NationStates Jolt Archive

New draft in post #24 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10091382&posted=1#post10091382).

The United Nations,

Noting the passage of "Right To Divorce",

Expressing the following concerns:
* the resolution 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', but does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway;
* clause 1.5 opens up the possibility that someone attempting to gain a divorce in order to extort alimony payments could be legitimately granted such opportunity by simply registering two complaints;
* clause 3 enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide;
* it is further fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights on the circumstances of divorce;
* it would be better to have visitation and other rights assessed on a case-by-case basis by a local agency, where the welfare of the child, as well as the rights of the parents, could be taken into consideration;
* the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships;
* the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies:

Repeals "Right To Divorce".

It's short, and hopefully sweet. It's likely we'll be submitting this very soon. I know the formatting's unconventional; I honestly don't see how to work up into 'proper' format. And no, I haven't said divorce is bad. The UN decided otherwise.

We support the repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We support the repeal.
We support it too. Gruen, should the first words in your clauses be capitalized? Or not?

Before reading, format. How about:

CONCERNED that:

1. blah blah;

2. blah blah;

The government of St Edmund also supports the repeal.

Personally, I think this is a great format for a repeal.

Here are the problems:
*dum de dum
*do do do
*yada yada

Repeals "Whatever"

Seems to work great. Although I would recommend capitalization, Gruen. Otherwise, great work.

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

Just some suggestions for formalising it:

THE UNITED NATIONS,

NOTING the passage of "Right To Divorce",

NOTING WITH REGRET that the legislations has many inherent faults and exploitable loopholse,

OBSERVING that the resolution 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', but does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway,

DEEPLY CONSCIOUS that clause 1.5 opens up the possibility that someone attempting to gain a divorce in order to extort alimony payments could be legitimately granted such opportunity by simply registering two complaints,

DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide;

BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights on the circumstances of divorce,

RECOGNISING that it would be better to have visitation and other rights assessed on a case-by-case basis by a local agency, where the welfare of the child, as well as the rights of the parents, could be taken into consideration,

NOTING FURTHER that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships,

CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies,

WELCOMING replacement legislation that guarentee's the right to divorce without resorting to micromanagement

THE UNITED NATIONS HEREBY Repeals the resolution entitled "Right To Divorce".

First of all, this is a resolution I can support. I personally think some work could be done to obtain at least unofficial support from the authors, and in return give them the opportunity to present a redraft based on the extensive discussion. But that's just an idea.

* the resolution 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', but does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway;

Sorry, don't get your point. More important that explaining it to me is making this clearer, as I would argue there are many delegates out there who are dafter than me... ;)

* clause 1.5 opens up the possibility that someone attempting to gain a divorce in order to extort alimony payments could be legitimately granted such opportunity by simply registering two complaints;

Yep, but not major in my view. If you dont have a proper pre-nup and someone marries you for money, you are screwed no matter what the law says.

* clause 3 enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide;

Right on.

* it is further fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights on the circumstances of divorce;

Could be merged with previous one, as a subclause?

* it would be better to have visitation and other rights assessed on a case-by-case basis by a local agency, where the welfare of the child, as well as the rights of the parents, could be taken into consideration;

Hmmm, don't like the wording that much. I don't have a clear suggestion, but a few expressions: "complex and sensitive problems", "a local agency in possession of all details", etc

* the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships;

Here you can be a bit stronger, in the style "unfortunately discriminates against," and starting with "noting with regret."

* the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies:

The buzz word again. But true. Whereas woud be better than where.

OOC: Sorry for the briefness, lack of time.

We support the repeal of this very unfortunate resolution 100%. Allow us to offer our customary nit-picks:

The United Nations,

NOTING the passage of "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED that:

1. The resolution 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', but does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway;

2. Clause 1.5 opens up the possibility that someone attempting to gain a divorce in order to extort alimony payments could be legitimately granted such opportunity by simply registering two complaints;

3. Clause 3 enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed as being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide;

4. It is fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights on the circumstances of divorce while ignoring other relevant factors;

5. It would be better to have visitation and other rights assessed on a case-by-case basis by a local agency, where the welfare of the child, as well as the rights of the parents, could be taken into consideration;

6.The definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships;

7. The resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies;

Repeals "Right To Divorce".

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

you'll have the support of the Empire in this task.

Go, Gruenberg, go!

We fully support the repeal of the monument to arrogance that is Right to Divorce.

We think the comments of the respected representative of Fonzoland are well worth consideration. We would like to respond to just one of them, and perhaps clear up the point.


Sorry, don't get your point. More important that explaining it to me is making this clearer, as I would argue there are many delegates out there who are dafter than me... ;)

The resolution says that "that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce" and then states certain conditions under which that may happen. The problem is that may is a permissive term. It allows something to happen, but doesn't require it. It leaves the state open to granting divorces or not granting them, whichever it chooses. Nothing in the resolution guarantees the right of the marriage partners to be granted a divorce.

We agree that this perhaps should be made a bit clearer to promote understanding.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We did not support the resolution. We support a repeal.
VL.

First of all, this is a resolution I can support. I personally think some work could be done to obtain at least unofficial support from the authors, and in return give them the opportunity to present a redraft based on the extensive discussion. But that's just an idea.

I have raised the matter on UNOG, so hopefully Forgottenlands will respond. I will still press the matter, and expect them to defend their resolution, but it would be nice if this could be considered an opportunity for a friendly amendment.

Sorry, don't get your point. More important that explaining it to me is making this clearer, as I would argue there are many delegates out there who are dafter than me...

Agreed, I do need to sharpen that up.

Yep, but not major in my view. If you dont have a proper pre-nup and someone marries you for money, you are screwed no matter what the law says.

I'll push it down to later in the proposal.

Could be merged with previous one, as a subclause?

On this, I figure two vaguely similar points count as two separate strikes.

Hmmm, don't like the wording that much. I don't have a clear suggestion, but a few expressions: "complex and sensitive problems", "a local agency in possession of all details", etc

I'll think about it.

Here you can be a bit stronger, in the style "unfortunately discriminates against," and starting with "noting with regret."

Sure.

The buzz word again. But true. Whereas woud be better than where.

Buzz words are usually good words.

Cobdenia: thanks. I probably will go with your suggestion, with the substantive text altered.

So...

The United Nations,

NOTING the recent passage of "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution,

OBSERVING that given that the resolution only creates a right, where divorce 'may be granted', the final decision still rests with national or local courts, who would be better placed to judge the circumstances of the case anyway,

DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

BELIEVING it to be mistaken to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

RECOGNISING that it would be better to have visitation and other rights assessed on a case-by-case basis by a local agency, better appraised of the facts of the individual situation, where the welfare of the child, as well as the rights of the parents, could be taken into consideration,

NOTING FURTHER that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such enforces one particular set of values,

CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies,

REMAINING OPEN to the possibility of replacement legislation that legislates a 'right to divorce' without resorting to unnecessary micromanagement:

REPEALS "Right To Divorce".

REMAINING OPEN to the possibility replacement

...possibility of a replacement...

or

to a possible replacement

The Empire of Weinerdogstan supports this effort fully. As the UN Delegate to the Empire of Corporate Oppression, I will bring this matter to the Council of Ministers in hopes that I will be authorized to cast our votes for the repeal.






Fidel Gutierrez, UN Delegate, Con Thien
ECO Headquarters (http://nationstates.workingproject.net)

Thanks, Weinerdogstan. Cobdenia: noted, noted, noted; changed, changed, changed. Thanks thanks thanks.

LAE will comment the text later

Of course, we will support a repeal when a better resolution will be drafter, and a major question remains open:

Is the new draft will only allow divorce for various faults? and let these procedure destroy even further family relashionships? as these have destroyed so many

LAE will comment the text later

Of course, we will support a repeal when a better resolution will be drafter, and a major question remains open:

Is the new draft will only allow divorce for various faults? and let these procedure destroy even further family relashionships? as these have destroyed so many

I honestly don't give a fuck. You want to replace it, you do that. Have fun.

I've taken about the clause about alimony extortion.

I believe that with the alimony clause removed, this repeal is a fair and well argued repeal. I will not endorse it, but I will vote for it should it reach the floor.

I believe that with the alimony clause removed, this repeal is a fair and well argued repeal. I will not endorse it, but I will vote for it should it reach the floor.

Thank you.

Redraft:

The United Nations,

NOTING the recent passage of "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution:

1. OBSERVING that although it 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', this does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway,

2. DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

3. BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

4. RECOGNISING that it would be better to have visitation privileges determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts of the specific situation and giving proper attention to the welfare of the children as well as the rights of the parents,

5. NOTING FURTHER that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such enforces one particular set of values,

6. CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies,

7. REMAINING OPEN to the possibility of replacement legislation that legislates a 'right to divorce' without resorting to unnecessary micromanagement:

REPEALS "Right To Divorce".

OK, a few suggestions, in form of a rewrite:


The United Nations,

NOTING the recent passage of Resolution #??? "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution:

1. OBSERVING that, since it only 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', it does not actually guarantee the right to divorce, as the final decision still rests with national or local courts,

2. DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in a way that makes it illegal to deny regular access to the child even to a parent who is deemed to be a significant risk to said child, including persons convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

3. BELIEVING post-divorce visitation rights should not be based exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

4. DECLARING that visitation privileges should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the full context of each specific situation, and giving proper attention to both the welfare of the children and the rights of the parents,

5. REGRETTING that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such threatens the cultural diversity of UN member states,

6. CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an inappropriate attempt at micromanagement, since many of its provisions would be more effective if delegated to national or more local agencies,

7. REMAINING OPEN to the possibility of a more effective replacement, enshrining the right to divorce without resorting to excessive micromanagement:

REPEALS "Right To Divorce".

Fonzoland, you're a marvel. Here's a finalish draft:

The United Nations,

NOTING the recent passage of Resolution #130, "Right to Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution:

1. OBSERVING that, since it only 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', it does not actually guarantee the right to divorce, as the final decision still rests with national or local courts,

2. DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in a way that makes it illegal to deny regular access to the child even to a parent who is deemed to be a significant risk to said child, including persons convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

3. BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

4. DECLARING that visitation rights should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the full context of each specific situation, and giving proper attention to both the welfare of the children and the rights of the parents,

5. REGRETTING that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such threatens the cultural diversity of UN member states,

6. CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an inappropriate attempt at micromanagement, since many of its provisions would be more effective if delegated to national or more local agencies,

7. REMAINING OPEN to the possibility of more a effective replacement which legislates a 'right to divorce' without resorting to excessive micromanagement:

REPEALS "Right To Divorce".

Slight changes. I especially liked your rewording of 5, though. A note: this will be submitted by Cluichstan, possibly; other offers welcome. I won't have time to get two endorsements.

I honestly don't give a fuck. You want to replace it, you do that. Have fun.

:rolleyes: Now, the diplomatic approach:

L&E, you and FL have invested a lot of time in this, and have been honest enough to admit some of the flaws in the proposal. I believe that, if a repeal should pass, you would be able to adapt the previous one to a format that would not be open to such criticism. If so, a significant group of current critics, including me, would happily support it.

Surely you wouldn't suggest I'm undiplomatic? Scandalous!

Surely you wouldn't suggest I'm undiplomatic? Scandalous!

Wow, Gruenberg knows the word "diplomatic". There were many naysayers, but apparently they've all been proven wrong!!!!

It's a miracle!!!!

:rolleyes: Now, the diplomatic approach:

L&E, you and FL have invested a lot of time in this, and have been honest enough to admit some of the flaws in the proposal. I believe that, if a repeal should pass, you would be able to adapt the previous one to a format that would not be open to such criticism. If so, a significant group of current critics, including me, would happily support it.


Pazu-Lenny is sad to see that nobody had balls to draft a better proposal before submitting a repeal.

#135 has the merits to have get rid of Divorce for various faults, which had been proved catastrophic worldwide, but it seems nobody in this thread cares about family relashionships.

Fonzoland, you're a marvel. Here's a finalish draft:



Slight changes. I especially liked your rewording of 5, though. A note: this will be submitted by Cluichstan, possibly; other offers welcome. I won't have time to get two endorsements.

Thank you. *blushes and hides his emotional tears by staring through the window, embarrassed at Gruenberg's endearing diplomatic stance*

I am always happy to add my name to the books, so you can count on me to submit... ;)

Pazu-Lenny is sad to see that nobody had balls to draft a better proposal before submitting a repeal.

#135 has the merits to have get rid of Divorce for various faults, which had been proved catastrophic worldwide, but it seems nobody in this thread cares about family relashionships.

Oh, please. You know I care about them, however, I don't have the time to work on a replacement or I'd already have sent you a list of suggested wording changes. However, the number of issues in the resolution has mounted quickly enough to see that the visitation rights are actually more harmful than they are helpful. As far as I'm concerned, if couples have to remain together for an extra month or two while we redraft, it's probably better than some of the dangerous situations that kids will be put in because of a few oversights.

Pazu-Lenny is sad to see that nobody had balls to draft a better proposal before submitting a repeal.

#135 has the merits to have get rid of Divorce for various faults, which had been proved catastrophic worldwide, but it seems nobody in this thread cares about family relashionships.

The balls? Now you are making even me turning undiplomatic...

(No, it's not possible!!! Yep. Noooo! Yep, shut the fuck up.)

I originally supported your proposal. I changed my vote when the points mentioned here were made clear. You might remember that I still commended your intentions, and have defended them more than once afterwards. However, as it stands, I don't support it anymore, so I have the right to try to repeal it, and I would want to repeal it even if no replacement was available.

Now, if you managed to pass a fault-ridden proposal, surely you can pass something lighter. But if you don't want to, and prefer to sulk, I can write one when I have the time. Happy?

The balls? Now you are making even me turning undiplomatic...

(No, it's not possible!!! Yep. Noooo! Yep, shut the fuck up.)

I originally supported your proposal. I changed my vote when the points mentioned here were made clear. You might remember that I still commended your intentions, and have defended them more than once afterwards. However, as it stands, I don't support it anymore, so I have the right to try to repeal it, and I would want to repeal it even if no replacement was available.

Now, if you managed to pass a fault-ridden proposal, surely you can pass something lighter. But if you don't want to, and prefer to sulk, I can write one when I have the time. Happy?

No pb, the balls were just a reference to a former personnal attack, by the author of this repeal;)


edit: woooowowowowo, i'm a pimp:)

Love and esterel, buzz off, if you have nothing to contribute to the thread. Good luck with your replacement; I hope to contribute to its drafting.

Fonzoland: if you want to submit it, you're welcome to. I was thinking of doing so tomorrow morning. Would that be possible?

And repeal or not, resolution written by me or anyone, i don't care, i had always fight since the beginning for allowing divorce without dealing with faults, Pazu-Lenny will always continue to defend this position.

Fonzoland: if you want to submit it, you're welcome to. I was thinking of doing so tomorrow morning. Would that be possible?

Sure, what is the best time?
Is the text final?
I should include "Submitted on behalf of Gruenberg" in the end, right?

Sure, what is the best time?
Is the text final?
I should include "Submitted on behalf of Gruenberg" in the end, right?

The best time is after the update. It's difficult to say when that is exactly...10-11ish (am) GMT. You can tell when it happens because all the proposals that haven't reached quorum are removed (which shows up on the main UN page, at the bottom, where it usually lists applications/resignations). However, you need to wait a few minutes after that, I think. Obviously, I don't know what your day is like. Anything's good, really, but if you can't submit much before 2, then I'll probably wait another day.

And yes, you can add 'submitted on behalf of Gruenberg' if you want: just don't add a pretitle (Gruenberg, not The Happily Married Goat of Gruenberg). Thanks ever so.

In good Christmas '05 tradition, yet another repeal of "Right to Divorce" has been submitted.

Best of luck, I'll notify my delegate immediately.

The-Republic']Best of luck, I'll notify my delegate immediately.

Thank you.

In good Christmas '05 tradition, yet another repeal of "Right to Divorce" has been submitted.

Well done. The proposed repeal has the support of the people of Cluichstan.

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

We're relieved to see that the submitted version retained the "RECOGNIZING" language in article 4 rather than making the change to "DECLARING" that was suggested earlier in the thread. We would have hated to see the proposal deleted for illegally attempting to have a legislative effect beyond the actual repeal itself, which would have been a distinct possibility with the latter approach.

We're relieved to see that the submitted version retained the "RECOGNIZING" language in article 4 rather than making the change to "DECLARING" that was suggested earlier in the thread. We would have hated to see the proposal deleted for illegally attempting to have a legislative effect beyond the actual repeal itself, which would have been a distinct possibility with the latter approach.

Errrr, well, actually, that was an accident, I copied the wrong version of the draft. But I seem to remember precedents allowing "declaring" in a preambulatory clause.

Errrr, well, actually, that was an accident, I copied the wrong version of the draft. But I seem to remember precedents allowing "declaring" in a preambulatory clause.

Well, Repeal "Legalize Prostitution" had a "DETERMINING" in it which frankly we think is walking a fine line... but we know of no past repeals which contained a "DECLARING" clause that wasn't declaring the target resolution repealed unless it was a very generalized kind of statement of principle like Repeal "Education For All"s declaration that it was "against waste and bureaocracy" which doesnt actually have any effect.

The clause in question here would declare that the UN was taking a very specific stance on a very specific issue. Quite a different animal.

Well, Repeal "Legalize Prostitution" had a "DETERMINING" in it which frankly we think is walking a fine line... but we know of no past repeals which contained a "DECLARING" clause that wasn't declaring the target resolution repealed unless it was a very generalized kind of statement of principle like Repeal "Education For All"s declaration that it was "against waste and bureaocracy" which doesnt actually have any effect.

The clause in question here would declare that the UN was taking a very specific stance on a very specific issue. Quite a different animal.

OK, good to know.

OK, good to know.

Well, it's not an official statement or anything (looking under the username makes that obvious), it's entirely possible the mods would have let it slide. It just seemed to be crossing the line from where we're standing.

Well, it's not an official statement or anything (looking under the username makes that obvious), it's entirely possible the mods would have let it slide. It just seemed to be crossing the line from where we're standing.

Well, my daddy always told me not to get into an argument with pimps... ;)

No, seriously, for sure it is a grey area, and I personally dislike gray areas. I could make a two page argument for why I think it should be allowed to slide, but it is a lot simpler to avoid it in the future.

The repeal is currently on page 6. There are many in queue; obviously, we'd be grateful if you approved ours, as well as any others. It's the one submitted by Fonzoland, and has a series of numbered clauses with all-caps introductory words.

42 approvals: thanks to those who've approved so far, and please keep on keepin' on.

Gah. I didn't just say that. Anyway, the older repeals have all been cleared (earlier than I'd realized they would be) so we now have a direct link: http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce

If you would like help with a TG campaign, don't hesitate to call on me.

We are surprised that this proposal mention and states, in its text, to be submitted on behalf of a non UN member.

We are surprised that this proposal mention and is officially submitted on behalf of a non UN member.

I am a UN member. I'm just using my membership OOCly for other purposes right now. Gruenberg is my main nation.

But you know what? Who gives a fuck? Because I don't. And you shouldn't either: it's the whole point of your resolution, isn't it, that we all have 'inalienable' rights, even if we are Bad Nasty People? If you are unable to attempt personal snipes, then I suggest you desist from posting in this thread at all. It's a shame, because your input could potentially be very valuable; however, thus far you've been nothing but utterly rude to both those whose concerns with a resolution that forced great problems on them were never answered by you - not once did you attempt any rebuttal - and furthermore, and perhaps most shamefully, to your co-author. So, I will ask you, if you are unable to show some respect to the NSUN as a whole, to please not try to derail the discussion of a repeal with irrelevant personal attacks.

I am a UN member. I'm just using my membership OOCly for other purposes right now. Gruenberg is my main nation.

But you know what? Who gives a fuck? Because I don't. And you shouldn't either: it's the whole point of your resolution, isn't it, that we all have 'inalienable' rights, even if we are Bad Nasty People? If you are unable to attempt personal snipes, then I suggest you desist from posting in this thread at all. It's a shame, because your input could potentially be very valuable; however, thus far you've been nothing but utterly rude to both those whose concerns with a resolution that forced great problems on them were never answered by you - not once did you attempt any rebuttal - and furthermore, and perhaps most shamefully, to your co-author. So, I will ask you, if you are unable to show some respect to the NSUN as a whole, to please not try to derail the discussion of a repeal with irrelevant personal attacks.

I'm sorry, Gruenberg is not a UN Member
http://www.nationstates.net/gruenberg

About the points of your repeal, i debated them in several posts before

I know Gruenberg is not in the UN right now. It is most of the time: for non-IC reasons, I'm using a puppet right now. Why does this matter?

And, I never saw any rebuttal. I'm sure you won't mind repeating it, though:

1. why did you feel it necessary to allow convicted paedophiles the 'inalienable right' to regularly visit their children?
2. why did you ignore polygamy/polyandry (even though it was mentioned on the second page of the draft discussion)?

1. why did you feel it necessary to allow convicted paedophiles the 'inalienable right' to regularly visit their children?

Clause -3- of #135 include : "or sexual abuse"


2. why did you ignore polygamy/polyandry (even though it was mentioned on the second page of the draft discussion)?

Any person married or having a civil union whith a polygame/polyandre partner can divorce under #135 (according to conditions 1.1 to 1.6)

Did you even read any of the debate thread?

Clause -3- of #135 include : "or sexual abuse"

But clause 3 also says 'where the divorce was over'. In other words, if the parent is a paedophile, but didn't molest his own children, and the divorce was for other reasons, then they cannot be denied access.

Any person married or having a civil union whith a polygame/polyandre partner can divorce under #135 (according to conditions 1.1 to 1.6)

No, they can't. Not only does the resolution repeatedly refer to 'both partners' or 'the couple', and not only do many of its provisions clearly not make sense in the context of a polyandrous/polygamous relationship, but clause H defines a civil union as being between 'two people'.

This is pretty arrogant, L&E: we went over this in the debate thread, and you clearly couldn't be bothered to read the argument over your own resolution. For shame.

EDIT: You could have asked me before running to the mods.

But clause 3 also says 'where the divorce was over'. In other words, if the parent is a paedophile, but didn't molest his own children, and the divorce was for other reasons, then they cannot be denied access.

I mentionned that people in prison can see their child behind a glass, on an only 1/year basis, i mentionned also the psychological harm of the children, in the case if he can't see one of his parents, and i mentionned th humanist approach of this resolution, that mean that there are some case were some person have been judged without having doing anything

Furthermore, i never told my resolution was perfect and happily accepted to support a repeal/replacement process, when a new better draft will be ready


No, they can't. Not only does the resolution repeatedly refer to 'both partners' or 'the couple', and not only do many of its provisions clearly not make sense in the context of a polyandrous/polygamous relationship, but clause H defines a civil union as being between 'two people'.

If I marry you (or have a civil of union with you) then i can ask for divorce even if you have many marriages or civil unions before or after ours.

I mentionned that people in prison can see their child behind a glass, on an only 1/year basis, i mentionned also the psychological harm of the children, in the case if he can't see one of his parents, and i mentionned th humanist approach of this resolution, that mean that there are some case were some person have been judged without having doing anything

Yes. However, in doing this, you're invalidating the sense of 'regular' to the point that very good parents could equally only be allowed five minutes per year. Furthermore, there would still be cases where seeing a parent at all might create a severely traumatic experience for the child. Ausserland went over such circumstances in some considerable detail. The 'humanist approach' might be admirable in one way, but it is equally potentially hugely damaging to the child. I do not believe it is your place to make the assessment of what is best in each case.

Furthermore, i never told my resolution was perfect and happily accepted to support a repeal/replacement process, when a new better draft will be ready

This is a wildly irresponsible approach to legislation. Wait until the resolution is as good as possible before submitting; don't rush it through, and then have mistakes happen. Already, we are subject to its provisions. Right now, Gruenberger children are being terrorised, and there are polyandrous and polygamous people wondering they have been deemed inferior. A repeal won't undo that damage, but a swift one will help limit it. It remains my position that at present, no resolution would be better than your resolution.

If I marry you (or have a civil of union with you) then i can ask for divorce even if you have many marriages or civil unions before or after ours.

I don't understand this: could you rephrase please? Thanks. In the meantime, bear in mind that your co-author admitted that the resolution omitted to extend rights to polyandrous/polygamous relationships. Are you honestly maintaining this isn't the case?

[QUOTE=Love and esterelFurthermore, i never told my resolution was perfect and happily accepted to support a repeal/replacement process, when a new better draft will be ready.[/QUOTE]

Why are you submitting resolutions that you know aren't good enough and happily accept a replacement?

Repealing should be enough though. There's no need for a replacement resolution on this issue.

I don't understand this: could you rephrase please?

If I marry you (or have a civil of union with you), the marriage and civil union is between me and you, no matter how many wife or husbands you have already or will have in the future. So even if you are polygame or polyandre i will be able to divorce from you under #135 (according to conditions 1.1 to 1.6)

If I marry you (or have a civil of union with you), the marriage and civil union is between me and you, no matter how many wife or husbands you have already or will have in the future. So even if you are polygame or polyandre i will be able to divorce from you under #135 (according to conditions 1.1 to 1.6)

That's assuming one form of contractual arrangement, though. There are some when three or more people join in marriage at the same time, and sign a three-way contract. As such, that would not be a civil union between two people, and they would not qualify.

That's assuming one form of contractual arrangement, though. There are some when three or more people join in marriage at the same time, and sign a three-way contract. As such, that would not be a civil union between two people, and they would not qualify.

Even if i personaly don't know about those, OK for those case.
But our resolution doesn't prevent them to divorc or to join in, by marriage or civil union.

So if you draft a divorce proposal protecting also these people right for divorce, I will happily approve a repeal of #135 after having read you proposal.

87 approvals as of 10:40 p.m. GMT Thursday.

Just um, ___ more to go! Oh damn it, who has a calculator?

42

35 to go.

How much time left? Should I start TGing?

No, it's ok. I've TGed most people I can think of. We've passed 100, so we need about 30 more. It expires Saturday.

Okay, I will look over the list of those who've approved it already, though, and see if there are any notables missing.

Approvals: 113
Status: Lacking Support (requires 17 more approvals)

Are you a delegate? Have you approved this yet? Do you take bribes?

116

(Sorry, I always told myself I wouldn't become one of these people, but here we are).

Seven needed. I'll buy you cake.

we've still got a full day to get the last approvals. theres nothing to worry about.

we've still got a full day to get the last approvals. theres nothing to worry about.

1. 'We'? I missed that one.
2. By tomorrow, another update will have passed, and some delegacies may change hand. Thus, whilst I'm not 'worried', per se, I'm not going to sit around and say, "Actually, don't approve it yet, we've got aaages." It gets to quorum, and then I will see there is nothing to worry about.
3. For the love of Wena would it hurt to use a capital letter once in a while?

OOC:

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Way to go, folks!

New draft in post #24 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=10091382&posted=1#post10091382).



It's short, and hopefully sweet. It's likely we'll be submitting this very soon. I know the formatting's unconventional; I honestly don't see how to work up into 'proper' format. And no, I haven't said divorce is bad. The UN decided otherwise.
you're doing htis to mock me arent you. support alabama for all i care

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Thank you to all those who've supported, and to Fonzoland for submitting it.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Thank you to all those who've supported, and to Fonzoland for submitting it.

Congrats for quorum reached, even if i'm opposed to it:)

you're doing htis to mock me arent you. support alabama for all i care

I personally prefer Tennessee, but Alabama is also nice.

OOC: No, I haven't been to either. No, I don't have a clue of what he is talking about. Yes, I love listening to myself, uh, posting.

I personally prefer Tennessee, but Alabama is also nice.

OOC: No, I haven't been to either. No, I don't have a clue of what he is talking about. Yes, I love listening to myself, uh, posting.

He's suggesting that we wrote a draft, submitted it, survived a dubious legal challenge, orchestrated a full TG campaign, and got it to quorum, all because of one comment he made three days after the submission. If I was that good, I wouldn't be playing a fucking computer game, I can tell you.

Bumping this, because come tomorrow it'll probably be confusing which one's the kosher topic.

This will pass through as quick as possible if I could get my hands on it!

So it has come to this, I oppose the repeal and I look forwards to the debate to come.

Let battle commence!

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

So it has come to this, I oppose the repeal and I look forwards to the debate to come.

Let battle commence!

Yeah, you'll find my arguments here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce).

What have you got?

Yeah, you'll find my arguments here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce).

What have you got?

Fleas. :(

good luck with this guys. hope it doenst bomb....

Yeah, you'll find my arguments here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce).

What have you got?

I thank the delegate from Gruenberg for his kind invitation to begin the formal debate against this repeal.

NOTING the recent passage of "Right To Divorce",

CONCERNED at a number of failures of said resolution:

1. OBSERVING that although it 'declares that a marriage or civil union may be ended by divorce', this does not actually guarantee any right to a divorce, meaning the final decision still rests with national or local courts anyway,

The right to divorce enshrined in the orginal resolution was written with the implication that the divorce would be permitted. The laying out of rights post-divorce and of the relevant associated agencies furthers this implication. It is most explicitly mentioned in clause 5:

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases...

Thus indicating that their exists the need to put forwards legislation, which will conform to the rights and guidlines laid out in the text of the resolution, therefore meaning that there exists the mechanism to require divorce legislation. Furthermore, it should be noted under attorney rights:

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

Therefore indicating a legal right to initiate divorce, through mentioning right to a chosen or appointed counsul.

2. DEEPLY DISTURBED by clause 3, which enforces parental rights in such a way that it is illegal to deny regular access to the child to a parent who is assessed being a significant risk to the child, even where such parent has been convicted of crimes such as sexual molestation of children or infanticide,

Citing clauses 3 and 4:

-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 clearly states that no such right to visistation exists if the parent is judged a risk to the child, unless a legal body adjudges that the individual initially barred access is no longer a risk to the child.

3. BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

In what way is this fallacious? If this relates to post-divorce rights, then the circumstances of the divorce are all important to access to the child. As you said, we should bar sex-offenders and those guilty of domestic violence, yet if this was a key motivator for divorce, why should it not be a justification for barring access?

4. RECOGNISING that it would be better to have visitation privileges determined on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts of the specific situation and giving proper attention to the welfare of the children as well as the rights of the parents,

This would be excessively complicated: It is better to establish a precedent of which circumstances would automatically lead to restricted access and which would not, rather than have to analyse each case minutely. It is an efficient way to reduce bureaucracy, thus speeding up initial access or denial of access, rather than bogging down parents and offspring in a costly and potentially painfully drawn out legal struggle, which would be more likely under the criteria contained in the repeal.

6. CONVINCED that the resolution constitutes an attempt at inappropriate micromanagement, where many of its provisions would be more effectively delegated to national or more local agencies,

From a repeal that proposes micro-management in another part of divorce and post-divorce matters, this is ironic. This resolution enshrined the right to divorce and the basic circumstances and criteria surrounding acess, thus it is not, in our opinion, unduly bureaucratic.

7. REMAINING OPEN to the possibility of replacement legislation that legislates a 'right to divorce' without resorting to unnecessary micromanagement:

This at least is somewhat reassuring.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The right to divorce enshrined in the orginal resolution was written with the implication that the divorce would be permitted. The laying out of rights post-divorce and of the relevant associated agencies furthers this implication. It is most explicitly mentioned in clause 5:

-5- URGES Nations to ensure that their legislation protects both partners and their children in divorce cases...

Thus indicating that their exists the need to put forwards legislation, which will conform to the rights and guidlines laid out in the text of the resolution, therefore meaning that there exists the mechanism to require divorce legislation. Furthermore, it should be noted under attorney rights:

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

Therefore indicating a legal right to initiate divorce, through mentioning right to a chosen or appointed counsul.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Implication matters sod all. The law means what the law says. In this case, the law says a divorce 'may be permitted'. As such, the decision quite clearly still rests with the 'more local' (thanks for that one) court. All this does is establish a UN-sponsored right to waste court time. No divorces have been issued under Gruenberger law since the passage of this resolution; we're still not in noncompliance.

This clearly states that no such right to visistation exists if the parent is judged a risk to the child, unless a legal body adjudges that the individual initially barred access is no longer a risk to the child.

No. It. Doesn't.

Visitation can only be denied where:
i. the divorce was over prove domestic violence or sexual abuse
ii. the parent abuses the other parent post-divorce
iii. the parent abuses the child post-divorce

If the parent abuses another child - not their own - they retain visitation rights. If they abuse 100 children, and then announce in writing that they will abuse their child, they retain visitation rights. Does that strike you as a sensible approach?

In what way is this fallacious? If this relates to post-divorce rights, then the circumstances of the divorce are all important to access to the child. As you said, we should bar sex-offenders and those guilty of domestic violence, yet if this was a key motivator for divorce, why should it not be a justification for barring access?

I think you might need to reread it.

BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

See?

This would be excessively complicated: It is better to establish a precedent of which circumstances would automatically lead to restricted access and which would not, rather than have to analyse each case minutely. It is an efficient way to reduce bureaucracy, thus speeding up initial access or denial of access, rather than bogging down parents and offspring in a costly and potentially painfully drawn out legal struggle, which would be more likely under the criteria contained in the repeal.

Again, you're misreading. I have nothing against establishing certain legal precedens for automatic restriction/termination of access. Secondly, this concerns visitation rights, only. Custody - a far more complex assessment - is not dealt with by the resolution, at all. This is quite right. But it means that your argument that this should all be handed down from the great big UN book of good seems a little weak, given the resolution authors clearly feel the major assessments will be left to be administered as a sovereign decision. Frankly, I find this talk of 'efficiency' highly suspicious. Deciding what's best for a child is not a simple decision, and I would expect the process to be time- and effort-consuming. What you are saying, in opposing this clause, is that no consideration at all should be given to the welfare of the child. Do you really object to it?

5. NOTING FURTHER that the definition used in the resolution does not extend any rights to those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships, and as such enforces one particular set of values,

You missed this one out.

From a repeal that proposes micro-management in another part of divorce and post-divorce matters, this is ironic. This resolution enshrined the right to divorce and the basic circumstances and criteria surrounding acess, thus it is not, in our opinion, unduly bureaucratic.

Yeah. And the micromanaging I'd support is on a national level - but if I were to support this sort of proposal, it would have to contain an exhortation to exercise the utmost devolution of power. That's largely irrelevant, though. My problem is with UN micromanagement. I do not believe it is effective for the UN to dictate visitation rights, as it cannot take into account a multitude of contributary factors. This is demonstrated by the fact that when it tried to do so, it failed. The visitation rights clause in the resolution is hopeless: that's not a failing of L&E or FL. It's a natural failing of any resolution that tries to do that. I'm not attacking 'bureaucracy': I'm attacking micromanagement. It's so tempting to take 'bureaucracy' as this hideous monster. But when it comes to child welfare, I would always take the thorough approach, rather than the quick one.

This at least is somewhat reassuring.

We'll see.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Implication matters sod all. The law means what the law says. In this case, the law says a divorce 'may be permitted'. As such, the decision quite clearly still rests with the 'more local' (thanks for that one) court. All this does is establish a UN-sponsored right to waste court time. No divorces have been issued under Gruenberger law since the passage of this resolution; we're still not in noncompliance.

"May be permitted" refers to the circumstances for allowing the right to divorce to be exercised, not the actual right. Regardless, I find that this is a rather unfair comment, given that had a clause been put in stating that divorce "must" be provided under said grounds, the NS crowd would have kicked up a storm and we'd end up with a different set arguments, based on "the U.N. is interfering" or "this is micro-management". If no divorces have been permitted under Gruenberger law, then you are in non-compliance because the clauses stipulate that you must provide the means to intiate divorce proceedings, therefore the right to initiate proceedings must conjunctly recognised.

No. It. Doesn't.

Visitation can only be denied where:
i. the divorce was over prove domestic violence or sexual abuse
ii. the parent abuses the other parent post-divorce
iii. the parent abuses the child post-divorce

If the parent abuses another child - not their own - they retain visitation rights. If they abuse 100 children, and then announce in writing that they will abuse their child, they retain visitation rights. Does that strike you as a sensible approach?

Fair point, but if the child's parent/s was/were to raise this matter, then I would be greatly surprised if some sort of judicial review of the access rights were not undertaken. Furthermore, if this was to be revealed, then the parent who was not involved in the abuse would almost certainly withdraw access and contest it, therfore this is a non-sequiteur, in my opinion.

I think you might need to reread it.

BELIEVING it to be fallacious to base post-divorce visitation rights exclusively on the circumstances of divorce,

See?

Yes I see and I stand by my original point. The circumstances of the divorce should be the judging criteria. If a matter is un-connected, then it should be by the other relevant parties.

Again, you're misreading. I have nothing against establishing certain legal precedens for automatic restriction/termination of access. Secondly, this concerns visitation rights, only. Custody - a far more complex assessment - is not dealt with by the resolution, at all. This is quite right. But it means that your argument that this should all be handed down from the great big UN book of good seems a little weak, given the resolution authors clearly feel the major assessments will be left to be administered as a sovereign decision. Frankly, I find this talk of 'efficiency' highly suspicious. Deciding what's best for a child is not a simple decision, and I would expect the process to be time- and effort-consuming. What you are saying, in opposing this clause, is that no consideration at all should be given to the welfare of the child. Do you really object to it?

I never said, that I merely said that the clauses were broad enough to take in adaquate relevant scenarios and thus would simplify the process, whilst not unduly harming the welfare of the child in question. Local and U.N. authority are to be balanced, that is the consensus, but in leaving it to local authorities in many ways, we have opened up other means to judge the issue and attach additional caveats or measures concerning circumstances of divorce, proceedings or access rights, thus rendering it more flexible.


You missed this one out.

Given the fire-storm my previous comments whipped up, I had no desire to revist it.

Yeah. And the micromanaging I'd support is on a national level - but if I were to support this sort of proposal, it would have to contain an exhortation to exercise the utmost devolution of power. That's largely irrelevant, though. My problem is with UN micromanagement. I do not believe it is effective for the UN to dictate visitation rights, as it cannot take into account a multitude of contributary factors. This is demonstrated by the fact that when it tried to do so, it failed. The visitation rights clause in the resolution is hopeless: that's not a failing of L&E or FL. It's a natural failing of any resolution that tries to do that. I'm not attacking 'bureaucracy': I'm attacking micromanagement. It's so tempting to take 'bureaucracy' as this hideous monster. But when it comes to child welfare, I would always take the thorough approach, rather than the quick one.

No one mentioned quick, we all agree that a careful process should be followed, yet ultimately we have not micro-managed in extremis, but pointed out relevant areas of precedent to follow in national law, whilst deciding the matters covered by this resolution. That was my point.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

"May be permitted" refers to the circumstances for allowing the right to divorce to be exercised, not the actual right. Regardless, I find that this is a rather unfair comment, given that had a clause been put in stating that divorce "must" be provided under said grounds, the NS crowd would have kicked up a storm and we'd end up with a different set arguments, based on "the U.N. is interfering" or "this is micro-management". If no divorces have been permitted under Gruenberger law, then you are in non-compliance because the clauses stipulate that you must provide the means to intiate divorce proceedings, therefore the right to initiate proceedings must conjunctly recognised.

Compadria, precision is really important. I didn't say no divorces had been 'permitted': I said it just so happens that no divorces have been issued. Do you see the difference? Divorce cases have been brought before the courts. In each case, the judge has acknowledged the right of the partner to do so. In each case, it just so happens the judge has decided a divorce won't be granted. Perhaps your observation that the law runs the risk of being too soft and of being too hard might lead to the conclusion that it shouldn't be a law at all. What this effectively says is: carry on regardless, but bear this extra thing in mind.

Now, this may seem minor, but think of the possibilities for future legislation. What if we set up an ICJ? A UN peacekeeping force? And what if, then, it is judged Gruenberg violated a partner's right to divorce simply because a judge ruled one way. All I am objecting to is the idea that this resolution grants, as someone put it, an 'inalienable right'. It doesn't: I feel people who supported it need to bear that in mind.

Fair point, but if the child's parent/s was/were to raise this matter, then I would be greatly surprised if some sort of judicial review of the access rights were not undertaken. Furthermore, if this was to be revealed, then the parent who was not involved in the abuse would almost certainly withdraw access and contest it, therfore this is a non-sequiteur, in my opinion.

There is no mechanism for this described in the resolution. The partners 'have the right to continue to regularly see'. If you deny them that right, then you are in noncompliance.

Yes I see and I stand by my original point. The circumstances of the divorce should be the judging criteria. If a matter is un-connected, then it should be by the other relevant parties.

Ok, let's put this a different way.

John and Jean live together happily, with children Sammy and Susan. Then, they disagree over whether the TV should be in the left-hand corner or the right-hand corner of the lounge, and get amicably divorced. John is convicted of multiple infanticide. You are saying the SOLE criteria for judging whether John should continue to see Sammy and Susan is a television?

I never said, that I merely said that the clauses were broad enough to take in adaquate relevant scenarios and thus would simplify the process, whilst not unduly harming the welfare of the child in question. Local and U.N. authority are to be balanced, that is the consensus, but in leaving it to local authorities in many ways, we have opened up other means to judge the issue and attach additional caveats or measures concerning circumstances of divorce, proceedings or access rights, thus rendering it more flexible.

Sorry, don't understand this. The local social services agency or court or police force or other appropriate body is best placed to make the decision, not the UN General Assembly. So let's make the local agencies make that decision.

Given the fire-storm my previous comments whipped up, I had no desire to revist it.

Yeah? Well I do want to revisit it. You support this resolution, you support that clause. That means you do not believe those in polyandrous or polygamous relationships should be granted the same rights as those in monogamous ones. I find that...illiberal.

No one mentioned quick, we all agree that a careful process should be followed, yet ultimately we have not micro-managed in extremis, but pointed out relevant areas of precedent to follow in national law, whilst deciding the matters covered by this resolution. That was my point.

Some of them aren't relevant. And areas of precedent like, ooh, baby-rapists shouldn't be given regular access to babies, are not only ignored by this resolution, but they are forbidden from being taken into account.

[Vigdís Tirfinnbogadót, the LAE Vice-President, had searched for long a solution to allow divorce, while in the same time, both, getting rid of divorce for faults and avoiding a blanket right. She found it in our literature (= real world) and then proposed the clause -1.5- to Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero and Forgottenlord when they drafted the resolution #135 right to divorce. She decided to have a speech at the general Assembly to defend it]

Dear UN Members,

For ages in many nations in the world, divorce was forbidden, and then it had been allowed in many nations but very often for various faults only. The intentions back in those times were good, but these ask for faults have proved dramatic and have destroyed even further the already shaken remaining family ties.

We are proud to have introduced the 3-months-reflexions in clause -1.5-. It’s a sensible way to get rid of these damaging searches for faults while avoiding non-really-wanted-precipitated-divorce to automatically occur.

I would like also point out that our resolution deal only with visitation, not custody, and that obviously criminals will only be able to see their child in prison.

Furthermore as it has already been said, some people in the world have been wrongly convicted for abuse and also we should think of the physical harm children can have if hey are barred completely to see one of their parent.

Thank You for your time.

For ages in many nations in the world, divorce was forbidden, and then it had been allowed in many nations but very often for various faults only. The intentions back in those times were good, but these ask for faults have proved dramatic and have destroyed even further the already shaken remaining family ties.

False assumption, actually. You have no way of knowing this kind of information with regard to the NS world. That, I admit, is irrelevant insofar as we can't be certain of anything. Furthermore, we find it...amusing that you wish to preserve 'already shaken remaining family ties' by giving a UN-sanctioned right to destroy them.

We are proud to have introduced the 3-months-reflexions in clause -1.5-. It’s a sensible way to get rid of these damaging searches for faults while avoiding non-really-wanted-precipitated-divorce to automatically occur.

Well go make yourself a cake. Given the decision still rests with 'more local' courts, we don't really see this as that relevant, except, of course, that it enshrines a right to waste court time.

I would like also point out that our resolution deal only with visitation, not custody, and that obviously criminals will only be able to see their child in prison.

It may be 'obvious' to you, but in that case, we're sure you could have found room to squeeze it into your proposal, and cut out all this ambiguity. Furthermore, you are, as you say, not dealing with custody, so you are admitting some 'more local' assessment will still be required. As such, why not leave visitation up to them, too? I suspect they'd do a better job of it than you did.

Furthermore as it has already been said, some people in the world have been wrongly convicted for abuse and also we should think of the physical harm children can have if hey are barred completely to see one of their parent.

Damn right. Much more important than considering the physical harm children can have if they are killed completely by their parents.

LAE: We screwed up. The individual understanding of 1.6 is murky, the visitation rights are questionable and easy to attack, we have the point of whether divorce needs to be granted for requests that meet the criteria, and various other points. Yes there are a lot of good things in our resolution - which is why we have seen so many suggest we draft the replacement. However, we made a mistake and we MUST fix it. How many poor resolutions sit in the halls of the UN? How many remain? We can't let yet another join them. So much work needs to be done. The UN is not saying that they don't want divorce to be guaranteed in a resolution - Fonzoland and Gruen both supported us before Ausserland showed the gaping flaw in our proposal. The UN is saying that we messed up. We have the responsibility to help clean up our messes, and this repeal is the fairest repeal we've seen and one that remains open to another attempt from us to correctly protect the right to divorce.

Compadria, precision is really important. I didn't say no divorces had been 'permitted': I said it just so happens that no divorces have been issued. Do you see the difference? Divorce cases have been brought before the courts. In each case, the judge has acknowledged the right of the partner to do so. In each case, it just so happens the judge has decided a divorce won't be granted. Perhaps your observation that the law runs the risk of being too soft and of being too hard might lead to the conclusion that it shouldn't be a law at all. What this effectively says is: carry on regardless, but bear this extra thing in mind.

If the judges have decided, having let the cases come to court, that there were no grounds for divorce under the laws implemented following the guidance of the resolution, then they have followed the law correctly and the intent of the resolution. A law such as this, laying out basic reasons for granting divorce and post-divorce access is essential so as to guarantee these basic rights to all individuals.

There is no mechanism for this described in the resolution. The partners 'have the right to continue to regularly see'. If you deny them that right, then you are in noncompliance.

I stated that it struck me as unlikely that a judge or parent would permit continuing access if the extraneous circumstances, such as the one you cited, related specifically to the child's welfare or that of the parent. Therefore, we would be in compliance, but you would not (theoretically speaking).

Ok, let's put this a different way.

John and Jean live together happily, with children Sammy and Susan. Then, they disagree over whether the TV should be in the left-hand corner or the right-hand corner of the lounge, and get amicably divorced. John is convicted of multiple infanticide. You are saying the SOLE criteria for judging whether John should continue to see Sammy and Susan is a television?

Yes, unless prior to the crime John had shown violent intent or actions towards his children, in which case he would be blocked from seeing them. If not, then he would and should, be fully entitled to see the children, as his crime had no specific bearing to the actual divorce circumstances and visit access rights.

Sorry, don't understand this. The local social services agency or court or police force or other appropriate body is best placed to make the decision, not the UN General Assembly. So let's make the local agencies make that decision.

Local agencies have limits of varying types, that and to act as an international agency for change, is the role of the U.N. Equally, the U.N. has limits, therefore it is desirable at least some control, as is set out in the resolution, is devovled to local authority.

Some of them aren't relevant. And areas of precedent like, ooh, baby-rapists shouldn't be given regular access to babies, are not only ignored by this resolution, but they are forbidden from being taken into account.

I find this incredible. I have categorically pointed out how it is the case that they would not be given access. I expect the citizens of the U.N. not to act as sheep and blindly follow the exact dictates of the law only, but to look at relevant extrapolations from it and then act upon them, as I pointed out.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

If the judges have decided, having let the cases come to court, that there were no grounds for divorce under the laws implemented following the guidance of the resolution, then they have followed the law correctly and the intent of the resolution. A law such as this, laying out basic reasons for granting divorce and post-divorce access is essential so as to guarantee these basic rights to all individuals.

A divorce should be granted if the continuation of that marriage would be worse than the severance thereof. Into that equation climb a number of factors: welfare of all concerned parties chiefly. That is an assessment that must be made by a local, provincial, and I actually doubt national court. Laying down the grounds for divorce is fine, but it needs to be made clear that this resolution does not guarantee a 'right to divorce': it guarantees a 'right to have a divorce case heard in court'. Well woopdefuckingdoo.

I stated that it struck me as unlikely that a judge or parent would permit continuing access if the extraneous circumstances, such as the one you cited, related specifically to the child's welfare or that of the parent. Therefore, we would be in compliance, but you would not (theoretically speaking).

Let's put this simply:

If the parent has not been proven to have committed acts of domestic or sexual abuse against the other parent or any of the children before or after the divorce, they are given the right to continue to 'regularly see' the children. If you deny them that access, for any reason, you are in noncompliance.

Yes, unless prior to the crime John had shown violent intent or actions towards his children, in which case he would be blocked from seeing them. If not, then he would and should, be fully entitled to see the children, as his crime had no specific bearing to the actual divorce circumstances and visit access rights.

Actions, yes. Intent? Depends on your laws on abuse: if that intent constitutes abuse, yes. If not, no. And you are actually suggesting that someone who announces that they will throttle their child the moment they see them should have their right to 'regularly see' that child protected as inviolable UN law? I'm sorry, but I found that very bemusing.

Local agencies have limits of varying types, that and to act as an international agency for change, is the role of the U.N. Equally, the U.N. has limits, therefore it is desirable at least some control, as is set out in the resolution, is devovled to local authority.

You're misreading the resolution. If the local authority believes the parent constitutes a significant threat to the child, they still may not deny them access to that child.

I find this incredible. I have categorically pointed out how it is the case that they would not be given access. I expect the citizens of the U.N. not to act as sheep and blindly follow the exact dictates of the law only, but to look at relevant extrapolations from it and then act upon them, as I pointed out.

I don't give a fuck what you expect. You're wrong. We can extrapolate the law: we cannot non-comply when it suits is. You may not deny access to the child to a convicted child-rapist, if they have not acted against the parent or child. If you do, you are non-complying.

Still waiting for an answer on the polyandry/polygamy question, by the way.

A divorce should be granted if the continuation of that marriage would be worse than the severance thereof. Into that equation climb a number of factors: welfare of all concerned parties chiefly. That is an assessment that must be made by a local, provincial, and I actually doubt national court. Laying down the grounds for divorce is fine, but it needs to be made clear that this resolution does not guarantee a 'right to divorce': it guarantees a 'right to have a divorce case heard in court'. Well woopdefuckingdoo.

Which indicates that the right to have your divorce case heard equals the right to have it resolves equals the possibility of divorce being granted, ergo, right to divorce.

Let's put this simply:

If the parent has not been proven to have committed acts of domestic or sexual abuse against the other parent or any of the children before or after the divorce, they are given the right to continue to 'regularly see' the children. If you deny them that access, for any reason, you are in noncompliance.

That's not the same point as you were making earlier. Of course if it hasn't been proven they are permitted access, given the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption made in most criminal cases.

Actions, yes. Intent? Depends on your laws on abuse: if that intent constitutes abuse, yes. If not, no. And you are actually suggesting that someone who announces that they will throttle their child the moment they see them should have their right to 'regularly see' that child protected as inviolable UN law? I'm sorry, but I found that very bemusing.

No I did not say that. Read the answer I gave about applicable circumstances.

You're misreading the resolution. If the local authority believes the parent constitutes a significant threat to the child, they still may not deny them access to that child.

I did not misread, I emphasised this was a judicial matter, not one for local authorities. Judicial oversight is needed in these cases, not the volatile considerations of local authorities. The law must be followed and who better to apply it than the very people who:

a). Authorise divorce in the first place.

b). Deal with its intricacies and can thus make the best decision regarding the facts of a case.

I don't give a fuck what you expect. You're wrong. We can extrapolate the law: we cannot non-comply when it suits is. You may not deny access to the child to a convicted child-rapist, if they have not acted against the parent or child. If you do, you are non-complying.

Still waiting for an answer on the polyandry/polygamy question, by the way.

I'm going to let the first one lie, because neither of us is going to budge on it, clearly.

And you know what? I'll give my opinion on the polyandry/polygamy question. I believe they are inherently inferior and detrimental to the rights of partners and children.

So there: I am a racist, I'm a culture supremacist, I'm wearing a bloody Ku Klux Klan hood and burning crosses on laws. Does that satisfy you?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

LAE: We screwed up. The individual understanding of 1.6 is murky, the visitation rights are questionable and easy to attack, we have the point of whether divorce needs to be granted for requests that meet the criteria, and various other points. Yes there are a lot of good things in our resolution - which is why we have seen so many suggest we draft the replacement. However, we made a mistake and we MUST fix it. How many poor resolutions sit in the halls of the UN? How many remain? We can't let yet another join them. So much work needs to be done. The UN is not saying that they don't want divorce to be guaranteed in a resolution - Fonzoland and Gruen both supported us before Ausserland showed the gaping flaw in our proposal. The UN is saying that we messed up. We have the responsibility to help clean up our messes, and this repeal is the fairest repeal we've seen and one that remains open to another attempt from us to correctly protect the right to divorce.

I am truly in awe here. The people of Cluichstan applaud the esteemed representative of Forgottenlands for his honorable admission of error. While we do not wish to see the error corrected beyond a repeal, admitting that the resolution was seriously flawed took great -- no other word comes close, I'm afraid -- cojones. The people of Cluichstan now have even more respect for the representative of Forgottenlands.

I am truly in awe here. The people of Cluichstan applaud the esteemed representative of Forgottenlands for his honorable admission of error. While we do not wish to see the error corrected beyond a repeal, admitting that the resolution was seriously flawed took great -- no other word comes close, I'm afraid -- cojones. The people of Cluichstan now have even more respect for the representative of Forgottenlands.

This would make the third time I've publicly admitted a failing on this resolution, second in this thread. There is no shame in admitting your mistakes, there is shame in not correcting them. It doesn't take courage, it takes two things: honor and humility

This would make the third time I've publicly admitted a failing on this resolution, second in this thread. There is no shame in admitting your mistakes, there is shame in not correcting them. It doesn't take courage, it takes two things: honor and humility

Yes, and for that, we tips our hats to you.

We would like to respond to a specific point raised by the honorable delegate from Compadria:

Citing clauses 3 and 4:

-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 clearly states that no such right to visistation exists if the parent is judged a risk to the child, unless a legal body adjudges that the individual initially barred access is no longer a risk to the child.

That, sir, is simply not what the resolution says. There is no provision in the resolution to permit competent authority to assess or evaluate risk to the child. There are only two specific and narrowly defined conditions under which visitation may be denied. No other consideration of potential harm to the children is allowed. The only situation in which any judicial discretion is allowed is in reinstating visitation rights that have previously been denied.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Which indicates that the right to have your divorce case heard equals the right to have it resolves equals the possibility of divorce being granted, ergo, right to divorce.

You know what, this isn't a strong argument for me, and I'm mindful of your signature, so I'll concede this one.

That's not the same point as you were making earlier. Of course if it hasn't been proven they are permitted access, given the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption made in most criminal cases.

No, if it has been proven, they are still permitted access. Once again, Compadria:

If someone is convicted of child molestation they retain the inviolable right to regularly see their child.

No I did not say that. Read the answer I gave about applicable circumstances.

That's my point: you should have said that, because by supporting this resolution, that's what you're supporting.

I did not misread, I emphasised this was a judicial matter, not one for local authorities. Judicial oversight is needed in these cases, not the volatile considerations of local authorities. The law must be followed and who better to apply it than the very people who:

a). Authorise divorce in the first place.

b). Deal with its intricacies and can thus make the best decision regarding the facts of a case.

I quite agree. Which is why I don't think terms of visitation should be mandated by the UN, but should instead be assessed by the very people who authorise divorce in the first place, and deal with its intricacies and can thus make the best decision regarding the facts of a case. If you believe this, then you will need to repeal the resolution to allow this a chance.

I'm going to let the first one lie, because neither of us is going to budge on it, clearly.

No, we're not. I believe a child-molester should not be given the inviolable right to regular access to a child; you do.

And you know what? I'll give my opinion on the polyandry/polygamy question. I believe they are inherently inferior and detrimental to the rights of partners and children.

So there: I am a racist, I'm a culture supremacist, I'm wearing a bloody Ku Klux Klan hood and burning crosses on laws. Does that satisfy you?

Yes, thank you. All I asked was that you admitted it.

A Message from the Office of U.N. Affairs for Compadria:

Fellow delegates and members

A short time ago, Mr Leonard Otterby, our esteemed ambassador to the U.N., made a series of comments about polygamous and polyandrous marriages and their position vis-a-vis monogomous ones. These comments were rather controversial, as some have probably noticed and were not delivered in an adaquately diplomatic fashion.

Mr Otterby at the time was tired and emotional, as well as in a state of anxiety due to his inability to find a present for his mother in time for Otterfest. This is the best explanation for the rather excitable nature of his reply.

As such, we have decided to put Mr Otterby on leave for an indeterminate period of time whilst his fate shall be decided. During the mean time, his deputy Mr Anthony Holt will take over all debating responsibilities.

Thank you.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Marcus Hydros
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for The Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Fellow Delegates and Members

I wish to communicate an adjustment of position by the Republic of Compadria regarding this repeal.

We recognise now that there is little chance that we will be able to prevent it from happening. Furthermore, we have seen strong indications to suggest that there exist plans for a replacement, pursuant to the repeal of this resolution. As such, we will withdraw our opposition and abstain on this bill and concentrate on getting the best possible replacement for it, following the repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you all.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

The government of St Edmund has voted FOR this repeal, on the grounds that the law concerning matters such as divorce should fall under national jurisdiction instead of the UN's authority rather than because the earlier Resolution's actual terms caused us any difficulty: Our own laws already allowed for divorce under certain circumstances anyway, and there were some simple loopholes in that resolution which we used to encourage people to continue making any new applications for divorce under our pre-existing rules rather than under the UN's ones...

[The representative for the Confederacy of Libratonia stands up]

While Libratonia agrees with Resolution #135, we are aware that there are many nations in the UN who are more religious than the Confederacy. These nations may wish to rule the people as Catholics, who do not allow divorce. Trying to force these nations to give up their religious beliefs is morally outrageous, at best. Therefore, Libratonia urges its fellow nations to repeal the Right to Divorce, and decide for themselves whether divorce is right.

If there are representatives who didn't understand me, then I'll translate into Layman-ish: How would YOU like it if someone walked into your country and overturned one of your major moral principles? Or, if you have no morals, someone tried to force morals into you? Huh?

In closing: Repeal the Right to Divorce.

The representative sits down.

[The representative for the Confederacy of Libratonia stands up]

While Libratonia agrees with Resolution #135, we are aware that there are many nations in the UN who are more religious than the Confederacy. These nations may wish to rule the people as Catholics, who do not allow divorce. Trying to force these nations to give up their religious beliefs is morally outrageous, at best. Therefore, Libratonia urges its fellow nations to repeal the Right to Divorce, and decide for themselves whether divorce is right.

If there are representatives who didn't understand me, then I'll translate into Layman-ish: How would YOU like it if someone walked into your country and overturned one of your major moral principles? Or, if you have no morals, someone tried to force morals into you? Huh?

In closing: Repeal the Right to Divorce.

The representative sits down.

I would just like to clarify the nature of the resolution that is being repealed and the probable one that is to replace it. Let us assure the Roman Catholic nations, such as Libratonia, that this would not force nations to give up moral beliefs, merely allow divergence for those citizens who might wish to exercise the right. Good Catholics need not do so if they feel it contradicts their doctrine, so they only need be aware that the right exists, should they wish to exercise it.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Compadria: 300 votes have been cast. Remember the WMA? I am not writing this off as 'done' yet, and I won't do so until Boxing Day, when probably 40 times as many votes will have been cast. I don't feel that you need 'stand down'. Nonetheless, I am open to discussions of replacement in this thread.

Libratonia: I'm not doing this one for the Catholics, I'm afraid. That's not my objection.

The real argument against the resolution is that the UN has no business meddling in what is essentially family law within nations.

Furthermore, the people of Cluichstan are particularly perturbed by the language of the resolution that dismisses polygamy, as if polygamous marriages don't qualify as "real" marriages at all somehow. I myself have five wives, and my unions with each of them is no way lesser than someone else's monogamous marriage.

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

While Libratonia agrees with Resolution #135, we are aware that there are many nations in the UN who are more religious than the Confederacy. These nations may wish to rule the people as Catholics, who do not allow divorce. Trying to force these nations to give up their religious beliefs is morally outrageous, at best. Therefore, Libratonia urges its fellow nations to repeal the Right to Divorce, and decide for themselves whether divorce is right.

If there are representatives who didn't understand me, then I'll translate into Layman-ish: How would YOU like it if someone walked into your country and overturned one of your major moral principles? Or, if you have no morals, someone tried to force morals into you? Huh?

The honorable representative is murdering any sort of logic reasoning. He proclaims the right to religion, while in fact he wishes to give nations the right to forbid religious freedom. You are NOT allowed to force people to be catholic. You can only rule people as catholics if they freely choose to be so. Restricting the right to divorce is forcing all non-catholics in your country to follow catholic beliefs. Therefore, I suggest that the honorable representative is the only one here forcing morals upon others.

Having said that, I support this repeal based on the arguments presented.

... wait, I actually submitted the thing!

Compadria: 300 votes have been cast. Remember the WMA? I am not writing this off as 'done' yet, and I won't do so until Boxing Day, when probably 40 times as many votes will have been cast. I don't feel that you need 'stand down'. Nonetheless, I am open to discussions of replacement in this thread.

Libratonia: I'm not doing this one for the Catholics, I'm afraid. That's not my objection.

I've been swayed by Fonzoland's appeal and the comments made by Ausserland (somewhat). I can now see that it would probably be for the best to wrap up any perceived ambiguitees and points of confusion under a new resolution, rather than continue to labour under the shadow of the one currently in place. We still aren't particularly fond of the repeal, but knowing that a replacement is definitely planned and seeing one of the original authors repudiate it has tempered our opposition.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Forgottenlands and Compadria have stood down, and Pallatium's sobbing into a pillow...this is going to be a fun debate, isn't it. I'll be in the corner, picking my nails with a switchblade.

Forgottenlands and Compadria have stood down, and Pallatium's sobbing into a pillow...this is going to be a fun debate, isn't it. I'll be in the corner, picking my nails with a switchblade.

Fancy a debate on the merits and demerits of polygamous and polyandrous marriages?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Fancy a debate on the merits and demerits of polygamous and polyandrous marriages?

Absolutement. Although, I should include two caveats: only so far as is relevant to the repeal, and also that I don't wish to promote polygamy for all, but only for those who see it is a liberty to choose who they marry, rather than have a government decide.

The government of St Edmund has voted FOR this repeal, on the grounds that the law concerning matters such as divorce should fall under national jurisdiction instead of the UN's authority

NATSOV baby... someone throw down that card for me. Thanks.

Note to all potential drafters of more "Right to Divorce" legislation. Having admitted the failings of the first one, I wager a dozen rats we see no subsequent "Right to Divorce" passed by the UN within the next year.

Having said that, I would gladly support (for what that support is worth, about 4 votes right now) a non-binding resolution of the following substance:

URGES member nations to adopt "no-fault" divorce laws.

With the appropriate Declares, definitions, etc. Simply points out that getting the message across in such a fashion would probably be more palatable to the many nations that have stated their strong preference to dealing with divorce on a local level, in lieu of the UN global level.

NATSOV baby... someone throw down that card for me. Thanks.

*snip*


http://img112.echo.cx/img112/1306/natsovcard7yg.jpg

Ask and ye shall receive. ;)

Barvinia has voted for this repeal!

I do not support this repeal. If you go back and read the orginal, nowhere does it state that it is legal to see the children even if they are a threat. It states that visitation can be given if, and only if the courts decided that there is no longer a risk. I believe strongly in the need to a right to divorce.

I do not support this repeal. If you go back and read the orginal, nowhere does it state that it is legal to see the children even if they are a threat. It states that visitation can be given if, and only if the courts decided that there is no longer a risk. I believe strongly in the need to a right to divorce.

Actually, you'e wrong. It states: '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'. Note the word proven. Nowhere is any court assessment mentioned. If you believe strongly in the need to a right to divorce, then support the repeal, and contribute to a resolution taht enshrines such without actually enforcing an inviolable right to access children for paedophiles.

I do not support this repeal. If you go back and read the orginal, nowhere does it state that it is legal to see the children even if they are a threat. It states that visitation can be given if, and only if the courts decided that there is no longer a risk. I believe strongly in the need to a right to divorce.

Sorry, but the honorable representative is mistaken. We suggest he read the pertinent clause again:

-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

Visitation can be denied only if (1) the divorce was over proven domestic violence or sexual abuse, or (2) if such actions are taken upon either the other parent or any of the shared children after the divorce has taken place. Unless one of these two very specific conditions exists, visitation cannot be denied, even if there are clear indications that it would be harmful to the child.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

You comment that the resolutions does not forbid a parent who is abusive visitation. However, this falls under the jurisdiction of Jurisprudence, or interpreting the law through the eyes of morals. No court in any land would allow a child unsupervised visitation with a parent who is physically or sexually abusive.

Absolutement. Although, I should include two caveats: only so far as is relevant to the repeal, and also that I don't wish to promote polygamy for all, but only for those who see it is a liberty to choose who they marry, rather than have a government decide.

Oh well in that case you've taken the wind out my sails somewhat. Still, I have a few contentions as to whether it is really advantageous to the partners or the offspring of the relationship to be involved in such a partnership.

I'll give first shot to you.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

You comment that the resolutions does not forbid a parent who is abusive visitation. However, this falls under the jurisdiction of Jurisprudence, or interpreting the law through the eyes of morals. No court in any land would allow a child unsupervised visitation with a parent who is physically or sexually abusive.

But this resolution does, in fact, guarantee such visitation unless the divorce was granted on the grounds of physical or sexual abuse.

Honorable representatives of these here fine United Nations,

I come before you today on behalf of my people to plead you to restore a central right of theirs which has come under threat.

Their right to marry.

That's right, ever since this legislation passed, we have been forced to outlaw marriage, and therefore divorce, and allow our citizens to enjoy only those freedoms granted under informal civil pairings, with the freedom to terminate such pairings, but only under the terms of our laws, not those instituted and outrageously micromanaged by a prejudicial whim of the international community.

It's not that we hate divorce; it's the principal of the thing. And it's your own damn fault for not making marriage a right before deciding to enshrine divorce as such. L&E's UN Affairs Office is likely scratching its collective head as to why that little wrinkle was permitted to slip past their Super-Special Department for Controlling Anything and Everything under the Sun Proposal Drafters.

Kennyites were initially saddened and chagrined when we removed the sacrament of marriage from the books, but have since resolved to channel their dejection and forlornness to pure rage. Now they're out in the streets of Paradise City, rioting, raising Cain, burning stuff, shooting in the air, battling police, and blowing up cars, planes, hotels, parking garages, airport terminals, government offices, government limos, and the Capitol Building (pretty much business as usual in Paradise City). They clamor for the right to marry once again. Some are clamoring for the right to marry, so they can turn right around and get divorced. Some are clamoring for Pedophile Rights, as long as the pedoes only molest other people's children. Some are clamoring without the faintest idea what they're clamoring for; they just like complaining about shit and blowing shit up.

So please, think of all the poor, despondent, psychotic Kennyites when you cast your vote this Holiday Season. Cast your lot with their right to say "I do," "until death do us part" -- and then take it right back. And to those of you who remain determined to violate our sovereignty over family law and make sure that the UN continues to govern it for us: you may rest assured, if we decide you're a big enough threat, you can expect our Exploding Penguins, Stripper Commandos and Ashlee Simpson on your doorstep.

May God bless you all this Christmas.

Kenny has spoken.

Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations

P.S. And this time, let's just repeal this shit. No replacements. The Worldwide Media Act made Kenny cry.

We have voted in favor of the repeal and the Yeldan government is open to the idea of a replacement.

Alright Compadria: I believe polygamous/polyandrous relationships deserve the same rights as monogamous ones, because we have already - with Sexual Freedom - enshrined the right to non-interference in sexual affairs concerning more than two partners. Furthermore, they are advantageous in that they offer the child(ren) greater opportunity to learn from parents. Just as I'm sure you'd suggest two parent families have the potential to be more beneficial than single parent ones, so four parent families are better than three parent ones. One can love more than one person as a parent, just as one can love more than one person as a lover. That's a liberty I'd like to see the UN defend.

Hey guys! I don't get what's up! This is silly! I mean... a couple weeks ago the UN votes dominantly in FAVOR of the "right to divorce". Suddenly somebody proposes to repeal that and the UN votes dominantly in FAVOR of the repeal! The UN isn't thinking, guys! It's just a bunch of little minds excited about voting for resolutions they know nothing about! If I'm wrong, PLEASE prove it and get rid of the repeal! :headbang:

The concerned, Democratic Republic of Bread Eaters

Fonzoland, you're a marvel. Here's a finalish draft:



Slight changes. I especially liked your rewording of 5, though. A note: this will be submitted by Cluichstan, possibly; other offers welcome. I won't have time to get two endorsements.

I don't think that we should worry whether it accomodates those in polygamy marriages because those types of marriages should be outlawed. Divorce should be very hard to get, and there should be very few legitimate circumstances that call for a divorce. As far as parental rights to those who are molesting their children, they should have no rights period. Thus said, that is one of the circumstances that would be a legitimate reason for divorce. Another circumstance would be the extramarital affair of one of the spouses. Spousal abuse is the final circumstance, however, it must be a extreme case of such. With this, I must say that I will have to vote down this repeal and hopefully another will come up with more common sense language.

Hey guys! I don't get what's up! This is silly! I mean... a couple weeks ago the UN votes dominantly in FAVOR of the "right to divorce". Suddenly somebody proposes to repeal that and the UN votes dominantly in FAVOR of the repeal! The UN isn't thinking, guys! It's just a bunch of little minds excited about voting for resolutions they know nothing about! If I'm wrong, PLEASE prove it and get rid of the repeal! :headbang:

The concerned, Democratic Republic of Bread Eaters

There's one thing we believe should be kept in mind when thinking about repeals. Check the number of votes cast on proposals, then compare the number of times the posts during the debate here are read. You'll find that many votes are apparently cast by people who never see the debate here.

Those folks look at the proposal. Looks good. They vote for it. They never see the other side of the coin: the problems and objections raised here. That's not a criticism. They have the right to vote on any basis they choose. It's just the way it is.

Now somebody writes a good repeal. The problems with the resolution are clearly stated. The people who look at the repeal do see the other side of the coin, and can make their decisions accordingly.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I don't think that we should worry whether it accomodates those in polygamy marriages because those types of marriages should be outlawed.

Well, you're wrong. Polygamy = win. Think about it: they can't all have headaches.

Divorce should be very hard to get, and there should be very few legitimate circumstances that call for a divorce. As far as parental rights to those who are molesting their children, they should have no rights period.

And if they molest other children?

Thus said, that is one of the circumstances that would be a legitimate reason for divorce. Another circumstance would be the extramarital affair of one of the spouses. Spousal abuse is the final circumstance, however, it must be a extreme case of such. With this, I must say that I will have to vote down this repeal and hopefully another will come up with more common sense language.

Define 'common sense'. Seems to me it's common sense that allowing paedophiles the inviolable right to regularly see children isn't too bright.

I vote against devorce, 'till death do us part' does anyone remember that, but if there was a danger to any of the children then divorce should be allowed

Just noticed: this definitely will be at vote over Christmas. Although Gruenberg does not celebrate this heathen festival, we feel we have learned something of it from watching bad satellite television, and as such feel that forcing spouses to remain with abusive partners is actually the sort of festive cheer we're proud to try to spread.

Just noticed: this definitely will be at vote over Christmas. Although Gruenberg does not celebrate this heathen festival, we feel we have learned something of it from watching bad satellite television, and as such feel that forcing spouses to remain with abusive partners is actually the sort of festive cheer we're proud to try to spread.

And I thought I was crazy.

Even the Mallow Moss, when asked, scoffed at the original bill. Repeal this sucka.

M. Jubal

As per my nation's promise, we are voting AGAINST this repeal and all other UN business until our citizens are internationally guaranteed equal rights to humans.

As per my nation's promise, we are voting AGAINST this repeal and all other UN business until our citizens are internationally guaranteed equal rights to humans.
i hate to say it, but yours is a very lonely protest. you are one of 30000 nations, and it takes a lot for one nations voice to be heard in that rubble. we agree with your position, just not your methods. you should be pro-active, helping with the resub.

As per my nation's promise, we are voting AGAINST this repeal and all other UN business until our citizens are internationally guaranteed equal rights to humans.

Errrrr, but by voting against the repeal you are actually allowing "Right to Divorce" to stay in the books, making the UN more powerful... Now I am confused!

i hate to say it, but yours is a very lonely protest. you are one of 30000 nations, and it takes a lot for one nations voice to be heard in that rubble. we agree with your position, just not your methods. you should be pro-active, helping with the resub.

They're entitled to take a stand. After all, Ausserland was largely a lone voice of dissent initially: then I saw an opportunity to be nasty and sarcastic, and picked up on it; eventually, Fonzoland saw sense and changed his mind. We know have a repeal at vote leading by 1500 votes. I'm sure Tinis will help with the resubmission; in the meantime, whilst we may not agree with their methods fully, we at least appreciate their right to so protest.

EDIT: Fonzoland, they're not trying to limit the UN: they're trying to stop all UN business, be it good, bad, or smelling faintly of urine. They've gone into 'anti-WZ Forums' mode, effectively.

They're entitled to take a stand. After all, Ausserland was largely a lone voice of dissent initially: then I saw an opportunity to be nasty and sarcastic, and picked up on it; eventually, Fonzoland saw sense and changed his mind. We know have a repeal at vote leading by 1500 votes. I'm sure Tinis will help with the resubmission; in the meantime, whilst we may not agree with their methods fully, we at least appreciate their right to so protest.

EDIT: Fonzoland, they're not trying to limit the UN: they're trying to stop all UN business, be it good, bad, or smelling faintly of urine. They've gone into 'anti-WZ Forums' mode, effectively.
i was actually kinda meaning, that unless they got like-minded nations together to vote against everything, there would really be no point. whilst i agree with their principle, the method isnt exactly that effective now, is it

i was actually kinda meaning, that unless they got like-minded nations together to vote against everything, there would really be no point. whilst i agree with their principle, the method isnt exactly that effective now, is it

I have no idea. It's been less than 24 hours.

They're entitled to take a stand. After all, Ausserland was largely a lone voice of dissent initially: then I saw an opportunity to be nasty and sarcastic, and picked up on it; eventually, Fonzoland saw sense and changed his mind. We know have a repeal at vote leading by 1500 votes. I'm sure Tinis will help with the resubmission; in the meantime, whilst we may not agree with their methods fully, we at least appreciate their right to so protest.

EDIT: Fonzoland, they're not trying to limit the UN: they're trying to stop all UN business, be it good, bad, or smelling faintly of urine. They've gone into 'anti-WZ Forums' mode, effectively.

Mkay, our new resident filibusters. I disapprove of the tactics, since there are many of us willing to push a second try, and their weight in the UN is indeed minimal. But naturally I respect their democratic right to vote any way they please for any reason they please.

EDIT: Quick research proved that this is a regional effort, thus having an impact of 10 or so votes. If they can grow, it might become interesting.

i hate to say it, but yours is a very lonely protest. you are one of 30000 nations, and it takes a lot for one nations voice to be heard in that rubble. we agree with your position, just not your methods. you should be pro-active, helping with the resub.

And be prepared for vociferous-bordering-on-the-obnoxious opposition to said resubmission from the people of Cluichstan.

And be prepared for vociferous-bordering-on-the-obnoxious opposition to said resubmission from the people of Cluichstan.

"Bordering-on"? :rolleyes:

"Bordering-on"? :rolleyes:

Okay, so maybe it'll cross the border and thrust deep into obnoxious territory.

EDIT: Quick research proved that this is a regional effort, thus having an impact of 10 or so votes. If they can grow, it might become interesting.
ahh, they have got some nations behind them... still, it is only 10

And we do plan to grow. When I find time in my schedule to do it I shall start campaiging around the world for support. I've got the backing of several nations already and will easily gain a few more. Then its just a matter of spreading the word.

And we do plan to grow. When I find time in my schedule to do it I shall start campaiging around the world for support. I've got the backing of several nations already and will easily gain a few more. Then its just a matter of spreading the word.

Still, you can also work with Reformentia on a resubmission, and use your TGing efforts there.

Alright Compadria: I believe polygamous/polyandrous relationships deserve the same rights as monogamous ones, because we have already - with Sexual Freedom - enshrined the right to non-interference in sexual affairs concerning more than two partners. Furthermore, they are advantageous in that they offer the child(ren) greater opportunity to learn from parents. Just as I'm sure you'd suggest two parent families have the potential to be more beneficial than single parent ones, so four parent families are better than three parent ones. One can love more than one person as a parent, just as one can love more than one person as a lover. That's a liberty I'd like to see the UN defend.

In reply I'd like to make the following points:

Firstly, I think we ought to distinguish between the enshrinement of sexual freedom and that of marriage. In cases where marriage is arranged or for more complex emotional/practical reasons, sex and its practices may not be as important to the equation of matrimony.

Second, we feel that the ambiguity and heirachy which would become inevitable within polygamous or polyandrous, would in turn lead to factionalisation and be detrimental to the development of the child and the familial structure. Families where the possibility of open strife exists and where both polyandry or polygamy are enshrined for one set of partners, but not the other, will lead inevitably to jealousy and cause great emotional harm to the members of the marriage.

Those are our replies.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

[Pazu-Lenny asked for speech at the General Assembly]

Dear UN Representatives,

The vote is clear; resolution #135 has not your support anymore. We tried our best to write it and let it improve on this forum, but obviously we failed to write it in a great manner.

As a marriage, defined by resolution #81, is a union of persons, we think the clause -1- of resolution #135 give right to these persons to end their marriage: it’s their union.

It’s why we don’t agree with the clause -1- of the repeal; but anyway it seems the clause -1- of #135 is confusing.

Even if we will not do it ourselves, we really hope a new sensible proposition will be submitted after the repeal, granting a right to divorce without faults, just recommending nations to ask for a few months reflection period.

Thank You

Still, you can also work with Reformentia on a resubmission, and use your TGing efforts there.

I do hope to work with Reformentia and any one else to construct a resolution yes, but my protest vote is not for those who supported our rights, but to those who did not.

I do hope to work with Reformentia and any one else to construct a resolution yes, but my protest vote is not for those who supported our rights, but to those who did not.
i am afraid you will affect quite a number of those that acctually supported you by voting against this.

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

Esteemed delegates and representatives, We rise in support of this repeal. The so-called "Right to Divorce" bill was one of the most egregious abuses of NSUN authority, running roughshod over national sovereignity and religious freedom. Its repeal cannot come fast enough--We urge all nations to vote Yes on this!

The people of Cluichstan concur with the statement from the representative of the Eternal Kawaii (may the Cute One be praised). The UN should not be meddling in matters of family and religion. We also urge all right-thinking nations to vote in favor of this repeal.

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

The Empire of Kramsey, representing the region of Taco, has voted for this resolution.

The Right to divorce bill is too vague in its explanation. It is not as affective as one would think.

The Emporer is shocked that such a bill was allowed to pass even though it states in Clause 3 that sheltering a child from a parent is illegal, even if that parent is a sexual predator, dangerous convict, or a mentally unstable being.

We are also appalled that the view is so one minded. In a world as diverse as ours, we must think of all aspects of life when voting on resolutions. Polygamous situations and/or relations were not taken into consideration when The Right to Divorce was passed. This is an error that has gone unchecked and now the United Nations has a chance to correct the wrong that has been done.

Fonzoland, I am speaking for all of Taco when I say this: you have our complete support and we are with you every step of the way.

I urge other nations to vote for the resolution.

Fonzoland, I am speaking for all of Taco when I say this: you have our complete support and we are with you every step of the way.

I urge other nations to vote for the resolution.

Your support is sincerely welcome. However, note that Gruenberg is the author of this repeal, I am just another supporter who submitted it on his behalf.

*snip*The Federal Republic has just two statements for the honorable Nuncio:

1. We wholeheartedly agree with your statement on this article.

and

2. WE WILL BURY YOU!!!

[Suddenly realizes the Kawaiian government may not yet know that the Kennyite government is behind the invasion of its country.]

Erm -- I mean, uhhh, we will marry you ... to your future spouse, 'cause ... uhhh ... we are an ordained minister, and ... this intrusion on your nation's family law will soon be reversed, and that ... uhhh ... makes us glad.

[An awkward pause, before the ambassador finally flops back down into his chair. Smooooth, Jack, smooth, he thinks to himself.]

Jack Riley
Ambassador to the United Nations

My Esteemed Colleagues:

Intangelonian marriages are contracts. Implicit by law in every contract is the power of dissloution. Should both parties agree (or a court decides, if that need arises), the contract can be rendered null and void. The religious aspects are completely up to those entering the contract and have no bearing on the contract itself. Effectively, a "pre-nup" is part of the contract, as it spells out the dispositions of both parties' assets before the union is sealed. We don't hold our laws up as a model, but what we do say is that both marriage and divorce are cultural and legal concerns of each member nation and as such should not be subject to UN resolution.

Perhaps a better approach might be to offer a compact or treaty of some sort that would guarantee the marital status of couples across all UN boundaries? A sort of "marriage reciprocity agreement" that ensures all marriages and divorces are recognized throughout UN member nations. This way, who gets married (and how) remains a sovereign issue within each nation, but the fact and legal standing shall be granted throughout the UN. As I've admitted before, I'm not the best drafter of legislation, but how daes that sound?

This is the second time I am voting, I am very new to the UN, so please, bear with me.

The points listed in the "Right of Divorce"...is this a vote to repeale those points listed OR is it a vote to instate those points listed in place of something else. If we are repealing the points listed, I'm all for it.

-the Emerit of Gelbele

Greater Boblandia supports this repeal. "Right to Divorce" proved to be both a tidy piece of cultural imperialism and poorly planned. We are in agreement with all of this repeal, particularly article 2.

And we're not looking forward to any replacement attempts, either. Marital customs vary far too much between the great number of unique societies that make up the UN to ever be adequately serviced in a 3500 character or less resolution.

Perhaps a better approach might be to offer a compact or treaty of some sort that would guarantee the marital status of couples across all UN boundaries? A sort of "marriage reciprocity agreement" that ensures all marriages and divorces are recognized throughout UN member nations. This way, who gets married (and how) remains a sovereign issue within each nation, but the fact and legal standing shall be granted throughout the UN. As I've admitted before, I'm not the best drafter of legislation, but how daes that sound?

I think that the government of St Edmund could support a proposal along those lines.

This is the second time I am voting, I am very new to the UN, so please, bear with me.

The points listed in the "Right of Divorce"...is this a vote to repeale those points listed OR is it a vote to instate those points listed in place of something else. If we are repealing the points listed, I'm all for it.

-the Emerit of Gelbele

A repeal just deletes the whole resolution. The points listed are the reasons why we should delete it. This repeal suggests that a replacement could be written later, but that is not binding in any way.

This is the second time I am voting, I am very new to the UN, so please, bear with me.

The points listed in the "Right of Divorce"...is this a vote to repeale those points listed OR is it a vote to instate those points listed in place of something else. If we are repealing the points listed, I'm all for it.

-the Emerit of Gelbele

If this repeal proposal passes, the "Right to Divorce" resolution will be stricken from the books as if it never existed. In the NSUN, there's no way you can amend a resolution or just repeal parts of it. So, if you vote for this repeal, you are voting to do away with the "Right to Divorce" resolution.

The points listed in the repeal are simply the author's reasons for believing that the resolution should be repealed. We believe they are good reasons and have voted for the repeal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

It is with great honor that we, the people of The Republic of Westenwales, dedicate our first action as a member of the United Nations to support this repeal.

It is with great honor that we, the people of The Republic of Westenwales, dedicate our first action as a member of the United Nations to support this repeal.

We would like to welcome the distinguished Ambassador of the Republic of Westenwales to this assembly. We believe his first act as a member was a wise one.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

You have the support of Ashlinique on this repeal.

The Empire supports this repeal attempt.

I would like to remind Mr Kasigi-Nero that we were in general agreement with the principles of divorce when this was drafted and still are. Our problem was with the micro-managing and the way the proposal tried to bulldoze its way over a nations sovereign rights.

A nat-sov friendly proposal that grants no-fault divorce and lets a nations courts handle cases according to local laws and traditions would be acceptable to us and maybe even sellable to the rest of the UN.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

A nat-sov friendly proposal that grants no-fault divorce and lets a nations courts handle cases according to local laws and traditions would be acceptable to us and maybe even sellable to the rest of the UN.

Surely if the initial, flawed proposal was passed, a more robust and sovereignity friendly one will not be unpassable.

In all fairness, I think that people should have the right to divorce. Although, I am against divorce, I believe that there are some circumstances that divorce is the only option. So I am for the Right of Divorce.

In all fairness, I think that people should have the right to divorce. Although, I am against divorce, I believe that there are some circumstances that divorce is the only option. So I am for the Right of Divorce.


The proposal isn't against divorces, it's against all of the restrictions the original resolution placed, most of which are ridiculous.

This is a goddamned wonderful repeal and thank you to Fonzoland and gruenberg for getting it in there as the Number one repeal in the Christmas 2005 hitlist.

As for you chaps out there In NS Land Happy goddamned Christmas and to jesus, Happy birthday!

(jesus was actually born in July but thats for another discussion:D )

VL. (Humbug!)

The People of Groot Gouda rejoice and fully support the repeal.

2006 will hopefully be the Year Of Less Fluff.

Divorce leads to social tension with break ups spiralling out of control. People begin to feel that divorce is fine and that it solves problems. In fact it has been shown that most people are less happy after divorce and remarraige than before. If people don't know what is good for them then we should enforce measures to show them what is good for them.

We need to stop this legislation being passed so that this awful social deprevation will not happen. Vote against divorce.

Divorce leads to social tension with break ups spiralling out of control. People begin to feel that divorce is fine and that it solves problems. In fact it has been shown that most people are less happy after divorce and remarraige than before. If people don't know what is good for them then we should enforce measures to show them what is good for them.

We need to stop this legislation being passed so that this awful social deprevation will not happen. Vote against divorce.

You are misunderstanding the current legislation. What is at vote is a Repeal of "Right to Divorce." According to your opinion, you should vote For the Repeal, as its only effect is deleting the "Right to Divorce" resolution from the books.

Having said that, I disagree with pretty much every word you said, but I prefer to leave that discussion to the (eventual) replacement debate.

I'm trying to change the words of Christmas carols to include lines about domestic violence, but so far I'm drawing blanks. In any case, continue to vote FOR if you like slavery, and AGAINST if you like paedophilia. It really is that simple.

Looking at the honourable member from Gruenburg's words I'm confused myself at what he's trying to say.

Lets deal with the repeal first and then a new proposal can be written.

Vote yes if you want to strike 'rights of divorce' from the book and vote no if if you want it to remain.

It really is that simple.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

You people are pathetic. You aprove anything without thinking.

since its not possible to amend a resolution once its passed thats how a bad law is dealt with in the UN.

You people are pathetic. You aprove anything without thinking.

And yet what's still more pathetic is someone entering this thread, lobbing a flame cocktail and leaving without delineating or defending their position. If you can't do better than the above remarkably childish post, then please get bent.

And yet what's still more pathetic is someone entering this thread, lobbing a flame cocktail and leaving without delineating or defending their position. If you can't do better than the above remarkably childish post, then please get bent.

Well put, though I have little hope of it ever reaching the recipient.

I don't understand why divorce is a UN issue to begin with. It seems impossible that one body can govern these types of social issues that affect everyone, yet do not take into account the sovreignty a nation should still yield. I support the repeal, only because I would rather see this issue settled by individual countries and not by the UN.

The Imperial Kingdom of Pavilosta is supporting the resoltuioon beacuase we feel that the previous resoultion simpily was not strong enough. For a resolution to sucessful it must be strong and the United Nations must be willing to enforce th resolution. We feel that this resolution shall be much more effective than the previous resolution.

Count Melkanu

HOW CAN YOU ALL SUPPORT THIS??? LOOK AT THE COUNTRY WHO HAS PROPOSED IT!!!!!!!!

PROTECT ONES RIGHT TO DIVORCE! VOTE NOW

-The Empire of Crapsnogovia

"Daddy, can I call someone illiterate moron yet?"
"No."
"Why, daddy?"
"Because you'd be doing something called flaming, and that's a bad, bad thing!"
"OK. Can I just think someone is an illiterate moron without saying it then?"
"Errr... I guess that is OK, son."
"Thanks dad, you're the best!"

I don't understand why divorce is a UN issue to begin with. It seems impossible that one body can govern these types of social issues that affect everyone, yet do not take into account the sovreignty a nation should still yield. I support the repeal, only because I would rather see this issue settled by individual countries and not by the UN.

Congratulations! You get it! Thanks for your vote.

"Daddy, can I call someone illiterate moron yet?"
"No."
"Why, daddy?"
"Because you'd be doing something called flaming, and that's a bad, bad thing!"
"OK. Can I just think someone is an illiterate moron without saying it then?"
"Errr... I guess that is OK, son."
"Thanks dad, you're the best!"

Brilliant!

HOW CAN YOU ALL SUPPORT THIS??? LOOK AT THE COUNTRY WHO HAS PROPOSED IT!!!!!!!!

PROTECT ONES RIGHT TO DIVORCE! VOTE NOW

-The Empire of Crapsnogovia

What's your point? Oh wait. One post and it's fulla shit. So there's no point.

Well since my nations govenment is mostly social minded toward everyone, i think i'm going to be against this. I really dont think that overall this could be a good issuse if it passes cause somewhere in thte not to distanct future people will just try to revoke it. Me being one of them.

Rep of the Andorran Seperated Nations,
The Republic of GLewis

Well since my nations govenment is mostly social minded toward everyone, i think i'm going to be against this. I really dont think that overall this could be a good issuse if it passes cause somewhere in thte not to distanct future people will just try to revoke it. Me being one of them.

I don't get your point at all. This is a repeal, meaning we are attempting to revoke "Right to Divorce." So, if you would like to revoke it, now is a good opportunity.

I meant is that if this passes and Divorce becomes illegal someone will try, in the not so distant future, to make Divorce legal again.

I meant is that if this passes and Divorce becomes illegal someone will try, in the not so distant future, to make Divorce legal again.

By repealling "Right to Divorce," it does not become illegal. The resolution forces every UN member to legalise divorce. Without it, each country decides whether divorce should be legal or not.

I will certainly be one of those interested in a replacement to enshrine the right to divorce. One that doesn't suffer from the flaws described in the repeal.

This repeal does not originate from the "divorce is immoral" camp. We are genuinely worried about the gigantic loopholes in the resolution.

"HOW CAN YOU ALL SUPPORT THIS??? LOOK AT THE COUNTRY WHO HAS PROPOSED IT!!!!!!!!"

I'm actually rather pleased Gruenberg strikes such all-caps terror into people.

we do not support the right to repeal divorce, we belive that a married couple should and can choose to end there marrige have things reached a stage where they are

Well well, it appears that the imminent defeat and repeal of teh divorce bill is proof, if any more were needed, that the vast expanse of the UN is dangerous and unstable! With this motion being repealed by such a HUGe majority it shows that teh UN is not capable of passing secure and firm resolutions and should therefore begin to roll back its position in the goverments of otehr nations.

Well well, it appears that the imminent defeat and repeal of teh divorce bill is proof, if any more were needed, that the vast expanse of the UN is dangerous and unstable! With this motion being repealed by such a HUGe majority it shows that teh UN is not capable of passing secure and firm resolutions and should therefore begin to roll back its position in the goverments of otehr nations.

No. Teh defeat of teh divorce bill is just proof that most people have not followed the debate in this forum, yet react adequately to reasonable objections when those are clearly presented to them. Your reasoning is unsound.

No. Teh defeat of teh divorce bill is just proof that most people have not followed the debate in this forum, yet react adequately to reasonable objections when those are clearly presented to them. Your reasoning is unsound.

I can see were you are coming from, but it is not so unsound when you consider that if teh UN is not seeing that these issues are properly debated then it needs to review and possibly even reform its policy.

I can see were you are coming from, but it is not so unsound when you consider that if teh UN is not seeing that these issues are properly debated then it needs to review and possibly even reform its policy.

I can also see where you are coming from, and I confess I have often been dismayed myself at the lack of depth in some delegate's opinions (notably when their vote is solely based on misunderstanding the word 'repeal').

Still, in a democratic system, members have the right to vote based on any reasons they please, and we are bound to their decisions. As a supporter of this repeal, I prefer to see the current vote as proof of enlightenment, rather than instability.

I can see were you are coming from, but it is not so unsound when you consider that if teh UN is not seeing that these issues are properly debated then it needs to review and possibly even reform its policy.

I think it is a sign of maturity that we feel able to re-evaluate our decisions in a retropective light and to reconsider errors of fact or judgment we may have made. We should not give up faith in the ability of the U.N. to firmly legislate yet.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I would on behalf of my people like to express my appreciation of this proposal. I hold much gratitude for anyone willing to stand up to un idealists for national sovereignty. The Right to Divorce should be an exclusive national area which international authorities have no right to be involved in. Civil rights are no business of the UN, and I will support any proposal which furthers this stance.

Samuel Benson, President of Andaras Prime
Social Marxist Party

Honestly, and arrogantly, this is how I see the repeal:

I think we should repeal it, and have voted to - It points out a lot of weaknesses in the original resolution that I had previously never noticed.

This was taken from an RMB of a fairly UN-active region. A proposal is only debated for about four days. Not everyone has the time or inclination to fully follow a debate. I supported Waterana's proposal, until it got trashed in the forums. Even then, I didn't have time to follow that debate. Had it passed, a repeal would, for me, have consolidated the particular problems in bitesize form. This is just a game, and the UN game should try, I think, to have some actual debates, rather than just legalistic nit-picking. We should make good, precise resolutions: but that shouldn't detract from having fun by discussing issues.

My 'Gruenberg' UN persona is obviously IC, and Moltan Bausch's support for repeals a part of that. But, even my fluffy puppets do not baulk at the idea of repeals: they're just part of the game. I restate again by objections to people voting down repeals on the basis that 'it's too soon' or 'we should do something else'. If that's the case, where are your proposals?

I think it is a sign of maturity that we feel able to re-evaluate our decisions in a retropective light and to reconsider errors of fact or judgment we may have made. We should not give up faith in the ability of the U.N. to firmly legislate yet.

I think what we have here is a sign that the bulk of the U.N. are YEA voting lemmings that wouldn't know how to get to these forums in the first place, much less give any consistant reasoning to their simple YES votes and that many deligates know this and use it to their advantage.

I would bet that if this resolution was resubmitted and placed on the queue without any modifications whatsoever it would pass just as strongly as it was originally passes and originally defeated.

I have long given up on the ability of the U.N. to do anything, much less do anything firmly, and much less to firmly legislate.

I think what we have here is a sign that the bulk of the U.N. are YEA voting lemmings that wouldn't know how to get to these forums in the first place, much less give any consistant reasoning to their simple YES votes and that many deligates know this and use it to their advantage.

I would bet that if this resolution was resubmitted and placed on the queue without any modifications whatsoever it would pass just as strongly as it was originally passes and originally defeated.

I have long given up on the ability of the U.N. to do anything, much less do anything firmly, and much less to firmly legislate.

Step 1: Learn to spell 'delegate' before insulting their intelligence.
Step 2: Resign. It's obviously hopeless, and we could do with the extra office space.

I think it is safe to carve the turkey and congratulate Gruenberg on an excellent repeal.

As I told Intellect and the Arts at roughly this stage (with a remarkably similar margin, actually) in Repeal "UCPL", we have a saying in Gruenberg: 'don't ritually slaughter the chickens before the eggs are hatched'. Nonetheless, I will admit I am sharpening the knife.

Also, I've reconsidered what Tzorsland said. I think he's right. The UN is stuffed with 'yes lemmings' who vote every resolution in mindlessly. I mean, look at the previous two proposals to reach quorum; see how they romped to victory by gaping margins without a whisper of dissent.




OH WAIT.

As I told Intellect and the Arts at roughly this stage (with a remarkably similar margin, actually) in Repeal "UCPL", we have a saying in Gruenberg: 'don't ritually slaughter the chickens before the eggs are hatched'. Nonetheless, I will admit I am sharpening the knife.

I hope your knife is sharp enough by now. Official hoorays from Fonzoland. :)

The resolution Repeal "Right to Divorce" was passed 8,859 votes to 2,465.

Thanks to Fonzoland for submitting it, and the authors of "Right to Divorce" for being so gracious about this.

The resolution Repeal "Right to Divorce" was passed 8,859 votes to 2,465.

Thanks to Fonzoland for submitting it, and the authors of "Right to Divorce" for being so gracious about this.
congrats to Fonzoland. hopefully a replacement can be done asap.

congrats to Fonzoland. hopefully a replacement can be done asap.Right. And congrats to Gruenberg, who actually wrote it. Hopefully a Right to Marriage will be declared before a right to divorce is even considered again. That is, if you want the latter to have any effect. Otherwise nations can just outlaw civil marriage and bypass divorce-rights legislation altogether.

Dumbasses.

~Jack Riley

Come on people lets give it a go I mean if it doesn't work then we can pass another legislation to get rid of it! So the Kingdom of smelly chicken well and truely supports this legislation!

Come on people lets give it a go I mean if it doesn't work then we can pass another legislation to get rid of it! So the Kingdom of smelly chicken well and truely supports this legislation!

What legislation do you mean? The one that was deleted from the books 4h before you posted? I am afraid you are a tad too late.

Come on people lets give it a go I mean if it doesn't work then we can pass another legislation to get rid of it! So the Kingdom of smelly chicken well and truely supports this legislation!

Yes, we can. In fact, we just did.

We congratulates Gruenberg and Fonzoland for their success.

Even if we are sad the repeal passed, we are looking to the future and hope a better written resolution, maybe less controversial, granting a right to divorce without faults without encouraging a immediate blanket right to divorce will be drafted and will pass.

Congrats Gruenberg, very well done. Always nice to see well-written legislation/repeals make it. That being said, our government will most likely oppose any replacement that says much more than "people can divorce."

Serious discussion of replacement is welcome, but honestly I'd advise against it for a while: give the UN time to recover, and time for a really solid draft to materialise. Also, discussing replacement distracts from people talking about how great I am.

Right, right. My apologies, Your Holiness.

Serious discussion of replacement is welcome, but honestly I'd advise against it for a while: give the UN time to recover, and time for a really solid draft to materialise. Also, discussing replacement distracts from people talking about how great I am.

Hmmmm, I think your sentence came out wrong. I doubt we should be waiting for a solid draft to appear before the serious discussion. ;)

Anyway, we can freely talk about the greatness of Gruenberg for a few hours, but after that you are all invited to a tree-burning festival.