NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Sexual Freedom"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #7


Proposed by: Lichtensteinia

Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: GOVERNMENT has the right to know everything that goes on in their country.
GOVERNMENTS that have rebellious citizens, or those GOVERNMENTS who just wish to have complete control of every aspect of the lives of its people, have the right to know the every-day actions of its people.

Approvals: 4 (Desert Storm Iraq, Xanthal, The Wild-lands, Dorksonia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 121 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Mar 19 2006

---------------------------
The problem with this is that it is just asking for corruption. When a government can see every aspect of its citizens life, there are many ways in which a government could misuse that power and without checks and balances in place, it is just bound for corruption to happen.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #7
Sexual Freedom
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia
Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).
--------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see where this one would prevent governments from finding out what they need to know. As all it does is let people alone when they not doing wrong or a possible threat to the nation or it's citizens.

Also remember this only lets them alone in their homes. How many people stay in them all the time? This doesn't prevent any government from creating a strong police force and them monitoring citizens as they move out of their homes. Thus if they have any that they don't see they either look for vultures circling the home or just go in and make sure folks okay inside. After all government must watch out for the health of it's citizens.. Thus have a need when citizens don't come to work to check on them. As the resolution clearly leaves any government the right to deal with medical issues.

What I do see coming is some proposal that would give the government more rights to invade a persons privacy than this one does....

Opposed, outright. Sexual self-determination (which is what this is primarily focused upon, regardless of how vague this proposal puts it) is considered by Hirota to be a fundamental right common to all beings, irrespective of the concerns of corrupt governments.

I almost didn’t post, a topic like this deserves to die.

I almost didn’t post, a topic like this deserves to die.
No, people who defile their bodies by engaging in prurient hedonism deserve to die!

We strongly support a repeal of "Sexual Freedom", so the decision can be returned to the individual level - individuals will be compelled to conform to national laws on such matters.

OOC EDIT: Er...reading back, that first line should be taken as a joke, and an in-character one at that, and certainly not as directed at Hirota's ambassador.

We'd like to submit our answer to the question in the thread's title: "Should a government know everything about its citizens?" Our answer is a resounding no. A government has the responsibility to obtain whatever information about its citizens that is needed for the government to fulfill its proper and legitimate functions. Beyond that, there is no reasonable justification for governments to pry.

We would support a repeal of this badly written and grotesquely nebulous resolution, but not one based on the notion that governments have a right to know all.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

We strongly support a repeal of "Sexual Freedom", so the decision can be returned to the individual level

It is presently at the "individual level" since the individual themselves can exercize choice in the matter, not to be overlorded by any higher authority.


- individuals will be compelled to conform to national laws on such matters.

Wow, "compelled decision[s]" to "conformity"... Boy is that a concept of individual choice.... NOT.

I really hope your post was meant to be satirical.

I really hope your post was meant to be satirical.
Not at all! We in Gruenberg believe in individual choice, but at the same time believe the government exists as an instrument to guide that choice through the appropriate channels. In the case of sexual morality, for example, individual choice is best served by having sexual conduct strictly regulated and monitored, so that the government can tell them to make the correct choices.

It is presently at the "individual level" since the individual themselves can exercize choice in the matter, not to be overlorded by any higher authority.It would be a good idea to clear that up.

International Level – the UN
National Level – the government
Individual Level - the individual

Let’s try and avoid confusing things yeah?

Let’s try and avoid confusing things yeah?
Exactly. We don't our citizens to be confused, so we too avoid confusion, by informing them of which choices are correct, and which immoral.

Exactly. We don't our citizens to be confused, so we too avoid confusion, by informing them of which choices are correct, and which immoral.You know exactly what I meant, don't try confusing things.

The last time someone played “lets have fun with Hirota by replying with one-liners” they ended up getting exposed for the cute fluffy bunny wabbits they are. Don’t make us do that a second time ;) :D

Man, Gruenberg turned into a disturbingly pathological version of The Eternal Kawaii so gradually, I didn't even notice. :eek:

Well, someone needs to stick up for us theocracies.

I think what you need to understand is that "individual choice" doesn't necessarily mean completely unchecked choice. For example: we don't make green cars in Gruenberg. But you can have a red, or a yellow, or a black car. There is individual choice; just not absolute individual choice. In terms of sexual morality, there is some denegrations of the soul that shouldn't be permitted; however, we don't consider denying them to our citizens to be especially significant, given the broad array of freedoms they are left with. They still have individual choice, just a slightly more refined choice. Government or other interference does not wipe out individual choice; it merely modifies it. Seeing things in black and white is unhelpful; a technicolour approach is far more productive.

So long as it's not green.

Should a government know everything about its citizens?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Repeal "Sexual Freedom"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal


Resolution: #7


Proposed by: Lichtensteinia

Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: GOVERNMENT has the right to know everything that goes on in their country.
GOVERNMENTS that have rebellious citizens, or those GOVERNMENTS who just wish to have complete control of every aspect of the lives of its people, have the right to know the every-day actions of its people.

Approvals: 4 (Desert Storm Iraq, Xanthal, The Wild-lands, Dorksonia)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 121 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sun Mar 19 2006

Compadrians would certainly feel deeply uneasy about having a law that specified this, on the grounds that its horrendous infringements on civil rights laws would destroy almost 90 years of precedent in our legal system. Equally, let's consider the arguments against such authoritarian measures:

1). The Civillian Contract:
The government, whether dictatorship or democracy, theocracy or junta, is still required to possess a degree of consent from those it governs. Sheer repression will not guarantee stability, if anything it feeds the fires against such measures by highlighting the controlling nature of the administration issuing them. Furthermore, the government should govern, ideally, with a democratic consent from its civillians and in respect for their essential right of determination. By enabling arbitrary surveillance, intimidationn could be put into force against civil groups, underming democracy, judiciaries and legislative oversight of the executive (should it exist). This would not be a good precedent to set in the governance of a nation.

2). The Rights of Citizens:
A citizen has the right to go about in his affairs uninhibited by oversight, unless his actions can be shown to cause severe harm to the others and also possibly society, based on a fair and reasonable interpretation of these terms. To have interference as prescribed by this proposal would be a flagrant contradiction of these inalieble rights and should not be considered correct under these circumstances.

3). The Respect for Institutions:
These measures would undermine independent groups (independent from the government that is) reducing oversight of the governments processes and increasing the chances or arbitrary repressions and corruption. If a government places itself above the law, only anarchy, even if seemingly constrained can exist, because the principles of legality and just cause practised by most legitimate governments would become illusions. Any alleged benefits would be nothing compared to the damage done to the societal fabric of a nation and the atmosphere of distrust which would emerge.

For these reasons, the Republic of Compadria would oppose any such proposal as suggested by Lichstenstienia.

P.S. Why don't you like green, Gruenberg?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

P.S. Why don't you like green, Gruenberg?

Perhaps because it's the colour of a certain think tank... :p

P.S. Why don't you like green, Gruenberg?
We do like it; so much so that it would be sacreligious to adorn a car in its fair hue.

I'm for the repeal. If someone has committed terrible atrocities or crime in other countries I want to know EVERYTHING possible.

I'm for the repeal. If someone has committed terrible atrocities or crime in other countries I want to know EVERYTHING possible.

Oh, look who's back... :(

:headbang:

I'm for the repeal. If someone has committed terrible atrocities or crime in other countries I want to know EVERYTHING possible.

Yes, but surely this can be achieved without the creation of a police state.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Yes, but surely this can be achieved without the creation of a police state.
Think of it as 2 for the price of 1.

Think of it as 2 for the price of 1.

Ah, touché.

For some reason, it seems to me that the author should have gone chasing after Stop Privacy Intrusion first. Picking this one is a little... odd.

Not at all!

Which scares me....


We in Gruenberg believe in individual choice

No, you don't... You put on a façade which more comfortably allows you to believe you do... But you're no where close to supporting any concept of "individual" choice...


but at the same time believe the government exists as an instrument to guide that choice through the appropriate channels.

The only appropriate "channel" for individual choice is the individual... That's why it is called INDIVIDUAL...


by having sexual conduct strictly regulated and monitored, so that the government can tell them to make the correct choices.

There are no "correct choices" involving sexual conduct, short of choices which do not infringe upon the rights of another...

The cost for looking into everyones sexual activities would be prohibitive. We are not interested in creating an agency to correct and monitor peoples sex lives which this would require to be enforceable.

*sits back*
*grabs popcorn*

Oh the memories.....

Opposed, outright. Sexual self-determination (which is what this is primarily focused upon, regardless of how vague this proposal puts it) is considered by Hirota to be a fundamental right common to all beings, irrespective of the concerns of corrupt governments.

I almost didn’t post, a topic like this deserves to die.

The people of Mikitivity are forced to agree with the Hirota Ambassador. In particular, we find the following justification for the repeal to be inconsistent with our beliefs, "GOVERNMENT has the right to know everything that goes on in their country." It is our position that governments do not have the right to know everything that goes on in the private lives of their citizens.

Howie T. Katzman

There are no "correct choices" involving sexual conduct, short of choices which do not infringe upon the rights of another...Really? Good news for No Cream's snuff film industry!

Glad to see I'm remembered. After I left, i decided to go to general and consider myself changed. No more trollish from a media-manic. Just personal views, and what I thinks best.

Yes, but surely this can be achieved without the creation of a police state.

While I am in favour of police states, It can be achieved. The USA isn't technically a police state, but I believe that it has the right to find out what it wants.

Glad to see I'm remembered. After I left, i decided to go to general and consider myself changed. No more trollish from a media-manic. Just personal views, and what I thinks best.

So you were being a troll. Your honesty is interesting.

While I am in favour of police states, It can be achieved. The USA isn't technically a police state, but I believe that it has the right to find out what it wants.

Who mentioned the USA? And speaking of finding out what it wants, why would a government be interested in investigating the private lives of its citizens if it's got nothing to do with national security or policing?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Glad to see I'm remembered. After I left, i decided to go to general and consider myself changed. No more trollish from a media-manic. Just personal views, and what I thinks best.

We will see. For now, I would encourage all other delegates to give Imperiux the benefit of the doubt. (Though I have serious doubts about any Generalite qualifications as an argument...)

Really? Good news for No Cream's snuff film industry!

Tek only said there are no "correct" choices, not that there aren't any wrong choices (pediophilia, snuff, rape, etc....)

But that gives a whole new maze for Gruenberg to play in.

Really? Good news for No Cream's snuff film industry!

I think that if this thread ever needs hijacking, Videodrome will be a good choice. Cronemberg rocks.

Is this a topic that even needs to be argued? What right does the ogvernmetn have to come in and tell you what to do? As long as your not hurting anybody, or impeding anyone's rights (at an important level, stepping one someone's foot wouldn'ts count) what right does a governmetn have to come in and tell you what to do? They have the right to know just enough to make sure they can help you if your ill, and that you can't easily commit a serious crime, other than that they can f*ck off and leave people alone.

As for videodrome, I saw the first bit of that movie, and some ads on Showcase. That is one seriously f*cked up movie, Cronenberg does kick ass though, the head 'sploder scene in scanners will live on forever.

Really? Good news for No Cream's snuff film industry!

Even CPESL doesn't stoop this low...

Even CPESL doesn't stoop this low...
Well, it's good to know they have some standards.:p

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I would be (adequately) happy with the Sexual Freedom resolution if the text actually specified sexual activity. By the letter of the law (start with me about the spirit of it and I will reach through the internet and clobber you) "[w]hat goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.)."

This means that all laws of the state are void as long as the involved parties are in their own home. Any law restricting euthanasia is void. Any ban on cannibalism out the window. Making and using drugs? Okay. Censorship laws can't apply in messages sent from one home to another. Wiretaps on home-to-home calls? Illegal. Even conspiracy charges can't hold up; terrorists can plot in their homes, and never be guilty until they actually harm someone. Maybe you can make medical resons apply to some of these situations, but that hardly excuses the handicap it places on governments' ability to be proactive in fighting crime.

Essentially, the technical scope of Sexual Freedom is much broader than I think most people realize. Xanthal already ignores the resolution in the execution of its own laws, but I'd rather do away with it altogether than be in violation of UN law. That is why I support repeal.