NationStates Jolt Archive

CONSIDERING Article 1 of the Universal Bill of Rights which states: "All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state."

COMMITTED to the ideal that each nation is entitled to legislate as it sees appropriate on any and all issues relating to religion or spirituality of its citizens without the interference of the United Nations within their own borders in accordance with their own system of government..

SEEKING to establish the right of each member nation to choose independently:

1. DECLARES that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the legality of abortion and contraception in any and all forms and legislate at the national level for application within their own borders in parallel but independent of U.N. Resolution #147.

2. DECLARES that individual Member Nations retain the right to determine at which point a fetus or developing embryo, for purpose of application within but also in parallel and independent of U,N. Resolution #147, is provided with any rights under the law at the national level for applications within their own borders.

3. ENACTS that religious organizations shall not be required to be compliant with this Resolution or any law within a U.N. member nation if the participants in the marriage stand in contradiction to the tenants, teachings, or dogma of the religion. Therefore, for the purpose of an EXAMPLE, the Catholic Church could not be forced to conduct a marriage for homosexuals, but the same homosexuals could obtain a marriage from a civil authority, pursuant that the possibility of said marriage exists within the law of the specific nation.

4. ENACTS that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the taxable status of Religious Organizations and legislate at the nation level for application within their own borders

5. ENACTS that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the legality and availability of Divorce, both in a civic and religious capacity and legislate at the national level for application within their own borders.

6. REAFFIRMS U.N. resolution #118 and ENACTS, independent of said resolution, that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to legislate and determine what the content of Sexual Education Classes will be within their own borders.

7. REAFFIRMS U.N. resolution #87 and ENACTS that IN THE ABSENCE of Resolution #87 that religious and spiritual reasons be considered as acceptable reasoning for an individual U.N. Member nation to ban or legalize prostitution at the national level, within their own borders. This does not serve to amend the existing resolution (87).

8. RECOMMENDS a study be COMMISSIONED to explore the legality of U.N. Resolution #43 under Article #1 of The Universal Bill of Rights.).

9. REQUESTS a comparison be done between U.N. Resolutions #87 and #91 for contradictory legislation.


CONTINGENT on the passage of this resolution, consider that the above legislation and recommendations stand to bolster existing Resolutions but in the absence of indicated resolutions this legislation can stand on its own as a full and complete protection of individual U.N. Member Nation's Sovereignty in the areas of spirituality and religion as indicated above.

The purpose of this treaty is to work in conjunction with established resolutions as indicated but also to stand independent of those resolutions to protect the national soverignty of each member nation to legislate on the listed matters as the nation, not the U.N. decides.

With its passage, many issues that plague the U.N., will now be decided at the national level.

Aendinia seeks your support in brining this Treaty to Quorum for consideration by the entire U.N. body.

Sillytopia commends this truly silly proposal to its UN brethren.

Stop worrying about the Abortion Legality Convention. It did its job.

Illegal as hell. Most (if not all) of your points are in duplication of previous law, it is clearly a House of Cards violation (your final point does little to wash that away), and 8/9 might be construed as metagaming.

What on Earth are you trying to do with this???

Well, if you can read, you can see its intent.

Furthermore, it is not a House of Cards violation, if you actually read each provision. Each measure stands to bolster previous resolutions but also indicates a course of action in the absence of the referenced so that it will not fold like "a house of cards"

I throughly reviewed the rules and made several edits before I submitted this, and this is not an attack on 147 as you have try to indicate.

While related, it serves a different purpose.

CONSIDERING Article 1 of the Universal Bill of Rights which states: "All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state."

Fine

COMMITTED to the ideal that each nation is entitled to legislate as it sees appropriate on any and all issues relating to religion or spirituality of its citizens without the interference of the United Nations within their own borders in accordance with their own system of government..

NatSov blah blah blah - honestly, that sentence needs to be reworked. Also picks up auto-oppose from me

SEEKING to establish the right of each member nation to choose independently:

Seeing? I would have thought that this resolution actually does establish that right

1. DECLARES that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the legality of abortion and contraception in any and all forms and legislate at the national level for application within their own borders in parallel but independent of U.N. Resolution #147.

HoC on #147. If that isn't HoC it's duplication. PICK ONE.

2. DECLARES that individual Member Nations retain the right to determine at which point a fetus or developing embryo, for purpose of application within but also in parallel and independent of U,N. Resolution #147, is provided with any rights under the law at the national level for applications within their own borders.

*grits teeth. Fine

3. ENACTS that religious organizations shall not be required to be compliant with this Resolution or any law within a U.N. member nation if the participants in the marriage stand in contradiction to the tenants, teachings, or dogma of the religion. Therefore, for the purpose of an EXAMPLE, the Catholic Church could not be forced to conduct a marriage for homosexuals, but the same homosexuals could obtain a marriage from a civil authority, pursuant that the possibility of said marriage exists within the law of the specific nation.

Metagaming, RL Reference, detailing things that already can't be done due to metagaming and ideological rules

4. ENACTS that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the taxable status of Religious Organizations and legislate at the nation level for application within their own borders

Duplication, Represetation in Taxation

5. ENACTS that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the legality and availability of Divorce, both in a civic and religious capacity and legislate at the national level for application within their own borders.

Did he just contradict himself?

6. REAFFIRMS U.N. resolution #118 and ENACTS, independent of said resolution, that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to legislate and determine what the content of Sexual Education Classes will be within their own borders.

Duplication or HoC - PICK ONE

7. REAFFIRMS U.N. resolution #87 and ENACTS that IN THE ABSENCE of Resolution #87 that religious and spiritual reasons be considered as acceptable reasoning for an individual U.N. Member nation to ban or legalize prostitution at the national level, within their own borders. This does not serve to amend the existing resolution (87).

Hoc, Duplication or Repeal regulation violation, PICK ONE.

8. RECOMMENDS a study be COMMISSIONED to explore the legality of U.N. Resolution #43 under Article #1 of The Universal Bill of Rights.).

Metagaming. All resolutions are legal by being passed (that note is sitting in the repeal rules section)

9. REQUESTS a comparison be done between U.N. Resolutions #87 and #91 for contradictory legislation.

Metagaming.

CONTINGENT on the passage of this resolution, consider that the above legislation and recommendations stand to bolster existing Resolutions but in the absence of indicated resolutions this legislation can stand on its own as a full and complete protection of individual U.N. Member Nation's Sovereignty in the areas of spirituality and religion as indicated above.


The biggest metagaming clause I've ever seen.

Well, if you can read, you can see its intent.

Right, you're going mass effect NatSov in the most illegal fashion possible claiming the name of religion as your arguments.

Furthermore, it is not a House of Cards violation, if you actually read each provision. Each measure stands to bolster previous resolutions but also indicates a course of action in the absence of the referenced so that it will not fold like "a house of cards"

Which is a thousand different rules that you broke instead. Interestingly enough, I think it was the repeal rules that you broke the most using a proposal - rather impressive. I've also got duplication, metagaming, various others.

Why is it duplication? Because the entire idea of duplication is that it only needs to be repealed once to be completely repealed.

I throughly reviewed the rules and made several edits before I submitted this, and this is not an attack on 147 as you have try to indicate.

No one is saying it was an attack on 147. He said it was a duplication of it.

While related, it serves a different purpose.

Yeah, but the only one that matters is its purpose to hit the mod nuke.

Fonzoland is quite right.

Well, if you can read, you can see its intent.

Sigh... everyone seems to question my ability to read lately...

Furthermore, it is not a House of Cards violation, if you actually read each provision. Each measure stands to bolster previous resolutions but also indicates a course of action in the absence of the referenced so that it will not fold like "a house of cards"

Whatever. When people are stubborn, I prefer to sit back and watch it burn. Popcorn, anyone?

I throughly reviewed the rules and made several edits before I submitted this, and this is not an attack on 147 as you have try to indicate.

You thoroughly reviewed the rules, and still managed to come up with this beauty??? That is a strong contender for "quote of the month."

While related, it serves a different purpose.

Indeed. To bring you one step closer to being booted.

I just dreamed up something:

Category: All of them, baby!

BELIEVING that the NationStates game is less fun than it used to be,

The UN enacts the following,:

1. The UN creates an army, capitalism is banned, Human Rights category is deleted because of NatSov, all resolutions are optional, proposals are voted on a 2/3 majority rule, Fristobdenia is booted for genocide, Resolution #666 takes precedence over Resolution #333, unless Resolution #1337 is repealed, bears have arms, Tom Waits kicks ass, bears do not have arms, Resolutions #22-45 are all really neat except for #33, and this Resolution cannot be repealed.

2. This resolution cannot be considered illegal in any form, and the death penalty will be applied to any mod who dares to delete it.

Coauthored by The Boasting Republic of Farabaland, my dog, and my cousin Jack who lives in Seattle.

...and the Earth died screaming while you lie dreaming. :eek:

^^Hahahahaha^^


Anyways....
5. ENACTS that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the legality and availability of Divorce, both in a civic and religious capacity and legislate at the national level for application within their own borders.

I really, really don't like this. The right to divorce is a fundemental one, I mean, getting rid of this is throwing women's spouse rights back over half a century. If you marry someone and then decide it was a bad idea, you damnwell have the right to get a divorce. Common wisdom: People are stupid, they will do stupid things. One of these stupid things is jumping into marriages without forethought, or getting really drunk within walking distance of a drive-through marriage. Now, should we be able to force these stupid people to stick together, and make each other's lives miserable. NO. Divorce is a fundemental right.

6. REAFFIRMS U.N. resolution #118 and ENACTS, independent of said resolution, that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to legislate and determine what the content of Sexual Education Classes will be within their own borders.

This is a touchy issue, but ultimately we have to insure that proper sex education is available to all. This helps prevent misinformation that could lead to civil rights offences eg, if a woman doesn't get pregnant within a year of her fourteenth birthday she'll die, its farfetched but it could be done. Now, do we want that? As well as helping forward civil rights through information, it would help prevent uncontrolled population growth, and the proliferation of STDs. Certainly their should be some leeway on how and when this information is presented, but ultimately it is important to defend.

Well, if you can read, you can see its intent.
Furthermore, it is not a House of Cards violation, if you actually read each provision. Each measure stands to bolster previous resolutions but also indicates a course of action in the absence of the referenced so that it will not fold like "a house of cards"
I throughly reviewed the rules and made several edits before I submitted this, and this is not an attack on 147 as you have try to indicate.
While related, it serves a different purpose.

Bolster to me would be amending them. Thus illegal.. as you have to repeal then rewrite and submit a new one if you want to make changes to existing resolutions. Bolstering is same as amending one... and you clearly include BOLSTERING in the proposal not treaty.. in your final section of the proposal.



CONTINGENT on the passage of this resolution, consider that the above legislation and recommendations stand to bolster existing Resolutions but in the absence of indicated resolutions this legislation can stand on its own as a full and complete protection of individual U.N. Member Nation's Sovereignty in the areas of spirituality and religion as indicated above. .

Make my popcorn light on salt and no butter... Soda anyone....

This is the biggest load of tripe yet.CONSIDERING Article 1 of the Universal Bill of Rights which states: "All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state."Yeah, human beings have the right. Doesn’t talk about governments.COMMITTED to the ideal that each nation is entitled to legislate as it sees appropriate on any and all issues relating to religion or spirituality of its citizens without the interference of the United Nations within their own borders in accordance with their own system of government..You do indeed have the right. It’s called leaving the UN.

SEEKING to establish the right of each member nation to choose independently:You do have that right, if you leave the UN

1. DECLARES that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the legality of abortion and contraception in any and all forms and legislate at the national level for application within their own borders in parallel but independent of U.N. Resolution #147.

2. DECLARES that individual Member Nations retain the right to determine at which point a fetus or developing embryo, for purpose of application within but also in parallel and independent of U,N. Resolution #147, is provided with any rights under the law at the national level for applications within their own borders.Blah blah blah generic HOC rubbish.

3. ENACTS that religious organizations shall not be required to be compliant with this Resolution or any law within a U.N. member nation if the participants in the marriage stand in contradiction to the tenants, teachings, or dogma of the religion. Therefore, for the purpose of an EXAMPLE, the Catholic Church could not be forced to conduct a marriage for homosexuals, but the same homosexuals could obtain a marriage from a civil authority, pursuant that the possibility of said marriage exists within the law of the specific nation.

4. ENACTS that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the taxable status of Religious Organizations and legislate at the nation level for application within their own borders

5. ENACTS that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to determine the legality and availability of Divorce, both in a civic and religious capacity and legislate at the national level for application within their own borders.

6. REAFFIRMS U.N. resolution #118 and ENACTS, independent of said resolution, that individual U.N. Member Nations retain the right to legislate and determine what the content of Sexual Education Classes will be within their own borders.

7. REAFFIRMS U.N. resolution #87 and ENACTS that IN THE ABSENCE of Resolution #87 that religious and spiritual reasons be considered as acceptable reasoning for an individual U.N. Member nation to ban or legalize prostitution at the national level, within their own borders. This does not serve to amend the existing resolution (87).

8. RECOMMENDS a study be COMMISSIONED to explore the legality of U.N. Resolution #43 under Article #1 of The Universal Bill of Rights.).

9. REQUESTS a comparison be done between U.N. Resolutions #87 and #91 for contradictory legislation.It’s all rubbish that either contradicts, infringes, or violates HOC or resolutions.

CONTINGENT on the passage of this resolution, consider that the above legislation and recommendations stand to bolster existing Resolutions but in the absence of indicated resolutions this legislation can stand on its own as a full and complete protection of individual U.N. Member Nation's Sovereignty in the areas of spirituality and religion as indicated above.Tripe, tripe, tripe.

I know it’s a tired line, but honestly, if you don’t want the UN to interfere in your government, don’t be a member.

We might as well just write a resolution entitled “who needs the UN anyway?” with some generic crap…

“MINDFUL that member states are too dumb to realise the consequences of their action to join the UN

DISAPPOINTED that member states are too dumb to realise they can easily leave the UN

MINDFUL that member states want the UN to do sod all.

NOTES proposals and resolutions inevitably make some member states cry to mommy.

NOTING the failure of member states to grasp what the UN should be doing.

REPEALS all resolutions that do anything, ever.

FORBIDS member states from submitting constructive proposals.

CREATES the United Nations talking shop, an organisation for member states to get together and discuss irrevelvance.”

…and then just let the UN rot.

Aendinia: ignore that. The "like it or leave it" attitude grows pretty old, pretty fast, and there's nothing wrong with you campaigning for these various rights...you just have to do it right i.e. legally.

For starters you can stop worrying about abortion - I promise you the ALC covers that.

The problem with Resolution #87 is it is just a repeal. All it did was remove an old resolution; it has no further effect. It's been observed its spirit clashes with its replacement, Resolution #91, but that doesn't really matter.

So, it seems to me you want to have the right to legislate on a national level on prostitution. Perfectly good - Gruenberg is highly supportive of nations fighting for their right to imprint their sexual mores on their citizens' foreheads - but it will need a repeal of Resolution #91 first, which I and others would be willing to help you draft.

Aendinia: ignore that. The "like it or leave it" attitude grows pretty old, pretty fast, and there's nothing wrong with you campaigning for these various rights...you just have to do it right i.e. legally.Bah, no less tiresome than member states making a scene about national sovereignty, just like they are five years old and mommy won’t let them eat chocolate, and throw some kind of temper tantrum.

Bah, no less tiresome than member states making a scene about national sovereignty, just like they are five years old and mommy won’t let them eat chocolate, and throw some kind of temper tantrum.
Far more tiresome, but even so, why not set yourself to higher standards? Besides, no one in this thread (well, no one on our side) is behaving like that.

Far more tiresome, but even so, why not set yourself to higher standards? Besides, no one in this thread (well, no one on our side) is behaving like that.Apart from the original topic poster, to an extent.

And no, actually, it's not far more tiresome. It's just as valid a suggestion as anything else mentioned on here. Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean it's an invalid solution.

It's the only solution which promises pure, total, 100% secure national soverignty. If you are a part of the UN, you risk your national soverignty. Don't pretend otherwise.

Apart from the original topic poster, to an extent.

And no, actually, it's not far more tiresome. It's just as valid a suggestion as anything else mentioned on here. Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean it's an invalid solution.

It's the only solution which promises pure, total, 100% secure national soverignty. If you are a part of the UN, you risk your national soverignty. Don't pretend otherwise.
Is there someone else talking? Because, once again, you're rebutting things NOBODY IS SAYING.

If your attitude is "like it or leave it", then the following is also true:
- Promotion of Solar Panels was a realistic, sensible environmental resolution, and people moaning about their economies should have just resigned
- Nuclear Armaments was an unnecessary impediment; we should ban nuclear weapons, and those who complain should resign instead
- Nobody should ever write, submit, approve or vote for a repeal, ever, because they should just resign

getting really drunk within walking distance of a drive-through marriage. Now, should we be able to force these stupid people to stick together, and make each other's lives miserable. NO.


Alternatively, we could prevent that problem by requiring a waiting period of a few weeks before any marriage could go ahead as some RL countries, such as the UK, already do... .

If your attitude is "like it or leave it"…It’s not necessarily my attitude, but it is not necessarily an invalid stance to take.…then the following is also true:
- Promotion of Solar Panels was a realistic, sensible environmental resolution, and people moaning about their economies should have just resigned
- Nuclear Armaments was an unnecessary impediment; we should ban nuclear weapons, and those who complain should resign instead Or nations could simply stomach it. Nations could resign however, and be safe in their little bubble of impenetrable national sovereignty. Or nations could stick around, seek a repeal and sit in the big wild world of the UN, where the idea of true 100% sovereignty is a fallacy.
- Nobody should ever write, submit, approve or vote for a repeal, ever, because they should just resignSee my joke repeal in this topic ;)
I’m coming round to the idea that the UN was a much more progressive place without repeals. Less repetition, less negativity. I appreciate there was some cleaning up which benefited from repeals, but it seems repeals are too common at the moment.

At any rate, I’m not saying resigning is the only option. I’m saying resignation is the only option that is totally immune to the workings of the UN. Other options might provide some degree of protection, but never total protection.

Seriously. You're making some great arguments, but I'm completely lost as to who you're talking to. Whatever tit said that UN membership would not cost them a drip of sovereignty should indeed shut up; pity they're not arguing in this discussion, though.

All I am saying is that when a new player brings a proposal to the forum, however passionately you may disagree with it or them, there are more helpful ways of giving them feedback than "resign". That kind of defeatism is never going to change anything, and it's the politics of the tyranny of the majority. Yes, the UN is a loosely democratic body, which has typically voted a certain way; means bugger all to the next proposal in line, though. The attitude that nations should just resign if they don't like a certain aspect is counter-productive and arrogant.

All I am saying is that when a new player brings a proposal to the forum, however passionately you may disagree with it or them, there are more helpful ways of giving them feedback than "resign". That kind of defeatism is never going to change anything, and it's the politics of the tyranny of the majority. Yes, the UN is a loosely democratic body, which has typically voted a certain way; means bugger all to the next proposal in line, though. The attitude that nations should just resign if they don't like a certain aspect is counter-productive and arrogant.You are probably right. I'm assuming that Aendinia was around longer than suggested by the joined date. It's not normally my style to newbie bash. My only escape is to suggest Aendinia is a puppet of someone who has been around a bit.

I've gotta stop drinking on a sunday night - it makes me all cynical.

You are probably right. I'm assuming that Aendinia was around longer than suggested by the joined date. It's not normally my style to newbie bash. My only escape is to suggest Aendinia is a puppet of someone who has been around a bit.

I've gotta stop drinking on a sunday night - it makes me all cynical.

The style and manner in which he interpreted the rules makes me feel rather assured he is a newbie. Add on that there hasn't been a follow up post yet saying "well the rules should be clearer" make me even more certain that no regular is pulling the strings. Add on the RL reference - something I'm confident no regular would make a mistake on - I think that claim is dead in the water.

I didn't say it was a very good claim to make :p

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dancing Bananland
getting really drunk within walking distance of a drive-through marriage. Now, should we be able to force these stupid people to stick together, and make each other's lives miserable. NO.

Origionally Posted by St. Edmund
Alternatively, we could prevent that problem by requiring a waiting period of a few weeks before any marriage could go ahead as some RL countries, such as the UK, already do... .

Actually, a waiting period is an extremely good idea, but many stupid people have waited years to get married and still had bad marriages, and some marriages turn bad many years in, sometimes due to children. I know some say that divorce only hurts children, but in my experience, two unloving spouses in the same house screaming at each other hurts kids more than two loving parents that don't live in the same house. Divorce is an important right.


--I'm not targeting you with this St. Edmund, just furthering my point.