NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Repeal/Replace
Resolution: #6
Proposed by: Kiften

Description: UN Resolution #6: End Slavery (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: This Assembly,

DEFINING slavery as the state of one bound in servitude as the property of an individual or group of individuals, excepting for citizens imprisoned legally in order to compensate for their food and boarding;

ACKNOWLEDES that slavery is a moral injustice, and should be fought against at all costs;

MANDATES that legislation to defend against the possibility of slavery must ensure that said laws prevent misinterpretation or abuse;

REALIZES that Resolution 6 is ineffective for a number of reasons;

NOTES the following inconsistencies and problems inherent within Resolution 6:

1) The right to two week's notice is incompatible with many jobs, such as military and contract work
2) The right to travel freely is in direct contrast with a government's ability to imprison a suspect or criminal
3) The right to bodily safety from one's employer is worded vaguely, as one's employer might require said employee to participate in a function of his job which could hold the possibility of injury
4) The statement outlawing the selling or purchasing of people does not grant freedom to any current slaves, effectively allowing slaveowners a 'grandfather clause'
5) The 'right to own possessions' clause in the original is poorly written, and may preclude some UN governments from complying with this section


UNDERSTANDING the motivations behind the authors of resolution 6 and aiming to more effectively promoting their causes;


This Assembly DECLARES the following:

1) Citizens shall be given the right to terminate work status with their employer if a two-week notice of resignation is given, provided the terminating party has not signed a contract with employer agreeing to terms of employment . Either party may challenge the legality of a contract if they feel the other side has breached the terms of aforementioned contract, and all governments have the right to self-regulate contract disputes within their own boundaries, according to their legislature.

2) All citizens are allowed to keep possession of items which are to be considered of a 'personal' nature. Total items may not exceed a certain dollar amount, to be set by each individual government. We recognize that items may be a part of one's identity, and therefore grant individuals the right to maintain possession of these items.

3) The right to travel freely will be granted to all citizens, with exceptions consisting only of suspects in containment and convicted criminals. Furthermore, suspects in containment must be given right to a fair and speedy trial as defined by this body, or in the lack of a UN definition, the definition of fair trial provided by that nation's government.

4) The abolition of slavery, immediately upon approval and ratification of this resolution. This would prevent the selling, purchasing or owning of slaves. No retribution for loss of slaves will be paid out, excepting where governments take it upon themselves to reimburse slaveowners.

5) Governments have the right to require prisoners to work in order to compensate for food and boarding. The hours should be commensurate to a normal workweek, and governments may not force any criminal to work excessive hours, or tasks that hold a high likelihood for injury.

Conclusion: This Assembly

DECLARES these laws to be necessary for the good of the UN, and for the development of its peoples;

HOPES that providing clearer wording and more coherent laws will provide for greater understanding and greater compliance; hereby

REPEALS Resolution 6: End Slavery

Co-authored by the Protectorate of Kiften

Hello fellow UN Members!

This is my first draft, and as such, most likely contains a number of errors in pensmanship as well as logic. I ask all of you to point our errors and inconsistencies, and provide feedback.

Thank you all in advance,

Nicodemus Larynger
-Protectorate of Kiften-

First thing you will have to do is seperate the repeal and the replacement. They are two different documents. A repeal can only repeal, it can't introduce any new legislation under this rule...

Repeals

Yes, you can Repeal, provided you use the Repeal function. If you make your own Proposal in some other category and calling it a Repeal, it's going to be deleted. Remember, Repeals can only repeal the existing resolution. You can provide reasons for repeal, but not any new provisions or laws.

I think you have to pass the repeal before you can submit the replacement. Not sure about that though.

Waterana,

Hm..the only problem I see is that it would seem silly to repeal the End Slavery act (and therefore, allow slavery) and then have to wait until a NEW resolution got proposed.

Would it be possible to get the 'replacement' section approved, then repeal the obsolete resolution afterwards?

I don't see how you could do that because until the old resolution is repealed, any submitted replacement would just be a duplicate of existing legislation.

The wait between a repeal passing, and the replacement doing the same is just a down side of the repeal process. I don't think there is much you can do about it, but maybe someone who is more experienced in the UN could answer that better than me.

Thanks Water, I'll keep that in mind.

It's a good start. Unfortunately you do need to repeal and then replace, but I'd say that you've already got most of the material for the two separate resolutions that would be required here.

Regarding the right to travel freely, I'd also like to allow governments to set exceptions for various reasons such as national security, public health [so that they can impose quarantines], the protection of the environment &/or wildlife, and maybe a catch-all 'public safety' category...

Regarding the freeing of existing slaves, I would (i) leave whether their former owners received any financial compensation as something for the national governments to decide, and (ii) strongly urge those governments to set up schemes to train the adult ex-slaves in various trades so that they aren't faced with a choice between going back to work for their former masters or starvation.

Perhaps the Repeal could include a statement such as:

"This Law is stade until a new proposal can be passed"

because then slavery is still outlawed, until a new Act can be voted on...or something like that...b'c that downtime, could be a serious issue, especially during the repeal process

Perhaps the Repeal could include a statement such as:

"This Law is stade until a new proposal can be passed"

because then slavery is still outlawed, until a new Act can be voted on...or something like that...b'c that downtime, could be a serious issue, especially during the repeal process

I think that the Mods would have to rule on that possibility, and doubt whether they'd accept it as legal...

Well, unfortunatly I believe you are correct, b'c if they allowed it, it would probably be abused by future repeals...But seriously, i doubt then that majorities of any kind would repeal "End Slavery" without a really really good proposal behind it, that could be ratified quickly...but you probably know that already

No.

The only way I would look at this if:

1) There was a clearer definition of slavery.

2) Hard labor or sentencing criminals to work in heavy manual jobs is not defined as slavery if it meets requirements for worker safety.

3) If it also addressed the issue of bonding, forcing people to work without wages.

No.

Thanks for the input. :rolleyes:

If split, as necessary according to the rules, both would be very good. I don't think, though, that you can keep it in effect until the replacement is put in effect, as has been suggested, nor do I think a repeal of "End Slavery" will have a chance if put to vote.

Um....when you're going to rip the body off an old repeal attempt and use it as a basis for your own, you might actually want to change all the numbers so they match the resolution you're attacking. Thankfully, you are better than a lot of people who try that technique and don't even change the arguments

Ha! I've been spotted!

ForgottenLands, I did 'steal' the format as it were, because I am new. All credit goes to OhmygodtheykilledKenny (sorry if I'm getting his name wrong) as I based my resolution off that.

Thanks for all the input everyone. I will clear this up a bit and see what you all think.

No.

The only way I would look at this if:

1) There was a clearer definition of slavery.

2) Hard labor or sentencing criminals to work in heavy manual jobs is not defined as slavery if it meets requirements for worker safety.

3) If it also addressed the issue of bonding, forcing people to work without wages.

I provided a definition of slavery and discussed prisoner issues.

I can't agree with 3 though...because there are some nations that might not use 'wages'. I think no employer would be able to 'force' people to work if the above resolution was passed.

Perhaps the Repeal could include a statement such as:

"This Law is stade until a new proposal can be passed"No.

I thought not.

Slavery is still around even today and it usually happens when people from less well off nations travel to a richer nation to look for work and find themselves being exploited particularly in the sex industry.

It also reminds me of the old Kirisuban practice of child selling which was abandoned a century ago. the young girls in question may have learned a trade as a geisha or a courtesan but they were effectively slaves until they worked or paid their debts off. Even without child selling there are still plenty of Geisha and Courtesans in the Empire since its still a valid career path for a woman and its learned the same way as anyother skill you would learn in school or a college.

any replacement would have to take these aspects into account since modern slavery still takes place and a signed contract is still an instrument of slavery if its abused by the employer and dosen't take a persons freedom into account.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

Slavery is still around even today and it usually happens when people from less well off nations travel to a richer nation to look for work and find themselves being exploited particularly in the sex industry.

It also reminds me of the old Kirisuban practice of child selling which was abandoned a century ago. the young girls in question may have learned a trade as a geisha or a courtesan but they were effectively slaves until they worked or paid their debts off. Even without child selling there are still plenty of Geisha and Courtesans in the Empire since its still a valid career path for a woman and its learned the same way as anyother skill you would learn in school or a college.

any replacement would have to take these aspects into account since modern slavery still takes place and a signed contract is still an instrument of slavery if its abused by the employer and dosen't take a persons freedom into account.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

Ms. Midori Kasigi-Nero,

The definition of slavery involves not being indentured in servitude to an individual or group of individuals. If a woman is forced into servitude, that is illegal. If she chooses this profession, it is not.

If the contract signed by an employer is abused, then the person has right to claim/file a grievance with their government. If she is unsatisfied by the verdict then she could work out an agreement to break her contract, and this will be decided by the legislative branch of said government. I can not think of a more fair method.

Can you think of a way to state a provision that could fit in this resolution?

Re-edited...

Please re-review.

Also, does anyone have any ideas on how we could pass this law through? Repealing the End Slavery law doesn't seem possible without a replacement.

Do you think I could split the second part into its own resolution entitled "Abolition of Slavery" or something? There are pieces of the second part that are distinct from resolution 6, and then perhaps repeal res 6?

Thanks for looking it over,

Nicodemus Larynger
-Protectorate of Kiften-

I think one approach is this:

If you can get a proposal which is definitively new, and covers a lot of ground not covered by "End Slavery", then you might be able to pass that without a repeal. The law on duplication applies to a significant extent, but not as far as I can see to a complete extent. That's just a thought, though.

Ambassador Bausch, to help illuminate the relevant articles off the resolution here they are.

"The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.

- The right to own possessions.

- The right to travel freely throughout their country.

- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.

- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people."

I don't know much about other nations but I do know about the history of my own nation. Geisha and Courtesans started their training at an early age and over the years built up debts to their mama sans. they were effectively enslaved to their tea houses until they paid their debts back since the mama san's paid for their training, clothes, food, medical care and other things we would take for granted. their own parents sold these girls into servitude for varying reasons and they had no say in the issue.

I would suggest to Larynger san that he looks for cases of modern slavery as well as looking back into history.

since each nation in the UN is so different a replacement resolution is difficult to define since every nation has differing cultures and views off itself.

The Kirisubans of 200 years ago would not have considered a child who was bought and sold a slave. they didn't even recognise the concept of slavery and knew a daughter off a poor family would have the chance off an education and a future career.

At present UNR #6 is vague and needs improved. A replacement would have to clarify each point in more detail so no people slip through the loopholes.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

Honorable Ms. Midori Kasigi-Nero,

According to the definition of slavery provided in my new resolution, it would outlaw keeping a servant in indentured servitude, which is what these Geisha sound like. Especially if they did not sign a contract before hand. Also, my resolution provides for the banning of selling, purchasing or owning slaves.

Would you agree that the definition of slavery provided would also include preventing the sort of abuse that the Geisha endured?

Larynger san, It looks like you've beefed up the definations and covered the case of the Geisha's.

Having done more research on modern geisha they have a contract which allows them to leave the career after they have paid off any debts they owe. Since they pay for the training themselves the debt is a lot lower than it would have been a century ago and banks are more ready to lend money.

Courtesans work under the same contract as far as I know and sometimes geisha and courtesans change codes since they have the same basic skills of entertaining guests.

Either way the two week notice period covers both groups.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero

Honorable Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero,

I am pleased to hear that my the resolution now provides freedom for Geisha's as well.

I am working towards developing and defining both the resolution to repeal Res 6 as well as one to replace it, and I thank you for your help with both of these. If you see anything else which I could change, please let me know.

Ensuring freedom for our UN is something that is dear to my heart, and I'm sure, dear to yours as well.

Nicodemus Larynger,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

The Commonalitarianism further moves that it would like to include debt slavery as a cause of slavery. This condition occurs when employees have to buy food, tools, and housing from their employers which purposefully exceeds their income, thus putting the worker into a condition where they are even with full wages deeply indebted to their employer. The employer in collusion with local authorities threaten bodily imprisonment if debts are not paid thus creating a kind of slavery.

Commonalitarianism

I would like to point out that the definition of slavery involves someone being indentured into servitude.

Also, some nations don't use wages as a form of capital, and may be communistic in nature.

Finally, I think that there are other resolutions that would also support the stop of said collusion.

However, if you can think of a change to the resolution that would fit and stop this, I would be more than happy to hear it! In the meanwhile, I will try to think of a proper way to word it myself.

It seems though the wage slavery you speak of is much like the geisha that Ms. Midori Kasigi-Nero was concerned about.

Nicodemus Larynger,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

4) The abolition of slavery, immediately upon approval and ratification of this resolution. This would prevent the selling, purchasing or owning of slaves. No retribution for loss of slaves will be paid out, excepting where governments take it upon themselves to reimburse slaveowners.

I think that "retribution" is the wrong word here: "recompense", perhaps?


One way to cover the gap between repeal & replacement might be to include a clause in the replacement forbidding reimbursement to the owners for any slaves that were only acquired since the repeal...

St Edmund,

That's a thought. I think I am going to try and put the second part of the resolution on its own and see if it stands, and THEN repeal the first part. Frankly, I don't see the first part being repealed without something to protect it in place already.
As per your suggestion of recompense, it has been noted and used. Thanks!

Nicodemus Larynger,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

St Edmund,

That's a thought. I think I am going to try and put the second part of the resolution on its own and see if it stands, and THEN repeal the first part. Frankly, I don't see the first part being repealed without something to protect it in place already.
As per your suggestion of recompense, it has been noted and used. Thanks!

Nicodemus Larynger,
-Protectorate of Kiften-

or "restitution"... That's the word that I was trying to think of earlier, that I thought you might actually have been meaning in that case...

Removal of the resolution would be welcomed. Slavery being legal would allow us too sort out our media. lavery is a valued weapon, use it against a country, rape the country of any value, drop the worthless slaves back into their shrivelled dry country,
But in no way would we support the replacement of it.

or "restitution"... That's the word that I was trying to think of earlier, that I thought you might actually have been meaning in that case...

Mayhaps just 'compensation' instead of 'recompense'? I'll look up restitution and recompensation and determine which seems better.

Removal of the resolution would be welcomed. Slavery being legal would allow us too sort out our media. lavery is a valued weapon, use it against a country, rape the country of any value, drop the worthless slaves back into their shrivelled dry country,
But in no way would we support the replacement of it.

Optischer, why not leave the UN then?

Optischer, why not leave the UN then?

Because he enjoys being a troll.

Because he enjoys being a troll.

It certainly seems it. But I guess the UN hasn't stopped refusing membership based on lack of intelligence yet.

I'm not a troll. I enjoy the UN, the people are mainly friendly, I am waiting for some good proposals, and I'm not going to retire just because you supposed it. I'm going to keep my membership as long as possible if possible.

:p

Well I'm sure I wont' put up the repeal without having a solid law to replace it right behind it...so you'll only have slaves for a good few days or so.

Any more comments? Or should I look at getting someone to approve of these resolutions as separate measures?

Repeal is fully supported by Imperiux, though we're in conflict about replacement.


Slavery could boost our economy,
It is against all moral ethics,
Our people will be wealthier, and the envy of many a nations population,
The slaves well-being will not be main priority,
With the money slavery will bring, we can strengthen our countries pitiful defences,
The money spent on slavery will be great enough to feed half of optischers poor for a year.

We have decided. We're voting yes for repeal, voting no for replacement.

Please go away. Puppetwanking doesn't make you any less of a troll. (You see, another word for you to look up.)

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Busted! :D

BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Busted! :D

Actually, the troll slipped up twice. Couldn't be bothered to highlight in the other thread. Still, he managed to establish the same reputation in one day alone, quite impressive.

Fonzoland, Cluichstan,

Do you see any possible problem with the replacement resolution? Or should I ask that the two of them be put up as is?

You've still got to split it. A single proposal cannot repeal a resolution and establish new law.

You've still got to split it. A single proposal cannot repeal a resolution and establish new law.

Oh I know. I was just wondering if there were any outstanding issues you could see.

I personally can't propose these laws (AFAIK), so if either of you wish to I have no problem with that.

Fonzoland, Cluichstan,

Do you see any possible problem with the replacement resolution? Or should I ask that the two of them be put up as is?

OOC: Sincere apologies. I currently do not have time to give your text the consideration it deserves, or to form a position. I can only do a bit of troll-sniping. ;) I will try to read it later.

Oh I know. I was just wondering if there were any outstanding issues you could see.

I personally can't propose these laws (AFAIK), so if either of you wish to I have no problem with that.

No, you can't submit a proposal, as you have only one endorsement. You need two.

Since the repeal has to be submitted first, let's just look at that. I made a few changes to what you'd drafted:

DEFINING slavery as the state of one bound in servitude as the property of an individual or group of individuals, with the exception of citizens imprisoned legally in accordance with a nation's justice system;

ACKNOWLEDES that slavery is a moral injustice and should be fought against at all costs;

MANDATES that legislation to defend against the possibility of slavery must ensure that said laws prevent misinterpretation or abuse;

NOTES, however, the following inconsistencies and problems inherent within Resolution 6:

1) The right to two week's notice is incompatible with many jobs, such as military and contract work
2) The right to travel freely is in direct contrast with a government's ability to imprison a suspect or criminal
3) The the wording of the right to bodily safety from one's employer is worded such that it would prohibit an employer from requiring that employees perform normal job functions which could hold even the possibility of injury
4) Outlawing the selling or purchasing of people does not grant freedom to any current slaves, effectively allowing slaveowners a 'grandfather clause'
5) The 'right to own possessions' clause, as written may preclude some UN governments from complying

OOC: Sincere apologies. I currently do not have time to give your text the consideration it deserves, or to form a position. I can only do a bit of troll-sniping. ;) I will try to read it later.

Many thanks!

No, you can't submit a proposal, as you have only one endorsement. You need two.

Since the repeal has to be submitted first, let's just look at that. I made a few changes to what you'd drafted:

DEFINING slavery as the state of one bound in servitude as the property of an individual or group of individuals, with the exception of citizens imprisoned legally ;

ACKNOWLEDES that slavery is a moral injustice and should be fought against at all costs;

MANDATES that legislation to defend against the possibility of slavery must ensure that said laws prevent misinterpretation or abuse;

NOTES, [i]however, the following inconsistencies and problems inherent within Resolution 6:

1) The right to two week's notice is incompatible with many jobs, such as military and contract work
2) The right to travel freely is in direct contrast with a government's ability to imprison a suspect or criminal
3) The the wording of the right to bodily safety from one's employer is worded such that it would prohibit an employer from requiring that employees perform normal job functions which could hold [i]even the possibility of injury
4) Outlawing the selling or purchasing of people does not grant freedom to any current slaves, effectively allowing slaveowners a 'grandfather clause'
5) The 'right to own possessions' clause, as written may preclude some UN governments from complying

Cluichstan,

Thanks for helping out with the proposal and fixing small errors in these resolutions. I'd like them to be as airtight as possible before going up.