NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, my repeal of "End Slavery" failed miserably, so I'm gonna take a long shot...I've submitted my replacement proposal, in hopes End Slavery is so weak this'l pass and fill in the gaps.



BANNING SLAVERY
A resolution

BELEIVING that slavery is a barbaric practice, and has no place in the 21st century.

BELEIVING that human beings are not property and cannot be owned.

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution "hard labour" as significantly tiring or stressful labour in excess of three consecutive hours.

DEFINING slavery as the ownership and/or forced hard labour of a human being (excluding prisoners).

DEFINING the "slave trade" as the purchasing, selling, trading, bartering, or giving away of a human being.

DECLARING that no UN nation may allow slavery, the slave trade, or the transportation of slaves in their territory.

MANDATING that no UN nation may directly, intentionally or knowingly receive funding from, or fund slavery or slave trading within or outside their territory.

MANDATING that no UN nation may harbour slavers, slave traders or those that fund or profit from slavery or the slave trade, even if these practices should occur outside said nation's territory.

STRONGLY URGING UN nations to severe ties with slavery supporting non-UN nations.

STRONGLY URGING non-UN nations to halt the practice of slavery.

As this allows for our system of voluntary indentured servitude as a method of repaying debts, we have no objection.

Johannes,
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia

As this would seem to prohibit conscription, we are strongly against it.

As this would seem to prohibit conscription, we are strongly against it.

By george! Your right, it does also illigilize conscription...I'll have to re-write it right away. Wait a minute, oh right, conscirption is just as barbaric as slavery.

By george! Your right, it does also illigilize conscription...I'll have to re-write it right away. Wait a minute, oh right, conscirption is just as barbaric as slavery.
Conscription in war can be necessary for small countries. Am I to assume that yet again the UN is going to rule that having its members invaded by hostile forces is the "humane option"?

By george! Your right, it does also illigilize conscription...I'll have to re-write it right away. Wait a minute, oh right, conscirption is just as barbaric as slavery.
1. Conscription =/= ownership
2. You can add soldiers to the list of exclusions. Just say "except prisoners and soldiers" instead of just prisoners.
3. By having an exception for prisoners, you authorize taking war prisoners as slaves, unless there is something in one of the P.O.W. resolutions that says otherwise.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Hmm... I don't see anything in Wolfish that explicitly bans the use of PoWs for slave labour, but that may just be my reading.

OOC:In RL using POWs as Slave Labour(as well as his deporting cizizens of occupied countries for the same reason) got Robert Ley hanged at Nuremberg, and the Soviets wanted to hang Albert Speer for the same reason.

IC: I agree, as distasteful as conscription sounds, and personally I prefer volenteer armys, some times it is necessary, and should be kept out of this proposal.

Again looking at the proposal, the Dancing Bananalandian delegation would like to note that conscription is not totally banned. If a conscripted citiczen is paid for their service, and not owned, traded, etc... then it is perfectly legal.

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution "hard labour" as significantly tiring or stressful labour in excess of three consecutive hours.

DEFINING slavery as the ownership and/or forced hard labour of a human being (excluding prisoners).Still running into the problem of parents assigning chores to children, especially agricultural families.

"Boy, go till the field."

"Sorry, paw. That's 'signifigantly tiring' and it will take more than three consecutive hours, so it's hard labor. Since I ain't a prisoner, and since yer forcing me, that's slavery. I'll jus' go fetch the sheriff."

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution "hard labour" as significantly tiring or stressful labour in excess of three consecutive hours.
Unless the war's over in 179 minutes, yes, this bans conscription.

While the sentiments of this proposal are wise, your definition of slavery is clearly lacking:

DEFINING slavery as the ownership and/or forced hard labour of a human being (excluding prisoners).

Is this a proposal to end forced hard labour or slavery? In many nations, employers may "force" employees to conduct physically and metally exerting tasks for as many as 8 hours each day under threats of firing or wage decreases. These practices are rarely considered slavery by colloquial definition but would be covered in the definition this Proposal provides.
Perhaps if you provide a definition of "forced" to enable the distinction of a normal workday for an employed landscaper or miner from that of a slave. Or perhaps it would be beneficial to make it explicit that it may only be termed enslaved hard labour if it is done without pay or other just compensation. In addition, an exemption for household chores, can be accomplished by adding a phrase like "for corporation or state" as is found in Resolution #14 "Child Labor" or simply "outside the family" which leaves the possibility of uncompensated hard labour at the behest of a parent or family member legal.

Is this a proposal to end forced hard labour or slavery? In many nations, employers may "force" employees to conduct physically and metally exerting tasks for as many as 8 hours each day under threats of firing or wage decreases. These practices are rarely considered slavery by colloquial definition but would be covered in the definition this Proposal provides.

Not so, forced implies the person has no choice but to do the work. An employee has the right to quit at any time. As for conscription, it is fuzzy, and I'll put something in there excluding conscription (not that I like conscription).

Is this a proposal to end forced hard labour or slavery? In many nations, employers may "force" employees to conduct physically and metally exerting tasks for as many as 8 hours each day under threats of firing or wage decreases. These practices are rarely considered slavery by colloquial definition but would be covered in the definition this Proposal provides.

Not so, forced implies the person has no choice but to do the work. An employee has the right to quit at any time.

A child is the same thing, they can refuse to do there chores, then the parent can refuse to buy the kid a videogame machine, or let them watch TV or have dessert or go to a friends house. And really, how many chores do last over three CONSECUTIVE hours?

As for conscription, you can just make it a crime not to join the army, then recruit the prisoners.

Respectfully,
I fear that I don't find the distinction between forced and unforced labour to be as clear as you imply it to be and I am not alone, judging by the questions raised by TheMostGloriousHack and Gruenberg. Can a slave not refuse to work? Of course he can and many do, despite the dire consquences of such a choice. And it is just that, a "choice." In a sense, one could make the case that any work done is done voluntarily. At a certain level, every slave makes the decision "should I work or risk severe punishment/death?" I fear that such reasoning may be used to exploit this Resolution. This is why I feel it is important to define "forced" more closely.
Unless there is a particular reason you oppose a more precise definition of "forced hard labour" I think that explicit definition could only serve to close loopholes and make this legislation a more effective tool toward ending the practice of Slavery.

slavery is natural for the human race we have been making slaves eversience the first form of goverment every nation at one point or a nother were slaves or were slave masters the british had slaves, the scotish were slaves almost every nation had slaves at one point or were slaves and whos to say having slaves is wrong and whos to say they are right saves are there becasue one race is stronger and dominated the other race forceing them to bo there slaves or face extinction

This resolution has too many loopholes and problems, none of which appear to have been addressed.

I will vote against this should it reach quorum.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

slavery is natural for the human race we have been making slaves eversience the first form of goverment every nation at one point or a nother were slaves or were slave masters the british had slaves, the scotish were slaves almost every nation had slaves at one point or were slaves and whos to say having slaves is wrong and whos to say they are right saves are there becasue one race is stronger and dominated the other race forceing them to bo there slaves or face extinction

Natural? Slavery is barbaric, and has no place in a civilized world!

Natural? Slavery is barbaric, and has no place in a civilized world!
Once there was a fisherman who, for his whole life, used a net with three-inch holes. After never catching any fish shorter than three inches long, he, on his deathbed, concluded that no such fish exist.

A child is the same thing, they can refuse to do there chores, then the parent can refuse to buy the kid a videogame machine, or let them watch TV or have dessert or go to a friends house.Um. Clearly your parents were far more leniant than mine were. Refusing was not an option. Besides, a slave could also refuse. What's your point?

And really, how many chores do last over three CONSECUTIVE hours?I gave you an example already. And here's another: cutting the lawn at my grandfather's house took me three days. And that was with a riding mower. Besides, the number of examples doesn't matter. Being able to come up with one shows that you have made it possible to designate children doing chores as slaves.

You need to improve your definition. It's no good right now.

So, I'm going to once again pimp...actual international law!

1. No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
2. No one shall be held in servitude.
3.
1. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;
2. Paragraph 3(a) shall not be held to preclude, in countries where imprisonment with hard labour may be imposed as a punishment for a crime, the performance of hard labour in pursuance of a sentence to such punishment by a competent court;
3. For the purpose of this paragraph the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include:
1. Any work or service, not referred to in subparagraph (b), normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention;
2. Any service of a military character and, in countries where conscientious objection is recognized, any national service required by law of conscientious objectors;
3. Any service exacted in cases of emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community;
4. Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.
Now, I would include parental chores as "part of normal civil obligations". If you don't think they'd fit, then you can expand on this to include them. But I think it sets out the main exceptions very well.

I also agree your proposal has other merits - I like the idea of urging nations not to trade with slave nations - so I'm suggesting you scrap it. Just work on an amalgamation so as to ensure it's not going to accidentally ban, nor accidentally omit to ban, anything.

Not so, forced implies the person has no choice but to do the work. An employee has the right to quit at any time.
In many places, to quit would mean starvation. A Hobson's choice.

Now, I would include parental chores as "part of normal civil obligations".That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Um. Clearly your parents were far more leniant than mine were. Refusing was not an option.


Yours too, huh? Damned kids don't know how easy they have it today. When my Dad told me to do something, like cut the grass, or weed the garden, there was no negotiation, the subject was already settled.:D

This deosn't ban kids from doing chores. Yes, the parent cannot forcefully makie them work...but thats no different from anyting else. How many kids do you know that are actually smart/dumb enough to just sit there and not do ther chores. If there parents try and force them, it becomes child abuse anyway, right? Besides, it says three CONSECUTIVE hours. Give the kid a lunch break, and your fine.

I was just commiserating with Hack, not casting aspersions on the resolution. I do still support it.

The last time I looked, it was the 20th century

Looks at calender

April 28th, 1931; yep, definately the 20th century

The last time I looked, it was the 20th century

Looks at calender

April 28th, 1931; yep, definately the 20th century
Just because you're in a time warp don't force it on the rest of us.:p

This deosn't ban kids from doing chores. Yes, the parent cannot forcefully makie them work...but thats no different from anyting else. How many kids do you know that are actually smart/dumb enough to just sit there and not do ther chores. If there parents try and force them, it becomes child abuse anyway, right? Besides, it says three CONSECUTIVE hours. Give the kid a lunch break, and your fine.
"Do the chores or be grounded."

"Work in this sweatshop or be hit with a stick."

I say, just because I am from a past tech nation doesn't mean I am trying to force my superior values on you!

And at least I'm not a member of the "Bring back the 19th Century movement" that is rising in Cobdenia

"Work in this sweatshop or be hit with a stick."


Well, this isn't a labour rights resolution, its not about working conditions. For the purposes of this bill, employees can be beaten constantly...as long as they can quit when they cant take it anymore.

If slavery was just legal, nobody would have to have their petty little problems legalized in this half baked resolution. I think the person behind 'Banning Slavery', needs to sit back, admit defeat and perhaps ask himself/herself 'was it worth it?'

The answer of course being: NO.

Please bear with me, I have the feeling that I am missing something quite obvious here. If you would, can you please attempt to explain to those of us who are unable to understand what you mean by "forced" what distinguishes "force" from say "compulsion" or "coersion" or any other allowable form of enticement to labour, it would be greatly appreciated. As is Gruenberg, I am having a hard time understanding the difference between the choice of a slave to work or incur punishment, the choice of an insolent child to do chores or incur punishment, the choice of an inpoverished wage-labourer to work or incur a loss in money and thus death by starvation.

...as long as they can quit when they cant take it anymore.

Those who are categorized as "slave" often do quit when they can't take it anymore (that, it seems, is the very definition of "can't take it anymore.") so I do not understand how this Proposal will protect anyone. As long as the slave is working, it is because he has chosen to work . As such , he is never engaging in "forced hard labour" which is this Proposal's qualification for enslavement. This means, any UN nation is still perfectly free to hold (though perhaps no longer called slaves) an exploited population of labourers who are not compensated for their work. It does not make sense to me what good a "Banning Slavery" Resolution that does not, in effect, actually Ban Slavery is.

Can you please explain how I may be misreading your Proposal or, if I am reading it correctly, why you wish your Proposal to allow the continued holding of slaves.

Thank you for your time,

Simple, forced would imply you have no choice but to work. If a slave leaves, they will be shot...if they can leave without being shot (or stabbed etc...) then they are not slaves. Nobody forces someone to work, they can be forced to do something while at a job-site, but they can quit. Sure, you could concoct some story about a guy who needs the job and is being treated poorly because financial circumstances force him to work...but thats not slavery, thats job rights and unions etc...not the purpose of this legislation.

Simple, forced would imply you have no choice but to work. If a slave leaves, they will be shot...if they can leave without being shot (or stabbed etc...) then they are not slaves. Nobody forces someone to work,
I find your rhetoric quite confusing. First, you imply that the slave has "no choice but to work" but you then say that "If a slave leaves, they will be shot." How did the slave both not have the option to leave and then successfully opt to leave? In the very next sentence you state that "Nobody forces someone to work" implying that the condition of forced labour cannot exist (in contradiction to your first sentence) and thus that slavery (as your Proposal would define it) cannot exist. I am utterly baffled by your arguments.

That notwithstanding, it still seems to me that this Proposal is quite weak as it allows slavers to simply claim "We are not forcing any of these people to work. They all chose to work. The people who chose not to work were not killed. That they starved to death because we gave them no food is someone else's problem."

ok, you say that slavery has no place in the 21st century, but neither does dictatorship, but its still here, and in the game.

i say let it stay, because every country has done it before. and the way you want to run your country is up to you

:headbang: :mp5:

Yes...poor clarification on my part. Basically, being forced to work implies that, as I said, you have no choice. You are guarded or wahtever, and if you stop working you will die or be thrown in jail etc... A job is not forced, you may be abused in a job, but you are not forced to do it.

Your argument still says that slaves are starved to death...if the slaves can just quit and leave, then how are they being starved to death? Don't forget, the definition also implies the ownership of someone, doubtless the more important aspect. You cannot starve someone to death if you don't own them....theoretically, but to starve someone like that would mean stealing all ther food every night or soemthing wacky and absurd.

This deosn't ban kids from doing chores. Yes, the parent cannot forcefully makie them work...but thats no different from anyting else. How many kids do you know that are actually smart/dumb enough to just sit there and not do ther chores. If there parents try and force them, it becomes child abuse anyway, right? Besides, it says three CONSECUTIVE hours. Give the kid a lunch break, and your fine.Your continued refusal to actually answer the question and instead rely on strawmen, distraction and other such tomfoolery says volumes about either your inability to address serious concerns, or your unwillingness to do so.

I didn't get the reply I wanted, but I think this will suffice none-the-less.

The State of Georgia has collected some quotes from our favorite liberal nut:

By george! Your right, it does also illigilize conscription...I'll have to re-write it right away. Wait a minute, oh right, conscirption is just as barbaric as slavery.

Against conscription, fair enough, a man of principle.

Again looking at the proposal, the Dancing Bananalandian delegation would like to note that conscription is not totally banned. If a conscripted citiczen is paid for their service, and not owned, traded, etc... then it is perfectly legal.

Finding loopholes in your own resolution; slightly crazy , but still he’s stuck to his principles…

I'll put something in there excluding conscription.

If you listen carefully you can actually hear the flip flop as he slams on the brakes for a 180˚ turn.

As for conscription, you can just make it a crime not to join the army, then recruit the prisoners.

Thanks for that, how about telling us some more loopholes in your poorly written proposal?

Sure, you could concoct some story about a guy who needs the job and is being treated poorly because financial circumstances force him to work...but thats not slavery, thats job rights and unions etc...not the purpose of this legislation.

Is there still a purpose to this legislation? I thought you had told us how to get round everything in it.

You cannot starve someone to death if you don't own them....theoretically, but to starve someone like that would mean stealing all ther food every night or soemthing wacky and absurd.

Wacky and absurd, hmm, brings to mind, yes, I remember: the proposal to ban slavery.

Yes...poor clarification on my part.

Your not very good at this whole writing laws thing are you?

Perhaps it’s time to throw in the towel.

Looking forward to you next ‘Dancing Bananlandism’.

The State of Georgia.

you should include in that the use and sale of Sex slaves - as it is growing increasingly common in many nations

I must concur. If you are still intent on outlawing slavery, you must address the growing problems of the sex trade. They would currently sit in the grey spots of your legislation.

Now here is a modern day plague that touches a lot of nerves. Its related to the entire shadow network of human trafikers. This, however, would force you to broaden the proposal and open more holes. That may leave you a bit more exposed...

Georgia come of your high horse. It's easy to criticize and tear down...why don't you make a propasal legalizing it then?

In regards to the game, I personally think it should be left to the states in question. State soveriegnty and whatnot.

I must concur. If you are still intent on outlawing slavery, you must address the growing problems of the sex trade. They would currently sit in the grey spots of your legislation.

Now here is a modern day plague that touches a lot of nerves. Its related to the entire shadow network of human trafikers. This, however, would force you to broaden the proposal and open more holes. That may leave you a bit more exposed...

Georgia come of your high horse. It's easy to criticize and tear down...why don't you make a propasal legalizing it then?

In regards to the game, I personally think it should be left to the states in question. State soveriegnty and whatnot.

Banning the sex trade is definitely something which I would support.

In reply to 'Georgia come of your high horse...', I've tried repealing 'End Slavery', but despite it's lack of actual use, it has a very good name. No one is going to vote to repeal a resolution named 'End Slavery' without a lot of persuasion. Unfortunately I do not have the time to engage in what is going to be a very long debate with 126 individual delegates.

I don't know but is 'ending sex slavery', banned by a resolution that prohibits rape or in the other extreme protected by a resolution that legalizes prostitution.

The Sex Slave Trade has been banned and prostitution is legal:

Ban Trafficking in Persons

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: North Koster

Description: It is becoming increasingly common that women are sold as sex slaves on the black market. Often the women, who come from less fortunate countries, are lured to more developed countries by people who promise them a better life there. Instead, upon the women's arrival to their new countries, these people deprive the them of their freedom and sell them as sex slaves.

This is known as trafficking. 'Trafficking in persons' shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.

Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.

I hereby urge the UN to take action. Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers.

Votes For: 12501

Votes Against: 2785

Implemented: Sun Aug 1 2004

The Sex Industry Worker Act

A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category : Free Trade
Strength : Significant
Proposed by : Groot Gouda

Description : The NationStates UN,

RECALLING resolution #46 "Legalize Prostitution" and the repeal of that resolution,

ALSO RECALLING Resolution #7 (Sexual Freedom), and Resolution #53 (Universal Freedom of Choice), which make sex a private issue, instead of a government issue, and stating "a populace granted the freedom to make choices in life is a happier, more content and more productive society"

AFFIRMING in accordance with the above mentioned resolution that each person has the right to decide over their own body, and has the right to sell ther body if they decide to, without government interference,

ASSUMING an increase in Sexually Transmitted Diseases, as well as an increase in crime, and higher pressure on police, in a situation where prostitution is illegal,

ACKNOWLEDGING that health risks exist, even with legal prostitution,

1. DECLARES prostitution legal throughout the UN: any person who is mature ,and capable of making their own decisions may become a prosititute,

2. EMPHASIZES that legalizing prostitution must coincide with regulation from the government, such as health and safety and other employment legislation, just like any other profession,

3. RECOMMENDS nations that want to limit prostitution to tackle the issue by its roots and create education and social programs that will give more choice to people who might want to become a prostitute,

4. REQUESTS all nations to stimulate a clean and attractive working environment for prostitutes, and advises cooperation with the sex industry to renovate old "illegal" prostitution areas in towns and cities,

5. CONDEMNS child abuse and slavery in accordance with earlier UN resolutions (End slavery, Child Labor, Outlaw Pedophilia, The Child Protection Act, Ban Trafficking in Persons, etc) and advises strong punishments against people involved with these despicable crimes that explicitly are not covered by legal prostitution.

Votes For : 10,558

Votes Against : 6,452

Implemented : Sun Feb 6 2005

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dancing Bananland
I'll put something in there excluding conscription.

If you listen carefully you can actually hear the flip flop as he slams on the brakes for a 180? turn.

OOC:I was ging to say perhaps I should put something in there specifically banning conscription, then I realized that was outside the purposes of the proprosal. Really, earlier today I almost dumped a load of laundry on the lawn because I was thinking about fixing my bike.