NationStates Jolt Archive


Human Rights

Niploma
31-05-2006, 16:58
The Anumist Alliance Declaration of Human Rights; enforced via the Law on Human Rights. The 'Fifteen Points' are as follows:

Every Anumistian citizen has the...

[1] Right to equality and dignity.
[2] Freedom to express whatever views one holds.
[3] Freedom from discrimination.
[4] Right to life, liberty and personal security.
[5] Freedom from forced labour and slavery.
[6] Right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty.
[7] Right to freedom of movement.
[8] Right to free marriage, free love and family.
[9] Right to own property.
[10] Right to a fair public hearing when questioned over ones (unlawful) actions.
[11] Right to participate in government; free elections under universal suffrage.
[12] Right to education.
[13] Right to participate in cultural and scientific life.
[14] Right to social security.
[15] Right to choose employment, to strike and to join a trade union.

In addition every Anumistian has the right to a fair and just social order that obeys this Law. Ergo, every Anumistian citizen has the right to be protected by this law.

If a state believes it is of the utmost importance that one, some, several, many or all of these points are broken they may do so. However, at a later unspecified date they can and will be brought in front of a fair international tribunal where they will have to defend their reasons as to why any of these points were broken. If found guilty it is up to the Judges, Jury and other likewise members of trial to choose the outcome of the nation.

However;

In reference to Point Two, ''Freedom to express whatever view one holds''. This allows any Anumistian to perform any act they wish to. However, any act they choose must not offend any other citizen to a reasonable degree and nor should it cause any harm - physically or mentally - to any citizen.

In reference to Point 7, ''Right of freedom of movement''. This has already been covered in ''Law on Emigration and Refuge''. Regardless, every Anumistian can lawfully move freely to any destination they choose.

In reference to Point 9, ''Right to own property''. This may be seen as the forcible ending of Communist societies. This Bill simply states every citizen has the right to property. If any society wishes to disobey this law they will have to, as previously described, argue this to an international tribunal.

In reference to Point 11, ''Right to participate in government; free elections under universal suffrage.''. Much like Point 9 authoritarian governments will have to argue their disobeyment of this point in front of an international tribunal.

Path of Complaint

If a citizen in a society or a group of citizens in any society breaks any of the points they are to be tried in their own country.

If a mixed group of citizens from several societies or states breaks any of these points they are to be tried by an international tribunal.

If a state breaks any of the points the Government and any other third-parties involved are to be tried in an international tribunal.

If a rogue state breaks any of the points they too shall be tried in an international tribunal.

If a refugee or other likewise individual who has no nationality breaks any of these points they are to be tried in an international tribunal.

***

This Law is designed to keep simple human rights enforced by law and to punish those who break this Law.

Law on Human Rights

This is from our region, The Anumist Alliance. I drafted it this morning. Could it work on a multi-region UN basis?
Forgottenlands
31-05-2006, 17:02
[1] Right to equality and dignity. - done
[2] Freedom to express whatever views one holds.- done
[3] Freedom from discrimination.- done
[4] Right to life, liberty and personal security.
[5] Freedom from forced labour and slavery.- "done"
[6] Right to be seen as innocent until proven guilty.- done
[7] Right to freedom of movement.- done
[8] Right to free marriage, free love and family. - Huh?
[9] Right to own property. - possibly illegal
[10] Right to a fair public hearing when questioned over ones (unlawful) actions.- done
[11] Right to participate in government; free elections under universal suffrage.- illegal
[12] Right to education.- done
[13] Right to participate in cultural and scientific life.- done (I think)
[14] Right to social security.
[15] Right to choose employment, to strike and to join a trade union.- done
Cluichstan
31-05-2006, 19:36
You left out the right to use bold text.
My Travelling Harem
31-05-2006, 19:39
Why right in plan when you can use bold instead....

Quick question for you:
Did you even look at previously existing UN resolutions before writing this? Nearly everything you suggested already exists, some in multiple forms.
I certainly admire what you tried to do, but it didn't need to be done. I would recommend taking a look at those resolutions some time. I am sure you will notice that there is a lot of crap that needs to be fixed. Since you are clearly the ideas type, you may want to make a few suggestions.

--Rooty
Sophista
31-05-2006, 22:21
[9] Right to own property. - possibly illegal

Not possibly - definitely. A government run by a benevolent dictator, who is the sole owner of all property, and only allows citizens to use his things as a common couretsy would be outlawed by this proposal. I recall Vastiva and a handful of other nations partaking of this kind of government, which would invalidate this proposal as it bans a specific type of government.
Golgothastan
31-05-2006, 22:22
Not possibly - definitely. A government run by a benevolent dictator, who is the sole owner of all property, and only allows citizens to use his things as a common couretsy would be outlawed by this proposal. I recall Vastiva and a handful of other nations partaking of this kind of government, which would invalidate this proposal as it bans a specific type of government.
There is already a right to property under UN law. So whilst it may be illegal according to the UN proposal rules, it's not illegal in fact, until "End Slavery" is repealed.
Sophista
31-05-2006, 22:35
There is already a right to property under UN law. So whilst it may be illegal according to the UN proposal rules, it's not illegal in fact, until "End Slavery" is repealed.

The rules are not applied retroactively, so while the former rights are grandfathered in, any new proposal that makes such a violation would not be allowed. At least, that is my understanding of the issue.
Golgothastan
31-05-2006, 22:42
The rules are not applied retroactively, so while the former rights are grandfathered in, any new proposal that makes such a violation would not be allowed. At least, that is my understanding of the issue.
Yes, I agree.
Forgottenlands
31-05-2006, 23:26
Not possibly - definitely. A government run by a benevolent dictator, who is the sole owner of all property, and only allows citizens to use his things as a common couretsy would be outlawed by this proposal. I recall Vastiva and a handful of other nations partaking of this kind of government, which would invalidate this proposal as it bans a specific type of government.

While there is certainly argument that it might be an ideological ban, I'm honestly not sure whether the mods would view it as such, hence the possibly
Sophista
01-06-2006, 00:58
While there is certainly argument that it might be an ideological ban, I'm honestly not sure whether the mods would view it as such, hence the possibly

It applies on a base level to communisim as well. If the state owns and distributes all goods, what is left to own?
Forgottenlands
01-06-2006, 01:40
It applies on a base level to communisim as well. If the state owns and distributes all goods, what is left to own?

Your allotment of the goods.

I said a long time ago that pure systems have been sliced off. You can't have pure communism, capitalism, democracy, etc, etc, etc. Slicing of a small chunk of a system is not necessarily an ideological ban. Slicing off the entire system is. Would property rights count? Maybe. Maybe not. It wasn't that long ago that we were discussing how to improve the wording of ideological ban - and even then, we weren't entirely sure exactly how it applies. Honestly, I think it actually wouldn't violate the ideological ban - but I'm sure St Edmund, for one, would believe that it should.
Cluichstan
01-06-2006, 13:55
Honestly, I think it actually wouldn't violate the ideological ban - but I'm sure St Edmund, for one, would believe that it should.

How can you be sure? Has any one of us actually managed to understand St Edmund's wacky economic "system"? ;)
St Edmundan Antarctic
01-06-2006, 14:45
How can you be sure? Has any one of us actually managed to understand St Edmund's wacky economic "system"? ;)

You seem to be getting St Edmund confused with Jey...
Forgottenlands
01-06-2006, 15:08
How can you be sure? Has any one of us actually managed to understand St Edmund's wacky economic "system"? ;)

No

A few months back, St Edmund was banging the drums about ideological ban.
Cluichstan
01-06-2006, 15:13
You seem to be getting St Edmund confused with Jey...

Right, sorry. My mistake.
Bahgum
01-06-2006, 17:26
Human 'rights', yet another example of blatant leftism.
St Edmundan Antarctic
01-06-2006, 17:57
Human 'rights', yet another example of blatant leftism.

... and speciesism...
Compadria
01-06-2006, 18:36
[8] Right to free marriage, free love and family.

Wasn't free love covered by a resolution already?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
The joined empires
01-06-2006, 18:38
oh rly:rolleyes:
Cluichstan
01-06-2006, 18:39
Wasn't free love covered by a resolution already?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I should hope not! If love were free, my nation's largest corporation, Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21), would go under, wrecking our economy!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Forgottenlands
01-06-2006, 18:40
Wasn't free love covered by a resolution already?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

One wonders how you could charge for love anyways.....

EDIT: love the emotion.....not love the slang for sex
Compadria
01-06-2006, 19:30
I should hope not! If love were free, my nation's largest corporation, Cluichstani Private Entertainment Services Ltd. (http://s11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=21), would go under, wrecking our economy!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

And leaving thousands of my nation's men (and women) bereft.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.
Cluichstan
01-06-2006, 19:32
Not just your nation's, Otterby. CPESL is everywhere...