NationStates Jolt Archive

I beseech intelligent delegates of the UN to endorse this proposal. The repeal is not based on a hatred for civil liberties, but because the original legislation is vague, misleading, and potentially dangerous to citizens and nations. If you wish to critique my bill, please do so respectfully. I always appreciate how to make legislation better. Please discuss this proposal civilly.

The civil discussion of the proposal would be furthered if you actually posted the text of your repeal. Please do so in future.

Repeal "The Universal Bill of Rights"
Proposed by: The Ironsmiths

Description: UN Resolution #26: The Universal Bill of Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Universal Bill of rights is herby repealed due to the following discrepancies with its interpretation.

Article 1 does not consider faiths whose practices violate the laws of individual nations, such as human sacrifices, unlawful violence against other faiths, and the unlawful distribution of alcoholic beverages to minors. While not every nation has these laws, nations that do find themselves under international scrutiny for protecting their citizens.

Article 2 fails to recognize that some expressions of speech jeopardize national security efforts, and may violate confidentiality agreements in some nations, such as doctor-patient confidentiality and lawyer-client confidentiality.

Article 4 negates the established practice of diplomatic immunity in certain member nations.

Article 5 neglects the various interpretations of “cruel”, “inhumane”, and “torture”. Some nations might consider imprisonment “torture”, and to some degree “cruel”, while other nations might not consider public floggings “cruel” or “inhumane”. Its vague language cannot be upheld by the member nations.

Article 8 neglects many third party liability statutes that hold family members who provide the direct means to a relative to commit crimes accountable for the crime. Its vague language, once again, makes this article confusing and impractical.

Article 9 does not state to whom the violators are responsible, simply naming “under the law”, rather than naming an actual authority, such as the UN or the nation’s judiciary system.

While not all of the articles present a discrepancy due to abstract language and varying interpretations, a vast majority do, hence making Resolution #26 impractical to enforce by most member nations. Furthermore, several articles jeopardize the safety and well-being of citizens and nations worldwide.

Co-authored by Slovitopia

The Universal Bill of rights is herby repealed due to the following discrepancies with its interpretation.
Mmm...herby. I find tarragon works a treat.

Seriously, words like that will catch a spell cheque out (see!), so that's one good reason to post drafts on this forum before submitting them.

Article 1 does not consider faiths whose practices violate the laws of individual nations, such as human sacrifices, unlawful violence against other faiths, and the unlawful distribution of alcoholic beverages to minors. While not every nation has these laws, nations that do find themselves under international scrutiny for protecting their citizens.
No. "worship" is not defined. People have the right to hold beliefs - they do not have the right to act on those beliefs if such violates law.

Article 2 fails to recognize that some expressions of speech jeopardize national security efforts, and may violate confidentiality agreements in some nations, such as doctor-patient confidentiality and lawyer-client confidentiality.
No. By entering into such agreements, people are signing away their right to freedom of speech in those areas: if they do not agree to do such, then they will not be given licence to practice law/medicine.

Article 4 negates the established practice of diplomatic immunity in certain member nations.
No. We already have a resolution on diplomatic immunity (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=126).

Article 5 neglects the various interpretations of “cruel”, “inhumane”, and “torture”. Some nations might consider imprisonment “torture”, and to some degree “cruel”, while other nations might not consider public floggings “cruel” or “inhumane”. Its vague language cannot be upheld by the member nations.
No. The fact that the resolution is vague is good, because different nations do hold different standards. Besides, there is always Resolution #41, "End Barbaric Punishments" (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=40).

Article 8 neglects many third party liability statutes that hold family members who provide the direct means to a relative to commit crimes accountable for the crime. Its vague language, once again, makes this article confusing and impractical.
No. The fact that it is vague is good, because by not defining "accountable", it actually allows you to invoke these statutes without fear of recrimination.

Article 9 does not state to whom the violators are responsible, simply naming “under the law”, rather than naming an actual authority, such as the UN or the nation’s judiciary system.
No. That is irrelevant - besides, you actually misquote the article. They are accountable, and as such, they can be prosecuted. National governments might not always choose to pursue the case, but that's another matter. This basically means judges cannot dismiss cases based on a violation of these rights.

While not all of the articles present a discrepancy due to abstract language and varying interpretations, a vast majority do, hence making Resolution #26 impractical to enforce by most member nations. Furthermore, several articles jeopardize the safety and well-being of citizens and nations worldwide.
No. Vagueness is good: it allows flexibility. I wish more resolutions were like this, instead of resorting to excessive micromanagement.

Besides, this repeal is already on dodgy ground - seems like it's excessive nitpicking to me.

...thrashed. Take a run through the previous Resolutions, then rework this.

The government of St Edmund's main objection to 'Universal Bill of Rights' is that that measure respects nations' existing laws if they are part of national 'Bills of Rights' but not otherwise: St Edmund, as a "common law" nation that gained its independence through a peaceful & gradual process rather than by a revolution, had never felt it necessary to produce a formalised constitution (such as might contain a 'Bill of Rights') before it entered the UN, and is consequently discriminated against by that resolution. We have therefore, despite some doubts about certain elements of the wording, approved this proposal.

Repeal "The Universal Bill of Rights"
Proposed by: The Ironsmiths

Description: UN Resolution #26: The Universal Bill of Rights (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The Universal Bill of rights is herby repealed due to the following discrepancies with its interpretation.

Discrepancies with its own interpretation?

Article 1 does not consider faiths whose practices violate the laws of individual nations, such as human sacrifices, unlawful violence against other faiths, and the unlawful distribution of alcoholic beverages to minors. While not every nation has these laws, nations that do find themselves under international scrutiny for protecting their citizens.

I'm not quite sure what your point in the second half of the post is, perhaps you could clarify further. Equally, with regards to your first argument, if you mean to say that faiths should be exempt from such laws and obligations then I disagree. Faith should always be suboordinate to the laws of the land and if worship involves inhumane or cruel acts then it should not be exempt from ordinary sanctions. Otherwise, a two-tier system of justice and law is built.

Article 2 fails to recognize that some expressions of speech jeopardize national security efforts, and may violate confidentiality agreements in some nations, such as doctor-patient confidentiality and lawyer-client confidentiality.

I do not feel that article 2 would contravene such agreements, in my view it is a broad expression of the rights of the individual with regards to freedom of expression and can be legitimately interpreted as permitting confidentiality accords and security requirements, so long as these are tailored correctly to its needs.

Article 4 negates the established practice of diplomatic immunity in certain member nations.

All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Really, how does it this?

Article 5 neglects the various interpretations of “cruel”, “inhumane”, and “torture”. Some nations might consider imprisonment “torture”, and to some degree “cruel”, while other nations might not consider public floggings “cruel” or “inhumane”. Its vague language cannot be upheld by the member nations.

I would agree this might require a clarification, but I still feel this is somewhat pedantic. I think all of us can agree the basic parameters for "cruel" and "inhumane" or "torture" and any areas of vagueness can be ironed out by the nations legal system (admittedly this could be a potential weakness).

Article 8 neglects many third party liability statutes that hold family members who provide the direct means to a relative to commit crimes accountable for the crime. Its vague language, once again, makes this article confusing and impractical.

I would agree with this point.

Article 9 does not state to whom the violators are responsible, simply naming “under the law”, rather than naming an actual authority, such as the UN or the nation’s judiciary system.

This is pedantry, I believe the phrase "under the law" is quite clearly a reference to the nations legal system and laws of the land.

While not all of the articles present a discrepancy due to abstract language and varying interpretations, a vast majority do, hence making Resolution #26 impractical to enforce by most member nations. Furthermore, several articles jeopardize the safety and well-being of citizens and nations worldwide.

Co-authored by Slovitopia

I would agree that some are indeed vague, yet I do not believe they are adaquately so, nor do enough qualify under this descriptor for the resolution to be invalid. Therefore Compadria opposes this repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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