NationStates Jolt Archive

Just so everyoneknows, I submitted a proposal called "Ban Deviant Behaviours". Love it, hate it, whatever, but look at it.

Hey! Great link!

Ban Deviant Behaviours
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Habardia

Description: This proposal, when enacted, will provide a set of guidelines for individual countries to follow in regards to moral standards. Deviancies shall be classified into one of three categories: indecency, immorality & abomination. THe punishments shall be in accordance to the deed. Thus an indecency will result in a fine; an immorality shal be punished by incarceration; and an abomination shall have as its result either corporal punishment, mutilation, exile or execution, in accordance to the crime. Each state shall decide the level of punishment for each respecting crime, but the categories shall be enacted in all nations. As for what constitutes an abomination, it shall be defined as that which goes against the nature of Man, such as slaying of a parent or elderly person, sexual abuse of a child under twelve, or sexual misbehaviours such as sodomy and bestiality. These crimes shall be punished by one of the four types of correctionary procedures described above, the enactment of which shall be made public in order to deter possible deviants. Also noted must be the intent of this proposition, not of bringing back a world of executions and floggings, but of enabling states to use these methods, in as small a frequency as possible, to restore moral decency to the World.

Approvals: 1 (Habardia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 127 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Nov 6 2005

It's easier for us to comment if you post the wording on the forum.

It's illegal: right to sodomy is enshrined in UN law.

And thankfully so, since 24 March is Sodomy Day in Cluichstan.

Anyway, this isn't really a way I'd approach a moral decency proposal. States have differing methods of punishment...isn't it better to leave them to decide? I'd prefer something that was phrased in terms of defining what is unacceptable, rather than how we should deal with that.

Some of the more enlightened nations among us in the UN have actually banned corporal punishment, the death penalty, and banishment as appropriate sentences for criminal behavior, let alone for the breaking of "moral laws". We are also upset that a nation might, under the vague precepts proposed here, decide to punish consensual sex acts more harshly than murder. We thus ask that nations consider these issues very carefully before disrupting the delicate balance between secular and religious thought.

高原由
Yoshi Takahara
UN Ambassador
Krioval

Running a secular democracy, I tend to vote against anything labeled "Moral Decency" simply because years of experience suggest it's merely a codeword for people to push their antiquated beliefs on others. Well, things like molesting children... they might be labeled MD but I would consider it a human right not to get molested / raped... *decides not to get into long drawn out explanations of views*

In general, if I recall correctly, Moral Decency opposes Human Rights, in much the same way that Global Disarmament opposes International Security, or Political (In?)stability opposes Democracy.

I don't quibble with the category: criminalising sodomy is a textbook MD proposal. It's the fact it contravenes existing law that bother me.

OOC note:

"Moral Decency" works to restrict individual rights in favor of the majority of society - its "shadow effects" would be the opposite of the "Human Rights" category. Civil rights should drop, but crime may also drop. In essence, I think that all UN categories have their plusses and minuses, but that most people in the UN (myself included, both IC and OOC) favor civil rights.

I looked at it, and think this has three chances of getting to the floor, nil, zilch and buckleys. As others have said, its illegal. Even if it wasn't, I am confident that the majority of UN nations would reject something that

A - doesn't cross international boundries. How could the sex life of my citizens affect the citizens of any other nation?

B - is just plain barbaric.

Waterana has just outlawed the death penalty, not that we ever carried an execution out. Its a bit hard in a nation with no prisons. Even if we did want to carry out these sadistic punishments, there is no way we'd turn it into a spectacle by doing it in public.

Our government has no interest in what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. We don't care what gender the paticpants are either. Thats none of our business. We have more important things for our police force to do than "bedroom inspections".

If you want your people dragged back to the dark ages, go for it, but leave my nation out of your plans.

The Dominion of Dododecapod would consider such an article to be seriously invasive of our basic sovereignty, and unacceptably interfering in the lives of Dominion Subjects. It is the position of the Dominion that the UN should not consider this article.

6th Dominar (Foreign Relations), Dominion of Dododecapod.

But - on the bright side - you can class all acts as indecency, make the fine 1 guilder (or gold piece or whatever) and make the fine payable to the person who commited the act that caused the fine.

That would enact the entire resolution in to law with no actual side effects.

(Except the whole being illegal for a number of reasons, including the gay rights and the end barbaricl punishments resolutions to name a few)

(bugger - I just re-read the part that defines abominitation in no uncertain terms, so there goes my plan)

The Dominion of Dododecapod would consider such an article to be seriously invasive of our basic sovereignty, and unacceptably interfering in the lives of Dominion Subjects. It is the position of the Dominion that the UN should not consider this article.

Invasive of basic sovereignty? Yes.
Isn't the same true of those UN resolutions that specfically legalise some of the behaviours involved?

Invasive of basic sovereignty? Yes.
Isn't the same true of those UN resolutions that specfically legalise some of the behaviours involved?

Well - no. Because making something legal doesn't affect those people who don't want to take part in it (just because gay sex is legal doesn't mean everyone has to partake of it) but banning it does prevent those who wish to partake from doing so.

Fascinating, though, to see that the punishments for 'abominations' are, in themselves, abominations.

A significant proportion of our population would like to see this reach quorum, solely for the entertainment value implicit in the phrase, "that which goes against the nature of Man".

However, it is evident that its success would lead to a startling increase in the world population of lawyers.

Such an outcome is not to be contemplated.

Consequently, on behalf of my government I must regretfully decline this attractive opportunity for self-indulgence, while thanking the government of Habardia for making it possible. -- Dicey Riley, Co-President.

A - doesn't cross international boundries. How could the sex life of my citizens affect the citizens of any other nation?

B - is just plain barbaric.

Wait, so you've cha- oh, wrong debate. Apologies.

Wait, so you've cha- oh, wrong debate. Apologies.
I assume you are having a go at me because of my stance on Abortion Rights?

This doesn't protect human rights, it tramples them into the dirt, then spits on them. I support resolutions that cross borders to protect the human rights of citizens, which I consider a billion times more important than national soverignty.

If that makes me a hypocrite, so be it, I don't care :).

However, it is evident that its success would lead to a startling increase in the world population of lawyers.

Such an outcome is not to be contemplated.
We await the passage of this resolution with slavering anticipation.

Well - no. Because making something legal doesn't affect those people who don't want to take part in it (just because gay sex is legal doesn't mean everyone has to partake of it) but banning it does prevent those who wish to partake from doing so.

Well, yes, because the UN mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon national sovereignty.

Well, yes, because the UN mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon national sovereignty.

If i follow your logic:

a nation mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon regional (or states) sovereignty
a region (or state) mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon cities sovereignty
a city mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon people sovereignty

Contrary to what happens in some nations (even UN members) UN resolutions are democratic
i obviously don't say that because i'm happy with the last UN decision, as WMA failed, repeal PoDA passed and repeal FFRA is going to be defeated:p

If i follow your logic:

a nation mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon regional (or states) sovereignty
a region (or state) mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon cities sovereignty
a city mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon people sovereignty

Contrary to what happens in some nations (even UN members) UN resolutions are democratic.

If you accept that state, region or city can have sovereignty, then yes it is. It's a question of how justifiable that is. It's worth pointing out that I am a sovereigntist in certain issues, but I still support UN legislation in many areas. Sovereignty is not an absolute law, but a guiding principle. Also, neither Cluichstan nor myself ever expressed doubts that the UN was democratic: in fact, it was we who got huffy with you when you pointed at the delegate votes in the WMA (I think) vote.

Waterana: I didn't mean to 'have a go'. I was just amused that those 2 sentences in isolation corrolated quite closely to the views of some people on the opposite side to you in the abortion debate. 'Sex lives' and 'barbarism' need to be defined before they are taken as absolute objections. Nonetheless, apologies if I offended. (And, to repeat, I support #61).

If you accept that state, region or city can have sovereignty, then yes it is. It's a question of how justifiable that is. It's worth pointing out that I am a sovereigntist in certain issues, but I still support UN legislation in many areas. Sovereignty is not an absolute law, but a guiding principle. Also, neither Cluichstan nor myself ever expressed doubts that the UN was democratic: in fact, it was we who got huffy with you when you pointed at the delegate votes in the WMA (I think) vote.


My Gruenberger friend has explained the Cluichstani position on national sovereignty most eloquently. Also, we both did, in fact, point out that the UN is democratic. However, this system, in my humble opinion, brings with it both good and bad.

Well, yes, because the UN mandating either way on such issues is an infringement upon national sovereignty.

(grin) You don't say?

I dare say I do say.

(grin) You don't say?

Do you have a point, Your Highness, or do you just like to smile and ask inane questions?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Do you have a point, Your Highness, or do you just like to smile and ask inane questions?

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

It was my roundabout way of saying that he might have made this point in other debates, and that I almost entirely disagree with him.

It was my roundabout way of saying that he might have made this point in other debates, and that I almost entirely disagree with him.

Ah. I'll take that as a "yes".

Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

What would these guidelines contain? If a goverment/ruler wants to make something illegal then they can, as long as it doesn't break UN rules but please don't infringe our belifs with what others belive is immoral. I fail to see the need for this and I consider some of the punishments worying. Exile from Cuation could be seen as a reward and to see a man happily walking away from my despotic rule...

Leave it to the individual nations, that is my advice

Jude
Worried Ruler of Cuation

Hmm.....proposal shredding time

Description: This proposal, when enacted, will provide a set of guidelines for individual countries to follow in regards to moral standards.

Because countries should have a moral standard for their population to follow :rolleyes:

Deviancies shall be classified into one of three categories: indecency, immorality & abomination.

I love the term "deviancy". It suggests that to be "different" than the "norm" is to be...."bad". I've never fully understood this concept. I always saw deviance from the norm as being a good thing. Its what advances this race, makes them think, make them explore and be curious. All these aspects I see as the elements to deviance, and all these elements I see as the reason we have become so advanced. After all, Galileo and Christopher Columbus are two people well noted for deviating from standard thinking - and now they are heroes in the eyes of history for what they discovered.

THe punishments shall be in accordance to the deed.

As always



I might disagree, but that doesn't mean its insane....yet

[QUOTE]and an abomination shall have as its result either corporal punishment, mutilation, exile or execution, in accordance to the crime.

Resolution 74(?), Ban Barbaric Punishments. Pretty much, you leave execution and exile - both of which are extreme for just about ANY crime in most nations with exception to, perhaps, multiple homocide, terrorist actions, etc.

Each state shall decide the level of punishment for each respecting crime, but the categories shall be enacted in all nations.

Yes, because we have a lot of maneuvering ability between "execution" and "exile". :rolleyes:

As for what constitutes an abomination, it shall be defined as that which goes against the nature of Man,

If you've ever gotten into a REAL philosophy debate, you'll find that there is no conclusive definition of what defines "nature of Man". So much work in science and philosophy has pretty much put just about every action we do either as being a part or not a part of the nature of man. Some believe that just not being greedy is to defy the nature of man, while others think that beyond needing sleep and food, there is absolutely NO trait that man was born with.

On another note, are we talking the average man? Because that means a whole lot of things, and the human race is well known for forgetting their.....less wonderful qualities and seeing them as evil - even if they themselves did it.

such as slaying of a parent or elderly person,

Neither I see as unusual beyond normal homocide. Heck, there was a well done proposal where the person argued that all should be put down at the age of 72. I didn't see it as immoral or wrong, I just disagreed that we should hold policies like this - especially since my 80+ year old grandmother is an amazing contributor to her community while my other 80+ year old grandmother is pretty much deadweight to her community.

sexual abuse of a child under twelve,

Dealt with - duplication - and we have a bit more varied method of dealing with it (so incarceration is possible - which is a much better solution than making it someone else's problem if you don't believe in capital punishment). It is treated as a top crime.

or sexual misbehaviours such as sodomy and bestiality.

Sodomy is not only legal, there are many groups in today's RL world that are promoting various forms of sodomy as being a GOOD thing. Beastiality - with the variety of species that are sentient out there, HELL NO

These crimes shall be punished by one of the four types of correctionary procedures described above,

4? Try 2. And WOW, calling "corporal punishment", "mutilation", "exile" and "exectution" as "correctionary procedures"......*shivers*

the enactment of which shall be made public in order to deter possible deviants.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ever read 1984? Did you see what they said about publicly punishing someone while they still disagree with you? They said that by doing this, you're spreading their discontent with your system just as you're spreading your belief that it is wrong. As such, your system will fail.

Also noted must be the intent of this proposition, not of bringing back a world of executions and floggings, but of enabling states to use these methods, in as small a frequency as possible, to restore moral decency to the World.

Yet....with the high rates of each of these actions meaning hundreds of thousands a year being arrested and our hands being forced on the punishment forms......you already have brought back this world.

We await the passage of this resolution with slavering anticipation.

HAVING been shudderingly reminded of the existence of the above nation, and

NOTING that there are already far too many of our learned friends wandering about the UN buildings,

WE, the Intermittently Sovereign Nation of Ardchoille, HEREBY PROPOSE:

(a) that there oughta be a law against it, and

(b) it can't happen soon enough.

That being so, we decline to succumb further to the temptation of debating on the alluring topics raised by the Government of Habardia.

This requires considerable moral strength on our part, as the delegate of Forgottenlands has teased us with so many attractive subjects for philosophical discussion that, in our opinion, he has just performed the intellectual equivalent of the Dance of the Seven Veils.

We find the distinguished representative from Habardia's ideas intriguing, and offer Our support for their resolution.

Fascinating, though, to see that the punishments for 'abominations' are, in themselves, abominations.

This would seem to be only logical, though, should it not? What better way to teach those who lead an abominable life what the true nature of it is?

We find the distinguished representative from Habardia's ideas intriguing, and offer Our support for their resolution.


You are aware that the proposal is almost entirely illegal due to the issue about sodomy?



This would seem to be only logical, though, should it not? What better way to teach those who lead an abominable life what the true nature of it is?

Because if you are going to punish someone, you should hold yourself to higher standards than the person you are punishing?

As the Benevolent Overlord of my people I will decide what is morrally acceptable from my subjects. We have no desire or wish for the UN to control that aspect of our daily lives. Even if this was Legal you would not have My support.

That said, TOGA PARTY!! :D