NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submittedthe following resolution to repeal the recently passed "Right to Divorce" legislation.

Repeal "Right to Divorce"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #135
Proposed by: Tiber City

Description: UN Resolution #135: Right to Divorce (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: a. Believing that the United Nations should limit its activities to matters of international law and human rights

b. Believing that the UN has in the past stepped beyond its intended purpose and seriously meddled in the affairs of its member states

c. Believing that this international micromanaging must come to an end

d. Further believing that a “Right to Divorce” is an extremely western-centered idea of a ‘right’ and should not be considered a universal human right

e. Lamenting the decreasing autonomy of individual member nations and the increasing homogenization of their laws

f. Further lamenting legislation such as “Right to Divorce” that makes no account for diverse customs, beliefs and legal systems

g. Cautioning that in nations that have not moved toward gender equality, a “Right to Divorce” might prove to be a threat to women’s safety, stability and welfare

h. Reminding the UN that marriage is seen in many, many nations as the bedrock of society, and

i. Further reminding the UN that divorce rates are also extremely high in many nations threatening this social institution.

Therefore: Let the resolution “Right to Divorce” passed Dec. 11th 2005 be repealed and declared null and void in all member states

I would welcome feeback and support for this resolution. I am growing increasingly troubled at the amount of international micromanaging the UN is implementing. While this resolution is a fine and decent piece of national legislation, it does seem a stretch to impose it on all nations.

Argument: a. Believing that the United Nations should limit its activities to matters of international law and human rights


The right not to be a slave is a pretty big human right.


b. Believing that the UN has in the past stepped beyond its intended purpose and seriously meddled in the affairs of its member states


And I should care why?


c. Believing that this international micromanaging must come to an end


Why?


d. Further believing that a “Right to Divorce” is an extremely western-centered idea of a ‘right’ and should not be considered a universal human right


The right not to be a slave is pretty internationally recognised as a right.


e. Lamenting the decreasing autonomy of individual member nations and the increasing homogenization of their laws


What - are you new?


f. Further lamenting legislation such as “Right to Divorce” that makes no account for diverse customs, beliefs and legal systems


And?


g. Cautioning that in nations that have not moved toward gender equality, a “Right to Divorce” might prove to be a threat to women’s safety, stability and welfare


Prove it with suitable examples.


h. Reminding the UN that marriage is seen in many, many nations as the bedrock of society, and


And reminding you that when one partner in marriage routinely beats the living shit out of the other partner, the idea that it is a bedrock of society says a lot for what a crappy society that is.


i. Further reminding the UN that divorce rates are also extremely high in many nations threatening this social institution.


Marriage is an outdated, archaic anacronysm that should have gone the way of the dodo and the dial-up modem. It is not the bedrock of society, nor does it require special defence under the law of the land. If people wanna stay married, they will - this is not FORCING divorce on people, it is just giving them a choice they would not otherwise have.


Therefore: Let the resolution “Right to Divorce” passed Dec. 11th 2005 be repealed and declared null and void in all member states


Lets not.


I would welcome feeback and support for this resolution. I am growing increasingly troubled at the amount of international micromanaging the UN is implementing. While this resolution is a fine and decent piece of national legislation, it does seem a stretch to impose it on all nations.

Then quit the UN and it won't be an issue.

Doesn't mention the fallacy of determining visitation based on the grounds for divorce.
Doesn't mention the fact that convicted paedophiles maintain visitation rights to children.
Doesn't mention the fact polygamy/polyandry was ignored.
Doesn't mention the fact that 'officially separated' was defined.

So, no, I wouldn't support this. In my opinion, this resolution got a pasting in the forum vote. I know I'm biased, because I was trying to dish it out. Nonetheless, this does not reflect any of the concerns raised there; instead, it's one long whinge about micromanagement. This resolution isn't even as bad as others in this respect. I would not support this repeal.

Sheesh! I haven't even gotten my notice from the Compliance Ministry and already someone's trying to repeal it! ;)

d. Further believing that a “Right to Divorce” is an extremely western-centered idea of a ‘right’ and should not be considered a universal human right

Real life reference.

Personally, I have no problem with "Right to Divorce". It seems like you have some good arguments, but how could RtD hurt women in a non-equal state?

I have submittedthe following resolution to repeal the recently passed "Right to Divorce" legislation.

You shouldn't have. There is a huge group of people wanting to repeal it, so you should have debated the issue with them, or at the very least read the debate in this forum. I don't intend to sound patronising, but it would have increased your chances oh so much. I will NEVER support a repeal based on the arguments you presented, especially on divorce rates.

Doesn't mention the fallacy of determining visitation based on the grounds for divorce.
Doesn't mention the fact that convicted paedophiles maintain visitation rights to children.
Doesn't mention the fact polygamy/polyandry was ignored.
Doesn't mention the fact that 'officially separated' was defined.

So, no, I wouldn't support this. In my opinion, this resolution got a pasting in the forum vote. I know I'm biased, because I was trying to dish it out. Nonetheless, this does not reflect any of the concerns raised there; instead, it's one long whinge about micromanagement. This resolution isn't even as bad as others in this respect. I would not support this repeal.

First 3 I accept. The last one I addressed as a non-issue - I don't remember if you responded or not, though I don't think that thread of discussion continued.

We certainly hope that "Right to Divorce" will be repealed. However, we cannot support a repeal on the stated grounds.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Three repeals have already been submitted.

It's probably clear that I'm drafting one, and that we will be working on getting it done soon. Nonetheless, I don't want to appear to be 'monopolising' the repeal effort, or saying, "Hands off, it's mine". Nonetheless, I would urge those who want to repeal to coordinate their efforts a little. When repeals were first introduced, the resulting cascade of repeals of "Fight the Axis of Evil" caused no one to get very far for some time. Submitting twenty repeals is irrelevant, as we only need one good one pass. I don't care who finally repeals it, so long as the UN finally repeals it; to do so, I think we need to work together.

Rousing chants fill the air as Nuck Chorris bellows "Who's with me?" and is borne towards the Bastille on a sea of blood-spattered arms...

The most troubling aspect is the lack of interest in debating the issue from the majority...the majority of nations that chose to approve the resolution. Some nations argued most admirably for their cause...while many failed to support their choice.

While that is obviously their right, my concern is that many member nations are blindly accepting the resolutions...[ooc: if you look at how many views there were...and then at how many votes their were...that's troubling]and I challenge them to vocally support their views by at least seeing what the opposition is saying.

Weinerdogstan, and many of my delegates, vehemently oppose the passed resolution, and will most likely fully support its repeal.

We look forward to voting on the resolution.


Fidel Gutierrez, UN Delegate, Empire of Corporate Oppression

[ooc: if you look at how many views there were...and then at how many votes their were...that's troubling]
That has always been the case - only a very small minority of nations frequent the UN forum. But that doesn't mean things aren't being debated - many regions run off-site forums, as do many UN-based groups (NSO, UNOG, UNO etc.), where much debate occurs which is never mentioned on the Jolt forum.

Three repeals have already been submitted.

It's probably clear that I'm drafting one, and that we will be working on getting it done soon. Nonetheless, I don't want to appear to be 'monopolising' the repeal effort, or saying, "Hands off, it's mine". Nonetheless, I would urge those who want to repeal to coordinate their efforts a little. When repeals were first introduced, the resulting cascade of repeals of "Fight the Axis of Evil" caused no one to get very far for some time. Submitting twenty repeals is irrelevant, as we only need one good one pass. I don't care who finally repeals it, so long as the UN finally repeals it; to do so, I think we need to work together.

Rousing chants fill the air as Nuck Chorris bellows "Who's with me?" and is borne towards the Bastille on a sea of blood-spattered arms...

I look forward to seeing your draft, Gruenberg.

Pallatium, a bit of respect for a fellow head-of-state would be appropriate here. Whether you like his opinions or not, he at least deserves to be spoken to better than a dog.

We support the repeal of "Right to Divorce," no matter the grounds.

That has always been the case - only a very small minority of nations frequent the UN forum. But that doesn't mean things aren't being debated - many regions run off-site forums, as do many UN-based groups (NSO, UNOG, UNO etc.), where much debate occurs which is never mentioned on the Jolt forum.


I concede the point. I am surprised at myself for overlooking that point...since I just set up on offsite forum for exactly that purpose. My face is red.


Fidel

Bazalonian Ambassador,

Bazalonia is very interested in supporting and being involved in the repeal of this resolution. To the extent that we have drafted our own version of a repeal resolution. Attached to this message is our current draft. We are publishing our draft both as a potential proposal as well as to provide another differing perspective on this issue.

Yours Sincerly, John McKay, Bazalonian Ambassador to the UN



Description: UN Resolution #135: Right to Divorce (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:

1. RECOGNISING the Important role marriage and other civil unions play in society.

2. RECOGNISING the significance of marriage in many religions and religious implications of marriage in many nations

3. UNDERSTANDING the various consequences to the adults and any children involved both during and after divorce proceedings

4. BELIEVING that the "right's" listed go beyond rights and into cultural aspects of divorce.

5. KNOWING that there are many potential issues that may lead to a partner or partners to want a divorce

6. KNOWING there are many avenues available, particulary counselling, that allows resolution of various issues within the marriage

7. KNOWING that even when the conditions for a persons right to divorce are met that a divorce is still not guarenteed.

8. SEEING that visitation rights are solely determined on the grounds for divorce not leaving room for situations where a child may be at risk, due to various situations that need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

9. SEEING that marriages where there are more than 2 adult partners within the marriage are not accounted for within this resolution.

10. SUPPORTING nations rights to determine their own laws in relation to divorce acciording to their culture, in addition to human rights.

With these points in mind therefore let resolution #125, "Right to Divorce" be struct out and be rendered null and void.rendered null and void.

OOC:
BELIEVING that Divorce is only a right if a partner is physically, emotionally or sexually abusing their spouse or a child under their care.
Bazalonia, there's no way in hell I'm ever going to support any proposal or repeal that seeks to get rid of no-fault divorce - even if this is only implied. If people do not love one another, they should not have to suffer living with one another, or worse, create a false reason for divorce.

Bazalonia, there's no way in hell I'm ever going to support any proposal or repeal that seeks to get rid of no-fault divorce - even if this is only implied. If people do not love one another, they should not have to suffer living with one another, or worse, create a false reason for divorce.


Bazalonia, itself has no-fault divorce. The reason that it was decided that we would restrict the right of Divorce to phyiscal, emotional or sexual abuse is that Bazalonia takes right's seriously, very seriously indeed. And we believe that the situations are the most basic rights for divorce. Many nations, including Bazalonia, believe in the principle of No-fault divorce but while Bazalonia beleives that no-fault divorce is good, we, however, do not believe it to be a right and so is not up to the UN to mandate no-fault divorce on all member nations. Infact after an internal re-evaluation of the draft, we will add 'sexual encounters involving a married person and another person that is not married to them.' to the section that you refer to.

The repeal encourages nations to determine there own laws in regards to many divorce while respecting peoples rights so that they don't live in fear of their spouse's abuseve ways, if their spouse is indeed abusive.

Thank you for your interest


Bazalonian Ambassador to the UN, John McKay.

You haven't used:

Doesn't guarantee a divorce actually be granted.
Visitation rights shouldn't be determined by grounds for divorce.
The way the above is set up means that paedophiles and murderers are given regular visitation rights. (Now, who was it that mentioned 'inalienable'...)
No accommodation made for polyandry/polygamy.

Why you should use them:
They are factual, textual observations, not airy suppositions.
The supporters admitted these.
In this thread.
They may sway people who support an international right to divorce, but not this one; I doubt yours will.

They may sway people who support an international right to divorce, but not this one; I doubt yours will.

We agree with Gruenberg.

The "Right to Divorce" is simply that... a right to end a contract. The How and Why and When and Where and those questions are best left to member states.

While it is interesting to debate the "Rights to See Children After Divorce" that subject really belongs in its own resolution, if the UN desires, or left to the member nations.

The other Hows and Whys all specified by Resolution 135 really interfere with member rights.

Cramistan supports a "Right to Divorce" a proposal that says "No Nation shall enact laws prohibiting the Right to Divorce" and we are drafting proposal to that effect.

We have also sponsored a repeal of resolution 135. http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=458800

Thanks

I just had a look through the proposal list and there are 5 repeals against the Right to Divorce resolution in there already, and within 12 hours of it passing. Wonder if that is a new record.

I voted for the resolution, but am now, especially with one of the authors admitting there are problems, wondering if I made a mistake.

If a repeal hits the floor that at least one of the authors is kinda happy with, I'll support it (and chat to some delegates) without arguement.

You haven't used:

Doesn't guarantee a divorce actually be granted.
Visitation rights shouldn't be determined by grounds for divorce.
The way the above is set up means that paedophiles and murderers are given regular visitation rights. (Now, who was it that mentioned 'inalienable'...)
No accommodation made for polyandry/polygamy.

Why you should use them:
They are factual, textual observations, not airy suppositions.
The supporters admitted these.
In this thread.
They may sway people who support an international right to divorce, but not this one; I doubt yours will.

We appreciate Gruenberg's input into our proposal and have added the suggested points to a draft proposal. We have also removed the list of what Bazalonia beleives to be rights and have replaced it with a statement that would be more palatible...

Thank you for your comments on our draft.

Bazalonian Ambassador to the UN, John McKay

I don't think anyone here is trying to imply that people who don't want to be together should be forced to remain together.

I think the entire problem ( as far as I'm seeing ) with this resolution that people seem to have is not what it does, but rather, that the United Nations shouldn't have the authority to make resolutions of this nature and that this should fall under the jurisdiction of individual nations.

However, the United Nations did make and pass this resolution -- so evidently not only enough people believe that it IS within the UNs right to make this resoltuion, enough people believe that it is within its right to do so and support it -- thus the resolution won. For better or for worse, the votes speak for themselves.

After the fact saying 'oh, we made a mistake, the UN shouldn't be allowed to pass resolutions like this' well, if the repeal were to go to vote, its likely that the same people who supported the resolution in the first place would be against the repeal.

We are the UN. We decide amongst ourselves what we do and do not have the right to pass as resolutions. I think the passing of the issue through the UN speaks for itself that a majority vote of UN members believe that we do have the right to make this decision on the behalf of UN nations. I have to agree with what was said before : if your nation doesn't want to be affected by resolutions made by the UN body it is your nations right to leave the UN body so to preserve whatever culture and traditions are being offended by it.

LAE will of course support a repeal/replacemnt process, if we read a better proposition than our resolution, before the repeal to be submitted.

But, even if our resolution is far from perfect, i have yet to see any improvment idea in this forum (apart from the 2 month refexion, from the RL switzerland in 1.1 and 1.2, suggested to me by someone in by TG)

We don't think that it's the role of the UN to convert all nations into the majority's vision of the ideal society. While we do agree with the right to divorce, we believe that the individual member nations should be able to handle such social issue according to their own judgement and culture.

the main problem the Empire had with this proposal was that it trampled all over a nations sovereign rights and laws. Kirisubo has had divorce laws in place for centuries and its always been a court that decides on visitation rights, alimony payments and the like.

we have a chance to do better.

Surely theres some middle ground which grants a right to divorce but lets the implementation of it rest with a nations courts and their laws. This way a divorce settlement can be dealt with at a national level; the way it should be handled and the concerns that many nations raised during the drafting phase and debate can be adressed according to local laws.

Midori Kasigi-Nero, deputy UN ambassador

<sigh>

I appreciate the general sentiment of the Forums is that this was a bad resolution (for a variety of reasons) but however dumb we think the UN silent majority is, they are not dumb enough to pass a repeal straight away.

Give it a few months ladies and gents, let the dust settle.

i doubt anyway we'll get a chance to deal with this before the new year with two proposals reaching quorum and needing debated.

Midori Kasigi-Nero, deputy UN ambassador

<sigh>

I appreciate the general sentiment of the Forums is that this was a bad resolution (for a variety of reasons) but however dumb we think the UN silent majority is, they are not dumb enough to pass a repeal straight away.

Give it a few months ladies and gents, let the dust settle.

Actually I think they are exactly that dumb.

the main problem the Empire had with this proposal was that it trampled all over a nations sovereign rights and laws. Kirisubo has had divorce laws in place for centuries and its always been a court that decides on visitation rights, alimony payments and the like.

we have a chance to do better.

Surely theres some middle ground which grants a right to divorce but lets the implementation of it rest with a nations courts and their laws. This way a divorce settlement can be dealt with at a national level; the way it should be handled and the concerns that many nations raised during the drafting phase and debate can be adressed according to local laws.

Midori Kasigi-Nero, deputy UN ambassador

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero asked for speech at the general to answer to his wife. He get up and started to talk:

"Darling, this resolution......."

But he was shaken, 2 stronlgy-opposite orders were arriving in his brain, he didn't want to argue with his beloved wife.

He sat down.

Midori realised what was going on and went over to her husband.

she whispers in his ear "if you don't want to argue with me in public then tell me later on. How about lunch in the strangers bar and then we can talk properly?"

The government of Hualien has been overthrown in a military coup. Following the passage of the right to divorce resolution, the executive announced that Hualien would remain a member of the United Nations despite the massive unpopularity of the measure. However, military leaders with the collusion of leading members of the Parliament, have decided to overthrow the government. The former executive is currently in prison. The military has handed control of the executive to the leader of the Chamber of the Faiths, the upper chamber of the Parliament. "Unfortunately, there are states, including states in our own region, who have no respect whatsover for the sovereignty of nations. They have used the United Nations for their own cultural imperialism. THe people of Hualien should never allow that to happen. Once Parliament convenes tomorrow, we shall immediately submit a motion to formally withdraw from the United Nations. We will also submit legislation to give more power to the Parliament instead of vesting nearly absolute power in the executive, even though he is an elected one." On other regional news, Northstralia, though consisting a government radically different from that of the Most Serene Republic, has withdrawn from the United Nations.

<sigh>

I appreciate the general sentiment of the Forums is that this was a bad resolution (for a variety of reasons) but however dumb we think the UN silent majority is, they are not dumb enough to pass a repeal straight away.

Give it a few months ladies and gents, let the dust settle.
Remember the Global Library repeal? That was pretty quick, wasn't it?

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

The-Republic']Remember the Global Library repeal? That was pretty quick, wasn't it?

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN
Better example, Promotion of Solar Panels.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What scares me is simply what we expect from the NSUN. Are they so over-bearing that they would dare step into another nation and force contractual obligations on the nations and their subjects? The Right to Divorce has nothing to do with civil liberties. I'm sorry, but no matter how cold it may make me seem, this is merely a letter of the law example. The right to marry and the right to divorce or not truly rights, but legal obligations in today's society. The right to religion? Now, there's one few could argue with, but what about those religions that do not believe in/endorse divorce? So, a law from an outside entity overpowers those rights in favor of a select majority conceding that it be necessary for all to live under their rule. I cannot even begin to fathom with all that is going on that such an important body would concern itself with relatively nominal factors. Will the UN next tell my country how to taxate its people or how companies must enter in negotiations? They have absolutely no right stepping into such boundaries. This is not a matter for the international community to decide, but for a more centralized government with an ear for the wants and needs of its people to determine.

Whether it be for a legitimate legal point or for sheer stupidity or simply because someone's signature being smudged--I don't care. Let this resolution be repealed for the gross abuse of power that it is.

Better example, Promotion of Solar Panels.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Promotion of Solar Panels, I feel, was a special case. You had Telidia making one of the larger campaigns ever TGing hundreds of delegates pointing out the errors and getting many regions to go into last minute scrambles of debates, with Starcra II admitting the flaws while a repeal and replacement already under draft and a reverse trend on the voting for the proposal..... It was the most disorganized complete counter-campain to any resolution ever passed.

The right to religion? Now, there's one few could argue with, but what about those religions that do not believe in/endorse divorce?

Firstly - I am guessing you haven't read some of the past resolutions. The ones that endorse gay marriage would probably be far more of a sticking point to most religions than ones that endorse divorce and so forth. And the ones that require people to teach evolution and sex education might raise a few religious eyebrows too. This is the next in a long, long list of resolutions that jump up and down on the concept of religious tolerance until it is dead (and I, for one, say YAY for them)

The Right to Divorce has nothing to do with civil liberties

Secondly - go so that to someone who got married at 18, and who's husband then lost his job, and she now finds she is living with an abusive drunk who beats her and whips her every night, and then goes out and screws all the doxies in the neighbourhood while he forces her to watch. Tell her that because of your high-minded moral attitude that "divorce is not a civil liberty" nor is "divorce a human right" that she has to stay married to him for the rest of her life. Tell her as she cries in the corner, mouth bleeding, arm broken that you think she does not have the right to be free from this.



Will the UN next tell my country how to taxate its people


Funny you should mention that :- http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129


I cannot even begin to fathom with all that is going on that such an important body would concern itself with relatively nominal factors


So what should the body be concerning itself with? Give me a few examples?


So, a law from an outside entity overpowers those rights in favor of a select majority conceding that it be necessary for all to live under their rule


You can always quit, then you are on under the rule of an outside entity.


Whether it be for a legitimate legal point or for sheer stupidity or simply because someone's signature being smudged--I don't care. Let this resolution be repealed for the gross abuse of power that it is.


And - just out of curiousity - what happens to all the people who have gained a divorce while it is effect? Are they are going to be forced to marry their ex-partners again? Leading to more misery and suffering?


Extra thought - for one person to keep another person in (what you would call) a contract against their will, forcing the person to give up all control of their future, their body and their actions, with no hope of getting out of it, would be considered by most nations to be tantamount to slavery.
Are you happy arguing in favour of slavery? Or do you wish to rethink your objections?

Extra thought - for one person to keep another person in (what you would call) a contract against their will, forcing the person to give up all control of their future, their body and their actions, with no hope of getting out of it, would be considered by most nations to be tantamount to slavery.
Are you happy arguing in favour of slavery? Or do you wish to rethink your objections?

Pity the UN doesn't think so (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5).

Pity the UN doesn't think so (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5).

That's why I used the word tantamount.

Your next sentence was "Are you happy arguing in favour of slavery?"

Your next sentence was "Are you happy arguing in favour of slavery?"

I admit hyperbole is one of my favourite things (along with white copper kettles).

But -- to some degree - forcing someone to stay married against their will is a form of slavery. Just cause the UN didn't include it in it's resolution doesn't make it any less true.

I admit hyperbole is one of my favourite things (along with white copper kettles).

But -- to some degree - forcing someone to stay married against their will is a form of slavery. Just cause the UN didn't include it in it's resolution doesn't make it any less true.

Right. But what you think is pretty much irrelevant (especially now you've resigned from the UN). The UN has defined slavery; using the term to describe a different situation is misleading. I agree that you're right 'to some degree': that degree being 'not at all'.

Right. But what you think is pretty much irrelevant (especially now you've resigned from the UN)

And suddenly the reasons for my resignation become all the more clearer.....

And suddenly the reasons for my resignation become all the more clearer.....

And suddenly the reasons why you are still here annoying the heck out of people continue to remain unclear.

And suddenly the reasons for my resignation become all the more clearer.....

Yes, I understand now: if context is that hard to grasp, this was never really going to be your thing. Bye!

Firstly - I am guessing you haven't read some of the past resolutions. The ones that endorse gay marriage would probably be far more of a sticking point to most religions than ones that endorse divorce and so forth. And the ones that require people to teach evolution and sex education might raise a few religious eyebrows too. This is the next in a long, long list of resolutions that jump up and down on the concept of religious tolerance until it is dead (and I, for one, say YAY for them)

Actually, I have read them, and I am against those as well. So, before you go assuming, maybe you should ask first. This topic is the one with any action at this point in time; therefore, it receives my input as I have a lot of catching up to do on the blatant misrepresentations and ignorance of this organization.



Secondly - go so that to someone who got married at 18, and who's husband then lost his job, and she now finds she is living with an abusive drunk who beats her and whips her every night, and then goes out and screws all the doxies in the neighbourhood while he forces her to watch. Tell her that because of your high-minded moral attitude that "divorce is not a civil liberty" nor is "divorce a human right" that she has to stay married to him for the rest of her life. Tell her as she cries in the corner, mouth bleeding, arm broken that you think she does not have the right to be free from this.

It's still not a right. It's a choice, and there are consequences for our decisions. Sadly, this can go to such extremes. If this is what you're concerned about, institute a proposal that will take on the issue of abuse specifically. Maybe there is one, and I haven't found it yet. Or, maybe as usual, the UN would prefer its overly pretetentious laws.


Funny you should mention that :- http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9875424&postcount=129

And, this is something your people are proud of--something so completely outside the range of the UN's purview or responsibility? You've got to be kidding me. That's for another time. Nonetheless, it's kind of like someone complaining that you broke their finger, so you tell them it's not so bad, and use the example of cutting off their arm to prove your point.



So what should the body be concerning itself with? Give me a few examples?


Hunger, poverty, how nations deal with one another. The laws you are enacting totally take away the autonimity and soveriegnority of the UN's member nations. You're not trying to act as the United Nations by passing such resolutions, you are trying to become one grand United Nation.


You can always quit, then you are on under the rule of an outside entity.


That's a great idea! I don't know why I didn't think of it myself. Or, wait! Is it I now see why so many nations have left. That's not being very diplomatic, now is it. The UN is something nations should strive to be a part of not consistently be forced out of. There's no negotiation, it's either for or against--and, no matter a fair number, not quite majority, but close enough to cause an issue who is one way or another. What if all those nations who were displeased with the UN's rulings thus fair did leave? There would be but a comparitive handful left. I think we stay in hopes that one day, the leaders if the intiative will come to their senses.


And - just out of curiousity - what happens to all the people who have gained a divorce while it is effect? Are they are going to be forced to marry their ex-partners again? Leading to more misery and suffering?


Well, for those nations that began endorsing this policy as soon as it came into effect, how many would that be. If they did not support divorce before, there was most assuredly a loophole or two within the proposal. Frankly, if they wanted to get away from this proposal, they could have simply renamed the act of marriage to some other thing, which would then not fall under its guidelines; grandfathering laws, which would mean only those who got married after the declaration was made would be effected, and how many is that. I do not believe anyone on this matter will force marriage upon those already divorced, but that is something that could easily be added to the draft.


Extra thought - for one person to keep another person in (what you would call) a contract against their will, forcing the person to give up all control of their future, their body and their actions, with no hope of getting out of it, would be considered by most nations to be tantamount to slavery.
Are you happy arguing in favour of slavery? Or do you wish to rethink your objections?

Are you putting words in my mouth? Or, would you care to rethink your objections? If the act of salvery is being committed, let it be handled as such. My objections, if you would have paid attention, had nothing to do with whether divorce was a viable option for married couples in extreme situations, but more to the point that the United Nations should not be forcing their will over such matters.

Why does right to divorce not trample right to religion? Because GOVERNMENTS were never given a right to religion. The citizens were - and were also given the right not to believe or follow a religion. Thus if your argument is that it defies your government's right to religion, you're wrong. If your argument is it defies your citizen's right to religion - if your citizens don't believe that one should have a divorce, they won't ask for one. But if they don't believe that, then they have the right to believe that it is permissible to have a divorce and they now have the Internationally guaranteed right to have a divorce. So they're having their right to not follow any religion protected by this resolution, while those that disagree with them are not having their right to believe in not having a divorce trampled on - they are not being forced to have a divorce.

So let's end this BS argument.

The legal system in Unending Virtue is not able to implement "right to divorce", even though our nation is now bound to accept all terms imposed by the resolution, the resolution does not tell us in any way to create mechanisms or government organs to carry out the function of declaring the divorce and ensuring the settlement of the divorce come to terms with the resolution. In other words, this resolution is an empty declaration of "rights" and, as such, the citizens of Unending Virtue will not find out about it and cause trouble for the government. Thats all we have to say on this topic.

The legal system in Unending Virtue is not able to implement "right to divorce", even though our nation is now bound to accept all terms imposed by the resolution, the resolution does not tell us in any way to create mechanisms or government organs to carry out the function of declaring the divorce and ensuring the settlement of the divorce come to terms with the resolution. In other words, this resolution is an empty declaration of "rights" and, as such, the citizens of Unending Virtue will not find out about it and cause trouble for the government. Thats all we have to say on this topic.

It was our intention to allow each nation to implement the resolution within the framework of your existing infrastructure, however best your nation is capable of doing such implemenation. The UN is not interested in dictating every little piece of your government's structure and determining which pillar to put where on your lawn. While half the UN cries that the UN is not respecting their sovereignty, they fail, time and time again to exercise their sovereignty over the areas that UN has not and in many cases refuses to legislate over.

It was our intention to allow each nation to implement the resolution within the framework of your existing infrastructure, however best your nation is capable of doing such implemenation. The UN is not interested in dictating every little piece of your government's structure and determining which pillar to put where on your lawn. [emphasis mine]

Forgive me for being facetious, but I'm going to get that framed!

While half the UN cries that the UN is not respecting their sovereignty, they fail, time and time again to exercise their sovereignty over the areas that UN has not and in many cases refuses to legislate over.

But on a serious note, would you care to elaborate on this statement?

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

Forgive me for being facetious, but I'm going to get that framed!

I knew someone was going to misinterpret that and I know someone's going to bring that back to haunt me - but let me be clear now - IntFed does not mean that I want to be the ruler of your countries, but that I believe that the UN has the full authority to impose its will upon nations. I believe you have given the UN the right by being a member to decide what it thinks is important enough to be preserved at an International level. That does not mean we're going to say "You must have Court A, B, C and they do this, this and this respectively and we'll throw this and this under that court yadda yadda yadda", but that does mean we're going to say "You can't do this, you must do this, you can do this, we want you to do this, yadda yadda yadda." In 3000 characters without whitespace, I couldn't hope over a thousand resolutions to have the power to control your nations to begin with. The UN wasn't structured to have that sort of power.

So go ahead and frame it, but don't read too much into it.

But on a serious note, would you care to elaborate on this statement?

Steve Perry, GCRC,
President.

There are so many resolutions where I've seen comments like the one presented by Unending Virtue where they feel that since the UN is trampling on their "National Soverignty", the UN must tell them every little detail. I think the hilarious one for this resolution was alimony, though certainly grounds for divorce likewise came up. The number of times I had to shoot down either argument was frustrating because we had specifically worded the resolution to give them the power they were complaining we didn't give them or saying we weren't specific enough. Certainly, the amazing work of Gruen and Ausserland brought forth excellent valid points, and TEK as always brought forth her perspective which I have never cared for, but a massive number of members felt that I had not been specific enough in what I said while simultaneously complaining that I had tried to do anything at all. It's the alternate fluffyville.

Forgive me for being facetious, but I'm going to get that framed!

So go ahead and frame it, but don't read too much into it.

See facetious, above. Doesn't anyone on this forum have a sense of humour?

While half the UN cries that the UN is not respecting their sovereignty, they fail, time and time again to exercise their sovereignty over the areas that UN has not and in many cases refuses to legislate over.

I sympathize with your frustration on this matter but, with due respect, I would like clarification on this statement. In what instances are nations who posit these complaints not exercising their sovereignty?

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

I sympathize with your frustration on this matter but, with due respect, I would like clarification on this statement. In what instances are nations who posit these complaints not exercising their sovereignty?

Steve Perry, GCRC
President

I don't know about you, but if someone is asking the UN to tell them what to do, I'd say they aren't exercising their sovereignty, they aren't trying to make their own choice - even if that choice be not to act. Certainly, they can choose to allow the UN to make the choice for them, but if they're doing it while complaining that the UN is dictating to them.......

I don't know about you, but if someone is asking the UN to tell them what to do, I'd say they aren't exercising their sovereignty, they aren't trying to make their own choice - even if that choice be not to act. Certainly, they can choose to allow the UN to make the choice for them, but if they're doing it while complaining that the UN is dictating to them.......

I do agree with you that arguing a proposal both infringes sovereignty and doesn't do so strongly enough makes little sense. However, there are times these objections reflect either a concern that the proposal would in some way inhibit the ability to full legislate on those sovereign rights, or the possibility the legislator merely hadn't considered the full ramifications of what they were suggestions (and I'm not now suggesting either apply in the case of "Right to Divorce"). So yes...and no.

There are so many resolutions where I've seen comments like the one presented by Unending Virtue where they feel that since the UN is trampling on their "National Soverignty", the UN must tell them every little detail. I think the hilarious one for this resolution was alimony, though certainly grounds for divorce likewise came up.

I was not complaining about National Sovereignty, as i clearly stated that I accept and acknowledge the rights this resolution gives. I am simply saying, I do not like it, and due to this loop hole you created, it is completely legal for me to lay it out on my lawn whatever way I want to, and I decided not to lay it at all, thereby exercising my sovereignty.

Why does right to divorce not trample right to religion? Because GOVERNMENTS were never given a right to religion. The citizens were - and were also given the right not to believe or follow a religion. Thus if your argument is that it defies your government's right to religion, you're wrong. If your argument is it defies your citizen's right to religion - if your citizens don't believe that one should have a divorce, they won't ask for one. But if they don't believe that, then they have the right to believe that it is permissible to have a divorce and they now have the Internationally guaranteed right to have a divorce. So they're having their right to not follow any religion protected by this resolution, while those that disagree with them are not having their right to believe in not having a divorce trampled on - they are not being forced to have a divorce.

So let's end this BS argument.


That was a lot of words to say very little. You say, this does not disbar the religious rights of a person. Meanwhile, if someone enters into a marriage who is part of a religion that does not support divorce (and, we can assume both parties are of the same faith), but one changes their mind later, we are now forcing the still faithful member of the union to get a divorce. Nonetheless, only a small point of a much larger error.

That was a lot of words to say very little. You say, this does not disbar the religious rights of a person. Meanwhile, if someone enters into a marriage who is part of a religion that does not support divorce (and, we can assume both parties are of the same faith), but one changes their mind later, we are now forcing the still faithful member of the union to get a divorce. Nonetheless, only a small point of a much larger error.

Woah woah woah. Who is forcing anyone to get a divorce? You don't have to. It's a right. You have a right to free speech. You don't have to use it. You can shut up.

Woah woah woah. Who is forcing anyone to get a divorce? You don't have to. It's a right. You have a right to free speech. You don't have to use it. You can shut up.

well, according to the resolution, the one who changed faith can force the divorce to occur to the person who didnt, because:

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

Then, unilaterally, the divorce is forced.

well, according to the resolution, the one who changed faith can force the divorce to occur to the person who didnt, because:

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

Then, unilaterally, the divorce is forced.

So inform your judiciaries always to rule against a divorce in such cases. I do not believe that would be prohibited. Remember, a divorce only 'may' be granted. There will still be a court case.

So inform your judiciaries always to rule against a divorce in such cases. I do not believe that would be prohibited. Remember, a divorce only 'may' be granted. There will still be a court case.

Well, that's a great answer! Heck, why don't we just ignore every UN resolution.

Well, that's a great answer! Heck, why don't we just ignore every UN resolution.

Define 'ignore'. I'm not advocating non-compliance. However, establishing a framework in which divorces involving a religious partner are not granted would not, I believe be illegal (especially as if divorce is so reprehensible in your society, the judge would presumably favour that view anyway).

Well, that's a great answer! Heck, why don't we just ignore every UN resolution.Exploiting loopholes is not the same as ignoring.

I don't know about you, but if someone is asking the UN to tell them what to do, I'd say they aren't exercising their sovereignty, they aren't trying to make their own choice - even if that choice be not to act. Certainly, they can choose to allow the UN to make the choice for them, but if they're doing it while complaining that the UN is dictating to them.......

Dear colleague,

No one is asking for the UN to hold their hand. What we are asking for is the ability to choose whether we will allow divorces or not. For a theocracy, that is a major issue, as a violation of a tenet imperils ones afterlife. This raises major questions in the faith of the people, which could lead to the utter downfall of the government. The UN is not supposed to topple regimes.

This is only one example the chaos unfettered globalization can cause. This resolution dictates what can and cannot be allowed by custom, which is what marraige is, a custom that the State has adopted as a definition of civil status, and it is up to each State to define it. We're not saying we will disallow divorce, only that is not the UN's concern.


Fidel Gutierrez,
Emperor, Empire of Weinerdogstan

Exploiting loopholes is not the same as ignoring.
Agreed, but the end result is the same. ((ooc: this could really hi-jack the thread, which I want to avoid doing, totally agreed, though))

Agreed, but the end result is the same. ((ooc: this could really hi-jack the thread, which I want to avoid doing, totally agreed, though))
I'd argue that it's not the same at all. Ignoring a resolution is illegal; roleplaying exploitation of loopholes is part of the game.

[/hijack]

Agreed, but the end result is the same.Irrelevent. Flying in an airplane from New York to LA has the same end result as crawling on your belly, but nobody would consider them to be the same thing.

That was a lot of words to say very little. You say, this does not disbar the religious rights of a person. Meanwhile, if someone enters into a marriage who is part of a religion that does not support divorce (and, we can assume both parties are of the same faith), but one changes their mind later, we are now forcing the still faithful member of the union to get a divorce. Nonetheless, only a small point of a much larger error.

First of all, I've got to congratulate you. Out of 400 posts from several dozen different members, probably half a dozen of which were arguing from a religious standpoint, you are the first to have actually attempted this argument while most still got stuck three exchanges back. Well done.

Now - let me note that the entire resolution deals entirely from a contractual stand point. I did everything in my power to disassociate the actual wording of the resolution from religious marriage. Obviously, the one flaw is that there are two people in every marriage who may also have different beliefs and no matter how hard I try, I cannot remove the fact that a religious man will have a hard time coming to religious terms even with the seperation of a civil marriage. Certainly, there are rather complex ways to work around this, but I think I'm going to slink back to my rather complex argument:

Marriage from a civil point of view and certainly in the eyes of this resolution is a contract. There might be higher meanings attached to any marriage or terms that are well beyond what is written on a piece of paper. However, this law explicitly concentrates on the document for the marriage.

If we consider any contract that exists out there, there are conditions that it can be broken on. Certainly there are penalties for doing so - often monetary in nature, but the ability to break it, even on a whim, exists universally. So why should the contract for marriage be any different?

Answer: it shouldn't. We have a term for a contract that can't be broken: enslavement. Slavery, of course, has been outlawed, and people are free to believe or not believe in whatever they want. Thus, if one person believes that it's ok to end the contract and wants to break it, it would be slavery to force them to remain stuck in that perpetual contract.

This resolution SPECIFICALLY goes after contractual marriage. Considering that most countries outlaw stoning despite several holy books saying that not only is it a good thing, it's a mandatory thing, I think there's a lot of people that believe there are some rights which supercede whatever religion claims. I'm saying divorce for contractual marriage is one of those things.

Granted, as I originally stated; marriage (as far as the law--and, therefore, as we must be concerned as well) is a legally binding contract. You seem to have hung up on one specific reason why I stated this resolution should be repealed, but you have done little to address the rest. Your argument here holds water, and I cannot deny that. You keep going back to slavery, yet I see no "right to work" laws enacted. A forced marriage can have other terms--misery being one. Perhaps instead of focusing on the resolution as it stands, you should consider the alternatives. Why not propose a resolution indicating what it takes to be granted a marriage? Why not write a proposal which defines what a marriage should be? Instead, just right to the end and just go to divorce? Seems a little cart-before-the-donkey to me. This resolution would never stand in a court of law, as so many things were left to be certainly vague while others were left to nothingness, as the words have no true meaning. Does this law also apply to civil unions or common-law marriage It's left open to debate within the member states, which means any who chose to best the resolution's proponents are free to do so. Now, come on, if you are going to do something, do it right.

Loopholes aside, no one yet has answered the question: when does the over-bearing,near-tyrannical rule of the UN end? This vote was close, darn close. Nations have their own way of dealing with such contractual obligations, I assure you. You want to outlaw slavery? Do it. As a matter of fact, hasn't it been done yet? Or, was that resolution done so poorly as to allow those who commit slavery be permitted to do so as long as they were married to said slaves? I doubt it, considering the proposals I have seen thus have so many holes in them, I couldn't use them as a collinder for a skyscraper. So, you can stop saying a "forced" marriage/slavery would be permitted, if this resolution was repealed. What's next? Outlaw junk food, because obese people shouldn't be tempted--it's cruel, they become a slave to the food? Maybe we should wipe out credit and bills across the board, so no one is slave to their debtors. Oh, I have it. We'll outlaw taxes, because when we tax our citizens we are forcing people to do something they don't want to. Hmmm....would that be close enough to slavery for you?

The UN does not have a right to enter into these manners. They do not have an ear to the people, only to a majority of politicians, however slim it may be. The issue is not whether divorce is an act that governments should allow or not, but rather whether it is something that falls under the auspice of the UN. The UN is not an organization that tells a government how to run its schools or police force or people how to run their lives. It is a body that should be dedicated to handling the dealing between its member nations. It's a negotiations board. It steps in when asked or when a threat in one nation could affect other nations. It does, however, have the right to expect a certain level of civility from its member nations and should be able to allow, disallow, or dismiss nations based on their actions in such extremes. Thrusting unwanted laws upon member nations, however, as in the ones that deal with relatively nominal tasks is an abberration of what the organization was designed to do.

The UN does not have a right to enter into these manners. They do not have an ear to the people, only to a majority of politicians, however slim it may be. The issue is not whether divorce is an act that governments should allow or not, but rather whether it is something that falls under the auspice of the UN. The UN is not an organization that tells a government how to run its schools or police force or people how to run their lives. It is a body that should be dedicated to handling the dealing between its member nations. It's a negotiations board. It steps in when asked or when a threat in one nation could affect other nations. It does, however, have the right to expect a certain level of civility from its member nations and should be able to allow, disallow, or dismiss nations based on their actions in such extremes. Thrusting unwanted laws upon member nations, however, as in the ones that deal with relatively nominal tasks is an abberration of what the organization was designed to do.

I honestly think you're confusing the real world UN and the NSUN here, because what you're saying doesn't add up in our context. The UN has told governments how to run their schools. Again, and a (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=2)g (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=27)a (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=53)i (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=100)n (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=117).

The UN can't target specific nations; it can't sanction them, and it certainly can't expel them. It's not a negotiations board: it has the potential to operate as a legislative body. And once more, what was the UN 'designed to do'? Damned if we know. This isn't the RL UN; it doesn't play by the same rules. Your objections are understandable, but you are putting them in the wrong way, such that it seems you are getting confused.

About your slavery argument.

It's true that if one person no longer believes that he/she has to stay married in order to be at peace with his/her religion, and you force him/her to continue to be married to a person whom he/she now resents, the situation can be called slavery. But, what then are the penalties for this which I also will call cheating?

First let me explain why I call it cheating. If you look at marriage in a contractual sense, it is when the two contracting parties, after knowing and ackowledging the full circumstances of the contract, and after they "have found each other to be in good and the due form", oblige to each other to certain terms that are of equal sacrifice or gain (a contract which does not produce equality to the contracting parties is considered an unequal contract and has grounds to be nullified in the real world).

In the situation described, all the time of marriage, the two people had the common belief that this marriage was to be perpetual or until death, and that their belief equally dictate that once the marriage is done, they must not have sexual relationships with any other person, or remarry to another person, under the pain of going to hell. I would assume that this marriage would be performed by a priest or patriach of the cult to which the two would have belonged to, therefore, at the time in which the marriage is officiated, the priestly service attended by both the partners AFFIRMED their understanding of the contract of their marriage, that it was to be for as long as both are still alive. This is when they have found each other to be in "good and due form" and acceded to the contract of marriage and rendered it effective. Now, after x years into the marriage, one partner wants out of the marriage and decides that he/she wont go to hell for wanting to divorce and have relations with another person or perhaps marry another person in a civic sense, while the other partner still believes the old religion. So one partner repeatedly requests for divorce and under your resolution, the court grants the divorce after the 2nd request. The person who wanted the divorce goes off happily and marries another person. The other partner is now civicly divorced, but he/she cannot have a relationship with anyone else and is doomed to remain lonely until the day he/she dies or until the day his/her former partner dies. This is an extremely agonizing victimization as a result of the other person's cheating of the marriage contract. The cheating comes from the fact that the circumstances in which the victim of the contract believed to be true and lead him/her to the marriage decision, which they had both affirmed during the officiation of the marriage had become false. The contract said that the marriage is to be for a lifetime, both of them knew that the other person believed that a breach of this contract leads to hell, and from that understanding, they got married. And now, one person says "screw you".

Well, in my opinion, a severe punishment should be given to the person that breaks the contract in this case, and not be allowed to request for divorce. And since I am the leader of my country, I should be allowed to hand down decisions like this, which can make people happy or hurt them alot, based on individual cases, and decide in individual cases if a person has the "right to divorce". But your resolution says that the person has the right to break off the marriage, indiscretionary to any circumstances whatsoever, regardless if it is evil, and it establishes indiscretionary and systematic ways of how a divorce is to be granted. This is just one counter-example to the claim that UN should regulate divorce, you cannot make people happy by codifying the cases, because you cannot codify all cases, there are simply too many variable to consider. But the local government can try to make everyone happy in a different way by doing different things to each couple.
And then, is it not true that when you want to prove something to be true, you have to prove it to be universally true, but if you want to falsify anything, you just need to give one counter-example?


and anyone who bothered to analyze your logic at all,

-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

After all this wording, you can see that the 1.6 clause is really pointless, because as we can see, 1.1-1.5 guarantees a way to divorce unilaterally or bilaterally, and 1.3 guarantees the immediate divorce under emergency situation, so why is there any logical need for any other situation?
Second, if one partner askes for divorce before 1 year of separation, and the other partner refuses, leading to a denial of divorce, and then three months later the partner repeats the request, and get the divorce successfully, as per 1.5, why would he/she go to the option of separating for a year and then ask for the divorce? 1.4 is needless unless the partner really wanted to just consider, and the time they considered took more than a year... but by then why should the green light be automatically given? If the ultimate goal is to give green light to both unilateral, bilateral decisions, and the only difference is the time, then, what point does that time really make? If your goal is to liberate people out of slavery, then why do you coerce them to remain enslaved for that three months or one year? Why didn't you just declare that anyone who ask for divorce shall get one immediately, as that is the ultimate result after the meaningless time window anyway...

I honestly think you're confusing the real world UN and the NSUN here, because what you're saying doesn't add up in our context. The UN has told governments how to run their schools. Again, and a (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=2)g (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=27)a (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=53)i (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=100)n (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=117).

The UN can't target specific nations; it can't sanction them, and it certainly can't expel them. It's not a negotiations board: it has the potential to operate as a legislative body. And once more, what was the UN 'designed to do'? Damned if we know. This isn't the RL UN; it doesn't play by the same rules. Your objections are understandable, but you are putting them in the wrong way, such that it seems you are getting confused.


I understand this is the way you have been doing things thus far. If you don't know what it is, don't try and pretend, step down and let others handle it. Maybe those are the proposals that should be sent through, more legislative acts that can and do define these things. Currently, it doesn't play by ANY rules. It goes by ear and it's all over the place. Everything here is bass ackwards, if you take a look around. Make a law about something without defining it, grant powers without limits, and on and on. If you want a build something, have a foundation before trying to put the top on it.

Granted, as I originally stated; marriage (as far as the law--and, therefore, as we must be concerned as well) is a legally binding contract. You seem to have hung up on one specific reason why I stated this resolution should be repealed, but you have done little to address the rest. Your argument here holds water, and I cannot deny that. You keep going back to slavery, yet I see no "right to work" laws enacted.

"right to work"? How is that relevant to an argument about slavery? We've banned slavery (UNR 6), instated various workers rights (UNR 25, 38, another one we debated recently). We've also passed several discrimination resolutions (UNR 80 amongst others) to deal with issues of losing the right to work for any reason pertaining to your sex, color, etc. So, actually, I don't see what you're saying TBH.

A forced marriage can have other terms--misery being one. Perhaps instead of focusing on the resolution as it stands, you should consider the alternatives. Why not propose a resolution indicating what it takes to be granted a marriage?

Because we decided that should be left to nations - a general consensus. We decided it should remain up to nations what rights and what requirements are needed for marriage - or even if they want to have one. Of course, you're going to try and shoot that back and say "why not leave the requirements for divorce this way?" But the fact of the matter is that I don't care whether someone wants or doesn't want to grant marriages or what rights they grant or what it takes to be married (with exception to discrimination issues - but we'll get there in a second), but if you signed a contract for marriage, I believe you should have the right to break the contract, to leave it, regardless of the penalty. You might have a bit more of an argument on visitation rights, but that's something else to worry about

Why not write a proposal which defines what a marriage should be?

UNR 12, 80, 81, amongst many others - one of the most ruled upon areas of International law - perhaps THE most considered area of UN resolutions. We don't care about what constitutes a marriage or what is involved in it. We care about who is allowed to have one, and the ability to end it.

Instead, just right to the end and just go to divorce? Seems a little cart-before-the-donkey to me. This resolution would never stand in a court of law, as so many things were left to be certainly vague while others were left to nothingness, as the words have no true meaning.

Your right! It is the basis of LAWS IN YOUR NATION. The stuff that's left to your nation is left for your government to define. We leave everything that's ambiguous for your government to figure out. Your only requirement is you don't contradict a single word of this resolution. Welcome to the UN

Does this law also apply to civil unions or common-law marriage

I do believe it was written so it applies to both. However, I would love to see your argument as to why it does not apply to both

It's left open to debate within the member states, which means any who chose to best the resolution's proponents are free to do so. Now, come on, if you are going to do something, do it right.

You are correct - why do you think I'm supporting Gruenberg and Fonzoland's repeal? Because I think I did screw up with this resolution and want to fix it.

Loopholes aside, no one yet has answered the question: when does the over-bearing,near-tyrannical rule of the UN end?

When you leave its halls, you no longer subject yourself to its "over-bearing, near-tyrannical rule". I do not believe that it is overstepping its bounds, but I'm a minority in those that discuss the matter. I believe in an International Government, and believe the UN has been designed in such a way that it can be such. Thus, I feel no qualms in implementing International Laws in such a manner. It is your right to disagree with me, but you have 30000 members to convince, not just myself.

This vote was close, darn close. Nations have their own way of dealing with such contractual obligations, I assure you. You want to outlaw slavery? Do it. As a matter of fact, hasn't it been done yet? Or, was that resolution done so poorly as to allow those who commit slavery be permitted to do so as long as they were married to said slaves? I doubt it, considering the proposals I have seen thus have so many holes in them, I couldn't use them as a collinder for a skyscraper. So, you can stop saying a "forced" marriage/slavery would be permitted, if this resolution was repealed.

Please, when it comes to knowledge of International Law, I can assure you that you are quite the junior. It has indeed been done (UNR 6), but it is not a great implementation - nor does it prevent the scenario you've suggested. Add on that I'm using slavery in a much different sense than you seem to understand - slavery as who owns or controls whom, rather than who's working for free.

What's next? Outlaw junk food, because obese people shouldn't be tempted--it's cruel, they become a slave to the food? Maybe we should wipe out credit and bills across the board, so no one is slave to their debtors. Oh, I have it. We'll outlaw taxes, because when we tax our citizens we are forcing people to do something they don't want to. Hmmm....would that be close enough to slavery for you?

If anyone can see the point of this rant, or the.....logic behind it, I'd love to hear it.

The UN does not have a right to enter into these manners. They do not have an ear to the people, only to a majority of politicians, however slim it may be. The issue is not whether divorce is an act that governments should allow or not, but rather whether it is something that falls under the auspice of the UN. The UN is not an organization that tells a government how to run its schools or police force or people how to run their lives. It is a body that should be dedicated to handling the dealing between its member nations. It's a negotiations board. It steps in when asked or when a threat in one nation could affect other nations.

We are not allowed to do so. Read the Hackian Laws

It does, however, have the right to expect a certain level of civility from its member nations and should be able to allow, disallow, or dismiss nations based on their actions in such extremes. Thrusting unwanted laws upon member nations, however, as in the ones that deal with relatively nominal tasks is an abberration of what the organization was designed to do.

Your understanding and knowledge of the UN is flawed at best. We have no military nor are we permitted to form one - and that includes a form along the lines of the RLUN Peacekeepers. Our resolutions are not allowed to target any local nation. This forums for the UN is not allowed to be used for any dealings between any two nations - no matter how hard it is that you might try. It cannot boot its members unless they defy the Hackian Laws or Max Barry's FAQ. It cannot vote on trivial matters, it cannot form committees that nations sit on, it cannot do a thousand different things that you are suggesting it can do. In essence, while many people debate what the NSUN was and wasn't designed to do, what its purpose should be or shouldn't be, the fact of the matter is when Max Barry designed the UN, he designed a body that was incapable of performing the intended functions of the RLUN. So throw out every concept you have of what the UN is or isn't, because that isn't what this is.

I understand this is the way you have been doing things thus far. If you don't know what it is, don't try and pretend, step down and let others handle it. Maybe those are the proposals that should be sent through, more legislative acts that can and do define these things. Currently, it doesn't play by ANY rules. It goes by ear and it's all over the place. Everything here is bass ackwards, if you take a look around. Make a law about something without defining it, grant powers without limits, and on and on. If you want a build something, have a foundation before trying to put the top on it.

Despite what you may believe, it actually does have rules

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465

After all this wording, you can see that the 1.6 clause is really pointless, because as we can see, 1.1-1.5 guarantees a way to divorce unilaterally or bilaterally, and 1.3 guarantees the immediate divorce under emergency situation, so why is there any logical need for any other situation?
Second, if one partner askes for divorce before 1 year of separation, and the other partner refuses, leading to a denial of divorce, and then three months later the partner repeats the request, and get the divorce successfully, as per 1.5, why would he/she go to the option of separating for a year and then ask for the divorce? 1.4 is needless unless the partner really wanted to just consider, and the time they considered took more than a year... but by then why should the green light be automatically given? If the ultimate goal is to give green light to both unilateral, bilateral decisions, and the only difference is the time, then, what point does that time really make? If your goal is to liberate people out of slavery, then why do you coerce them to remain enslaved for that three months or one year? Why didn't you just declare that anyone who ask for divorce shall get one immediately, as that is the ultimate result after the meaningless time window anyway...

AMEN BROTHER -- Can I get an Amen? Yes you can. Say it again. The whole 1.x is meaningless, unenforceable and pointless. Thank you. Bump.

"right to work"? How is that relevant to an argument about slavery? We've banned slavery (UNR 6), instated various workers rights (UNR 25, 38, another one we debated recently). We've also passed several discrimination resolutions (UNR 80 amongst others) to deal with issues of losing the right to work for any reason pertaining to your sex, color, etc. So, actually, I don't see what you're saying TBH.

Well, I would expect no less from you thus far. You get hung up on a particular aspect and find it difficult to take in the many facets of a situation based on your prior posts. What it is saying, however is that you keep going back to slavery and marriage as if they can be considered the same and that's the reason we need to support the right to divore. Meanwhile, if that is what you are doing, why not simply rely on the resolution to ban slavery. If you want to then take and divide each topic, you must do so equally, not simply on one particular front.


Because we decided that should be left to nations - a general consensus. We decided it should remain up to nations what rights and what requirements are needed for marriage - or even if they want to have one. Of course, you're going to try and shoot that back and say "why not leave the requirements for divorce this way?" But the fact of the matter is that I don't care whether someone wants or doesn't want to grant marriages or what rights they grant or what it takes to be married (with exception to discrimination issues - but we'll get there in a second), but if you signed a contract for marriage, I believe you should have the right to break the contract, to leave it, regardless of the penalty. You might have a bit more of an argument on visitation rights, but that's something else to worry about


So, is what you are saying that you don't care how other nations do things, but they should follow your rules no matter the consequences, because that's what I hear when you say this. Well, they may or may not have marriage. I don't know how their marriage laws work, but they should all have to follow these rules to end a marriage, and while there may be other factors at play, we're not going to deal with now, just as they were not dealt with in the original proposal.


UNR 12, 80, 81, amongst many others - one of the most ruled upon areas of International law - perhaps THE most considered area of UN resolutions. We don't care about what constitutes a marriage or what is involved in it. We care about who is allowed to have one, and the ability to end it.


So, you don't care. that's pretty clearly stated here. Only weakens your point, however. If you don't know what something is, how can you even begin to attempt to make laws regarding it? I cannot even begin to fathom the concept of such blissful ignorance.


Your right! It is the basis of LAWS IN YOUR NATION. The stuff that's left to your nation is left for your government to define. We leave everything that's ambiguous for your government to figure out. Your only requirement is you don't contradict a single word of this resolution. Welcome to the UN


Then, there's nothing to debat eover any of the resolutions, because everything can simply be renamed. I mean, hey, if "looting" can be considered "unconventional shopping," then I suppose we could come up with new words for marriage and slavery. Great way to write a resolution.


I do believe it was written so it applies to both. However, I would love to see your argument as to why it does not apply to both


Because, it doesn't say so. Therefore, it does not. Law is not a matter of assumption.



When you leave its halls, you no longer subject yourself to its "over-bearing, near-tyrannical rule". I do not believe that it is overstepping its bounds, but I'm a minority in those that discuss the matter. I believe in an International Government, and believe the UN has been designed in such a way that it can be such. Thus, I feel no qualms in implementing International Laws in such a manner. It is your right to disagree with me, but you have 30000 members to convince, not just myself.


You believe it's been designed this way? Well, from what the other memebers here have said and from what has been shown so far, there seems to be no deisgn to the body at all. If you can show me different, please do.


Please, when it comes to knowledge of International Law, I can assure you that you are quite the junior. It has indeed been done (UNR 6), but it is not a great implementation - nor does it prevent the scenario you've suggested. Add on that I'm using slavery in a much different sense than you seem to understand - slavery as who owns or controls whom, rather than who's working for free.


Slavery is slavery--there's really only one definition for it. You have a resolution that outlaws slavery. If you are now saying that it only refers to someone who works for free, rewrite it or pass a new one. The way I read it, it referred to exactly what you are talking about.


If anyone can see the point of this rant, or the.....logic behind it, I'd love to hear it.


Because, I would like to know exactly what lengths you believe the UN should go to in order to promote human rights. These are hyperbole, or at least I would hope they are. Then again, had I heard about this proposal before actually seeing it, I would have thought the same of it.


Your understanding and knowledge of the UN is flawed at best. We have no military nor are we permitted to form one - and that includes a form along the lines of the RLUN Peacekeepers. Our resolutions are not allowed to target any local nation. This forums for the UN is not allowed to be used for any dealings between any two nations - no matter how hard it is that you might try. It cannot boot its members unless they defy the Hackian Laws or Max Barry's FAQ. It cannot vote on trivial matters, it cannot form committees that nations sit on, it cannot do a thousand different things that you are suggesting it can do. In essence, while many people debate what the NSUN was and wasn't designed to do, what its purpose should be or shouldn't be, the fact of the matter is when Max Barry designed the UN, he designed a body that was incapable of performing the intended functions of the RLUN. So throw out every concept you have of what the UN is or isn't, because that isn't what this is.

True, I may still be new, but it seems that the same could be said about your concept of civility and trivial matters. And, when you come to me talking about the RLUN and Peace keepers and intended functions in the same sentence, it becomes obvious that you are mistaken as well. I expect trade laws, commerce laws, laws that actually affect multiple nations as well as some common understanding of even the most basic precepts on a resolutioon before it is passed.




<<ooc: forgotten, I appreciate the time you've taken on this. understand, I still am a newbie and appreciate the practice. really has been a pleasure thus far.>>

You continue to show your contempt for the rules that have been outlined by those that govern the NSUN. The mere fact that you continue to fail to read them or acknowledge them means I could never explain to you the workings of the NSUN and how it relates to this resolution. The loss is yours, not mine.

You continue to show your contempt for the rules that have been outlined by those that govern the NSUN. The mere fact that you continue to fail to read them or acknowledge them means I could never explain to you the workings of the NSUN and how it relates to this resolution. The loss is yours, not mine.

And still, you fail to make a valid point. I have read and understand the rules. There are still a few that I'm learning, granted, but your statement here holds little water. Tell me, since you seem so informed, what rules I am showing contempt as for the rules of the NSUN.

I expect trade laws, commerce laws, laws that actually affect multiple nations as well as some common understanding of even the most basic precepts on a resolutioon before it is passed.I believe this is where the harsh reality of the NSUN is smacking you in the face. Personally, I'd prefer it if the NSUN focused on things that were truly international in scope like you mentioned. Unfortunately, that's not how it was designed:

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest.The NSUN is more an experiment in (nearly) direct democracy than anything. There are some guiding rules, but outside of them, people are free to inact almost anything they could possibly want. So, while a right to divorce is not an international concern, it's within the bounds of the NSUN, which seems to view itself as a kind of morality police, attempting to "enlightening" the world.

Now, see, this makes sense. But, should that require me to accept that, based on the broad spectrum of uncertanties within the design of the NSUN, anything that the body wish to engage in other than what is already expressly forbidden or is struck down by the moderators is wholly within their right? Or, like any free-minded individual, do you believe that it should also be my right to question and challenge their authority, when I deem that it has gone too far?

Now, see, this makes sense. But, should that require me to accept that, based on the broad spectrum of uncertanties within the design of the NSUN, anything that the body wish to engage in other than what is already expressly forbidden or is struck down by the moderators is wholly within their right? Or, like any free-minded individual, do you believe that it should also be my right to question and challenge their authority, when I deem that it has gone too far?

So question it. But it's a matter of approach. Simply saying "Rah rah rah we shouldn't do this because I don't think it's right" may be a worthy expression of your right to freedom of thought...but it's proved unhelpful over the years when many, including myself, have tried similar. There are people who believe the UN can and should do almost anything, and there are people who believe it should stick to international matters. I regard those as paradigms, and I am sure that whatever was said in the "Right To Divorce" debate, some of the supporters of that resolution will continue to push for that style of legislation. I am not a good enough debater - and, honestly, are you? - to change what for them are utterly fundamental precepts.

So, I'd suggest a better approach is to concern yourself with drafting some truly international legislation, and repealing some of the worst excesses of UN micromanagement. We can debate all we want here, but in the meantime, I guarantee you they're drafting a new proposal. If we don't do the same, then we really just look like irresponsible whiners, while the UN votes with the other side. So, I understand your frustrations, and I wouldn't want to quell your right to speak on them...I just don't think, in this context, it's that helpful.

Greunberg, I thank you. I had come to this same concept late last night. I still disagree with people like Forgottenlands, however, that will sit back and tell myself and others that we don't know the rules or show contempt for them, because our intrepretations of the most basic precepts are different. Nonetheless, the argument draws nigh. Our fundamental concepts and beliefs are different, and as both Forgotten, myself, and several others have found valid, even sometimes agreeable reasons why this resolution should be repealled, we'll leave it at that (I should hope). This has been a learning experience for me and I thank those who have taken the time to debate and show my a few tricks of the trade here at NS. I shall return, but not here and not in the same manner. I look forward to our dealings in the future.

i wonder.... there are at least 3 threads dedicated to repealing this resolution, and a good half a dozen repeals in the cue.... why dont you all get to gether and work on one that could be passed. i know there are different arguments (natsov, some things missing/not covered), but at least if you can get the grounding, then go your seperate ways wouldnt it be more better?

Yeah, because we're really fucked (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce) at the moment.

Your suggestion is fine...except it was made five days ago. So we did.

Yeah, because we're really fucked (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce) at the moment.

Your suggestion is fine...except it was made five days ago. So we did.
ah k, didnt realise you were only 5 short. just noticed that there were still a few other threads goin.