left.

The question of regulations being imposed from above by the U.N. is contentious. We can all agree that we wish our national sovereignty would be respected and that we have as much self-determination as possible. Yet we must balance this view with the reality that as we share a common destiny and as injustices still exist, it is our duty to cultivate a culture of humanism. It may be an infringement on national sovereignty to do so, yet it is done peacefully and who can say that acts like, "Freedom of Conscience", "Democracy Act" or even "Mitigation of Reservoirs", have not helped build a better NS world(s).

The greatest force for progressivity and progress is hosted in this democratic body, the NSUN and it allows us the opportunity to, in our own image, build world in a more civilised state than the one we found it as.

That is why we cede some sovereignty to the U.N. For this humble delegate, it's a small sacrifice.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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

Preamble: Leonard Otterby gave a sigh of relief, instability in his country had kept him away from the U.N. for a fortnight and he was relieved to be back in the wonderful diplomatic atmosphere. Ah, a resolution to discuss, why it was that artistic freedom one, that he'd commented on shortly before he left.

The question of regulations being imposed from above by the U.N. is contentious. We can all agree that we wish our national sovereignty would be respected and that we have as much self-determination as possible. Yet we must balance this view with the reality that as we share a common destiny and as injustices still exist, it is our duty to cultivate a culture of humanism. It may be an infringement on national sovereignty to do so, yet it is done peacefully and who can say that acts like, "Freedom of Conscience", "Democracy Act" or even "Mitigation of Reservoirs", have not helped build a better NS world(s).

The greatest force for progressivity and progress is hosted in this democratic body, the NSUN and it allows us the opportunity to, in our own image, build world in a more civilised state than the one we found it as.

That is why we cede some sovereignty to the U.N. For this humble delegate, it's a small sacrifice.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

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


We find your text beautifull:) , the people of Love and esterel share these Humanist views

We find your text beautifull:) , the people of Love and esterel share these Humanist views

Thank you, I'm glad to be in such good company when it comes to holding them.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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