NationStates Jolt Archive

There are notes on the bottom of this post about some common misconceptions: please read them

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Love and esterel

Description: The United Nations,

A – NOTING the positive effects of marriage and the happiness it procures in both those within the marriage and those around the married.

B – NOTING that not all marriages are happy

C – NOTING that many couples in this case have difficulty maintaining a healthy relationship over short periods of time, let alone a life-long relationship.

D – CONCERNED about the health and welfare of both the couple and any children the couple are responsible for

E – ACKNOWLEDGING the potential issues that could result from a possible divorce

F – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a divorce to be the contractual ending of any marriage or equivalent Civil Union recognized by any state

G – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a prenuptial agreement to be any contract signed by both partners before a marriage agreeing to certain terms pertaining to their marriage and/or potential divorce.

H – DEFINING for the purposes of this document a Civil Union to be a legal union between any two people given equal status within the union and granted certain rights by any government.


-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce in the following cases:
-1.1- Both partners ask for divorce, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.2- One partner request a divorce and it is accepted by the other partner, after 3 month of marriage or civil union
-1.3- One partner requests the divorce due to proven domestic violence issues from the other partner
-1.4- One partner requests the divorce after 1 year of being officially separated
-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months, or later, after the initial request
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

-2- DECLARES that each party has the right to employ a lawyer for the divorce proceedings

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence,

-6- ENCOURAGES all Nations to support organisations/associations providing help to married/divorced persons/couples by anonymous meeting, phone call, internet contact or any other medium that can be arranged

Co-authored by Forgottenlands UN


NOTES:
1) This does not deal at all with custody. It deals with visitation rights. Nations are free to do whatever they want regarding custody.
2) Just because someone has the right to hire lawyer doesn't mean the lawyer has to come into your nation. The work done by the lawyer can be long distance
3) We are not forcing your citizens to have a divorce. If your citizens believe that they shouldn't have a divorce, then they won't have a divorce. However, it is our belief that if the citizens do want to have a divorce, it should be their full right to have one regardless of the beliefs of society or the government
4) We are not granting nations the right to force couples to pursue alternate methods of repairing their marriage/etc before getting a divorce as it leaves too large of a loophole.
5) If you have any reasons other than the ones listed above that you want to make as grounds for a divorce, you can. The only requirement is the grounds listed above are a bare minimum set of scenarios. 1.6 leaves the door open so that nations can define any grounds they want - this includes adultery.
6) The decisions regarding funding of lawyers is completely up to the state in question.

Textual question: 'officially separated' is not defined. What does this mean?

Drafting thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=454028

*offers a hearty cheer* We would also like to say that we wish this proposal the best of luck when it comes to full vote very soon.

Textual question: 'officially separated' is not defined. What does this mean?

We, uh, didn't define it. The idea is that if they've been officially seperated for a year and neither have yet requested a divorce, it shows they have been trying to stay together but have been going through difficulties, so the couple shouldn't be required to wait 3 months if they don't agree to a divorce after that year. We'll let the nations decide how they want to define it, but if they make it meaningless, there's really little penalty as clause 1.5 is still fully usable. If they make it so officially seperated means "married", well....they've basically said that if you've been married a year and one partner requests a divorce, then its automatically allowed. So basically, from both ends of the spectrum, it still works no matter how a nation defines it.

Some spelling and grammar corrections would have been nice, but I fully suport the proposal.

Some spelling and grammar corrections would have been nice, but I fully suport the proposal.

Yeah....sorry about that. I'm not the greatest editor, I really suck at editing my own work, LAE wrote the first draft (I got the second) and he's ESL so.....we know there are deficiencies

Yeah....sorry about that. I'm not the greatest editor, I really suck at editing my own work, LAE wrote the first draft (I got the second) and he's ESL so.....we know there are deficiencies

Sure, don't worry. I am just trying to establish my reputation as a snob... ;)

OOC: I am also ESL by the way, AND I had to google it to know what it means! :blush:

Sure, don't worry. I am just trying to establish my reputation as a snob... ;)

OOC: I am also ESL by the way, AND I had to google it to know what it means! :blush:

OOC: You're ESL? Jesus. That's pretty impressive.

OOC: You're ESL? Jesus. That's pretty impressive.

OOC: Well, ESL but living abroad and forced to write in formal English for 6y. Painful process, I guess that's what makes me a bit intolerant... :rolleyes:

Some spelling and grammar corrections would have been nice, but I fully suport the proposal.


Sorry about that
please, may you let me know about them

Sorry about that
please, may you let me know about them

Oh, nothing big or terribly important. OOC: N00bness, ignore it. Since it is coming to vote now, I shouldn't have even mentioned it.

As I said before, you have our full support.

I find it surprising and also disheartening that a proposal such as the above could make its way to the floor of the United Nations.

All arguments regarding marriage and divorce aside, I cannot understand what overarching international need is met by the passing of this resolution. Furthermore, this resolution, is a prima facie violation of the sovereign rights of the member states of the United Nations to be the final arbiter or local issues - without interference, positive or negative, by any outside body.

The issues surrounding marriage and divorce are inherently local ones. Considerable emotion is packed into all of them, and in any issue like this, where there is no overriding international need to implement a world-wide solution, the United Nations should restrain itself and not attempt to influence policies that are far outside its jursidiction.

This resolution follows in a long line of resolutions by UN states that fail to recognize that the UN is not world-government, and its role should never be to regulate the internal behavior - or even to attempt to influence that internal behavior - of the member states. To do so is to meddle in affairs that the UN is neither competent to handle, nor reasonably accountable to the people of the member-states if they find fault with them.

The USBR, as delegate from North America, will be opposing this resolution, and we urge any fellow governments who object to the UN's consistent and unwise attempts to meddle in the internal affairs and violate the sovereignty of the members states to likewise oppose the resolution.

I find it surprising and also disheartening that a proposal such as the above could make its way to the floor of the United Nations.

Obviously, you are oblivious to the history of the NSUN. We didn't even have to make an extensive TG campaign to reach quarom.

All arguments regarding marriage and divorce aside, I cannot understand what overarching international need is met by the passing of this resolution. Furthermore, this resolution, is a prima facie violation of the sovereign rights of the member states of the United Nations to be the final arbiter or local issues - without interference, positive or negative, by any outside body.

Despite what you may believe, nations who decide to become a part of the United Nations do so at the price of sacrificing some of those "sovereign rights". The United Nations exists as an International Government, passing laws that its members must obey. So your understanding of what violations exist is completely false.

Further, considering the UN has not only defined marriage but required that marriage be performed by member nations (Resolutions 12, 80, 81, and more), the issue of whether marriage can be ended should also be held at the International level and remain as such so long as marriage remains at the International level (if not longer).

Why do I believe divorce should exist? Marriage is, as far as any nation is concerned, a legal binding contract. Society may have placed higher emphasis on various aspects of marriage and attached certain beliefs, but that does not mean that all members of that society share those beliefs, nor that the government pays anymore than a pittance to such beliefs. My belief is that no one should be forced into a contract they cannot leave. Such an act would be akin to slavery - something that is likewise banished by this organization. Thus, I shall not welcome the forced permanence of any state marriage by any member of this body. This is why I believe it belongs in the halls of this United Nations, and we shall see if its membership agrees.

The issues surrounding marriage and divorce are inherently local ones. Considerable emotion is packed into all of them, and in any issue like this, where there is no overriding international need to implement a world-wide solution, the United Nations should restrain itself and not attempt to influence policies that are far outside its jursidiction.

Again, precedent suggests otherwise. The UN already interferes with marriage, I want to make sure not nation can force a couple into a UN sanctioned marriage for life.

This resolution follows in a long line of resolutions by UN states that fail to recognize that the UN is not world-government,

That is a belief, not a fact. We are, without a doubt, a world government. The only thing that matters is how far our jurisdiction carries. I believe our jurisdiction should carry us here.

and its role should never be to regulate the internal behavior - or even to attempt to influence that internal behavior - of the member states.

You have 130+ resolutions of precedent to fight on that one.

To do so is to meddle in affairs that the UN is neither competent to handle, nor reasonably accountable to the people of the member-states if they find fault with them.

We have, IMO, provided a reasonable solution to dealing with the issues of concern regarding meddling in internal affairs. We have stated a baseline of ways that one must be granted a divorce and have given nations the right to expand beyond that baseline. We have given nations full control in dealing with all legal issues surrounding the matter. We have only protected visitation rights of the parents, but have refused to address the societal and perhaps even casewise issue of custody. If your complaint is any more extensive than "you should not be meddling at all in our affairs", in which case I wonder why you are even a member here, please state them so I may explain why I chose to take the action I did

The USBR, as delegate from North America, will be opposing this resolution, and we urge any fellow governments who object to the UN's consistent and unwise attempts to meddle in the internal affairs and violate the sovereignty of the members states to likewise oppose the resolution.

That is your right, but I urge you to reconsider.

Obviously, you are oblivious to the history of the NSUN. We didn't even have to make an extensive TG campaign to reach quarom.

First of all, my state has existed since January of 2003. We have represented the region of North America since March of 2003. We are well aware of the history of the UN and have opposed every inappropriate and overreaching UN resolution that has been put forward, and will continue to do so, precedent or otherwise notwithstanding.

Despite what you may believe, nations who decide to become a part of the United Nations do so at the price of sacrificing some of those "sovereign rights". The United Nations exists as an International Government, passing laws that its members must obey. So your understanding of what violations exist is completely false.

The states that choose to join the United Nations do so under the belief that being a UN member state will provide some material benefit to their nation. They should not, and in my opinion do not, need to sacrifice any of their sovereignty to do this. The United Nations, if it restricts itself to arbitrating issues between nations, proposing resolutions that do not interfere with the internal workings of the UN member states but regulate and alleviate concerns on a macro level that affect all states and all regions, can be effective.

The United Nations is not an International Government. It does not have an elected leader, it cannot tax, it cannot have a standing army. It does not enjoy all of the benefits that a sovereign state enjoys. It is designed, although it has not functioned, to be a forum where states may come together and address their concerns on a global scale.

Further, considering the UN has not only defined marriage but required that marriage be performed by member nations (Resolutions 12, 80, 81, and more), the issue of whether marriage can be ended should also be held at the International level and remain as such so long as marriage remains at the International level (if not longer).

We opposed all of those provisions on the same grounds that we oppose the current resolution. The fact that they have been enacted and forced upon the member states does not make them right, nor does it mean that we should attempt to expand upon them in any way. They should be repealed, and we will support any efforts made to do so.

Why do I believe divorce should exist? Marriage is, as far as any nation is concerned, a legal binding contract. Society may have placed higher emphasis on various aspects of marriage and attached certain beliefs, but that does not mean that all members of that society share those beliefs, nor that the government pays anymore than a pittance to such beliefs. My belief is that no one should be forced into a contract they cannot leave. Such an act would be akin to slavery - something that is likewise banished by this organization. Thus, I shall not welcome the forced permanence of any state marriage by any member of this body. This is why I believe it belongs in the halls of this United Nations, and we shall see if its membership agrees.

It is not within the power of one nation to declare a contract between two citizens of another nation null and void because that nation believes that contract is not in the interests of one or more of the contracting parties.

Similiarly, it is inappropriate to assume that that power is within the jurdisdiction of the UN. The legitimate governments of the member states are in a much better position to be the arbiter of what "beliefs" should be given more or less deference by their governments. The cultures and mores of my nation are different than those of your nation, and to suggest that it is somehow appropriate for me to legislate through the United Nations how two parties to a contract that does not affect interregional or international commerce may terminate said contract should not be within the purview of the UN.

Again, precedent suggests otherwise. The UN already interferes with marriage, I want to make sure not nation can force a couple into a UN sanctioned marriage for life.

An abuse of power is still an abuse of power, even if that power has been abused before. Previous precedent that was wrong does not become right by virtue of how often its been cited before, or how often it has been approved.

If I were to commit genocide, it would not be proper to do so simply because it has happened before and no one has stopped it, or some have approved of it.

That is a belief, not a fact. We are, without a doubt, a world government. The only thing that matters is how far our jurisdiction carries. I believe our jurisdiction should carry us here.

I disagree, for the reasons I have already stated.

You have 130+ resolutions of precedent to fight on that one.

And we will continue to do so, until the United Nations recognizes that state sovereignty is a principle that it should protect, not trample.

We have, IMO, provided a reasonable solution to dealing with the issues of concern regarding meddling in internal affairs. We have stated a baseline of ways that one must be granted a divorce and have given nations the right to expand beyond that baseline. We have given nations full control in dealing with all legal issues surrounding the matter. We have only protected visitation rights of the parents, but have refused to address the societal and perhaps even casewise issue of custody. If your complaint is any more extensive than "you should not be meddling at all in our affairs", in which case I wonder why you are even a member here, please state them so I may explain why I chose to take the action I did

As I stated before, I do not have an issue with the policy goal you have outlined. If you were to introduce this within your own state, I would think you a wise and just defender of your people's rights. I am considering putting a similiar proposal before my own state's Council of Governors.

The simple fact that you are meddling in an area that the UN should not have gotten involved in to begin with is our concern, and none of the protections you have outlined here address the inherent problem - this resolution is an unnecessary abrogation of the rights of UN member states, and should not be passed. Furthermore, all previous resolutions regarding marriage should similiarly be repealed.

There are a large number of issues where the UN is a critical player on the world stage - for example, the previous Rights of Neutral States resolution was an important addition to helping define and regulate world conflicts and it had our support. Those types of resolutions - those that affect all states on a macro level and those states dealings with other states - are within the jurisidiction of the UN and are the primary reason we remain a member. Proposals like this make us question why we do so.

That is your right, but I urge you to reconsider.

We accept your point of view, but will not change our position.

We ask that instead of attempting to address concerns you have about divorce by adding to the list of UN abuses of power, you work with us and the states who have similiar concerns to repeal those provisions enacted at the UN level, namely the aforementioned 12, 80, 81 and others, so that the issue of marriage may remain - as it should always have remained - strictly an issue left to the member states to regulate.

The Imperial government of Krioval does not find this resolution to be of sufficient importance to be brought before the entire United Nations for passage. As a result, I am compelled to cast our nation's vote in the negative.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

First of all, my state has existed since January of 2003. We have represented the region of North America since March of 2003. We are well aware of the history of the UN and have opposed every inappropriate and overreaching UN resolution that has been put forward, and will continue to do so, precedent or otherwise notwithstanding.

Yet you continue to fail to distinguish the difference between the RLUN and the NSUN

The states that choose to join the United Nations do so under the belief that being a UN member state will provide some material benefit to their nation. They should not, and in my opinion do not, need to sacrifice any of their sovereignty to do this. The United Nations, if it restricts itself to arbitrating issues between nations, proposing resolutions that do not interfere with the internal workings of the UN member states but regulate and alleviate concerns on a macro level that affect all states and all regions, can be effective.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I'm possibly the most vocal International Federalist on these forums

The United Nations is not an International Government. It does not have an elected leader,

It has a leadership. You can visit them on the moderation forum

it cannot tax,

Mostly false. Yes it can't tax citizens directly, but that doesn't mean it can't tax. That said, there is a considerable discussion regarding that fact just last week in which we had to think this a bit more thoroughly. Many attempts have been made to set up membership dues. They continue to be made and discussion has been started through some of the larger de-regionalized groups about this possibility.

it cannot have a standing army.

The UN Gnomes are all we need for a standing army. It is sufficient in keeping its members in line. In terms of dealing with external threats, we operate closer to medieval Europe, where the lords had armies and would commit them to battle (or not) if requested. The UN has never made a full request at the floor level (nor are we allowed to nor been required to yet), but there have been more localized pockets of this.

It does not enjoy all of the benefits that a sovereign state enjoys.

It has a lot more than you think

It is designed, although it has not functioned, to be a forum where states may come together and address their concerns on a global scale.

False. The RLUN was designed to be such. The NSUN was not designed as such. The intention of the NSUN's founder, Max Barry, is not entirely known, but he has given us the power and full capability to be a world government and watched as it evolved to become a monster even he could not fathom. Even today, he does not indicate whether his intention was to have it as a forum or as an International Government. Do not presume you know more about him than the compiled knowledge of this forum community.

We opposed all of those provisions on the same grounds that we oppose the current resolution. The fact that they have been enacted and forced upon the member states does not make them right, nor does it mean that we should attempt to expand upon them in any way. They should be repealed, and we will support any efforts made to do so.

So long as those provisions remain in the UN, the protection of citizens to get out of them should likewise be maintained. Failure to do so is to assist in Internationally assisted slavery. After this resolution is passed, you are more than welcome to try and repeal these resolutions, but I urge you to repeal this last as it exists to protect those who have been wed under those resolutions. It is MORE important than any of those resolutions were because it protects people from being restricted by previous international law. There are too many marriage laws and they are too heavily supported (the support does not include my government - we think they all need to be replaced) to be able to topple them all in the near future. Thus we must do what we can to protect those who have suffered because of them.

It is not within the power of one nation to declare a contract between two citizens of another nation null and void because that nation believes that contract is not in the interests of one or more of the contracting parties.

This is likewise false. If a couple are legally married in, say, Britain and immigrate to, say, Canada, the Canadian government, I am certain, can nullify the contract if the couple request a divorce (following, of course, the laws set up by the Canadian government regarding divorce). The question is a matter of who recognizes it, and this United Nations as well as all member states shall recognize such divorces regardless of their individual beliefs

Similiarly, it is inappropriate to assume that that power is within the jurdisdiction of the UN. The legitimate governments of the member states are in a much better position to be the arbiter of what "beliefs" should be given more or less deference by their governments. The cultures and mores of my nation are different than those of your nation, and to suggest that it is somehow appropriate for me to legislate through the United Nations how two parties to a contract that does not affect interregional or international commerce may terminate said contract should not be within the purview of the UN.

Bull. The rights of the human being are far more important than any international commerce concern. The forcing of two people to continue their contract until one or both of them are dead is nothing short of ludicrous and unquestionably a form of slavery. I don't care what your culture is, I shall not welcome such an act.

An abuse of power is still an abuse of power, even if that power has been abused before. Previous precedent that was wrong does not become right by virtue of how often its been cited before, or how often it has been approved.

If I were to commit genocide, it would not be proper to do so simply because it has happened before and no one has stopped it, or some have approved of it.

Meh - I'm sick of stating the same line over and over again.

I disagree, for the reasons I have already stated.

I see you are too

And we will continue to do so, until the United Nations recognizes that state sovereignty is a principle that it should protect, not trample.

I disagree. State sovereignty follows the guidelines of this United Nations. I do not defend nations that commit attrocities and I do not believe they should be permitted to so long as they are a member of this body.

As I stated before, I do not have an issue with the policy goal you have outlined. If you were to introduce this within your own state, I would think you a wise and just defender of your people's rights. I am considering putting a similiar proposal before my own state's Council of Governors.

The simple fact that you are meddling in an area that the UN should not have gotten involved in to begin with is our concern, and none of the protections you have outlined here address the inherent problem - this resolution is an unnecessary abrogation of the rights of UN member states, and should not be passed. Furthermore, all previous resolutions regarding marriage should similiarly be repealed.

There are a large number of issues where the UN is a critical player on the world stage - for example, the previous Rights of Neutral States resolution was an important addition to helping define and regulate world conflicts and it had our support. Those types of resolutions - those that affect all states on a macro level and those states dealings with other states - are within the jurisidiction of the UN and are the primary reason we remain a member. Proposals like this make us question why we do so.

Again, I believe the UN to be a true world government and should be a world government. Obviously, a fatal disagreement between us.

We accept your point of view, but will not change our position.

We ask that instead of attempting to address concerns you have about divorce by adding to the list of UN abuses of power, you work with us and the states who have similiar concerns to repeal those provisions enacted at the UN level, namely the aforementioned 12, 80, 81 and others, so that the issue of marriage may remain - as it should always have remained - strictly an issue left to the member states to regulate.

I will not. I neither wish nor welcome them to be repealed at a permanent level. I have already begun consideration on methods of presenting a full and simplified replacement to all these resolutions to fully simplify UN law and to improve its quality. The resolutions I do not believe go beyond the boundaries of the UN, but rather are merely flawed resolutions in terms of how to go about them.

Before we specifically address the question at hand we wish to point out that the author’s (that is, L&E’s) repeated appeals to “people sovereignty” leave us cold, as we find such a concept as people “sovereignty” unworkable. People may be endowed with certain given rights; but that does not mean they are sovereign from their nation’s laws. To the contrary, they are by their very nature bound to the dictates of their nation’s governors; it is a condition by which they continue to live in said nation. And where the United Nations continues to interfere in internal national affairs (extending even to such intimate and naturally culturally defined affairs as family law), absent any convincing justification for international action, it acts to sever the nation from its own people, hinder its power to govern its own society, and thus encourage anarchy within member states. We might add that such uncalled-for infringements on national rights as this one make it increasingly unlikely that we will long remain a part of this august body.

We hold that when the United Nations purports to instruct nations on which laws to pass in their own borders, there must be a clear, convincing case for doing so. Most of the time, this would involve some pressing, previously unaddressed international issue affected by such intervention. Now, is the issue of divorce an international issue? Do our family laws affect, for example, Cobdenia in any way, or vice versa? Clearly they do not -- save cases where Cobdenian citizens visit or reside in our nation, or vice versa, but even then, Cobdenian nationals are bound to obey the laws of our nation when they visit or move to the same, and vice versa, so the issue is moot.

But does this proposal make a convincing case for international intervention? The justification in text itself falls far short of demonstrating any pressing need for UN action. This simply is not something to which an international organization ought to devote valuable time and resources. We are also, frankly, stunned by the amount of micromanagement of family law and the sheer presumptuousness inherent in this proposal.

Nonetheless, this measure seems destined to ride the wave of UN fluffiness to victory, so what is a po’ nation to do?!

Luckily, in the UN’s mad rush to force all nations to adhere to the same arbitrary, cookie-cutter values system, it neglected to declare marriage a right. So henceforth, the institution of marriage in the Federal Republic is hereby outlawed. We will instead switch over to a system of simple civil pairings (not “civil unions”), and colloquially refer to them as “marriages,” but in terms of legality, they are not so, and thus couples will be permitted to “divorce” only if the Federal Republic and/or the several states allow them to, leaving the province of divorce exactly where it should be: in the hands of individual nations, not an overbearing international bureaucracy. (Of course, under Gay Rights, we are still bound to protect and recognize same-sex pairings as “marriages,” but we can live with granting marriage, and thus divorce, to one small subsect of our society.)

We oppose this utter waste of ink and paper.

-snip-
Further, considering the UN has not only defined marriage but required that marriage be performed by member nations (Resolutions 12, 80, 81, and more),
-snip-
Woah, hold on there a minute Forgottenlands, the UN has NEVER said that governments have to perform any marriages at all. And if you know of a UN resolution which says otherwise I'd like to know which one.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I believe what Forgottenlord is saying is that, given that the UN has already stated that marriage lies within its (the UN's) domain, surely divorce ought to be under the UN's jurisdiction as well. At least, that's the way I've interpreted his argument.

I believe what Forgottenlord is saying is that, given that the UN has already stated that marriage lies within its (the UN's) domain, surely divorce ought to be under the UN's jurisdiction as well. At least, that's the way I've interpreted his argument.
Read what I quoted closer, Forgottenlord said that the UN has, "required that marriage be performed by member nations." And while the UN has prevented members from banning gay marriage and defined marriage, the UN has never said that members must perform marriages.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Read what I quoted closer, Forgottenlord said that the UN has, "required that marriage be performed by member nations." And while the UN has prevented members from banning gay marriage and defined marriage, the UN has never said that members must perform marriages.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
Yeah, I know. I assumed forgottenlord had simply made a mistake in saying that.

Was just wondering, as a newbie, whether amendments can be made to a resolution once tabled?

For instance, could some one propose to alter a particular subsection? Say, changing the minimum three-month cooling off period to six months. And if that amendment were to muster enough support, would it then be incorporated into the resolution?

Or do we only have the right to reject or accept the resolution <i> in toto </i> and without amendment?

Cheers

Was just wondering, as a newbie, whether amendments can be made to a resolution once tabled?

For instance, could some one propose to alter a particular subsection? Say, changing the minimum three-month cooling off period to six months. And if that amendment were to muster enough support, would it then be incorporated into the resolution?

Or do we only have the right to reject or accept the resolution <i> in toto </i> and without amendment?

No amendments can be made in any way. All you can do is repeal the resolution, and submit a new proposal, or submit a proposal that doesn't in any way duplicate or contradict the original. Your amendment wouldn't be possible, I'm afraid.

NO NO NO! this is outragous interference and undermines sovereignty.

Hirota has been moving away from the concept of national soverignty towards the idea of promoting personal soverignty - this proposal is well in line with my concept of personal soverignty, so I will be supporting this.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
Region of England (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_region/region=england)
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

In reference to clause 1.6
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

Could this clause now legally allow Local Government to annul marriages that they do not see appropriate?? ie same sex marriages/civil unions?

In reference to clause 1.6
-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

Could this clause now legally allow Local Government to annul marriages that they do not see appropriate?? ie same sex marriages/civil unions?

No, that would go against other resolutions.
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
Region of England (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_region/region=england)
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

This is a domestic issue, not an international one. The United Nations was established to settle international disputes and prevent World War III.

How is "Right to Divorce" relevant to any of this? My nation has its own sovereignty to choose whether or not to allow divorce within our own borders. This resolution is irrelevant and I'm voting "no" for it.

Ausserland has voted AGAINST this proposal. We consider it the most blatant and unwarranted example of NSUN micromanagement of the affairs of nations' citizens that we have seen yet. The NSUN has absolutely no business telling member nations whether and under what conditions they will grant or deny divorces. Not only does the proposal dictate to nations conditions under which they must grant divorces, it goes so unbelievably far as to establish specific time frames.We can only imagine that next we'll be told what speed limits we must set on our highways.

We object in the strongest possible terms to this provision of the proposal:

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

Decisions to permit parental access to children of divorced couples must be based on consideration for the welfare of the children, not the grounds for granting the divorce. There can be many reasons, completely unrelated to the grounds for divorce, that allowing access would not be in the children's best interests. This sort of thing must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering all the circumstances, and not by over-simplistic rules dictated by the NSUN.

We cannot accept that the NSUN should meddle in this matter, especially when its meddling holds the potential to put children of divorce at risk.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]Before we specifically address the question at hand we wish to point out that the author’s (that is, L&E’s) repeated appeals to “people sovereignty” leave us cold, as we find such a concept as people “sovereignty” unworkable. People may be endowed with certain given rights; but that does not mean they are sovereign from their nation’s laws. To the contrary, they are by their very nature bound to the dictates of their nation’s governors; it is a condition by which they continue to live in said nation. And where the United Nations continues to interfere in internal national affairs (extending even to such intimate and naturally culturally defined affairs as family law), absent any convincing justification for international action, it acts to sever the nation from its own people, hinder its power to govern its own society, and thus encourage anarchy within member states. We might add that such uncalled-for infringements on national rights as this one make it increasingly unlikely that we will long remain a part of this august body.

I'd like to rebut the point of Omigodtheykilledkenny about the idea of 'people sovereignty', which does not mean that people operate as individual units to the state, yet rather that they are endowed with rights that the state should be obliged to recognise as inherently belonging to them, not given by authority. Interfering, as the honourable delegate puts it, is not what occurs here, nor would such actions constitute a separation of people from state, nor a hinderance on the power to govern per se. Rather, it is to recognise that universal rights and conventions exist and that societies should be made, through the democratic process of the U.N. to acknowlege these rights. One can claim that ones culture and national rights protect one from undue interference, yet should we, I ask you, permit barbarism due to these alleged 'rights'. What is promulgated by the honourable delegate, is what is known as 'negative liberty', the knee-jerk 'freedom from interference'. Positive liberty is being recognised here, that is to say, 'the protection and enshrining of our inherent freedoms so as to protect human dignity and ward off oppression.

We hold that when the United Nations purports to instruct nations on which laws to pass in their own borders, there must be a clear, convincing case for doing so. Most of the time, this would involve some pressing, previously unaddressed international issue affected by such intervention. Now, is the issue of divorce an international issue? Do our family laws affect, for example, Cobdenia in any way, or vice versa? Clearly they do not -- save cases where Cobdenian citizens visit or reside in our nation, or vice versa, but even then, Cobdenian nationals are bound to obey the laws of our nation when they visit or move to the same, and vice versa, so the issue is moot.

Marriage is an international affair because it is an internationally recognised insitution, therefore to legislate to establish a basic set of conventions regarding it, seems eminent common sense to me.

But does this proposal make a convincing case for international intervention? The justification in text itself falls far short of demonstrating any pressing need for UN action. This simply is not something to which an international organization ought to devote valuable time and resources. We are also, frankly, stunned by the amount of micromanagement of family law and the sheer presumptuousness inherent in this proposal.

Nonetheless, this measure seems destined to ride the wave of UN fluffiness to victory, so what is a po’ nation to do?!

Accept, then plan a repeal. Otherwise, majority rules.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

There are notes on the bottom of this post about some common misconceptions: please read them




NOTES:
1) This does not deal at all with custody. It deals with visitation rights. Nations are free to do whatever they want regarding custody.
2) Just because someone has the right to hire lawyer doesn't mean the lawyer has to come into your nation. The work done by the lawyer can be long distance
3) We are not forcing your citizens to have a divorce. If your citizens believe that they shouldn't have a divorce, then they won't have a divorce. However, it is our belief that if the citizens do want to have a divorce, it should be their full right to have one regardless of the beliefs of society or the government
4) We are not granting nations the right to force couples to pursue alternate methods of repairing their marriage/etc before getting a divorce as it leaves too large of a loophole.
5) If you have any reasons other than the ones listed above that you want to make as grounds for a divorce, you can. The only requirement is the grounds listed above are a bare minimum set of scenarios. 1.6 leaves the door open so that nations can define any grounds they want - this includes adultery.
6) The decisions regarding funding of lawyers is completely up to the state in question.


This proposal is similar to swiss cheese. I am not going to go into detail, for it wolud take to long. Barvinia has voted against this poorly written resolution. Good day!

I see this proposal as being highly positive, it is given UN Nation member nation citizens the right to end a bad marriage. This is useful and nessisary, as many Right Winged or religious nations have been limiting their citizens right of divorce becuase they don't believe it's right. People should be given the right to Divorce because people do change and it doesn't always work out good.

Darvainia and the province of moonflow (or most of us at least I assure you) must voice our opposition to this resolution on the grounds that once again...say it with me people...it violates national sovereignty. Whether or not to allow divorce and how to handle custody laws is not the whole worlds business. For god sakes let the people of our nation decide for themselves what rules they wish to live by. This micromanagement was never the purpose of the U.N and quite frankly it will in the end be its downfall. Did this resolution happen to mention how it's going to enforce itself, particularly against those who refuse it? Wars? Trade sanctions? As if we need more of those, especially for something so trivial as the issue of marriage and divorce. Also how this system be implemented, are you going to establish a world divorce court? Whose going to pay for that?

I must ask my fellow U.N nations to recognize this legislation for what it is: The U.N trying to establish for itself a U.N new world order that carry's the right to make laws for your nation, whether you like or not. Vote against this resolution.

Yet you continue to fail to distinguish the difference between the RLUN and the NSUN

This is not the case. I fully distinguish the differences. However, I have believed since I joined the game in January of 2003 (it was launched in November of 2002) that the NSUN should operate in much the same way as the RLUN operates. And I have governed my region and my state accordingly.

Fair enough. I disagree, but I'm possibly the most vocal International Federalist on these forums

And, if necessary, I will become the most vocal advocate of States Rights on these forums.


It has a leadership. You can visit them on the moderation forum

Those are not "leaders". They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people. They do not govern at the pleasure of the regional delegates.

They are, for lack of a better term, policemen.

Mostly false. Yes it can't tax citizens directly, but that doesn't mean it can't tax. That said, there is a considerable discussion regarding that fact just last week in which we had to think this a bit more thoroughly. Many attempts have been made to set up membership dues. They continue to be made and discussion has been started through some of the larger de-regionalized groups about this possibility.

It is strictly forbidden by one of its own resolutions from taxing the member states.

If you think we are vehement in our opposition to your resolution, try and implement a tax system.

The UN Gnomes are all we need for a standing army. It is sufficient in keeping its members in line. In terms of dealing with external threats, we operate closer to medieval Europe, where the lords had armies and would commit them to battle (or not) if requested. The UN has never made a full request at the floor level (nor are we allowed to nor been required to yet), but there have been more localized pockets of this.

The states are, as soverign entities, responsible for their own security. They have set up alliances, collective security agreements and mutual assistance pacts to ensure the stability and safety of our region. North America's NATO (the North American Treaty Organization) turns three years old next March.

The UN is not in any position to be choosing sides in conflicts, and does not have the ability, funds, or command structure to support a standing army.

It has a lot more than you think

I admit that it has a lot more than I wish it does, but not more than I think it does. You presume my ignorance. Simply looking at the establishment date of my country is enough to counter that idea.

False. The RLUN was designed to be such. The NSUN was not designed as such. The intention of the NSUN's founder, Max Barry, is not entirely known, but he has given us the power and full capability to be a world government and watched as it evolved to become a monster even he could not fathom. Even today, he does not indicate whether his intention was to have it as a forum or as an International Government. Do not presume you know more about him than the compiled knowledge of this forum community.

Your statement here is inherently contradictory. I have stated my opinion on what the UN should be, and you have told me I am wrong, because the founder of the UN's intentions aren't completely known.

Be that as it may, the founder is hands-off. We are the member states of the UN. I am a regional delegate, with voting priveleges in the UN. If anyone should have a say as to what the UN should, could and would be, it would be my fellow delegates.

The way the UN has been acting for years should be curbed. The UN should not be a world government. And we will work to ensure that it never usurps that kind of power any more.

So long as those provisions remain in the UN, the protection of citizens to get out of them should likewise be maintained. Failure to do so is to assist in Internationally assisted slavery. After this resolution is passed, you are more than welcome to try and repeal these resolutions, but I urge you to repeal this last as it exists to protect those who have been wed under those resolutions. It is MORE important than any of those resolutions were because it protects people from being restricted by previous international law. There are too many marriage laws and they are too heavily supported (the support does not include my government - we think they all need to be replaced) to be able to topple them all in the near future. Thus we must do what we can to protect those who have suffered because of them.

You are equating the inability to remove oneself from a contract that they entered into voluntarily as "slavery". I would consider it more "indentured servitude", but the analogy is still a specious one.

Piling further bad legislation upon a rotten foundation is not the solution. Working to repeal those laws that have set up the scenario you are afraid of is more appropriate, and frankly, more like to gain the support of states and regions such as my own.

This is likewise false. If a couple are legally married in, say, Britain and immigrate to, say, Canada, the Canadian government, I am certain, can nullify the contract if the couple request a divorce (following, of course, the laws set up by the Canadian government regarding divorce). The question is a matter of who recognizes it, and this United Nations as well as all member states shall recognize such divorces regardless of their individual beliefs

You have already stated on a previous occasion that you believe that marriage itself is a contract between two people. We are not talking about a couple legally married in one state, and then emigrating to another seeking a petition under the laws of the second state. We are speaking of one state stepping in and nullifying a contract - which in turn means nullifying the laws of another state - because they don't believe that the contract or the laws are appropriate.

Under this hypothesis, you would be ceding the UN the authority to regulate commerce on and intrastate level - that is absolutely not within the UNs jurisdiction. I do not have the right to interfere with the institutions in your state, nor should you have ability to do so with mine. Interfering through the UN is still interference.

I find it hard to believe that a head of state would be willing to hand up such a fundamental portion of his governing authority to an unaccountable world body on a precendent setting issue such as this.

Bull. The rights of the human being are far more important than any international commerce concern. The forcing of two people to continue their contract until one or both of them are dead is nothing short of ludicrous and unquestionably a form of slavery. I don't care what your culture is, I shall not welcome such an act.

Wrong. International commerce has lasting effects on billions and trillions of individuals throughout the world. To paraphrase a popular film, "the problems of a few little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world" comparatively speaking. While you claim this to be a human rights issue, there is much more at stake here than regulating marriage and divorce.

As to your characterization of marriage as slavery, again that is your prerogative to do so within the boundaries of your own state. However, I am of the opinion that any attempt to forcibly restrict or reinterpret the rights granted to my citizens as a casus belli.

Meh - I'm sick of stating the same line over and over again.

Diplomacy is often repetitive.

I disagree. State sovereignty follows the guidelines of this United Nations. I do not defend nations that commit attrocities and I do not believe they should be permitted to so long as they are a member of this body.

It is within your power to attempt to stop them, if you wish. I have never seen UN legislation end an atrocity, however. Those states that usually wish to commit them don't seem to have the respect for the rule of law that many of us do.

Again, I believe the UN to be a true world government and should be a world government. Obviously, a fatal disagreement between us.

Quite. I do hope to bring you around to our point of view someday.

I will not. I neither wish nor welcome them to be repealed at a permanent level. I have already begun consideration on methods of presenting a full and simplified replacement to all these resolutions to fully simplify UN law and to improve its quality. The resolutions I do not believe go beyond the boundaries of the UN, but rather are merely flawed resolutions in terms of how to go about them.

And that is again, where we fail to speak on the same page. As I have previously stated, I cannot understand why any head of state would be willing to cede authority over the internal affairs and regulations of his own state to the United Nations on any issue. In my opinion, that is neglecting your duty and your responsibility to your people, and unbecoming a head of state/government.

Esbam will be voting against this proposal for the same reasons others have mentioned. Clearly, marriage is a private matter between two people, and local government should have little power to interfere in marriage much less international government.

What this proposal boils down to, marriage issues aside, is that the UN is interfering with contract negotiations between individual citizens of sovereign states and the dissolution of said contract. This sets a precedence for further meddling in contract negotatiations between private parties of UN nations.

The difference between this resolution and the previous resolutions about marriage mentioned by Forgottenlands is that the other resolutions were intended to prevent discrimination or the limiting of the rights of certain demographics based solely on individual differences (such as race, sexual preference, etc.). The current proposal is simply a matter of defining the terms of the dissolution of a specific type of contract between any two citizens and is therefore of no international concern.

This issue should not be in the jurisdiction of the UN, and it's time that member nations stop allowing this kind of intrusive resolutions to be passed. The nation of Esbam has been seriously considering withdrawing from the UN due to the recent increase in UN proposals overstepping their bounds into local matters, and this issue will add to the debate.

I have stated my opposition to this resolution before, and have not changed my mind. Marriage and divorce are not something the UN needs to legislate about (and yes, I know that the UN has in the past). Although I do appreciate that this resolution, contrary to earlier drafts, now allows local governments to set their own rules about divorce. I'm not big on national sovereignity, but in a lot of cases detailed blanket legislation from the UN simply doesn't work, and this is one of them.

So although content-wise I do not disagree, I still vote against.

Darvainia and the province of moonflow (or most of us at least I assure you) must voice our opposition to this resolution on the grounds that once again...say it with me people...it violates national sovereignty. Whether or not to allow divorce and how to handle custody laws is not the whole worlds business. For god sakes let the people of our nation decide for themselves what rules they wish to live by.

Not all nations are ruled by "the people." You might find quite a few dictators around the UN. This proposal merely gives people some rights that are denied by some governments, thereby improving human rights.

This micromanagement was never the purpose of the U.N and quite frankly it will in the end be its downfall.

Quite frankly, I am completely ignorant about the ultimate purpose of the NSUN. However, the resolution under vote has not been deleted, hence I can only assume it is within UN jurisdiction. Whether one agrees with it is a different matter entirely.

Did this resolution happen to mention how it's going to enforce itself, particularly against those who refuse it? Wars? Trade sanctions? As if we need more of those, especially for something so trivial as the issue of marriage and divorce. Also how this system be implemented, are you going to establish a world divorce court? Whose going to pay for that?

Compliance is automatic, nobody will refuse it. If this passes, your government will enact appropriate laws, whether you like it or not. Your country will also endow an institution with the power to carry out divorce proceedings, and support the costs of such institution.

I must ask my fellow U.N nations to recognize this legislation for what it is: The U.N trying to establish for itself a U.N new world order that carry's the right to make laws for your nation, whether you like or not. Vote against this resolution.

And what would the old world order be? Nobody forces you to join the UN, you can resign and have all the NatSov you can handle. Once you are in, you are giving this Assembly the right to enact legislation affecting your nation. Rules of the game, no use whining about it.

As someone going through a divorce, I have a very difficult time supporting this resolution.

If this resolution simply said "No nation shall enact laws prohibiting divorce" then I could support it. That would be a "Right to Divorce."

This resolution goes way beyond that. It specifies the conditions of HOW and WHY and WHEN divorce is allowed. Those are things that individuals should decide, and localities legislate -- not the UN.

Moreover, this resolution has language that lawyers will love. The divorce law in the US has evolved to the point where a complete industry dominates the proceedings. Lawyers, Guardian Ad Litems and others make a living off of making people miserable.

The mention of "pre-nuptual agreement" is enough to send me into orbit. In my pre-nuptual agreement, I agreed to love, honor and respect my spouse. in sickness and in health. She did the same. That was our agreeement. We had many "post-nuptual" agreements as well. She wasn't able to uphold any of them.

Divorce is tough enough without the UN specifying the How and Why and When divorce should be allowed, let alone giving lawyers a legislative swiss cheese at the UN level.

I'd be surprised if the Rouge Nation of Sharking Divorce Lawyers doesn't endorse this one.

VOTE NO! :headbang:

I'd like to rebut the point of Omigodtheykilledkenny about the idea of 'people sovereignty', which does not mean that people operate as individual units to the state, yet rather that they are endowed with rights that the state should be obliged to recognise as inherently belonging to them, not given by authority. Interfering, as the honourable delegate puts it, is not what occurs here, nor would such actions constitute a separation of people from state, nor a hinderance on the power to govern per se. Rather, it is to recognise that universal rights and conventions exist and that societies should be made, through the democratic process of the U.N. to acknowlege these rights. One can claim that ones culture and national rights protect one from undue interference, yet should we, I ask you, permit barbarism due to these alleged 'rights'. What is promulgated by the honourable delegate, is what is known as 'negative liberty', the knee-jerk 'freedom from interference'. Positive liberty is being recognised here, that is to say, 'the protection and enshrining of our inherent freedoms so as to protect human dignity and ward off oppression.People have no right to defy family law in their nation. And that's exactly what this resolution encourages; it tells nations that their own conception of family law is no good, forces them to accept all divorces with few qualifiers, and even has the nerve to micromanage the timeframe for granting divorce in all member nations and under what circumstances should parents be permitted to visit their children.

This has nothing to do with international law, or even human rights.

This is a poorly disguised power grab, masquerading as human rights legislation. The UN has no place telling nations how to run their own family courts.

Marriage is an international affair because it is an internationally recognised insitution, therefore to legislate to establish a basic set of conventions regarding it, seems eminent common sense to me.Micromanaging divorce timelines and child-visitation arrangements on an international scale are "eminent common sense" for you??

Accept, then plan a repeal. Otherwise, majority rules.We've already stated what we plan to do to bypass this internationalist power trip. :D

With all due respect to the time, thought, and effort put into the proposal, the Obfuscati considers this proposal to be ridiculous. I am not referring to the right to divorce, which is by no means a laughable issue. What is ridiculous, however, is the UN dictating for everyone whether or not they should allow something that is strictly a matter of state.

The goal of the UN is to promote and ensure basic human rights and deal with international affairs. Unless someone's marriage is the subject of the next world war, it is not an international affair. And marriage (and divorce), while an important aspect of life, is hardly categorized as something that is a basic human right.

Marriage can be divided up into two general aspects of consideration. First, there is the human aspect. Love, devotion, etc. These, the Obfuscati submits, are not, and should never be items that the UN should attempt to dictate.

The second issue is legal. While varying between nations, in general, marriage entails a legal status, protocols for protocol between spouces, a certain financial status, fidelity laws, and responsibility of a child, if any. The Obfuscati would also submit that how a nation runs its financial system and property division is not something that we should attempt to dictate that a pure communism should not exist because no property is divided among individuals.

There are, however, two aspects left of marraige that may concern the UN. First, there is the child, which is addressed in the proposal to some extent. Second, the motivation for the proposal, there is the happiness of married individuals.

I think most of us can agree that it is not the case that in any normal situation that does not involve abuse or something related, divorce ever makes the child immensely happier. Divorce may, however, be beneficial to the parents. This is an issue that must be weighed, I would say. However, it is not an issue to be weighed by an international organization such as the UN.

It is debatable whether or not devorce should be allowed when it comes to morals. And that is what this is - a moral judgement. All it takes is a single theocracy nation in the UN that does not believe in divorce for religious reasons. And if this proposal passes, that nation will have its very religion trampled upon by a global organization. Even if personally, I believe that the decision should be the individuals that are married, and not the state, as mentioned before, we are not the judges of human factors such as love. We are also not the judges of the legal aspects of marriage as they do not directly affect human rights.

The Obfuscati strongly votes no on this issue, on the grounds that it is intrusive, in no way our place to judge, and even potentially dangerous if one accepts the slippery slope argument when the UN suddenly decides to dictate morals that are still under debate. The Obfuscati would equally vote against this proposal for precisely the same reasons even if it was the other way around - proposing to make all divorces illegal. It is not ours to judge and dictate.

Divorce is a national issue

You are taking away my sovreignty

We vote NAY

While I am certainly in favour of making nations to allow divorce without being too weak to have any effect, Cuation will not support this. For one thing I feel the time allowed between getting married and then being allowed to apply for divorce is too low

Sun Loyalds
Un diplomat

If this resolution simply said "No nation shall enact laws prohibiting divorce" then I could support it. That would be a "Right to Divorce."
I agree pretty much with this. That if it was just denying nations from prohibiting divorce I might vote for it. But it gives too many specifics and restrictions that should be made by nations, not the UN.

I vote no.

People have no right to defy family law in their nation. And that's exactly what this resolution encourages; it tells nations that their own conception of family law is no good, forces them to accept all divorces with few qualifiers, and even has the nerve to micromanage the timeframe for granting divorce in all member nations and under what circumstances should parents be permitted to visit their children.

This has nothing to do with international law, or even human rights.

I beg to differ. It should be noted that this does not encourage disobedience in terms of family law, it merely legislates a new set of requirements to be followed and implemented by nations, with regards to divorce procedures. Micro-management would be far more detailled than this, all that is being set out here is the basic pre-conditions for divorce initiation. Therefore, it has everything to do with human rights.

This is a poorly disguised power grab, masquerading as human rights legislation. The UN has no place telling nations how to run their own family courts.

Micromanaging divorce timelines and child-visitation arrangements on an international scale are "eminent common sense" for you??

Yes, the are 'eminent common sense' because they follow a consistent and clear principle, that of gauranteeing maximum rights for all in as many areas as can be shown to be beneficial to the general good. By your logic, any legislation could be construed as a power grab and if that were the case, why would the U.N. even exist?

We've already stated what we plan to do to bypass this internationalist power trip. :D

Well, do what you want to, but I suspect you'll find it considerably harder than you imagine.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Long live U.N. Federalism!;)

The Empire of Corporate Oppression is appalled by this proposal. Marriage is certainly a domestic matter, to be handled how the Sovereign Governments and Religious Organizations of each nation see fit, not as the UN sees fit.

One must recognize that the traditions and customs of marriage vary from culture to culture. This culture is propagated by the acceptance of its members, whether that is cognitive acceptance or otherwise. It should be the will of a single nation’s culture that determines the vagaries of marriage, including divorce, annulment, and spousal rights, not the international community. This has no bearing whatsoever on the state of international politics. The proposals to the United Nations should address serious issues affecting our world. Instead, we are debating marriage! We must address more important issues, such as famine, disease, strife.

Please, the UN body must be reminded that while part of its job is to improve human rights, it is not designed to undermine functional governments. In other words, when the fate of the world as whole hangs in the balance because of marriage, we can attend to this issue.

In closing, we urge all Sovereign Nations to reject this attempt at subjugation of our citizenry. Object to the waste of important international resources to address domestic issues. Refuse to bend to those that wish to use Human Rights as a power platform.

This is the official statement of the Empire of Corporate Oppression, the Sovereign Nations of the Armed Republic of GunnersShoe, the Dominion of Kill Devil Hill, and the Empire of Dachshundstan.

That is all.


Supreme Chancellor Fidel Gutierrez
Empire of Dachshundstan
UN Delegate by the will of the people of South Carolina

Fellow representatives, I have been instructed by the Philosopher-King to deliver his personal response to you concerning the resolution at vote. Ahem:

"Good members of the United Nations, I must say that this resolution created quite a dilemma for me. On one hand, I certainly do believe that citizens should have the right to terminate a civil union that they feel hinders them from living the good life as they see it. On the other hand, my respect for national sovereignty warns me that this micromanagement of national law sets a dangerous precedent for future United Nations legislation.

Now, in an effort to facilitate my decision, I ask you: which good outweighs the other? Surely, civil rights legislation is something to be lauded. In fact, it burdens me to think that I should be in opposition to a resolution that attempts to increase personal freedoms. I do believe that most nations do need increased civil rights, and I might ask, is not a United Nations resolution the best and most proper way to accomplish this on a grand scale? When I consider this legislation in that light, I am troubled by the thought of opposing this.

On the opposite side of the scale lies my deep respect for national sovereignty. Too often, I think, this body has overstepped its proper boundaries, legislating on issues that should not be its concern. The legalization of prostitution and requiring citizen rule are two examples; I worry that this resolution might become another. As there are no written limits, and there cannot be, due to current United Nations law, on what topics the United Nations has the right to legislate, I feel that it is the responsibility of member nations to set those limits through their votes.

And so, which way does the scale tip? It seems to be evenly balanced, at least in my eyes. And so, I must ask myself one final question to break this balance: what of the future? What are possible scenarios that may come of this? Certainly, one should never make an important decision without weighing potential futures, both favorable and unfavorable, and factoring in proper probablity of respective futures.

If this resolution is not passed, then nations may see its failure as United Nations approval to reduce civil freedoms in the area of marriage and civil unions. Yes, this is a minute possiblity, but countless minute possibilities have become horrific tragedies throughout human history, and as such, it would be improper not to consider such possibilities. Another potential consequence of this resolution's failure would be increased respect for and general empowerment of the National Sovereignty Organization. Personally, this king feels that this coalition deserves such respect and empowerment.

Contrarily, if the resolution at hand is passed by this body, then civil freedoms will have increased in countless nations throughout the universe. People trapped in marriages or civil unions that hamper them from reaching their personal potential will be able to break such bonds and deliver themselves to a better life. One cannot argue against the positivity of such a scenario. However, every good thing created by humans comes with a price. What would the price of such a benefit to freedom be? Ironically, the answer is freedom itself. Freedom for individual nations to determine what the most proper laws are for their citizens. Freedom to legislate on issues so culturally defined as marriage. Freedom to have a sense of sovereignty, to belong more to your nation than to this body! For what is this body but an organization of individual nations, each with their own unique cultures, ideas, and convictions? To eliminate those would be to eliminate the very spirit of this body: freedom.

Yes, freedom, the very thing this resolution attempts to increase, tips the scale the other way.

Good members of the United Nations, while I encourage you to grant the right to divorce to your citizens, I wish for you to do so with your own unique set of details and stipulations, catered to your own unique citizens, and thus I urge you, in the name of freedom and in the name of the future of this body, to cast your vote against this resolution."

Thank you for your patience, good members. Dimicias, the Philosopher-King of The-Republic, has spoken.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Woah, hold on there a minute Forgottenlands, the UN has NEVER said that governments have to perform any marriages at all. And if you know of a UN resolution which says otherwise I'd like to know which one.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

There is a possibility I'm reading a bit too deeply into resolutions, but this is from Resolution 12:

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

To me this says they must be granted by member states - and if you're granting marriages at all, resolution 81 makes it so you have to do ALL marriages.

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

Ausserland has voted AGAINST this proposal. We consider it the most blatant and unwarranted example of NSUN micromanagement of the affairs of nations' citizens that we have seen yet. The NSUN has absolutely no business telling member nations whether and under what conditions they will grant or deny divorces. Not only does the proposal dictate to nations conditions under which they must grant divorces, it goes so unbelievably far as to establish specific time frames.We can only imagine that next we'll be told what speed limits we must set on our highways.

We have set a minimum set of guidelines where we feel the most stringent acceptable levels are for divorce. However, should nations wish to make guidelines that make it easier for their citizens to have a divorce, they are more than welcome to. We are not so much as dictating timelines but dictating maximum amounts of time that you can deny such rights from your citizens for whatever reason.

We object in the strongest possible terms to this provision of the proposal:

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

Decisions to permit parental access to children of divorced couples must be based on consideration for the welfare of the children, not the grounds for granting the divorce. There can be many reasons, completely unrelated to the grounds for divorce, that allowing access would not be in the children's best interests. This sort of thing must be determined on a case-by-case basis, considering all the circumstances, and not by over-simplistic rules dictated by the NSUN.

I would be interested in hearing some of these cases, but I do not believe there is any reason other than risk of harm to a child for the parent not to be granted visitation rights - that includes things like the parent's failure to follow the law.

We cannot accept that the NSUN should meddle in this matter, especially when its meddling holds the potential to put children of divorce at risk.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

How?

--------------------------
Those are not "leaders". They are not elected. They are not accountable to the people. They do not govern at the pleasure of the regional delegates.

They are, for lack of a better term, policemen.

One does not need to be elected to be a leader. One needs to be elected to be a democratic leader. It is commonly accepted that the Most Glorious Hack is the General Secretary of the UN. If this is accepted by the membership, does that make it false?

Does that make them dictators, yes. Does that make them any less of a leader, no.

It is strictly forbidden by one of its own resolutions from taxing the member states.

If you think we are vehement in our opposition to your resolution, try and implement a tax system.

No it's not. Read that resolution (4 BTW) over again. The interpretation by most of the secretariat matches that of most of the regular members: we are not allowed to tax citizens DIRECTLY - but that doesn't limit us to taxing GOVERNMENTS.

The states are, as soverign entities, responsible for their own security. They have set up alliances, collective security agreements and mutual assistance pacts to ensure the stability and safety of our region. North America's NATO (the North American Treaty Organization) turns three years old next March.

The UN is not in any position to be choosing sides in conflicts, and does not have the ability, funds, or command structure to support a standing army.

That doesn't make it any less of a government. It is able to keep its members in line and dictate to them laws. Don't believe me, read the FAQ and stickies. We can get into a RP rules discussion via TG

I admit that it has a lot more than I wish it does, but not more than I think it does. You presume my ignorance. Simply looking at the establishment date of my country is enough to counter that idea.

The established date of my country is officially around the time your country was likewise established. My participation on the forums is fairly recent (after I had been attracted to here by one Vastiva after a discussion with him regarding a proposed repeal of the Ban Landmines resolution), and it is because of my relative newbieness on these forums that I am fairly junior to Enn or Flibs. Just because your country is old does not make it more knowledgable or less ignorant. The same is true in RL - I have met many more than twice my age who were much more ignorant than me in a variety of fields.

Thus far, you have stated what the UN is, not what you think it should be. Only recently you have started speaking in a seperate tone. This alone tells me enough about your knowledge level of the UN

Your statement here is inherently contradictory. I have stated my opinion on what the UN should be, and you have told me I am wrong, because the founder of the UN's intentions aren't completely known.

Be that as it may, the founder is hands-off. We are the member states of the UN. I am a regional delegate, with voting priveleges in the UN. If anyone should have a say as to what the UN should, could and would be, it would be my fellow delegates.

The way the UN has been acting for years should be curbed. The UN should not be a world government. And we will work to ensure that it never usurps that kind of power any more.

No - NOW you are saying what the UN should be. You were saying what the UN is and what it was meant to be. The mere fact you were using such words is just asking to be called on it.

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

As written, this bill is entirely too restrictive. Therefore, Stelliga of Academia must vote Nay.

One concern I have is with the timeframes listed in this bill. How did 3 months become the benchmark for determining the viability of marriage?

Second, I do not see the necessity for this kind of legislation to even be considered by the UN. It smacks of micro-management and it blatantly infringes upon member nations' sovreignty.

Our esteemed member nations should be able to determine their own criteria for marriage and divorce. Some nations may have two or more kinds of marriage, including a standard marriage and a more restrictive "covenant marriage." If a couple had entered a "covenant marriage," then the divorce legislation we see before us now would be rendered null and void in their case.

Third, what universal safety is in jeopardy? What global crisis are we averting through this bill? Nothing. We must trust the member nations to address such routine matters themselves and not force the morality of a select few upon the general concensus.

This is, after all, a moral issue and not one of human rights, safety, or global responsibility.

The Most Serene Republic of Stelliga strenuously opposes the divorce bill and we urge our honorable co-members to do the same.

Respectfully,
G. Brannagh
Chancellor

The Kingdom of Ascensoria cannot accept this provision.

His majesty shares the concerns raised by those who feel that the UN is stepping beyond its remit. It is our firm belief that the UN should act to protect rights and promote harmony.

That being said, we are not adverse to the UN declaring simply that divorce is a human right - for we believe this to be true and a sufficiently vital matter of basic human dignity that the UN should rule on it - but we do believe that this provision is simply too detailed for a resolution that is supposed to be applied to all the world's nations.

In our case, we are troubled because it would render divorce less accessible to our populace. Not more. It also acknowledges pre-nuptial agreements, which we in Ascensoria consider immoral and coercive, it also gives relevence to the idea of fault in a divorce - a principle we find irrelevent and unnecessarily divisive.

We vote, therefore, to have it struck down and hope for it to be replaced by a broaded resolution simply calling for the right of divorce to be recognised by all nations - to be enforced nationally in a manner that is relevent to that nation's law.

Ascensoria.

I find it surprising and also disheartening that a proposal such as the above could make its way to the floor of the United Nations.

All arguments regarding marriage and divorce aside, I cannot understand what overarching international need is met by the passing of this resolution. Furthermore, this resolution, is a prima facie violation of the sovereign rights of the member states of the United Nations to be the final arbiter or local issues - without interference, positive or negative, by any outside body.

The issues surrounding marriage and divorce are inherently local ones. Considerable emotion is packed into all of them, and in any issue like this, where there is no overriding international need to implement a world-wide solution, the United Nations should restrain itself and not attempt to influence policies that are far outside its jursidiction.

This resolution follows in a long line of resolutions by UN states that fail to recognize that the UN is not world-government, and its role should never be to regulate the internal behavior - or even to attempt to influence that internal behavior - of the member states. To do so is to meddle in affairs that the UN is neither competent to handle, nor reasonably accountable to the people of the member-states if they find fault with them.

The USBR, as delegate from North America, will be opposing this resolution, and we urge any fellow governments who object to the UN's consistent and unwise attempts to meddle in the internal affairs and violate the sovereignty of the members states to likewise oppose the resolution.
Amen. This resolution is a violation of national sovereignty. There is no need to force other nations to grant divorce, and furthermore, it is popular belief in many nations, including my own, that no-fault divorces are wrong. Also, the resolution, as well as the nation that proposed it, fails to recognize the effect that divorces have on the children of the divorced couple. They hurt children very much psychologically and can cause them to be emotionally insecure. It teaches them that it is okay for promises to be broken voluntarily, and puts them in the mindset that nothing is constant. If a person does not love their spouse anymore, can they stop loving their children? This is how many children feel about divorce. The resolution fails to acknowledge the psychological effect that divorce has on children.

This is rediculous, since when does the NSUN have any right or authority to try and decide domestic matters in a persons home. They do not have supreme power, in fact the only power that comes from this organization is the power tahat we ourselevs give it. I for one believe that this organization should stay out of a states domestic policys until they affect the quality of life or a life itself.

A couple of issues which appeared at first read:

1) This resolution effectively removes theocracies (following religions prohibiting divorce) from the U.N.

2) This resolution prohibit nations from restricting criminals to solitary confinement/ removing visitation privileges, if they are divorced with children.

Malclavia cannot support this resolution.

I would be interested in hearing some of these cases, but I do not believe there is any reason other than risk of harm to a child for the parent not to be granted visitation rights - that includes things like the parent's failure to follow the law.

We agree wholeheartedly that the welfare of the children should be the sole criterion for allowing parental access. Unfortunately, that's not what the proposal says:

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

If the proposal passes, there will be only two conditions under which parental access can be denied: (1) if domestic violence or sexual abuse was the grounds upon which the divorce was granted, or (2) the non-custodial parent commits such acts upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce.

Some situations under which the nation would be required to permit access under these conditions would include:

1. "Convenience divorces", where domestic violence or child abuse took place within the home, but the spouses agreed to consensual divorce to avoid having the children or themselves suffer through a contested divorce.

2. Development of psychopathology or sociopathology in the non-custodial spouse after the divorce.

3. Situations where the psychopathology or sociopathology existed but was not known prior to the divorce.

Note, please, that a non-custodial parent could have multiple convictions for child molestation, but as long as the crimes weren't committed against the "shared children", access could not be denied.

The proposal also assumes that physical violence or abuse are the only possible reasons why a non-custodial parent should be refused access. It totally ignores the psychological well-being of the children.

We continue firm in our belief that the provisions of this proposal regarding access to the children of divorce are illogical and potentially dangerous for the children.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We agree wholeheartedly that the welfare of the children should be the sole criterion for allowing parental access. Unfortunately, that's not what the proposal says:

-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

If the proposal passes, there will be only two conditions under which parental access can be denied: (1) if domestic violence or sexual abuse was the grounds upon which the divorce was granted, or (2) the non-custodial parent commits such acts upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce.

Some situations under which the nation would be required to permit access under these conditions would include:

1. "Convenience divorces", where domestic violence or child abuse took place within the home, but the spouses agreed to consensual divorce to avoid having the children or themselves suffer through a contested divorce.

2. Development of psychopathology or sociopathology in the non-custodial spouse after the divorce.

3. Situations where the psychopathology or sociopathology existed but was not known prior to the divorce.

Note, please, that a non-custodial parent could have multiple convictions for child molestation, but as long as the crimes weren't committed against the "shared children", access could not be denied.

The proposal also assumes that physical violence or abuse are the only possible reasons why a non-custodial parent should be refused access. It totally ignores the psychological well-being of the children.

We continue firm in our belief that the provisions of this proposal regarding access to the children of divorce are illogical and potentially dangerous for the children.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Zarfland votes NAY for the following reasons:
1) There is nothing currently in print that defines what a marriage is and if it construed as legal and binding as viewed by the UN, therefore how can a divorce be granted.
2) The fact that the resolution states that both parents may have regular visitation does not automatically grant EQUAL time for the children to be with both parents. Regular and equal are not the same. Equal must be the starting point in the divorce, not something to be begged and pleaded for by one parent.
3) Even if there is domestic violence, if it was between parents and not involving the children, the children are being robbed of equal time with their parents. There is nothing mentioned regarding visitation occurring under legal supervision in such circumstances, only that they are not allowed to see their children at all.
4) There is nothing stated on how child support should be calculated or if support is paid to show how the support given is being used for the children. The gross mismanagement of support given by one parent to another for the children is not addressed and the overall outcome of such instances hurts both the parent providing the support and the children who are supposed to receive these funds.

Having stated the above, unless these concerns are addressed and restated within the resolution, I find it impossible for Zarfland to vote for such a resolution.

Sincerely,

President Schwamie

I find it surprising and also disheartening that a proposal such as the above could make its way to the floor of the United Nations.
Xercelon, UN Delegate of The Federal Empire, strongly opposes this resolution as well. The reasons listed by this proposal's authors for allowing divorce are laughable. I also call for the defeat of this horrendous measure.

1) There is nothing currently in print that defines what a marriage is and if it construed as legal and binding as viewed by the UN, therefore how can a divorce be granted.

Yeah. We should go pass a resolution called "Definition of Marriage" so we do have a definition in print.

















































OH WAIT. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680061&postcount=82)

The-Republic']Fellow representatives, I have been instructed by the Philosopher-King to deliver his personal response to you concerning the resolution at vote. Ahem:

OOC: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." Congratulations on a great piece of work. ;)

Midori Kasigi, the Kirisuban deputy ambassador takes the floor in her first big debate. Ironically she has to argue against her fiances proposal but she's not too worried about that. They both have their duty to do.

although a little nervous she finds her composure and speaks up.

"the empire of Kirisubo has had practical divorce laws in place for centuries.

therefore i ask the question. why is the UN again trying to micromanage a sovereign nations laws? is it a well meaning power trip or part of the master plan to have a one world government? I believe its the latter.

we will be voting against this travesty of justice which tramples all over a nations sovereignty"

OOC: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears; I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him." Congratulations on a great piece of work. ;)
[OOC: Thanks. That was my first big speech really, and I appreciate the feedback.]

Fellow representatives, the current vote count (Votes For: 1,866; Votes Against: 1,068) suggests to me that we may need to take stronger action against this resolution. It seems that despite the general consensus against the proposal here on the forum, the general UN body is currently in favor of it.

I ask that anybody willing to reverse the current situation telegram The-Republic. Hopefully we can draft a telegram, organize a campaign, and convince the voting members to vote this resolution down.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

This subject is inappropriate for a world body to vote on and or consider for binding legislation. The people of Kickingandscreaming shall decide for themselves by what laws their unions and marriages shall be protected. Are there not other more significant world issues that this esteemed institution should be focusing on? At this rate the UN shall soon be relegated to legislating traffic lights and electrical zoning ordinances in suburban Ankmorpork. Please spare us...

The Librarian, Unseen University, O.O.K.

Alas, I fear many may have eagerly seized upon the title without examining the text or implications with due thoroughness.

I concur with Speaker Gorgias that we need to raise awareness in our respective regions of the problems with this resolution. I further propose that should this resolution pass, we start important work on tabling a new measure for its repeal, or at very least, its amendment.

Royal Herald Lansing
Ascensoria


The-Republic'][OOC: Thanks. That was my first big speech really, and I appreciate the feedback.]

Fellow representatives, the current vote count (Votes For: 1,866; Votes Against: 1,068) suggests to me that we may need to take stronger action against this resolution. It seems that despite the general consensus against the proposal here on the forum, the general UN body is currently in favor of it.

I ask that anybody willing to reverse the current situation telegram The-Republic. Hopefully we can draft a telegram, organize a campaign, and convince the voting members to vote this resolution down.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

One does not need to be elected to be a leader. One needs to be elected to be a democratic leader. It is commonly accepted that the Most Glorious Hack is the General Secretary of the UN. If this is accepted by the membership, does that make it false?

Most Glorious Hack does not operate as a leader with an agenda. And again, I believe that calling the moderators the "leaders" to be a serious stretch. Further, considering that election to the position of regional delegate is a democratic process, it seems inconceivable that the delegates would accept an unaccountable dictatorship when they, themselves, are accountable to the states within their region.

As I stated before, MGH and the other moderators act as a police force, not as 'leaders'.

This entire line of reasoning is based on your desire for the UN to be a world government. Our entire line of reasoning is based on our desire for the UN to be an adminstrative body. There's a difference, and we must agree to disagree.

No it's not. Read that resolution (4 BTW) over again. The interpretation by most of the secretariat matches that of most of the regular members: we are not allowed to tax citizens DIRECTLY - but that doesn't limit us to taxing GOVERNMENTS.

That is an interpretation that is left up to the reader and to the delegates to decide. I read this resolution that it was in the intent and spirit of this law to prohibit the UN from raising revenue from the populations of the member-states.

The ability to tax the residents of the states within ones borders is a primary right of states - if the UN is barred from doing so, this seriously undermines your argument that the UN is a legitimate world government.

That doesn't make it any less of a government. It is able to keep its members in line and dictate to them laws. Don't believe me, read the FAQ and stickies. We can get into a RP rules discussion via TG

Not having the same rights as the states that are its members does make it less of a government. I have read the appropriate threads - my state has been in existence far longer than those rules have, I assure you.

When I claim that the UN does not have the jurisdiction to do something, that statement is a statement of my interpretation of the law and the intent of the founding of the body. I will not dilute my interpretation by adding an "in my opinion", or "I believe".

The established date of my country is officially around the time your country was likewise established. My participation on the forums is fairly recent (after I had been attracted to here by one Vastiva after a discussion with him regarding a proposed repeal of the Ban Landmines resolution), and it is because of my relative newbieness on these forums that I am fairly junior to Enn or Flibs. Just because your country is old does not make it more knowledgable or less ignorant. The same is true in RL - I have met many more than twice my age who were much more ignorant than me in a variety of fields.

I will take your statement regarding the longevity of your state at face value, but I do not understand how it is possible if your country was founded "around the time" of my country that I should have three times the population.

Because my country is old, I have been here to see the establishment and development of the rules that you hold so dear - and my state preceeded the establishment of much of them.

As far as RL is concerned, whether or not you feel that someone more than twice your age is "more ignorant" than you are in a variety of fields, you owe that individual the respect that their age and experience is due. I am providing you much more than the benefit of the doubt in this scenario, because being a coauthor you have the pride of authorship and being told that your provisions are bad is always painful. However, I would expect a modicum of more civility, given the size of my country, its longevity, my length of service as a Regional Delegate, and the size and history of my region. At the very least, I would expect that we could have a rational debate, rather than quibbling over minor concerns that have no bearing on the issue at hand.

Thus far, you have stated what the UN is, not what you think it should be. Only recently you have started speaking in a seperate tone. This alone tells me enough about your knowledge level of the UN

What it should tell you is that my training in rhetoric has taught me to never speak in terms of beliefs, but in terms of facts. You, yourself, have stated that the actual intent behind the founding of the UN is unknown. To claim that you are right in your belief regarding that intent is true and mine is not because of how I phrase replies to the debate is foolhardy.

No - NOW you are saying what the UN should be. You were saying what the UN is and what it was meant to be. The mere fact you were using such words is just asking to be called on it.

You have called me on it, and I have responded. I am, and have been for nearly three years, consistent on my views regarding the UN and its role in the world.

Your resolution violates state sovereignty, and cedes power the UN that it should not have. We will do whatever we can to see that it fails, and that any similiar legislation that is already in effect on this issue is repealed.

My nation signs and agrees with the arguments put forth by Omigodtheykilledkenny and Brian ____ in opposing this ridiculous resolution. As a new member of the UN, I am disappointed with the caliber of recent resolutions that clearly violate a sovereign nation's rights to respect their local customs and traditions and be forced to adhere to some other group of nation's moral ideology. I was hoping for a more democratic forum in the UN. My country was hoping for a united body that would help protect the very rights of the smallest country, not impose the will of the more powerful and their misguided concepts and belief systems. Shame on the UN for even considering this clear violation of the member states' basic internal rights. My government shall certainly reconsider our choice of joining this body and weigh the choices of the same in what appears to be a growing morass of bureaucratically-choked infringements on personal rights.

This single, tiny nation resoundly votes no.:gundge:

The Dutch Democratic Republic of Knootoss throws its weight behind the opposition to this proposal.

This resolution minimanages affairs which do not guarantee basic human rights and which should therefore be alloted to member states. In particular, we oppose the relatively conservative streak of demands for a divorce (given that Knootian divorce laws are rather more liberal) and the attempt to make the NSUN direct policy criteria for seeing children. We believe this is also an issue for member states that requires more thought than some broad criteria.

~Aram Koopman, Knootian ambassador to the NSUN
"If the United Nations is a country unto itself, then the commodity it exports most is words."

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG

Alright, for those who want to reject this resolution (like myself) how do we go about campaigning for it to stop. Can we send out mass telegrams or post on our regions home page? What do you suggest?

Alright, for those who want to reject this resolution (like myself) how do we go about campaigning for it to stop. Can we send out mass telegrams or post on our regions home page? What do you suggest?
I've just sent out telegrams to every delegate with over 10 endorsements that has voted for the resolution, and a telegram to each of the feeder region delegates (except for 1 Infinite Loop, because of the request on the region page that he not be lobbied).

Alright, for those who want to reject this resolution (like myself) how do we go about campaigning for it to stop. Can we send out mass telegrams or post on our regions home page? What do you suggest?

I'm not exactly sure of the rules, but:
I believe you can TG delegates EXCEPT those who state in their WFE that such TGs are unwelcome;
I assume you can post on your RMB, subject to any conditions of your founder (and possibly delegate);
I don't believe you can put messages on other RMBs;
I don't think there any rules regarding off-site forums.

You might also consider which Feeders have democratic voting. There's little point TGing those delegates. There are probably other options.

While i do believe this should be a national, not international issue, I am voting FOR. As i beleieve Divorce is nesecary especialy since first marriages usualy don't last.




Also in RL my life would suck if my parents still had to live together.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised.)

Esteemed delegates and representatives--We beg your endulgance to allow Us to reiterate Our statement made during the drafting phase of this proposal:

The Eternal Kawaii rises to denounce the forces of bigotry that defame this valued institution. We refer to this so-called "human rights" proposal, which is in fact nothing more than a bare-faced attempt to impose the morals of a particular NationState upon us all. Once again Our nation finds Its laws and customs under attack, without cause or justification.

For the benefit of those who were not present during the last time the issue of family law was addressed here (and by this We mean the recently passed Adoption Rights resolution) We state again that Our nation has a well-defined and established law regarding marriage and divorce. Unique yes, but fitted for the needs of Our nation's culture and society.

Under the HOCEK family law, marriage in Our nation is not defined as a private, contractural union between individuals as is assumed under this proposal. Rather, it is a public contract between those individuals, their respective families, and Kawaiian society at large. This proposal, however, by ignoring the public nature of the HOCEK marriage contract, would do away with that just and fair arrangement, and replace it with an arrangement based solely on the prejudices of the proposing nation.

Ladies, gentlemen, representatives and delegates all--We ask: By what moral right does the proposing nation have to force Our people to accept their morals, their attitudes about the most central feature of Our society?

We urge you all--if you value your nation's way of life, please vote down this misbegotten proposal.

Honorable Delegates, the Armed Republic of Cantarch has voted nay on the
proposed resolution. It is not the policy of the Armed Republic to accord
marriage contracts significance beyond that of any other legally binding
contract.

It is the opinion of the Armed Republic that this extension of UN power into
private contracts between individuals is unnecessary and unacceptable.

Stephan Richards
Citizens' Council Chairman
The Armed Republic of Cantarch

This subject is inappropriate for a world body to vote on and or consider for binding legislation. The people of Kickingandscreaming shall decide for themselves by what laws their unions and marriages shall be protected. Are there not other more significant world issues that this esteemed institution should be focusing on? At this rate the UN shall soon be relegated to legislating traffic lights and electrical zoning ordinances in suburban Ankmorpork. Please spare us...

The Librarian, Unseen University, O.O.K.

Divorce is a basic human rigth which have been unable many times in our history and even nowadays.
One of the main topic of the UN is to protect Human right, this is what our proposition is doing.

For most people, things are idealistic at the time they marry, but how can they know this idealistic situation will last for ever or not.

It's why our proposition while reaffiming the positive effects of marriage, grants people their right about their own FUTURE. A Future which is their own, and not the national property or the his/her husband/wife property.

In many nations, restrictive divorce laws have destructive effects on families, as some people maybe be unhappy to stay together, and family relashioship deteriorate, in some others ( as Iran or saudi Arabia in RL) people mainly woman are bound to their husband, who abuse them.

Divorce is a basic human rigth which have been unable many times in our history and even nowadays.
One of the main topic of the UN is to protect Human right, this is what our proposition is doing.

For most people, things are idealistic at the time they marry, but how can they know this idealistic situation will last for ever or not.

It's why our proposition while reaffiming the positive effects of marriage, grants people their right about their own FUTURE. A Future which is their own, and not the national property or the his/her husband/wife property.

In many nations, restrictive divorce laws have destructive effects on families, as some people maybe be unhappy to stay together, and family relashioship deteriorate, in some others ( as Iran or saudi Arabia in RL) people mainly woman are bound to their husband, who abuse them.

As has been pointed out, your proposal mandates that paedophiles, serial killers and AOL users be permitted access to their children. There are countries other than Iran and Saudi Arabia where people realize that is a bad idea.

----

Incidentally, for those who claim this is a waste of UN time, I've found very few drafts for new proposals by you. Could you give me the links, please? Clearly having this debate is getting in the way of your proposals - otherwise your objections would be meaningless - so, obviously, it'd be good to get on with what we should be doing.

As has been pointed out, your proposal mandates that paedophiles, serial killers and AOL users be permitted access to their children. There are countries other than Iran and Saudi Arabia where people realize that is a bad idea.


Our proposal only grants :

"the right to continue to regularly see their children"

this doesn't mean access, it can happen behind a glass in a prison

Our proposal doesn't deal with custody.




What the problem with AOL users?

Our proposal only grants :

"the right to continue to regularly see their children"

this doesn't mean access, it can happen behing a glass in a prison

Our proposal doesn't deal with custody.

That's not the point. You are putting the rights of parents who can't be bothered to stay together for their children above those of the child itself. This proposal is entirely geared around providing for the divorcees, and pays no consideration to the welfare of the child. There are clearly going to be cases where having any contact at all with a parent is something that is not in the interests of the child. Yet attempting to make that allowance is now illegal under UN law.

And why? Because everyone has to conform to your moral standard. Because there's only one opinion in the world, and that's yours, and dammit, you're going to make sure we all know it. Because you cannot accept that your approach to international legislation, your one-size-fits-all jackboot, is far more oppressive than the supposed abuses you're trying to prevent. Spousal abuse is already illegal without this proposal; what on earth makes you think that the fact that you're now giving people the right to a divorce will in any way lead to them actually using that right to break free of the situations you decry? In the worst cases, I doubt they will. Rights or not.

I understand you have several further legislative plans. I sincerely hope you'll give those a little more consideration than you have this one.

Our proposal only grants :

"the right to continue to regularly see their children"

this doesn't mean access, it can happen behind a glass in a prison

Our proposal doesn't deal with custody.

Why does the Imperial government of Krioval sense that one is attempting to justify the text of another resolution with the "it doesn't say what it actually implies" defense? Perhaps we are becoming cynical in our tenure here?

~ 高原 (Takahara)

This is a domestic issue, not an international one. The United Nations was established to settle international disputes and prevent World War III.

How is "Right to Divorce" relevant to any of this? My nation has its own sovereignty to choose whether or not to allow divorce within our own borders. This resolution is irrelevant and I'm voting "no" for it.

Marriages can be international, and this proposition deal with all marriages, so it cannot be only domestic.

and furthermore, the UN since the beginning deal with Human rights, so it's ssems to be UN position that Human Rights transcend national borders

Why does the Imperial government of Krioval sense that one is attempting to justify the text of another resolution with the "it doesn't say what it actually implies" defense? Perhaps we are becoming cynical in our tenure here?

~ 高原 (Takahara)


ooops sorry, didn't understand what you mean

Our proposal only grants :

"the right to continue to regularly see their children"

this doesn't mean access, it can happen behind a glass in a prison

Our proposal doesn't deal with custody.



And does the representative of Love and esterel expect us to believe that being trotted into a maximum-security prison to see his serial killer father through bullet-proof glass is going to be psychologically healthy for the child? Arrant nonsense!

By setting illogically narrow conditions for denying access by non-custodial parents, your proposal places the supposed right of a parent to see his children far above the rights of the children to be protected from harm. We value our children far too much to accept this.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And does the representative of Love and esterel expect us to believe that being trotted into a maximum-security prison to see his serial killer father through bullet-proof glass is going to be psychologically healthy for the child? Arrant nonsense!

By setting illogically narrow conditions for denying access by non-custodial parents, your proposal places the supposed right of a parent to see his children far above the rights of the children to be protected from harm. We value our children far too much to accept this.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I undersatnd your concern, but:

You are dealing with rare extreme situation, and in these extreme situation, nothing will prevent your nation to allow only 1 "behind a glass 5minutes visit / year"

I disagree as it's against the sovereignty of nations and asserts a closed minded view of culture. Marriage is many different things to many different cultures.

Thank you,
Calvin Fulkinovicus
UN Representative

I disagree as it's against the sovereignty of nations and asserts a closed minded view of culture

I will not engage in a debate about violation of human rights being parts of culture or not,

But it seems to me that many nations opposing our proposition are opposing it only because
-they oppose divorce
-they don't accept "people sovereignty" and differences
-and want to asserts their closed minds and their "1 national view" on all of their people

I will not engage in a debate about violation of human rights being parts of culture or not,
Since when is the right to divorce a human right? I wouldn't even classify marriage as a human right. Food, shelter, clothing... those are human rights, but marriage and divorce are civil rights, which are understandably attached to individual culture.

But it seems to me that many nations opposing our proposition are opposing it only because
-they oppose divorce
While this would be a great reason, I can't recall a single nation that has given this as their reason for opposing this resolution. I'm not saying that there haven't been any, but I am saying that the vast majority do not oppose it for this reason. They oppose it on grounds of national sovereignty, and for good reason.
-they don't accept "people sovereignty" and differences
They don't accept differences? They aren't the ones proposing a resolution that seeks to homogenize unique cultures! In fact, I would assert that they, as proponents of national sovereignty, are far more willing to accept differences than those who wish for one unified world culture.
-and want to asserts their closed minds and their "1 national view" on all of their people
Again, closed minds? One national view? It seems that someone trying to take a cultural institution and standardize it is the one with a closed mind and one national view.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

There is a possibility I'm reading a bit too deeply into resolutions, but this is from Resolution 12:

We also resolve that gay marriages be protected and endorsed by law in the member nations.

To me this says they must be granted by member states - and if you're granting marriages at all, resolution 81 makes it so you have to do ALL marriages.
No, all that says is that gay marriage will be protected; it doesn't say that they have to be performed. As I said during the drafting of this proposal, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites considers marriage to be a strictly religious matter, and in fact have laws in place banning government employees from performing marriage ceremonies (the sole exception to that law being military chaplains). And as such in order to be married in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites one must meet the requirements set out by whatever religion you want to marry you, therefore The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites doesn't even have a right to get married, and we certainly cannot support this proposal as we find that we cannot be in compliance with it, due to the fact that our government has no control over marriages.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Once again, Krioval is saddened to hear, essentially, that the representatives from Love and Esterel are uninterested in addressing the points made by other national ambassadors here today, instead choosing to stick their fingers in their ears and repeat, loudly, "I can't hear you...and I'm better than you too!"

We are extremely offended at this infantile attempt to stop debate because the resolution's author doesn't want to address criticism.

~ 高原 (Takahara)

we are not adverse to the UN declaring simply that divorce is a human right - for we believe this to be true and a sufficiently vital matter of basic human dignity that the UN should rule on it

Thanks for recognizing divorce as a human right, as it seems to me some people confuse "national sovereignty" with "psychotic dictator" sovereignty.

but we do believe that this provision is simply too detailed for a resolution that is supposed to be applied to all the world's nations.

As we were thinking it was important for the UN to recognize this human right we could have wrote the very short following resolution, but we didn't want to:

------------
The United Nations
-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce when one partner request it.
-----------

Once again, Krioval is saddened to hear, essentially, that the representatives from Love and Esterel are uninterested in addressing the points made by other national ambassadors here today, instead choosing to stick their fingers in their ears and repeat, loudly, "I can't hear you...and I'm better than you too!"

We are extremely offended at this infantile attempt to stop debate because the resolution's author doesn't want to address criticism.

~ 高原 (Takahara)

It seems to be a personal attack

Please, let me know What point do you want me to answer you?;)

(This is almost certainly a personal attack.)

I will not engage in a debate about violation of human rights being parts of culture or not,

But it seems to me that many nations opposing our proposition are opposing it only because
-they oppose divorce
-they don't accept "people sovereignty" and differences
-and want to asserts their closed minds and their "1 national view" on all of their people

There is only one person here with a closed mind, trying to assert their one national view on all people.

This is the problem with your approach. You are unwilling to accept that rights are bound to the societal structure in which they are expressed. There are, I believe, some fundamental, universal rights. That does not mean all rights are universal. You have acknowledged that marriage shows tremendous variety and diversity. Yet you are imposing a blanket "right to end marriage" where that right can take on many different forms. This 'right' is in fact a UN-sanctioned ability to override a legal contract without any consideration for the forces which shaped it or its term. You have, might I add, neglected entirely polygamous relationships, something the Sultan and his wives are amused at.

Would you support a total legalisation bill on drugs? I don't know. On assault rifles? I doubt it. I wouldn't. Yet both are fully legal in Gruenberg. But I accept that there are cultures in which such are not appropriate. Trying to impose that 'right' on them would be more damaging than allowing the 'oppresision' to continue. Do I believe in a right to property? Of course I do. Do I believe we should exclude communists from the UN? No. Because if we do, then we lose a diverse member of the international community, with whom we are less able to interact, and from whom we can learn less. I, unlike you, believe there are cultures other than my own which have values I can learn from. I, unlike you, believe that my own moral system is not something which should be forced in absolute hegemony over all others with no regard for their culture. I, unlike you, am willing to accept that their are different opinions out there, which are no less valid than my own.

Your accusation that we are closed minded is startlingly arrogant, blind, and ironic. You are the one pushing your own agenda without seeing first whether there was an international need for such an idea. You are the one who is attempting to override the ability of two individuals to sign a contract subject to the laws of the nation to which they belong as citizens, set by the politicians and judges who represent them. You are the one who is trying to create a right to end something which you have not defined. You cannot accept that there are different systems of thought, different rationalities, different rights. That is closed minded. Is it any wonder the resulting legislation stinks?

You are unwilling to accept that rights are bound to the societal structure in which they are expressed.


The problem with your approach is that you cannot then have even "national laws" as there are many nations with differents cultures.


There are, I believe, some fundamental, universal rights. That does not mean all rights are universal.


I don't know if our view are different here, but for me and many paople divorce is fundamental right

You have acknowledged that marriage shows tremendous variety and diversity. Yet you are imposing a blanket "right to end marriage" where that right can take on many different forms.

It's not a blanket right:
our proposition is not the following as it is in several RL nations:

------------
The United Nations
-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce when one partner request it.
-----------


This 'right' is in fact a UN-sanctioned ability to override a legal contract without any consideration for the forces which shaped it or its term. You have, might I add, neglected entirely polygamous relationships, something the Sultan and his wives are amused at.


Maybe i didn't get the point, but it seems to me that women from polygame marriage and men with polyandre marriage will be able to divorce, if our proposition pass

Would you support a total legalisation bill on drugs? I don't know. On assault rifles? I doubt it. I wouldn't. Yet both are fully legal in Gruenberg. But I accept that there are cultures in which such are not appropriate. Trying to impose that 'right' on them would be more damaging than allowing the 'oppresision' to continue. Do I believe in a right to property? Of course I do. Do I believe we should exclude communists from the UN? No. Because if we do, then we lose a diverse member of the international community, with whom we are less able to interact, and from whom we can learn less. I, unlike you, believe there are cultures other than my own which have values I can learn from. I, unlike you, believe that my own moral system is not something which should be forced in absolute hegemony over all others with no regard for their culture. I, unlike you, am willing to accept that their are different opinions out there, which are no less valid than my own

I understand you, it's what happen when some peopel are thinking "a right" is fondamental and others think not.

Divorce is an inalienable because any contract, even very good ones as marriages cannot bind someone with anyonelse for the rest of one life or even for a long period. Domestic violence and unhappy marriages happen sadly, something so often.

Your accusation that we are closed minded is startlingly arrogant, blind, and ironic. You are the one pushing your own agenda without seeing first whether there was an international need for such an idea. You are the one who is attempting to override the ability of two individuals to sign a contract subject to the laws of the nation to which they belong as citizens, set by the politicians and judges who represent them. You are the one who is trying to create a right to end something which you have not defined. You cannot accept that there are different systems of thought, different rationalities, different rights. That is closed minded. Is it any wonder the resulting legislation stinks?


I apologize for my accusations, (you were not included in), but for my defense i should say that i have been myself accused of being that.

I'm going to vote a tentative yes to this proposal, though the intrusion on my nation's sovereignty is not terribly welcome.

Fundamentally, nobody should be bound to forced, abusive, or otherwise unhappy marriages. If we all believe in ensuring the happiness and general welfare of our citizens, then we should allow our citizens the freedom to choose with whom they will be happiest living and creating a family with, and, moreover, the lattitude to back out of poorly chosen relationships. Marriage is something that will touch most of our lives profoundly - we might as well err on the side of personal autonomy and allow for divorces in case a marriage turns out miserably.

One question, however: Say two very drunk people get married one night. They realize the next morning that they really, really don't want to be married. Why should they have to wait 3 months for a divorce? It feels arbitrary, especially if my nation has a more lenient divorce policy.

It seems to be a personal attackOOC: I don't see Krioval's post as a personal attack because it was made in character (the player made reference to "the representatives" from L&E, and signed with a character's name). Perhaps the character (the rep for Krioval) is personally attacking the reps from L&E, but I think the player behind Krioval's well disqualified his or her post as a personal attack on the player behind L&E.

Which is about the best disqualification any can hope for ;).




EDIT: Or did I miss something?

One question, however: Say two very drunk people get married one night. They realize the next morning that they really, really don't want to be married. Why should they have to wait 3 months for a divorce? It feels arbitrary, especially if my nation has a more lenient divorce policy.

If the proposition at vote pass, your nation will have the choice about the 3 months or not.

We let this option, because as we said, it's not our intention to transform the UN into Las Vegas, and also because it can be needed for some nations who fear arranged marriages for immigration reasons. We hesitated with the number "3", your nation is free to set it lower; it may seems very low for others nations, but no one commented it on this forum during the 2 week the proposal was being drafted here; apart from those wanting to set it to several years, what we didn't want to do

OOC: I don't see Krioval's post as a personal attack because it was made in character (the player made reference to "the representatives" from L&E, and signed with a character's name). Perhaps the character (the rep for Krioval) is personally attacking the reps from L&E, but I think the player behind Krioval's well disqualified his or her post as a personal attack on the player behind L&E.

Which is about the best disqualification any can hope for ;).




EDIT: Or did I miss something?


ok, i should have take it less seriously, thanks

The problem with your approach is that you cannot then have even "national laws" as there are many nations with differents cultures.

True. This is why provincial governors in Gruenberg have so much authority. In fact, town councils have a considerable degree of autonomy in decision-making. There are of course federal issues - defence, works, healthcare, foreign policy - but we try to reflect our diverse tribal heritage by making decisions at the lowest level possible, so as to take into consideration social concerns as much as possible. Of course, there are global issues - trade, I'd take as one - which is ripe for international legislation. But there are many issues for which international legislation is not appropriate.

I don't know if our view are different here, but for me and many paople divorce is fundamental right

For you and many people it may be. There are many beliefs that you and many people hold. Doesn't mean they should be translated into resolution form now, does it?

Maybe i didn't get the point, but it seems to me that women from polygame marriage and men with polyandre marriage will be able to divorce, if our proposition pass

First, let's look at your language:
IC C: 'many couples in this case'
IC D: 'the couple...the couple'
IC G: 'signed by both partners'
IC H: 'between any two people'

This means you have not afforded those in a polygamous relationship the same rights as those in a monogamous one (because OC 1 refers only to 'marriages or civil unions', which you defined as 'between any two people'. Furthemore, you continue to refer to 'both partners'. You permit parents visitation rights, but you do not extend the same to non-biological parents in the polygamous relationship who may have had a greater part in looking after the child than the biological parent. In other words, you have completely ignored all issues relating to polygamy. Why? Because it's not part of your culture, so you don't accept it. Typical.

I understand you, it's what happen when some peopel are thinking "a right" is fondamental and others think not.

Divorce is an inalienable because any contract, even very good ones as marriages cannot bind someone with anyonelse for the rest of one life or even for a long period. Domestic violence and unhappy marriages happen sadly, something so often.

I don't understand. How can you suggest that a contract be ended without knowing the terms of that contract? Also, again, domestic violence is already illegal under UN law.

I apologize for my accusations, (you were not included in), but for my defense i should say that i have been myself accused of being that.

Ah, but you see, I don't apologise for my accusations, because I am including you in them. Pretty squarely, in fact. Look at the poll: it's about 40-67 at the moment. You're suggesting the majority of voters are closed minded. You are setting yourself up on a crusade, and it is not going well. I am doing my best not to be offended that you consider my culture so inferior; I wouldn't be surprised if others are less patient.

The problem with your approach is that you cannot then have even "national laws" as there are many nations with differents cultures.

OOC (mostly):

Cultures, by themselves, are not sovereign over a piece of land. Countries, and their governments, on the other hand, are. This is an important difference. The Empire of Krioval, for example, consists of a fair amount of the Pacific Ocean plus several extrasolar planets as its sovereign territory. At the same time, culturally, the Empire is split between along racial lines (especially native versus Japanese immigrant populations), religious lines (tribal faiths, Shinto, strange combinations of the previous two, and even some Christianity), and even *technological* lines (Krioval is future tech, but some resist the transformation).

The problem with saying that a given resolution promotes "people sovereignty" is that, in some cases, it doesn't - if all political leaders were required to be directly elected, for example, it would interfere with the Kriovalian elections system (where the Senate validates the Emperor). As the system was designed and passed by the people of Krioval, it is violating the concept of "people sovereignty" to reject the decisions of a nation's population as a whole.

Imposing one particular agenda onto other nations isn't the end of the world, of course, but one should be more honest when that's what's being done. This is not to be directed toward any particular player/nation, but the use of catch phrases used to ram resolutions through ("sovereignty", "morality", "for the good of the environment") without adequate explanation leaves much to be desired. Resolutions should be held to a higher standard, in my opinion.

I do not think that the UN ought to be dealing with divorce issues. The UN, realistically, should handle those matters with an international scope, that will settle disputes between nations, and/or further basic human rights. Divorce, like marriage is not a human right. Setting aside religious issues, to the state's concern, marriage is a legal bonding between a couple while divorce is the legal ending of that bond.

There is nothing international about it. The idea that some marriages include individuals of two different nationalities does nto hold enough weight for the UN to get involved. If a coupe is ending their union, the one can, if the country he/she lives in at the time forbids divorce, move back to one's home country, where the ending can be formalized according to that nation's laws.

As I said to some, this is a matter better left as a daily issue, not a binding resolution for all UN nations.

CRUSH THIS UNDER FOOT...t should be up to the individual ntions what the ivore rules are.

OOC (mostly):

Cultures, by themselves, are not sovereign over a piece of land. Countries, and their governments, on the other hand, are. This is an important difference. The Empire of Krioval, for example, consists of a fair amount of the Pacific Ocean plus several extrasolar planets as its sovereign territory. At the same time, culturally, the Empire is split between along racial lines (especially native versus Japanese immigrant populations), religious lines (tribal faiths, Shinto, strange combinations of the previous two, and even some Christianity), and even *technological* lines (Krioval is future tech, but some resist the transformation).


Every people in the world is subject to different level legislation.
That can be city, department, region, state, nation, international regions and the UN.
These are not borders of different culture: in almost any of these administrative division (apart in eternal Kawaii:)) you will find some people with different cultures from the main group(s)

So, as i have said earlier: Un should take care about natsov, nations should take care about states sovereignty, states should take care about cities, canton, department or whatever sovereigty, and at the and any administration should care about people sovereignty, as there can always happen even in small communities that sme people are from a different culture

Imposing one particular agenda onto other nations isn't the end of the world, of course, but one should be more honest when that's what's being done. This is not to be directed toward any particular player/nation, but the use of catch phrases used to ram resolutions through ("sovereignty", "morality", "for the good of the environment") without adequate explanation leaves much to be desired. Resolutions should be held to a higher standard, in my opinion.


I personnaly use "people sovereignty" to answer when someone use "natsov" by itself.

The problem with saying that a given resolution promotes "people sovereignty" is that, in some cases, it doesn't


Do you think our proposition doesn't promotes people sovereignty?

Setting aside religious issues, to the state's concern, marriage is a legal bonding between a couple while divorce is the legal ending of that bond.

Our proposition only grants right to divorce, we don't make the apologie of Divorce.

Furthermore i want to say that our proposition introduce an essential clause (used in RL Sweden and Norway):

-1.5- One partner repeats a request for a divorce 3 months, or later, after the initial request


Our proposition also don't allow divorce for fault (apart from domestic violence) because "fault" clauses for divorce had appeared wordwide as something destructive for the already shaken relationship betwen family members


There is nothing international about it. The idea that some marriages include individuals of two different nationalities does nto hold enough weight for the UN to get involved. If a coupe is ending their union, the one can, if the country he/she lives in at the time forbids divorce, move back to one's home country, where the ending can be formalized according to that nation's laws.

As I said to some, this is a matter better left as a daily issue, not a binding resolution for all UN nations.

We understand your point of view, but furthermore to this 2 international matter ( human rights and international couples), we want to say that the UN legislation is already dealing with marriage and we think it's important to deal with good things but also tod eal with its side effects which sadly appears.

The Cloud-Water Community of Ecopoeia's position on this issue has been one of neutrality, but I feel that our stance may change. My inclination is to oppose on the basis that this is not an issue that I feel merits UN attention. However, the UN has made the legal recognition of couplings an issue that attracts its concern, so it seems only logical on that basis to accept that the sundering of such couplings also falls under its jurisdiction. This, combined with the fact that Ecopoeia's domestic legislation enshrines the right to divorce, led to me recommending a softening of our opposition to mere abstention.

However, I feel myself moved to come off the fence, so to speak, thanks to many of the arguments put forward by opponents of the resolution. Certain terminology in the bill is troubling and, moreover, perhaps we should once again make clear our opposition to overly intrusive UN activity.

I do not subscribe to the increasingly popular doctrine of national sovereignty propagated by NSO members. Their philosophy seems to me to be, in many cases, a gloss obscuring a fundamental disregard for human rights and an unwillingness to address the failings of their political and legal systems.

Neither, though, do I regard myself as an evangelist for international federalism. Perhaps nations like my own need to be less willing to abstain from formally expressing opinion on issues that trouble us. And this resolution increasingly troubles me.

I look forward to further commentary; my country's vote is still in the balance.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

There are notes on the bottom of this post about some common misconceptions: please read them




NOTES:
1) This does not deal at all with custody. It deals with visitation rights. Nations are free to do whatever they want regarding custody.
2) Just because someone has the right to hire lawyer doesn't mean the lawyer has to come into your nation. The work done by the lawyer can be long distance
3) We are not forcing your citizens to have a divorce. If your citizens believe that they shouldn't have a divorce, then they won't have a divorce. However, it is our belief that if the citizens do want to have a divorce, it should be their full right to have one regardless of the beliefs of society or the government
4) We are not granting nations the right to force couples to pursue alternate methods of repairing their marriage/etc before getting a divorce as it leaves too large of a loophole.
5) If you have any reasons other than the ones listed above that you want to make as grounds for a divorce, you can. The only requirement is the grounds listed above are a bare minimum set of scenarios. 1.6 leaves the door open so that nations can define any grounds they want - this includes adultery.
6) The decisions regarding funding of lawyers is completely up to the state in question.
divorce isnt a right. there are only two reasons married couples should split the first being one spouse has died the other proven abuse of spouse or children

divorce isnt a right. there are only two reasons married couples should split the first being one spouse has died the other proven abuse of spouse or children

Do you think couples should not be able divorce when both want to?

Not all nations are ruled by "the people." You might find quite a few dictators around the UN. This proposal merely gives people some rights that are denied by some governments, thereby improving human rights.



Quite frankly, I am completely ignorant about the ultimate purpose of the NSUN. However, the resolution under vote has not been deleted, hence I can only assume it is within UN jurisdiction. Whether one agrees with it is a different matter entirely.



Compliance is automatic, nobody will refuse it. If this passes, your government will enact appropriate laws, whether you like it or not. Your country will also endow an institution with the power to carry out divorce proceedings, and support the costs of such institution.



And what would the old world order be? Nobody forces you to join the UN, you can resign and have all the NatSov you can handle. Once you are in, you are giving this Assembly the right to enact legislation affecting your nation. Rules of the game, no use whining about it.

I'm not talking about game mechanics and nationstates regulations, but if you wanna bring it up all this resolution will do is increase civil rights stats slightly, and there is already too much clutter with resolutions just like it that do the same thing without talking about an issue so trivial as what a man and woman decide to do with their own marriage.

I also agree with you that not all nations are ruled by the people, as it is I am taling about the ones that ARE. Let them decide how their government regulates marriage, not some international institution half-way across the ocean from them that knows nothing about the individual needs and desires of each nation.

I may not have to join the U.N, but it's really not expedient not too. The only people I know who don't join the U.N are rogue states and isolationists, and these days those kinds of people don't survive well or enjoy the experience of the international community. Evenso I don't know how long my nation will remain part of the institution, only that I currently have a responsibility to represent my province and fight for what we believe in as a mostly at least somewhat libertarian and free province.

Unfortunately most people instead seeing the U.N as a good way of meeting with the global community, and passing mutually beneficial resolutions to improve our world and spread freedom, and all those good things...instead see the U.N as a great way to force their individual beliefs and laws on the rest of the world, making it their strange view of a perfect utopian world.

I will conclude only by asking you don't demean me again by resorting to game mechanics and nationstate official rules instead of a logical argument or explanation to the actual implications of this resolution. I could care less about gameplay, mechanics, and rules, if i played it for that I'd be on civilization 3. I play this game for real-life interactions with people and pretended nations, and imaginative gaming.

I will not engage in a debate about violation of human rights being parts of culture or not,

But it seems to me that many nations opposing our proposition are opposing it only because
-they oppose divorce
-they don't accept "people sovereignty" and differences
-and want to asserts their closed minds and their "1 national view" on all of their people

First of all, other than because of the fact that the "right" of marriage has been addressed in previous UN resolutions, I do not believe that there is a natural, human right to marriage. Conversely, there can be no natural human right to divorce.

I doubt that anyone is opposing this resolution strictly on the grounds that they oppose divorce. There may be a few states who are, but most have multiple reasons.

I am unsure by what you mean by the team "people sovereignty", but the concern that states have about their national soverignty is legitimate - the UN should not take a role in arbiting the terms of a contract between two people within a memberstate. Despite your claims that marriage is an "international" thing, that is actually not the case. Notwithstanding current international law, no state is forced to recognize as valid a marriage between citizens of another state if that state doesn't choose to do so.

As for "asserting their closed minds" and "1 national view" on all their people, that is their prerogative. I am the elected leader of over 6 billion people. I govern based on what I believe is in my people's best interests. I do not govern based on what I believe is in YOUR people's best interests, or the best interests of some other state. My people can't vote for you, or any other leader. Than can and do vote for me and anyone who wishes to oppose me. Therefore, I am in the best position to determine how my government interprets the rights of our people. Not you, not the UN.

Your resolution needlessly tramples upon the rights of states to govern themselves, and the important international crisis that it claims to be solving does not rise to a level sufficient to justify such a ceding of authority.

This is why many states are opposing the provision, not out of "closed-mindedness" or a disdain for divorce. It is simply not in our best interests to approve it.

In other words, you have completely ignored all issues relating to polygamy.

We didn't speak about it, but clause 1 include these situations

Is Polyandry legal in Gruenberg? why do you ignore it?

http://test256.free.fr/polyhandry.jpg

I undersatnd your concern, but:

You are dealing with rare extreme situation, and in these extreme situation, nothing will prevent your nation to allow only 1 "behind a glass 5minutes visit / year"

The representative from Love and esterel is quite right: our example was an "extreme situation". We used it deliberately to point out that, even in such an extreme situation, the proposal would pander to the desires of the parent and completely disregard the possible effects on the child.

Apparently the representative of Love and esterel sees nothing wrong with risking trauma to a child for five minutes once a year. We do.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The representative from Love and esterel is quite right: our example was an "extreme situation". We used it deliberately to point out that, even in such an extreme situation, the proposal would pander to the desires of the parent and completely disregard the possible effects on the child.

Apparently the representative of Love and esterel sees nothing wrong with risking trauma to a child for five minutes once a year. We do.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Our proposition is written with an humanist approach,
1 st, it seems to me there are no pb there, and that many child want also to have a contact with their parents, even for 5 mn/year behind a glass, this is THEIR parents, and this is all about pardon and compassion.

2nd, if we didn't write this clause, there was a loophole, whith some rogue nations legislation not letting one parents (mainly women) visit their children for whatever reasons they see fit.

Here are our thoughts we had while writting this proposition

But it seems to me that many nations opposing our proposition are opposing it only because
-they oppose divorce
-they don't accept "people sovereignty" and differences
-and want to asserts their closed minds and their "1 national view" on all of their peopleI do not acknowledge "people sovereignty."
Because it does not exist.
People are not sovereign from their nation.
The people are the nation.
And they are obliged to obey their nation's laws.
"Sovereignty" from the nation or the law does not exist.
You have no right to override sovereign nations' family law just because you carry some errant assumption that people need not swear allegiance to their nation, their nation's authority or their nation's laws.
And just so you know:
This resolution has nothing to do with human rights,
Or "people sovereignty,"
And everything to do with micromanaging and complicating family law in member nations,
Because you are prejudiced against certain national systems of family law.

Also, this resolution will send my "Civil Rights" rating into overdrive,
And plunge my nation into official Anarchy status yet again.
Thanks for that.

Hugs™ and Kisses™,*
Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

P.S. I find your replies to Ausserland's excellent points about your proposal's inherent flaws childish and inept.

*the chocolate kind, which I know your Eternal International NannyState Proposal Drafting Department will want to regulate and micromanage in their next UN endeavor.

There is zero reason why this proposal should come to pass - this is, quite simply put, none of the UN's business, as this issue deals with national sovereignty. If this motion passes and there is not immediately a motion to repeal it, I think there will most likely be an exodus out of the UN.

Rain Beechwood
Lydanian UN Ambassador

Trust me, if it passes, work will immediately begin on a repeal.

One would certainly hope so. As I am the UN Delegate for my region, I would most certainly advocate that the other nations in my region withdraw, at least temporarily, from the UN. This level of micromanagement and intrusion is unwarranted. If there was some overwhelming concern, like that of international safety and security, this resolution might be worth the time of day - maybe. But this deals with civil rights. This is rediculous, and frankly, completely on par for the course for the UN.

Rain Beechwood
Lydanian UN Ambassador

Our proposition is written with an humanist approach,
1 st, it seems to me there are no pb there, and that many child want also to have a contact with their parents, even for 5 mn/year behind a glass, this is THEIR parents, and this is all about pardon and compassion.

We submit that the proposal may have aimed at a "humanist approach", but it ended up being written with complete disregard for the many factors that could make parental visitation injurious to the children. If the children want to see the non-custodial parent, that is certainly one factor that should be carefully considered. But your proposal removes the ability of the responsible authorities to make thoughtful and informed decisions on the issue.

2nd, if we didn't write this clause, there was a loophole, whith some rogue nations legislation not letting one parents (mainly women) visit their children for whatever reasons they see fit.

Then you should have written a clause that sets proper limits on the ability to deny visitation, not one that sets two absurdly narrow conditions.

By direction of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I think that passing the right to divorce would have some unforseen consequences but it has a good intent. For one it would be basically :fluffle: then dash for all of the younger generation. Plus no divorce means that couples would have to think further instead of tying the knot after 2 weeks of dating.

Vote AGAINST

We needn't have international law for the divorce process. Aren't there more important international issues at hand than the union or separation of two individuals? Besides, the marriage process is different in each nation, so are we going to have an international law to regulate that as well? It makes no sense for the UN to be worrying itself over such issues that should be dealt with at a more local level.

~Marlin

We didn't speak about it, but clause 1 include these situations

Is Polyandry legal in Gruenberg? why do you ignore it?

My that was a fantastic rebuttal, coming from someone who has ignored BOTH polygamy and polyandry in their draft.

My that was a fantastic rebuttal, coming from someone who has ignored BOTH polygamy and polyandry in their draft.

I concur. My nation has, for several hundred years, recoginized them - as well as communal marriages - as legitimate forms of personal grouping and has allowed them all 'marriage' for nearly as long.

This proposal is quite possibly one of the most poorly worded resolutions to date. If the authors have to state something that isn't specifically worded into the resolution when they are pressed for information, then it should be voted against. Leaving space in law, international or not, leaves loopholes - and that's always a bad thing.

Rain Beechwood
Lydanian UN Delegate

Some spelling and grammar corrections would have been nice, but I fully suport the proposal.
What is da biig deel witth da gramma. Seams fin two mea.

What is da biig deel witth da gramma. Seams fin two mea.

I will be recommending to the Lydanian Senate that official sanctions be made against El Dia Del Padre for committing a serious Language Offense.

In an unofficial capacity, ye GADS man, must you be so vulgar in your mockery?

Rain Beechwood
Lydanian UN Delegate

Midori Kasigi takes take floor again.

"what we are discussing on this floor is a proposal that will affect all the nations and a lot of families in the UN.

therefore since Nero san seems to think that our governments can't look after our own laws and are only able to raise taxes and look after traffic laws I say to him the only person whose narrow minded here is himself.

We know our our own laws and our people and whats good for them. Parliments represent the peoples interest and if they don't a ruler will soon find themselves out of a job.

Any government that cares about their people should vote against this.

a nation is made up of families. Has the honourable Nero san bothered to think about the harm this act will cause to families all over the UN? I don't think so. all he's trying to do is to force us into the same mould and to go another step down the road of a federal UN world government which will take away even more of a nations freedoms.

Take your stand against the one world order and vote against.

i believe that people should be allowed to divorce becuse what if the man is a woman beater or wife i a man beater and is constantly abusing his/her wife/husband? they be stuck living with it.

To respond to the issue of "people sovereignty" as brought up by the representative of Love and Esterel, I am forced to disagree with the assertions made. The sovereignty of the people of Krioval is directly and crudely violated by this legislation, as is the sovereignty of any other democratic nation. In short, the United Nations is being used as a club to beat against the wishes of the people.

I agree that minorities need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, but even that has to have its limits. Krioval must not be forced to abandon the principles of democracy just because another nation feels that it's in our best interests.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

To respond to the issue of "people sovereignty" as brought up by the representative of Love and Esterel, I am forced to disagree with the assertions made. The sovereignty of the people of Krioval is directly and crudely violated by this legislation, as is the sovereignty of any other democratic nation. In short, the United Nations is being used as a club to beat against the wishes of the people.

I agree that minorities need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, but even that has to have its limits. Krioval must not be forced to abandon the principles of democracy just because another nation feels that it's in our best interests.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval


One of the Role of the UN, and what the UN did since the beginning is to protect human rights; many nations had protected them from long, and have already laws on divorce, but not all, as many others UN members can be pshychotic dictators or other type of oppressive regimes.

You're denying the UN its ability to declare inaneliable human rights.

You're denying the UN its ability to declare inaneliable human rights.
No, we're denying the UN its ability to declare something so culturally embedded and nationally defined as divorce an inalienable human right.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

You're denying the UN its ability to declare inaneliable human rights.

Inalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights>


I most certanly deny the UN the ability to decalre human rights inalienable.
I also certanly deny the UN the ability to decalre human rights inaneliable.

The Federation of Realand strongly condemns the actions of this world body displayed here today. This is an agenda, put forth by States who do not respect nor acknowledge the sovereign rights of a loud (and large) minority. This proposal, if passed, will set a precedent, and severely alter the ability for Sovereign nations to set their own laws, according to their own moral, ethical, or spiritual backgrounds.

Realand applauds the actions of States who stood up, to fight against this proposal. All recognizing this was a blatant, and completely out of line move, to turn the U.N. into a world government, instead of the administrative body that it was intended to be. This proposal is a travesty to the rights of individual nations, and severely impedes on any governing official, and any sovereign nations ability, to make it's own laws and guidelines regarding something that may undo the complete foundation of many country's, without the UN trying to force it's shady morality, or lack-thereof, on a large assembly of dissenting nations.

Realand will completely, and unequivocally, support the repeal, or radical reform of this proposal, when, not if, it is brought before a vote on the floor.


Dan Scipio
Realand Ambassador to the U.N.

The-Republic']No, we're denying the UN its ability to declare something so culturally embedded and nationally defined as divorce an inalienable human right.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Well I would argue that since marriage and divorce are common tradtions across societies, then surely they're recognition and a statement of the rights involved in the process counts as a inalienable human right?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Well I would argue that since marriage and divorce are common tradtions across societies, then surely they're recognition and a statement of the rights involved in the process counts as a inalienable human right?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Murder, rape, and many other crimes can also be considered "common traditions across societies", albeit generally illegal ones.

By definition, it is impossible to create an inalienable human right - those rights exist, period. Life, liberty, shelter - these are inalienable rights that all humans may claim, and should be protected at all costs because they are the bare minimum that a human being requires to survive and achieve his full potential.

The right to enter into a contract is a legal right granted by states at their pleasure. It is not, and should never be, perceived to be a human right granted by virtue of existence.

By claiming that the right to marriage and divorce are inalienable, you would be opening up a wide variety of unintended consequences - such as allowing children to marry, and so forth.

It is very dangerous to begin calling things "inalienable rights" - once that is done, it can not be regulated nor revoked.

The Federation of Realand strongly condemns the actions of this world body displayed here today. This is an agenda, put forth by States who do not respect nor acknowledge the sovereign rights of a loud (and large) minority. This proposal, if passed, will set a precedent, and severely alter the ability for Sovereign nations to set their own laws, according to their own moral, ethical, or spiritual backgrounds.

Realand applauds the actions of States who stood up, to fight against this proposal. All recognizing this was a blatant, and completely out of line move, to turn the U.N. into a world government, instead of the administrative body that it was intended to be. This proposal is a travesty to the rights of individual nations, and severely impedes on any governing official, and any sovereign nations ability, to make it's own laws and guidelines regarding something that may undo the complete foundation of many country's, without the UN trying to force it's shady morality, or lack-thereof, on a large assembly of dissenting nations.

Realand will completely, and unequivocally, support the repeal, or radical reform of this proposal, when, not if, it is brought before a vote on the floor.


Dan Scipio
Realand Ambassador to the U.N.

I take issue with the points of Mr Scipio, who claims that the U.N's actions constitute a travesty to the rights of individual nations and severely impeded on any governing official and any sovereign nations ability to make it's own laws, etc. I would prefer to say that this empowers not governments, but citizens, which is a good thing.

Let us remind ourselves that morality is not the issue here, rather it is human rights and the human right to dictate one's relationships with other individuals. If your citizens view the idea of divorce with distaste, then they are free to disregard their right and stick to their customs. Yet for those citizens, however small a minority, who wish to separate themselves from a partner, for the reasons outlined in this resolution, then there is now a means of escape. I am sorry you view the proposal in such terms and I hope that you will come to recognise how important the principle and precedent we are establishing here is.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The Delegation for the Realm of Hibernia has voted against as we feel this does not take into account the massive diversity in creeds and cultures in the NSUN. Due to this fact we feel the matter of Divorce, and if it should be permitted and under what circumstance, can only be decided on my a National Government reflecting said nations social values.

Apologies to the Authors but we are against.
VL.

Murder, rape, and many other crimes can also be considered "common traditions across societies", albeit generally illegal ones.

By definition, it is impossible to create an inalienable human right - those rights exist, period. Life, liberty, shelter - these are inalienable rights that all humans may claim, and should be protected at all costs because they are the bare minimum that a human being requires to survive and achieve his full potential.

The right to enter into a contract is a legal right granted by states at their pleasure. It is not, and should never be, perceived to be a human right granted by virtue of existence.

None of us who wrote in support of this proposal, as far as I am aware, has explicitly spoken of "creating an inalienable human right". The rights do indeed exist. All we are doing is enabling them to be exercised.

With regards therefore, to your points on "murder, rape, etc" being viewed as "common traditions across societies" I would reply that they are also commonly viewed as taboo by societies and thus fall under a different type of social consideration to that of marriage.

As for the points regarding marriage as a matter for the state, I would say that whilst a state may determine the exactitudes of the exercising of such a right, it should not, unless for the most extreme of reasons, deny it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

None of us who wrote in support of this proposal, as far as I am aware, has explicitly spoken of "creating an inalienable human right". The rights do indeed exist. All we are doing is enabling them to be exercised.

But you're not. You have classed polygamous (yes, and polyandrous) marriages as 'inferior'. That is the only explanation for why you are not enabling those in such arrangements to exercise the same rights as those in monogamous ones. It is a shame that none of the anti-discrimination legislation the UN has passed prevents this kind of racist attitude being used as the basis for resolutions.

But you're not. You have classed polygamous (yes, and polyandrous) marriages as 'inferior'. That is the only explanation for why you are not enabling those in such arrangements to exercise the same rights as those in monogamous ones. It is a shame that none of the anti-discrimination legislation the UN has passed prevents this kind of racist attitude being used as the basis for resolutions.

Racist? I think that's a trifle excessive. What was meant by recognising Polygamous and Polyandrous marriages as 'inferior' is that we wished to concentrate first on the issue of marriage as a general term, with the possibility of dealing with matters such as Polygamy and Polyandry later. I personally believe the two leave relationships and marriages open to exploitation as well as making divorce, conduct of financial arrangements, etc, far more problematic and thus am happy to see it left out.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The Delegation for the Realm of Hibernia has voted against as we feel this does not take into account the massive diversity in creeds and cultures in the NSUN. Due to this fact we feel the matter of Divorce, and if it should be permitted and under what circumstance, can only be decided on my a National Government reflecting said nations social values.
VL.

The People's Republic of Pochinco and the nations of the region of The Golden Shanty of Jesus fully share this view with our respected collgue. The UN has absolutely no right to interfer in matters that could be considered religous and indeed cultural matters.

The People's Republic of Pochinco do not recognize the act of divorce and would never recognize this. Such an act is against national soverignty, the right of every member and delegate of the UN, and would not be tolerated.

I have been assured by several members that if this act passes, due to religious, cultural, and polical reasons, they would be forced to resign from the UN. The PRP recognizes this and salutes them.

PRP Ambassador Extrodinare to the UN ,
Igor Vorulisky
People's Reform Party 2nd Circle, Citizen # 225-AF88-72X

We share Love and Esterel's recognition that divorce is a right. Being trapped in a marriage that has turned sour for whatever reason can be a unique and cruel torture that we would not see visited on any person.

Furthermore, we recognise that one of the UN's primary duties is to protect the rights of all people even against the oppositions of their governments. Like your good selves, we do not think abusers of human rights may hide behind the shield of sovereignty.

But this resolution as it stands cannot work. It may have seemed less palatable to propose something short and, perhaps, vague but it is our opinion that this is necessary. As we have already said - this resolution will actually restrict people's right to divorce in Ascensoria! The rules it imposes on us are stricter than the ones we already have in place and it introduces principles into the process of divorce that we find both inappropriate and reprehensible.

Again, we wish to stress our support for the right to divorce and the UN's right to enforce such a right - but this resolution is not the way to achieve it.

Royal Herald Lansing
Ascensoria



Thanks for recognizing divorce as a human right, as it seems to me some people confuse "national sovereignty" with "psychotic dictator" sovereignty.



As we were thinking it was important for the UN to recognize this human right we could have wrote the very short following resolution, but we didn't want to:

------------
The United Nations
-1- DECLARES that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce when one partner request it.
-----------

wow, this proves the difference between a forum poll and an UN vote. atm, going by the poll, this proposal would be slaughtered (okay, exageration, but you get my drift), yet the opposite is happening in the vote.

unfortunatly, though we agree with the ideals of this proposal, and actually allow divorce here, i would have to oppose this purely on discriminitory grounds. for some, it is against their religion to divorce, and whilst this doesnt infringe on it by merely 'allowing' it, there should be respect in there for religious beliefs.

I take issue with the points of Mr Scipio, who claims that the U.N's actions constitute a travesty to the rights of individual nations and severely impeded on any governing official and any sovereign nations ability to make it's own laws, etc. I would prefer to say that this empowers not governments, but citizens, which is a good thing.

Let us remind ourselves that morality is not the issue here, rather it is human rights and the human right to dictate one's relationships with other individuals. If your citizens view the idea of divorce with distaste, then they are free to disregard their right and stick to their customs. Yet for those citizens, however small a minority, who wish to separate themselves from a partner, for the reasons outlined in this resolution, then there is now a means of escape. I am sorry you view the proposal in such terms and I hope that you will come to recognise how important the principle and precedent we are establishing here is.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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


The Federation of Realand, will only add, that it has deemed Marriage, as a religious act, not to be performed by any other, than a spiritual leader. The States will have to remain at odds, because Realand accepts Marriage, as a binding act, not to be entered, or left, without incredible consideration, and it believes that the penalty's, terms, and anything else pertaining to this act, should be left to the spiritual leaders, and Divorce guidelines set by the legislator. What is right for certain member states, is not right for others, and to set a set of guidelines in stone, for other, unwilling nations to follow, is an abuse of the administrative body, and does, in fact, impede on the nations rights, that I so humbly represent, to choose it's own system, pertaining to marriage, divorce, and anything else related to this matter. I realize my fellow dissenters may have other reasons (reasons I respect, and many of them I agree with) but this is a key problem to my Nation, and we will, as said, await, and fully support the repeal of this proposal.

Dan Scipio
Realand Ambassador to the U.N.

To respond to the issue of "people sovereignty" as brought up by the representative of Love and Esterel, I am forced to disagree with the assertions made. The sovereignty of the people of Krioval is directly and crudely violated by this legislation, as is the sovereignty of any other democratic nation. In short, the United Nations is being used as a club to beat against the wishes of the people.

I agree that minorities need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority, but even that has to have its limits. Krioval must not be forced to abandon the principles of democracy just because another nation feels that it's in our best interests.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

I agree wholeheartedly. Since when did the UN make family law? In Zenoslovakia, we do not impose burdensome "official separation" laws. When you've had enough, you've had enough. One announces "I divorce thee" thrice in the forum and the deed is done. This resolution simply does not fit the framework of Zenoslovakian law.

Dr Zen
Ambassador of Zenoslovakia to the UN

In all matters of fariness, we must be mindful of those nations that do allow homosexual marraige and those that do not.

I would like and adendum added to this bill that defines civil unions equal to marraige. To further grow in understanding for all delegates of the world, we must be willing to accept even that which we may deem inappropiate or that which we see as ignorant. After all, if we cannot tolerate differences we shoudl dust off the rack because we'd be back to the inquisition.

In all matters of fariness, we must be mindful of those nations that do allow homosexual marraige and those that do not.

I would like and adendum added to this bill that defines civil unions equal to marraige. To further grow in understanding for all delegates of the world, we must be willing to accept even that which we may deem inappropiate or that which we see as ignorant. After all, if we cannot tolerate differences we shoudl dust off the rack because we'd be back to the inquisition.

1. All UN nations must allow homosexual marriage.
2. You can't amend proposals.

First of all I am a Christian and divorce is sin. The only grounds for divorce should be if one of the spouses is an unbeliever and for marital unfaithfulness. No other reason should exist for divorce. Even if the spouse beats up on the other spouse or if physical, emotional, or verbal abuse occurrs or if one of the spouse has a mental handicap, etc... When you get married, you say you wedding vows and the wedding vows says "in sickness and in health." NO matter what one spouse does to the other spouse there should be no grounds for divorce. I am not saying that one shouldn't get help if one is abusive towards another, but one should not divorce. :fluffle:

I take issue with the points of Mr Scipio, who claims that the U.N's actions constitute a travesty to the rights of individual nations and severely impeded on any governing official and any sovereign nations ability to make it's own laws, etc. I would prefer to say that this empowers not governments, but citizens, which is a good thing.

With all due respect to the esteemed representitative of Compadria, this resolution does not empower citizens. It empowers the NSUN. By declaring something a "right", the NSUN is declaring its opinions or even mere whims to be superior to the laws of the duly-chosen governments it claims to represent, whether the people those governments serve wish it or no.

This is not empowerment--this is tyranny!

With all due respect to the esteemed representitative of Compadria, this resolution does not empower citizens. It empowers the NSUN. By declaring something a "right", the NSUN is declaring its opinions or even mere whims to be superior to the laws of the duly-chosen governments it claims to represent, whether the people those governments serve wish it or no.

This is not empowerment--this is tyranny!

No, tyranny would be arbitrary, this is done democratically. Also, I would dispute that this does not empower citizens: It empowers them through the will of the U.N., which, as an International organisation, representing the views of many nations worldwide, is naturally superior to the governments of individual nations. We have a perogative to decide what is right and what is wrong, let us not be afraid to exercise it in the best interests of the world(s).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

P.S. Purely out of concern, how is the "cat-apocalypse" progressing? Not to seriously I hope?

First of all I am a Christian and divorce is sin. The only grounds for divorce should be if one of the spouses is an unbeliever and for marital unfaithfulness. No other reason should exist for divorce. Even if the spouse beats up on the other spouse or if physical, emotional, or verbal abuse occurrs or if one of the spouse has a mental handicap, etc... When you get married, you say you wedding vows and the wedding vows says "in sickness and in health." NO matter what one spouse does to the other spouse there should be no grounds for divorce. I am not saying that one shouldn't get help if one is abusive towards another, but one should not divorce. :fluffle:

If Christianity endorses the view that you are not allowed to leave an abusive, vile partner, merely because of the clause "in sickness and in health", then I am proud not to be a Christian. Equally, given the differing nature of marriages, how can "in sickness and in health" be applied universally? Even if it were so, how could it be reconciled with tolerating abuse.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

As has been pointed out, your proposal mandates that paedophiles, serial killers and AOL users be permitted access to their children. There are countries other than Iran and Saudi Arabia where people realize that is a bad idea.


That is an unadulterated lie and you should be ashamed of it.


-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place

-4- PERMITS parents who have lost the right to see their children for issues listed in [3] be allowed to have this right returned if a court of law feels that said parent is no longer a threat to the child or other parent.


This clealry says that people don't get access to their kids if they have been abusing them, and to say otherwise is downright deceitful.

With all due respect to the esteemed representitative of Compadria, this resolution does not empower citizens. It empowers the NSUN. By declaring something a "right", the NSUN is declaring its opinions or even mere whims to be superior to the laws of the duly-chosen governments it claims to represent, whether the people those governments serve wish it or no.

This is not empowerment--this is tyranny!

It gives people the right not to be stuck in a loveless, abusive marriage just because their government says "DIVORCE IS WRONG. DEAL WITH IT"

I would say that is empowerment.

wow, this proves the difference between a forum poll and an UN vote. atm, going by the poll, this proposal would be slaughtered (okay, exageration, but you get my drift), yet the opposite is happening in the vote.

unfortunatly, though we agree with the ideals of this proposal, and actually allow divorce here, i would have to oppose this purely on discriminitory grounds. for some, it is against their religion to divorce, and whilst this doesnt infringe on it by merely 'allowing' it, there should be respect in there for religious beliefs.

Why? The UN has shown very little respect for religion in other resolutions, and they are welcomed as steps forward for human rights.

No one is forced to get a divorce if they are happy. But if a religion requires as one of it's devotions that someone goes through life miserable and unhappy, then I would say that religion deserves everything it gets.

The Delegation for the Realm of Hibernia has voted against as we feel this does not take into account the massive diversity in creeds and cultures in the NSUN. Due to this fact we feel the matter of Divorce, and if it should be permitted and under what circumstance, can only be decided on my a National Government reflecting said nations social values.

Apologies to the Authors but we are against.
VL.

Why should someone be forced to stay with an abusive, vile, vicous partner just because the government says so? Surely if the government is there to protect all of it's citizens, it should have the good grace to actually do that job and not hide behind some crazy arguement that "we should have the right to decide what is best for our people, even if it means them being beaten to death by an abusive spouse".

I do not think that the UN ought to be dealing with divorce issues. The UN, realistically, should handle those matters with an international scope, that will settle disputes between nations, and/or further basic human rights. Divorce, like marriage is not a human right. Setting aside religious issues, to the state's concern, marriage is a legal bonding between a couple while divorce is the legal ending of that bond.

There is nothing international about it. The idea that some marriages include individuals of two different nationalities does nto hold enough weight for the UN to get involved. If a coupe is ending their union, the one can, if the country he/she lives in at the time forbids divorce, move back to one's home country, where the ending can be formalized according to that nation's laws.

As I said to some, this is a matter better left as a daily issue, not a binding resolution for all UN nations.

The right not to be beaten, the right not to be abused, the right not to have to watch your children grow up in the most unhealthy environment you can imagine - all of these are what most people would consider basic human rights.

Yet you think the UN should stand by and do nothing while people are beaten, just because the government says it is acceptable? that the UN should not protect those who are trapped in a hopeless situation, because the government says the deserve to be trapped?

Freedom of choice is ENSHRINED in already existing UN resolutions - many, many times over. And if we are going to accept that the UN has a role to play in ensuring freedom for all, then they have to be free to leave a partner that regularly beats the living shit out of them, and not be forced to stay with them because the government thinks it knows best.

Freedom - it's what the UN should be about.

First of all I am a Christian and divorce is sin. The only grounds for divorce should be if one of the spouses is an unbeliever and for marital unfaithfulness. No other reason should exist for divorce. Even if the spouse beats up on the other spouse or if physical, emotional, or verbal abuse occurrs or if one of the spouse has a mental handicap, etc... When you get married, you say you wedding vows and the wedding vows says "in sickness and in health." NO matter what one spouse does to the other spouse there should be no grounds for divorce. I am not saying that one shouldn't get help if one is abusive towards another, but one should not divorce. :fluffle:

And when the spouse starts regularly raping the children, you have to let stay. When he kills one of them in a drunken fit, you can't leave him. When she brings home other men day and night, and routinely forces the kids have sex with them, you can get her arrested, but you can't leave her because that would just be ungodly. When he gets your ten year old daughter pregnant, you have stand by him because you promised to never leave him, even though apparently he has broken that promise. When your wife is put in jail for mass murder, with no chance for parole, and you realise she is a lying, evil, manipulative bitch you can't leave her and find someone else, because that would just be wrong.


You are by far and away one of the most caring, kind and compassionate people I have ever met, and it has been an honnour to know you.

(note - that last part is intended as sarcasm)

Although my nation has mandated the legal right of divorce, a mandate such as this from the international body should not stand. Question: What is the purpose of the NSUN? Answer: To protect basic human rights. However, the term "basic human rights" do not seem to be clearly defined. According to political philosopher John Stuart Mill, basic human rights are: Life, liberty, and property. Nothing else. Where does divorce fit in? It is granted that divorce should be allowed for people living in abusive relationships as their right to life is being threatened by the abusive marriage union. However, to go as far as to deem divorce as an international mandate, the NSUN is clearly overstepping its role.

This umbrella resolution forces all UN member nations to accept divorce between married couples for any reason (rational or irrational) even if it is against the national culture. This cannot stand. Again, people should have the right to divorce for legitimate reasons that can be ascertained in the court of law. But for the UN to intervene in this aspect of domestic life is a slippery slope that brings us one step closer to an international Orwellian state.

I guess I should say that I am for this (though you probably all figured that out by now).

And if I wasn't based on the resolution itself, some of the arguements against it made me sick - "even if your spouse beats you up, you have to stay married to them" being a prime example.

Although my nation has mandated the legal right of divorce, a mandate such as this from the international body should not stand. Question: What is the purpose of the NSUN? Answer: To protect basic human rights. However, the term "basic human rights" do not seem to be clearly defined. According to political philosopher John Stuart Mill, basic human rights are: Life, liberty, and property. Nothing else. Where does divorce fit in? It is granted that divorce should be allowed for people living in abusive relationships as their right to life is being threatened by the abusive marriage union. However, to go as far as to deem divorce as an international mandate, the NSUN is clearly overstepping its role.

This umbrella resolution forces all UN member nations to accept divorce between married couples for any reason (rational or irrational) even if it is against the national culture. This cannot stand. Again, people should have the right to divorce for legitimate reasons that can be ascertained in the court of law. But for the UN to intervene in this aspect of domestic life is a slippery slope that brings us one step closer to an international Orwellian state.


The UN has ruled on gay marriage, hetrosexual marriage, gay rights, sexual freedom and other things that most people would (it appear) consider basic human rights - the right to love whom you chose, the right to marry whom you chose. Why is it so unbelievable the UN should be permitted to rule on the right to divorce whom you chose as well?

Culture and religion aside - forcing someone to stay married against their will is tantamount to slavery - another "basic human right" the UN has ruled upon.

I guess I should say that I am for this (though you probably all figured that out by now).

And if I wasn't based on the resolution itself, some of the arguements against it made me sick - "even if your spouse beats you up, you have to stay married to them" being a prime example.


Realand does not condone the views held by the Nation Godfreaks, but will respect the view. Realand hopes that Pallatium knows, that Godfreaks view, is not a view held by many, or most of the Nations against this resolution. Perhaps every person has the right to divorce, leave, etc etc. But it is not this ADMINISTRATIVE body's duty, nor it's place, to try to force laws, on sovereign nations. This is an attempt to turn this body into a world government, which is not, what it should ever become.

Dan Cimino
Realand Ambassador to the UN.

Realand does not condone the views held by the Nation Godfreaks, but will respect the view. Realand hopes that Pallatium knows, that Godfreaks view, is not a view held by many, or most of the Nations against this resolution. Perhaps every person has the right to divorce, leave, etc etc. But it is not this ADMINISTRATIVE body's duty, nor it's place, to try to force laws, on sovereign nations. This is an attempt to turn this body into a world government, which is not, what it should ever become.

Dan Cimino
Realand Ambassador to the UN.

This body has in the past decided to outlaw slavery, outlaw pedophillia, outlaw female genital mutialion, enforce gay rights, enforce a standard definition of marriage and enshrine the right to freedom for all beings.

So I think it has the right to say that forcing someone to stay married to an abusive bastard is unacceptable.

And no - we will not respect the view that one person can beat the living shit out of another and still force them to stay married. In the same way would not accept the view that hunting gays for blood sports is an acceptable passtime, because this is equally as oderous an opinion.

Originally Posted by Gruenberg
As has been pointed out, your proposal mandates that paedophiles, serial killers and AOL users be permitted access to their children. There are countries other than Iran and Saudi Arabia where people realize that is a bad idea.

That is an unadulterated lie and you should be ashamed of it.

If she can take time away from calling other members of this body liars, would the representative of Pallatium be good enough to point out to us what portion of this proposal allows us to deny visitation rights to serial killers? To pedophiles who have not targeted their own children?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Justice

This body has in the past decided to outlaw slavery, outlaw pedophillia, outlaw female genital mutialion, enforce gay rights, enforce a standard definition of marriage and enshrine the right to freedom for all beings.

So I think it has the right to say that forcing someone to stay married to an abusive bastard is unacceptable.

And no - GodFreeks do not have the right to hold the view that one person can beat the living shit out of another and still force them to stay married. It's obscene to even suggest it.

That's right, Queen Lily. To be honest, I don't think these proposals of late have gone far enough. Luckily, I've got a "Thoughtcrime" one that I'm drafting at the moment, that will ban people from thinking things you disagree with. Because I don't think there's anything to be gained from discussing ideas you disagree with, but that instead, we should just reject them out of hand. In fact, the very idea that people should be allowed to say what they think is abhorrent; they should, of course, only be allowed to say what you think. Because you're right, and we're wrong, and nothing else matters. This isn't an international organization: it's a group of people who will be governed, not just in their actions, but in their very thoughts, by state policy of Pallatium.

If she can take time away from calling other members of this body liars, would the representative of Pallatium be good enough to point out to us what portion of this proposal allows us to deny visitation rights to serial killers? To pedophiles who have not targeted their own children?

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Justice

Yes.


proven domestic violence or sexual abuse


No where does it say the sexual abuse has to be in the family. No where does it say the domestic violence has to be in that domicile.

If my parter goes and abuses a kid, I can divorce them based on sexual abuse and they lose visitation rights.

If they go killing people, I can divorce them on the grounds of taking part in domestic violence (it's a stretch, but find me a resolution that isn't) and deny them access.

And if you are going to question whether or not I am lying, at least re-read the resolution with an entirely open and creative mind, because every single resolution can be interpretted in any number of ways, and my way is no less valid than anyone elses.

This clealry says that people don't get access to their kids if they have been abusing them, and to say otherwise is downright deceitful.

Absolutely.

Guess you're right.






Hold on a sec! I've just remembered. If they fuck anyone else's children, they're still entitled to exactly the same rights as someone who's capable of keeping his pecker in his pants when Teletubbies comes on.

That's right, Queen Lily. To be honest, I don't think these proposals of late have gone far enough. Luckily, I've got a "Thoughtcrime" one that I'm drafting at the moment, that will ban people from thinking things you disagree with. Because I don't think there's anything to be gained from discussing ideas you disagree with, but that instead, we should just reject them out of hand. In fact, the very idea that people should be allowed to say what they think is abhorrent; they should, of course, only be allowed to say what you think. Because you're right, and we're wrong, and nothing else matters. This isn't an international organization: it's a group of people who will be governed, not just in their actions, but in their very thoughts, by state policy of Pallatium.

Technically - I edited and revised the piece you are quoting, to take out the part about thought crime :} And though my first commen was "yeah they can't hold that view", I revised to "I won't respect that view" which is different.


And -- by the by - since I was originally responding to someone who flat out stated that divorce was a sin and that no one should divorce, and not once said "this is just my opinion and I can see how other people might disagree" or even try to accept there were other view points, I don't think it is beyond reason that I should be permitted to respond in kind and state what my view point is, discounting all the others I find contemptable and fuckwhitted.

Absolutely.

Guess you're right.






Hold on a sec! I've just remembered. If they fuck anyone else's children, they're still entitled to exactly the same rights as someone who's capable of keeping his pecker in his pants when Teletubbies comes on.

See above for why sarcasm (while fun) is not warrented in this circumstance.

See above for why sarcasm (while fun) is not warrented in this circumstance.

1. The husband screws a toddler (not his own).
2. The husband and wife have a divorce because they can't agree what colour to paint the kitchen.
3. The husband retains full rights to visit his children.

1. The husband screws a toddler (not his own).
2. The husband and wife have a divorce because they can't agree what colour to paint the kitchen.
3. The husband retains full rights to visit his children.

Then obviously the wife doesn't care that the guy is screwing children, so why would she want to stop the visitation rights?

If we are going to respect everyone's view points, then you have to respect the wife if she wants to not bring up the fact her husband fucks kids in the divorce hearings.

Or is that just a little TOO much respect for someone elses views?

Me and my region, the Elite Conservative Circuit, are AGAINST! this resolution. I mean, when is it the U.N.'s business what individual marriages have to say about gay marriages, divorce rights, etc.? Some religious based nations are strictly against gay marriages and divorce rights. It should be their decision of whether or not to allow such things. Not the U.N.! The U.N. has a right to negotiate things that don't diminish individual nations rights. This is why the Elite Conservative Circuit is AGAINST! this resolution.

Then obviously the wife doesn't care that the guy is screwing children, so why would she want to stop the visitation rights?

If we are going to respect everyone's view points, then you have to respect the wife if she wants to not bring up the fact her husband fucks kids in the divorce hearings.

Or is that just a little TOO much respect for someone elses views?

Erm...what about the child? Might it, you know, not be a wise idea to force them to be visited regularly by a convicted pederast? I don't give a flying fuck what the wife thinks. I was sort of the opinion that perhaps we should be bearing the welfare of the child in mind? I guess that's another thoughtcrime though. I'll try to stop. What should I be thinking? That children don't matter in divorces?

Why should someone be forced to stay with an abusive, vile, vicous partner just because the government says so? Surely if the government is there to protect all of it's citizens, it should have the good grace to actually do that job and not hide behind some crazy arguement that "we should have the right to decide what is best for our people, even if it means them being beaten to death by an abusive spouse".
Who said someone should? Certainly not I. What i did say is that i do not believe that this proposal is sufficient to satisfy the cultural diversity of the NSUN. We in the Venerable Libertarians allow divorce and we are certainly not against it. We do however have reservations regarding the UN stipulating how we go about that.
We are therefore still against this Proposal as we have in place a Divorce system that works very well. If this Passes we must adopt it and it is quite simply substandard.
VL.

Erm...what about the child? Might it, you know, not be a wise idea to force them to be visited regularly by a convicted pederast? I don't give a flying fuck what the wife thinks. I was sort of the opinion that perhaps we should be bearing the welfare of the child in mind? I guess that's another thoughtcrime though. I'll try to stop. What should I be thinking? That children don't matter in divorces?

Firstly - I would ask you to change your signature. I edited that part out and replaced it with something else, and so quoting me is somewhat misleading.

And secondly - if the kid is abused then clause 4 states that the law can do something about it. So yeah - I do care what the child thinks.

Also - do I need to point out that, in tandem with the Child Protection Act resolution (which says "1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)") that if one of the parents is a potential danger to the kid, the government can forbid them to see him, and this resolution can't override the previous one - it must work in tandem, so pedophiles don't get to see kids just cause they were once married to the child's other parent.

First off, we did not accuse the representative from Pallatium of lying. We made a rather snide reference to her unfortunate habit of castigating those who disagree with her as liars.


No where does it say the sexual abuse has to be in the family. No where does it say the domestic violence has to be in that domicile.

Yes it does. If the abuse or violence occurs after the divorce, it must be committed "upon either the other parent or any of the shared children".

If my parter goes and abuses a kid, I can divorce them based on sexual abuse and they lose visitation rights.

Perhaps. But what if they begin their abuse after the divorce is granted? Or what if the divorce is granted on other grounds? Then I have no basis for denying visitation.

If they go killing people, I can divorce them on the grounds of taking part in domestic violence (it's a stretch, but find me a resolution that isn't) and deny them access.


They murder strangers in parking lots and on bike trails and this is to be considered domestic violence? Not by even the most tortured interpretation of the term.

And if you are going to question whether or not I am lying, at least re-read the resolution with an entirely open and creative mind, because every single resolution can be interpretted in any number of ways, and my way is no less valid than anyone elses.

We suggest that the representative of Pallatium re-read the resolution, with attention to what it says rather than what she'd like it to say or can twist it to say. Certainly, resolutions are almost always open to interpretation. That vulnerability stems from ambiguity. Unfortunately, Clause 3 of this resolution is not ambiguous. It clearly establishes two narrowly-defined criteria as the only ones on which visitation can be denied.

(to Ausserland)

I disagree, the Child Protection Act will back me up on most of my claims, and maybe I have a better imagination for interpretting law.

Further more - if people can use the phrase "domestic terrorism" and use it to refer to things other than inside a house, then I am not convinced it would be beyond the scope of law makes to define "domestice violence" in the same scope.

Also - I don't accuse people of lying unless they are. If you can name one other time, then I will happily retract this :}

if the kid is abused then clause 4 states that the law can do something about it. So yeah - I do care what the child thinks.

If the child is abused. If another child is abused, then the child has no recourse to protection.

Also - do I need to point out that, in tandem with the Child Protection Act resolution (which says "1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)") that if one of the parents is a potential danger to the kid, the government can forbid them to see him, and this resolution can't override the previous one - it must work in tandem, so pedophiles don't get to see kids just cause they were once married to the child's other parent.

'appropriate' in this context means 'within their legal ability'. States do not have the right to deny convicted paedophiles visitation rights under Right To Divorce. Once again, I apologise for my heinous thoughtcrime in disagreeing with you, and I'll do my best to correct it, for I know that I have sinned.

(to Ausserland)

I disagree, the Child Protection Act will back me up on most of my claims, and maybe I have a better imagination for interpretting law.

Further more - if people can use the phrase "domestic terrorism" and use it to refer to things other than inside a house, then I am not convinced it would be beyond the scope of law makes to define "domestice violence" in the same scope.
Im sorry! Did you say Imagination? Law is not based on imagination but on Inalienable truths and Fact.
VL.

If the child is abused. If another child is abused, then the child has no recourse to protection.



'appropriate' in this context means 'within their legal ability'. States do not have the right to deny convicted paedophiles visitation rights under Right To Divorce. Once again, I apologise for my heinous thoughtcrime in disagreeing with you, and I'll do my best to correct it, for I know that I have sinned.

Damn right you have sinned, and I will expect suitable pennance carried out as soon as possible. (smirk)

But - to get back to my point - I disagree (again). The Child Protection Act can be used to protect kids from mental violence and abuse, which would cover the situation you are talking about.

So either you are wrong or am I wrong. But if you are going to be as sarcastic and supercilious about my inability to accept other people's view points, the least you can do is accept mine as well.


And with that, I am done. I didn't wanna start debating on this, cause I knew it would just be ......

fuck it.

Im sorry! Did you say Imagination? Law is not based on imagination but on Inalienable truths and Fact.
VL.

Tell me one single resolution that can not be interpretted in more than one way, and I will accept your premise.


What is truth? Is truth a changing law? We both have truthes - are mine the same as yours?

Originally posted by Pallatium
Culture and religion aside - forcing someone to stay married against their will is tantamount to slavery - another "basic human right" the UN has ruled upon.


Agreed. So pray tell, why the need to universally mandate divorce if there is already a clause that allows women/men to leave slavery-like relationships?

But - to get back to my point - I disagree (again). The Child Protection Act can be used to protect kids from mental violence and abuse, which would cover the situation you are talking about.

'appropriate legislation' cannot possibly be interpreted to override these universal rights the proposal in question is bestowing. If parents are granted a right to see their children, then clearly that is that. Furthermore, even were your interpretation valid, why is 170 posts into the second thread on the proposal that it's finally mentioned? I honestly think they made a mistake. I understand what they were trying to do; it's admirable, in a way. But they slipped up, and now Hannibal Lecter gets to see Little Jimmy Lecter once a month.

So either you are wrong or am I wrong. But if you are going to be as sarcastic and supercilious about my inability to accept other people's view points, the least you can do is accept mine as well.

My problem is that I believe that the basis of a balanced society is understanding and tolerance. Once you have that down, the rest is a lot easier. You did not tolerate, and refused to understand, someone you disagreed with. Guess we just have different principles.

And with that, I am done.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10061324&postcount=172

For future reference, could you put little notes in your posts, to let us know when you're going to retract what you said five minutes later, and when you're going to actually stick to it? It's getting confusing. Thanks.

It is now readily apparent to the Imperial government of Krioval that this resolution is nothing more than a sham, designed to obliterate the right of truly free societies to regulate themselves. While this is sad enough, that this resolution allows innocent children to be victimized thanks to its incomplete addressing of the finer points of family law. When will this body finally respect the rights of sovereign nations to regulate their own populations, especially those who are democratically governed?

Should this pass, many nations will be compelled to grant divorces as long as someone is willing to bitch for three months. That's it. No other reason is required. What effect will *that* have on children? Further, as many other esteemed representatives have already illustrated, convicted child molestors can still visit their children, so long as the attack was perpetrated on *other* children! This is insanity of the highest level, to make children vulnerable in order to satisfy a political agenda. It is utterly shameful, and will be fought to the utmost of our government.

高原由
クリオヴァル

Yoshi Takahara
Krioval

Though with great sadness, and deep concern for the future of unhappily married couples throughout the world, The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland hereby withdraws its support to this proposal. Our vote has now been cast against.

While we think the right to terminate marriages should be urgently recognised by this body, we have been swayed by the excellent points made by a number of members, on the excessive restrictions posed by this resolution's operative clauses, namely on visitation rights and circumstances leading to divorce.

We express our hope that this proposal is defeated, but also that a suitable future proposal enshrines the right to divorce, without imposing strict time frames or specific clauses on divorce proceedings. These are, by their very nature, highly complex and sensitive issues, and the determination of their details is much more of a cultural issue than a fundamental human right.

We would still like to recognise and commend the humanitarian intentions of the authors, and offer our assistance on a redraft, if such becomes necessary.

(to Ausserland)

I disagree, the Child Protection Act will back me up on most of my claims, and maybe I have a better imagination for interpretting law.


The Child Protection Act "backs up" none of your claims. This resolution will require us to repeal those portions of our national and provincial laws which prohibit visitation when it is clearly not in the best interest of the child. And yes, we agree that you have a much better imagination in interpreting law than we do. We prefer to focus on what the law says, rather than what we might imagine it says.

(Further more - if people can use the phrase "domestic terrorism" and use it to refer to things other than inside a house, then I am not convinced it would be beyond the scope of law makes to define "domestice violence" in the same scope.

"Domestic violence" is commonly accepted to mean violence within the family or household. Find us an exception and we'll happily accept your attempt to torture the words of the resolution beyond any logical bounds.

(Also - I don't accuse people of lying unless they are. If you can name one other time, then I will happily retract this :}

We retract our comments about the representative of Pallatium calling members of this body liars. They were inappropriate and rude -- just as inappropriate and rude as calling members of this body liars. And we don't believe accuracy is a valid excuse for rudeness.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Justice

I am not sure if I am entirely comfortable with a resolution that amounts to, for all intents and purposes, a form of global law. Protecting the rights of the oppressed in the face of those who can but refuse to liberate them is one thing: enacting a law that will overrule the decisions of free people, who have the right to self-determine, is another. Should a free nation wish to restrict divorce, then they should have the right to do so, regardless of those outside their borders.

At least, they should, if I am reading this resolution correctly . . .

It's probably just me, but where are the co-authors?


Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

It's probably just me, but where are the co-authors?

Love and esterel's on GMT, I think, so it's about 3.30am. Forgottenlands mentioned having a lot of academic work at the moment, so I assume he's busy.

Love and esterel's on GMT, I think, so it's about 3.30am. Forgottenlands mentioned having a lot of academic work at the moment, so I assume he's busy.

Granted, but I mean for the past day or two.

Maybe we scared them away?

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Granted, but I mean for the past day or two.

Maybe we scared them away?

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.
Forgottenlands does not scare easy. Nor does he shy from a debate when he has the time to debate. In fact he is one of the few members i know who will call a spade a spade, and then hit you with one!

http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNGhttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/Gepgenius81/buttons/Small%20buttons/TPP-member.pnghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/Gepgenius81/buttons/Small%20buttons/una-member.pnghttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/Gepgenius81/buttons/Small%20buttons/IRCO-member.png

Forgottenlands slugged out fifty rounds over the UNSA; I don't think he's running anywhere. Plus, in fairness to both sides, this has not been a classic debate. I don't blame them for staying away, although I genuinely think they've been busy. And, in any case, they're now almost 1,500 votes up, with one Feeder having already voted, so I don't think there's any time for comfort on our part.

Forgottenlands does not scare easy. Nor does he shy from a debate when he has the time to debate. In fact he is one of the few members i know who will call a spade a spade, and then hit you with one!

OOC: I have to agree with VL. Forgottenlands is a tenacious debater. So is Love and esterel. I'd have to assume that RL demands are getting in the way of their participating as much as they might otherwise do.

We at Cramistan note, as others have, that there is no enforcement provision in the resolution.

While the resolution is ahead in the UN voting, we will not be observing it in Cramistan.

If passed, we will immediately join the campaign to repeal it.

Finally, we take comfort in that the voting in this forum, of the people that actually care, runs 2 to 1 in opposition.

The authors should get a life.:gundge:

We at Cramistan note, as others have, that there is no enforcement provision in the resolution.

While the resolution is ahead in the UN voting, we will not be observing it in Cramistan.

If passed, we will immediately join the campaign to repeal it.

Finally, we take comfort in that the voting in this forum, of the people that actually care, runs 2 to 1 in opposition.

The authors should get a life.:gundge:
Disclaimer: The above opinions of Cramistan are DEFINITELY NOT the opinions of the group as a whole that is opposed to this resolution. Especially this::gundge:

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Divorce should be outlawed completely!

Love and esterel's on GMT, I think, so it's about 3.30am. Forgottenlands mentioned having a lot of academic work at the moment, so I assume he's busy.

Yes a proposition mean a lot of time from draft to debate, sorry if i'm not there all the day, i have a life, and furthermoe my main charcater is engaged in a complicated love affair with one of his politics opposant: Samurai-Captain Midori Kasigi, Deputy UN Ambassador of Kirisubo, a close ally of the gatesville region.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10033542#post10033542

just wake up, will be back in few hours:)

also, nobody can be sure of the date of the vote (if quorum reached) when submitting a proposal, as it depends of the success of others proposal, it's not predictable

There is a common saying amongst those in the United States of Brian's Room, and I believe that it is fitting.

"You can't polish a turd."

The fact is, as has been repeatedly stated here, while the underlying goal of this resolution is laudable, there is really no need to get into the depth of the substance of the issue.

There is no underlying international interest in regulating divorce. And while there are various resolutions that deal with the regulation and definition of marriage, those should be repealed, as the legal contract that is a marriage is not one that needs to be regulated or defined on an international basis. Marriage is not a right - conversely, divorce is similiarly not a right. They are both privileges granted by the state at the state's leisure. It is entirely possible, current UN law notwithstanding, for a state to not recognize marriage as an act of law, but strictly as one of religion.

That various states have imbued the marriage contracts with such legal rights as joint property, tax benefits, sharing of benefits, visitation rights, etc. is the strict prerogative of the state granting them. Natural law does not do this - written law does. Marriage is not, as has been stated before, an inalienable human right.

This resolution builds upon the already rotten foundation of law within the UN that ignores state sovereignty to achieve "feel good" goals. This must stop, before we have ceded to the UN all of the authority and responsibility that is our duty to wield appropriately as heads of state. If we continue down this primrose path, and continue to furiously polish away our duties to our citizenry, we will become nothing more than bureaucratic automatons - administrators, not leaders.

This resolution must fail - if nothing more than to begin the drawing of a boundary around the rights we refuse to surrender to the UN. I hope that we can continue to influence those who are hesitant about this resolution to oppose it.

Ok, Forgottenlord f-ing long post coming up.

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

A couple of issues which appeared at first read:

1) This resolution effectively removes theocracies (following religions prohibiting divorce) from the U.N.

Not entirely, but I care not to get into the thousand details on that

2) This resolution prohibit nations from restricting criminals to solitary confinement/ removing visitation privileges, if they are divorced with children.

Malclavia cannot support this resolution.

Um.....that was partly our intent to prevent removal of visitation privileges......

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

Zarfland votes NAY for the following reasons:
1) There is nothing currently in print that defines what a marriage is and if it construed as legal and binding as viewed by the UN, therefore how can a divorce be granted.

False. Many resolutions have dealt with this

2) The fact that the resolution states that both parents may have regular visitation does not automatically grant EQUAL time for the children to be with both parents. Regular and equal are not the same. Equal must be the starting point in the divorce, not something to be begged and pleaded for by one parent.
3) Even if there is domestic violence, if it was between parents and not involving the children, the children are being robbed of equal time with their parents. There is nothing mentioned regarding visitation occurring under legal supervision in such circumstances, only that they are not allowed to see their children at all.
4) There is nothing stated on how child support should be calculated or if support is paid to show how the support given is being used for the children. The gross mismanagement of support given by one parent to another for the children is not addressed and the overall outcome of such instances hurts both the parent providing the support and the children who are supposed to receive these funds.

Our intent was not to define those or claim those as requirements of nations, but rather to permit nations to act as they see fit on the matter. While half the UN is looking for our throats about too much micromanagement and violating National Sovereignty, you're complaining about us not going far enough. Trust me, you can't go farther than this, and its possible we went too far with what was written already.

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

Midori Kasigi, the Kirisuban deputy ambassador takes the floor in her first big debate.

although a little nervous she finds her composure and speaks up.

"the empire of Kirisubo has had practical divorce laws in place for centuries.

therefore i ask the question. why is the UN again trying to micromanage a sovereign nations laws? is it a well meaning power trip or part of the master plan to have a one world government? I believe its the latter.

we will be voting against this travesty of justice which tramples all over a nations sovereignty"

I would be curious what components of Kirisubo's national laws contradict this proposal. Please elaborate so that I can explain my reasoning, or clear up misconceptions if the case may be.

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

Most Glorious Hack does not operate as a leader with an agenda. And again, I believe that calling the moderators the "leaders" to be a serious stretch. Further, considering that election to the position of regional delegate is a democratic process, it seems inconceivable that the delegates would accept an unaccountable dictatorship when they, themselves, are accountable to the states within their region.

As I stated before, MGH and the other moderators act as a police force, not as 'leaders'.

First of all - there have been systems before in both real life and otherwise where such a system existed. One of the more notorious would have to be the Roman Empire. Y'know, an all-powerful Emperor and a mass of senators, the latter of which were elected, the former effectively appointed by the military and moved with his troops to quash any competition.

Second - even if we were to assume you are right about leadership vs police force (I'd debate heavily with you about the matter, but I have a resolution that's getting battered distracting my time right now), that would indicate that we have an executive branch. How can we have an executive branch - and more importantly, one that is a PERMANENT component of this body - if we have no government?

This entire line of reasoning is based on your desire for the UN to be a world government. Our entire line of reasoning is based on our desire for the UN to be an adminstrative body. There's a difference, and we must agree to disagree.

Actually, it's not. Considering that the RL UN has a General Secretary, considering MOST organizations on this planet have some form of leader or another - especially INTERNATIONAL organizations, considering some of them are appointed while others are elected, I find your insinuation that this United Nations does not have a leader to be nothing less that ludicrosity. Just because we have a leader does not mean we are a world government. The fact that we can FORCE our decisions upon our members, whether they like or not, I think that is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more important to figuring out whether we are or aren't a world government. The only way we are an International Organization instead of an International Government is when we force OURSELVES to not force our opinions on others. The entire structure of this body is one suited for an international government - whether you believe it or not. Everything else is just personal philosophy.

That is an interpretation that is left up to the reader and to the delegates to decide. I read this resolution that it was in the intent and spirit of this law to prohibit the UN from raising revenue from the populations of the member-states.

The ability to tax the residents of the states within ones borders is a primary right of states - if the UN is barred from doing so, this seriously undermines your argument that the UN is a legitimate world government.

Again, no. The delegates do not get this choice. The moderators do. Whether we should allow nations to be taxed regardless is up for the delegates to decide. It is an important distinction - and the spirit of the law is irrelevant to what is legal and what is not. The letter is all that matters, and how the moderators choose to interpret that.

Not having the same rights as the states that are its members does make it less of a government. I have read the appropriate threads - my state has been in existence far longer than those rules have, I assure you.

Uh huh. Your state has been in existance longer than Max Barry's FAQ? I find that hard to believe, as I remember reading it when I got here. The RP component evolved from that FAQ, as did the various portions surrounding it and decisions on how and whether to enforce it or not, along with acceptable choices for resolutions, etc.

What it should tell you is that my training in rhetoric has taught me to never speak in terms of beliefs, but in terms of facts. You, yourself, have stated that the actual intent behind the founding of the UN is unknown. To claim that you are right in your belief regarding that intent is true and mine is not because of how I phrase replies to the debate is foolhardy.

You fail to understand. Your age on these forums is rather meaningless to me because of your postcount from that age. It suggests a newbieness to the forums that I've slowly been lead to understand is not as there as I thought it was. I challenge on those points because if you are indeed as knowledgable as you claim about the UN and its true workings, and are truly meaning to represent your opinion as fact, you are in the extreme minority of those who use the wording you do. Thus the logical conclusion is in fact that you are claiming that this is fact when it is merely your opinion.

Add on that you post this in a thread that has more than enough people who do not understand the things you present as facts are merely opinions, regardless of how they feel about it. I do not enjoy knowing such confusion exists and so I challenge your opinions stated as facts by treating them as facts. However, it in fact makes your argument weaker as you leave a massive target for me to attack - so long as they actually read to my response.

Your opinions have taken up way too much of my time for someone who I doubt I will be able to change their position. However, it is clear we need to speak further about the powers of the UN and its capabilities, the roles held by the individuals within it, any a variety of other things. My office shall be in touch after the vote is over.

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

And does the representative of Love and esterel expect us to believe that being trotted into a maximum-security prison to see his serial killer father through bullet-proof glass is going to be psychologically healthy for the child? Arrant nonsense!

Actually, I would have absolutely NO issues with such a scenario. In such a case, I actually think the father has the full right to see his child, and there are parts of me that believes it is better for the child to see his father regardless of what condition that father is in - mentally, physically or legally. It is not the situation of a father being in prison that concerns me from what you have listed.

Its the risk of being a repeat offender......... In such a case, I'm uncertain what my opinions are regarding the parental rights, and it was these conditions that lead to clause 3 to begin with

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

No, all that says is that gay marriage will be protected; it doesn't say that they have to be performed. As I said during the drafting of this proposal, The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites considers marriage to be a strictly religious matter, and in fact have laws in place banning government employees from performing marriage ceremonies (the sole exception to that law being military chaplains). And as such in order to be married in The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites one must meet the requirements set out by whatever religion you want to marry you, therefore The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites doesn't even have a right to get married, and we certainly cannot support this proposal as we find that we cannot be in compliance with it, due to the fact that our government has no control over marriages.

Regardless of issues regarding whether marriages are mandated or not, I encourage you to abstain. This resolution specifically addresses contractual marriages. Thus, it shall have no effect upon your nation. It is not forcing you to have marriage, but rather than any marriage that exists at a contractual, legal level be able to be ended. The effect upon your nation is non-existant.

The issue of whether marriages are mandated or not, I'll worry about that latter. I've got slightly more pressing concerns I'm afraid, and not enough time to deal with them :/

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

One question, however: Say two very drunk people get married one night. They realize the next morning that they really, really don't want to be married. Why should they have to wait 3 months for a divorce? It feels arbitrary, especially if my nation has a more lenient divorce policy.

We didn't want to address this matter. If both agree they don't want to be married, they can activate clause 1.1/1.2 without issue or delay. We also have 1.6 if your nation wishes to add things such as anullments (yeah, I definately spelt that wrong), though we didn't want to address it forcing other nations to support it who don't believe in them. We leave your nation to decide on such expansions

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

We needn't have international law for the divorce process. Aren't there more important international issues at hand than the union or separation of two individuals? Besides, the marriage process is different in each nation, so are we going to have an international law to regulate that as well? It makes no sense for the UN to be worrying itself over such issues that should be dealt with at a more local level.

When this went to vote, nothing else was in quarom. My guess would be......no

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

But this resolution as it stands cannot work. It may have seemed less palatable to propose something short and, perhaps, vague but it is our opinion that this is necessary. As we have already said - this resolution will actually restrict people's right to divorce in Ascensoria! The rules it imposes on us are stricter than the ones we already have in place and it introduces principles into the process of divorce that we find both inappropriate and reprehensible.

False. We have purposely added clause 1.6 so that no nation has their requirements for divorce shrunk. If you have less strict rules, you can still use them. As long as the 5 listed are part of your rules, it does not matter. We purposely wrote this resolution so it could NOT restrict your own rules.

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

wow, this proves the difference between a forum poll and an UN vote. atm, going by the poll, this proposal would be slaughtered (okay, exageration, but you get my drift), yet the opposite is happening in the vote.

That's been frustrating me from the start

unfortunatly, though we agree with the ideals of this proposal, and actually allow divorce here, i would have to oppose this purely on discriminitory grounds. for some, it is against their religion to divorce, and whilst this doesnt infringe on it by merely 'allowing' it, there should be respect in there for religious beliefs.

I must disagree. If a person believes that no one should have a divorce, then they shall not ask for one. However, if anyone is slightly less religious and still wants a divorce, I refuse to say that someone else's religion should interfere with that right, and it is for that reason that we submitted this proposal

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

In all matters of fariness, we must be mindful of those nations that do allow homosexual marraige and those that do not.

I would like and adendum added to this bill that defines civil unions equal to marraige. To further grow in understanding for all delegates of the world, we must be willing to accept even that which we may deem inappropiate or that which we see as ignorant. After all, if we cannot tolerate differences we shoudl dust off the rack because we'd be back to the inquisition.

Resolutions 12 and 81 you might want to check out. No member nation can disallow homosexual marriage if they allow marriage.

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

Thumbs up
First of all I am a Christian and divorce is sin. The only grounds for divorce should be if one of the spouses is an unbeliever and for marital unfaithfulness. No other reason should exist for divorce. Even if the spouse beats up on the other spouse or if physical, emotional, or verbal abuse occurrs or if one of the spouse has a mental handicap, etc... When you get married, you say you wedding vows and the wedding vows says "in sickness and in health." NO matter what one spouse does to the other spouse there should be no grounds for divorce. I am not saying that one shouldn't get help if one is abusive towards another, but one should not divorce.

If one believes in that, they will not ask for divorce. But they should all have the right to ask should their belief ever faulter. I am not going to force them to have a divorce for any reason, I'm just allowing them to have one if they want one.

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

This clealry says that people don't get access to their kids if they have been abusing them, and to say otherwise is downright deceitful.

His point is what if they've been abusing others....in which case, I'm afraid the delegates of Gruenburg and Ausserland have a point

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

Though with great sadness, and deep concern for the future of unhappily married couples throughout the world, The Most Serene Republic of Fonzoland hereby withdraws its support to this proposal. Our vote has now been cast against.

Fair enough. I thank you for your comments. Should this proposal be defeated, yours and many others I shall have to work with for potential redrafts.

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

Love and esterel's on GMT, I think, so it's about 3.30am. Forgottenlands mentioned having a lot of academic work at the moment, so I assume he's busy.

Actually, just finished term so had a fun night but lacked 'net access.

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

The authors should get a life.

Never wanted nor needed one. This acts as a sufficient substitute

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

Um....I'm back?

Forgottenlands slugged out fifty rounds over the UNSA; I don't think he's running anywhere. Plus, in fairness to both sides, this has not been a classic debate. I don't blame them for staying away, although I genuinely think they've been busy. And, in any case, they're now almost 1,500 votes up, with one Feeder having already voted, so I don't think there's any time for comfort on our part.

Unless someone says something more substantial than "this violates NatSov", then I'm tending to ignore them. I have neither the time nor interest to debate that philosophy with them - I normally don't have that sort of patience to go at it with TH.

"You can't polish a turd."

Contrary to the previous observation, I despair at the fact that while here in the forum good sense seems to prevail...we are poised to see the downside of democracy in action. This seems like a fine indication that perhaps the UN itself is hopelessly broken.

There is a common saying amongst those in the United States of Brian's Room, and I believe that it is fitting.

"You can't polish a turd."

The fact is, as has been repeatedly stated here, while the underlying goal of this resolution is laudable, there is really no need to get into the depth of the substance of the issue.

There is no underlying international interest in regulating divorce.

Considering that it is currently leading in the polls would suggest that this statement is yet another of your opinions you're stating as fact. Further, the comments made by many on this forum shows that some of the people support the idea of the proposal and are interested in seeing it presented at an international level, but are concerned by issues such as the one brought forth by the representative from Ausserland. Thus, your statement is false.

And while there are various resolutions that deal with the regulation and definition of marriage, those should be repealed, as the legal contract that is a marriage is not one that needs to be regulated or defined on an international basis. Marriage is not a right - conversely, divorce is similiarly not a right. They are both privileges granted by the state at the state's leisure. It is entirely possible, current UN law notwithstanding, for a state to not recognize marriage as an act of law, but strictly as one of religion.

And in such a case, this resolution does nothing.

That various states have imbued the marriage contracts with such legal rights as joint property, tax benefits, sharing of benefits, visitation rights, etc. is the strict prerogative of the state granting them. Natural law does not do this - written law does. Marriage is not, as has been stated before, an inalienable human right.

This resolution builds upon the already rotten foundation of law within the UN that ignores state sovereignty to achieve "feel good" goals. This must stop, before we have ceded to the UN all of the authority and responsibility that is our duty to wield appropriately as heads of state. If we continue down this primrose path, and continue to furiously polish away our duties to our citizenry, we will become nothing more than bureaucratic automatons - administrators, not leaders.

Your point?

This resolution must fail - if nothing more than to begin the drawing of a boundary around the rights we refuse to surrender to the UN. I hope that we can continue to influence those who are hesitant about this resolution to oppose it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You seem to have completely missed the rather large list of resolutions where such a statement was made and they did fail, but such a roleback didn't happen. I remember TEK supporting Solar Panels to "teach members a lesson" about infringing upon nation's rights. Certainly, NatSov has taken much more of a front seat in the UN debate team, but that doesn't mean it is any more prevelant or important than it was 3 years ago.

Contrary to the previous observation, I despair at the fact that while here in the forum good sense seems to prevail...we are poised to see the downside of democracy in action. This seems like a fine indication that perhaps the UN itself is hopelessly broken.

One must wonder if that, instead, shows that there is a disproportionate representation of those who believe in NatSov compared to those that feel there is more importance in having an International Government. Does that make it flawed, or does it make you a minority? Please, do not insult this body for having a different opinion than your own.

First of all - there have been systems before in both real life and otherwise where such a system existed. One of the more notorious would have to be the Roman Empire. Y'know, an all-powerful Emperor and a mass of senators, the latter of which were elected, the former effectively appointed by the military and moved with his troops to quash any competition.

Rome is a bad example. The Senators, after Caesar took control, exercised what little authority they retained strictly at his pleasure. The mods do not force us to conform to their wishes. They merely police the membership, and remove those who are not behaving properly.

If TGH or the rest of the mods wished to be considered the General Secretariat of the UN, they would call themselves that. The fact that they do not is telling.

Second - even if we were to assume you are right about leadership vs police force (I'd debate heavily with you about the matter, but I have a resolution that's getting battered distracting my time right now), that would indicate that we have an executive branch. How can we have an executive branch - and more importantly, one that is a PERMANENT component of this body - if we have no government?

No, not really. The mods do not execute the laws that we pass. They handle disciplinary issues regarding the states - both UN and non-UN - and attempt to clarify when there are questions regarding the game mechanics.

I find it very hard to believe that someone who would claim divorce as a right that every individual should be permitted would be willing to allow for the existence of an unaccountable, unelected executive branch, with the power to do whatever they wished with no appeal. That is unless, of course, it suits your purposes at this point.

Seeing as how you wish for the UN to be a world government, that indicates that it does.

Actually, it's not. Considering that the RL UN has a General Secretary, considering MOST organizations on this planet have some form of leader or another - especially INTERNATIONAL organizations, considering some of them are appointed while others are elected, I find your insinuation that this United Nations does not have a leader to be nothing less that ludicrosity. Just because we have a leader does not mean we are a world government. The fact that we can FORCE our decisions upon our members, whether they like or not, I think that is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more important to figuring out whether we are or aren't a world government. The only way we are an International Organization instead of an International Government is when we force OURSELVES to not force our opinions on others. The entire structure of this body is one suited for an international government - whether you believe it or not. Everything else is just personal philosophy.

The RLUN has a General Secretary...that has no real power. He cannot compel any member-state to do his bidding, and other than channeling money into the pockets of members of his family, he does not seem to have any real power other than that of the pulpit of his position.

Most organizations do have leaders. Most democratic organizations have democratic elected leaders. Its rare to find a democratic organization with an unelected leader in the 21st century.

The fact that the UN forces its decisions upon its members is the same as any other voluntary organization - the will of the majority rules. That's true in governments on down to boy scout troops.

Frankly, a true world government would not have the ability to opt in or out of membership. If you live in the world, and there is a world government, whichever state you live in would be, by virtue of its mere existance, part of that government. Because UN membership is not mandatory, the UN cannot be said to be "suited for international government". That line of reasoning fails.

Again, no. The delegates do not get this choice. The moderators do. Whether we should allow nations to be taxed regardless is up for the delegates to decide. It is an important distinction - and the spirit of the law is irrelevant to what is legal and what is not. The letter is all that matters, and how the moderators choose to interpret that.

Yes, the delegates do get this choice. If they determine that what is written is not what they intended, they may repeal the resolution and write another one.

The fact that you cannot recognize that both the spirit and the letter of the law are both important facets in the determination of what the law actually means is unfortunate.

If that is the case, the various "focus" threads develop the legislative history of each of these provisions are worthless. To say that the mods could simply ignore everything written in a thread by the author as to his intent and interpret the actual words of a resolution in a manner not consistent with the intention of its author makes little sense to me.

Uh huh. Your state has been in existance longer than Max Barry's FAQ? I find that hard to believe, as I remember reading it when I got here. The RP component evolved from that FAQ, as did the various portions surrounding it and decisions on how and whether to enforce it or not, along with acceptable choices for resolutions, etc.

Max Barry's FAQ does not contain the body of rules developed by the moderators, which is what I was pointing out when I said this. When my state was formed, the game was in its infancy, and other than the FAQ, there were few rules if any. In fact, other than Violet, I don't believe there were any moderators at all at that time.

What I am trying to explain to you is that simply because I don't believe in your interpretation of the rules or the role of the UN does not make me a "noob". It makes me a fellow head of state with a disagreement with your interpretation.

You fail to understand. Your age on these forums is rather meaningless to me because of your postcount from that age. It suggests a newbieness to the forums that I've slowly been lead to understand is not as there as I thought it was. I challenge on those points because if you are indeed as knowledgable as you claim about the UN and its true workings, and are truly meaning to represent your opinion as fact, you are in the extreme minority of those who use the wording you do. Thus the logical conclusion is in fact that you are claiming that this is fact when it is merely your opinion.

I have used the forums when I felt the need to do so. I have spent the majority of my time focusing on building and developing my region, not playing international politics. We have been content until your resolution to simply vote for or against the various resolutions and not taken the time on the forums to elaborate on our point of view. That does not mean that we have not been aware of the rules, followed the history, or have access to the opinion of states much older and much more knowledgeable than your own.

And while I may be in the extreme minority, which I don't doubt that I am, my views have been consistent on these issues for almost three years.

But again, my reason for pointing these things out was not such much to claim that I am somehow more knowledgeable than you regarding these issues because my state and my region are indeed older than yours, but to attempt to rebuke you for your condescending attitude in a subtle fashion. Unfortunately, that subtlety has been lost on you.

Add on that you post this in a thread that has more than enough people who do not understand the things you present as facts are merely opinions, regardless of how they feel about it. I do not enjoy knowing such confusion exists and so I challenge your opinions stated as facts by treating them as facts. However, it in fact makes your argument weaker as you leave a massive target for me to attack - so long as they actually read to my response.

It is unfortunate that you have such a low opinion of your fellow heads of state. One thing that I have learned in my time in office is that generally the best way of leading others is to not insult their intelligence.

Your opinions have taken up way too much of my time for someone who I doubt I will be able to change their position. However, it is clear we need to speak further about the powers of the UN and its capabilities, the roles held by the individuals within it, any a variety of other things. My office shall be in touch after the vote is over.

Take your time - I am sure that you will need a few days of mourning once this ill-conceived and unnecessary resolution is consigned to the dust-bin of history where it belongs.

Considering that it is currently leading in the polls would suggest that this statement is yet another of your opinions you're stating as fact. Further, the comments made by many on this forum shows that some of the people support the idea of the proposal and are interested in seeing it presented at an international level, but are concerned by issues such as the one brought forth by the representative from Ausserland. Thus, your statement is false.

There are two more days until the voting is closed. I would advise you to not count your chickens before they hatch.

The funny thing is that most of those I have seen who are in support of this proposal are the same individuals you were lambasting in your other post for being easily led.

It is unfortunate that so many heads of state are willing to cede their rights to the UN and to impertent leaders such as yourself. I hope that this is something that we can change. It would be a shame if we couldn't.

Your point?

My point is that this resolution is one more in a long-line of resolutions, designed to tug at the heart strings, while it slowly erodes the meaningfulness of UN membership and statehood.

On those grounds, it should fail. Whether or not that happens depends on how much support can be found against it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You seem to have completely missed the rather large list of resolutions where such a statement was made and they did fail, but such a roleback didn't happen. I remember TEK supporting Solar Panels to "teach members a lesson" about infringing upon nation's rights. Certainly, NatSov has taken much more of a front seat in the UN debate team, but that doesn't mean it is any more prevelant or important than it was 3 years ago.

And that is unfortunate. It is also something that I hope can be resolved. Otherwise, we will be faced with as many useless and unnecessary resolutions as you can pour onto paper.

One must wonder if that, instead, shows that there is a disproportionate representation of those who believe in NatSov compared to those that feel there is more importance in having an International Government. Does that make it flawed, or does it make you a minority? Please, do not insult this body for having a different opinion than your own.

Coming from one so willing to insult those who don't agree with you as evidence by frequent posts in this thread, this statement is highly hypocritical.

OOC:

Brians Room: It has been accepted practice for some time to refer to the Mods as the Secretariat. Mainly because the mods are the ones who get things done. Not everyone does this, but it has certainly been mentioned throughout my entire time in NS.
Yes, the term isn't quite accurate. What the Mods do isn't the same as what the RL Secretariat does. It doesn't mean anything. It's just a harmless way of referring to the Mods in an entirely IC way.
And when you take into account that the mods almost never make IC posts within the UN Forum while using their mod accounts, it shouldn't be surprising that they do not refer to themselves as members of the Secretariat.

OOC:

Brians Room: It has been accepted practice for some time to refer to the Mods as the Secretariat. Mainly because the mods are the ones who get things done. Not everyone does this, but it has certainly been mentioned throughout my entire time in NS.
Yes, the term isn't quite accurate. What the Mods do isn't the same as what the RL Secretariat does. It doesn't mean anything. It's just a harmless way of referring to the Mods in an entirely IC way.
And when you take into account that the mods almost never make IC posts within the UN Forum while using their mod accounts, it shouldn't be surprising that they do not refer to themselves as members of the Secretariat.

OOC: I understand that - if anything, I'm frustrated by the fact that Forgottenlands continues to force me out of RP mode during these discussions by talking about the Mods.

I think the mods are much more powerful than the RL secretariat, because they have much broader powers than the RL secretariat does. I have only seen them overruled once while I've been playing here. No one has to listen to the RL secretariat.

Frankly, I hope that line of argument in the posts with Forgottenlands ends, because its detracting on the rest of the debate. I really don't care to get into a pissing match over who is smarter/older/better/cuter/etc.

Coming from one so willing to insult those who don't agree with you as evidence by frequent posts in this thread, this statement is highly hypocritical.

Actually, when I insult people, it's generally for reasons other than I disagree with them. TEK and I can have extraordinarily civil debates even though were are extraordinarily natural opponents. TH and I have gone head to head several times without issue - BTW, TH is the current most vocal NatSov. Those that I insult have done certain things to give them a special place in my heart, and a choice for how I treat them.

Actually, when I insult people, it's generally for reasons other than I disagree with them. TEK and I can have extraordinarily civil debates even though were are extraordinarily natural opponents. TH and I have gone head to head several times without issue - BTW, TH is the current most vocal NatSov. Those that I insult have done certain things to give them a special place in my heart, and a choice for how I treat them.

Whatever the reasons behind your decision to lump me into the category of individuals you choose to insult, I will wear it as a badge of honor.

I look forward to more debates with you in the future, and hope that I will be able to maintain my presence here so that TH has an additional effective partner.

I also hope that you can look beyond our unfortunate first impressions and focus on the issues at hand.

I look forward to more debates with you in the future, and hope that I will be able to maintain my presence here so that TH has an additional effective partner.

I'm sure Powerhungry Chipmunks, Flibbleites, Yelda and other NSO members will be delighted to hear that at last, someone's going to help TH out.

I'm sure Powerhungry Chipmunks, Flibbleites, Yelda and other NSO members will be delighted to hear that at last, someone's going to help TH out.

Please allow me to clarify. My saying that I plan on being an "effective partner" was not my attempt to claim that there are no other states out there advocating a similiar position to my own.

I was simply remarking that I hope to, alongside TH and the other states who feel as strongly about this as issue as I do, advocate this position.

I was not attempting to exclude or belittle the contributions of my fellow states.

Many people are willing to pass this bill because they find no problem with divorce being legal. It is not about whether or not there is a direct problem with it which there is. Have you ever heard of a Islamic Divorce? Freedom of relgion is a civil right and this UN resolution does nothing but remove a civil right. Without this resolution your natiosn current laws are still in affect. Nations that do not allow divorce must be very important to them, or they would not have gone out of their way to not allow it. It is also totally beyond the bounds of UN. The UN is the largest humanitarian aide/ peace keeping force in the world. The UN should not try and be Dr. Phil trying to help couples with their problems. This resolution should be stopped even if just for the reason to put the UN back in its place. If this resolution passes i believe it should be repealed as soon as possible. For the future of the UN. Whats next? The UN going to tackle abortion?

Whats next? The UN going to tackle abortion?
Ahem, they already have. (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=60)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Many people are willing to pass this bill because they find no problem with divorce being legal. It is not about whether or not there is a direct problem with it which there is. Have you ever heard of a Islamic Divorce? Freedom of relgion is a civil right and this UN resolution does nothing but remove a civil right. Without this resolution your natiosn current laws are still in affect. Nations that do not allow divorce must be very important to them, or they would not have gone out of their way to not allow it. It is also totally beyond the bounds of UN. The UN is the largest humanitarian aide/ peace keeping force in the world. The UN should not try and be Dr. Phil trying to help couples with their problems. This resolution should be stopped even if just for the reason to put the UN back in its place. If this resolution passes i believe it should be repealed as soon as possible. For the future of the UN. Whats next? The UN going to tackle abortion?

IF a person follows a religion that disallows divorce and fully believes in the teachings of that religion, they have the full right NOT to request a divorce for any reason. This resolution does not FORCE any couple who does not believe in divorce to have one. HOWEVER, if any person within any nation that hold such a belief does not believe as the nation does and does think divorce is acceptable, this resolution will allow them to exercise the choice of non-belief and be granted such a divorce. As such, this resolution DOES NOT infringe upon the freedom of religion.

That said: abortion has been tackled already (resolution 61: Abortion Rights).

Also - do I need to point out that, in tandem with the Child Protection Act resolution (which says "1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)") that if one of the parents is a potential danger to the kid, the government can forbid them to see him, and this resolution can't override the previous one - it must work in tandem, so pedophiles don't get to see kids just cause they were once married to the child's other parent.

False. The two combined means that the government can make stipulations (you can only visit while under supervision of a peace officer, for instance), but they cannot prevent children seeing their parents unless it explicitly contradicts this resolution post-divorce.

I disagree, the Child Protection Act will back me up on most of my claims, and maybe I have a better imagination for interpretting law.

It's well known that you do - you seem to feel that intention is much more important than what is written - something that the majority tend to disagree with......

It's well known that you do - you seem to feel that intention is much more important than what is written - something that the majority tend to disagree with......

It is a common practice in many courts in many states that when a provision of the law is ambiguous, poorly worded, contradictory to other provisions of law, or simply when there is a question of interpretation, that a review of the legislative intent of the authors is an acceptable means of determining a reasonable interpretation of that law.

You have said this on a number of occasions now, and each time you've said it, it has struck me as obtuse. There are situations where the spirit and intent of the law must play a role in the determination of what the law actually says. To think otherwise is to refuse to admit that there are not always yes/no answers to every question.

While I recognize that Pallatium has made some rather interesting interpretations of resolutions in the past, it is important to recognize that spirit and letter are equally important in determining what a law truly means.

Method around issue of pre-divorce domestic violence:

Domestic violence must be proven in a court of law. My suggestion is that you allow divorces to be conducted for more than one reason (so you could have both 1.2 and 1.3 activated). Thus, while in the process of getting a divorce they both agreed on, during the issue of custody, one partner could attempt to prove that the other partner is abusing the children and request no visitation rights. If it can be proven, the issue of visitation rights can be dealt with there. This is not limited by the text of the proposal and while it isn't clean, it will work.

I am currently thinking about possible solutions to the comments made by Ausserland, and I shall try to provide answers when I get the opportunity....

It is a common practice in many courts in many states that when a provision of the law is ambiguous, poorly worded, contradictory to other provisions of law, or simply when there is a question of interpretation, that a review of the legislative intent of the authors is an acceptable means of determining a reasonable interpretation of that law.

You have said this on a number of occasions now, and each time you've said it, it has struck me as obtuse. There are situations where the spirit and intent of the law must play a role in the determination of what the law actually says. To think otherwise is to refuse to admit that there are not always yes/no answers to every question.

While I recognize that Pallatium has made some rather interesting interpretations of resolutions in the past, it is important to recognize that spirit and letter are equally important in determining what a law truly means.

Once again, you demonstrate your failure to understand the nature of the UN.

Every nation has the full right to implement the spirit fo the law, but the UN Gnomes are blind to the spirit of the law and will only force a nation to implement the letter of the law. When there is concern about contradiction, it only concerns the letter, not the spirit of the law. When there is a legality challenge, it only concerns the letter of the proposal, the letter of the resolutions that have been passed, and the spirit of the Hackian Laws.

If this is getting too far IC for you, I should note that the text and title of a resolution is completely RP consideration, not Gameplay. Gameplay only cares about the headers of the resolution (category/strenght). I think you can actually find that in a sticky somewhere.

Divorce is a basic human rigth which have been unable many times in our history and even nowadays.
One of the main topic of the UN is to protect Human right, this is what our proposition is doing.

For most people, things are idealistic at the time they marry, but how can they know this idealistic situation will last for ever or not.

It's why our proposition while reaffiming the positive effects of marriage, grants people their right about their own FUTURE. A Future which is their own, and not the national property or the his/her husband/wife property.

In many nations, restrictive divorce laws have destructive effects on families, as some people maybe be unhappy to stay together, and family relashioship deteriorate, in some others ( as Iran or saudi Arabia in RL) people mainly woman are bound to their husband, who abuse them.

Please bear with our ignorance, we are small new nation trying to muddle through our formative days in this world. Kickingandscreaming recognizes that your stance on this issue represents the highest and noblest of intentions. We do not seek to dissuade you of your stance in global human rights, and side with you regarding the destructive nature of divorce. The right to divorce however is not an issue of global human rights, it is instead one of local and or national statute or in some cases strict religious doctrine. Although we as a nation recognize no god, we do support the freedom of all citizens in all nations to exersize freedom of religion. Unfortunately the heirarchy of most religious organizations is male dominated and does not necessarily represent the best interests or on some cases any interests of the female members of their nations. Unfortunately we beleive that passage of this resolution would directly conflict with nations freedom of religion.

Kickingandscreaming beleives that a more simplified and fundamental declaration of global equal rights and protection under the laws of civil due process for the citizens of all nations would be more appropriate and easily enforceable by tort than the extensive document that has been proposed. We must at this time suport a NO vote on this resolution.

Additionally please note that we have not seen any enforcement provisions in this resolution.

Respectfuly,
OOK!

"-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place"

maybe i didn't get the point but, if one parents can be a danger, then:

-if he/she is already in prison, the meeting can be behind a glass, as i have said

-if he/she his not in prison, then the metting can be arranged with the presence of a third person

We are talking about family, and the issue here is not related to domestic violence or sexual abuse

the metting can take place only once/year

"-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place"

maybe i didn't get the point but, if one parents can be a danger, then:

-if he/she is already in prison, the meeting can be behind a glass, as i have said

-if he/she his not in prison, then the metting can be arranged with the presence of a third person

We are talking about family, and the issue here is not related to domestic violence or sexual abuse

the metting can take place only once/year

We are talking about family, and the issue here is not related to domestic violence or sexual abuse

the metting can take place only once/year

Yes, we are talking about family. So shouldn't the question at least partly be about what's in the child's interests, and not exclusively what's in the interests of parents who couldn't be bothered to stay together for those children? Furthermore, if you're taking 'regularly' to mean 'once/year', then we fully intend to do the same, even for shining examples of parenthood. Incidentally, the Sultan's still waiting for an answer on why he doesn't deserve the same rights as other people; I keep trying to tell him that our culture is backwards and inferior and that we should subjugate ourselves to your morality, but he's being awfully stubborn about accepting that (and in doing so, risking angering Queen Lily for committing another atrocious thoughtcrime).

Yes, we are talking about family. So shouldn't the question at least partly be about what's in the child's interests, and not exclusively what's in the interests of parents who couldn't be bothered to stay together for those children? Furthermore, if you're taking 'regularly' to mean 'once/year', then we fully intend to do the same, even for shining examples of parenthood. Incidentally, the Sultan's still waiting for an answer on why he doesn't deserve the same rights as other people; I keep trying to tell him that our culture is backwards and inferior and that we should subjugate ourselves to your morality, but he's being awfully stubborn about accepting that (and in doing so, risking angering Queen Lily for committing another atrocious thoughtcrime).

Our proposition deal with the children in many ways:
-apart from domestic violence, we don't use any others fault for divorce
because these fault heve been devestating, one parent trying to influence the clild about the other parent supposed wrongdoing

we think it's important not to encourage further disputes, when things are not going very smoothly.

- We introduced 1.5, which requires a partner, to have 3 month to think of it all, without to have any proof to demonstrate or any incertitude about the issue
1.5 is a very important clause in our proposition

We also added:

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence,

Then, maybe our propositin would have been better if we have added some clause to ensure children wellbeing after the divorce, but

There are no differences of the responsabilities of parents BEFORE or AFTER the DIVORCE, so we will support another resolution about parents responsabilities BEFORE and AFTER the divorce

Ausserland, about visits: what is the difference about divorced and non-divorced parents, isnt'it the same?

After seeing that things such as abortion is regulated by the UN makes the nation of Jamesamasaurus question their decision to join the UN. We are absolutely bewildered on how many nations have an imperialistic attitude when it comes to morals.

I guess our nation doesn't even need a government if the UN is just going to regulate everything. If this practice is continued further in the future then Jamesamasaurus will consider leaving the UN.

Our proposition deal with the children in many ways:

Yes, it opens them up to many abuses and wrongs that we hadn't even dreamed of. We have much to learn from you, Wise Master.

-apart from domestic violence, we don't use any others fault for divorce
because these fault heve been devestating, one parent trying to influence the clild about the other parent supposed wrongdoing

we think it's important not to encourage further disputes, when things are not going very smoothly.

I really don't understand what you're saying here, so sorry if my interpretation is mistaken. Nonetheless, I think you're talking about the relationship between the grounds for divorce and provision of access. We oppose that relationship in its entirety. The ability to make a marriage 'work' can relate to the relationship with a child; it can be utterly irrelevant. As stated before, just because Daddy gets his rocks off in the back of the Early Learning Centre doesn't mean that's why the divorce is happening. It is utterly nonsensical to determine parental access based on the grounds of the divorce: instead, the prime, and probably sole, consideration should be "what is in the interests of the child". Yet you've ignored that, completely.

- We introduced 1.5, which requires a partner, to have 3 month to think of it all, without to have any proof to demonstrate or any incertitude about the issue
1.5 is a very important clause in our proposition

Nooo, 1.5 merely means that if someone whines long enough, we have to listen. If the first request is dismissed on the grounds of being ludicrous, and the second is even sillier, the partner still has the right to be granted a divorce. It is fortunate that your proposal doesn't actually defend a right to divorce - but just states that such and such 'may' happen - because otherwise, our court systems would be even more jammed up. Also, if the parent has to wait 3 months before filing a repeat application, won't that mean those 3 months are filled with arguments and fraction, that won't be good for the children? Oh, no, sorry, that's not a financial consideration, so we shouldn't give a shit about it. Sorry, nevermind.

We also added:

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases by granting financial help for one partner, when a fair solution, in accordance to the prenuptial agreement, can be found in order both partners and children can live with a reasonable financial situation - except in cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence,

Yeah that's sweet. Except it doesn't do anything now, does it. Firstly, it's an 'URGES' clause. In other resolutions, you have gone to great pains to show that such clauses are not mandatory. And you are right. So you're not ensuring any rights, because nations - those oppressive nasty nations which are all worse than yours - can ignore it. Which they probably will, because they're all so evil without you to tell them what to think. But, even if they do take it up, you're only covering a 'financial situation'. You, of all people, should understand that financial well-being is not the only measure we should be using in such circumstances. What about the educational and moral well-being of the child? Isn't that of the slightest concern to you? No, it's not. Why do you hate children so much?

Then, maybe our propositin would have been better if we have added some clause to ensure children wellbeing after the divorce

No shit Sherlock.

There are no differences of the responsabilities of parents BEFORE or AFTER the DIVORCE, so we will support another resolution about parents responsabilities BEFORE and AFTER the divorce

Once more, you fall back to your willingness to support other resolutions. It's not good enough. Your proposal is fundamentally flawed. I do not care whether your intentions were admirable; you are creating an unworkable, unfair system, and setting yet another precedent for UN legislation that entirely overrides any cultural considerations, in doing so declaring that thos in polygamous/polyandrous relationships are inferior to those in monogamous ones, and allowing convicted paedohiles regular access to their children, because the conditions you contrived for access do not reflect in any way concern for the welfare of the child. You have been referred to as 'the UN Antichrist' by a prominent UN delegate; I do not think for one moment that you are that bad, but I do think you need to consider whether your approach to legislation - that all cultures are inferior to yours and that all heathen beliefs that you do not share, such as a right to representation in law and a belief that children are important, doubtless backward anachronisms in Love and esterel, but important to some more base societies, such as our own - is not only pissing me off, but is actually damaging your ability to write productive legislation. To look at the proposal at vote, I would say it is.

I receveid a TG from a NS player from RL Switzerland:

telling me our proposition was not sor far from his RL Nation.

IN RL Switzerland:

(-1.1-, -1.2-) if Both partners ask for divorce, they had to respect 2 month of reflexion, after their initial request

I think it's great, and our proposition would have been better that way

(1.5) if one partner ask for divorce, this partner has to proove that common life had become insupportable

this is what we absolutly wanted to avoid, as it encourage partners to emphasize even more other partner's defaults, and divorce arise very often when dispute between partners are already high

ps: as i have said before, our propositin is very close from RL Sweden and Finland, but many nation are more liberal, as Spain, california, Nederland for example

Racist? I think that's a trifle excessive. What was meant by recognising Polygamous and Polyandrous marriages as 'inferior' is that we wished to concentrate first on the issue of marriage as a general term, with the possibility of dealing with matters such as Polygamy and Polyandry later. I personally believe the two leave relationships and marriages open to exploitation as well as making divorce, conduct of financial arrangements, etc, far more problematic and thus am happy to see it left out.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
This is most discouraging. Ecopoeia, like a number of Alcaeran* nations, has a long tradition of families founded on multiple partnering. Indeed, the last two decades have borne witness to a significant increase in such arrangements. They provide stability and strengthen community and should not be regarded as a second-class arrangement.

VY

*Ecopoeia's continent

(Incidentally, it should be noted the post by Compadria to which Ecopoeia just responded I am not dignifying with a comment).

I receveid a TG from a NS player from RL Switzerland:

telling me our proposition was not sor far from his RL Nation.

In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed — they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

I receveid a TG from a NS player from RL Switzerland:
(...)
telling me our proposition was not sor far from his RL Nation.
ps: as i have said before, our propositin is very close from RL Sweden and Finland, but many nation are more liberal, as Spain, california, Nederland for example

So we're getting backward swiss laws in my dutch-oriented enlightened nation. Well congratulations. Nothing good ever came from Switzerland except clocks, and thanks to your fluffiness my divorce laws are being switzered.

Thanks. All we can hope now is a sensible approach from the pacifics so this one goes down like a dodo.

Once again, you demonstrate your failure to understand the nature of the UN.

Every nation has the full right to implement the spirit fo the law, but the UN Gnomes are blind to the spirit of the law and will only force a nation to implement the letter of the law. When there is concern about contradiction, it only concerns the letter, not the spirit of the law. When there is a legality challenge, it only concerns the letter of the proposal, the letter of the resolutions that have been passed, and the spirit of the Hackian Laws.

If this is getting too far IC for you, I should note that the text and title of a resolution is completely RP consideration, not Gameplay. Gameplay only cares about the headers of the resolution (category/strenght). I think you can actually find that in a sticky somewhere.

OOC: Forgottenlands, make up your damn mind. Either roleplay or talk about game mechanics. Of course the game mechanics don't allow for interpretation of anything. That is obviously not what I'm talking about here.

I am talking about the RP implementation of the actual wording of UN law, and considering that you continue to haggle over it in this thread demonstrates you understand fully what I'm talking about.

In RL, legislative intent and the express intent of the authors is a critical factor in the determination of what a law really means. I am trying to add that layer of nuance to the game here. If you don't recognize that this is true in RL either, you need to read more law.

"-3- DECLARES that both parents have the right to continue to regularly see their children after a divorce, except for cases where the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place"

maybe i didn't get the point but, if one parents can be a danger, then:

-if he/she is already in prison, the meeting can be behind a glass, as i have said

-if he/she his not in prison, then the metting can be arranged with the presence of a third person

We are talking about family, and the issue here is not related to domestic violence or sexual abuse

the metting can take place only once/year

Is there any particular reason why the resolution fails to take into account the feelings of the child in this matter?

As this is written, the child may be forced to see a parent they do not wish to see against their will.

Is this the intent of the authors?

So we're getting backward swiss laws in my dutch-oriented enlightened nation. Well congratulations. Nothing good ever came from Switzerland except clocks, and thanks to your fluffiness my divorce laws are being switzered.

Thanks. All we can hope now is a sensible approach from the pacifics so this one goes down like a dodo.

Don't forget chocolate and private bank accounts to facilitate corruption.

To the states that would use their voting power to force their mores on other members of the United Nations, you are violating the spirit of the United Nations Charter. Matters such as those currently up for vote are matters of internal law and culture ONLY. Matters of divorce are held dearly by the government and citizens of the Most Serene Republic of Hualien. We are offended that some nations would see fit to impose their standards of morality on our small nation. We respect human rights and we respect the right to divorce. However, the resolution as it is currently written is an affront to the people of Hualien who take the institution of marriage seriously and as such, believe that divorce should be the last resort. Our government has mandated certain steps, including counseling, that must occur before a divorce is granted. If this measure passes, we will have to consider withdrawing from the United Nations as this organization does not follow the will of its charter, but rather the emotionality of its members.

Article 2, Clause 1 of the UN Charter states, "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. " Resolutions such as this are a blatent infringement on our sovereignty. If you want to pass these laws in your own country, have at it. However, you have no right to force your standards on others.

Um....I'm back?

How come no one gets it when I'm being facetious?

Oh right, no one can see me winking, gotcha.

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Most honored members of the UN:

The Stelligan Council of Attorneys General have reviewed this proposed legislation and cannot, in good conscience, endorse it. Aside from the fact that it blatantly violates member nations' right to sovreignty, it also systematically excludes governments that do not recognize divorce or that base such decisions not on law but on religious tenets.

No two nations view divorce in the same way. Governments based on religious code may not recognize divorce in any form or may recognize only a specific set of circumstances in which divorce would be permitted. Other governments may have different degrees of marriage (in RL, this circumstances exists in a few US states - Louisiana, for example, has two: standard marriage and covenant marriage). Each type of marriage may have its own procedures and guidelines for obtaining a divorce, if applicable. If the UN passes this bill, it would render these situations null and void.

Even if the UN elects to supersede established national governments and force its own morality on all members, this bill is still weak at best. On issues of pure law, this proposal is sorely lacking vital content. It fails to define and include provisions for visitation and parental responsibility with regard to the best interest of the child. Further, should any challenges arise and parties wish to appeal decisions to the highest authority, the UN as author of this legislation would be responsible for hearing said challenges. In other words, it could open a floodgate of lawsuits and challenges to divorce cases. Does the UN really want to establish a World Divorce Court or bog down its existing Court with a quagmire of divorce cases? It seems to the Council that the UN has more pressing issues to address and should leave divorce decisions to its individual members.

The Stelligan Attorneys General strongly urge the sponsors of this proposed legislation to rethink their position and look at the potential long-term aftershocks. This bill could easily turn the UN from peacekeeper to babysitter.

We, along with Chancellor Brannagh, unanimously oppose this bill and have recommended that our fellow member nations in Academia do likewise. Should the UN pass this leglslation as-is, we will encourage Her Excellency to withdraw The Most Serene Republic of Stelliga from this membership and call for all Academians to withdraw as well.

Respectfully,
Kenneth Walsh, Esq.
Chairman - Stelligan Council of Attorneys General

Having considered the matter further, I am now formally placing Ecopoeia's vote AGAINST the resolution at hand.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

Ausserland, about visits: what is the difference about divorced and non-divorced parents, isnt'it the same?

OOC: I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Maybe it's because I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet. ;)

Could you explain, please?

Due to the arguments presented by Ausserland and Gruenberg concerning visitation issues, we have cast our vote in opposition to this resolution. In the event that the resolution fails to pass, we would support an improved draft which addressed these concerns. Should the resolution pass, we would support a repeal/replace effort. We find the subject of a right to divorce to be worthy of the UN's consideration, but feel that this resolution is flawed in regards to visitation.

OOC: I'm sorry, but I don't understand the question. Maybe it's because I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet. ;)

Could you explain, please?


for sure, thanks, for your question

it seems to me that you are opposing our proposition on the grounds that, if a divorced parents is a criminal (excluding domestic violence and sexual abuse, as these case are mentionned in our proposition) then you think some of them should be barred to see their children

My question is:
What about non-divorced parents, when a parents is a criminal for the same act as a divorced one?
can they see their children or not?

In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.

Actually I am pretty certain the Cuckoo Clock is from southern Germany (Black Forest). IIRC it was an American idea (film or novel) that popularized the idea that the clocks are Swiss.


If you really want to see what the Swiss have done, look at their flag and look around to see what other international flag looks like theirs. ;)

for sure, thanks, for your question

We thank the honorable representative of Love and esterel for his prompt response.

it seems to me that you are opposing our proposition on the grounds that, if a divorced parents is a criminal (excluding domestic violence and sexual abuse, as these case are mentionned in our proposition) then you think some of them should be barred to see their children

We don't think you understand the grounds for our opposition to the proposal. We have never said that, just because someone is a convicted criminal, he or she should be denied visitation rights. Our objection is this: Your proposal allows denial of visitation only on the narrow grounds of (1) a divorce granted on the grounds of domestic violence or sexual abuse, or (2) post-divorce violence or sexual abuse directed against the former spouse or children of the marriage. We believe strongly that this is an intolerably over-simplistic and dangerous approach to the issue. There are many factors that should be weighed in determining whether visitation is in the children's best interests. Your proposal will forbid us from considering them. The proposal will put children at risk of psychological damage, and we cannot accept that.

My question is:
What about non-divorced parents, when a parents is a criminal for the same act as a divorced one?
can they see their children or not

They may be able to. There's always the possibility of issuing a restraining order forbidding contact, though. But we consider the question irrelevant. Your proposal is about divorce, not marriage.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

They may be able to. There's always the possibility of issuing a restraining order forbidding contact, though. But we consider the question irrelevant. Your proposal is about divorce, not marriage.

Maybe we don't manage to understand each other, sorry

I will begin by this point:
I think that child visiting rights for criminals, should be the same for divorced parent divorced and non-divorced, if they have commited the same act. do you agree with that?

We don't think you understand the grounds for our opposition to the proposal. We have never said that, just because someone is a convicted criminal, he or she should be denied visitation rights. Our objection is this: Your proposal allows denial of visitation only on the narrow grounds of (1) a divorce granted on the grounds of domestic violence or sexual abuse, or (2) post-divorce violence or sexual abuse directed against the former spouse or children of the marriage. We believe strongly that this is an intolerably over-simplistic and dangerous approach to the issue. There are many factors that should be weighed in determining whether visitation is in the children's best interests. Your proposal will forbid us from considering them. The proposal will put children at risk of psychological damage, and we cannot accept that.



Therefore if you want to stop some criminal divorced parents to see their child, even 5min/year behind a glass

Then it means that you want to stop criminal non-divorced parents who commited the same act to see their child, even 5min/year behind a glass

Maybe we don't manage to understand each other, sorry

I will begin by this point:
I think that child visiting rights for criminals, should be the same for divorced parent divorced and non-divorced, if they have commited the same act. do you agree with that?

We don't think you understand the grounds for our opposition to the proposal. We have never said that, just because someone is a convicted criminal, he or she should be denied visitation rights. Our objection is this: Your proposal allows denial of visitation only on the narrow grounds of (1) a divorce granted on the grounds of domestic violence or sexual abuse, or (2) post-divorce violence or sexual abuse directed against the former spouse or children of the marriage. We believe strongly that this is an intolerably over-simplistic and dangerous approach to the issue. There are many factors that should be weighed in determining whether visitation is in the children's best interests. Your proposal will forbid us from considering them. The proposal will put children at risk of psychological damage, and we cannot accept that.



Therefore if you want to stop some criminal divorced parents to see their child, even 5min/year behind a glass

Then it means that you want to stop criminal non-divorced parents who commited the same act to see their child, even 5min/year behind a glass

We think the representative of Love and esterel is right. We don't understand each other. And there doesn't seem to be much point in haggling over whether divorced or non-divorced people should be able to see their children from behind glass in a prison. We'll simply say this:

In Ausserland we treasure our children. We work hard to make sure that, in decisions about things like visitation, all of the factors are considered that are relevant to whether the children would be put at risk of physical or psychological harm. This proposal will not allow us to do that. We're going to be forced to put children in potentially harmful situations unless we can meet the ridiculously narrow criteria set by the proposal for denying visitation. If the representative of Love and esterel can't understand that or doesn't care about it, there's no more we can say.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Justice

We think the representative of Love and esterel is right. We don't understand each other. And there doesn't seem to be much point in haggling over whether divorced or non-divorced people should be able to see their children from behind glass in a prison. We'll simply say this:

In Ausserland we treasure our children. We work hard to make sure that, in decisions about things like visitation, all of the factors are considered that are relevant to whether the children would be put at risk of physical or psychological harm. This proposal will not allow us to do that. We're going to be forced to put children in potentially harmful situations unless we can meet the ridiculously narrow criteria set by the proposal for denying visitation. If the representative of Love and esterel can't understand that or doesn't care about it, there's no more we can say.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Justice


Ausserland, first you didn't answer my question:
"I think that child visiting rights for criminals, should be the same for divorced parent and non-divorced, if they have commited the same act. do you agree with that?"

then, i will agree to discuss with you about "psychological harm"

Second, you are always trying be scary with

put at risk of physical, i mentionned glass and third person present at the meeting

The Democratic States of Andressa wish to register their intent to vote in favor of this proposal. We feel that the right of a person to leave an abusive relationship is significantly important to be protected by law. In addition, we would like to point out that securing this right would benefit children who are victims of parental abuse or whose parents are in an abusive relationship--without a fundamental right to divorce, children might be forced to remain in a situation where they are witnessing one of their parents abusing the other (and possibly being subjected to abuse themselves). By guaranteeing the right to terminate an abusive relationship, we would be protecting not only the rights of the adult parents, but also those of the children of those parents.
With regard to the concern expressed by various nations that the current proposal would not prevent criminals or pedophiles from visiting their children: wouldn't other laws at the national or international level (such as the Child Protection Act) insure that such criminals are in jail or, at the very least, subject to a restraining order which prevents them from having contact with any children? We offer our apologies if we have overlooked something, as our nation was only recently founded.
Sincerely,
Alexandra Picard
Ambassador to the NSUN
Democratic States of Andressa

Ausserland, first you didn't answer my question:
"I think that child visiting rights for criminals, should be the same for divorced parent and non-divorced, if they have commited the same act. do you agree with that?"

Since the representative of Love and esterel seems to be hung up on this point, even though the proposal covers only divorce, we will answer it. We believe that in any question of access to children, the welfare and safety of the children must be the paramount concern. Criminal or not, if a parent poses a significant danger to the physical or psychological well-being of the children, the provincial governments of Ausserland will take the necessary steps to protect the children. Period.

then, i will agree to discuss with you about "psychological harm"

Second, you are always trying be scary with

, i mentionned glass and third person present at the meeting

We frankly don't care what you mentioned. And we would appreciate it if you didn't quote us selectively out of context. We stated our view of the facts: that, except in two narrowly-defined circumstances, your proposal hamstrings us in trying to provide proper protection for the well-being of children of divorce.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Since the representative of Love and esterel seems to be hung up on this point, even though the proposal covers only divorce, we will answer it. We believe that in any question of access to children, the welfare and safety of the children must be the paramount concern. Criminal or not, if a parent poses a significant danger to the physical or psychological well-being of the children, the provincial governments of Ausserland will take the necessary steps to protect the children. Period.


Thanks, as you seem to agree that:
"child visiting rights for criminals, should be the same for divorced parent and non-divorced, if they have commited the same act"

Please, i hope you will not be upset if ask you then:

In which case (apart from proven domestic violence or sexual abuse) do you think a non-divorced criminal should be barred to see their children 5minutes/year behind a glass and with a third peron present at the meeting

Thanks, as you seem to agree that:
"child visiting rights for criminals, should be the same for divorced parent and non-divorced, if they have commited the same act"

Please, i hope you will not be upset if ask you then:

In which case (apart from proven domestic violence or sexual abuse) do you think a non-divorced criminal should be barred to see their children 5minutes/year behind a glass and with a third peron present at the meeting

We will not continue to belabor the subject of non-divorced parents and their access to children. The issue is completely irrelevant. This proposal covers divorce, period. We rather reluctantly answered the representative's last question, hoping that would cause him to stop wasting the time of this assembly with irrelevancies. We will answer this one, last question.

In any case where, in the judgment of competent child psychology professionals, it would put the child at risk of psychological trauma.

Now we would ask the representative to please stop belaboring this spurious issue and move on to something that has to do with the proposal under debate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We will not continue to belabor the subject of non-divorced parents and their access to children. The issue is completely irrelevant. This proposal covers divorce, period. We rather reluctantly answered the representative's last question, hoping that would cause him to stop wasting the time of this assembly with irrelevacies. We will answer this one, last question.

In any case where, in the judgment of competent child psychology professionals, it would put the child at risk of psychological trauma.

Now we would ask the representative to please stop belaboring this spurious issue and move on to something that has to do with the proposal under debate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


Ok it seems to us that the estimeed delegate of Ausserland don't want to go further in the examination of its critics about our proposal. We are sad because it may be an interesting point, but then we cannot find his critics relevant with so few information about his critics.

But we will be happy to continue this discussion with the ambassador of Ausserland

We will not continue to belabor the subject of non-divorced parents and their access to children. The issue is completely irrelevant. This proposal covers divorce, period. We rather reluctantly answered the representative's last question, hoping that would cause him to stop wasting the time of this assembly with irrelevacies. We will answer this one, last question.

In any case where, in the judgment of competent child psychology professionals, it would put the child at risk of psychological trauma.

Now we would ask the representative to please stop belaboring this spurious issue and move on to something that has to do with the proposal under debate.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Without wishing to intrude to much, we'd just like to ask why Mr Olembe believes that it is irrelevant given it is explicitely mentioned under articles 3 and 4? Furthermore, I ask as to whether he considers this still 'spurious' given the importance and close linkage between (as I'm sure he'll recognise) between the state of marriage and resulting divorce and the children's (should there be any) welfare?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Ok it seems to us that the estimeed delegate of Ausserland don't want to go further in the examination of its critics about our proposal. We are sad because it may be an interesting point, but then we cannot find his critics relevant with so few information about his critics.

We would be happy to discuss our objections to this proposal. We have no intention of wasting people's time talking about access of non-divorced parents to their children. It simply has nothing to do with the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This proposal is yet another attempt at UN micromanagement and interference in matters outside its purview. The UN was established to deal with matters of international importance, not meddle in family law. The people of Cluichstan have cast their vote AGAINST this proposal and are extremely dismayed that it even made it to the floor of this austere body.

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

We would be happy to discuss our objections to this proposal. We have no intention of wasting people's time talking about access of non-divorced parents to their children. It simply has nothing to do with the proposal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs


Do you think then that:
"child visiting rights for criminals, should NOT be the same for divorced parent and non-divorced, if they have commited the same act"?

sorry but it's an essantial question

You mention since the beginning "psychological harm", but, please let me know if i'm wrong, you didn't give any example about when "psychological harm" can happen, and why these "psychological harm" will be more frequent when the parent in question is divorced than when non-divorced

I will be happy to listen to you, as i think you touched an intersting point, and i think it can be good for you, me and everybody that we try together to go further, and also in cases where this proposition doesn't pass or if a repeal/replacement is going on.

Without wishing to intrude to much, we'd just like to ask why Mr Olembe believes that it is irrelevant given it is explicitely mentioned under articles 3 and 4? Furthermore, I ask as to whether he considers this still 'spurious' given the importance and close linkage between (as I'm sure he'll recognise) between the state of marriage and resulting divorce and the children's (should there be any) welfare?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The question of access to children by divorced parents is absolutely relevant to the proposal, as the honorable representative of Compadria suggests. What we consider irrelevant is the issue of access by non-divorced parents. That is not in any way affected by the proposal and we simply do not see why it is pertinent to this discussion.

And we appreciate, as always, the blessings of your otters. :)

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The question of access to children by divorced parents is absolutely relevant to the proposal, as the honorable representative of Compadria suggests. What we consider irrelevant is the issue of access by non-divorced parents. That is not in any way affected by the proposal and we simply do not see why it is pertinent to this discussion.

Here is the relevance:
if they are the same, then you will easily tell me in which case visit to non-divorced parent will be a "psychological harm"
if they are not the same, then to understand your point of view, i'm sorry that we will need to understand the difference
Thanks

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is planning, as many other nations that took part in this forum, to vote against the resolution on divorce.

While the authors claim this resolution to be an improvement in civil rights, the people of Oesling see it as a great threat to their civil rights. Our government takes pride in its very liberal laws, and for that reason there has never even been an attempt in our country to restrict the right to divorce. By imposing such terms as defined in the resolution (for instance the three months clause) we believe that the government would be interfering too much with the liberties of its citizens.

The people of the Grand Duchy of Oesling are aware tht other nations may have other customs and other attitudes to divorce. Yet, exactly for this reason Oesling believes that each an issue such as divorce should not be tackled by the NSUN but by the nations themselves.

Oesling would support a resolution on divorce only if it was kept very general, without imposing strict rules on procedure.

L
Secretary to the Grand Duke of Oesling

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is planning, as many other nations that took part in this forum, to vote against the resolution on divorce.

While the authors claim this resolution to be an improvement in civil rights, the people of Oesling see it as a great threat to their civil rights. Our government takes pride in its very liberal laws, and for that reason there has never even been an attempt in our country to restrict the right to divorce. By imposing such terms as defined in the resolution (for instance the three months clause) we believe that the government would be interfering too much with the liberties of its citizens.

The people of the Grand Duchy of Oesling are aware tht other nations may have other customs and other attitudes to divorce. Yet, exactly for this reason Oesling believes that each an issue such as divorce should not be tackled by the NSUN but by the nations themselves.

Oesling would support a resolution on divorce only if it was kept very general, without imposing strict rules on procedure.

L
Secretary to the Grand Duke of Oesling

Our clause 1.6:

-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

allow your nation that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce when one partner request it

Our clause 1.6:

-1.6- Any additional scenarios that have been chosen by a more local government as grounds for divorce

allow your nation that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce when one partner request it

still, why was this timeline of three months chosen? Why not simply say that divorce may be ended at any time when any partner requests it?

still, why was this timeline of three months chosen? Why not simply say that divorce may be ended at any time when any partner requests it?

they are not mandatory, it's to limit arranged marriage for immigration reasons, and also to let nations prevent, if they want, 1day las vegas style marriage-divorce to happpen in their nation