NationStates Jolt Archive

I hope I'm posting this correctly.

I've authored a new proposal and would like to lobby for some support. I really feel that Resolution #7 is both unfair and just horribly worded (it is one run-on sentence).

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

Argument: CONSIDERING that the description of Resolution #7 does nothing to define "consenting adults," "privacy," and the necessity of the final clause,

ALSO CONSIDERING that Resolution #7 implies that no sovereign member of this austere body has any moral, spiritual, or religious authority over that member's population,

CONCERNED that the wording of this resolution is so vague that it can be taken to meant ANY activity done in private, whether illegal or legal has been excused by the United Nations ("What goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state"),

CONCLUDING that Resolution #7 does not meet the standards of UN resolutions for its complete disregard for national sovereignty and absolute insouciance towards a nation's right to enforce ethical or religious standards upon the population,

REPEALS Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 125 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Mon May 1 2006

CONCLUDING that Resolution #7 does not meet the standards of UN resolutions for its complete disregard for national sovereignty and absolute insouciance towards a nation's right to enforce ethical or religious standards upon the population,

It's not a standard, it's a belief. It's not a right, it's a restricted privelege. You have no sovereignty so long as you remain under the jurisdiction of this International Government. No where in any resolution nor rule are we mandated to respect nation's "sovereignty"; no where in any resolution does it require that this body give power to the nations, nor does any resolution claim the nation has the absolute right of enforcing ethical or religious standards. In fact, there are members of the UN that look at the ethical and religious standards of nations like....oh.....Gruenberg and say "to hell with your ethical and religious standards, you shouldn't be allowed to execute people because they have an abortion/perform an abortion/don't believe in Wena/debunk Wena/blink/smile/go to school/become a doctor/whatever.

We would strongly support this repeal. The notion of "sexual privacy" is laughable. Given all people - and thus their bodies - are created by Mother Wena, and given that we are Her representatives on Earth, it is only right we ensure Her creations are used in appropriate fashion.

However, I don't think this repeal stands a very good chance of passing. Our enlightened ways are largely left to catch on - Gruenberg has always been a nation ahead of its time.

Yes #7 is vague and easily abused, howeverm the morality argument at play here holds no water. Put simply, no governmetn has a right to say what people can and cannot do for, to put it bluntly (unlike the resolution) sexual pleasure.

Yes #7 is vague and easily abused, howeverm the morality argument at play here holds no water. Put simply, no governmetn has a right to say what people can and cannot do for, to put it bluntly (unlike the resolution) sexual pleasure.
So paedophilia, rape, all forms of sexual abuse, and incest are legal in Dancing Bananland?

Or did you mean to add "...except when, you know, it's really bad".

Fortunately the wording of Resolution #7 allows us to maintain our ban on incest: It specifically allows governments to act if "it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons", and of course inbreeding is known to raise the risk of congenital illnesses in any offspring produced...

Fortunately the wording of Resolution #7 allows us to maintain our ban on incest: It specifically allows governments to act if "it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons", and of course inbreeding is known to raise the risk of congenital illnesses in any offspring produced...
Actually, I was just using it as an example. Incest for the higher castes is legal in Gruenberg, such that they can maintain blood purity.

Actually, I was just using it as an example. Incest for the higher castes is legal in Gruenberg, such that they can maintain their insanity.

OOC: Fixed. ;)

CONCLUDING that Resolution #7 does not meet the standards of UN resolutions for its complete disregard for national sovereignty and absolute insouciance towards a nation's right to enforce ethical or religious standards upon the population,

You, my friend, get bonus points for use of the word insouciance in a proposal.

Yes.
Resolution #7, like many resolutions locked within the bowels of UN law, is stupid. It should never have been invented.
Frickin hippie tree huggers pretending they can write laws and such
I totally support this repeal.
Bet that comes as a shock

--Rooty

Argument: CONSIDERING that the description of Resolution #7 does nothing to define "consenting adults," "privacy," and the necessity of the final clause,

True.

ALSO CONSIDERING that Resolution #7 implies that no sovereign member of this austere body has any moral, spiritual, or religious authority over that member's population,

And this is bad why exactly? Are you going to start advocating theocracy at the same time as restricting people's rights?

CONCERNED that the wording of this resolution is so vague that it can be taken to meant ANY activity done in private, whether illegal or legal has been excused by the United Nations ("What goes on between two consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state"),

What do you mean "legal" or "illegal"? According to whom?

CONCLUDING that Resolution #7 does not meet the standards of UN resolutions for its complete disregard for national sovereignty and absolute insouciance towards a nation's right to enforce ethical or religious standards upon the population,

1). I could not give a flying monkeys about NatSov. You're in the U.N. Your laws will be altered, often for the benefit of your otherwise miserable and repressed citizenry. Get used to it.

2). What right to enforce ethical or religious standards? What about people's right to self-determination? Isn't that as or even more important?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

You have no sovereignty so long as you remain under the jurisdiction of this International Government. No where in any resolution nor rule are we mandated to respect nation's "sovereignty"; no where in any resolution does it require that this body give power to the nations, nor does any resolution claim the nation has the absolute right of enforcing ethical or religious standards. In fact, there are members of the UN that look at the ethical and religious standards of nations like....oh.....Gruenberg and say "to hell with your ethical and religious standards, you shouldn't be allowed to execute people because they have an abortion/perform an abortion/don't believe in Wena/debunk Wena/blink/smile/go to school/become a doctor/whatever.

We thank the honorable representative from Forgottenlands for providing a perfect example of the reason behind the existence of the National Sovereignty Organization. Obviously, he has never noticed NSUN Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States". Or perhaps, in his enthusiasm for seeing this body micromanage every aspect of the lives of citizens of our nations, he simply chooses to ignore it. Certainly, nations that join the NSUN agree to cede a certain amount of their sovereignty to this body in the interests of the common good. But to say, "You have no sovereignty so long as you remain under the jurisdiction of this International Government," is patently absurd.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

As a helpful note to the thread starter regarding the sovereignty debate cropping up...you may want to read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8681146&postcount=4).

Although Caratia does support a repeal, this is a very badly-worded one and probably won't go over well with the mods, let alone my fellow forum-denizens and colleagues.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

We thank the honorable representative from Forgottenlands for providing a perfect example of the reason behind the existence of the National Sovereignty Organization. Obviously, he has never noticed NSUN Resolution #49, "Rights and Duties of UN States".

Oh, you mean this document?

Section I: The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1
§ Every UN Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

Article 2
§ Every UN Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Article 3
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.

Section II: The Art of War:

Article 4
§ Every UN Member State has the right of individual or collective self-defense against armed attack.

Article 5
§ War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.

Article 6
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from fomenting civil strife in the territory of another NationState, and to prevent the organization within its territory of activities calculated to foment such civil strife.

Article 7
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from giving assistance to any NationState which is acting in violation of Article 5, or against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

Article 8
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from recognizing any territorial acquisition by another NationState acting in violation of Article 5.

Section III: The Role of the United Nations:

Article 9
§ Every UN Member State has the right to equality in law with every other UN Member State.

Article 10
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Article 11
§ Every UN Member State has the duty to conduct its relations with other NationStates in accordance with international law and with the principle that the sovereignty of each UN Member State is subject to the supremacy of international law.

Actually, Let's focus REALLY close on Article 11, since nothing else says you are sovereign from the UN or really should be sovereign from the UN or really.....anything......aside from the preamble (yes, ok, I didn't post it) which says merely that your time spent here is completely voluntary. You can, of course, call it sovereignty - as the resolution claims - what rights of your nation it protects, but that wouldn't exactly be the best term to use. It's like saying that the provinces within Forgottenlands are sovereign since they don't have the rights to impose their will upon one another. Absolutely ludicrous claim, I'm sure you'd agree (though if you don't, I admit that your use of the term would be consistent and provide no further debate on that matter). But Article 11 says exactly how much sovereignty you have from the UN: NONE. You are at the mercy of this body. You are at the bitter will of its desires.

Now, as for the NSO. There is argument for how much the UN should control. I have no qualms about that. I gladly have that debate and consider my position from issue to issue. Certainly, the arguments range from "none, never" to "every little penny should be counted by the Gnomes because we invented ways for them to travel in time and work these extra hours". You have the right to have an opinion about National Rights. However, to use a false term such as "National Sovereignty" when really, you are not a sovereign entity from this United Nations just doesn't make sense.

Or perhaps, in his enthusiasm for seeing this body micromanage every aspect of the lives of citizens of our nations, he simply chooses to ignore it.

I ask you how you come to the conclusion that I call for the micromanagement of every aspect of the lives of your citizens? Certainly, when I tell one that they may CHOOSE whether to have an abortion or not, I am not micromanaging the decision of whether they should or should not have one. I'm certainly not saying they should go to some council that will rule her fate that is staffed by me and me alone. But even if we were to ignore the mis-step by the Ausserland ambassador and discuss the realms of regulating every issue a nation may come across, I again ask you to prove that I actually do this. Many times I have felt that certain issues or parts of issues belong at the national level. The portion of the now defunct CAR proposal that said nations can force other potential solutions for fetuses that could be supported outside of the womb. If you look at the initial drafts of UN Recycling commission, there were many issues in there that I felt were best left at the national level. Even Powerhungry Chipmunk's resolutions that protected the rights of nations to decide their own taxes and budget were supported by this office (and remains the only "blocker" resolutions I, and we, support)

I find your defamatory attacks to be rather ludicrous and shows that even the most reasoned and respected members of the NSO are overcome by a problem of "delusional conceptualization" of what their opponents are truly doing. Whether this is intentional or unintentional, I feel it speaks very poorly of the organization's value to the UN.

Certainly, nations that join the NSUN agree to cede a certain amount of their sovereignty to this body in the interests of the common good.

Try all

But to say, "You have no sovereignty so long as you remain under the jurisdiction of this International Government," is patently absurd.

Look it up.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I don't think that claiming sovereignty was going too far. Clearly if I had desired to define sovereignty as a means of defying international law I would not have bothered to write a United Nations resolution. On the other hand, the Nations that make up this international body have a duty to insure that laws such as Resolution #7 are never enforced upon other states.

Why? Simply examine the resolution. First, it is ostensibly a resolution on sexual freedom but never mentions sexual intercourse in the wording. It says:

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.).

"What goes on?" That could mean anything. Someone says that they can regulate incest based on the final clause, but that takes liberty with the statement, which only mentions "to give blood" as an example.

no where in any resolution does it require that this body give power to the nations, nor does any resolution claim the nation has the absolute right of enforcing ethical or religious standards

It doesn't need to be in a resolution, it should be understood without being explicitly written. Every nation has to have a basis for its laws, be it religion, common law, codified law, unwritten constitution, or the whims of a dictator. The government of any nation receives its power through some basis. Our governments preceded the United Nations (logic dictates) and therefore every nation has a right to enforce their own laws, regardless of any UN resolution. The role of the UN is to create international law, which in the case of Resolution #7 is far exceeded.

You, my friend, get bonus points for use of the word insouciance in a proposal.

Thanks!

And this is bad why exactly? Are you going to start advocating theocracy at the same time as restricting people's rights?

I'm not advocating any form of government over another. It is bad because it removes authority that clearly belongs on the national and not international level.

What do you mean "legal" or "illegal"? According to whom?

I mean that the wording never defines what it allows.

Why? Simply examine the resolution. First, it is ostensibly a resolution on sexual freedom but never mentions sexual intercourse in the wording. It says:

"What goes on?" That could mean anything. Someone says that they can regulate incest based on the final clause, but that takes liberty with the statement, which only mentions "to give blood" as an example.
I'm going to stop you there. Because while I and others agree with you, the moderators don't. They recently ruled that you cannot interpret this resolution in this way; you must assume it only refers to sexual freedoms.

Which is a shame, because as you've shown, again, it's a common - and very worrying - interpretation.

So paedophilia, rape, all forms of sexual abuse, and incest are legal in Dancing Bananland?

Having seen other posts on other threads by Dancing Bananland, I would put good money on 'yes they are legal'.

So paedophilia, rape, all forms of sexual abuse, and incest are legal in Dancing Bananland?

Or did you mean to add "...except when, you know, it's really bad".

Is specificly says "two (or more) consenting adults". So rape, and paedophilia don't count. Incest isn't allowed either because there was some other resolution banning incest, plus the statement "unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons" allows us to make a ban on prostitution/incest if necessary.

Is specificly says "two (or more) consenting adults". So rape, and paedophilia don't count. Incest isn't allowed either because there was some other resolution banning incest, plus the statement "unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons" allows us to make a ban on prostitution/incest if necessary.

Actually prostitution has been legalized by the liberal fools who regularly like to impose their godless way of life on the rest of us:

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

Is specificly says "two (or more) consenting adults". So rape, and paedophilia don't count. Incest isn't allowed either because there was some other resolution banning incest, plus the statement "unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons" allows us to make a ban on prostitution/incest if necessary.
You're completely missing my point. The representative of Dancing Bananland suggested it was never the place of government to legislate sexual morality.

And no resolution has banned incest.

Is specificly says "two (or more) consenting adults". So rape, and paedophilia don't count. Incest isn't allowed either because there was some other resolution banning incest, plus the statement "unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons" allows us to make a ban on prostitution/incest if necessary.
But sex between two consenting 16yr olds is illegal.

<snip>
I'm working on a repeal right now.

Edit: Nope, I found a huge loophole in it. You could just regulate the industry into the ground so that there is a 200% tax on prostitution, with failure to pay having severe consequences. :D

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

But sex between two consenting 16yr olds is illegal.


That depends on where one defines the minimum age for legal adulthood as falling: Different nations have differing rules...

I'm working on a repeal right now.

Edit: Nope, I found a huge loophole in it. You could just regulate the industry into the ground so that there is a 200% tax on prostitution, with failure to pay having severe consequences. :D

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations
If it reaches quorum, you've got at least one vote.

That depends on where one defines the minimum age for legal adulthood as falling: Different nations have differing rules...
Indeed, but I believe in the majority of countries adulthood is between 17 and 25 years of age.
Often you are permitted to be married before you reach adulthood.
Would you deny the rights of the married to have conjunctal relations?

It needs an extra clause.
"two (or more) consenting adults or above the age of consent as set by the Nation's government, this being equivalent to marriagable age."
Too late for that though.

Indeed, but I believe in the majority of countries adulthood is between 17 and 25 years of age.
Often you are permitted to be married before you reach adulthood.
Would you deny the rights of the married to have conjunctal relations?

It needs an extra clause.
"two (or more) consenting adults or above the age of consent as set by the Nation's government, this being equivalent to marriagable age."
Too late for that though.

Actually, there was a case in Canada a few years ago where a Priest (or some equivelent) was married to I think it was a 6 year old(? Certainly under the age of consent - it might be 12....can't remember) and the courts charged him with rape. The parents supported the marriage at the time I heard the report. The Priest's response was to the effect of:
"Why shouldn't I have my right as a husband"

(Of course, he doesn't get that it ain't a right no more....)

I didn't follow up on the case, but I'm fairly certain he's in jail.

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

It probably should read "above the age of consent"

ooc: Canada allowed the marriage?
In the UK you are allowed to marry at 16, which is the same age as consent.
Formally it was 'marriage with parents consent at 16, without at 18,' hence evryone eloping off to Bethnal Green where you can marry at 16 as it's just north of the Scottish border.

I know a Mexican couple who were 14 and 23, moved to the US and got prosecuted because the age of marriage consent is different. Apart from the 'only allowed sex three yours different until you are 21' or whatever it is.

ooc: Canada allowed the marriage?
In the UK you are allowed to marry at 16, which is the same age as consent.
Formally it was 'marriage with parents consent at 16, without at 18,' hence evryone eloping off to Bethnal Green where you can marry at 16 as it's just north of the Scottish border.

I know a Mexican couple who were 14 and 23, moved to the US and got prosecuted because the age of marriage consent is different. Apart from the 'only allowed sex three yours different until you are 21' or whatever it is.

I'm not sure about the legality of the marriage. Never checked and certainly the article never tried to indicate the marriage was illegal.

I for one, would strongly support the repeal :) You have my support, I have recently looked at it, and IDK how it passed in the first place.

In the UK you are allowed to marry at 16, which is the same age as consent. Formally it was 'marriage with parents consent at 16, without at 18,' hence evryone eloping off to Bethnal Green where you can marry at 16 as it's just north of the Scottish border.

OOC: "Ahem!" It's Gretna Green... Bethnal Green is a neighbourhood in London's 'East End'...

Isn't Bethnal Green's MP that madman, Galloway?

Isn't Bethnal Green's MP that madman, Galloway?

'Bethnal Green and Bow'... Yes. :(

Ug, I have Public Law on the brain. I'd just been reading about some case where Bethnal Green Council had disagreed with the main government...or was that the Greater London Council? Or both? Oh **** I'm going to fail this exam next week...wtf am I doing here?

Ug, I have Public Law on the brain. I'd just been reading about some case where Bethnal Green Council had disagreed with the main government...or was that the Greater London Council? Or both? Oh **** I'm going to fail this exam next week...wtf am I doing here?

OOC: More probably with the old London County Council back before the GLC was originally set up (in the 1960s), I think, because Bethnal Green stopped being a separate borough some time ago...

"Some time" is probably insufficient to prevent it being there. I have early 20th C. cases too.
And I still don't know why I'm on NS instead of revising/sleeping....

"Some time" is probably insufficient to prevent it being there. I have early 20th C. cases too.
And I still don't know why I'm on NS instead of revising/sleeping....

OOC: "Some time" as in "before the GLC was founded"...