NationStates Jolt Archive

Resolution # 13 currently reads:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

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

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003

Proposed:

Whereas, marriage is the institution central to all states;

Whereas, all nations are entitled to self-determination, which certainly includes the right to determine for themselves the form of its central institution;

Whereas, all nations are also certainly entitled to religious liberty, and should be free of restraints imposed externally by other nations and/or international bodies based on worldviews foreign to those predominant within a particular State;

Whereas, it is certainly accepted that discrimination against homosexuals in their rights of political access and political speech should not be in any way restrained, and that violence against their person and property should in no wise be tolerated;

Therefore, be it resolved that the portion of Resolution # 13 forcing homosexual marriage on all states be repealed and that the principles is affirmed that states are free to decide this issue for themselves.

1) It's Resolution #12, actually.
2) It's called Gay Rights, not Gay Marriage.
3) An article to repeal said resolution is already in queue (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=gay).

OMGTKTE,

Thanks for the correction on the resolution number. I titled it repeal gay marriage because I am seeking to repeal only that portion of Resolution 12, not the entire resolution.

Thanks, too, for informing me of the other resolution, but I would still seek passage of my proposal because it affirmatively recognizes the right of sovereign nations to prescribe rules of marriage for themselves.

Thanks again.

Semper Libertas!

OMGTKTE,

It's OMGTKK, and they have been known to declare war for lesser insults.

Thanks for the correction on the resolution number. I titled it repeal gay marriage because I am seeking to repeal only that portion of Resolution 12, not the entire resolution.

Parcial repeals or amendments are illegal.

Thanks, too, for informing me of the other resolution, but I would still seek passage of my proposal because it affirmatively recognizes the right of sovereign nations to prescribe rules of marriage for themselves.

Operative clauses in repeals are illegal. Even if you did word it legally, it would have no substantive effect.

Proposed:

Whereas, marriage is the institution central to all states;Untrue.Whereas, all nations are entitled to self-determination, which certainly includes the right to determine for themselves the form of its central institution;Debatable, primarily because the assumption that all nations have the same institution is false.Whereas, all nations are also certainly entitled to religious liberty, and should be free of restraints imposed externally by other nations and/or international bodies based on worldviews foreign to those predominant within a particular State;I'd argue that whereas all individuals are certainly entitled to religious liberty and should be free of restraints imposed by governments, the UN has protected these individual freedoms from the government, which is quite right, in our opinion.Therefore, be it resolved that the portion of Resolution # 13 forcing homosexual marriage on all states be repealed and that the principles is affirmed that states are free to decide this issue for themselves.Like it has been said, you can't do partial repeals.

Resolution # 13 currently reads:

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Kundu

Description: WHEREAS it has been clearly witnessed there is an outspoken minority who wish to oppress gays.

We, the People's Republic of Kundu and the other peoples of the world wishing for the preservation of freedom and the respect of all hereby resolve that all member nations of the United Nations must pass laws protecting people from discrimination in all parts of life.

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

Implemented: Sat May 3 2003


I'll give you credit - you posted both your repeal text and the text of the original resolution

Proposed:

Whereas, marriage is the institution central to all states;

Hardly. Considering my own RL province was considering not even recognizing marriages at all (instead, recognizing Civil Unions), I'd say your claim is absolutely false. Add on that nations like Flibs (I can't remember how to spell his full name) don't recongize marriages in-game, I think your argument is dead

Whereas, all nations are entitled to self-determination,

Where are they entitled that? There is a correct answer for this question

which certainly includes the right to determine for themselves the form of its central institution;

Where is that entitled to them? There is not a correct answer for this question - without rewording what you said or admitting a mistake

Whereas, all nations are also certainly entitled to religious liberty,

Where is that entitled to them?

and should be free of restraints imposed externally by other nations and/or international bodies based on worldviews foreign to those predominant within a particular State;

This is the first statement that so far can be claimed as correct. Key word, "should"

I happen to disagree

Whereas, it is certainly accepted that discrimination against homosexuals in their rights of political access and political speech should not be in any way restrained,

It should not be restrained? Wait, you're accepting discrimination against homosexuals as legal?

and that violence against their person and property should in no wise be tolerated;

"no wise". Might want to actually edit before you submit.

Therefore, be it resolved that the portion of Resolution # 13 forcing homosexual marriage on

"in"!

all states be repealed and that the principles is affirmed that states are free to decide this issue for themselves.

Illegal - partial repeal.

Civil unions are not the business of the UN. Laws which refer to gender create new classes, which should not exist. States make laws regarding civil unions.

People, the more we talk about things which are rightfully esoteric, the more problems are created, that should not exist.

These issues have to do with breeding and national sovereignty, which are authorized by non-racist authority within a nation. If a nation has sovereignty, that nation respects the rights of her citizens.

The level of diplomacy to verify that a nation has legitimate non-racist authority to sanction breeding and related issues, is akin to that authority needed for declaring war.

Keep non-racist authority away from the the tyranny of the majority!

http://s7.invisionfree.com/Europa/index.php?showtopic=1877&hl=

Civil unions are not the business of the UN. Laws which refer to gender create new classes, which should not exist. States make laws regarding civil unions.

And they still do, so long as their laws do not contradict the various UN resolutions that have been passed that deal with discrimination. Stuff like UNR 81: Definition of Marriage is a prime example of something that nations have to watch. You can decide what rights you grant, what restrictions there are to getting a marriage license (so long as they follow passed UN resolutions), etc.

Re: gender - WTF are you talking about? Which law is referring to gender - or are you talking about the so called "traditional" definition of marriage?

People, the more we talk about things which are rightfully esoteric, the more problems are created, that should not exist.

....right.... I would happen to disagree. I would be fighting just as hard - actually harder - if we didn't have these discrimination resolutions on the books. There are so many who are endangered by various regimes who are unquestionably protected only because the UN makes those nations protect them. There are many nations that are outside the UN that likewise abuse or discriminate against many of their populace

These issues have to do with breeding and national sovereignty, which are authorized by non-racist authority within a nation. If a nation has sovereignty, that nation respects the rights of her citizens.

That makes absolutely no sense. How is it that you can guarantee that a nation respects its citizens if it's sovereign. Why do you think the world was upset about the US invading a Sovereign Nation when it went into Iraq - and did Iraq respect the rights of its citizens? I don't think so.

Considering the current stance of the US government regarding homosexuality, I'd also claim that the US does not have a "non-racist authority".

The level of diplomacy to verify that a nation has legitimate non-racist authority to sanction breeding and related issues, is akin to that authority needed for declaring war.

Now I REALLY don't have a clue what you're talking about. How is this even related to what the UN is doing?

Keep non-racist authority away from the the tyranny of the majority!

:rolleyes:

Explain, if you will, how you intend to assure that there are non-racist authorities in every member nation?

Considering the current stance of the US government regarding homosexuality, I'd also claim that the US does not have a "non-racist authority".[OOC: RL references may be OK in this forum, but if you're only gonna use them to America-bash, please take it to General. There's a reason I avoid that forum; I don't want to have to avoid this one too. :rolleyes:]

That said, I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't color the Official Topic debate on the repeal of Gay Rights, which comes to vote after the United Nations finishes repealing everything else it has marked for death.

[OOC: RL references may be OK in this forum, but if you're only gonna use them to America-bash, please take it to General. There's a reason I avoid that forum; I don't want to have to avoid this one too. :rolleyes:]

OOC: I avoid General because I can't afford to lose anymore IQ points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leouna
Civil unions are not the business of the UN. Laws which refer to gender create new classes, which should not exist. States make laws regarding civil unions.

And they still do, so long as their laws do not contradict the various UN resolutions that have been passed that deal with discrimination. Stuff like UNR 81: Definition of Marriage is a prime example of something that nations have to watch. You can decide what rights you grant, what restrictions there are to getting a marriage license (so long as they follow passed UN resolutions), etc.

And the more they try to make Sesame Street world, the worse the problems become.

Re: gender - WTF are you talking about? Which law is referring to gender - or are you talking about the so called "traditional" definition of marriage?

I am talking about the problem of they way these problems are addressed. Cultures are taken in their entirety and self-defined. Laws which micromanage a nations culture create "memes" which are viruses that deconstruct cultures.

Quote:
People, the more we talk about things which are rightfully esoteric, the more problems are created, that should not exist.

....right.... I would happen to disagree. I would be fighting just as hard - actually harder - if we didn't have these discrimination resolutions on the books. There are so many who are endangered by various regimes who are unquestionably protected only because the UN makes those nations protect them. There are many nations that are outside the UN that likewise abuse or discriminate against many of their populace

If you can make the statement: "likewise abuse or discriminate against many of their populace", then you can identify cultures that deserve protection. Failing that, you are interfering with national sovereignty.

Quote:
These issues have to do with breeding and national sovereignty, which are authorized by non-racist authority within a nation. If a nation has sovereignty, that nation respects the rights of her citizens.

That makes absolutely no sense. How is it that you can guarantee that a nation respects its citizens if it's sovereign.[?]

By acknowledging that a nation exists.

Why do you think the world was upset about the US invading a Sovereign Nation when it went into Iraq - and did Iraq respect the rights of its citizens? I don't think so.

And the people with the most guns often win disputes of this sort. The idea is that people should have disputes of the proper sort.

Considering the current stance of the US government regarding homosexuality, I'd also claim that the US does not have a "non-racist authority".

We are working on that. One way to solve this problem is through non-secular authority. I recently prevented a Catholic Church from displaying The Nativity in a community that disrespects the diversity that symbol represents.

Quote:
The level of diplomacy to verify that a nation has legitimate non-racist authority to sanction breeding and related issues, is akin to that authority needed for declaring war.

Now I REALLY don't have a clue what you're talking about. How is this even related to what the UN is doing?

If you are asking my opinion regarding about how the UN could become a player in sovereignty disputes, I have to say that the UN needs to consider that democratic authority and non-racist authority are separate, and that their mission deals with democratic authority.

Quote:
Keep non-racist authority away from the the tyranny of the majority!



Explain, if you will, how you intend to assure that there are non-racist authorities in every member nation?

Firstly, pass a resolution that states that UN member states operate under democratic principles, and that issues related to marriage, civil unions, and breeding are handled by separate authority.

Secondly, let participants agree that human beings belong to diverse cultures, many of which are intrinsic, and some of which span many nations. Let these nations identify their own diversity, then let the individual cultures define themselves.

Having established non-secular authority. Make this entire operation separate from the UN, and put theology back where it belongs.

I was having the hardest time trying to figure out what the heck you were talking about. However, I finally understood why there is a massive issue of communication - aside from the unrealistic idealism that you inherently show (which is, to some degree, good, but you need to think things through a bit), and a real issue of trying to talk on a level that I'm not positive you entirely understand (and either way, REALLY need to drum it down because I barely understand what you're getting at - and I am still missing about half of what you're talking about. I'm sure there are a few active UN members that might understand you, but the vast majority are probably scratching their head). However, this is where the #1 flaw in your idea sits - and why what you suggest is impossible:

Firstly, pass a resolution that states that UN member states operate under democratic principles, and that issues related to marriage, civil unions, and breeding are handled by separate authority.

Illegal and unpassable respectively.

Requiring all UN members to operate under democratic principles would fall under an ideological ban - illegal by the Most Glorious Protocals. You cannot force people to use one method of government or another - nor, for that matter, can you make it so they can't use another form of government.

Requiring nations to disassociate marriage and civil unions from the national authority would be unpassible. If you're suggesting that they make it for a more local authority than that (ie: state governments rather than national), then you MIGHT have a shot. However, my guess is that's not what you're suggesting, and I can assure you it will be met with overwhelming opposition.

Secondly, let participants agree that human beings belong to diverse cultures, many of which are intrinsic, and some of which span many nations. Let these nations identify their own diversity, then let the individual cultures define themselves.

Ok, the culture of nation 306915 calls for every woman to be branded by the age of 17 to the person they will serve as sex slave for the rest of their life. The culture has defined itself, the human rights in there are that a man has a right to a woman who shall remain his servant for life - more if he can afford them. The woman has no rights. These are the societally accepted human rights, intrinsic to that very culture.

Now tell me, do you accept that culture's right to define itself?

Having established non-secular authority. Make this entire operation separate from the UN, and put theology back where it belongs.

What do you mean by this? Seperate it from the state? Or put it back into the state? How do you seperate it from the UN? Resign? Or is this "once procedure is complete, they can now ignore UN mandates"? In which case, it's an optionality issue.

Again, you need to explain your ideas more thoroughly.

[OOC: RL references may be OK in this forum, but if you're only gonna use them to America-bash, please take it to General. There's a reason I avoid that forum; I don't want to have to avoid this one too. :rolleyes:]

That said, I sincerely hope this discussion doesn't color the Official Topic debate on the repeal of Gay Rights, which comes to vote after the United Nations finishes repealing everything else it has marked for death.

I do not pick on America - I pick well noted examples of incidents that are relevant. To me, the most notable one would have to be America's stance on Same Sex marriage - and their recent discussion about doing a constitutional ammendment to bar it. Earlier in that same post, I took a shot at Iraq (yes, I shot at America too - again, most notable example). The only other major relevant example that I know of would be France's treatment of muslims - from the "nothing on your head in school" laws to the recent...."uprising"

It is a very simple concept that some people fail to grasp.

You keep seeing things as an either or world, and the real solution is both.

This is what church and state separation really means: the state does not grant civil rights, civil rights are granted.

Stop pretending that church and state separation means theocracy vs democracy, and you will be able to think on our level.

If someone understands that, PLEASE dumb it down for me.

I have a question. If you want soverigty, why the hell are you in the UN?

I have a question. If you want soverigty, why the hell are you in the UN?

Why do you keep hijacking threads to ask this question, even though people have already answered you, even though this question is covered in a sticky?

Why do you keep hijacking threads to ask this question, even though people have already answered you, even though this question is covered in a sticky?

The thread only covers sovereignity. The issue of soverigty is a much more controversial one.

I'll make it vey simple: stay away from our affairs.

This means anything to do with breeding, civil unions, and marriage.

Perhaps you need to meet some nice anarchists.

:D

I'll make it vey simple: stay away from our affairs.

Thay means anything to do with breeding, civil unions, and marriage.

Perhaps you need to meet some nice anachists.
Ok. Few things.

1. There are some non-secular democracies in NS. Like, oh...Gruenberg.
2. If you want him to stay away from marriage, then you've joined the wrong organization. The UN has legislated marriage again...and again...and again.
3. This can be fixed by a quick trip to your local Resign Button - Resignation Fun For All The Family!
4. A civil union is by definition secular, if the civil authority is secular.
5. How is 'breeding' necessarily non-secular? Atheists shag too, you know.
6. It's spelled 'anarchists'. He's met some. What's your point?
7. I think, even now, you're going to have to dumb it down more. I for one still don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

The designation of people who may not breed are understood to relate to the rights of the people who do breed.

Most gay men do not want to be forced to live apart from breeding lesbians. People desire to live in my world, not yours.

Get real.

If someone understands that, PLEASE dumb it down for me.
No. Can't. My head hurts.

Sorry, Leouna, but I'm missing the point, too. I think you're suggesting two authorities, one of which is the UN as we know it, the other handling 'marriage, civil unions, and breeding'.

I suspect that this would be illegal on many points, though I don't have the expertise to list them, but 'Alteration to Game Mechanics' springs to mind.

Even if it weren't illegal, you can bet I'm not accepting any authority over my 'breeding' activities, and I think the other stroppy human citizens of Ardchoille would react similarly. And what the Cats would say, I would prefer not to repeat even in this hardened company.

The other point I think you're making is that civil rights don't have to be granted, by the State or anyone else, they just are.

Unless you're citing some sort of Platonic Ideal, I'd have to say this view is, at best, unrealistic (actually, if you're citing a Platonic Ideal I'd say that view is unrealistic, too, but that's another debate altogether).

No Real World references are needed; there are any number of psychotic dictatorships in NS where it is clear that civil rights don't simply exist by virtue of being civil rights.

Please note, I'm just guessing that that's what you're saying. I'm not helped by this sort of thing:

'Laws which micromanage a nations culture create "memes" which are viruses that deconstruct cultures.'

Much more in this vein will force me to take my trusty copy of Baudrillard to the bell-tower at Ardchoille U and spray the campus with torn-out pages until they pry the book from my cold, dead hands.

I get it that you don't want a Sesame Street world, but I'd appreciate it if you'd give me and the delegate from Forgottenlands some Sesame Street-level clarification.

*Dicey Reilly, co-President of Ardchoille, sits down and gulps some morning-after Vitamin B fizzy stuff.*

The designation of people who may not breed are understood to relate to the rights of the people who do breed.

Most gay men do not want to be forced to live apart from breeding lesbians. People desire to live in my world, not yours.

Get real.

Ah, now I see your point.

Ugh, I can't even read what that one guy is saying, it's like trying to listen to a German explain it to a Chinese who tries to explain it to me, something is obviously being lost from his brain to his fingers. But he seems to be using some kind of logic that governments, out of the kindess of their hearts :rolleyes: just gives rights to people without any kind of nudge in the ribs or kick in the ass. If that's the case...maybe you should be the one getting real.

The designation of people who may not breed are understood to relate to the rights of the people who do breed.

Most gay men do not want to be forced to live apart from breeding lesbians. People desire to live in my world, not yours.

Get real.
Who may not breed?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

Ugh, I can't even read what that one guy is saying, it's like trying to listen to a German explain it to a Chinese who tries to explain it to me, something is obviously being lost from his brain to his fingers. But he seems to be using some kind of logic that governments, out of the kindess of their hearts :rolleyes: just gives rights to people without any kind of nudge in the ribs or kick in the ass. If that's the case...maybe you should be the one getting real.

Nononono. The government doesn't give rights to people, rights are given. This is as much as I got, and I love a logical challenge.

Nononono. The government doesn't give rights to people, rights are given. This is as much as I got, and I love a logical challenge.


So are we moving into the omnipotent being realm now?

This whole thing about trying to get rid of gay marriage is ridiculous. Have you folks not read Resolutions 7 and 8? These two resolutions combined currently make it illegal to ban gay marriage without repealing them as well.

This whole thing about trying to get rid of gay marriage is ridiculous. Have you folks not read Resolutions 7 and 8? These two resolutions combined currently make it illegal to ban gay marriage without repealing them as well.
How the hell do resolutions 7 (Sexual Freedom (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029591&postcount=8)) and 8 (Citizen Rule Required (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029593&postcount=9)) equal gay marriage? All resolution 7 says is that what happens in the bedroom is none of the governments business, and by the way sex=/=marriage. And all resolution 8 says is that the people have to have some say in the government, which again does not equal marriage.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Who may not breed?

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

People who designate themselves as nonbreeders, in order to invade and disrespect righteous people, are not sanctioned to breed by that culture they invade.

Define, please, the following:

"Sovereignty"

"Breeders"

"Righteous"

I'm not convinced you understand any of those terms and am definately convinced you are using none of them correctly. I'll add others later if I feel they are needed.

People who designate themselves as nonbreeders, in order to invade and disrespect righteous people, are not sanctioned to breed by that culture they invade.

So if you designate yourself a non-breeder, but don't do so 'in order to invade and disrespect righteous people', then you are sanctioned to breed by the culture you didn't invade. Except you won't, because you designated yourself a non-breeder.

Look, I'm sorry, but I'm still not getting your reasoning. Could we try it with a specific example, to see if I understand better?

I've mentioned in other debates that I was brought up by two Daddies. Now, would they be designated non-breeders because they're both male, or designated breeders because they have a daughter? Or is one of them a breeder and the other not? If so, which? And why does it matter?

On second thoughts, forget it. It was a mistake on my part to get involved in playground polemics. I'll wait and see if your response to the request for definitions by the admirable delegate from Forgottenlands makes matters clearer. Thank you for your patience.

How the hell do resolutions 7 (Sexual Freedom (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029591&postcount=8)) and 8 (Citizen Rule Required (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029593&postcount=9)) equal gay marriage? All resolution 7 says is that what happens in the bedroom is none of the governments business, and by the way sex=/=marriage. And all resolution 8 says is that the people have to have some say in the government, which again does not equal marriage.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I wasn't suggesting that it equals marriage. I was simply saying that all people (including homosexuals) have the right to participate in government (resolution 8), and so they are entitled to have a say in this matter as well, in which case they would be absolutely against banning gay marriage.

Now, would they be designated non-breeders because they're both male, or designated breeders because they have a daughter? Or is one of them a breeder and the other not? If so, which? And why does it matter?

The people who say: "I now pronounce you ___ and ____. Have rights as well. These are the rights of association.

So, just figure that civil unions are what some people get, and marriage is what other people get.


And forgotten, As far as lexicon goes: please subvert culture in your own space. I don't play that game.

The people who say: "I now pronounce you ___ and ____. Have rights as well. These are the rights of association.

So, just figure that civil unions are what some people get, and marriage is what other people get.


And forgotten, As far as lexicon goes: please subvert culture in your own space. I don't play that game.

When the dozen or so people that are trying to make sense of what you're saying start looking at one another going "WTF is he/she talking about?", I think it is far from being out of line to request that you define some words. If you define them, than we can understand what you're talking about. So far, about 4 people have gone "I think I get it", then read another post and go "no, wait, guess not". Everyone else has failed miserably.

Personally, I think you sound like a kid who found his father's thesaurus and thought it would be cool to start using it - without understanding the words used and what they themselves mean. The structure of your sentances is poor and your wordchoice nothing short of disgusting to the point where your sentances are unreadable and completely impossible to understand.

If we want to discuss cultural subversion, let me point out something. The entire POINT of language is communication. If you want to see cultural subversion, I happen to be dating someone who is rigid about the use of the English language and gets rather annoyed whenever you misuse any word - whether you can understand what is being said or not. This is not what I'm doing. You are failing miserably at communicating what you are thinking. You seem to have redefined various terms or don't understand what they mean. As such, the easiest way to clear up these communication difficulties is to get an understanding of what you THINK you are saying, and the easiest way to do that (since you do not seem to wish to comply with our requests to explain) is to ask you to give the definitions of the various words that seem misplaced.

I wasn't suggesting that it equals marriage. I was simply saying that all people (including homosexuals) have the right to participate in government (resolution 8), and so they are entitled to have a say in this matter as well, in which case they would be absolutely against banning gay marriage.
You might want to read resolution 8 a little more closely. With the way it's worded a nation could only allow it's citizens to vote for who their dogcatcher is and still be in compliance.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

from the rouge nation or irate gnomes

to hell with gay marriage, lets out law all marriage and everyone could live with any one they want


Wallace the lawn gnome
have a nice day

People who designate themselves as nonbreeders, in order to invade and disrespect righteous people, are not sanctioned to breed by that culture they invade.

English translation:

'Gay people are gay to offend straight people. They should hide their gayness and stop offending straight people's 'culture' by demonstrating they are not straight people They should not ask to be allowed to be married since marriage implies children and they have chosen not to have any, even though impotent and infertile straight people as well as those with no intention of ever having children are perfectly ok to get married. I am assuming adoption, surrogacy and artificial insemination do not exist and no gay person could already be a parent before marrying a same-sex partner for purposes of this argument, because that would reveal it to be totally hypocritical.'

Holy homophobe-with-a-thesaurus, Batman!

Isn't marriage a right and if there are gay rights then there should be gay marriage. Personally I'm still undecided on the issues.

Ok....I'm getting closer to understanding about 30-40% of what Leouna's said.....

Yeah, ok, I'm spending a bit too much time at this, but I'm finding this to be an interesting challenge.....

Ok....I'm getting closer to understanding about 30-40% of what Leouna's said.....

Yeah, ok, I'm spending a bit too much time at this, but I'm finding this to be an interesting challenge.....I imagine a linguist who discovers a totally unknown language would say something similar. :p

Ok....I'm getting closer to understanding about 30-40% of what Leouna's said.....

Yeah, ok, I'm spending a bit too much time at this, but I'm finding this to be an interesting challenge.....

Methinks you need a Rosetta Stone. ;)