NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/1504/randr7nr.jpg (randr.dompody.com)

Reveal and Repeal: Official Resolution (http://s9.invisionfree.com/Reveal_and_Repeal/index.php?showtopic=6&st=0)

Hey all, this resolution will be going to vote tommrow; here's the official thread.


The United Nations,

COMMENDING the democratic intentions of Resolution #8, “Citizen Rule Required,”

NOTING that not all U.N. nations wish to be democratic,

FURTHER NOTING that Resolution #8, “Citizen Rule Required,” claims that citizen rule promotes “international peace,” which is not always true,

UNDERSTANDING that Resolution #8 fails to define which position the declaration for "citizen rule" applies to, making the resolution vague and ineffectual,

CONSIDERING that Resolution #8 does not adequately define “rouge nations,” nor how citizen rule deters said “rouge nations,”

ALSO CONSIDERING that Resolution #8 condemns certain governments, such as anarchies and dictatorships,

UPHOLDING that it is outside the mandate of this body to condemn specific political systems,

BELIEVING that member nations should decide on their own form of government at local, regional, and national levels,

REPEALS Resolution #8 “Citizen Rule Required.”

Co-Authored by: Jey


Original text:

This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed. These measures would promote international peace and serve as a deterent to the formation of so called "rouge nations" that to this day threaten all nations.

Er...somewhat biased poll, no?

Aside from the 5th option (which I just noticed), I fail to see how.

Well, it was the 5th option I mainly meant - but also the 2nd, to an extent.

Anyway, doesn't matter - I voted for.

As funny as the second option is, I had to be honest. "Member" - For.

As funny as the second option is, I had to be honest. "Member" - For.

Ditto. :D

I voted for, because I don't want my esteemed collegue form Kivisto to off any more Vegan White Rhinos(don't need the UN Endangered Species gnomes after him, and snooping around the Antarctic Oasis:) ). Good Gravy, Man!!!! Think of the Rhinos!!!!!:D
Excelsior,
Sen.Horatio Sulla

Since this is a new thread, I will restate my previous position.

FOR! Wholeheatedly and without reservation FOR.

As this is now an official topic, I will endeavor to remain civil and diplomatic on this issue. Our friends on the Kivisto White Rhino farms were beginning to give me some grief over my use of them so I guess I'll leave them alone for now.

I am not above pulling out a slightly revamped version of EUL if it becomes necessary for the purposes of this debate, but I hope it will not based on the rather frightening response and subsequent thread-jack that occured. Lord knows I had fun jousting with FL over it, but I don't know if I could go through that all over again so soon.

I digress. Vote for the freedom to govern in the style best suited to your nation. Vote for the repeal.

Member for.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the UNited Nations

I think this resolution needs repealing.

But to be on the safe side, I'll poll my citizens to make sure that they agree.

I hate repeals. I really, really, really, really hate repeals. It's just rehashing the same argument we had before...and that's just mind numbly boring.


BUT

It's not a very good resolution, in fact, the word crappy comes to mind. so I'm voting FOR.

I still hate repeals, but everything needs an exception.

Ausserland will be voting for the repeal. We love seeing useless old trash swept out the door.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Her Holiness Aristhia has instructed me to vote AGAINST this repeal. It is not a matter of the old resolution being worth keeping, instead we are concerned about what any possible replacement would mean. Citizen Rule Required allows very loose interpretation, a replacement likely would not.

Johannes,
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia

The government of St Edmund, with the agreement of those other members of our region who have discussed the matter so far, will be voting for this repeal...

...and will be re-submitting our 'Aid In Democratic Education' proposal fairly soon, although possibly with a few minor changes made to the old version, in the hope that people will accept this as a suitable replacement.

A replacement wasn't quite what I or Caratia had in mind. It is simply a violation of the UN rules to force democracy (or any government) on its member states.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

As author, I too would not be wishing for a replacement. The major reason for the repeal is that it forces democracy which, even though our government is a true democracy, should not be forced on any country.

We understand that the authors do not wish for a replacement, and agree with their reasoning. However, we are concerned that this repeal leaves open the door for a replacement at some time in the future.
If Citizen Rule Required remians on the books, Darsomir has no need to worry about undue interference in our political system. This resolution does not force anything, but comfortably prevents more powerful attempts to export democracy.
I hope I have made myself clear.

Johannes,
UN Representative for Her Holiness Aristhia

Co-Author for....what, no poll option? :p

That's a big FOR from the State of Georgia.

Pontius Pilate would have exonerated Jesus. Citizen rule crucified Him. The majority is not always right nor should it hold power without another entity to counterbalance.

To:All Who May Inquire
From: UN Delegate Ragan from The Theocracy of sNooVa
Subject:Voting for

We of the Theocracy of sNooVa have decided to vote for this repeal but we completely and utterly want it to be said that any resolutions that happen after this that try to set a specific type of rule will utterly be voted down whole heartedly because Citizen Rule Required at least keeps my nation at a democratic styling which I do prefer. But I will help eradicate Citizen Rule Required because it was a badly written resolution, still I hope everyone stands with me when I make this statement. I will vote down any other Resolution that comes through trying to state we have to keep a type of government. The UN should still be able to have nations that have many different types of governmental systems. In conclusion I would just like to say for The Theocracy of sNooVa that we wish this proposal well and that no longer will anyone try to restrict any nation of the UN to a specific form of government.

Sincerely,
UN Member Ragan

A replacement wasn't quite what I or Caratia had in mind. It is simply a violation of the UN rules to force democracy (or any government) on its member states.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations

Ah, but 'AIDE' doesn't force anything on anybody, it just provides help with democratization -- on request -- for any nations that are actually trying to be more democratic...

Recognising the diversity of societies, peoples, cultures and histories, and the many ways in which this diversity has helped forge political systems suited to each society, the PDSRA casts its vote in favour of this repeal.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

As author, I too would not be wishing for a replacement. The major reason for the repeal is that it forces democracy which, even though our government is a true democracy, should not be forced on any country.

Make a new proposal stating that the U.N. May not force any type of government upon its members.

We don't need to make a new proposal to do that, Lasalia, it's in the rules. This resolution was made before that rule was put into place.

this is good ver good?

Yes, Valuk, this is very good :p

Fellow Delegates,

The Corporation of Bufftonia, while representing the alliance of like-minded nations, does so vote for the repeal of this most disturbing of UN Resolutions wholly and with much prejudice. To think that any member nation would wish to force their own ideals onto others is offensive in the highest sense. Any replacement bill that even hints at such an ideal will be met with much hostility.

Thank you for your time.


The Corporation of Bufftonia
Delegate for The People's Union of Reality

Her Holiness Aristhia has instructed me to vote AGAINST this repeal. It is not a matter of the old resolution being worth keeping, instead we are concerned about what any possible replacement would mean.

A replacement rule is technically impossible. Technically this resolution is blatently illegal under the new rules ofr resolutions. (Actually this resolution is illegal on several levels, including the violation of a resolution that doesn't really do anything!) Any resolution that would force one system of goverment on the nations of the UN would be deleted for rules violations.

Ginet votes for the repeal. Our system of government, though democratic, is different from "typical" democracies and we would resist any attempt at making us conform. Though we abhor true dictatorships, they must be allowed to find their own way to freedom, not be forced by a UN resolution that wouldn't even be legal if passed today.

Bifflandia will be voting wholeheartedly for the new resolution. The old resolution remains far too vague and opens the door to the dangerous possibility of forcing democracy upon the member nations. The mission of the UN should be to help governments work together, not to supercede the sovereignty of its members. Without beginning a debate on the subject of whether democracy is a better form of government, it is still necessary to maintain the rights of national governments to act as they choose. This is why I have been instructed to support this resolution.

There should not be, nor will there ever be a replacement for this resolution because the rules for resolutions forbids it. It is illegal for UN resolutions to try to force any political or economic system on others.

It is a good thing that this is being repealed because the UN is a collection of nations from different places and with different ideals, and I ask you: Who are we to dictate the natural course of evolution for these people? Sure some nation's societies may evolve in a way that we may find undesirable, but how can we say that our society is any better than theirs?

As my people say, Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations (IDIC). If we ban forms of government/economies then we weaken the diversity in the UN and destroy it's strength. Good Work Dankism, this is a worthy repeal and we support you whole-heartedly.

Peace and Long Life

Damn... Such a difficult decision...

I'll get back to everyone about our decision...

-goes to a dark, lonely corner with an old cookie-cutter convention chair, puts chin on knuckles, and furrows brow, winces every few seconds-

A replacement rule is technically impossible. Technically this resolution is blatently illegal under the new rules ofr resolutions. (Actually this resolution is illegal on several levels, including the violation of a resolution that doesn't really do anything!) Any resolution that would force one system of goverment on the nations of the UN would be deleted for rules violations.
OOC: Look, I know that. I've been aware of that for quite some time. However, Her Holiness Aristhia and Johannes are not aware of that rule, and as such are concerned. IC/OOC split.

In any case, I'd prefer CRR stayed around as an educational exercise. But that isn't enough for me personally to oppose.

Dear UN Alliance,

I would advise anyone who is in the UN to repeal the Citizen Rule resolution. Poorly written and with hardly any information on what will happen to our countries, it is barely even valid. International peace is not promoted by citizen rule, in fact, it is reduced. I know this from experience in NationStates, and in the real world. People can get violent, hateful, and wind up killing somebody. That starts a whole chain reaction of violence, where people shun others and fight. If it gets extreme, our countries could even have civil wars.
Plus, citizens don't always make the best choices (see US Government today, but that's a whole different argument...). What if our citizens chose a leader who wasn't fit to do their job? What if all he/she could care about was money or fossil fuels? This just goes to show that we, as our leaders of our countries, make much better decisions than some of the people elected by citizens.
Also, give some of us dictators a break, would you?

Apocalypse
Ambassador to the UN from the Deepest Pit of Hell

Bifflandia will be voting wholeheartedly for the new resolution. The old resolution remains far too vague and opens the door to the dangerous possibility of forcing democracy upon the member nations. The mission of the UN should be to help governments work together, not to supercede the sovereignty of its members. Without beginning a debate on the subject of whether democracy is a better form of government, it is still necessary to maintain the rights of national governments to act as they choose. This is why I have been instructed to support this resolution.

I highly agree with you.

Amazing. Truly amazing. I haven't seen any of the tired old arguments about how repealing this tripe will open the doors to jack-booted nazis and brutal dictatorships. The so-called "enlightened" crowd must have chosen to sit this one out. Its about time that this bit of lunacy was repealed. We are in favour of repealing it, and our UN nation has been instructed to vote accordingly.

When any nation or its people attempts to "Campaign Democracy across the world", something is wrong. Namely, hypocrisy: Forcing Democracy upon fellow nations and demanding complete obedience to a single type of government is foolish and fascist. For, whenever we may try to force one governmental system upon a nation which may (or may not) want it, we imply that we as a nation are superior to them, and deny them the national sovereignty which they as a nation deserve. If a nation does not choose to abide by Democracy, and may prefer something else, then it has the right to do so.

I am for this resolution.

I'm voting against this repeal (not because I hate you
:p) I just hink that fascistic regiems should not be allowed to harass their citizens.

I'm voting against this repeal (not because I hate you
:p) I just hink that fascistic regiems should not be allowed to harass their citizens.
But democratic regimes should be allowed to harass their citizens.

As a democracy, Gruenberg fully endorses these sentiments.

What about Facist democracies?

I thought you supported the right of people to institute fascism in their own countries, so long as it is "done democratically"? ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10776875&postcount=29

I thought you supported the right of people to institute fascism in their own countries, so long as it is "done democratically"? ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10776875&postcount=29

Oh I do, don't worry, but Facism is rarely (read 'never') achieved democratically.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Oh I do, don't worry, but Facism is rarely (read 'never') achieved democratically.Read: "Hitler"
Read: "Perón"
Read: "Chavez"
Read: "Morales"
Read: "Hamas"
Read: "Ahmadinejad"
Read: "Gruenberg"

OOC:Read: "Hitler"
Read: "Perón"
Read: "Chavez"
Read: "Morales"
Read: "Hamas"
Read: "Ahmadinejad"
Read: "Gruenberg"
Under strict definition of fascism, none of those are fascist. Mussolini was, and a case can be made for Franco. Hitler does come close, though he instead imposed Nationalist Socialism.

Dictators aren't always fascist, though the reverse may well be true.

Autarkiana opposes to this resolution.

The ground that the resolution is discrimitary towards those who wish to be none-democracies is null and void, as all nations have the choice to be a member of the UN or not.

The people of Autarkiana have self-governed for centuries after periods of anarchy, monarchie, dictatorship and republics. Democracy is the only viable form of government - for the nation, and for the world

I am against this resolution, for it's only a waste of time. "Citizen rule required" does not state the description of a citizen. Thus we can say that a citizen is a civilian with larger rights and social securities than a normal civilian, also the right to vote and participate in the political life. In a dictatorship, all that is needed to oblige to "citizen rule required" is to make those loyal to your government, or only your government, citizens, while treating the remnants of the population as civillians. Since civillians have their rights as humans, there will be no conflict with the UN and your country, and your way of leadership will be preserved. I have voted against this resolution and encourage others to do the same.

And even though I have but the greatest respect towards other UN members and delegates, I must say I am dissapointed in your lack of reasoning when it comes to manipulating laws.

A replacement wasn't quite what I or Caratia had in mind. It is simply a violation of the UN rules to force democracy (or any government) on its member states.

A. T. Stilgram
Caratian Ambassador to the United Nations
No, it's forcing citizen rule. As I said in my previos post, a citizen can be defined in many ways.

Read: "Hitler"
Read: "Perón"
Read: "Chavez"
Read: "Morales"
Read: "Hamas"
Read: "Ahmadinejad"
Read: "Gruenberg"

Hitler: Never got more than 40% of the vote in a free election and was pushed into power by a grubby backroom deal presided over by a scheming former Chancellor and a senile President.

Peron: Not really Facist, more Latin American Gaullist.

Morales: You are joking aren't you?

Chavez: See Morales.

Hamas: Not really Facist, too spiritualist and with the wrong economic views.

Ahmedinejad: Reactionary yes, but same as Hamas really.

Gruenberg: You guys are just monarchists.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

FaScist

Ahem.

Gruenberg: You guys are just monarchists.
Yes, the Monarchist party did win, in free and fair elections.

I am definitely courious as to how this resolution repeal will play out. I think this is a border line case. Fluffywise I think "Citizen Rule" sounds nice but "Required" might be a mitigating factor. (Of coruse we know that fluffies never read either the resolution or the arguments for the repeal, so we only have to worry about the title to see how the fluffy vote would go.)

From a personal perspective, this resolution has got to go. It doesn't really do anything. There is the question of "forcing" a system of government which is clearly a forbidden subject. On the other hand there are ways of slipping in democratic elements into governments (such as the "right" of the ability to petittion for grievances) and this resolution doesn't stop that anyway. So it's probably the best candidate for a repeal.

OOC: Morales? When did nationalising energy reserves become a fascist action?

Anyway, I'm all for repealing this but Ecopoeia is not, as it has no wish to hand dictatorships a fillip. A decent replacement would change this vote, however.

FaScist


OOC: You pedant, I was in a hurry.:p

Hitler: Never got more than 40% of the vote in a free election and was pushed into power by a grubby backroom deal presided over by a scheming former Chancellor and a senile President.

Peron: Not really Facist, more Latin American Gaullist.

Morales: You are joking aren't you?

Chavez: See Morales.

Hamas: Not really Facist, too spiritualist and with the wrong economic views.

Ahmedinejad: Reactionary yes, but same as Hamas really.They may not all be fascists, but they're all not-so-nice guys who came to power through a democratic system. And we're keeping our eyes on Gruenberg, quite frankly.

Also, you were so hurried you managed to misspell fascist not once but half a dozen times? I'm sure the Palentine can cut you a great deal on fabulous vacation packages to Cleveland for your errant scribes. Excelsior!

May the free-trade blessings of our corporate sponsors be upon you.

~Kenny

must...resist...urge...to...derail...

I'm sure the Palentine can cut you a great deal on fabulous vacation packages to Cleveland for your errant scribes. Excelsior!

Yes indeedy I can. Cleveland is lovely *cough* this time of year. However the best time to send scribes is between October and Feburary. Between the nut-numbing cold weather, and the Cleveland Browns, most scribes beg to be allowed home, and swear that they will never make a error again.:D

May the free-trade blessings of our corporate sponsors be upon you.

~Kenny

Do not deface our holy national blessing with your well-intentioned pro-capitalist rhetoric.;)

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

<mutters to self "fascist, fascist, fascist, remember that bloody 's' in future">.

Autarkiana opposes to this resolution.

The ground that the resolution is discrimitary towards those who wish to be none-democracies is null and void, as all nations have the choice to be a member of the UN or not.
Yes, nations have a choice as to whether or not they are UN members but to make it so that you have to be a democracy to be a member is both illegal and weakens the strength of the whole. If we do allow this to continue then we are merely being dictators to the masses who choose other forms of government.

The people of Autarkiana have self-governed for centuries after periods of anarchy, monarchie, dictatorship and republics. Democracy is the only viable form of government - for the nation, and for the world
Good for you. You've managed to get your government nice and stable, but I refer you to a previous post I made in this thread and ask you: Who are we to say what is viable and what isn't? Just because you could not get those other government types to function does not mean that others can not.

Think of it this way, the ultimate goal of the UN is to make the world a safer, more peaceful and prosperous place for everyone. Now to accomplish this we pass resolutions, resolutions that can only affect member nations. Therefore the more nations that are members the greater the impact of the resolutions and the closer we come to our ultimate goal. If you ban all forms of government besides democracy than all those who wish to remain monarchies, dictatorships, fascist, communism, etc. will leave the UN to avoid losing their way of life. Once this happens, the UN only affects a smaller proportion of the worlds nations.

Have the ramifications of this sunk in yet or am I going to have to be more specific?

UN + ban on governmental forms = Useless organization incapable of affecting the world
I am against this resolution, for it's only a waste of time. "Citizen rule required" does not state the description of a citizen. Thus we can say that a citizen is a civilian with larger rights and social securities than a normal civilian, also the right to vote and participate in the political life. In a dictatorship, all that is needed to oblige to "citizen rule required" is to make those loyal to your government, or only your government, citizens, while treating the remnants of the population as civillians. Since civillians have their rights as humans, there will be no conflict with the UN and your country, and your way of leadership will be preserved. I have voted against this resolution and encourage others to do the same.
Somehow I have a feeling that you called your people citizens until you saw this resolution. And if that is the case you'd be too late to change your defintion at this point.
Besides if there is such a glaring loophole in it then why bother keeping it, surely we can do without an illegal resolution that has such large holes in the legality of the text.
And even though I have but the greatest respect towards other UN members and delegates, I must say I am dissapointed in your lack of reasoning when it comes to manipulating laws.
I'm surprised by this, because most of the people who actually come into these forumns are some of the most creative I've ever seen when it comes to finding ways around UN resolutions that they don't like.

Well, it was the 5th option I mainly meant - but also the 2nd, to an extent.

Anyway, doesn't matter - I voted for.

The first option included an opinion that some nations voting in favour of might not totally agree with ... but it wasn't leading in that case. Given that there was a bracket around the main answers, I think the poll was straightforward and good enough for NationStates. :)

IC:
Having not voted on the original resolution, Mikitivity abstains from voting.

must...resist...urge...to...derail...


I don't know if we're aiming at the same derailment, but I hear you Eco.

[sigh]

wanting to stop the weak from being annoying, voting for :D

The United Nations Charter States:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.



The United Nations is not meant to be an organization that appeals to all of its members. Member Nations of the real UN disagree with it almost daily. However, it does stand for equality and advancement for ALL peoples. Whether or not all UN nations support the idea of democracy, the very principles of the UN are meant to condone and advance it. Resolution 8, hardly implies that every nation must be a demcracy. It simply states that citizens should have some say in their government...be it the election of one government official out of 1000. Yes, Resolution 8 is poorly written, but it doesn't hinder nations who wish to be dictatorships...and repealing it would deal a blow to this institution and what it stands for.

Please...VOTE NO ON THIS REPEAL!!

The United Nations Charter States:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.
We do not recognise this document. Might we ask where you came across it? It would not appear to have any bearing on the NationStates United Nations.

OOC: Remember, this isn't the real world...

Whether or not all UN nations support the idea of democracy, the very principles of the UN are meant to condone and advance it.
Which principles are those?

Resolution 8, hardly implies that every nation must be a demcracy. It simply states that citizens should have some say in their government...be it the election of one government official out of 1000. Yes, Resolution 8 is poorly written, but it doesn't hinder nations who wish to be dictatorships...and repealing it would deal a blow to this institution and what it stands for.
So if it doesn't hinder dictatorships...how can it possibly "stand for democracy".

Citizen Rule Required represents one thing, and one thing alone: that standards for resolutions were at one point significantly lower than they are now. I do not have any particular need to endorse crap.

How can democracy be forced? If power comes from the people and it's infused into the state how can a state legally exist if its people are not free? Even if it's citizens should choose a different mode of governance, wouldnt that in itself be democracy, and if they do not choose, are they not hostages?

I don't know if we're aiming at the same derailment, but I hear you Eco.

[sigh]
Solidarity, tovarishch.

Unfortunately we will have to abstain from this vote - because i have no idea what a "rouge nation" is

Carilsee, one cannot bring the assumptions of the "real world" UN into discussions about the "NationStates" UN. In the first place the two systems use completely different rulesets. In the second place, from a NS perspetive, the "real world" is just some fantasy, probably created by a writer to blatently promote his own work. :p

Which is good because the so called Real World United Nations has a number of nations as members that would clearly violate the "Citizen Rule Required" requirement. Some of these nations exist in a seperate "security council" with the ability to veto any resolution that it doesn't like. (Clearly this so called "Real World" UN violates every good and proper law that the real UN here in NationStates holds dear.)

It even has commissions populated by ... (GASP) deligates .... and not UN gnomes as is the time honored tradition of civilized nations. One of those commssions, the one on human rights, has a known abuser of human rights. I mean who honestly believes that drivel. How can an organization where the fox is in charge of every hen house manage to survive? This is clear fantasy and not worthy of any rational discussion or debate! :p

The UN should not accept countries that restrict their citizens' right by denying them the choice of their government, so we should vote "no". The resolution is badly written, but it is fundamental and should not be repealed

Somehow I have a feeling that you called your people citizens until you saw this resolution. And if that is the case you'd be too late to change your defintion at this point.
Besides if there is such a glaring loophole in it then why bother keeping it, surely we can do without an illegal resolution that has such large holes in the legality of the text.
Quite the opposite. I have never called the people of my nation citizens, as the current system restricts my abilities of creating a nation in which I could call a part of my population as citizens.
yes, there's a big loophole, but why waste time voting on destroying this loophole, wen at the same time you could be deciding matters far more important. Especially when this loophole does nothing at all. It's obsolete and has no juridical power whatsoever. Voting off obsolete resolutions like this, which cause no problems is just a way of making it seem like the Un is mking things change, but do they? Will this resolution have an impact on any nation whatsoever?

I'm surprised by this, because most of the people who actually come into these forumns are some of the most creative I've ever seen when it comes to finding ways around UN resolutions that they don't like.
But the fact remains, that we're voting off a resolution which is harmless. It's like a crusade to go kill all fluffy bunies in fairyland, it's useless and serves no purpose and in my opinion, we could do without this....

But the fact remains, that we're voting off a resolution which is harmless. It's like a crusade to go kill all fluffy bunies in fairyland, it's useless and serves no purpose and in my opinion, we could do without this....


OOC: And what if somebody is running "all the fluffy bunnies in fairyland" as a nation? ;)

Ignoring the howler that repealing useless resolutions is like killing fluffy bunnies (which was, incidently, presented as if it were somehow a bad thing...:D ) -- oh, wait, I guess I'm not ignoring that. Rescinding outdated UN resolutions is necessary. Why are the resolution antiquists are so up in arms about preserving NSUN resolution history if the repealed resolutions are indeed preserved in strikethru format in the body of the resolution section's text?

I've got no problem with preserving the history of NSUN legislation. In fact, I think it's a good idea. So good, in fact, that it's already being done, as aforementioned. I just don't think keeping them active on the books when they serve no purpose (active or passive) is a nuisance and a cluttering that needs to be addressed. New resolutions are being written so meticulously and so well that it's almost an insult to them to have those "fluffy bunny" idealistic screeds lying about and mucking up the place.

As a RL example, is it important that, say, laws about telegraphy were passed? Yes. Are they an important part of legislative history? Yes. Should they be preserved? As an archive, yes. Should they still be active? No. And yes, I realize that RL =/= NS (just heading that annoying post off at the pedantic pass), and that there are likely a few nations out there who are still using telegraphs or would consider them advanced, or even witchcraft. So perhaps a bad example, but you see the point.

Resolutions which state "gee, golly this is good, we should all be like this" or something similarly idealistic and noble, if painfully vague, have no power and no effect and should be pruned.

I thank this august body for its time.

Jubal Harshaw
Magister Intangelon

*bows and heads back to his flat in the UN Arms apartment building to sip Becherovka and read Stephen Levitt, leaving Ben Royce back in charge*

I agree entirely, Magistrar Harshaw. However, my people wish to preserve the original resolution - no matter its failings - as a means of frustrating dictators. It takes all sorts, I suppose.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The United Nations Charter States:

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

Before this actually gets started...Assuming you are speaking of WWI and WWII, keep in mind that WWI was catalyzed by the assassination of an Archduke (a non-democratic post), and WWII was brought about, instigated, and forced by a democratic nation led by a democratically elected leader.

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

To say that non-democracies do not hold these things as valuable is a sweeping generalization that many of us could take offense to.

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

One of the best ways to establish these conditions would be to fully aknowledge and respect individual nations chosen methods of governing.

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Denying an entire governing style freedom does not promote social progress.

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

To practice tolerance would be to allow us to be governed as we wish to be governed, not condemning our choice to be ruled differently than you.

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

Diversity will create greater strength and adaptability over conformity any day of the week (except I Am Spartacus Day)

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

Democracies are no less likely to use armed force than anyone else.

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.

Once again, restricting non-democratic governments will not guarantee social advancement.

The United Nations is not meant to be an organization that appeals to all of its members.

Nor is it meant to discriminate against them.

Member Nations of the real UN disagree with it almost daily.

I have heard of this fantasy place called "The Real World" or "RL". Thankfully we don't live there and need not concern ourselves with their politics.

However, it does stand for equality and advancement for ALL peoples.

Then why disrespect the choice of the people of Kivisto to be ruled by a dictator. If we didn't like The Master, we would have him removed. We like him. And we appreciate the fact that he makes all of the big decisions for us. He is wise and caring and has our best interests at heart.

Whether or not all UN nations support the idea of democracy,

Not all do.

the very principles of the UN are meant to condone and advance it.

#1 - I have in the past, and will continue in the future, argue against any who declare, in such a casual manner, the principles, purpose, or aim of the UN. Until it is actually codified and ratified by member nations, let's leave that one alone.

#2 - If we were to assume that the principles of the UN do condone democracy, it would be for the purposes of creating an international consensus regarding international issues.

Resolution 8, hardly implies that every nation must be a demcracy.

No. It states it outright. Granting Citizen Rule, granting them a say in government, is granting them democracy, even if it is only a token nod at it.

It simply states that citizens should have some say in their government...be it the election of one government official out of 1000.

A token nod. No less of an insult to those who don't wish it in our nation.

Yes, Resolution 8 is poorly written,

Very.

but it doesn't hinder nations who wish to be dictatorships...

Unless it is desired by said dictatorships that the populace be freed from the burden of ruling.

and repealing it would deal a blow to this institution and what it stands for.

How, exactly?

Please...VOTE NO ON THIS REPEAL!!

Not a chance in whatever hell you care to imagine for me, friend.

The UN should not accept countries that restrict their citizens' right by denying them the choice of their government, so we should vote "no". The resolution is badly written, but it is fundamental and should not be repealed

OOC: It is against the rules for there to be a ban on any ideological or political grounds against any form of the previously mentioned items.

IC: Simply because you do not understand the benefits of having a leader generous enough to take the burden of ruling off of his peoples and place it on his own shoulders does not make it an incorrect choice.

Furthermore, what is so "fundamental" about CRR? Be specific. Give examples, where possible.

Quite the opposite. I have never called the people of my nation citizens, as the current system restricts my abilities of creating a nation in which I could call a part of my population as citizens.
yes, there's a big loophole, but why waste time voting on destroying this loophole, wen at the same time you could be deciding matters far more important. Especially when this loophole does nothing at all. It's obsolete and has no juridical power whatsoever. Voting off obsolete resolutions like this, which cause no problems is just a way of making it seem like the Un is mking things change, but do they? Will this resolution have an impact on any nation whatsoever?

If it's obsolete, has no jurisdicial power, and is just a giant loophole, then why not get rid of it? The matter is already at vote. No time will be saved by saying that you'll vote against it because it's a waste of time. You're at the voting booth already. Why not make the choice to get rid of what you've already referred to as useless.

Also, it will have an impact. There are those of us who do not desire this token nod at a governmental style that runs contrary to the desires of the populace which wishes to leave all matters in the hands of The Master who guides us all in his wisdom.

But the fact remains, that we're voting off a resolution which is harmless. It's like a crusade to go kill all fluffy bunies in fairyland, it's useless and serves no purpose and in my opinion, we could do without this....

Once again, since it's already at vote, you might as well vote to get rid of the useless legislation.

I agree entirely, Magistrar Harshaw. However, my people wish to preserve the original resolution - no matter its failings - as a means of frustrating dictators. It takes all sorts, I suppose.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN


I greatly appreciate your honesty in this matter Mr. Vergniaud. I wish there was something I could do to convince you that not all dictators are your enemy....

I greatly appreciate your honesty in this matter Mr. Vergniaud. I wish there was something I could do to convince you that not all dictators are your enemy....
I need little persuading. I'm far too cynical to place my trust in any system nowadays. My compatriots, however, will have their idealism.

The Empire of Dominoptra would like to take this time to thank the authors for writing this resolution. It is encouraging for nations who are possibly on the road to democracy not to be hindered or condemned.

Laws and resolutions that leave loopholes are in fact problems. Leaving a resolution that, at one time, had the support of the UN should still incite consequences. This is to say laws no longer supported by the UN, no matter what the circumstances may be, should be removed. Every resolution that has passed should be acted on accordingly unless it is removed, replaced, or over ridden in some manner. To this end i would beseech the members and delegates of the UN to support the Repeal of resolution #8 as it is outdated and is in need of removal.

Dominoptra is glad to hear that there will be no replacement and agrees with the previously stated sentiment that imposing democracy forcefully is hipocritical.

Thank you for your time.

Victor Krovankovich
Voice of the Emperor

Reidalian Syndic Chair vonKreedon rises to address the UN assembly

Regarding the current UN Proposal to repeal the "Citizen Rule Required" resolution (UNR #8):

The Confederacy of Reidalia strongly opposes the repeal of UNR #8. UNR #8 is so weak as to be all but useless, but it at least enshrines a UN desire that citizens control their destiny and not dictators or oligarchies by requiring even dictators and oligarchies to allow citizens to have political power over some facet of civil society, if only electing the dog-catcher.

The main argument for repeal seem to be, "...that it is outside the mandate of this body to condemn specific political systems...that member nations should decide on their own form of government at local, regional, and national levels" But the UN mandates internal political structures and policies as a matter of course:

UNR #6 outlaws slavery and mandates a variety of other personal freedoms.
UNR #7 mandates that private sexuality cannot be criminalized.
UNR #10 mandates that warrantless intercepts of private communications are not allowed.
UNR #14 limits the ability of nations to legalize child labor.
UNR #19 mandates that all nations will support and promote religious tolerance.


And on and on, the UN reaches into its member's civil societies and restricts the ability of the dictatorship to spy on its citizens; the theocracy from repressing freedom of religion; its slaveholding oligarchies from functioning as such entirely. Are those who support repealing a requirement that citizens of UN member nations be allowed to at least freely vote for dog catcher also going to then vote to allow slavery and the persecution of religious and sexual minorities. I trust this is not the case and that the UN assembly will speak forcefully against this proposal.

Thank you.

So would those resolutions that you listed already acomplish the goal that you hope to achieve by leaving this poorly written, and redundant resolution active? Those resolutions allow the people to have a measure of freedom in their lives. That is not what is addressed by the resolution #8. Resolution #8 is a method to pressure nations into a democratic government. Just because a nation has a governing style other than one of democracy doesn't mean their people are not free. Dictatorships can listen to its people and allow its people freedoms while not stopping them from having any freedoms. This is to say why the bias torwards democracy? Why is a tyranny of the majority better than tyranny of one? A dictator can be a good one as the history can show that not all dicators are tyrants.

The UN mandates that people have the freedom to choose their own religion, and to have private conversations. This is better than electing a dog-catcher. If the UN feels it must force more freedoms onto people then let those freedoms come in the form of another resolution. This resolution speaks to the freedom of a nation to choose its method of governance.

Thank you

Victor Krovankovich
Voice of the Emperor

I agree entirely, Magistrar Harshaw. However, my people wish to preserve the original resolution - no matter its failings - as a means of frustrating dictators.

I still can not see how this poor excuse for a resolution "frustrates" dictators. There is nothing in the resolution that can even annoy dictators.

"Description: This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed."

It has to be some level. Doesn't matter what level. Doesn't say that the level has to have any real power whatsoever. The chamber of commerce or even the Parent Teacher Association qualifies in this resolution.

The only thing "democratic" about this is the category. That's it.

What does the Honorable Voice of the Emperor have to say about the inability of a theocracy to be both a UN member and ensure that all its citizens believe in the state religion and engage in state sanctioned sexual practices in the privacy of their homes? Certainly this is an intrusion on a nations soveriegnty far greater than the requirement that citizens be allowed to vote for dog-catcher.

Yes, UNR #8 does appear to be designed to ensure that the citizens of every UN member are afforded some shadow of the idea that all societies are at base governed by the consent of the governed. And I can see that allowing such an idea into the minds of oppressed people might cause a fearful concern among those doing the oppressing as their citizens might well begin to think of things other than dog-catcher over which they wish to exert their consent. If your nation is being governed by coerced consent, then yes this small, even minimalist intrusion of an idea into the minds of your people may cause a change in your ability to coerce your people. I say this is a good thing as the nation exists to further the nation and its peoples, not to divide the nation into slaves and masters.

On the other hand, if your nation is being governed with the genuine consent of the people, no matter what the form of that governance, then you have nothing to fear from allowing the people in each neighborhood to elect their dog-catchers. So the question is do you fear your people so much that they cannot be allowed to realize any rule over their civil life no matter how small?

On the other hand, if your nation is being governed with the genuine consent of the people, no matter what the form of that governance, then you have nothing to fear from allowing the people in each neighborhood to elect their dog-catchers. So the question is do you fear your people so much that they cannot be allowed to realize any rule over their civil life no matter how small?

With the genuine consent of the people.... interesting that you should bring that up. As I have mentioned before, the people of Kivisto do not desire any level of citizen rule. We are completely happy with the rule that The Master has over us. He makes all the decisions for us in ALL matters of state. It is mandated by the UN that we must have some level of citizen rule, and so we do, but we do not relish the yoke of power, and strongly desire to allow The Master to lift the burden of governance off of our shoulders. Alas, he cannot. Not while this discriminatory piece of legislation is still in effect. Why must you stand in the way of those who would release us from our suffering?

Vote for the right to choose how you are governed. Vote to repeal UNR#8.

I still can not see how this poor excuse for a resolution "frustrates" dictators. There is nothing in the resolution that can even annoy dictators.

"Description: This is a resolution to require all nations to grant self-rule to all citizen on some level. Local, Regional, or National is no matter, just so long that all citizens have some say and control over the way they are governed."

It has to be some level. Doesn't matter what level. Doesn't say that the level has to have any real power whatsoever. The chamber of commerce or even the Parent Teacher Association qualifies in this resolution.

The only thing "democratic" about this is the category. That's it.
And yet dictators are frustrated and call for its repeal.

Meh, you're preaching to the perconverted here.

I have just recieved word from Consul Opraeti that I am to actually vote against this repeal. I believe he and the Senate fear a replacement.

What does the Honorable Voice of the Emperor have to say about the inability of a theocracy to be both a UN member and ensure that all its citizens believe in the state religion and engage in state sanctioned sexual practices in the privacy of their homes? Certainly this is an intrusion on a nations soveriegnty far greater than the requirement that citizens be allowed to vote for dog-catcher.

Yes, UNR #8 does appear to be designed to ensure that the citizens of every UN member are afforded some shadow of the idea that all societies are at base governed by the consent of the governed. And I can see that allowing such an idea into the minds of oppressed people might cause a fearful concern among those doing the oppressing as their citizens might well begin to think of things other than dog-catcher over which they wish to exert their consent. If your nation is being governed by coerced consent, then yes this small, even minimalist intrusion of an idea into the minds of your people may cause a change in your ability to coerce your people. I say this is a good thing as the nation exists to further the nation and its peoples, not to divide the nation into slaves and masters.

On the other hand, if your nation is being governed with the genuine consent of the people, no matter what the form of that governance, then you have nothing to fear from allowing the people in each neighborhood to elect their dog-catchers. So the question is do you fear your people so much that they cannot be allowed to realize any rule over their civil life no matter how small?

The benevolent emperor of Dominoptra has nothing to fear from its citizens. The citizens follow him willingly and we have faith in his judgements. The emperor listens to his people and if we wished him to no longer be emperor he would step down. As i have previously stated, not all dictatorships are tyrannical, just as not all democracies impart freedom to their citizens. A president can have some one put a gun to your head and make you vote but that doesn't mean your free. Or ballots can be discarded because they were "too difficult" for the citizens to properly interpret if they don't count torwards the leaders aim.

Also, both these resolutions impose this upon member states. It is active. If the body wishes to disregaurd previously passed UN resolutions then i would suggest that Reidalia submit a proposal to repeal them. Otherwise the voice of the emperor would say that your arguement is moot. The resolutions you listed earlier are in place and as my understanding are, mandatory for participation in the body.

Victor Krovankovich
Voice of the Emperor

I'll admit I didn't search all through this thread to make sure no one mentioned this already,....but "rouge nations?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0203009/

I think you mean "rogue," like, with the "u" coming AFTER the "g."

Just a nitpick.

Yes, the worthless original Resolution has a typo in it. This is well known and long established.

I must concede that the oppressed would not want this resolution appealed.


And I must concede that only un-opressed persons are voting on the repeal.



This is a moral dilemma, and that usually loses at the polls.

I must concede that.

And yet dictators are frustrated and call for its repeal.

Meh, you're preaching to the perconverted here.

No I don't think dictators are "frustrated." Lovers of logic and reason and people who think that the UN is a proper body of people who make well thought out reslolutions are frustrated because this resolution inspires morons who make moronic resolutions that ruin the moderators day because they spend so much time deleting resolutions that they get carpal tunnel syndrome. (Or was that "end of the tunnel syndrone?")

As to whom I'm preaching to ... I'm just singing in the shower. :p

I would like to bring the body's attention to UN Resolution #49 which explicitly states:

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.

So it would seem that the UN has already taken a stance on this position and that this resolution should be repealed already. I consider this a form of much needed house cleaning and hope that the body passes this resolution. Previous UN resolutions mandate that all UN Nationstates provide some freedoms to its people. As stated by UN resolution # 26

Article 1 -- 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.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Please repeal resolution #8. Thank you for your time.

Victor Krovankovich
Voice of the Emperor

Yes, the worthless original Resolution has a typo in it. This is well known and long established.
And has in fact become a running joke on this forum.

The Honorable Dominoptran Voice of the Emperor makes claims that existing UN Resolutions #s 49 and 26 make UNR #8 both illegitimate and unecessary.

UNR49, like so much law, is either imprecise or contradictory, but in the end it does not say what the Honorable Voice would like it to say.
UNR49 states:
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.

This article is interpreted by those supporting the repeal as meaning that the UN may not pass laws dictating anything regarding the form of government. But the article does not say that the UN may not do this, only that any other NationState may not do so, meaning that Redalia may not seek to impose a governmental structure on another NationState. The article does not say that the UN cannot impose governmental requirements for membership in the UN; quite obviously the UN can do so as shown in UNR26 where the UN requires its members to allow their citizens the rights of faith, speech, assembly, and various judicial rights, a list of rights that are intrusive and far reaching in their scope and implications.

Article 2 of UNR49 states:
§ 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.

Here it is explicitly stated that UN members are sovereign in their territories except where international law applies, meaning that UN resolutions may override such sovereignty.

I am making the perhaps unwarranted assumption that the UN is made up exclusively of humans, but given that we are humans, as Aristotle said, "Man is by nature a political animal." We are social animals and politics is the means by which we organize our societies. It then follows that the right of the governed to consent to be governed is the fundamental human right and should be recognized and codified as such by the UN.

The only reason to fear UNR8 is if your government is so egregiously denying your citizens the fundamental right of political expression that granting even the smallest glimmer of such a right may lead to revolutionary change. If this is the case then I say you deserve to reap what you have sown.

Please, if you value human rights, vote against this resolution.

Thank you,
R. vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Council Chair.

This is a momentous moment for the world body and marks the beginning of a campaign by the forces of repression and exploitation to confine the UN to meaningless platitudes about human rights while aiding and abetting member states in oppressing and exploiting their citizens. Already we see a set of further repeals being readied; a proposal to repeal the "Stop Privacy Intrusion" that would allow states to engage in warrantless spying on their citizens, a proposal to repeal the "World Heritage List". We can expect in the future to see proposals to repeal the such Resolutions as UNR26, the "Universal Bill of Rights", UNR25, the "Child Protection Act", UNR19, "Religious Tolerance", UNR6, "End Slavery", and on until dictatorships and oligarchies are free to enslave and ruthlessly exploit nations for their own gain. This is a tragedy that must be strenuously resisted.

This is a momentous moment for the world body and marks the beginning of a campaign by the forces of repression and exploitation to confine the UN to meaningless platitudes about human rights while aiding and abetting member states in oppressing and exploiting their citizens. Already we see a set of further repeals being readied; a proposal to repeal the "Stop Privacy Intrusion" that would allow states to engage in warrantless spying on their citizens, a proposal to repeal the "World Heritage List". We can expect in the future to see proposals to repeal the such Resolutions as UNR26, the "Universal Bill of Rights", UNR25, the "Child Protection Act", UNR19, "Religious Tolerance", UNR6, "End Slavery", and on until dictatorships and oligarchies are free to enslave and ruthlessly exploit nations for their own gain. This is a tragedy that must be strenuously resisted.
So resist it.

Well, thank you all for your support of this resolution, as it has passed by a margin of 8,317 to 2,416.

*opens champagne*

Fellow NSUNers:

Please heed this humble last-minute plea from your friends at the Federal Republic to support the proposal currently at vote. We note with trepidation that the United Nations recently upgraded our Political Freedoms rating to "Very Good" -- up from "Pretty Fucking Terrible" or whatever it was before -- meaning our citizens possess even more freedoms to choose their preferred leaders. This cannot stand. Already our citizens elect the presidential and vice-presidential electors, senators and assemblymen, state governors and legislators, and a veritible shitload of local officials (including, but not limited to, mayors, city councilmen, sheriffs, school-board and county water-board members, armored C-4 penguin-catchers, and porn stars). But, in case we haven't already made it perfectly clear to this august assembly (and as evidenced in today's United Nations Report), Kennyites rival maybe the migratory locust in cerebral capacity, or lack thereof. Now, I know what you're all gonna say: "Quit insulting the locusts, you hebetudinous psychopath!", but hear me out folks: I don't think you understand just how grave a threat Kennyite stupidity poses to the world at large. And whether their actions are exercised at the voting booth or elsewhere, we must be equipped with the tools necessary to reverse such error, should we fear the Apolcalypse or something comparable may result. (Conditional, of course, on our nation's eventual decision to return to this body.) I really must make it clear--hey, where'd everybody go?!

["The vote's over, Ambassador," whispers an aid; "the repeal already passed."]

Dude, whatever; this is my 1,000th address to this body; I don't have time to check if it's still relevant!

[OOC: Congrats Dankism, Jey, et al. Well done.]

Dude, whatever; this is my 1,000th address to this body; I don't have time to check if it's still relevant!

OOC: Slacker. :p

I would make no claims as to what the UN can and can't do that is up to the body at large to vote upon what is in our jurisdiction. My citations are methods to prove that the UN has already imposed the freedoms you wish to see in its member states and would refer the Reidalian Syndic Council Chair to a vast number of other resolutions but feel that it might benifit Mr. vonKreedon more to see and read these resolutions for himself as he seems to be basing his entire arguement on nothing you claim that without resolution 8 that governments can remove all freedoms and liberties. This is true unless they are a UN member.

Dominoptra would like to congratulations to the author and co authors of this resolution for their victory on the floor.

Victor Krovankovich
Voice of the Emperor

Thank you all for your support and help in getting this one repealed. :)

This is a momentous moment for the world body and marks the beginning of a campaign by the forces of repression and exploitation to confine the UN to meaningless platitudes about human rights while aiding and abetting member states in oppressing and exploiting their citizens. Already we see a set of further repeals being readied; a proposal to repeal the "Stop Privacy Intrusion" that would allow states to engage in warrantless spying on their citizens, a proposal to repeal the "World Heritage List". We can expect in the future to see proposals to repeal the such Resolutions as UNR26, the "Universal Bill of Rights", UNR25, the "Child Protection Act", UNR19, "Religious Tolerance", UNR6, "End Slavery", and on until dictatorships and oligarchies are free to enslave and ruthlessly exploit nations for their own gain. This is a tragedy that must be strenuously resisted.

Sheer, utter nonsense. A marvelous combination of conspiracy paranoia and the ever-popular but rarely realistic slippery slope argument.

By order of His Royal Highness, Prince Leonhard II:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This is a momentous moment for the world body and marks the beginning of a campaign by the forces of repression and exploitation to confine the UN to meaningless platitudes about human rights while aiding and abetting member states in oppressing and exploiting their citizens. Already we see a set of further repeals being readied; a proposal to repeal the "Stop Privacy Intrusion" that would allow states to engage in warrantless spying on their citizens, a proposal to repeal the "World Heritage List". We can expect in the future to see proposals to repeal the such Resolutions as UNR26, the "Universal Bill of Rights", UNR25, the "Child Protection Act", UNR19, "Religious Tolerance", UNR6, "End Slavery", and on until dictatorships and oligarchies are free to enslave and ruthlessly exploit nations for their own gain. This is a tragedy that must be strenuously resisted.

Man, what a load of tripe:
http://www.gospain.org/Spain_Images/cooking/72.jpg

When you refer to the proposals to repeal the WHL I have a feeling that you've never actually read the details of the resolution to see what horrible atrocities can befall anyone because of it.

Check out the reasoning for repealing it URL="http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481640"]here[/URL]

...A marvelous combination of conspiracy paranoia and the ever-popular but rarely realistic slippery slope argument....


OOC: WooHoo! It's not a humdrum tedious combination of conspiracy paranoia and slippery slope argumentation, it's a marvelous combination! Thank you so very much, as a writer, if technical, by trade this accolade made my day. But I am slightly miffed that you failed to call out the subtle yet blatant demagoguery and fear mongering in the statement./OOC

deffinately a member - FOR - this *nods*

Man, what a load of tripe:
http://www.gospain.org/Spain_Images/cooking/72.jpg

When you refer to the proposals to repeal the WHL I have a feeling that you've never actually read the details of the resolution to see what horrible atrocities can befall anyone because of it.

Check out the reasoning for repealing it URL="http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481640"]here[/URL]

The representative from the United Planets may feel that I have not read the proposal and the published arguments for and against, but the representative is incorrect.

I see that the mechanism that has developed for placing items on the WHL is open to abuse as anyone can place anything on the list, but it also seems to me that the very same lack of controls enables anyone to remove anything from the list. The upshot it would seem to me is that only those items that are unobjectionable will remain on the list.

I am new to this august body, so perhaps I missed something in this regard, and if so I look forward to having my understanding broadened by more informed members.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Chair

OOC: Slacker. :p
OOC: Spam-Whore. :p

The representative from the United Planets may feel that I have not read the proposal and the published arguments for and against, but the representative is incorrect.

I see that the mechanism that has developed for placing items on the WHL is open to abuse as anyone can place anything on the list, but it also seems to me that the very same lack of controls enables anyone to remove anything from the list. The upshot it would seem to me is that only those items that are unobjectionable will remain on the list.

I am new to this august body, so perhaps I missed something in this regard, and if so I look forward to having my understanding broadened by more informed members.

Regards,
vonKreedon, Reidalian Syndic Chair
Very well, I apologize for my insinuations against you, however the point remains that the WHL can and will be abused and that the removal of it from the books will prevent any issues about the legality of adding/removing from the list.

We would be more than willing to continue this discussion with you, but we believe it would best be held in the proper place (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481640) as for the remaining time that this forumn has should be dedicated to the celebrations/last minute complaints about the repeal of Citizen Rule Required and not with our unrelated argument.

Already our citizens elect the presidential and vice-presidential electors, senators and assemblymen, state governors and legislators, and a veritible shitload of local officials (including, but not limited to, mayors, city councilmen, sheriffs, school-board and county water-board members, armored C-4 penguin-catchers, and porn stars).


Good grief!

I am making the perhaps unwarranted assumption that the UN is made up exclusively of humans,

Definitely unwarranted. For example: St Edmund's population includes a small proportion of Ouphes and Ouph/Human hybrids although a majority of its people are purely Human in ancestry, Ausserland's population is over 90% Dwarves, Ardchoille's population includes a species of sapient, bipedal felines as well as its humans, there's a Dragon amongst the ambassadors often to be found in the Strangers' Bar, I seem to recall that Forgottenlands also has some non-humans, and nobody's quite sure whether the Kennyites really count as human (or even as fully sapient) ;) .

I vote for this

I vote for this


Excellent! You're just in time for the vote!






:rolleyes:

Well you can't really blame him, considering the title still says it's at vote -_-

Well you can't really blame him, considering the title still says it's at vote -_-

OOC: I can find a way to pretty much blame anyone for anything. ;)

I am making the perhaps unwarranted assumption that the UN is made up exclusively of humans,

Definitely unwarranted. For example: St Edmund's population includes a small proportion of Ouphes and Ouph/Human hybrids although a majority of its people are purely Human in ancestry, Ausserland's population is over 90% Dwarves, Ardchoille's population includes a species of sapient, bipedal felines as well as its humans, there's a Dragon amongst the ambassadors often to be found in the Strangers' Bar, I seem to recall that Forgottenlands also has some non-humans, and nobody's quite sure whether the Kennyites really count as human (or even as fully sapient) .

I agree with St. Edmund. United Planets consists of close to a hundred different species. As well as various hybrids.

I've seen several non-human races in NS. I'm not sure how many of them are in the UN, but any of them could join at any time.

Then the UN Resolution category "Human Rights" and references to humans in UN legislation is short hand for sentient beings? I see no problem with that if the Elves and Dwarves and other species have no problem with being categorized as Human.

Then the UN Resolution category "Human Rights" and references to humans in UN legislation is short hand for sentient beings? I see no problem with that if the Elves and Dwarves and other species have no problem with being categorized as Human.
Generally we do use the term 'humans' when referring to the general populous, but often since most of the species share the same basic form (two legs, two arms, one head) we often use the term 'humanoid' although we have encountered Insectoids, shapeshifters and non-corporeal life.

Then the UN Resolution category "Human Rights" and references to humans in UN legislation is short hand for sentient beings? I see no problem with that if the Elves and Dwarves and other species have no problem with being categorized as Human.

This has been debated. The current situation is that some nations recognise sapient non-humans as possessing human rights (at least in as far as these are appopriate for the species concerned) but others don't do so. There have been some proposals to extend the rights universally through UN resolutions, but none of these have been successful...

OOC: WooHoo! It's not a humdrum tedious combination of conspiracy paranoia and slippery slope argumentation, it's a marvelous combination! Thank you so very much, as a writer, if technical, by trade this accolade made my day. But I am slightly miffed that you failed to call out the subtle yet blatant demagoguery and fear mongering in the statement./OOC
OOC: You have arrived!

and nobody's quite sure whether the Kennyites really count as human (or even as fully sapient) ;).I'll have you know, Weisenheimer, that four out of five anthropologists have concluded that Kennyites are minimally intelligent. Four out of five! How many anthropologists have verified the intelligence of your nation's population, hmm?

Moreover, an extensive study conducted by Jane Goodall comparing Kennyites and chimpanzees finds that we excel in most tasks involving random thought. The only area where the chimps surpassed the Kennyites was in programming a VCR -- where 32% of the Kennyite test subjects were unable to record a rerun of "Dharma and Greg" (and 23% were actually dumb enough to record "Dharma and Greg"), 43% of the chimps were at least smart enough to order TiVo. The study's conclusion: Kennyites meet the absolute minimum intelligence standards to qualify for sapience, and are fully capable of electing their own porn stars.

Perhaps it is simply that the Kennyites have a built in, instinctual drive to avoid keeping any rerun of Dharma and Greg around if they can at all avoid it.

I'll have you know, Weisenheimer, that four out of five anthropologists have concluded that Kennyites are minimally intelligent. Four out of five! How many anthropologists have verified the intelligence of your nation's population, hmm?

Unanswerable, just unanswerable...

(OOC: My subconscious mind has started producing images of 'Tarzan of the Kennys' ;) )