NationStates Jolt Archive

This is an idea that has been undergoing some drafting for a while. I shelved it when Murder & Manslaughter Laws turned up, but now the dust has settled (hopefully) I thought I would bring this out again.

Nonetheless, obviously questions will be similar. "Why is this a UN issue?" "Why can't nations decide their statutes on their own?" "How is this an international issue?"

I guess I can't answer those questions. Yes, I'm legislating something moral - perhaps that is cultural imperialism. But let's at least not delude ourselves that absent legislation on the subject, national rape laws would be ok. There are many nations that do not recognise spousal rape, that do not recognise rape by women, that do not recognise rape of men. There are even those that employ it as a judicial punishment.

Anyway, the preamble attempts to justify it. What do you think?

The Member States of the United Nations,

Reaffirming their commitment to the preservation and promotion of basic human rights,

Resolute in their determination to ensure for all people the greatest possible degree of protection from violation of such rights,

Convinced that rape constitutes a barbaric crime worthy of international attention,

Fully aware that most states have legal prohibitions on rape,

Conscious, however, that historically many states have failed to recognise certain forms of rape,

Further deploring that some states have employed rape as a method of punishment or torture,

Acting in accordance with the general principles of international law,

Have agreed as follows:

1. "Rape" is defined as the act of compelling, through physical force, the use of drugs, or otherwise, one or more persons to engage in any form of sexual activity without their full, explicit, uncoerced consent.

2. All member states shall recognise that such a definition includes rape by members of all sexes, of members of all sexes, and shall recognise that spousal rape is to be treated at the same level as other forms of rape, whereby engagement into nuptial accords does not automatically constitute unrestricted consent for sexual activity within that union.

3. All member states shall immediately criminalise to at least the level of physical assault all acts of rape, and also criminalise soliciting, aiding, attempting or conspiring to commit rape.

4. No member state may employ rape, nor any form of sexual abuse, as a means of judicial punishment or torture, and any evidence thus gained shall be inadmissable in any court of law.

5. All member states shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that rape victims have the means to report the crime, where possible accounting for the need of such victims to submit reports in a confidential environment, and to receive protection under the law.

6. All member states shall endeavour to ensure that all reports of rape are thoroughly and fairly investigated, that any collected information and evidence prejudicial to the security or reputation of the victim, witnesses or accused remains strictly controlled, and that any person accused of rape or a related offence is brought to a fair trial.

7. All member states shall provide, where possible, the greatest degree of support for rape victims, such as medical care, counselling, access to support groups, confidentiality of medical records, sheltered accommodation, protection and anonymity from partners, family members or other persons who pose a serious risk of committing further abuse, and any other appropriate forms of rehabilitation.

8. All member states shall strive to reduce and eradicate rape, such as through investigating and treating underlying psychological causes, supporting campaigns to provide advice to potential or actual victims, addressing social and cultural factors in attitudes to rape, and otherwise.

This is an interesting and laudable proposal from the honourable delegate, but it will of course require some modification and careful engineering before it can be submitted for debate in these halls. Nevertheless, in recognising the appalling act of violation and indeed violence constituted by rape and the positive social and individual benefits stemming from a strong U.N. front against this abominable crime, will truly stand as a fine accomplishment.

The Member States of the United Nations,

Reaffirming their commitment to the preservation and promotion of basic human rights,

Resolute in their determination to ensure for all people the greatest possible degree of protection from violation of such rights,

Convinced that rape constitutes a barbaric crime worthy of international attention,

Fully aware that most states have legal prohibitions on rape,

Conscious, however, that historically many states have failed to recognise certain forms of rape,

Further deploring that some states have employed rape as a method of punishment or torture,

Acting in accordance with the general principles of international law,

Excellent, we feel this fulfills the requirements of a strong introduction and justification.

Have agreed as follows:

1. "Rape" is defined as the act of compelling, through physical force, the use of drugs, or otherwise, one or more persons to engage in any form of sexual activity without their full, explicit, uncoerced consent.

Agreed, but what about the issue of "drunken consent" where one or more of the parties engaged in the sexual act is intoxicated or under the influence of a substance, of their own volition, yet consents in this capacity to carrying out the sexual act. Would this be covered under this definition?

2. All member states shall recognise that such a definition includes rape by members of all sexes, of members of all sexes, and shall recognise that spousal rape is to be treated at the same level as other forms of rape, whereby engagement into nuptial accords does not automatically constitute unrestricted consent for sexual activity within that union.

Agreed.

3. All member states shall immediately criminalise to at least the level of physical assault all acts of rape, and further criminalise soliciting, aiding, attempting or conspiring to commit rape.

Agreed, but what about for states where "physical assault" is only a minor crime (strange as this may sound, I'm sure it exists), how would this be tackled? Perhaps a more general phrasing would help.

4. No member state may employ rape, nor any form of sexual abuse, as a means of judicial punishment or torture, and any evidence thus gained shall be inadmissable in any court of law.

Strongly agreed.

5. All member states shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that rape victims have the means to report the crime, where possible accounting for the need of such victims to submit reports in a confidential environment, and to receive protection under the law.

Agreed.

6. All member states shall endeavour to ensure that all reports of rape are thoroughly and fairly investigated, that any collected information and evidence prejudicial to the security or reputation of the victim, witnesses or accused remains strictly controlled, and that any person accused of rape or a related offence is brought to a fair trial.

Agreed.

7. All member states shall provide, where possible, the greatest degree of support for rape victims, such as medical care, counselling, access to support groups, confidentiality of medical records, sheltered accommodation, protection and anonymity from partners, family members or other persons who pose a serious risk of committing further abuse, and any other appropriate forms of rehabilitation.

Strongly agreed, though re-habilitation for criminals should also be encouraged, so as to help prevent future acts of rape upon release.

8. All member states shall strive to reduce and eradicate rape, such as through investigating and treating underlying psychological causes, supporting campaigns to provide advice to potential or actual victims, addressing social and cultural factors in attitudes to rape, and otherwise.

Agreed.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I'm not sure what this has to do with international law, but I agree with you completely on the subject.

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs

As this is a good issue and well written it may be a duplication in part of the following resolutions now active.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #80
Rights of Minorities and Women
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Amsterdam junior
Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.
ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.
ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.
ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.
ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.Mainly Article II

Then this deals with it as a punishment.
UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #41
END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Checkoslovakia
Description: It has come to the attention of many nations that there is no torture in the UN. My proposal is a simple one: To outlaw and prevent torturing of witnesses to receive information.
Every nation has the right to interrogate witnesses. However, they do not have the right to break bones, blind and bruise people while in questioning. (The same goes for punishments for a crime. The punishments have to fit the crime and not include torture or cruel and unusual punishment.)
Any information proved to be found by methods of torture will not be heard in a court of law and the nations will be punished with a substantial fine.
I hope that everyone realizes how barbaric torture and cruel and unusual punishment really is and will support the views of the many concerned nations. Thus you may need to consider what is not said in these two that you want to bring forth.

As I like these two statements in yours and see that issues in them are not addressed in the noted resolutions.

6. All member states shall endeavour to ensure that all reports of rape are thoroughly and fairly investigated, that any collected information and evidence prejudicial to the security or reputation of the victim, witnesses or accused remains strictly controlled, and that any person accused of rape or a related offence is brought to a fair trial.Here the idea of protecting informaiton gather regardless of who it on see as protecting a person from false accusal. Thus even at the mention they may have been involved places them in a bad status.

7. All member states shall provide, where possible, the greatest degree of support for rape victims, such as medical care, counselling, access to support groups, confidentiality of medical records, sheltered accommodation, protection and anonymity from partners, family members or other persons who pose a serious risk of committing further abuse, and any other appropriate forms of rehabilitation.Most places if you get raped by somebody important it front page news before the ink dries on your warrant to arrest anyone. So everyone is put in a bad status even the victum as many times the news will do what they can to find them out and tell all the dirty details of their life.

And here I was thinking we were about to see a resolution concernin oil seed...

And here I was thinking we were about to see a resolution concernin oil seed...

I'm sure someone will come up with that soon, possibly incorporating a free trade element.

Example: The United Nations Oil Seed Rape Free Trade Area (UNOSRFT).

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I'd oppose it simply for discriminating against Rape.

Rape (aka: canola) is such a delicious oil. I use it on my toast regularly.

Agreed, but what about the issue of "drunken consent" where one or more of the parties engaged in the sexual act is intoxicated or under the influence of a substance, of their own volition, yet consents in this capacity to carrying out the sexual act. Would this be covered under this definition?
Hmm. I am not sure about that. I'm inclined to think it would be for the court to interpret the definition, and judge whether for the particular case drunken consent was consent - but I will think it over. Trouble is, consent can be drunken (or otherwise impaired) yet still be consent; there are other times when it is not. I don't think it wrong or abusive to rule that in some cases, drunken consent is consent. But it's too fuzzy an area to establish any hard and fast rule.

Agreed, but what about for states where "physical assault" is only a minor crime (strange as this may sound, I'm sure it exists), how would this be tackled? Perhaps a more general phrasing would help.
Not sure. The point is to make sure national rape laws are fully comprehensive, and that it is recognised as an appropriately serious crime. It is a form of assault. As such, if physical assault is only a minor crime, then I'm not sure there is a need to "promote" rape's status. Besides, I can't think of an alternative wording that isn't fuzzy - words like "reasonable" are useless in the NSUN.

Strongly agreed, though re-habilitation for criminals should also be encouraged, so as to help prevent future acts of rape upon release.
That clause is about victims, not criminals.

I agree with you, but I'm not going to include it. I think this will have a hard enough time without opening that debate; I don't want to seem like I'm slipping that in sneakily; and whilst I have faith in rehabilitation, it is not necessarily as effective for every society or penal system.

Also, sorry to be rude, but please don't quote whole clauses back and just say "Agreed". If you agree with it, then I can infer that from your not disagreeing. Otherwise, your posts become long, but half of them doesn't need to be read.

As this is a good issue and well written it may be a duplication in part of the following resolutions now active.
It is not. Rights of Minorities and Women does not mention rape, and its equality clause refers to "the workplace or...home". It does not mention equality under the law. The Universal Bill of Rights does, but I'm not confident about that providing for rape laws. In any case, that is one line of this proposal, so "duplication" is a little strong.

END BARBARIC PUNISHMENTS is not really very good. It provides no barometer for "crue"/"barbaric", and there are no doubt cultures in which using rape as a punishment is seen as appropriate. There is nothing wrong with being specific.

Here the idea of protecting informaiton gather regardless of who it on see as protecting a person from false accusal. Thus even at the mention they may have been involved places them in a bad status.

Most places if you get raped by somebody important it front page news before the ink dries on your warrant to arrest anyone. So everyone is put in a bad status even the victum as many times the news will do what they can to find them out and tell all the dirty details of their life.
I don't understand your English. Sorry.

We certainly appreciate the effort of the honorable representative of Garnilorn in reviewing the passed resolutions list to identify possible duplication. We don't believe there is duplication here. The resolutions cited are extremely general; this one is quite specific to rape. In the case of NSUN Resolution #11, it doesn't define what "torture" or "cruel or unusual punishments" are, and would allow governments to claim that rape wasn't included. This proposal prevents that.

As an aside to the representative from Golgothastan.... The honorable representative of Garnilorn was applauding clauses 6 and 7 and providing arguments in their favor. (We understood his English.) ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

3. All member states shall immediately criminalise to at least the level of physical assault all acts of rape, and further criminalise soliciting, aiding, attempting or conspiring to commit rape.
I have bolded the above phrase because it appears to me to suggest that solcitation, aiding, conspiring, etc., are to be treated as worse crimes than rape itself. Perhaps if you changed the word further to also, or additionally.



And... do you think it could use a definition of bushmeat as well?

I dunno. Just a thought...

I have bolded the above phrase because it appears to me to suggest that solcitation, aiding, conspiring, etc., are to be treated as worse crimes than rape itself. Perhaps if you changed the word further to also, or additionally.



And... do you think it could use a definition of bushmeat as well?

I dunno. Just a thought...

It doesn't suggest that to us at all. But we're firm believers that if one person misunderstands something, others are sure to follow. The possibility of misunderstanding could be eliminated two ways: add a comma after "further" or change "further" to "also," as you suggest. We'll go for the "also" bit.

And how dare you find a nit after we've already picked them! :p

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Hmm. I am not sure about that. I'm inclined to think it would be for the court to interpret the definition, and judge whether for the particular case drunken consent was consent - but I will think it over. Trouble is, consent can be drunken (or otherwise impaired) yet still be consent; there are other times when it is not. I don't think it wrong or abusive to rule that in some cases, drunken consent is consent. But it's too fuzzy an area to establish any hard and fast rule.


Not sure. The point is to make sure national rape laws are fully comprehensive, and that it is recognised as an appropriately serious crime. It is a form of assault. As such, if physical assault is only a minor crime, then I'm not sure there is a need to "promote" rape's status. Besides, I can't think of an alternative wording that isn't fuzzy - words like "reasonable" are useless in the NSUN.


That clause is about victims, not criminals.

I agree with you, but I'm not going to include it. I think this will have a hard enough time without opening that debate; I don't want to seem like I'm slipping that in sneakily; and whilst I have faith in rehabilitation, it is not necessarily as effective for every society or penal system.

Also, sorry to be rude, but please don't quote whole clauses back and just say "Agreed". If you agree with it, then I can infer that from your not disagreeing. Otherwise, your posts become long, but half of them doesn't need to be read.

Agreed.

Sorry, I'll try and avoid doing it in future, I do it to keep tabs on exactly what I agree with and object and to leave a reference in case I have to check my initial impressions of a resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Agreed, but what about the issue of "drunken consent" where one or more of the parties engaged in the sexual act is intoxicated or under the influence of a substance, of their own volition, yet consents in this capacity to carrying out the sexual act. Would this be covered under this definition?

But then what about cases where the other person or people involved were also voluntarily under the influence of those same substances, and were thereby rendered incapable of recognising the possible invalidity of that consent?

And... do you think it could use a definition of bushmeat as well?

I dunno. Just a thought...Be nice.

But then what about cases where the other person or people involved were also voluntarily under the influence of those same substances, and were thereby rendered incapable of recognising the possible invalidity of that consent?

I'd imagine then it all cancelled out, since both parties were under influence, then their consent is by default considered equal, since they were both subject to a mind-altering or perceptiona altering substance.

Then again, this raises the subsequent question of quantities, i.e. What if one party had more to drink than the other? Who's more liable? And so forth...

God, this is starting to get seriously complicated.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

But then what about cases where the other person or people involved were also voluntarily under the influence of those same substances, and were thereby rendered incapable of recognising the possible invalidity of that consent?
New Arpad has always argued that people have to consider the mind alterating effects of alcohol or drugs before they take them. Basically this means that no citizen of New Arpad can use a state of self induced intoxication a) as an excuse at court or b) as a reason to sue.

This does only go for cases where the inoxicating substances have been consumed willingly and knowingly of course, i.e. a person that has secretly been intoxicated with the "date rape" drug will still have the possibility to sue for rape and for poisoning for instance.

Another group of exceptions are cases where a patient has to take mind altering substances for medical reasons. A patient can expect a hospital/medical personal to protect him/her in the following state of reduced self control. The same goes for bars and other establishments that promote their establishment with the promise to have an eye on drunken guests for instance. Establishments that promise their guests this kind of protection will have to live up to it to a reasonable degree. New Arpad agrees that the latter is a grey area of course but that is why we encourage establishments to come up with proper "terms of service" that define their own, voluntary obligations.

New Arpad agrees that this is a rather harsh approach to the subject, but New Arpad does not think that it is the state's job to proect citizens against their own stupidity.

I have bolded the above phrase because it appears to me to suggest that solcitation, aiding, conspiring, etc., are to be treated as worse crimes than rape itself. Perhaps if you changed the word further to also, or additionally.
Changed to "also".

Ambassador Otterby, your contortions over the issue of "drunken consent" perhaps illustrate why that is a decision for the judge to make. If you can write a general suggestion, I will see about incorporating it, but as it stands, I don't want to muddy the definition.

Changed to "also".

Ambassador Otterby, your contortions over the issue of "drunken consent" perhaps illustrate why that is a decision for the judge to make. If you can write a general suggestion, I will see about incorporating it, but as it stands, I don't want to muddy the definition.
I'm not ambassador Otterby but I hope that you don't mind it if I give it a try too.


Acknowledges that fact that nations differ in respect to the subject of "drunken consent" but demands that the law of any member nation will explicitly address the subject of drunken consent.

I am in full support of this resolution. It's main effect is to make rape illegal but let's nations choose the punishment. I am in full support of this and a few other similar ones like on murder, assult, property ownership and a few other basic rights. I do not belive the punishment should be set but only as this resolution does ban it.

I am in full support of this and a few other similar ones like on murder, assult, property ownership and a few other basic rights.
I don't. And I want to very firmly dissociate this proposal from the idea of legislating the others: in fact, I think I'd oppose all of them.

Changed to "also".

Ambassador Otterby, your contortions over the issue of "drunken consent" perhaps illustrate why that is a decision for the judge to make. If you can write a general suggestion, I will see about incorporating it, but as it stands, I don't want to muddy the definition.

Fair point, I was just musing anyways and thinking over some of the intricacies of rape case judgments and circumstances.

And Mr Otterby's away on holiday, I'm Mr Holt, his deputy.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Anthony Holt
Deputy Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Be nice.

I was being nice. Picture Stewert or Colbert saying it, that's... That's how I'dda said it if my tone were transcripted into writing online.

It doesn't suggest that to us at all. But we're firm believers that if one person misunderstands something, others are sure to follow. The possibility of misunderstanding could be eliminated two ways: add a comma after "further" or change "further" to "also," as you suggest. We'll go for the "also" bit.

And how dare you find a nit after we've already picked them! :p

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Oh, but I MUST nick pits. I'm just OCD like that.

and I understood the point, but I try to read things and see what others may construe as whatever, so that I'm not just looking at it from my (oh so awesomely, sexy, hardcore, ubersmart) perspective. That way I can cover more ground.

I think that also lends to the DID.

But yar, looks better as "also."

We object to this for the simple reason your definition of rape is so broad that virtually any contact between two people could be considered 'rape'.
In Randomea we split sexual offences into several crimes:
Rape - A sexual assault involving intentional or reckless penetration of the body by a real or manufactured 'penis', reckless to consent.
Serious Sexual Assault - A sexual assault involving intentional or reckless sexual penetration of the body with any other object, reckless to consent.
Sexual Assault - either the intentional or reckless performance of an act the reasonable person would consider sexual or an act ordinarily not sexual but that the reasonable person with the defendant's 'fetishes and fantasies' would find sexual, while being reckless to consent. Such as a defendant with an elbow fetish licking the victim's elbow.

Moreover, there is no mens rea for your definition. This would make it very difficult for cases of mistaken identity: an honest belief in Randomea is a full defense. What if the 'sexual touching' was accidental? The victim might not consent to her prosteria being touched and the defendant's hand might brush past it.

A flawed approach I have heard used is that the use of intoxicants, or at least knowing that they have been used, an assault while the victim was unable to consent i.e. asleep, violence, threats, mental incapacity etc automatically render consent witheld and the burdon of proof rests on the defendant to prove there was consent. Proof that there was consent for an 'operation' aka sex or touching only on the basis of a 'professional's assurance' that it was a cure for a disease, an exercise for breathing, breast cancer examination etc is a mistake to the purpose or nature of the act and irrefutably proves lack of consent. The belief the defendant was another person also proves lack of consent.

Either way, your definition is incomplete and too broad.

ooc: sorry for the lawyer hat but you can't just trim down rape to that.

I would have to agree that this is something you should leave with a judge rather than trying to boil it down it a resolution a few paragraphs long.

In the empire a convicted rapist usualy finds themselves 'cut off' from their crimes but only when the full process has been followed and guilt has been determined.

We already have the rights and minorities of women in place and that will have to do until a world court is set up.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador

In the empire a convicted rapist usualy finds themselves 'cut off' from their crimes but only when the full process has been followed and guilt has been determined.Good on you, and if End Barbaric Punishments (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029871&postcount=42) actually did something to end barbaric punishments you might have run into some trouble with the Compliance Ministry.

It seems likes a good idea but then again I think a few of us here in the un Choose to go with the castrate the rapist option when we get that issue on our floor.

It seems likes a good idea but then again I think a few of us here in the un Choose to go with the castrate the rapist option when we get that issue on our floor.
Movies and computer games are strictly censored for violence, citizens are enjoying a recent large cut in taxes, political parties are banned from advertising and receiving private donations, and sex offenders find themselves 'cut off' from any ability to repeat their crimes.
So we do, what's your point? We also don't consider it to be "barbaric" we prefer the term preventative.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: How timely is it that I got that issue right before that option was brought up here in the UN.:D

While completely agreeing that rape is an extremely serious and horrible crime from which we must protect all citizens the Republic of Beaumontia is particularly concerned that this must not result in the sacrificing of the essential human rights which this institution was designed to protect.

We would like to voice serious concern that some countries appear to be engaging in genital disfigurement as a punishment for sexual offences without condemnation or action from the U.N. This is clearly in violation of resolution 26, article 5. Beaumontina would also suggest that, as rape is not the action of a rational and mentally balanced individual, that this may also, in many cases, violate resolution 44.

These forms of punishment are not only cruel and inhumane, they are also poorly thought out as a means of reducing violent sexual crime. They imply state approval of violence and mutilation as a means of administering justice while failing to fully appreciate a number of serious issues. The logic that this form of punishment prevents repeated sexual crimes is significantly flawed, since it fails to take into account the nature of the crime of rape. It is clear, through research and academic precident that rape is almost always a crime for which the wielding of power is the motive, as opposed to sexual pleasure. Many of the most serious violent sexual crimes may therefore not involve the offenders genitals at all, and sexual assaults involving objects such as broom handles are quite possibly some of the most serious.

We would also remain concerned that such a punishment, in addition to being cruel and inhumane, implying state approval of violence and torture and having no prevenative effect is also totally irreversible. It must be noted that, however strong a nation's judicial system, some miscariages of justice are inevitable. That a state who exists as a U.N. member could be carrying out acts of torture on innocent people seems, to the people of Beaumontina, wholly unacceptable.

We therefore formally request that the U.N. enforce resolutions 26 and 44, as well as adopt formal policy on the use of torture in member states.

We would also remain concerned that such a punishment, in addition to being cruel and inhumane, implying state approval of violence and torture and having no prevenative effect is also totally irreversible. It must be noted that, however strong a nation's judicial system, some miscariages of justice are inevitable. That a state who exists as a U.N. member could be carrying out acts of torture on innocent people seems, to the people of Beaumontina, wholly unacceptable.

We therefore formally request that the U.N. enforce resolutions 26 and 44, as well as adopt formal policy on the use of torture in member states.

The term "torture" implies the imposition of pain: An operation carried out properly under anaesthesia is not painful...

1. "Rape" is defined as the act of compelling, through physical force, the use of drugs, or otherwise, one or more persons to engage in any form of sexual activity without their full, explicit, uncoerced consent.

-What about statitory rape?

Good point, I would suggest we could phrase it like this (as a starting point):

Statutory Rape: A consensual sexual act, performed by either an individual/s equal in age to the national age of consent or older, upon an individual/s of a lesser age than the aforementioned age of consent. This shall be regarded as equivalent to the act of rape, as defined by the afore mentioned definition of rape. The individual in question accused of having committed an act of statutory rape shall be charged either by the relevant guardians of the victim and/or the public prosecutor of the sovereign nation. The act of statutory rape shall also be considered in the case of consensual intercourse between two or more parties of cosanguinity and or any other definitions of incestuous relations, as defined under national law.

Just a starting point.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

The term "torture" implies the imposition of pain: An operation carried out properly under anaesthesia is not painful...

Torture also includes mental and psychological pain. Locking someone in a pitch black room with nothing but a dripping tap for long periods of time, forcing someone to watch their loved ones being beaten, murdered or raped. These do not involve direct physical pain but would clearly be included by all of us as examples of torture.

Let us not forget the foundations upon which this institution was built. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a foundation stone of our organisation made the admirable provision that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment".
The forced mutilation of someones genitals is quite clearly cruel, inhuman and degrading and is totally inappropriate in a civilised society.

Let us not forget the foundations upon which this institution was built. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a foundation stone of our organisation made the admirable provision that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment". The what now? I don't remember seeing that in any of the passed resolutions.
The forced mutilation of someones genitals is quite clearly cruel, inhuman and degrading and is totally inappropriate in a civilised society.
And just how do you know that the genitals are actually multilated? In The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites for example the castration is carried out by administering a drug which renders the person unable to obtain an erection.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I would like to point out that in the Empire crime is virtually unknown and there hasn't been a 'cutting off' amongst our people for a long time.

getting back to the issue at hand I would like to say that a proposal that defines rape is unnecessary.

Leave crime and punishment to a judge and true international issues to the NSUN.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador

One aspect of this that I have not seen discussed is the status of rape as a hate crime. Most of this is discussed in great detail in "The Culture of Make Believe" by Derrick Jensen.

According to, for example, U.S. law, a hate crime is a crime committed against a person because of their membership in a group (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.). It is illegal to harm someone because of their race, and crimes deemed 'hate crimes' carry extra penalties.

In certain situations, rape can be a hate crime, depending on intent. So if a white man rapes a black women because she is black, that's a hate crime. If a woman is raped for being Jewish or Mormon or a member of the Elks Lodge, same deal. But if a woman is simply raped because she is a woman, that is not a hate crime.

My question is, why is rape itself not considered a hate crime? Is it acceptable to hate women purely for being women?

Ok, a lot of these concerns are highlighting a problem of misinterpretation, which feeds back to a problem of presentation on my part. The intention of this proposal was never to define rape for all nations, to fully rewrite the statutes. It was in reaction to the fact that certain nations have historically not recognised certain forms of rape. A "top up" measure, not a "start again from the beginning" one.

Which leaves me either having to rejig the definition clauses somewhat to accommodate this, or just scrapping the idea. Which that'll be, I don't know, but don't expect many edits for now, as I'm very busy at work.

Leave crime and punishment to a judge and true international issues to the NSUN.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador


I agree.

Now who ordered the pepperoni with anchovies?

Pizza Boy

My question is, why is rape itself not considered a hate crime?Because mindcrime is crap. (Not the album, the concept of prosecuting for thoughts as opposed to actions)

We believe that hate crimes are done because of a certain condition a person might have, be it skin color, disability, ahndicap, etc. that makes them different from the antagonist. These crimes happen specifically because of said condition.

Rape is a bit more...basic than that, we feel. Rape does not usually happen based on a "difference" the victim might have. It happens when the antagonist wants something the victim won't willingly give. Unless the victim is being raped soley because of a "difference," we don't think it's a hate crime.

Leon B. Cooper
Secretary of Foreign Relations
People's Republic of Benzote

Well, it seems everything that worth saying about this commendable resolution has been said, from issues ragarding narcotics to legislating a minimum sentence for rape. So I'll just mention a few little nitpicks, one: you should have a definition of what a sexual act, or forces sexual act is...seems stupid, but just incase; and you should include something, I don't know what, about castration and/or chemical castration as a punishment for rape.

We believe this proposal meddlesome and unnecessary and essentially insulting. It suggests that member nations are incompetent to run their own legal systems and punish their own citizens who commit rape, murder, theft, and other common law crimes that have been known and legislated against since the inception of written records four thousand years ago.

We suggest instead that if you are aware of any UN member state that is permitting rape on an ongoing basis you bring them up for legal censure and sanctions. We also are concerned that this proposal extends a great deal of verbiage regarding "torture" while completely ignoring prison rape, a pandemic problem in large capitalist societies that criminalize ordinary behavior like dugs while chronically underfunding their dangerous and violent prisons.


Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee

We believe this proposal meddlesome and unnecessary and essentially insulting. It suggests that member nations are incompetent to run their own legal systems and punish their own citizens who commit rape, murder, theft, and other common law crimes that have been known and legislated against since the inception of written records four thousand years ago.

We suggest instead that if you are aware of any UN member state that is permitting rape on an ongoing basis you bring them up for legal censure and sanctions. We also are concerned that this proposal extends a great deal of verbiage regarding "torture" while completely ignoring prison rape, a pandemic problem in large capitalist societies that criminalize ordinary behavior like dugs while chronically underfunding their dangerous and violent prisons.


Her Serene Grace
UN Ambassador for the Most Serene Republic of the Island of Ishtar
Lady Galadriel McGee

What "legal censure and sanctions"? There's no NSUN legislation criminalizing rape or requiring nations to do so. On what legal basis could the sanctions and censure be grounded?

The resolution does not "ignore" prison rape. Rape is rape and covered by the proposal, no matter where it occurs.

Travilia T. Thwerdock
Ambassador (pro tem) to the United Nations

We believe this proposal meddlesome and unnecessary and essentially insulting. It suggests that member nations are incompetent to run their own legal systems and punish their own citizens who commit rape, murder, theft, and other common law crimes that have been known and legislated against since the inception of written records four thousand years ago.

We suggest instead that if you are aware of any UN member state that is permitting rape on an ongoing basis you bring them up for legal censure and sanctions. We also are concerned that this proposal extends a great deal of verbiage regarding "torture" while completely ignoring prison rape, a pandemic problem in large capitalist societies that criminalize ordinary behavior like dugs while chronically underfunding their dangerous and violent prisons.

Err, not to mention that you can't actually levy sanctions and shit. You'd be surprised at what goes on in some nations, I mean, you know how it is. If you didnt explicitly illigalize rape in your nation...people would rape other people. The UN works the same way, if you don't tell them not to do it, they will.

If you didnt explicitly illigalize rape in your nation...people would rape other people.
You're suggesting that in countries that have illegalised rape, it never occurs?

Yes Grue, of course people will rape people. The point I was trying to make was that if there is a loophole in the law, a glitch in the system, a crack in the wall, anything like that, people will abuse it. The point I was trying to make is if you don't explicitly illigalize it, then people will go and do it with impunity, its human nature. Thats why, even the the resolution seems so "Duh", it needs to be implemented.

If you didnt explicitly illigalize rape in your nation...people would rape other people.This is utterly absurd. It's not illegal for me to give myself a root canal, but I'm not about to do so. To assume that the only thing that prevents rape is the existance of laws is just mind boggling. People are perfectly capable of not doing things even without the government waggling its finger.

My reasons for not running around with my wang out raping everything in sight has absolutely nothing to do with laws against it, and frankly, I find the implication that the government is the only thing preventing rape to be more than a little insulting.

One aspect of this that I have not seen discussed is the status of rape as a hate crime. Most of this is discussed in great detail in "The Culture of Make Believe" by Derrick Jensen.

According to, for example, U.S. law, a hate crime is a crime committed against a person because of their membership in a group (racial, ethnic, religious, etc.). It is illegal to harm someone because of their race, and crimes deemed 'hate crimes' carry extra penalties.

In certain situations, rape can be a hate crime, depending on intent. So if a white man rapes a black women because she is black, that's a hate crime. If a woman is raped for being Jewish or Mormon or a member of the Elks Lodge, same deal. But if a woman is simply raped because she is a woman, that is not a hate crime.

My question is, why is rape itself not considered a hate crime? Is it acceptable to hate women purely for being women?
No...no..no....just....NO! :| x 100