NationStates Jolt Archive

Permanent Banishment Ban

Human Rights

Significant.

Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens as punishment for various crimes/actions, including things as mild as speaking out against their government.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these refugees, whether they are criminals or not. This forces those receiving nations to deal with the problems the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation’s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing such a punishment is grossly unfair and unjust.

Affirming a native born or naturalised citizen’s right to reside in their home nation without the fear of government removing their citizenship, and/or forcing them to permanently leave that nation.

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent banishment as a punishment for any reason against a native born or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born or naturalised citizen as punishment for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born or naturalised citizens to voluntarily agree to permanent banishment. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born or naturalized citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Urges nations to use alternatives to temporary forced exile.

Any native born or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

My latest proposal attempt. All comments are welcome, even negative ones :).

I hate it!!!!..... JK :) nah, looks quite good. although it does have some drawbacks. this removes the ability to revoke someone's citizenship and send them back to the nation they were born/resided in previously. also, in some nations, due to prison overcrowding, they prefer to deport naturalised citizens that have broken the law than keep them.
on another note, some people could see exile as being more favourable than death, as the other alternative is the death penalty in most cases

other than that, you have me interested.

This doesn't affect the ability of nations to deport permanent residents or other immigrants who haven't yet renounced citizenship of the nation they came from and legally become a citizen of their new nation.

If someone has immigrated to another nation and taken legal citizenship in that nation, renouncing all ties and loyalties to the nation they came from, then they are just as much a citizen of their new nation, and protected by this proposal, as a native born citizen. If a nation has accepted the person as a citizen, then they accept the responsibilities that come with that ;).

I've tried to deal with the "banishment or death" problem in point 3 but know its a sticky problem. Citizens can still volunteer to go into exile, under this, their government just can't force them to go, or use deceptive metholds to convince them to choose.

If someone has immigrated to another nation and taken legal citizenship in that nation, renouncing all ties and loyalties to the nation they came from, then they are just as much a citizen of their new nation, and protected by this proposal, as a native born citizen. If a nation has accepted the person as a citizen, then they accept the responsibilities that come with that ;).
maybe there should be some encouragement then to look into peoples past then, because under this, someone could sneak into a country, apply and get citezenship, renounce the ties to the country they came from, then stir trouble in the nation.

I don't think that would be necessary. In most, if not all, nations those sort of checks would be part of the immigration process and be carried out before or just after the person enters the nation, long before they become eligible for full legal citizenship :).

only problem there is that they might seem clean beforehand. these things have been overlooked in the past too.

also, on the 'banishment or death' thing, some nations wouldnt bother about giving them the option, as since this would stop them forcing them, they would just give them a bullet, or whatever the DP is in their country

only problem there is that they might seem clean beforehand. these things have been overlooked in the past too.

But if they 'seem clean' no addition to the proposal is going to change that.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World

My latest proposal attempt. All comments are welcome, even negative ones :).

I'm sorry, but this is appalling.

Pallatium has exile as one of it's punishments, because otherwise we would have the death penalty. And it is only used for the most heinous of crimes (terrorism with bloodshed, treason during times of war, collaboration and so forth).

I know - we are giving the problem to someone else, but the alternative is we re-instate the death penatly and kill all of these people.

Also - there is no statute that says other nations have to take them - the protection of refugees act does not (as far as I am aware) extend to criminals.


Mostly we work on the basis that if someone has betrayed their country that much, they lose the right to live in it, and while we don't believe killing them is the way to enforce that loss, expelling them is.

But if they 'seem clean' no addition to the proposal is going to change that.

Rose,
UN representative,
The Black New World
good point. then what are we going to do with them?

So if no other nation has to take them, where do these stateless people go, tents along the border? They have to go somewhere and if you only expell the most heinous of criminals, what makes you think the rest of us want to deal with them :).

Your criminals are your problem, not mine or any other nations and should be dealt with within your borders if thats where they committed the crime. If you feel the only option to banishment is the death penalty, then thats a decision for you to make. The only restriction under this with death is no nation can force a victim to choose between it and banishment.

good point. then what are we going to do with them?

This really is something that concerns immigration, which this proposal doesn't cover.

This only affects a person who has already been granted full citizenship rights after renouncing all ties to their previous nation. That makes them equal to someone born in the nation with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that.

If a nation didn't do its homework properly at the time of immigration, or even at the time the immigrant applied for citizenship, then thats the nations fault and problem ;).

So if no other nation has to take them, where do these stateless people go, tents along the border? They have to go somewhere and if you only expell the most heinous of criminals, what makes you think the rest of us want to deal with them :).

Your criminals are your problem, not mine or any other nations and should be dealt with within your borders if thats where they committed the crime. If you feel the only option to banishment is the death penalty, then thats a decision for you to make. The only restriction under this with death is no nation can force a victim to choose between it and banishment.
okay, i see your point more clearer now. with that statment being made, you have won me over fully

Is there anything to keep nations from defining sentences of "temporary" banishment in terms of more years than the people concerned could reasonably expect to have left of their lives?

("It isn't 'permanent', it's just for 999 years." ;-)

Is there anything to keep nations from defining sentences of "temporary" banishment in terms of more years than the people concerned could reasonably expect to have left of their lives?

("It isn't 'permanent', it's just for 999 years." ;-)

Excellent point and thanks for bringing it up :).

I'll look at closing that little loophole.

So if no other nation has to take them, where do these stateless people go, tents along the border? They have to go somewhere and if you only expell the most heinous of criminals, what makes you think the rest of us want to deal with them :).

Your criminals are your problem, not mine or any other nations and should be dealt with within your borders if thats where they committed the crime. If you feel the only option to banishment is the death penalty, then thats a decision for you to make. The only restriction under this with death is no nation can force a victim to choose between it and banishment.

It's not so much the scale of the crime, as the actions.

If we believe they have betrayed their company, and their people (collaborators in a war for example), then we believe they no longer have a right to live in this country and enjoy the benifits of it. How is that wrong?

It's not so much the scale of the crime, as the actions.

If we believe they have betrayed their company, and their people (collaborators in a war for example), then we believe they no longer have a right to live in this country and enjoy the benifits of it. How is that wrong?

I see it as wrong because you are foisting them on other nations. They can't go home, in fact no longer have one, but they do have to go somewhere.

If they have broken the laws of your nation then your nation needs to deal with that within your borders.

I hate it!!!!..... JK :) nah, looks quite good. although it does have some drawbacks. this removes the ability to revoke someone's citizenship and send them back to the nation they were born/resided in previously. also, in some nations, due to prison overcrowding, they prefer to deport naturalised citizens that have broken the law than keep them.
on another note, some people could see exile as being more favourable than death, as the other alternative is the death penalty in most cases

other than that, you have me interested.

Your points are well indeed, though I tend to be opposed to this resolution; only in the sense that traditionally the CRoT has welcomed (and naturalized) the religious and political refugees of states which employ such penalities as banishment; and have in the past encouraged banishment as an alternative in other states, so as to take refugees who would otherwise be exterminated or imprisoned by the foreign state. And banishment is a much better alternative than the impositions which would be applied by these states otherwise.

The proposal calls the taking of these refugees as a "burden", and we of the Constitutional Republic consider such an honor, and no burden at all.

This only affects a person who has already been granted full citizenship rights after renouncing all ties to their previous nation. That makes them equal to someone born in the nation with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that.


If that is the intended coverage of the proposal, it should be specified in the proposal. Some nations recognize dual citizenship.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This has go to be one of the dummest proposals I have ever heard. You have got to be kidding me/ This is an attempt to take over the individual governments of UN member nations. To say that a nation cannot exile or banish a person from their country, regardless of any crimes that that person committed if any is outlandishly moronic and dictatorshiply. The UN is a diplomatic Entity. Not a dictatorship. The UN is supposed to take under council and discussion, proposals that might better the world, vote on those and if they pass they are resolutions. If and or once they become resolutions, they are only GUIDLINES for nations to follow IF that nation deems that that particular resolution will not be detrimental to the citizens or government of that nation. That is all. Your proposal means to take the UN even farther down the road to Dictatorship than it already is. The UN is dangerously close to being exactly what nations like Cuba, and the old Soviet Union was and is. How about Nazi Germany? Wow, the UN is not to far from being like that either. I can not believe the resolutions that have passed in the UN. I cannot believe some of the proposals I am hearing from some members of the UN. What ever happened to commonsense? What ever happened to a nation being governed by it's OWN GOVERNMENT. That is not the UN's job nor function, but so far that is exactly what the UN is trying to do. Your proposal, is an affront and a slap in the face to Democracy.

This has go to be one of the dummest proposals I have ever heard. You have got to be kidding me/ This is an attempt to take over the individual governments of UN member nations. To say that a nation cannot exile or banish a person from their country, regardless of any crimes that that person committed if any is outlandishly moronic and dictatorshiply. The UN is a diplomatic Entity. Not a dictatorship. The UN is supposed to take under council and discussion, proposals that might better the world, vote on those and if they pass they are resolutions. If and or once they become resolutions, they are only GUIDLINES for nations to follow IF that nation deems that that particular resolution will not be detrimental to the citizens or government of that nation. That is all. Your proposal means to take the UN even farther down the road to Dictatorship than it already is. The UN is dangerously close to being exactly what nations like Cuba, and the old Soviet Union was and is. How about Nazi Germany? Wow, the UN is not to far from being like that either. I can not believe the resolutions that have passed in the UN. I cannot believe some of the proposals I am hearing from some members of the UN. What ever happened to commonsense? What ever happened to a nation being governed by it's OWN GOVERNMENT. That is not the UN's job nor function, but so far that is exactly what the UN is trying to do. Your proposal, is an affront and a slap in the face to Democracy.

This has go to be one of the dummest proposals I have ever heard. You have got to be kidding me/ This is an attempt to take over the individual governments of UN member nations. To say that a nation cannot exile or banish a person from their country, regardless of any crimes that that person committed if any is outlandishly moronic and dictatorshiply. The UN is a diplomatic Entity. Not a dictatorship. The UN is supposed to take under council and discussion, proposals that might better the world, vote on those and if they pass they are resolutions. If and or once they become resolutions, they are only GUIDLINES for nations to follow IF that nation deems that that particular resolution will not be detrimental to the citizens or government of that nation. That is all. Your proposal means to take the UN even farther down the road to Dictatorship than it already is. The UN is dangerously close to being exactly what nations like Cuba, and the old Soviet Union was and is. How about Nazi Germany? Wow, the UN is not to far from being like that either. I can not believe the resolutions that have passed in the UN. I cannot believe some of the proposals I am hearing from some members of the UN. What ever happened to commonsense? What ever happened to a nation being governed by it's OWN GOVERNMENT. That is not the UN's job nor function, but so far that is exactly what the UN is trying to do. Your proposal, is an affront and a slap in the face to Democracy.

-snipped rant-

1. Tripple posts are unnecessary. If there is an error, please at least delete the other two.

2. I was not aware that Germany (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=Germany) was controled by Nazi's.

3. NSUN resolutions are not GUIDELINES, they are effective law within the borders of member-states.

4. I was unable to find any nation called Cuba, nor one called the Soviet Union.

You once made a septuple post. Now you triple post. And you're calling other people stupid?

With regard to the use of exile to punish murderers and terrorists, it is the opinion of Krioval that such punishment is often too...efficient for our tastes. Of course, if one expels terrorists, one must be certain that those terrorists would never seek reentry to cause more damage, is that correct?

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

The people of Cluichstan are going to have to give this proposal some thought. On its face, it appears reasonable, though.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

(OOC: And I suspect that United specopscom's current post count of 82 is actually only six posts, with numerous duplications. :rolleyes: )

I would suggest leaving it possible to revoke the citizenship of naturalised citizens in any cases where they are proven to have given false information to the authorities during the naturalisation process.


By the way, do you know the story 'The Man Without A Country'? Would its protagonist's sentence count as "banishment" under your interpretation of the term, or would the fact that the ships he was kept aboard belonged to his homeland mean that technically he was still on its soil?

By the way, do you know the story 'The Man Without A Country'? Would its protagonist's sentence count as "banishment" under your interpretation of the term, or would the fact that the ships he was kept aboard belonged to his homeland mean that technically he was still on its soil?

Technically, the latter.

Your points are well indeed, though I tend to be opposed to this resolution; only in the sense that traditionally the CRoT has welcomed (and naturalized) the religious and political refugees of states which employ such penalities as banishment; and have in the past encouraged banishment as an alternative in other states, so as to take refugees who would otherwise be exterminated or imprisoned by the foreign state. And banishment is a much better alternative than the impositions which would be applied by these states otherwise.

The proposal calls the taking of these refugees as a "burden", and we of the Constitutional Republic consider such an honor, and no burden at all.

We accept the refugees too, though no state should have the right to eject legal citizens from their own nation. The problems start with states banishing dangerous criminals, whom end up in other nations.

I see a state as being owned by the people, not the government and a persons right to live in the nation they were born in or chose and were accepted to is a fundamental right states shouldn't have any right to revoke.

If that is the intended coverage of the proposal, it should be specified in the proposal. Some nations recognize dual citizenship.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Duel citizens are already full legal citizens and are covered by the proposal. As far as this proposal is concerned, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen on one nation, two nations or ten nations. No government should have a right to force anyone to leave their home, and certainly shouldn't have a right to push their criminals on other nations.


This has go to be one of the dummest proposals I have ever heard. You have got to be kidding me/ This is an attempt to take over the individual governments of UN member nations. To say that a nation cannot exile or banish a person from their country, regardless of any crimes that that person committed if any is outlandishly moronic and dictatorshiply. The UN is a diplomatic Entity. Not a dictatorship. The UN is supposed to take under council and discussion, proposals that might better the world, vote on those and if they pass they are resolutions. If and or once they become resolutions, they are only GUIDLINES for nations to follow IF that nation deems that that particular resolution will not be detrimental to the citizens or government of that nation. That is all. Your proposal means to take the UN even farther down the road to Dictatorship than it already is. The UN is dangerously close to being exactly what nations like Cuba, and the old Soviet Union was and is. How about Nazi Germany? Wow, the UN is not to far from being like that either. I can not believe the resolutions that have passed in the UN. I cannot believe some of the proposals I am hearing from some members of the UN. What ever happened to commonsense? What ever happened to a nation being governed by it's OWN GOVERNMENT. That is not the UN's job nor function, but so far that is exactly what the UN is trying to do. Your proposal, is an affront and a slap in the face to Democracy.

I'm not a national soverignist and don't write toothless guidelines.

I would suggest leaving it possible to revoke the citizenship of naturalised citizens in any cases where they are proven to have given false information to the authorities during the naturalisation process.


By the way, do you know the story 'The Man Without A Country'? Would its protagonist's sentence count as "banishment" under your interpretation of the term, or would the fact that the ships he was kept aboard belonged to his homeland mean that technically he was still on its soil?

I hate the thought of a nation being able to revoke citizenship in any circumstances. Like I said in a previous post, if a nation didn't do it's homework and check the person's past properly in the immigration stage, then any problems the new citizen causes is the states own fault. Allowing the revoking of citizenship in any circumstance would just leave it open to abuse by unscrupulous states.

and Cluichstan is right, it is the latter. You can banish within your own borders as much as you want. Pick an island or something and go for it. This only covers permanent banishment accross borders.

I see a state as being owned by the people, not the government and a persons right to live in the nation they were born in or chose and were accepted to is a fundamental right states shouldn't have any right to revoke.


And I entirely and totally disagree. Queen Leonara was born and raised in Pallatium, and - as you will guess - became Queen. But then she set about committing all sorts of heinous and horrible crimes. She committed mass murder, she betrayed every single person who lived her, and every person who had fought and died for our nation. When The PPA started their cause, people died in defence of this country, fighting against her and her armies.

If she had lived to be dethroned (instead of being blown up by "terrorists") and tried for her crimes, she would have been exiled.

Because the memories of those who fought and died to defend this nation - the memories of those she betrayed, those she killed, those she condemmed to work as slaves for the rest of their lives - the memories of every single person in Pallatium would have been betrayed had she been permitted to remain a citizen of this nation. Because as a citizen she would have been under the same protections she tried to abolish and destroy.

So - no - no one has a right to remain a citizen of the country of their birth for the whole of their life. If someone betrays that nation (such as Queen Leonara, or someone who is a traitor in war time) - if they are willing to work against that country for the good of another one, why should they be permitted to stay there?

It's just wrong.

And I entirely and totally disagree. Queen Leonara was born and raised in Pallatium, and - as you will guess - became Queen. But then she set about committing all sorts of heinous and horrible crimes. She committed mass murder, she betrayed every single person who lived her, and every person who had fought and died for our nation. When The PPA started their cause, people died in defence of this country, fighting against her and her armies.

If she had lived to be dethroned (instead of being blown up by "terrorists") and tried for her crimes, she would have been exiled.

Because the memories of those who fought and died to defend this nation - the memories of those she betrayed, those she killed, those she condemmed to work as slaves for the rest of their lives - the memories of every single person in Pallatium would have been betrayed had she been permitted to remain a citizen of this nation. Because as a citizen she would have been under the same protections she tried to abolish and destroy.

So - no - no one has a right to remain a citizen of the country of their birth for the whole of their life. If someone betrays that nation (such as Queen Leonara, or someone who is a traitor in war time) - if they are willing to work against that country for the good of another one, why should they be permitted to stay there?

It's just wrong.

No, exiling her and foisting her and her criminal past on another nation is wrong.

You have alternatives, lock her up for the rest of her life (they had an interesting punishment in the middle ages for high born criminal women, walling them up), send her to an island or some such within your own nation or execute her, but don't just send her off to start her henious crimes all over again in another nation.

If someone is a "traitor" in war time, what are the odds they will just go to the opposing nation and continue to work against their home nation, only with a real reason now to hate it and want to see it destroyed. All that sort of exile does is take the criminal out of your control and free them to continue to work against their home governement and start their crimes all over again somewhere else.

No, exiling her and foisting her and her criminal past on another nation is wrong.

You have alternatives, lock her up for the rest of her life (they had an interesting punishment in the middle ages for high born criminal women, walling them up), send her to an island or some such within your own nation or execute her, but don't just send her off to start her henious crimes all over again in another nation.

If someone is a "traitor" in war time, what are the odds they will just go to the opposing nation and continue to work against their home nation, only with a real reason now to hate it and want to see it destroyed. All that sort of exile does is take the criminal out of your control and free them to continue to work against their home governement and start their crimes all over again somewhere else.

Again - I disagree. To let her live in Pallatium would have been a huge insult to everyone who fought and died - people who gave up their lives to see that Pallatium would be free of her influence. How do I explain to them that "well - yeah I know she tried to destroy the country, but I have to let her stay anyway"?

Then execute her if her crimes are so bad. She is your problem, not ours.

In that cirucumstance, if I was one of those people who fought against her, I'd feel betrayed and angry at a government who let her live and walk away from the nation scott free. In cases of people like your ex-Queen, exile is a reward, a chance to regroup and try again, not a punishment ;)

Then execute her if her crimes are so bad. She is your problem, not ours.

In that cirucumstance, if I was one of those people who fought against her, I'd feel betrayed and angry at a government who let her live and walk away from the nation scott free. In cases of people like your ex-Queen, exile is a reward, a chance to regroup and try again, not a punishment ;)

Hold on - now I am a tad confused.

You are saying that exile is walking away scott free - not being punished at all - then why are you so against it? Why do you think that it is something no government should be able to do to someone?

Either it's a bad thing, or a good thing. You can't have it both ways.

Hold on - now I am a tad confused.

You are saying that exile is walking away scott free - not being punished at all - then why are you so against it? Why do you think that it is something no government should be able to do to someone?

Either it's a bad thing, or a good thing. You can't have it both ways.

I said in cases like your ex-Queen its walking away scott free, and hopefully cases like her are very rare. Most nations would consider someone responsible for the type of crimes she committed way too dangerous to live and execute them. Waterana certainly would have in the past.

I'm against banishment for two reasons, which I have gone into in this thread.

In the case of minor "crimes" such as speaking out against the government, its unjust and unfair to rob a person of their identity and force them to leave their home. There is nothing stopping the person leaving the nation themselves voluntarily however. Temporary forced exile also isn't forbidden under this proposal, but I do need to look at that and try to find a way to prevent states abusing it.

In the case of dangerous criminals its wrong for any state to dump its garbage on other nations. Your ex-Queen would also fall into that catagory.

I said in cases like your ex-Queen its walking away scott free, and hopefully cases like her are very rare. Most nations would consider someone responsible for the type of crimes she committed way too dangerous to live and execute them. Waterana certainly would have in the past.

I'm against banishment for two reasons, which I have gone into in this thread.

In the case of minor "crimes" such as speaking out against the government, its unjust and unfair to rob a person of their identity and force them to leave their home. There is nothing stopping the person leaving the nation themselves voluntarily however. Temporary forced exile also isn't forbidden under this proposal, but I do need to look at that and try to find a way to prevent states abusing it.


That much I get and I have no issue with.


In the case of dangerous criminals its wrong for any state to dump its garbage on other nations. Your ex-Queen would also fall into that catagory.

This I totally disagree with, and always will :}


By the way - where in the UN resolutions does it say other nations have to accept her? While we can kick people out (and, just so as you know, as far as I am aware, we have never actually exiled anyone. Queen Leonara would have been the first, but she was killed by "terrorists" so it kind of solved the problem) there is no law that says other nations have to accept her. She wouldn't class as a refugee, cause she isn't, and no nation is forced to accept other people.

She'd have to go somewhere, unless she lived the rest of her life in a tiny strip of no-mans land between the borders of two nations.

I know no states have to accept banished people, but unless there is an unclaimed tract of land somewhere in the NS world (and I don't know of one), then the criminals will end up in another nation sooner or later.

Duel citizens are already full legal citizens and are covered by the proposal. As far as this proposal is concerned, it doesn't matter if you are a citizen on one nation, two nations or ten nations. No government should have a right to force anyone to leave their home, and certainly shouldn't have a right to push their criminals on other nations.


Our comment was in response to a posting in which you said:

This only affects a person who has already been granted full citizenship rights after renouncing all ties to their previous nation. That makes them equal to someone born in the nation with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that. [Bolding ours]

Persons holding dual citizenship have obviously not renounced ties to their original nation of citizenship. We must admit to being confused.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Our comment was in response to a posting in which you said:

This only affects a person who has already been granted full citizenship rights after renouncing all ties to their previous nation. That makes them equal to someone born in the nation with all the rights and responsibilities that come with that. [Bolding ours]

Persons holding dual citizenship have obviously not renounced ties to their original nation of citizenship. We must admit to being confused.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ah yes, I understand. Sorry for not getting it earlier :).

Someone with duel citizenship doesn't have to renounce all ties to a former nation because they have equal status as full legal citizens in both nations. From my understanding most people gain duel citizenship by virtue of being born in one nation to parents who are citizens of another. The birth nation and the parents home nation both accept the child as a legal citizen of their nation.

My explaination was trying to define a person who immigrates, lives in their new nation for a period of time, then applies for and is granted full citizenship, giving them equal status to a native born citizen. In most cases that involves them being required to give up their right to citizenship in their previous nation.

This proposal seems a little too interfering. Maybe it should not stop permanent banishing, but instead create refuge countries for the banished, and help supply aid. Or maybe give each country their share of refugee's. It wouldn't do to ban banishing.

This proposal seems a little too interfering. Maybe it should not stop permanent banishing, but instead create refuge countries for the banished, and help supply aid. Or maybe give each country their share of refugee's. It wouldn't do to ban banishing.
for certain situations, yes. but i doubt many nations would be willing to accept convicted criminals, thus a catch 22 situation....

maybe a country of hardened criminals should be created. That would then give them a shock. How can they continue their crime when there is nothing to rob, and where you might be robbed. The criminals would have to learn that they must survive and produce the necessary equipment for survival. When the criminals have given up crime, seeing how hard people have had to workto create the little items they steal, they will think twice about stealing. And probably appreciate the would be stolen item, and also give them a new sense of justice and civic pride.
In effect, it would mean letting crminals survive and rehabilitate on an island with nothing to steal, and drastically change them.
optischer

This proposal seems a little too interfering. Maybe it should not stop permanent banishing, but instead create refuge countries for the banished, and help supply aid. Or maybe give each country their share of refugee's. It wouldn't do to ban banishing.

Let me get this straight. Telling nations to deal with their problems within their own borders and not foist them on other nations is interfearing, yet taking land away from other nations to create this refuge country or making other nations accept the refugees isn't?

This proposal isn't soverignty friendly, and isn't supposed to be, but it is going to force nations to deal with their criminals themselves instead of just sending them off and having them land on the doorstep of the nation next door, who may or may not want them.

I've already given an alternative to banishment in this thread. Pick an island, a desert area ect within your own nation and send your criminals there. That way they are still under your control, are still within your borders and aren't being foisted off on the international community.

*snip*This proposal isn't soverignty friendly, and isn't supposed to be *snip*
whilst i agree with this, i do agree with the proposal. i dont think any land should be put aside for exiles and i believe that nations should deal with criminals, not exile them, practically forcing them on other nations. Optischer, the scenario that you set up would lead them to killing each other, because they can only steal and do other stuff to each other, and most of them would take a 'do unto others before they do unto you' approach.

Permanent Banishment Ban

Human Rights

Significant.

Alarmed that some nations use the removal of citizenship and/or permanent banishment of citizens as punishment for various crimes/actions.

Defining banishment as the forcible permanent expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining exile as the forcible or voluntary permanent or temporary expulsion of a citizen from the nation of his/her birth or naturalisation by judicial or government order.

Defining citizenship as the fundamental and legal right of a person to permanently reside in a nation by virtue of birth within that nation, having duel citizenship of that nation and at least one other, or by an immigrant obtaining permanent citizen status under that nation’s law.

Noting such a punishment forces other nations to accept and care for these criminals. This forces those receiving nations to put their own people at risk and to deal with the problems the home nation is using forced banishment to avoid, whether they have the resources available to do so or not.

Believing that all a nation’s criminals should be dealt with within their own native nations borders if the crime/action was committed within that nation.

Believing a punishment that forces both dangerous and non-dangerous criminals to seek refuge in other states is grossly unfair and unjust to the international community.

Mandates the following

1. No nation may use forced permanent banishment as a punishment for any reason against a native born, duel or naturalised citizen.

2. No nation may forcibly remove the citizenship of any native born, duel or naturalised citizen for any reason.

3. No nation may use deceptive means to force native born, duel or naturalised citizens to voluntarily agree to permanent banishment. Such methods include but are not limited to threatening the victim’s family and giving a choice between banishment and death.

4. No nation may change the citizenship status of native born, duel or naturalised citizens in any way to circumvent the above laws.

Any native born, duel or naturalised citizen may at any time give free and uncoerced agreement to voluntary go into permanent or temporary exile if they so choose. In these cases, the victim must be allowed to take any personal possessions he/she wishes to take, and family/friends must be allowed to accompany him/her without restrictions. Voluntary banishment or exile must not include removal of citizenship unless the victim gives free and uncoerced consent.

In the case of voluntary banishment or exile, the home nation must find another nation willing to accept the criminal, with full knowledge of his/her background and crimes, before the victim is permitted to leave the home country.

I've been thinking about this proposal and some of the things that have been mentioned in this thread.

I've also been looking at some of the passed resolutions, especially Freedom of Conscience, and come to the conclusion that the supposed crimes of what people believe, think, say, are, is already illegal under several passed resolutions and can't be punished for (I won't go into the whole compliance arguement because its impossible to write a proposal to cover every members RP efforts with that).

There is also the fact that if any state does banish non-criminals (prisoners of conscience), then there are many states willing to recieve them, including mine.

So I've decided to focus this resolution instead on real criminals, and a states duty to not force its bad elements on the rest of the NS community. I'm not trying to interfere with a nations judicial system much, just force them to keep it within their own borders.

looks good. hope Flibblites will approve it

looks good. hope Flibblites will approve it

Thanks for your support on this :).

If this law fails and countries need a "humane" way of dealing with their criminals, the People's Republic of Hotlicks Wobblespot will be glad to take their criminals, for a fee...

We will arrange for a suitable registration fee for countries that wish to banish their criminals and not kill them in their own country.

Thank you
Lemden Greezee
UN Spokesman
The Most Serene Republic of Hotlicks Wobblespot

If this law fails and countries need a "humane" way of dealing with their criminals, the People's Republic of Hotlicks Wobblespot will be glad to take their criminals, for a fee...

We will arrange for a suitable registration fee for countries that wish to banish their criminals and not kill them in their own country.

Thank you
Lemden Greezee
UN Spokesman
The Most Serene Republic of Hotlicks Wobblespot
in other words, you will kill them for us.... how thoughtful :)

Yes, but I will do it so you do not have to dirty your hands. After all it is much more humane then banishing (or exiling) to starve to death in some other country.

Instead of paying to get rid of criminals, My genetic scientests would be willing to pay you for the guinea pigs. We further humanity using the scum you give us. If any nation might beat that proposal, we will beat it.

I think the sooner I get this in the list and start drumming up support for it the better.

Some of the "cures" I've seen mentioned are worse than the disease.

By the way, criminals or not, these people are still human beings, not scum.

One question for the more experienced :).

I'm not sure about the catagory now I've changed the focus of the proposal. Does it still sound like a human rights proposal?

I think so, but aren't sure enough to put the proposal up until I get someone else's opinion ;).

I think it would still be "human rights". And not to be picky, but it should be "dual", not "duel". :)

I think the sooner I get this in the list and start drumming up support for it the better.

Some of the "cures" I've seen mentioned are worse than the disease.

By the way, criminals or not, these people are still human beings, not scum.



I agree, that is why we are willing to take these people and remove them as a problem for other countries. We are very humane, and would never consider starving them or torture of any kind. That would be wrong.

Lemden Greezee
UN Spokesman
The Most Serene Republic of Hotlicks Wobblespot

I think it would still be "human rights". And not to be picky, but it should be "dual", not "duel". :)

Thanks for the advice. I'll leave it as human rights :).
I did spell check this darn thing. Thanks for picking that up, I'll fix it before submission.

I agree, that is why we are willing to take these people and remove them as a problem for other countries. We are very humane, and would never consider starving them or torture of any kind. That would be wrong.

Lemden Greezee
UN Spokesman
The Most Serene Republic of Hotlicks Wobblespot

Well hopefully if I can get this passed, that won't be necessary. I haven't read it lately and couldn't be bothered looking it up, but wonder if that sort of arrangement would be illegal under the resolution that bans the trafficking of persons.

What works for us within our justice system probably wouldn't work somewhere else and vice versa.


If you don't think that one nation should be messing with the justice system of another (the above quote is yours about banning the death penalty), then why are you so suddenly happy to do it?

If you don't think that one nation should be messing with the justice system of another (the above quote is yours about banning the death penalty), then why are you so suddenly happy to do it?

Pallatium, I couldn't care less about your justice system, as long as you keep it within your borders. As soon as you start dumping your criminals on the rest of us it becomes our business and we have every right to attempt to make you stop.

Deal with your criminals yourself any way you see fit. Execute them, rehabilitate them, lock them up for life, send them to an island or desert camp within your nation, let them go with a slap on the wrist, I don't care, just keep them within your borders and deal with your own problems yourself.

Thats basically all this proposal is aiming to do. Stop nations washing their hands of their criminal elements and fositing their problems onto other nations instead, and they do end up in other nations. There isn't a black hole for these criminals to disappear into.

Whether your nation has the death penalty or not doesn't cross borders. Whether you exectute your criminals or not doesn't affect my nation in any way. Banishment however does. The moment a nation designs a punishment in their justice system that deliberatly crosses borders, it becomes an international problem that the international community has every right to address.

Pallatium, I couldn't care less about your justice system, as long as you keep it within your borders. As soon as you start dumping your criminals on the rest of us it becomes our business and we have every right to attempt to make you stop.

Deal with your criminals yourself any way you see fit. Execute them, rehabilitate them, lock them up for life, send them to an island or desert camp within your nation, let them go with a slap on the wrist, I don't care, just keep them within your borders and deal with your own problems yourself.

Thats basically all this proposal is aiming to do. Stop nations washing their hands of their criminal elements and fositing their problems onto other nations instead, and they do end up in other nations. There isn't a black hole for these criminals to disappear into.

Whether your nation has the death penalty or not doesn't cross borders. Whether you exectute your criminals or not doesn't affect my nation in any way. Banishment however does. The moment a nation designs a punishment in their justice system that deliberatly crosses borders, it becomes an international problem that the international community has every right to address.


But, relatively speaking, it might affect you. Say Hyrule has the death penalty for jay-walking, or speeding (or murder). If your people visit Hyrule, and commit murder, or other such crimes, while they are there, they would be executed.

And if Pallatium is forced to introduce the death penalty because of your proposal, we would be required to execute any of your citizens that commit appropriate crimes while here - our nation, our law.

National justice systems are international issues, unless no one ever leaves their own country.

But, relatively speaking, it might affect you. Say Hyrule has the death penalty for jay-walking, or speeding (or murder). If your people visit Hyrule, and commit murder, or other such crimes, while they are there, they would be executed.

And if Pallatium is forced to introduce the death penalty because of your proposal, we would be required to execute any of your citizens that commit appropriate crimes while here - our nation, our law.

National justice systems are international issues, unless no one ever leaves their own country.

I'm a firm believer in that any person visiting another nation obeys the laws of that nation or faces whatever penalties that nation has in force. It wouldn't bother me. If any of my people were stupid enough to enter your nation and commit crimes that carry the death penalty and get caught, then tough cookies. Your nation, your laws, your penalties your business, because its within your borders.

(OOC) We currently have several Australians facing death sentences in Asian nations for drug trafficking. I have no sympathies for any of them and don't care if they are executed. That might sound harsh, but visitors to other nations should never be above that nations laws, no matter who they are or where they are from originally.

I've just submitted this for a telegramless dry run through the list to see what sort of unsolicited support it receives, if it inspires further comments in this thread, ends up in silly proposals ect :p.

This may come as a shock to some people considering the strong National Sovereignty stance I frequently take, but I support this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Well hopefully if I can get this passed, that won't be necessary. I haven't read it lately and couldn't be bothered looking it up, but wonder if that sort of arrangement would be illegal under the resolution that bans the trafficking of persons.

It would not be trafficking persons so much as paying us to take them.

Where would I find the resolution that bans the trafficking of persons? I would like to read it.

It would not be trafficking persons so much as paying us to take them.

Where would I find the resolution that bans the trafficking of persons? I would like to read it.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030210&postcount=69

i wouls strongly support this, provided it does NOT revoke a country's power to deport temporary immigrants or travelers on visas or crime commiting aliens or illegal immigrants.

i wouls strongly support this, provided it does NOT revoke a country's power to deport temporary immigrants or travelers on visas or crime commiting aliens or illegal immigrants.

No, it doesn't and won't.

This only concerns your nations full legal citizens.

yet again we're in natsov territory here. local laws are a nations concern rather than a UN one.

i would agree thats is a good idea for a nation to deal with their criminals wthin their own boundaries.

once you exile someone you're dumping your problem on another nation even if thats one of your punishments.

for nations that feel that way why not send them to a gulag or a remote work camp for life so they can serve out their sentence there away from the rest of the citizens of the nation.

exiling only builds up resentment. that person may well come back at the head of an army and attempt to overthrow the government.

(a RL example; Lenin & Trotskey were both exiled and returned home in 1917 to eventually create the USSR)

yet again we're in natsov territory here. local laws are a nations concern rather than a UN one.

i would agree thats is a good idea for a nation to deal with their criminals wthin their own boundaries.

once you exile someone you're dumping your problem on another nation even if thats one of your punishments.

for nations that feel that way why not send them to a gulag or a remote work camp for life so they can serve out their sentence there away from the rest of the citizens of the nation.

exiling only builds up resentment. that person may well come back at the head of an army and attempt to overthrow the government.

(a RL example; Lenin & Trotskey were both exiled and returned home in 1917 to eventually create the USSR)


I'm not a national sovereigntist, so have no problem writing propsals that violate it if it's a subject I feel the UN should look at, and in this case, a nations local laws end at its borders. Once those laws cross borders, as in the case of forced banishment, then any claims to natsov fly right out the window.

This is a pretty weird proposal in my opinion though, it both violates and preserves natsov at the same time. I'm violating the natsov of the minority of nations to stop them violating the sov of the majority of nations, if that makes any sense :D.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030210&postcount=69


Thanks!

If you read the trafficking resolution, it shows me that this seems to primarily deal with individuals turning a profit by trafficking. Nowhere does it show that the state cannot profit by it, this is an obviously left out so the state would still be able to send it's undesirables out.

Then, if you look take a more general look at it, it already includes banishment
transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability

Since the state already is not allowed to use force to transport undesirables.

Besides all that, we are not planning on exploiting these undesirables, we are planning on killing them.

By the way, criminals or not, these people are still human beings, not scum.
The definition of scum is :
Refuse or worthless matter.
Slang. One, such as a person or an element of society, that is regarded as despicable or worthless.

It obviously shows that because of their actions, they are a used up human resouce that has no other contribution than to be donated to genetic scientests.At least in my country.

Prisoners were told to die when there was no other use for them. Now there is, I suggest we make use of it.

This may come as a shock to some people considering the strong National Sovereignty stance I frequently take, but I support this resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
doesnt surprise me. whilst on the surface, it seems anti-NatSov, it is really not the case. what better promotion of NatSov than a sign saying "Dont Send Your Criminals Here!"

Again I call out, send your scum and criminals here, where they will be taken care of. Manual labour to support the economy, and genetic experimentation to help it also. We will take all your prisoners for free. Your waste is recycled by us. From scum, we use the process of genetic experimentation to create all what your people need and want. For example, we have used up most of our criminal resources, to create a solution to most diseases.
Optischer
Recycling your scum.

after sending a 'dont send them here' message, we are not likely to export out own criminals now, are we.

I think it in our best interests to send a "send your criminals here for free!" message, as it encourages them to get rid of teir criminal resources. Our genetic science industry is a sort of recycling plant, and would welcome your criminals. We would even be willing to pay for them if we had to. We get moe money in the ong run and you get a quick fix of cash when you need. It may be against some ethics, but surely you'd rather have a criminal free country, rather than a jailer's paradise?
Optischer

I think it in our best interests to send a "send your criminals here for free!" message, as it encourages them to get rid of teir criminal resources. Our genetic science industry is a sort of recycling plant, and would welcome your criminals. We would even be willing to pay for them if we had to. We get moe money in the ong run and you get a quick fix of cash when you need. It may be against some ethics, but surely you'd rather have a criminal free country, rather than a jailer's paradise?
Optischer

We have neither. Waterana has a low crime rate and no prisons. Its amazing what a well funded police force, good education and decent welfare spending can achieve.

Do you reform all your citizens? What about the one who have earnt life or death sentences? Why not try to reform your prisoners, and when it fails, you know where to send them.
Optischer

Do you reform all your citizens? What about the one who have earnt life or death sentences? Why not try to reform your prisoners, and when it fails, you know where to send them.
Optischer

We reform all our criminals by making them work within and for the community and giving them education and opportunities. That works for most of them.

For the few it doesn't work for, we have an island off our southern coastline that we send them to which is surrounded by shark infested waters. The people there are supplied with everything they need and are forbidden to return to the mainland, but other than that are left alone and unguarded. That solution is a lot more humane than what you are suggesting.

You give them the supplies they need, but leaving them alone can't be that humane. Plus, you are wasting resources, they would be better in a laboratory,where we can suffer what causes the criminal to become one, and then change it to make them a loyal, law abiding innocent citizen. Wouldn't you rather sacrifice a few prisoners to get rid or crime completely?
Optischer

You give them the supplies they need, but leaving them alone can't be that humane. Plus, you are wasting resources, they would be better in a laboratory,where we can suffer what causes the criminal to become one, and then change it to make them a loyal, law abiding innocent citizen. Wouldn't you rather sacrifice a few prisoners to get rid or crime completely?
Optischer

No.

Now as your idea really hasn't much to do with a forced banishment ban, I won't comment on this anymore :).

I'm a firm believer in that any person visiting another nation obeys the laws of that nation or faces whatever penalties that nation has in force. It wouldn't bother me. If any of my people were stupid enough to enter your nation and commit crimes that carry the death penalty and get caught, then tough cookies. Your nation, your laws, your penalties your business, because its within your borders.


Good answer.

I still disagree, but simply because my justice system should be my concern, and not anyone elses, which is what this will make it.

Good answer.

I still disagree, but simply because my justice system should be my concern, and not anyone elses, which is what this will make it.

I know we will never see eye to eye on this because we are just looking at the whole subject differently ;).

You seem to think (I put "seem" in because I don't want to speak for you) that as banishment is a part of your justice system then no-one has the right to interfere with it, and I'm invading your nations soverignty (which I am I suppose) by attempting to do just that.

I see your justice system as ending at your borders, and any penalties that cross those borders and affect the rest of the international community become the concern of all nations. Simply put, we don't want your criminals.

While I think those differences will mean neither of us will change the others mind, I do thank you for the debate you have inspired in this thread. I enjoyed it :).

I must agree with Waterana's stance on this. perhaps a fix would be to banish to lands within a nations soverign territory. Eg.a remote Island/ Moonbase/whatever.

I know we will never see eye to eye on this because we are just looking at the whole subject differently ;).

You seem to think (I put "seem" in because I don't want to speak for you) that as banishment is a part of your justice system then no-one has the right to interfere with it, and I'm invading your nations soverignty (which I am I suppose) by attempting to do just that.


Pretty much :}


I see your justice system as ending at your borders, and any penalties that cross those borders and affect the rest of the international community become the concern of all nations. Simply put, we don't want your criminals.

While I think those differences will mean neither of us will change the others mind, I do thank you for the debate you have inspired in this thread. I enjoyed it :).

It was a pleasure :}

I originally posted that comment Flibbleites. The quote tags weren't done properly in Pallatium's post. He/she was quoting me :).

I originally posted that comment Flibbleites. The quote tags weren't done properly in Pallatium's post. He/she was quoting me :).

I will go fix that now - sorry :}

LAE approved it, we think it will prevent political dissident from been barred to visit or come back in their own nation

I've just submitted this again for a proper try at getting it to quorum. 400 telegrams sent, probably about 400 to go :D.

Would those of you who supported this proposal last time please endorse it again :).

It can be found here..

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=banishment

Thanks.

I've just submitted this again for a proper try at getting it to quorum. 400 telegrams sent, probably about 400 to go.
Would those of you who supported this proposal last time please endorse it again.
It can be found here..
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=banishment
Thanks.

I'd ask my delegate to approve it, but I think he's dead. In any case, you have my support; and usually I don't like proposals that mess with criminal justice. Good luck.

With just under 24 hours to go, I still need 28 endorsements for this to make it to quorum.

If any delegate, who hasn't already endorsed this, likes the idea of it, please support it :).

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...tch=banishment

With just under 24 hours to go, I still need 28 endorsements for this to make it to quorum.

If any delegate, who hasn't already endorsed this, likes the idea of it, please support it :).

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/...tch=banishment

Sorry, cannot do it (as I had approved it before). Hopefully it will get the extra boost when it gets first page honours. ;)

Sorry, cannot do it (as I had approved it before). Hopefully it will get the extra boost when it gets first page honours. ;)

I saw that, and thanks :)

My proposal expired from the list earlier than I expected only needing 10 more endorsements. I was going to just leave it, but a rare bout of stubborness kicked in and I have resubmitted it.

When do proposals expire btw? Is it 00:00 GMT?

When do proposals expire btw? Is it 00:00 GMT?

around 11AM Greenwhich time, but it can be 1 or more hours before or after

if it doesnt reach quarum, just wait untill janurary to resub it. it is hitting the holiday season now, and i for one am finding it hard to stay on.

It just made quorum. Though why I'm awake at 4.30am to notice that fact I haven't worked out yet.

Approvals: 128 (Great Britain---, Cluichstan, Y ha-nthlei, Republic of Freedonia, Ge-be-on-e-quet, The EGI, Boflankey, Gaiah, Yeldan UN Mission, Jey, Love and esterel, Punrovia, Cows--With--Guns, Picman165, 1D1075, Fonzoland, Elbanania, Jresnada, Tyndarus, The Terrier, Flibbleites, WZ Forums, Davidus, Happy Merry Jolly Land, Qrbif, True Bassists, Borradung-Shamprang, Graceia, Medicalis, Almeidat, Endower, Onahere, Pulcifer, Maritinus, Rlyeh, The Voice of Father, OsirisRa, The Feather, Omni-Palonie, Concordare, Ficticious Proportions, Crestbriar, Liberaterra, Shalun, Kswissbob, Warsong Clans, Potato Eating People, Sato-Masochists, Pochinco, Sinsvyka, New Erussia, The Sadistic Skinhead, Jard-Sur-Mer, Yucania, EStinkie5, Highleia, The Kazoo Peoples, The Great UP, Red Neck Yacht Club, Existential Euphoria, Posul, Elghinn, The Carroty, Eagmont, Aontaithe, Aylandlandfive, Unknown Lands 2, Butchery and Slaughter, Hyperion and Tyr, Troubadouria, Tinis, Slaanistan, Hard-to-pronuncitan, Chadlie, HolyAlphaOmega, WallCorp, Insequa, Little Britain 2000, Love Thieves, Athens and Midlands, Quaon, RebelRednecks, Lybo, President Dave, Soviet Sclst Republics, East Sibir, Ceorana, Constitutionals, Versalia, Wjustin, Austrelitz, Fakeystan, The Running Potato, Aronid, Ganglioplast, Anarcho - Syndicalism, Fried Zucchini, Dablaires, Athus, Eranmane, Pufdom, Salur, 07LauAH, The Knox School, Tiber City, Neo Juropia, Slivaquia, Ravenclaws, New Hamilton, Reformentia, Mobussell, Bogdan Mariesan, Land Of Serenity, Needless to say, Drinnon, Shiaze, Flablioan, SirtastyvonBaconstein, Jenny NSUN, Trempealeau, Phil_14, Millipi, ELDupree, Grothistan, Faerie-Sprite, Preeminent States, The Black New World, Titans Island)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

A big thanks to everyone who has supported this :).

I've noticed some interesting (to me anyway) parallels with this proposal and Civilian Rights Post War.

Both made it to quorum on their second runs through the list.
During both second runs there was/is a proposal in the list by Reformentia (Bio Ban last time) that also made/looks like making it to quorum.
I was/am suffering a severe head cold during the second runs of both proposals.

Karma perhaps?:D

OOC: crap I thought I was last.

Congratulations! :)

Quorum reached - Congrats

Quorum reached - Congrats

We in Cramistan support this proposal. We would never exile or banish any of our citizens for treason, high crimes, or misdemeanors.

We just execute execute every last m%$#@# f#$%&*@# one of them.

Congrats on reaching quorum, Waterana.

Now you just have to deal with the people who've ignored every draft version, only to turn up and say 'but why isn't this in it'...

Congrats on reaching quorum, Waterana.

Now you just have to deal with the people who've ignored every draft version, only to turn up and say 'but why isn't this in it'...

I'll also be waiting for my spelling mistakes to be pointed out to me, because I spelled naturalised with the British english s instead of the American z :D.

ooc: just because they butcher the queens english dosen't mean we have to to. I'm british myself.

ooc: just because they butcher the queens english dosen't mean we have to to. I'm british myself.
Then where is your capitalisation?
:p

I've started a new thread for this resolution now its at vote.

Please don't use this one. Just let it disappear and die.

Could you put a link from there to this thread, so at least people know there have been some objections raised?

Could you put a link from there to this thread, so at least people know there have been some objections raised?

I did.

Now I'm begging, please use This Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458815) and let this one die :).

Does this mean that the UN can't banish a member of it? This would in sense be banishment or exile of a citizen nation or even people.

As for the full proposal it goes against our established laws of exile for certain high crimes agains the Zeldon people and state. All person tried and found guilty of such have two choices when found such. Swing from a good tree on a good rope or swim the 600 plus miles to the nearest nation that might take take them in. Any family who wants to leave with them can join in their swim and hand carry all the things they think they might be able to; as under our laws they will not be allowed to use a boat to exit national waters since the person has been found guilty of a high crime.. and our laws say citizens can't aid a criminal from escaping punishment.. which providing a boat to them will be...

This is not a thing for the UN to get into as it's up the individual nations to handle their criminals and deal with them. Anyone who commits certain high crimes by our laws is no longer a citizen of our nation and subject to capital punishment unless as stated they choose to swim off the island for some other place.. They own nothing once convicted and have no family so there is nothing here for them.. but a rope and good tree..

I did.

Now I'm begging, please use This Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458815) and let this one die :).

Points up.