NationStates Jolt Archive

I started this thread here because it isn't an official complaint, but a question on blocker legality. As I have a proposal in the queue (submitted by Hirota) on the same subject, my opinions will be biased, whether I mean them to be or not, so I want to open this up to opinions from the rest of you.

After carefully reading this proposal, that has just reached quorum, through several times, I am wondering if it is legal. It is a pure nat sov blocker that actually does absolutely nothing except block.

Euthanasia Legality Convention
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Pro-Sovereignty Babes
Description: RECOGNIZING that good people disagree over the issue of Euthanasia. Since euthanasia can be broadly defined to mean very different things (from consent to withdrawing food and water) there are also many degrees of opinion.

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many nations who believe Euthanasia is a human rights issue, to give people the right to have euthanasia legal, while others see euthanasia as a human rights issue to protect members of their society from active euthanasia. Further acknowledging that there are many more opinions that divide people on this issue.

BELIEVING that for the United Nations to rule decisively on this issue one way or the other would prevent those who disagree to violate their core beliefs from being a part of this world body.

REGRETTING that strong opinions on both sides will fail to bring those who disagree to any reasonable agreement on this issue,

SEEKING to establish a middle ground:

DECLARES that individual nations have the right to declare euthanasia legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to Euthanasia.

URGES the UN to pursue unity over all "deeply divisive" issues like abortion and euthanasia. This will prevent a Dis-United Nations and allow more participation from nations who might not otherwise choose to be involved.

After reading that, I went and uncovered a thread Hack started a while ago that discussed the legality of these sort of proposals. Some of what I read in there has me wondering.

Rethinking The Ruleset ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477482)

It does seem to be a category violation as it is under moral decency, which is " A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency." This proposal doesn't restrict anything, heck it doesn't do anything at all, except block the UN itself which, as an organisation, has no civil freedoms to restrict.

I am one of those who hates ALC with a passion, but even I have to concede it does have an effect on nations and does do something besides blocking any sort of legislation on the subject and has earned its category through its recommend clauses. This one, as far as I can see, doesn't do that, in fact as I've said several times already, it does nothing.

My question is do we really want to go down the road of these sort of blockers, that are written solely to stop the UN and not have the slightest effect on nations at all?

Every passed resolution affects our nations through stat changes, and I do think resolutions must have something solid within them, pro or con, be it strong, significant or mild to justify that.

I have to agree, mean what is the difference between this and something which says:
"DECLARES that individual nations have the right to declare everything legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to everything."
Cos as far as I see it, if you allow this proposal, then you are allowing this kind of resolution, which basically kills off the whole point of having a UN!

The argument is going to be about the extreme divisiveness of certain issues.

From abortion to euthanasia? That's a bit of a downgrade in controversy, as far as I can tell. Nukes will be next, I'm sure.

I don't like the blocker.

If this is legal, I think we need to legalize blockers on blockers: DECLARES that the UN has the right to legislate on all matters. And then a blocker on blockers on blockers: DECLARES that nations have the right to propose blockers. And then blockers on blockers on blockers on blockers. And so on. :p

Every issue brought to the floor is divisive. Every issue has its supporters and its opposition. Every issue can result in heated debate, the only difference is degree. True unity in the UN is a pipe dream that has no chance of ever happening in reality because that would mean every resolution would need to pass with a 100% majority. No resolution has managed that yet and I suspect none ever will.

Every issue brought to the floor is divisive. Every issue has its supporters and its opposition. Every issue can result in heated debate, the only difference is degree. True unity in the UN is a pipe dream that has no chance of ever happening in reality because that would mean every resolution would need to pass with a 100% majority. No resolution has managed that yet and I suspect none ever will.

Until the people who take it seriously leave, and those who are left submit things like "The UN Nations are more awesome than j00," I don't see a 100% passage either.

If this is legal, I think we need to legalize blockers on blockers: DECLARES that the UN has the right to legislate on all matters. And then a blocker on blockers on blockers: DECLARES that nations have the right to propose blockers. And then blockers on blockers on blockers on blockers. And so on. :p

Just thinking about that is making me dizzy :D.

Please, people! The UN is not the Land of 10,000 Blockers; not every UN issue needs a "blocker"! Especially this one, where there's nothing to "block"! There is no equivalent "Clinical Euthanasia Rights" proposal or somesuch; there is no enduring euthanasia shitstorm. Besides, I do think that even "blockers" should contain some kind of language pressuring nations to change their laws.

Euthanize this resolution.

I was thinking on the same issue of blockers and such in here then the never ending effort to repeal them because they do nothing but block other possible resolutions. As this would be game mech may not be proper to mention it here but this is my idea of how to possibly cut down on these and maybe get us back to dealing with issues more in line with what the UN needs to be working on..

To have a nation submit an Article of Neutrality on a given issue.. it would go to vote must reach querom and then just like anything be voted on. The difference is that once the proposal reaches querom it must to pass get 2/3 vote to become an active resolutoon rather than a simple majority.. Thus telling membership that we want to euthanaise the issue. Title of proposal would simply be Article of Neutrality on Euthanasia or Abortion or Captal Punishment or whatever. To repeal one should that happen they would require a 2/3 vote.. This would make it harder to push these through and thus hopefully move folks to turn to other issues and leave these be.. again this would be game meck.. but is a possible solution to end to have useless blockers that somebody will come along and try to repeal simply for that. We may have these on all sorts of issues but with higher requirement to get them passed and then once passed the higher requirement to get them repealed it should cut down the efforts..

Or the AofN could give in effect notice that any proposal comes before the UN on said issue once it has been passed will need 2/3 vote to get through and become a resolution.. This means that once the AofN is passed any future proposals on the issue need 2/3 to pass rather than the simple majority. Thus it would not require repealing the AofN as the vote on the proposal would take it out if it is 2/3 for.. again this is game mech but just some thoughts.

Article of Neutrality on Laughing
The UN has debated this issue and found it to be a matter of extreme pain on individual nations who differ on how they laugh. Thus the UN will not propose any set resolutions on how to laugh that could futher ticlke membership. All future proposals on this issue to laugh must once in querom recieve 2/3 majority for them to pass into resolution. Once 2/3 majority is reached on a proposal this funny AofL becomes null and void.
I know game mech but go easy we all need a little time out... of that padded cell we are in... hiding from this worlds insanity...

Nukes will be next, I'm sure.
No they won't (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9384768&postcount=110)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

After reading that, I went and uncovered a thread Hack started a while ago that discussed the legality of these sort of proposals. Some of what I read in there has me wondering.

Rethinking The Ruleset ( http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=477482)Hm, yes. That stalled out. Nothing in there is binding, yet. I'm still not sure on my views of things. The bits in there on ideology bans are considerably closer to being binding than the stuff on blockers.

That said, I don't like blockers. I really don't like blockers that don't do a damned thing except say "The UN can't do this." ALC actually does something, even if it's only urging (which is fitting for Mild). This? This is illegal as it does nothing except prevent the UN from acting.

Thanks for your response Hack, it confirmed what I thought.

I don't like blockers either, but if they are here to stay then perhaps reviving that old thread and everyone working out some guidelines of what they must include to be legal would be helpful?

This? This is illegal as it does nothing except prevent the UN from acting.
So, is the proposal in question illegal? Because it has reached quorum and is in queue.

Hm? Oh, yes, it is. I just haven't gotten around to nuking it yet. I'll get right on that...

Cos as far as I see it, if you allow this proposal, then you are allowing this kind of resolution, which basically kills off the whole point of having a UN!


Unless you see the point of the UN as being to pass resolutions about matters that actually require international cooperation, which are probably less likely to be controversial [& therefore attract such blockers] than resolutions that intrude on matters such as public morality which the individual nations can -- & would prefer to -- decide upon locally for themselves without directly affecting other countries...

Would you be as keen on the UN being interventionist if it was tending to pass resolutions that went against your beliefs, e.g.(1) outright bans on euthanasia, or e.g.(2) requirements to teach Creationism in 'Science' lessons?

Utterly deplorable. Maybe you would like to look at standing UN Resolutions, namely the Abortion Legality Convention. Good grief.

Unless you see the point of the UN as being to pass resolutions about matters that actually require international cooperation, which are probably less likely to be controversial [& therefore attract such blockers] than resolutions that intrude on matters such as public morality which the individual nations can -- & would prefer to -- decide upon locally for themselves without directly affecting other countries...

Would you be as keen on the UN being interventionist if it was tending to pass resolutions that went against your beliefs, e.g.(1) outright bans on euthanasia, or e.g.(2) requirements to teach Creationism in 'Science' lessons?

Well what if I went and passed a resolution that blocked the ability for the UN to legislate on terrorism. Obviously an area that most would consider an International issue, but also an area where opinions are sharply divided. Blockers don't just work one way.

And seriously:
1) You think the UN would pass either a creationist or anti-euthanasia resolution?
2) Considering the real world is pro-passive euthanasia and anti-active euthanasia, I could live with it anyways
3) I've stated before that I consider it fair game for the UN to pass "interfering" resolutions that I disagree with. I believe that is the right of the UN and, while I will fight against them, I will not prefer a blocker over that resolution. In effect, I would rather a resolution that outlaws abortion than for ALC to remain on the books.

Utterly deplorable. Maybe you would like to look at standing UN Resolutions, namely the Abortion Legality Convention. Good grief.

There has been a lot of discussion about the legality of blocker resolutions and looking through many blockers that have been passed. In effect, we're starting to believe that a resolution like Nuclear Armaments and Euthanasia Legality Convention as being illegal while Abortion Legality Convention and (depending on who you aske) UNSA as being legal. If you haven't vested the time into reading this thread to see why, then I shall leave it as an exercise for you to work it out yourself.

Unless you see the point of the UN as being to pass resolutions about matters that actually require international cooperation, which are probably less likely to be controversial [& therefore attract such blockers] than resolutions that intrude on matters such as public morality which the individual nations can -- & would prefer to -- decide upon locally for themselves without directly affecting other countries...

Would you be as keen on the UN being interventionist if it was tending to pass resolutions that went against your beliefs, e.g.(1) outright bans on euthanasia, or e.g.(2) requirements to teach Creationism in 'Science' lessons?

Human rights do require international co-operation, to ensure all beings that breath have them. Some of us believe that is more important than nat sov.

The UN has passed several resolutions of late that go against my beliefs, the worst being ALC. My choices to deal with that are accept it, or fight to get rid of them.

Blockers are forcing personal beliefs on nations too you know. They aren't the benign neutral stance some people seem to think they are. These sort of proposals are nothing more than the nat sov belief that nations should choose and are just as much forcing opinions on these subjects on all nations as views on one side or the other are. That just makes them a different way of looking at the issue, and not necessarily a better way.

My question here would be how does the UN membership say we wish to remain neutral on this issue..? If they can't say nations have the right to decide on this and the UN will let them! As there comes a point the UN needs to make some active statment on the issue that says we know it is an issue of concern for membership so lets vote on it... and this is what we propose.

A... To ban it among all members.
B... To make all members do it.
C... To let members do what they want

AS I don't see the UN having to always promote A and B... thus creating division and constant strife over one issue such as Abortion, Euthanasia, Capital Punishment and some of the others... when there are other issues that need addressing that are more important than these..

Somebody said Terrorism... then trade... then weapons trafficking... which are some that comes to mind for me.

So how does the UN stay neutral and say this is where we stand on it..? As any proposal that takes a neutral stand to most would do nothing and be considered a blocker.. since that is what it does. even ones that say nations can make their own laws or not make them..


As far as a proposal stopping future action unless they say this then how do they stop future actions? As any proposal can be repealed thus future action can be taken.. So if you ban something it stops any proposals that deal with doing it until the ban is repealed.. thus stops future actions.. So in a way all proposals are blockers some just do more than others.. to one side of the issue or other... so why not have them that ride the fence instead of lean to one side of it..?

I think the best way for the UN to be truly neutral on an issue is for delegates not to endorse it to the floor, and if it does get there, for the membership to vote it down. Both of those show the membership don't want that issue addressed. Passing a blocker on an issue doesn't show neutrality, it just shows the majority supported a nat sov position as opposed to a legalise or ban position. In a way, with blockers, we have just gone from two options in proposal writing on every issue to three.

Thing is though, a lot of members do want these issues addressed. I wrote a replacement for the recently repealed euthenasia resolution because I believe it is a human rights issue, and important. Others won't agree with that, as is their right, and they will vote against it if I ever get it to the floor. You may be interested to know that a decent sized chunk of delegate endorsements I have attracted for it so far came from those who voted for the repeal.

legaliseThis word here is one thing in many proposals turns folks to oppose it or love it.... as they see it as mandating folks have to do it... period end of the matter.. As think both abortion and euthanasia were legalised at some point and folks felt it denied individual nations the right to control it or deal with it. We legalise a lot of things but still limit or regulate them. Gun ownership, drinking, driving just to note a few. As most again feel the UN should take some side on the issue.... like say only those over 18 may own guns or drive or drink... then we debate is that the right age or not. so where do we go neutral.. on any issue.

How do you promote respect for individual beliefs on any issue yet make everyone happy..?

As far as delagates not voting one to the floor that will not happen as long as there are those come in read titles and like them so vote for them with no idea what they contain. As titles like Ban or Legalize whatever there will be those okay them just on that. Well guess that keeps us busy trying to muddle through the trash to reach the good stuff...

On Euthanasia as well as Abortion we would support them but with limits and restricts to protect people from abuse either way. As we have seen abuse in these in real life either way. Had a gal went to school with died because she got an illegal abortion.. My mother was not allowed to die because of hospital policy on letting her do so... also later learned that the doctors and hospital had done several costly tests on her... two days after she was pronounded dead.. however they had not signed the death certificate... heck she was cremated 30 hours after death and they did two tests on her after that.. took two years in court but some doctors and hospital paid..

If enough people don't want something passed, then they won't vote to do it, as the current resolution at vote is proving. If the majority do, then the minority that don't like that decision have options open to them. Blockers aren't the only answer, and sometimes cause just as much heat as the issue they are addressing.

The thing is every member of the UN will feel differently on different issues. While one group of people will feel only issues like abortion and euthenasia should be UN neutral, others will want drugs, guns and the death penalty included too, while yet another group will want to add anything outside what they feel the UN should be involved in, and yet another group will want their agenda addressed the same way. Where does it stop?

Where does it stop?

Wherever the General Assembly chooses to stop it. Frankly, I'm not sure why it's so troubling. Trends in legislation come and go in the UN. It's unlikely that this one will become an enduring feature, to my mind. The slope is actually not that slippery.

I do understand that, but lets face it, the idea of the blocker is out there now, and its not just an experienced nat sov member writing the occasional one up for a very contentious issue anymore.

I do understand that, but lets face it, the idea of the blocker is out there now, and its not just an experienced nat sov member writing the occasional one up for a very contentious issue anymore.I think the one thing for a blocker is it serves to when repealed wake folks up to the issue and starts them thinking on it again.. Thus for me alerts me that something new is coming one way or other on that issue... from somewhere. As don't check the current proposals up for vote since not a delagate.. Do try to check forum and add my two cents here when one comes up for debate.. most of them being these repeals.. as then expect something new.. and hope it gets in here so can add my two cents for what it might be worth...

First off, aren't these things supposed to have debates? The issue was public dency/morality, so it wasn't out of subject to my knowledge. This was deleted almost as quickly as it reached queue. Which was quick, fast, and with wideranging support. I mean I thought the UN was democratic.

Secondly, national sovereignty is a real NS political philosophy that ensures the rights of nations as opposed to fictional people living in these nations. It ensures the person running the nation can decide on that issue. It gains it original ground from the founding statement in NS by Max himself that states the abilitiy to choose any type of nation.
//Build a nation and run it according to your own warped political ideals. Create a Utopian paradise for society's less fortunate or a totalitarian corporate police state. Care for your people or deliberately oppress them.//
Obviously the next part concerns joining the UN or being a rogue state, which has often been the call of anti-sovereignists. Yet, NatSov has maintained throughout (as opposed to original anti-UN movement which stayed out of the UN) that the UN should be grounds for freedom to and that joining this important body to gameplay doesn't mean you have to sell your nation to the masses. This philosophy is not passive (not vote, vote against) but actively supports legislation (like ELC) that changes the UN to fit its worldview. This is exactly what everyone who ever wished to pass a UN resolution had in mind, to change the world. There is no difference in my eyes.
To openly oppose this philosophy not only with words but with moderation power is an abuse of power in my opinion. Additionally, the UN does not want to have a 'blocker' for many things. Doesn't want it for hunger, AIDs, terrorism, slavery, and a host of other international issues. If blockers are made in these issues, they are thrown out quickly. The only things that have shown wide support in having them up to each nation is issues like euthanasia and abortion. Many would like to see these voted either way (pro or against) well knowing which side would win. The idea (though it has the overwhelming majority of actual UN members support) of leaving it up to each nation does have a chance of passing. Thus we see antipathy towards this third way because it actually challenges the status quo.

This overwhelming majority will likely be attempted to be pulled apart as with the rest of my post. Well, let me state the repeal of legalize euthanasia as proof. Despite it containing a stanze opposed to euthanasia which the great number of UN nations appear not to support, it got 62%. This is obviously not the potential maximum for such a resolution considering most of the clamor was not about the repeal (which few questioned the need to have in some degree) or national sovereignty (which some did question, but a small minority), rather how it put in the books anti-euthanasia sentiment in the UN record books. Even still, 62%. I'd be safe to assume that at least 75% would have approved if this stanza wasn't present and it maintained simply to support each nation to decide the issue.

Continuing on the point of majorities (which most democratic institution pay heed to) the statement was made by Hirota (who happens to want to put another resolution ensuring euthanasia which gosh golly gosh has less endorsements than ELC did within 24 hours.):
//I have to agree, mean what is the difference between this and something which says:
"DECLARES that individual nations have the right to declare everything legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to everything."
Cos as far as I see it, if you allow this proposal, then you are allowing this kind of resolution, which basically kills off the whole point of having a UN!//

The difference as we and all logical folk know is that such a resolution banning legislation would fail miserably in the UN b/c the majority don't support it. There have been attempts to block various items that failed miserably. There have also been attempts at repealing the Abortion Legality Convention, failed miserably as well. The key is democracy, majority, and the rule (as all resolutions follow) that if this UN has consensus then all UN members follow it until it is repealed. Be it a blocker or a normal activist resolution... what are there similarities? They both cause debate (see above) and allow for the majority of the UN to speak their minds. Is it just me or is that what democracy is about? Or is it about the above not getting what they want and thus not agreeing with a philosophy that opposes them?

I wrote the proposal currently in the list for Right to die, not Hirota. He just submitted it for me because I didn't have the endorsements at the time. He had no input into the actual proposal at all.

ELC did absolutly nothing, recommended nothing and urged nothing and had no effects on nations whatsoever. That is why it was deemed illegal, not some sort of conspiracy. If you read this whole thread, and the one linked to in my opening post, you will get more info on why.

Wherever the General Assembly chooses to stop it. Frankly, I'm not sure why it's so troubling. Trends in legislation come and go in the UN. It's unlikely that this one will become an enduring feature, to my mind. The slope is actually not that slippery.

That's the thing that concerns me about PSB - he's intelligent enough to write a resolution but not to understand what it means. I think the massive debate over that one line in the repeal proved that. He doesn't get it, yet he'll still writes it. That's why I actually still see Change as a minor player in the UN

The General Assembly isn't sitting down here watching our debates. They keep track of the number of repeals but so far, they haven't seemed to have kept track of the number of NatSov resolutions that have come along. As such, I'm more concerned about the guy who likes playing with fire than the question whether he'll get burned. I don't see PSB stopping.

As I said in many other posts this is something I hate. Useless Resolutions that block other new resolutions. If the UN dosen't want the resolution then clearly it is not going to pass then why do you need a blocker. If the UN wants it why the heck should it slow itself down unnessasarily.

Also there are sooooo many things that the Un dislikes that it would take one load of resolutions to ban them all and does alot of unnessasary clutter. As this happens more and more then it will look much better and eventualy we will have like 50 resolutions that have no real effect other then absolute stupidity. Also later the Un is going to say these are stupid as they are and start repealing them so then we will have another 40 repeals. So whenever you want to find things it will be so much more bogged down because of all this clutter that stupid people put there.

Also people say there won't be all that many only on "controvertial issues" well for a start BLOCKERS ARE CONTROVERTIAL. Also what about capital punishment maybe we need one on that because there is a heated debate on that. Or what about concription we need that too don't we. Oh ya and legalization of guns alot of people oppose that... do you really want me to continue? You know it is easy to find these issues they are everywhere. So why don't we just stop this sillyness now before this get really out of hand.

Please calm the freak down. In all the UN's history, there have been a grand total of three blockers, out of 160-some resolutions. Plus, a moderator has already demonstrated, in this very thread, that there are limits to blockers' legality. There are tons of Mild-strength proposals out there that have just as little effect on members and "slow down" the process just as much as any blocker, yet you're not blowing your top over any of them. Why? A blocker is simply a Mild proposal with an added bonus; it states flatly what is already implicit in Mild resolutions: You do whatever the hell you want.

You don't like "clutter," take it up with the admins; they're the ones who programmed the Mild strength into the game.

Useless Resolutions that block other new resolutions.Let me ask you if you would consider something like this as useless in regards to a proposal on some issue..

Mandates:
A) That all UN member nations will establish laws on 'this issue' and provide copies of said laws on requests to anyone wishing to visit their nation.
B) That these laws will clearly define 'this issue' and what is and is not allowed in regards to 'this issue'.
C) That member nations will not try to enforce their own laws on 'this issue' outside their borders and will follow other nations laws on 'this issue' when inside their borders.
D) That member nations will only apply their laws on 'this issue' only when those laws on 'this issue' have been violated within their nations borders or jurisdiction throught a binding treaty that covers such issues as 'this issue'.
E) That citizens of one nation wishing to visit another nation are responsible for knowing and understanding that nation's laws that they wish to visit and to comply with them while within the borders of that nation.

Disregarding my poor typing and spelling and grammar but looking at intent let me know if this would be considered useless.. Also if it would be illegal. Also would have to have some opening statement and probably a closing statement but my concern is the Mandated items.. as that would be the part that either does nothing or it not legal.. since rest would be nothing but dressing...

Illegal, duplication

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.

In an IC sense, Gruenberg is disappointed, because we fear the proposal this one would have "blocked" may pass, and this might have severe repercussions for our programs to euthanise the elderly, sick, and racially inferior.

In an OOC sense, I'm glad of this opportunity, because it has made it clearer to me what is legal, and what illegal. It also makes me firmer in my convictions expressed in the Rethinking thread (which I won't gravedig to repeat myself) that the rules on NatSov proposals should not be changed, because as demonstrated here (and as Cogitation via HotRodia had already said) the Category Violation clause is sufficient to cover proposals that "do nothing".

Cogitation via HotRodia

What?

What?
As Cog told me long ago when I checked with him on the legality of my first death penalty proposal, there is no "the UN should stay out of this" category. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10765996&postcount=62)

As Cog told me long ago when I checked with him on the legality of my first death penalty proposal, there is no "the UN should stay out of this" category. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10765996&postcount=62)Does that mean, that if the now notorious ALC were to be submitted now, it would be deemed illegal? Obviously that doesn't mean it should be repealled (regardless of how I feel about it), but that does have consequences on similar divisive matters in the future, as it is unlikely we will ever see closure on some matters - we will see repeals on divisive matters for the forseeable future.

No.......ALC can actually be fit to a category. The same cannot be said for ELC.

Please, people! The UN is not the Land of 10,000 Blockers; not every UN issue needs a "blocker"! Especially this one, where there's nothing to "block"! There is no equivalent "Clinical Euthanasia Rights" proposal or somesuch; there is no enduring euthanasia shitstorm. Besides, I do think that even "blockers" should contain some kind of language pressuring nations to change their laws.

Euthanize this resolution.


I have to agree with Kenny on this one. Not all issues need blocked. There are only two remaining issues I'd like to see 'blocked", and both are devisive...Capital Punishment, and Civillian Ownership of Firearms. I've been on other forums such as tne NatSovOrg, which has discussed these issues, and generally the discussion usually comes down to, can these be written in a way, under the word limit and actually do something, and does it have a hope in Hell of passing. Unfortunately the answer is usually no. However I am not giving up hope.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

No.......ALC can actually be fit to a category. The same cannot be said for ELC.
Agreed. Safalra did challenge ALC's legality; it was overruled. It urged a partial birth ban - hence it was Moral Decency, Mild.

If you mean "were Clause 1 of ALC submitted in isolation"...yes, I imagine it would be illegal.

Illegal, duplication

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.Since this is simply a statement that defines a right but doesn't mandate that right then it does nothing as it's seen here but state they have a right and does some defining of what is and is not done in regards to that right. Since mine mandates that they have written laws on an issue that others can view.. then it might be ammending this but not duplicating this as it says nothing about making laws just they have the right to make them.

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.Now agree the final two duplicate this but this again only states they have this right and does not mandate they exercise that right.. As it just a statement saying Every Member state has.. not that they will do anything with this right.. again ammending this yes duplication maybe parts.

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.Everytime a proposal goes up there are nations that have no idea it has gone up thus they didn't request any action on it. This says EVERY MEMBER STATE has a duty to refrain from unrequested intervention... in the affairs of other NS.. thus unless I ask the membership to intervene in my nation on an issue then their duty is to not do so. Now I guess when we joined the UN we requested to have others intervene simply by joining; so see that.. To me the only way to know if a nation wants others to intervene is for them to vote on it thus if a nation doesn't vote then they in a sense have not made any formal reguest for intervention on the issue.


Now I would ask is this in some way blocking us from inacting a resolution that mandates nations to have written laws on all issues.. either based on your call it duplicates this or mine that it ammends it. As then would it not be something of a rules violation doing nothing but that?

Another question to on the term 'Immunities' Definition: Immunity Noun 4. An act exempting someone; "he was granted immunity from prosecution".As we don't see international law exempting someone from something but including them under that law. Just as a resolution doen't exempt any member but includes them under it. Thus is this term proper here? AS immunities is only plural of this.. so we have more than one exemption. UN members are not exempt from the effects of a resolution.. nor would nations be exempt from any international laws..... because if it does anything for or against them they are included under said law.. not exempted from said law.

I question a ban on blockers. We see a need for them in some cases.

Often, human rights are protected merely by legislation that prohibits legislation.

For example, freedom to pursue the religion of an individual or nations choice. Does legislation that only says "The UN has no right to restrict freedom of religion" count as an illegal blocker, since it merely prevents further legislation?

This reminds me of siblings squabbling over which television program to watch, never thinking that it might be an option to turn the set off.

Why is the choice not to choose considered not to be an option?

How does this body create legislation reflects the poll on euthanasia where a clear majority felt is should be left to the individual nations?

I think you probably should have used a better example then siblings arguing because there it is soooo far off what we are talking about
1) It is best for both if something is on even if one leaves the room.
2) There is no vote just random argument
3) People here think about the option no more then any other one. In the majority of cases this is done.
4) The problem in one is two people who want opposite things. The problem we are talking about is why we need to pass a resolution to block another one. I see no similarites.

Next time think about your example;).

I think you probably should have used a better example then siblings arguing because there it is soooo far off what we are talking about
1) It is best for both if something is on even if one leaves the room.
2) There is no vote just random argument
3) People here think about the option no more then any other one. In the majority of cases this is done.
4) The problem in one is two people who want opposite things. The problem we are talking about is why we need to pass a resolution to block another one. I see no similarites.

Next time think about your example;).

Thank you for your wisdom and instruction in how to make my point. I will search out your arguments throughout the various debates in order to learn from your experience rhetorical skills.

1)I don't find this true. If the siblings continue to argue, eventually they will have both missed the program they wanted to see. If one leaves the room, it is only better for the one who gets to watch his program, and I would argue probably not even then, as that person could have been having a meaningful relationship with their sibling, as difficult as it is, rather than mindlessly worshipping image box.
2)This is what a series of A, repeal A, not A, repeal not A, A... would be. No definitive vote, just a long string of random argument.
3)I'm not sure I understand what this one means. Perhaps you could restate it.
4)The point is that there is at least one option that is not included in FOR and AGAINST. That choice is 'NEITHER'.

Please note that I never specified the number of squabbling siblings as you assumed.

Perhaps I should have made the point more specifically.

As a child I shared a room with my brother. In order to be 'fair' and prevent arguments, we were told to take turns choosing which CD we played. If one of us didn't have a CD in, the other person could put one in. The nature of that kind of ruling precludes option C, silence.

I wonder how one defines the difference between legislation that doesn't do anything but prevent further legislation, and one that protects freedom?

For example...

Resolution A: The UN declares that every nation has the right to decide for themselves on the legality of euthanasia within their borders.
Effect of Res A: No further legislation on euthanasia can be made until this is repealed.

Resolution B: The UN declares that every person has a right to euthanasia.
Effect of Res B: No further legislation can be made to prevent euthanasia until this is repealed.

Resolution C: The UN declares that euthanasia is illegal.
Effect of Res C: Those who perform euthanasia can be fined or imprisoned.

Why is Res A considered illegal, but Res B is not? Under current rules, are we left with either not having legislation that deals with euthanasia, or adopting Res C? Or in order to make Res B legal, would we have to include that states would have to fund euthanasia so that it actually 'does' something.

In that case, can we make a blocker resolution like A legal by including a fluff requirement.

Legalized Resolution A: The UN declares that every nation has the right to decide for themselves on the legality of euthanasia within their borders. Every member nation must establish a 'Euthanasia Task Force' that will teach its citizens that nation's official stance on euthanasia.

Now Res A does something, so it is legal?

Human rights do require international co-operation, to ensure all beings that breath have them.

The same could be said for democracy, or even for food: a 'Mandatory Public Issue Of Rations' resolution, perhaps? ;)

Some of us believe that is more important than nat sov

and some of us don't...


Blockers are forcing personal beliefs on nations too you know. They aren't the benign neutral stance some people seem to think they are. These sort of proposals are nothing more than the nat sov belief that nations should choose and are just as much forcing opinions on these subjects on all nations as views on one side or the other are. That just makes them a different way of looking at the issue, and not necessarily a better way.

But not necessarily a worse way, either...

1) You think the UN would pass either a creationist or anti-euthanasia resolution?

With the current membership, probably not, but what if there was a major change? What if some group (perhaps based at a USAn theological college?) deliberately recruited lots of fellow-believers into NS just to push through such changes?

3) I've stated before that I consider it fair game for the UN to pass "interfering" resolutions that I disagree with. I believe that is the right of the UN and, while I will fight against them, I will not prefer a blocker over that resolution. In effect, I would rather a resolution that outlaws abortion than for ALC to remain on the books.

Okay, that's honest: I disagree with the opinion, but I respect the general viewpoint...

(perhaps based at a USAn theological college?)USAn? :rolleyes:

With the current membership, probably not, but what if there was a major change? What if some group (perhaps based at a USAn theological college?) deliberately recruited lots of fellow-believers into NS just to push through such changes?

And you think ALC or ELC or Religious Freedoms is going to stop them? These are all just as repealable as Abortion Rights.

And don't give me "if we pass resolutions that interfere in national laws, they will have the justification to return the favor"

1) We already gave the the justification when we passed UNR's #43 and #61 in the first place
2) If there's one thing that the real world has taught me, just because you were nice enough to compromise for someone doesn't mean they'll return the favor.
3) One thing RA taught me is that no matter what agreements you've made with one another here, amongst those that regularly debate the issue, some outsider can always go and screw it up. And if some "USAn theological college" invades the UN, they won't give a shit what compromises we've put in.

USAn? :rolleyes:

OOC: I have friends in Canada who object to the term 'American' being (as one of them phrased it) "hijacked" to cover only one of the several nations that are located in the Americas...

(If it was the RL reference that you were questioning, then that previous post was meant to be OOC even if I forgot to label it as such...)

OOC: I have friends in Canada who object to the term 'American' being (as one of them phrased it) "hijacked" to cover only one of the several nations that are located in the Americas...North Americans place very little importance in their continental identity, so that's bullshit. I know you're not stupid, Edmund, so I can only assume that you realize Americans find that doctored term offensive, and that you're only trying to be smug by using it.

Moreover, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11187555&postcount=6

North Americans place very little importance in their continental identity, so that's bullshit

That's arrogant crap. The thought has crossed my mind as a very minor annoyance from time to time. I do feel there is some reason to distinguish between North American and, say, Europe and there has been more than a few times where I have had to employ the term "North American". What gets even more frustrating is when one wants to consider the two Americas - can't use American, gotta use "Western Hemispherian" or something. Western won't work because that's really the NATO block.

That's arrogant crap. The thought has crossed my mind as a very minor annoyance from time to time. I do feel there is some reason to distinguish between North American and, say, Europe and there has been more than a few times where I have had to employ the term "North American". What gets even more frustrating is when one wants to consider the two Americas - can't use American, gotta use "Western Hemispherian" or something. Western won't work because that's really the NATO block.I really couldn't care less what "minor annoyances" you have when discussing geography -- many, many points of geography bear the same names as other points. If you want to discuss North Americans, say "North Americans"; if you want to discuss the Americas, say "the Americas." It's not hard.

Now, your silly geographical redherring aside, how much cultural pride or importance do you feel as a North American?

Barring that, there's also a certain city on the Eastern seaboard whose residents have the absolute gall to dub themselves "New Yorkers" -- without taking into account the millions of people who occupy the rest of the state by the same name. By all rights these arrogant cityfolk ought to be called "CNYians." :rolleyes:

Getting back on topic, personally I while I can understand the reason for banning resolutions that did nothing but prevent the UN from legislating on issues before repeal werde introduced, now that resolutions can be repealed, all blockers do now is present one more obstical to be dealt with prior to submission so I don't see any need to ban them anymore.

I really couldn't care less what "minor annoyances" you have when discussing geography -- many, many points of geography bear the same names as other points. If you want to discuss North Americans, say "North Americans"; if you want to discuss the Americas, say "the Americas." It's not hard.

Now, your silly geographical redherring aside, how much cultural pride or importance do you feel as a North American?

Plenty. If nothing else, there is a distinction of how our nations were formed relative to the old world. There's a distinction in our choice of language. We have one of, if not the, largest bilateral trade relationships between Canada and the US and the world's longest undefended border. Many in Canada, the US, and Mexico are discussing the concept of an EU type arrangement of no borders - an idea that was quashed for the near future thanks to 9/11 but it will be a reality one day out of sheer necessity due to our close relationship. Is it as distinct as the nationalism I hold? No. But does it exist? Absolutely.

So, how about those blockers?

Plenty. If nothing else, there is a distinction of how our nations were formed relative to the old world. There's a distinction in our choice of language. We have one of, if not the, largest bilateral trade relationships between Canada and the US and the world's longest undefended border. Many in Canada, the US, and Mexico are discussing the concept of an EU type arrangement of no borders - an idea that was quashed for the near future thanks to 9/11 but it will be a reality one day out of sheer necessity due to our close relationship. Is it as distinct as the nationalism I hold? No. But does it exist? Absolutely.So you've switched from geography to economic factors, I see. OK then. Does anything of what you've said necessarily mean that Americans need be deprived of their identity by snobby Europeans -- which was my point to begin with? I don't think so.

Flib's right. Threadjack done.

As to the initial question, the semi-official rule that "blockers" ought to have at least a mild effect on nations is fair enough in my view, and the matter ought to be settled as such.

all blockers do now is present one more obstical to be dealt with prior to submission so I don't see any need to ban them anymore.Well, it's shifted from a fiat ban to a metagaming/category one. Indeed, it has always been one.

"RESOLVED: The UN will never decide one way or the other on hunting invisible pink unicorns."

What possible category does that fit in? Seriously. Human Rights? How has that altered the rights of the citizens? Hell, how does that effect a government? Social Justice? Not even close.

You might, might be able to argue Furtherment of Democracy as it, technically, increases the rights of the citizens by leaving it to their governments, but there's no "So Mild It Might As Well Not Exist" strength. To say nothing of the fact that it would almost act as Political Stability for dictatorships (as it increases their power).

There's really no room for "pure" blockers; they don't do anything.