NationStates Jolt Archive

FULLY AWARE that crimes against children are regarded as horrify, outrageous, and immoral by most civilized nations and people. Also aware of the fears of these practices becoming legal by many nations of this esteemed body.

ARGUING that several countries don’t hold the same values and believes as many do, such as rights of passage and ancient, long held beliefs. To restrict their values and believes would be wrong and immoral as it is a form of oppression. Furthermore it can be argued this weakens national sovereignty.

RECALLING the other resolutions protecting children including resolution 14,22 and 28, among others.

ASKING all member states to question if they want to subjugate and oppress a minority population by imposing the majority viewpoint.

My nation understands this is difficult issue, however we can stand by idly allowing the oppression of minority nations and the erosion of national sovereignty and hopes the majority of this body will feel the same. In addition please remember this would not make these practices universally legal among nations, but simply puts the decision of these issues into the hands of the states in this esteemed body.

My Nation asks all delegates to accept this issue, especially those concerned with NatSov.

***OFFICIAL UN MESSAGE***

As our last stand as the United Nations Deligate for our region, the Pure Socialist Holy Empire has decided that it will NOT support this proposal as it is too short to do any real good for the United Nations. We suggest some revisions before you submit it to the United Nations.

I already submitted it. Unfortunatly I noticied I used the wrong language, when I said recall, I didnt mean repealing, I just wanted to show other documents protect children. I hope this is not grounds to eliminate it.

Bad move on sumbitting it, you should've posted it as a draft for people to look at and critique, not to mention all of the typos.

You want us to stop oppressing minority nations so they can oppress children? You want us to actually support this?

well whats done is done.

I do wish people would support this, the UN needs to get rid of its God complex. Also does anyone know if it is illegal because I used the wrong word, or is it ok?

The majority is the own that set's the precedent. It's kind of understood that once you join the UN, you're NatSov isn't going to be as strong as it was before because you're being subjected to laws and regulations that have already been put into place. To repeal a law based on the fact that a minority of people might be offended by laws that protect people is pure idiocracy. That's like repealing discrimination laws because it offends KKK members.

If the meaning of your statement isn't confused by the mistaken word, then it will not be of major concern to the mods (eg: removes vs repeals, doesn't matter, replaces vs repeals does).

If you're concerned about it, go to the Get Help page (linked from the FAQ) and submit a request to the mods to pull it. You will not be charged any warnings or anything for doing so.

Regardless, I consider this resolution far from a sign of the UN's "God" complex as you so kindly state it, not to mention that there are some of us (myself included) who believe fully that the UN SHOULD be an International Government rather than some International Organization.

Your proposal is.....
Poorly worded,
poorly concieved,
Poor.
Thank christ you are a N00B.

If you're concerned about it, go to the Get Help page (linked from the FAQ) and submit a request to the mods to pull it. You will not be charged any warnings or anything for doing so.

Regardless, I consider this resolution far from a sign of the UN's "God" complex as you so kindly state it, not to mention that there are some of us (myself included) who believe fully that the UN SHOULD be an International Government rather than some International Organization.

1st I would like to thank you for your help on the issue of it being valid. 2nd I would just say that we just have fundamental difference on what we believe the UN should be, I do not believe there should be an international Government, there are to many differences in cultures and believes. I joined the UN in an effort to reform it. I believe many would support me and this needs to go to the floor.

1st I would like to thank you for your help on the issue of it being valid. 2nd I would just say that we just have fundamental difference on what we believe the UN should be, I do not believe there should be an international Government, there are to many differences in cultures and believes. I joined the UN in an effort to reform it. I believe many would support me and this needs to go to the floor.
Trouble is, even people who agree with you don't see this resolution as especially troublesome. It's also one of the most wildly unpopular repeals you could possibly write, and I'd frankly rather become an anti than associate myself with it. This resolution does little micromanagement or government: it just establishes a bunch of rights.

1st I would like to thank you for your help on the issue of it being valid. 2nd I would just say that we just have fundamental difference on what we believe the UN should be, I do not believe there should be an international Government, there are to many differences in cultures and believes. I joined the UN in an effort to reform it. I believe many would support me and this needs to go to the floor.


Hahah, ok, you keep dreaming about that one. Not to mention that I have yet to see a single person support your proposal on the forum yet.

1st I would like to thank you for your help on the issue of it being valid. 2nd I would just say that we just have fundamental difference on what we believe the UN should be, I do not believe there should be an international Government, there are to many differences in cultures and believes. I joined the UN in an effort to reform it. I believe many would support me and this needs to go to the floor.

The National Sovereignty Organization was founded because people believed in that strongly enough on these forums to set one up. The International Federalists/Governmentalists/whatever have only just started considering setting up their own organization to counter the NSO. Yet, somehow, only a handful of repeals have made it to quarom that were based upon National Sovereignty, and while they were of varying qualities, none of them passed and all of them were both better worded and better argued AND attacked resolutions that were much less popular. I think the interesting one would be Kenny's attempted repeal of the old "Protection of Dolphins" which had a National Sovereignty argument fairly early in the resolution - and despite all the arguments being both valid and true, he was dinged for having that argument as his leading argument. The comment I heard from one person was if he had moved his National Sovereignty argument to #3, he would've passed his repeal - but instead we waited another month until Yelda's repeal was passed by a considerable majority.

FULLY AWARE that crimes against children are regarded as horrify, outrageous, and immoral by most civilized nations and people. Also aware of the fears of these practices becoming legal by many nations of this esteemed body.

ARGUING that several countries don’t hold the same values and believes as many do, such as rights of passage and ancient, long held beliefs. To restrict their values and believes would be wrong and immoral as it is a form of oppression. Furthermore it can be argued this weakens national sovereignty.

I would regard it as more immoral to permit the employment of young children in heavy manual labour, sweat shops or to permit paedophilia, purely on the grounds of Nat Sov. I acknowlege the honourable representatives point that different values exist, yet universal values of decency and justice must exist among our members and be preserved by this democratic institution.

RECALLING the other resolutions protecting children including resolution 14,22 and 28, among others.

ASKING all member states to question if they want to subjugate and oppress a minority population by imposing the majority viewpoint.

The fact that it is a majority viewpoint does not invalidate it.

My nation understands this is difficult issue, however we can stand by idly allowing the oppression of minority nations and the erosion of national sovereignty and hopes the majority of this body will feel the same. In addition please remember this would not make these practices universally legal among nations, but simply puts the decision of these issues into the hands of the states in this esteemed body.

My Nation asks all delegates to accept this issue, especially those concerned with NatSov.

The oppression of minor nations cannot be compared to the evils that repealing the resolutions that protect children would entail. Though we are not fans of Nat Sov, we are most concerned to see a noble, if contentious philosophy vandalised in such a way. For this reason, shame on the honourable representative for mis-using it in such an egregious way.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The International Federalists/Governmentalists/whatever have only just started considering setting up their own organization to counter the NSO.

Still some way off regrettably...

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

This is outrageous! How is it that nations supporting human rights are allow to have this god complex of knowing what is best. We do not need this sort of world police, this sort of policy by large nations towards weaker, smaller ones that will result in an uprising against this unjustified, immoral attack on national independence. NOTHING comes before National Sovereignty. Further more, my nation will join this NSO you speak of and be a staunch opponent of this trend in the UN whether this legislation passes or not.

This is outrageous! How is it that nations supporting human rights are allow to have this god complex of knowing what is best. We do not need this sort of world police, this sort of policy by large nations towards weaker, smaller ones that will result in an uprising against this unjustified, immoral attack on national independence. NOTHING comes before National Sovereignty. Further more, my nation will join this NSO you speak of and be a staunch opponent of this trend in the UN whether this legislation passes or not.
It is called Majority rule. I am a member of the NSO as are many of those who have replied to this. I am against your proposal as i see it as a return to the bad old days when we could stuff a 5 yr old up your chimney to lick it clean. If you wish to make a difference in the UN i suggest you quit bitching about the "GOD COMPLEX" as the only complex i can see is the "I'm a teen! Its so unfair" complex.
Now off you toddle and come up with something decent for us to deride. OOPS! i meant peruse. :D

This is outrageous! How is it that nations supporting human rights are allow to have this god complex of knowing what is best.

Give me a tradition that you think is worthy of being permitted, it would not be classified as an act of human rights to ban and contradicts UNR 25 and then we will see whether or not I'm supporting human rights or not

We do not need this sort of world police, this sort of policy by large nations towards weaker, smaller ones that will result in an uprising against this unjustified, immoral attack on national independence.

IMMORAL? How is it immoral to protect ones citizens from a corrupt regime who shows no pity, mercy nor care for its citizens. How is it MORAL for YOUR nation to permit them to do such a thing?

NOTHING comes before National Sovereignty.

Why?

Further more, my nation will join this NSO you speak of and be a staunch opponent of this trend in the UN whether this legislation passes or not.

Excellent, then my mentioning it to you served its purpose.

Resolution #25: The Child Protection Act
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,

ARTICLE 1

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.

ARTICLE 2

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the minor from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s)d or any other person(s)

2. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present resolution to each minor within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the minor's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the minor is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the minor's parents, legal guardians, or family members.

ARTICLE 3

1. In all actions concerning minors, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the minor shall be a primary consideration.

2. States Parties undertake to ensure the minor such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of minors shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

ARTICLE 4

Nothing in the present resolution shall affect any provisions which are more conducive to the realization of the rights of the minor and which may be contained in: (a) The law of a State Party; or (b) International law in force for that State.


Just to make sure everyone knows what we're talking about here. Should I post 14, 22 and 28?

Maybe it's because some of feel that the rights of the individual citizen are more important than any rights of the government to abuse and oppress them, that these rights deserve to be protected, and most definetly come before nat sov. Not all of us are nat sov fanatics.

If you want to try to repeal this resolution using nat sov arguements, thats your right. Go for it, but I don't like your chances. I will never support a repeal of this resolution, especially one using those arguements.

This is outrageous! How is it that nations supporting human rights are allow to have this god complex of knowing what is best. We do not need this sort of world police, this sort of policy by large nations towards weaker, smaller ones that will result in an uprising against this unjustified, immoral attack on national independence. NOTHING comes before National Sovereignty. Further more, my nation will join this NSO you speak of and be a staunch opponent of this trend in the UN whether this legislation passes or not.

How tragic, still at least you may cause a good deal of trouble for the Nat Sov's, which would suit us U.N. Federalists fine. Equally, I would like to point out that the so called "god complex" you ascribe to us is in fact a rational protection of the most vulnerable members of society. Face it, your logic is twisted and deeply unpleasant, because it justifies horrific crimes, purely on the basis of Nat Sov.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

IMMORAL? How is it immoral to protect ones citizens from a corrupt regime who shows no pity, mercy nor care for its citizens. How is it MORAL for YOUR nation to permit them to do such a thing?

Because who are YOU to decide what MY NATION can or cant do?

Because who are YOU to decide what MY NATION can or cant do?

He's a member of the UN. As are you.

Did we not make a "this is where the Resign button is" card?

Because who are YOU to decide what MY NATION can or cant do?

No, who are YOU to decide that the opression of YOUR CITIZENS, is the right thing. National rights are overuled, or should be, where the pressing interests of the opressed or vulnerable are at stake. This is why we legislate in such a way.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Why?





Because without it what would be the point of having indepent nations

Because without it what would be the point of having indepent nations

If you want a true independant nation, then you're going to have to repeal every resolution on the books, because each and every one of them affects your nation in some way, even the nat sov friendly ones.

No, who are YOU to decide that the opression of YOUR CITIZENS, is the right thing.
Because they are MY NATIONS citizens not yours, and not UN's. This Government came to power democratically and we do the will of our people.

Vladimar al-Hassen
UN amb of DUA

So you want us to get rid of a piece of legislation that protects children from being raped, murdered, harassed, picked on, and a ton of other stuff because ytou believe that it is the UN having a "GOD COMPLEX"? First of all, it is these pieces of legislation that are protecting children from being taken from their homes and having god knows what done to them without their parents permission. Getting rid of any of them would just make it legal for any nation to go into other peoples nations and steal their children.


Were not getting rid of any child protection laws, nor are we passing this piece of incompetant legislation. If this ever comes before the UN General Commitee (which i seriously doubt it will), I will vote the damned thing down faster than anything else in history.

Were not getting rid of any child protection laws, nor are we passing this piece of incompetant legislation. If this ever comes before the UN General Commitee (which i seriously doubt it will), I will vote the damned thing down faster than anything else in history.
How dare you! this is not incompetant and you are only one of over 2000 delegates(if you are a delegate). My nation does not care about one international federalist extremist vote.

How dare you! this is not incompetant and you are only one of over 2000 delegates(if you are a delegate). My nation does not care about one international federalist extremist vote.
Trouble is, that vote tends to be...the General Assembly.

Seriously, I admire what you're doing, but I don't think the UN is going to work out for you if you're so offended by this sort of stuff. Look through the full list of passed resolutions. Bigger. Fish.

How dare you! this is not incompetant and you are only one of over 2000 delegates(if you are a delegate). My nation does not care about one international federalist extremist vote.

Cool it mate. He was merely pointing out the consequences of your proposal. And in reply to your post directed at me, I would just like to point out that whilst you may be using "Leviathan" as your political reference, most of us have moved on to "On Liberty" and other such worthy political philosophy works. The rights of citizens are that they are ultimately above the government, which governs by their consent. Their inalieble rights must not be constricted merely on the whim of a domineering government.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Im not offended by mature critiques, but do not call it incompetent. I will make it work for my nation, we will not quit on the issue of reform. and what did you mean by bigger fish?

How dare you! this is not incompetant and you are only one of over 2000 delegates(if you are a delegate). My nation does not care about one international federalist extremist vote.

***Official Proclamation***

My Nation is not "Extremist", we are socialist. The only Extremist nations that i see are the ones that want to put their children in harms way just because they want a piece of legislation revoked. It was the decision of the entirity of the United Nations to pass the legislation that protected children in the first place, and if you want to get rid of that type of legislation in your nation then you are free to resign from the United Nations. Personally attacking it's member nations and calling legislation that does more good than bad is unethical. If you continue to push this subject than you will be met with more and more opposition.

Im not offended by mature critiques, but do not call it incompetent. I will make it work for my nation, we will not quit on the issue of reform. and what did you mean by bigger fish?

Bigger fish?

<delegate directed question, awaits response with interest>

OOC: Oh and Shatzbotdom, at the risk of sounding very pedantic, it's 'proclamation'.

and what did you mean by bigger fish?There are plenty of Resolutions worth Repealing. Starting with one that protects children is an... interesting choice...

I meant: compared to some of the genuine egregious breaches of national sovereignty the GA has approved, the Child Protection Act is actually pretty minor.

EDIT: Essentially, I meant what Hack has just said.

Im not offended by mature critiques, but do not call it incompetent. I will make it work for my nation, we will not quit on the issue of reform. and what did you mean by bigger fish?


He means there are a few resolutions that are slightly more improtant than yours (read: a helluva a lot of them). You've probably ticked off enough people to prevent them from voting just because they don't like you. More are probably not going to vote because it is a stupid repeal for an excellent resolution, while more will probably vote against it for it's title without even reading the repeal itself. Deal with it, your repeal is dead in the water unless you get 120 votes over the weekend (which I highly doubt) and if that happens, it'll definitely be dead when it hits the GA. So...why don't you stop calling people Federalist extremists because they don't want to remove a resolution that protects the rights of kids.

OOC: Oh and Shatzbotdom, at the risk of sounding very pedantic, it's 'proclamation'.

OOC: eh. I was kinda rush typing it. And when i try to type fast i make errors....sucks on my behalf but oh well. I'll fix it.....heh

OOC: eh. I was kinda rush typing it. And when i try to type fast i make errors....sucks on my behalf but oh well. I'll fix it.....heh

OOC: No problem, I'm just a super-pedantic grammar Nazi who likes to point out small errors where he sees them. Very anally retentive, but strangely satisfying.

You've probably ticked off enough people to prevent them from voting just because they don't like you.
what have I done to make people upset? all I have done is defend national sovereignty. I choose this resolution b/c it is hostile towards the believes and costumes of different cultures. e.i. A nation that has been around for thousands of years that may doing something like child sacrifice or a painful rite of passage would be unable to do so under this law. This basically destroys nations in many regions. In addition I am surprisied that this body would be willing to revoke the rights of the nations workers and of gays but would be hostile to the idea of perserving long standing cultures.

what have I done to make people upset? all I have done is defend national sovereignty. I choose this resolution b/c it is hostile towards the believes and costumes of different cultures. e.i. A nation that has been around for thousands of years that may doing something like child sacrifice or a painful rite of passage would be unable to do so under this law. This basically destroys nations in many regions. In addition I am surprisied that this body would be willing to revoke the rights of the nations workers and of gays but would be hostile to the idea of perserving long standing cultures.

Insulting people usually creates hostility... but those proposals are being repealed because they have loopholes in them that would render them useless if exploited or are redundant. The resolution that you're repealing, from what I can see, does not. In fact, I think it is well written, unlike yours. And those things would still be banned under other human rights resolution anyways, so if anything, this could potentially be considered redundant, but that is stretching it to the extreme there.

I think someone saying people don't like you is a bit harsh, we don't know you. What is obvious from the responses in this thread however is we don't like what you have presented, or the way you have presented it.

This resolution is well written, effective and protects a vulnerable section of the worlds population. I am happy it protects children from sacrifice and abuse. Thats excactly what it was written to do.

If you want to repeal this, then you will have to find much better arguements than just nat sov and that nations should be allowed to kill, maim and abuse their children if they want to. Flaws within the resolution itself for example.

With the automatic instinct in most people to protect children, I just can't see a repeal of this resolution getting any sort of real support. Unless of course you can come up with something really strong to convince the majority of UN members it needs to go, and nat sov is nowhere near strong enough on its own.

Insulting people usually creates hostility... I have insulted no one. I am the one who has been insulted.

I have insulted no one. I am the one who has been insulted.
I'm insulted.

But, besides, who is 'insulted' is of no consequence. We're talking about international law, not a tea party.

I have insulted no one. I am the one who has been insulted.


Saying the UN needs to lose it's god-like attitude, and calling at least one person a Federalist extremist usually constitutes as an insult.

This resolution is well written, effective and protects a vulnerable section of the worlds population. I am happy it protects children from sacrifice and abuse. Thats excactly what it was written to do.


I love how nations like yours can hide behind so-called "human rights"(which are questionable) while you destroy nations from the east pacific to mars.

I have insulted no one. I am the one who has been insulted.

You called my nation "Extremist" when we are in fact socialist. And i did not call the member of your nation who wrote this piece of legisliation "Incompetant", i called the piece of legislation itself that. The legislation that you are proposing would only help maybe 1 UN Member Nation while the piece of legisliation that you are trying to get rid of helps thousands of UN Member Nations. May I remind you of the purpose of the United Nations by quoting a famous person, "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

hide behind so-called "human rights"(which are questionable).


Human Rights are questionable? It seems like you just have a vendetta against the entire principal. Maybe you should just start repealing every single HR resolution because it might've offended a minority or an ancient tradition?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one.
But "Legalise Euthanasia" and "Abortion Rights" contradict 'Live long and prosper'...

I love how nations like yours can hide behind so-called "human rights"(which are questionable) while you destroy nations from the east pacific to mars.

Excuse me?

I've never destroyed any nation.

If any nation feels the need to sacrifice or abuse its children, then it does'nt have to be in the UN. This is a voluntary organisation after all. Non-UN nations aren't bound by UN law and can do whatever they like.

I can't understand why nations like yours, that are so rabid about nat sov, bother to join the UN in the first place.

I can't understand why nations like yours, that are so rabid about nat sov, bother to join the UN in the first place.


They feel the need to enforce their values upon a majority of people who aren't too thrilled about it. At least the other NatSov people defend their beliefs with respect and dignity, unlike this clown. I'm still wondering where the East Pacific to Mars thing came from...

How dare you! this is not incompetant and you are only one of over 2000 delegates(if you are a delegate). My nation does not care about one international federalist extremist vote.

We're extremists? When some of the most noted National Sovereigntists have come out against you, I think it is a very indicative sign that if anyone here is an extremist, it is indeed you. Please, let us not go with the namecalling yet.

BTW - that's the post where you insulted people - you've insulted Shazbotdom, you insulted me, you've insulted the intelligence of every person who's posted thus far and you've insulted the UN body as a whole. Yes you have insulted people - and no one insulted you until you made that post.

I love how nations like yours can hide behind so-called "human rights"(which are questionable) while you destroy nations from the east pacific to mars.

***OFFICIAL IMPERIAL MESSAGE***
TO: Leadership of The UN abassadorship
FROM: Emperor Galen Q. Leotardia

I have never offensivly attacked a nation because of their political beliefs. I attacked a nation once because they nuked my military bases but we reached a peace treaty and they paid me back for the damages rendered. I am though contemplating a full military blockade upon your nation for the ill words you have spoken about my nation when I have spoken no ill words about yours. Although that might be too extreme in this situation.

I ask politely for an oppology directed toward the people of my nation before they find out about the comments that you have made and stage rallies demanding retribution against your nation. The will of my people is my own will and if they ask for monitary payback from ill words rendered against Shazbotdom, then that is what they will recieve.

I can't understand why nations like yours, that are so rabid about nat sov, bother to join the UN in the first place.

I joined in an effort to reform the UN. I understand there should be limited international unity with dealing with certian lesser issues. It is my belief however that the UN as become to overreaching and paternalistic.

They feel the need to enforce their values upon a majority of people who aren't too thrilled about it. At least the other NatSov people defend their beliefs with respect and dignity, unlike this clown. I'm still wondering where the East Pacific to Mars thing came from...

Yeah, me too. My nation is modern tech and doesn't have space travel yet :D.

I don't consider Flib, Gruen and the other nat sov regulars as rabid. They support it, and defend it, but don't go overboard with it and certainly know when to use it and when not to.

You want to repeal Child Protection for that reason and that reason only!?

................. Wow...just..wow.......... :|

***IMPERIAL MESSAGE***
TO: Leadership of The UN abassadorship
FROM: Emperor Galen Q. Leotardia

I have never offensivly attack a nation because of their political beliefs. I attacked a nation once because they nuked my military bases but we reached a peace treaty and they paid me back for the damages rendered. I am though contemplating a full military blockade upon your nation for the ill words you have spoken about my nation when I have spoken no ill words about yours. Although that might be too extreme in this situation.

I ask politely for an oppology directed toward the people of my nation before they find out about the comments that you have made and stage rallies demanding retribution against your nation. The will of my people is my own will and if they ask for monitary payback from ill words rendered against Shazbotdom, then that is what they will recieve.

Comments were not directed at your nation. I am sorry if you misunderstood. My reference to destroying nations was a figuretive one in that many resolutions erode national identity, not a literal one.

I joined in an effort to reform the UN. I understand there should be limited international unity with dealing with certian lesser issues. It is my belief however that the UN as become to overreaching and paternalistic.

You know, I think my favorite thing is you try to repeal this resolution saying it was too much of a micromanagement - and use as an argument that it's already covered under UNRs 14, 22 and 28. Why I find this funny is the former two are much more micromanaging than this resolution could possibly be.

***OFFICIAL IMPERIAL MESSAGE***
TO: Leadership of The UN abassadorship
FROM: Emperor Galen Q. Leotardia

It was not the "Desyroying nations from East Pacific to Mars" thing that got me pissed off at your nation, it was the comment that you made where you called my nation "Extremist". We consider Extremism is directly related to Facism in it's darkest time. We may have passed some contraversial laws within the Pure Socialist Holy Empire of Shazbotdom (i.e. no sex between 10am and 5pm) but we will never allow a law on the books of the UN to be recinded because a few nations feel that it infringes upon their right to sacrifice children for their own personal enjoyment. You will appologize for calling our nation and our people Extremist immedeitally or we will be inclined to sling names at the people of your nation.

I joined in an effort to reform the UN. I understand there should be limited international unity with dealing with certian lesser issues. It is my belief however that the UN as become to overreaching and paternalistic.

I have no problems with that explaination. I don't agree with it, but accept your right to it.

Thing is though, while you may get some repeals of resolutions like this one to the floor, you are going to need the support of the majority of UN members to get them passed. Just throwing nat sov at us won't be enough because the majority of UN members (in my opinion) either don't care one zot about it, or won't consider it where human rights resolutions are concerned. Just looking at what has been passed, and by what majority, should be enough to convince you of that.

We're extremists? When some of the most noted National Sovereigntists have come out against you, I think it is a very indicative sign that if anyone here is an extremist, it is indeed you. Please, let us not go with the namecalling yet.

BTW - that's the post where you insulted people - you've insulted Shazbotdom, you insulted me, you've insulted the intelligence of every person who's posted thus far and you've insulted the UN body as a whole. Yes you have insulted people - and no one insulted you until you made that post.

This was not my intention. My extremist remark was a response to my repeal res. being called incompetent. I felt that was not the most mature response and I may have said things equally immature. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

This was not my intention. My extremist remark was a response to my repeal res. being called incompetent. I felt that was not the most mature response and I may have said things equally immature. I am sorry if I offended anyone.

Um.......

A document can be a lot of things, but incompetent is not one of them.

Might want to think on that one a bit longer.

Um.......

A document can be a lot of things, but incompetent is not one of them.

Might want to think on that one a bit longer.

Are you speaking to me or the person that called my resolution incompetent. I think your speaking to me, but Im not sure.

Are you speaking to me or the person that called my resolution incompetent. I think your speaking to me, but Im not sure.

It was you, there's no way your response can be incompetent, therefore your excuse is baseless.

It was you, there's no way your response can be incompetent, therefore your excuse is baseless.

I have no idea what your saying. Someone called the resolution I authored, incompentent. I felt that was immature.

Are you speaking to me or the person that called my resolution incompetent. I think your speaking to me, but Im not sure.

He may well have tried to call your document incompetent, but I doubt it - or even if he did, I doubt that's what he meant. Shazbotdom I have a level of respect for - one he's earned in his time here, so I have a difficult time believing that's what he said.

You, being brand new and off to a rather rocky start, I cannot necessarily say the same for. I may, eventually, develop a level of respect for you, but there are people on this forums that hinder their causes more than they help them, and my impression so far is you're one of those people. That, sir, is why he called YOU (not your proposal) incompetent.

Gruenberg is one of your strongest allies, being the most active NSO member. He's one of the many NSO members that has earned my respect, I suggest you consider heeding his advice. He will be a great asset to helping you improve your style and know which battles to fight and how.

There's a saying that he who fights only the battles he knows he can win will be victorious. This is a battle I KNOW you can't win - at least not today, perhaps not ever. If you wish to continue this battle, I've got more than enough patience and an entire weekend to blow (since I'll be drafting my Right to Divorce replacement a fair bit over the weekend, and maybe looking at a few other ideas and some legislation for my region). Think carefully before you try and trudge on.

My recommendation for you: retreat, regroup, and try something different.

(since I'll be drafting my Right to Divorce replacement a fair bit over the weekend, and maybe looking at a few other ideas and some legislation for my region)

Ooh, are you going to put a draft up soon? (Once it's been completed of course)

He may well have tried to call your document incompetent, but I doubt it - or even if he did, I doubt that's what he meant. Shazbotdom I have a level of respect for - one he's earned in his time here, so I have a difficult time believing that's what he said.
different.
Christ, if dont believe me, just check the threads, he says it right there.

Christ, if dont believe me, just check the threads, he says it right there.

*nods*

I'm mistaken.

You got insulted by someone calling a piece of paper incompetent? Wow, you really need to learn to take comments a lot better. If he had called you incompetent, your response would've been a bit more understandable, but I've seen much worse things said about proposals - including your own.

Ooh, are you going to put a draft up soon? (Once it's been completed of course)

I already posted to a few off-site groups (my region and the Old Guard). I'm planning on working on it from those locations over the course of the weekend. Sometime next week, I'll be posting a draft here.

Please, please vote for this. Let it be decided on the floor of the general assembly. It would be a closer vote than most of you seem to believe.
"There's a saying that he who fights only the battles he knows he can win will be victorious. This is a battle I KNOW you can't win - at least not today, perhaps not ever." I am willing to die for my belief of UN reform.

Please, please vote for this. Let it be decided on the floor of the general assembly. It would be a closer vote than most of you seem to believe.

I am curious, what information, knowledge, experience, or understanding of trends, patters, and psyche of the UN gives you the belief that either you know how close we think its going to be or that it will be closer than any of us believe. For example, it would be foolish for most of us to guess anything less than 30% support, just due to the nature of the UN. A considerable loss, really, is anything that's received less than 40 percent of the vote. That is, indeed, where I would guess your proposal would stand should it hit the floor. That said, the illogicality of the arguments and the fact that I have not seen a proposal with such arguments since I returned to the UN means that, if anything, my numbers would be high.

You have been told by prominent NSO members, numerous International Federalists and several people who tend to be neutral on the NatSov vs IntFed battle that this is a bad choice of a repeal attempt. Even the UN Secretary General (Senior UN Moderator) has suggested that your repeal is less than logical.

Regardless

While I welcome dissenting resolutions to hit the floor so that democracy can act, I will neither help nor promote this proposal for should it reach quarom, it would have been the worst argued proposal since Promotion of Solar Panels and the worst designed proposal since before my return to the UN. The only reason I would even CONSIDER getting this to quarom is because it would likely set the National Sovereigntist movement back a few resolutions if not months as an opposition to repeals and National Sovereignty based arguments would mount.

However, as much of an asshole I may be, I prefer not to play cheap - and I know full well there are just as many fluffy proposals that the NSO can bring up to vote that would screw up IntFed just as this could screw up NatSov.

Sir, you have failed MISERABLY.

You have failed to provide even a decent argument. You have failed to show any significant level of intelligence. You have failed to explain why this resolution is any more problematic than the three your referenced. You have failed to show an understanding of the true effects of this resolution. You have failed to prove your statement that National Sovereignty comes before all other considerations - nor have you even attempted to provide any arguments. You have given nothing but a slew of opinions and everytime you've been asked to explain your opinions, you have done nothing but repeat them and say "I think this is just a difference of opinion". Let me give you a hint - it's not me you need to convince, it's the people that are reading this that you need to convince - just as I need to convince them. If I can give them an argument and you can't, then they'll have a much greater tendancy to agree with me more.

Above all, you have failed to write a coherent, logical and well writen proposal and you have failed to acknowledge your flaws with that proposal and even consider redrafting it (let alone, as has been suggested to you numerous times, backing away from it).

You have attacked numerous ambassadors and beliefs - both intentionally and unintentionally and made a pathetic attempt at playing the victim.

You are unworthy of having this proposal enshrined into UN law.

tell me how you really feel.

tell me how you really feel.

I'd love to, but I'd be banned for flaming

I'd love to, but I'd be banned for flaming

Or condecorated for public service. Or both.

OOC: Why are we even feeding this troll?

OOC: Why are we even feeding this troll?

*laughs*

This is way too much fun.

OOC: Why are we even feeding this troll?

I think the degree of troll-feeding says something about the official topic... :rolleyes:

Insulting people usually creates hostility... but those proposals are being repealed because they have loopholes in them that would render them useless if exploited or are redundant. The resolution that you're repealing, from what I can see, does not. In fact, I think it is well written, unlike yours.

ARTICLE 1

For the purposes of the present resolution, a minor means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the minor, majority is attained earlier.

Is there anything to keep a government that wants to allow the exploitation of children in its nation from defining majority as being attained as much earlier as is necessary for that exploitation to be legal under this clause?

Is there anything to keep a government that wants to allow the exploitation of children in its nation from defining majority as being attained as much earlier as is necessary for that exploitation to be legal under this clause?


But the minor would then have the rights of an adult, so, if I was the leader of the country that dropped the legal age of adulthood, I would be a lot more worried about being removed from office (or something to that effect) then whatever economic damage not having child labor could produce.

OOC: Why are we even feeding this troll?
Im glad we are keeping this mature:/ wow