NationStates Jolt Archive

WOW, and I get told that I am turning away from the point on issues. Our thread is getting longer and more divergent from the issue. Godwin's Law shall soon come into effect, and the resolution will go though no matter how right I am. So it has been in past threads, so it shall be again.

And surely the Doctor has seen worse than this?Well, there was that who thing with the Gay Rights repeal. Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick, but that was awful.

Thanks to all for the offers of much-needed booze, and I think I might start a Goodwin's Pool on which side will invoke Nazis first.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Bookie to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

But you see, dear sir, I reject your second point out of hand, as your belief that viewing 'child' pornography (that doesn't involve children, mind - fiction, artwork, photorealism, et cetera), is bad in and of itself.
Right, so you have, as I thought, completely missed the point of Captain McXiminez's speech. Here's a quick guide:

The Quick Guide To Understanding What Words Actually Mean

Here's what he was saying: 2 is a perfectly valid interpretation.

Here's what he wasn't saying: 2 is the only valid interpretation.

I will stress, again, because those in opposition to this proposal seem incapable of understanding this: this proposal did aim to ensure the absolute prohibition of fully fictional depictions. If someone else wants to write one on that, fine by me. Mrs Jiffjeff wasn't primarily interested in that. It aimed to:
- absolutely prohibit actual pornography
- protect national rights to prohibit fictional simulations

It could be interpreted as banning fictional simulations; it could be interpreted as not doing so (because, as the opponents themselves keep stressing, they do not involve a child). But which interpretation is taken is up each UN member, not me, or anyone else in Gruenberg, or anyone else, in fact. The only definitive statement that can be made as to whether this proposal conclusively prohibits solely fictional simulations is: no definitive statement can be made on the subject.

It is because of this extremely simple fact that we believe that simulations, fictional children, whatever you wish to call it - children who do not exist - cannot be harmed. Simulations of sex acts involving real children are unacceptable, I will grant you that as well. But paedophiles who do not have the outlet of self-gratification using images or stories of children who do not exist may, in fact, be more likely to offend against children that do exist.
So...erm...don't ban these fictional simulations? If you think banning them is such a bad idea, why on earth would you do so? You do know how the implementation of NSUN resolutions works...right?

I'm certain that the good delegates from Gruenberg would not want to be directly responsible for an increase in statutory rape or child molestation in other nations through a myopic UN resolution. At least if the materials that involve the non-existant children are government controlled, the people who are consuming said materials could be tracked, and quite possibly would be more than willing to be removed from environments where they interact with children so they aren't tempted to commit the very crime you're attempting to prevent.
So, again, why not do all of this?

You see, even that makes some logical sense, rather than an irrational knee-jerk 'icky, bad' response.
Forcing yourself to do something you don't want to do, and that you don't have to do, strikes me as deeply illogical.

So no, not really.

I do wonder, though, if this will manage to enter your mind through your fingers and your dull 'lalalala, I'm not listening' chant.
OOC: If that's an OOC comment, them I'm sorry I haven't been as present as I should have been, but I have had an extremely busy week at work this week, and last night I was visiting a friend I haven't seen in a long time. I am catching up now, and trying to respond to every post on topic. It's a hell of a lot more than some resolution authors bother with. And if it's IC,

IC: I find it fucking hilarious that someone so completely capable of missing the point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11438147&postcount=281) of what others are saying is accusing us of not listening. We've listened - but we made sure we actually understood the words going into our ears too. You should give it a try - hell of a lot of fun.

If you want to make sexual conduct with minors illegal in your nation, fine, but what on earth does -recording- that act on film or video have to do with it? Next it'll be illegal to sing songs or write stories about things that aren't okay.
Also, this doesn't mention drawings/cgi, which had damn well better stay legal.
Recording it should be prohibited because:
1. it means the act is happening in the first place;
2. it creates a market for further acts of that nature (as people seek new films, so people will make them).

A bunch of random showboating between assorted speakers
Yeah I don't actually give a shit.

This resolution does NOT outlaw child sex. It outlaws distribution of imagery
that depicts what may, by some, be interprted as child sex. It does not make
the world safer for children. It makes it more dangerous for artists. I could go on explaining how this type of resolution could be abused to stiffle civil rights of individuals who never harmed children in their lives, but that would be just beating the dead horse, so to speak. Children deserve our protection. Imaginary children that are characters of artistic depictions or plain vulgar expression do not.
Artists? An artist creates work primarily for aesthetic value (that's not just my opinion - that's the legal definition of an artist according to the UN). Therefore, they would be unaffected by something which only prohibits materials created primarily for sexual purposes.

Of course, actually reading the proposal probably isn't in the artistic spirit.

This would make it illegal for anyone to produce movies in which children are
even mocking sexual activity as long as this act of mocking involves anything
resembling simulated sexual activity. This will violate civil rights of artists by inhibiting their ability, for instance, to critique overly sexual norms of behavior or overly provocative dress standards of society.
I'm failing to see how anything you've said here would be prohibited, as it seems to me to be being created for primarily artistic, critical, social, or other, purposes, but not primarily for sexual purposes. So once again, bop on the head for you, go read the proposal before you start mouthing off about it.

Depicting acts does and should not be treated as encouraging those acts. Regardless of how repulsive the acts maybe. What's next? Forbidding filming of action movies because they depict murder too realistically and entertainingly?
Slide off down that slippery slope. We're not talking about action movies (well, not that sort of action).

UN does exit to homgenize cultures of its member nations.
I do not understand what the fuck this sentence means.

This resolution will allows for laws under which every piece of art that involves children will be subject for judicial review. It will lead to cases of innocent artists incarcarated for risque but not-at-all-harmful depictions of children because there will always be judges who interpret the laws who are overly prude.
My "logic", which is really a philosophy rather than logic, is that it is better to err on the side of allowing too much than to allow too little. The only effect a government can have on creativity is that of stiffling it.
Child sex should be outlawed. Its depictions should not be.
Deep breath, once again.

Do you understand that artistic work is not prohibited by this resolution? Your nation does not have to prohibit artistic work - just actual child pornography.

I actually think that what is being proposed has already been acomplished, the proposal makes references to two other propositions already enacted, this proposal only reinforces whats already been said.
Well guess what, you're completely wrong - whooo! Child pornography has not been prohibited by the UN.

My qualms with it is that by doing this you promote clogging the UN with redundant resolutions. We need to take a stand and vote no on this, not because we disagree with the proposal, but because its already been done and slows down the progress we could be making in other areas
1. No, it makes new laws not previously enacted in UN resolutions.
2. Can you link me to the thread(s) where you're discussing your new proposals for the UN, that this is getting in the way of?

The point is about influence though. Why would one assume that one is more likely to be influenced to go out and have sex with children than be influenced to go out and have sex with whatever consent-aged fetish? That is the point I am making.
One wouldn't, necessarily. However, the latter would not be illegal.

I'm sure someone mentioned this already, but this law only has an impact on nations that have a defined age of consent, right? What if the nation hasn't implemented that legal concept, or supports the practice of child brides?

It seems to me like those nations who would be required to implement this resolution (because they didn't already have similar laws) probably have a very low or non existant age of consent law too, right?
To an extent (although the "banning child porn" is only one aspect of this resolution), but whaddya gonna do? We can't force an age of consent law on nations - for one, that'd be a violation of national sovereignty, and for two, it'd be fucking (ho ho) impossible.

If, however, they choose to hate their children, that is entirely up to them.
So you're saying your nation directly contravenes Resolution #22, "Outlaw Pedophilia"? If so, expect us to file a request to convene The Pretenama Panel (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=91).

This seems like the sort of legislation people pass to feel better. The people that trade in child porn, child slavery, etc. are pretty far beyond help. They are wayyyyyyyyy to dissociated to be bothered by the fact that they are breaking UN law. This isn't a problem that gets solved by passing a resolution here.
How does it get solved, then? Bear in mind, without this resolution, there's no international legal mandate to repatriate children, prevent the sex trade, or arrest those breaking the law...

...or was reading that far down a resolution not about copyright too much effort?

I wouldn't go as far to say that these resolutions are passed only to make the proposer feel better, but a lot of the reason this proposal will get passed is because many of those who read it will be hesitant to criticise it for fear of being labelled "Child Haters".
Oh wow! You can read Mrs Jiffjeff's mind? Cool! Hey, while you're there, can you look up her bank PIN for me? That'd be awesome.

And even more, you can read the minds of all these other voters? Sweet fuck, with that kind of political nauss, it's no wonder your arguments are proving so successful...

...oh...

...wait...

...nevermind.

It's tricky ground for the UN to be playing in. The resoultion seems safe because it doesn't have much teeth. It reminds of the numerous legislation passed in my home nation that just serve to condemn X, or promote Y, under the theory that if it's brought up in congress it will raise the profile of the issue.
Weren't you just complaining that legislation alone wasn't enough? In which case, surely raising the profile of the issue in the largest international organization in the world is a good thing?

In the Holy Empire of Karbakirb, citizens are considered adults at the age of 5.

They are free to work, live, love, from the day of their fifth birthday to the day of their death.
Ah, so you're not only violating "Outlaw Pedophilia", but also "Child Labor" and "Children in War" (and probably some others). Yeah, we'll set out a case for TPP shortly.

Does this resolution allow medical photos to be taken? Does it allow children who have been molested to write their life stories accurately? What definition of explict are we going by?
Oh for fuck's sake, I knew you hadn't read past clause 1, but I thought you'd at least managed your way through that one. Apparently not. Are medical phots or autobiographies created for primarily sexual purposes? NO. Are they then prohibited by a proposal that only prohibits materials created for primarily sexual purposes?

Take a wild guess.

No, wrong way round.

I'm saying that a child above the age of consent in their home country could (according to this resolution) be used to make porn in a country where they are below the age of consent.
First, sexual molestation of any pre-pubescent minor (and thus the creation of child pornography using such images) is illegal in all UN nations anyway, so the concern is lessened - and the employment of anyone below 14 in the pornography industry would be prohibited by "Child Labor" (reinforced by "The Sex Industry Worker Act"). So far, you have not presented a possible example.

Taking the point more generally though, forcing them to make the journey would still be illegal under "Ban Trafficking in Persons", so would they have to consent to it. This, in addition to the fact nothing in this resolution prevents nations establishing laws over and beyond these mandates, means the potential for abuse - which would of course exist much more fully were this resolution defeated or repealed (and I have not seen suggestions for a better version profferred by the opponents), a scenario you seem curiously keen on - is sufficiently marginal that is not of major concern to us. If it is to you, then write a proposal on it, and we will probably support it.

The ambiguity of your turn of phrase within the "real or simulated" situation has been mentioned many times.
Yeah - it's just I don't see that as a "flaw". See how much division the scaremongering that this proposal definitively banned wholly fictional depictions caused? I don't see that as healthy - that's why we made this proposal amenable to reasonable discretion of interpretation. Why do you have such objection to your government not being told what to do on an issue where there exists no overriding consensus?

Watch your mouth, Gruenberg. We are educated men and women of politics. This is not the schoolyard, and you are not the big bully. Your blanket dismissal of valid arguments does not help you, in fact it makes oyu look like a bafoon. I do hope oyu consider the idea of a country where the age of consent is five, since if you had bothered to pay attention to anything but the last five or so responses you would have seen a nation with exactly that policy. The person you are swearing at makes a very good point, and I will try to innumerate it in simple terms that even this forum can understand:
Who is "Gruenberg"? And since when did "educated men and women of politics" spell phonetically?

Sorry, foneticly.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

The nation with an age of consent of 5 is violating existing UN law. I can't do anything about that - if they're violating that one, they may as well violate this one too.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

And yes, I do have difficulty understanding, because I had no idea what "innumerate" meant. Then I looked it up:
innumerate
One entry found for innumerate.
Main Entry: in•nu•mer•ate
Pronunciation: -r&t
Function: adjective
: marked by an ignorance of mathematics and the scientific approach
- in•nu•mer•a•cy /-r&-sE/ noun
- innumerate noun
Heh. About right.

There are two countries. Country A, and country B. Country A's age of consent is 13; country B's age of consent is 18. Now we have a girl of loose morals and few redeeming factors looking to make a little money; we will call her "Paris." Paris is 14, and lives in country A, so in her country she is legally allowed to make pornography; she figures that she'd reach a wider market share--if you will--by selling her pornography as child pornography. So she moves to country B. In country B, it is illegal for people to make pornography if they are under 18--however, and here is the loophole, Paris is still able to market her pornography because--though she LIVES in country B--her OFFICIAL RESIDENCE says she is still in country A, and according to the law what matters is not where oyu are at hte time of making hte pornography but rather what your official country of residence is. I thank the honorable deligate for bringing this to our attention, and I hope I have not stepped on his toes undooly with this explanation.
Uh...no. You're completely misreading this proposal. It does not override nation B's laws, insofar as it does not legalise non-child porn. I quite agree that if nation B's laws are lax, then the scenario you describe would be true. But that's not what you said - you said "it is illegal for people to make pornography if they are under 18" in B. This proposal has no authority to override that.

Over all, the Ambassador of Gruenburg's tone has been needlessly inflamatory; but here, I believe, he is crossing the line--replying to someone pointing out flaws in your law with "no shit" makes you look like an ignorant clodd.
Gruenberg. And I wasn't aware our Ambassador had spoken yet.

No doubt it is the latter; however, it's beside the point--it's hardly good PR for an ambassador to "refuse to consider" a situation on the grounds of it being unrealistic when just a few hours earlier in the debate such a situation was prooven to already exist. Either the Ambassador of Gruenberg is appathetic, or inattentive; neither of these qualities are becoming of a United Nations ambassador.
But you're not explaining how we accommodate the violation of international law. Resolution #22 renders the Karbakirb age of consent laws illegal. I can't do anything about that, so it's not worth considering.

And damn right our Ambassador is apathetic and unattentive - as must you be, I'm thinking, to miss the fact that our Ambassador hasn't yet spoken in this debate.

Simple, really: the wording of the proposed resolution should be changed from "residence" to "located."
The word "residence" does not appear once in the proposal. I have no clue what the fuck you're talking about.

you cannot pass a law and then dictate exactly how that law should be interpreted and applied after the law has been passed.
Yes, exactly! Which is why this resolution is respectful of sovereignty - exactly what you were bitching about.

I personally find it hard to discuss proposals I haven't read. I'm amazed that so many in this debate hall consider themselves capable of doing so.

The "age of consent" issue with regard to international cooperation/enforcement strikes me as untenable. If it's 18 in nation A and 14 in nation B, why should B cooperate with A at all? What if a citizen of nation B is "caught" in international places or in nation A with his own nation's legal product?
I'm not sure I follow. Despite my distaste for long words, I also find A and B quite confusing. The scenario you describe, though, would dissolve to domestic law - this resolution only prohibits, it makes no firm legalisation of anything. As for "international places"...they don't exist. Everywhere is sovereign territory of some nation.

On behalf of the Kingdom of B-Bizzledom, His Royal Highness King Taeron II and his royal subjects, I must add my voice to the right honorable Ambassador Jubal. While we (and all the peoples of this world) agree with the spirit of this resolution, the lack of definition as to what constitutes an offender and what constitutes a victum causes us great pause. Until a firmer, more defined resolution is put forward, the Kingdom of B-Bizzledom must vote against this resolution, and we hope that you will as well.
Uh...

"offender" is not used once in the proposal, so why the fuck would we define it?
"victim" is only used once, in a non-mandatory clause, so why the fuck would we define it?

herefore, we feel the cost of this proposal, which is little more than an attempt to legalize a document riddled with passionate rhetoric but no substance, is too costly for us to vote in the affirmative.
How can rhetoric cost anything? If this is going to require action, it has substance.

However, the clause on international cooperation is non-mandatory: encouraged, not essential.

It would be helpful to the cantons I represent if the author could please point me to what the intended target age or meaning is implied by this particular resolution.
To be honest, Mrs Jiffjeff didn't have a firm target in mind. In Gruenberg, the applicable age would be 18, and that is the paradigm she was working from - anything in the 15-21 range, I suppose. However, this is only a statement of personal opinion, and in no way to be read by others as a definitive statement of the proposal's intent.

First of all, if I'm mistaken, correct me, but child pornography is already illegal. If there is a UN member Nation in which Child pornography is legal, I'd like it called to my attention.
1. You are mistaken.
2. Karbakirb.

Because the "legal age of consent" is entirely determined by member Nations, the glaring loophole here is that any nation can declare the age of minority to be one week old, or anything equally impotent.
No; that would violate "Outlaw Pedophilia.

My recently submitted proposal "defining the minimum age of minority" recommends a minimum age of 14. I invite debate on that issue. But until some mandatory minimum is in place (it should be at least 12, at a bare minimum, I think) this proposal has no real legal power to accomplish much of anything.
That's too anthropocentric a view, though. The UN is not just populated by humans, but by dwarves, elves, AI, aliens, gnomes, and all manner of other species. Setting a standard age of consent for them all would be impossible.

Again, I need to know what UN member nations currently permit these things, because if there are any, that's shocking! If any are pointed out to me, I will gladly write a proposal addressing the issue myself.
Again, Karbakirb is one example of a nation that allows them.

Sadly, this doesn't really say anything. "appropriately tough" sounds nice, but a nation can easily declare the punishment 1 day in jail, to circumvent this, further adding to the proposal's legal impotence.
Yes, they can. But I don't think an international organization can or should determine minimums for this sort of thing. Whilst it may lead to abuse, that's better than the current situation, where no punishment need be mandated at all.

I don't like when the UN tells us how to treat criminals; we extend other nations the same courtesy.

This is the scary one! Round up everything on the list, then destroy it regardless of whether the person was found innocent or guilty. What about appeals or potential retrials? Or are we suggesting summary judgements? This smacks of fervour, not legal procedure. A responsible legal system stores evidence until some years after all appeals have been exhausted. Many of our legal systems rely on that very principle. We don't pick and choose which defendants recieve a fair criminal trial, they all do. For those nations that don't, see the above references regarding the glaring loopholes around these legislations.
Way to completely twist the line out of all context:
1. It's not mandatory anyway.
2. These duties are subject to national discretion. If the above abuses, it would be because you were actively seeking to employ them. Which would be stupid.
3. You're purposefully avoiding the word "appropriate". Do you think any of what you describe is appropriate? Evidently not. Therefore, you're not obligated to do it.

Further, destroying the material outright is a mistake we cannot turn back from. Just a handful of the (sorry for the RL references) movies/books that would be affected: Lolita, American Beauty, The Hole, Blue Lagoon, Paradise, Pretty Baby, Kids (probably would be one of the first to go), even Disney (sorry for RL reference) fare like "Now and Then" would be summarily destroyed.
All of these were created for primarily artistic, not primarily sexual, purposes. Therefore, none of them are affected by this proposal.

A shame really - it was looking like you were one person who'd actually read it. Wasn't to be.

Now, I'm not arguing that Blue Lagoon or The Hole constitute great art, but Pretty Baby is an important film that called attention to cultural practices with the danger of harming children's development. Both Pretty Baby and Lolita are considered very important works. Certainly we can find a definition of "child pronography" that allows us to protect culture and art. Even if that makes is "Liberal Child-Haters" in the eyes of some.
Again, as the proposal does not prohibit art, I fail to see why a new definition is needed.

I do not support the production or distribution of child pornography, nor the exploitation of children. However, I am also opposed to thinly veiled attempts at destroying art the proposal-writer finds offensive.
If Mrs Jiffjeff had wanted to ban art she finds offensive, she probably wouldn't have written a proposal that includes a definition specifying it does not prohibit any art.

Under UN law, art is created primarily for aesthetic purposes. Under this proposals, materials created primarily for sexual purposes are prohibited. Therefore, art is not prohibited.

I don't know how practical this final clause is, it doesn't seem to really do anything, but the principle of it seems sound.
What do you want it to do? I don't see how any firm mandates can be laid down with this aspect.

But I can't deny it, I'm kind of a Marxist when it comes to Art. I believe it is our cultural heritage.
This proposal does not ban art, so your harping on about it, aside from being utterly irrelevant and somewhat baffling, is becoming quite annoying. Stick to the actual proposal.

and since that age can be anything, the proposal has no legal power. (Again, refer to my new proposal "defining the minimum age of minority).
A universal age of consent is impossible within the UN, for the reasons stated.

So, no.

It does, however, mandate the destruction of any art containing the sexual depiction of minors, regardless of the nature of that depiction, or whether or not it is exploitative.
Art is not covered by this resolution. Art is created for aesthetic purposes; pornography is created for sexual purposes. Only the latter is prohibited; you can still keep your copy of Lolita tomorrow.

I truly believe we can come up with a proposal that is effective, without demanding the immediate destruction of art, or the public mob executions.
Given this proposal doesn't do either of those, I'm assuming you'll support it! Yay!

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

OOC: And at this point my internet crapped out on me. Furthermore, I won't be able to post this weekend. So, that's it from me - sorry.

Thank you very much to everyone who has defended and supported this proposal.

First of all, might I say, big time props for responding to so many posts.

One wouldn't, necessarily. However, the latter would not be illegal.

I understand that you will likely not be able to respond. I do, however, want to reply.

The first sentence in your response to me is what is important, as the question it was answering asked about the assumption that pedophiles are more predisposed toward violent acts than others.

It doesn't matter that one is illegal and one is not, as my post was mostly about the justification for banning childless porn, which was that pedophiles would be influenced by such representations. It has been accepted now, by the author, that this is not a fact.

I know that this Resolution is going to pass. I knew the moment it hit quorum.

I don't believe that loopholes are to be found in this Resolution unless a nation is going to resort to extremes.

I don't have a problem with a ban on child pornography, where children are involved.

The only issue I take with this Resolution was outlined in my earlier post (I'm sure there are plenty of other links to it, but its the big one with bolded section titles).

Thus far it has not been responded to with invective or counterpoints, and so I assume that it was either missed, ignored, or noted (if not agreed with).

OOC:
I've seen provisions similar to "for every adult elderberry bush removed, fifteen adult elderberry bushes must be planted and monitored in a similar habitat for X number of years".

-M

The essential idea is the same...replace what you take away.
It was a metaphor, not a biological debate though I appreciate you enlightening us.

xKx

The first sentence in your response to me is what is important, as the question it was answering asked about the assumption that pedophiles are more predisposed toward violent acts than others.
This argument is going to drown in apathy 'cos, see, I don't care either.

I don't necessarily agree that paedophiles are more predisposed to towards violent actions. I just think they're more predisposed towards sexually abusive actions.

Thus far it has not been responded to with invective or counterpoints, and so I assume that it was either missed, ignored, or noted (if not agreed with).
Eh, get used to it. Didn't see many replies to Captain McXiminez's thoughts - (except one by someone who didn't understand them). I did read yours, and did take it in, but a lot of it would leave me either repeating myself or Mrs Jiffjeff, or not advancing your understanding or disagreement. We're not in accord on this issue; that's going to have to be it. There are other debates to move on to.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Here's what he was saying: 2 is a perfectly valid interpretation.

Here's what he wasn't saying: 2 is the only valid interpretation.

I will stress, again, because those in opposition to this proposal seem incapable of understanding this: this proposal did aim to ensure the absolute prohibition of fully fictional depictions. If someone else wants to write one on that, fine by me. Mrs Jiffjeff wasn't primarily interested in that. It aimed to:
- absolutely prohibit actual pornography
- protect national rights to prohibit fictional simulations

It could be interpreted as banning fictional simulations; it could be interpreted as not doing so (because, as the opponents themselves keep stressing, they do not involve a child). But which interpretation is taken is up each UN member, not me, or anyone else in Gruenberg, or anyone else, in fact. The only definitive statement that can be made as to whether this proposal conclusively prohibits solely fictional simulations is: no definitive statement can be made on the subject.

We remain shocked at the idea that the drafting nation itself would proudly point out interpretational loopholes as a selling point for their work.

Let us be equally blunt in outlining our own position

Good Resolution = One easy-to-understand interpretation = enforceable

Bad Resolution = People fighting over which interpretation is "right" = potential military conflicts over enforcement

At this point, we don't even really care /what/ position the resolution takes, it would be better to see the strictest form of this legislation pass with clear definitions than it would be to have the current poorly-worded mess causing chaos and division among the member states.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

We remain shocked at the idea that the drafting nation itself would proudly point out interpretational loopholes as a selling point for their work.

Let us be equally blunt in outlining our own position

Good Resolution = One easy-to-understand interpretation = enforceable

Bad Resolution = People fighting over which interpretation is "right" = potential military conflicts over enforcement

At this point, we don't even really care /what/ position the resolution takes, it would be better to see the strictest form of this legislation pass with clear definitions than it would be to have the current poorly-worded mess causing chaos and division among the member states.I believe Hack something before to the effect that the UN doesn't need to hold your hand. If you ain't smart enough to formulate your own understanding of international law and issue national directives accordingly, you have no business running a nation. Even the Kennyites got that one figured out (last item in sig).

Besides, wasn't it you who said before that the resolution couldn't be enforced in your nation anyway, because you didn't have age of consent laws, so eight-year-olds could drive buses, and [wank wank wank]?

Also [snickers] you honestly think nations are going to go to war over the interpretation of a resolution? We wouldn't waste a nuke on you.

I believe Hack something before to the effect that the UN doesn't need to hold your hand. If you ain't smart enough to formulate your own understanding of international law and issue national directives accordingly, you have no business running a nation. Even the Kennyites got that one figured out (last item in sig).

Clarity is not about "hand-holding", good sir. It's about making sure that everyone in the proverbial playground knows exactly what the rules of the sandbox are. This one has so many vague and confusing clauses that it is impossible to know clearly what is and is not non-compliant behaviour.

Example: A Kennyite family comes to Kuraurisand for vacation, and the eleven year old girl in the family decides to have a romp with a Kuraurisandian boy and videotape it.

Two things are clear - the video is legal here in Kuraurisand, and it is (presumably) illegal in OMGTKK. Underneath those two things, however, are a host of questions with no clear answer. Does the girl become a pornography distributer if she crosses your border with the tape? Is the boy criminally liable for making the tape and subject to extradition to your country? Was the girl "traded" in some inherent way because she crossed international borders, even though it was not verifiably the intent of her or either family to make the tape at the time when she did so?

Where the potential for war comes in is where an outraged nation might try to extradite that boy from our nation by force, or retaliate to our refusal to hand over one of our citizens for prosecution on the grounds of something that, by our interpretation, did not constitute a violation of the resolution.

Besides, wasn't it you who said before that the resolution couldn't be enforced in your nation anyway, because you didn't have age of consent laws, so eight-year-olds could drive buses, and [wank wank wank]?

The resolution has no effect on our internal affairs. That doesn't mean it has no international implications.

Also [snickers] you honestly think nations are going to go to war over the interpretation of a resolution? We wouldn't waste a nuke on you.

You might not, but just because you see the issue as petty doesn't mean that other nations will. Some nations have a tendancy go to war when a country refuses to surrender a person they consider a criminal.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

The essential idea is the same...replace what you take away.
It was a metaphor, not a biological debate though I appreciate you enlightening us.

xKx

OOC:
Right, that is the bottom line goal. But when put to language it really says "promise that you will replace what you take away". However, in practice it is never said to simply. We live in a world where sometimes Presidents will justify tourture or debate what sort of work "is" is. That simple idea will invariably be increased into pages of rules and regulations just to get to the bottom line.

My point is that if we are to do that with NS UN resolutions, we are essentially micromanaging, and our debate shifts from a discussion on "Hey is this a good idea" to "I don't think 15 adult elderberry bushes is enough" or in the case of this resolution "some children aren't emotionally ready at age 25, therefore we must make the age of consent to sexual acts 25". There will be no consensus reached ... and in reality, few of us are really skilled enough to *really* know if 15 or 18 elderberry bushes are better or if 18 or 25 is a better age. Oh we can invent a character, but look at the daily issues ... they are really designed to explore the larger issues in a silly way. UN resolutions should do the same and avoid specifics. Oh, they can be *detailed* ... I'm all for that. I just don't think they should give exact numbers.

Also [snickers] you honestly think nations are going to go to war over the interpretation of a resolution? We wouldn't waste a nuke on you.
You might not, but others seemingly would. Those, for instance, who are unable to discern a difference between child-abusers and sexually inactive paedophiles.

Well, there was that who thing with the Gay Rights repeal. Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick, but that was awful.

Thanks to all for the offers of much-needed booze, and I think I might start a Goodwin's Pool on which side will invoke Nazis first.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Bookie to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
Hey Doc, don't forget about the uproar with the competing abortion proposals.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Clarity is not about "hand-holding", good sir. It's about making sure that everyone in the proverbial playground knows exactly what the rules of the sandbox are. This one has so many vague and confusing clauses that it is impossible to know clearly what is and is not non-compliant behaviour.

Example: A Kennyite family comes to Kuraurisand for vacation, and the eleven year old girl in the family decides to have a romp with a Kuraurisandian boy and videotape it.

Two things are clear - the video is legal here in Kuraurisand, and it is (presumably) illegal in OMGTKK. Underneath those two things, however, are a host of questions with no clear answer. Does the girl become a pornography distributer if she crosses your border with the tape? Is the boy criminally liable for making the tape and subject to extradition to your country? Was the girl "traded" in some inherent way because she crossed international borders, even though it was not verifiably the intent of her or either family to make the tape at the time when she did so?

Where the potential for war comes in is where an outraged nation might try to extradite that boy from our nation by force, or retaliate to our refusal to hand over one of our citizens for prosecution on the grounds of something that, by our interpretation, did not constitute a violation of the resolution.And this is where the discussion ceases to be rational. It has already been said (indeed, and I believe the Secretariat has already ruled) that UN mandates need apply only to "reasonable nations." In the view of the Federal Republic a "reasonable nation" has age-of-consent laws. A "reasonable nation" would not demand the extradition of a little boy. A "reasonable nation" would not prosecute an 11-year-old girl on child-pornography charges for filming sexcapades with a Kuraurislander boy. We might seize the videotape, warn her and her parents never to let it happen again, pressure myspace.com to delete the video and suspend her account; she may even be suspended or expelled from school if her classmates got wind of it. But as a "reasonable nation" (and in our case we would have to use the term very loosely) we would neither prosecute an 11-year-old on child pornography, arrest her parents for "trafficking" her or her dirty video, demand the extradition of an underaged boy, or invade another nation for refusing to do so. Reasonable nations already have their houses in order; there is no reason on Earth why UN legislators ought to bend over backwards in order to appease unreasonable nations.

What would your proposed remedy be? For the United Nations to set an age of consent for you, forcing you to change your domestic laws? As a nation so proud of its lack of consent, I doubt you'd like it very much. And given the broad range of differing realities in the NS Multiverse, it would be impossible to set a single age for all nations anyway.

It almost pains us to say this, but you need not fear any military reprisal from the Federal Republic for acquiesing in the pornographication of an 11-year-old girl. Underaged teenagers use webcams or cameraphones to videotape themselves having sex or arousing themselves all the time; it doesn't mean we need to invade a nation who has unwisely decided to legalize it.

We repeat our position that this proposal is too loosely worded. While some seem to see this as a selling point we view it as quite the opposite. It is too open to interpretation. The proposal, as worded, will have every drug store photo clerk in the country who runs across an innocent picture of a nude child calling in reports of child pornography. Each case will have to be thoroughly investigated, wasting valuable government resources. As we of course must err on the side of caution, arrangements will have to be made in each case to place the children in protective custody, placing undue strain and trauma on those families later deemed innocent of this crime.

Gruenberg
An artist creates work primarily for aesthetic value (that's not just my opinion - that's the legal definition of an artist according to the UN). Therefore, they would be unaffected by something which only prohibits materials created primarily for sexual purposes.

I believe it's naive to assume that the artist's intention when creating his artwork is going to be somehow known to the populace which views said art. If the artwork then can be viewed by some as sexual in nature, no matter how small the minority, then again our government will find itself in the position of having to investigate and make a determination of whether said artwork does or does not constitute child pornography. A more concise interpretation of what exactly constitutes child porn would make such investigations unnecessary and we fail to understand why the good representative of Gruenberg so vehemently resists making such.

Gruenberg
...you understand that artistic work is not prohibited by this resolution? Your nation does not have to prohibit artistic work - just actual child pornography.

You seem so fond of reiteration that we will take a page from your book and repeat ourselves. It's all well and good to state that artistic work (which is not created for the sole purpose of sexual titilation) is not prohibited, but you leave it to us to decide what the artist's intent might have been. How is such a determination made except through investigation of each and every questionable work of art?

Further, what if the artist, who was sexually abused as a youth, creates a painting depicting a 10 year old boy in the throes of ecstasy with an adult woman? Imagine that said painting is quite graphic in it's portrayal of sexual organs and the like, but the boy's face reflects a sad wistfullness. Imagine now that the artist's intent was to show that while he physically enjoyed his abuse it left him longing for a normal childhood. Everyone who views this painting is going to see a minor and adult engaged in a highly graphic sexual act. Yet the artist's intent was not sexual at all; he was working out his angst. Until you come up with some instrument to measure and display intent you must recognize that it is insufficient and vague as a basis for valuation of each artistic work.

Gruenberg
Are medical phots or autobiographies created for primarily sexual purposes? NO. Are they then prohibited by a proposal that only prohibits materials created for primarily sexual purposes?

But again, you ignore the fact that 'someone' out there is going to think otherwise and contact the authorities for each and every one of these photos and pieces of literature, each and every one of which will have to be investigated and a determination made.

Gruenberg
First, sexual molestation of any pre-pubescent minor (and thus the creation of child pornography using such images) is illegal in all UN nations anyway, so the concern is lessened - and the employment of anyone below 14 in the pornography industry would be prohibited by "Child Labor" (reinforced by "The Sex Industry Worker Act.

The representative from Gruenberg seems to have it in his head that only prepubescent children engaged in a sex act on film would constitute child pornography. What about two 15 year olds? Or two 17 year olds? If they are under the age of consent in the country in question then the film is legally deemed child porn.

In conclusion we find it naive in the extreme to believe that that such a loosely worded proposal would accomplish anything beyond confusion and resent the imagined cost to our government to implement and regulate such a thing. We also reiterate that we agree with the general spirit of the proposal and would gladly back something which had been more concisely phrased.

First of all, might I say, big time props for responding to so many posts.Seconded. Very nice work. I tried printing out Gruen's post before so I could read it at work instead, but it was 14 pages! :eek:

BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCK BLAH SHIT BLAH BLAH FUCK FUCK SHIT BALLS BLAH BLAH HATE YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH MURDER YOUR FIRST BORN SON BLAHBLAH SCHOOL OF SATAN BLAH SHIT BALLS BLAH FUCK ASS BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH LARGE BOWL OF PORAGE

OOC I liked the jabbs about my spelling. Way to stick to the point.

OOC I liked the jabbs about my spelling. Way to stick to the point.

OOC: Way to summarise his post in the most juvenile manner possible (and misspell "porridge" is the process).

OOC: Way to summarise his post in the most juvenile manner possible (and misspell "porridge" is the process).

Considering the level that this thread has sunk to, do you really think it's worth it anymore Cluich?

Let the children whine and us adults will go talk elsewhere.

Considering the level that this thread has sunk to, do you really think it's worth it anymore Cluich?

Let the children whine and us adults will go talk elsewhere.

Very true. I will leave the remainder of this "debate" to my assistant, with instructions for him to take note of any nations that refuse to comply with the UN resolution outlawing pedophilia so that the Cluichstani Armed Forces can invade them to protect their children.

With that, I give you my my assistant, Mr. Tarquin Fin-tim-lim-bim-whin-bim-lim-bus-stop-F'tang-F'tang-Ole-Biscuitbarrel.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/3812/tangolebiscuitbarrelly1.jpg

Id be very worried that 1100 (ish) are voting against an act preventing child pornography...nationstates may have now found the identity of paedophiles or nutters! :P

Id be very worried that 1100 (ish) are voting against an act preventing child pornography...nationstates may have now found the identity of paedophiles or nutters! :P

You have obviously made zero effort to read either the proposal itself or the arguments against it. Don't presume to show up to a debate emptyhanded.

This argument is going to drown in apathy 'cos, see, I don't care either.

I don't necessarily agree that paedophiles are more predisposed to towards violent actions. I just think they're more predisposed towards sexually abusive actions.

Well, uh, you're wrong.


Eh, get used to it. Didn't see many replies to Captain McXiminez's thoughts - (except one by someone who didn't understand them). I did read yours, and did take it in, but a lot of it would leave me either repeating myself or Mrs Jiffjeff, or not advancing your understanding or disagreement. We're not in accord on this issue; that's going to have to be it. There are other debates to move on to.
If you would be repeating yourself or Mrs. Jiffjeff, then you'd be missing my point, because such repetition wouldn't answer me.

I'm satisfied with my logic in that matter, though, so do please move on.

And this is where the discussion ceases to be rational. It has already been said (indeed, and I believe the Secretariat has already ruled) that UN mandates need apply only to "reasonable nations."

So we can declare ourselves unreasonable and ignore every resolution in the UN? You're right... that doesn't sound rational at all. Is there a definition out there somewhere regarding what constitutes a "reasonable" nation?

In the view of the Federal Republic a "reasonable nation" has age-of-consent laws. A "reasonable nation" would not demand the extradition of a little boy.

Oh well, we fail.

A "reasonable nation" would not prosecute an 11-year-old girl on child-pornography charges for filming sexcapades with a Kuraurislander boy. We might seize the videotape, warn her and her parents never to let it happen again, pressure myspace.com to delete the video and suspend her account; she may even be suspended or expelled from school if her classmates got wind of it. But as a "reasonable nation" (and in our case we would have to use the term very loosely) we would neither prosecute an 11-year-old on child pornography, arrest her parents for "trafficking" her or her dirty video, demand the extradition of an underaged boy, or invade another nation for refusing to do so.

These are the semantics of the example, and do not address our point itself. If it helps you grasp the nature of our example better, let's replace the boy with a man in his mid-thirties, and add another adult as the cameraman during the sex act. Does your position remain unchanged?

Reasonable nations already have their houses in order; there is no reason on Earth why UN legislators ought to bend over backwards in order to appease unreasonable nations.

You're not being asked to bend over backwards. You're being asked to draft resolutions with a single, clear interpretation. For extra credit, you might include provisions regarding the handling of disputes.

What would your proposed remedy be? For the United Nations to set an age of consent for you, forcing you to change your domestic laws? As a nation so proud of its lack of consent, I doubt you'd like it very much. And given the broad range of differing realities in the NS Multiverse, it would be impossible to set a single age for all nations anyway.

Our proposed remedy would be to change the wording in section 1 to clarify exactly whether or not the resolution bans the portrayal of simulated sex acts by people, words and artwork /portraying/ minors, or just the simulation of a sex act /by/ an actual minor. We would also see a clause added to section 3 that offers some guidance for what an "appropriately tough penalty" would be, particularly a requirement that the more punitive legal system be given primary jurisdiction in matters of prosecution, along with the establishment of a liaison officer position in every nation to determine amongst themselves which nation has the more punitive legal system. Section 4 could be much more clear on what circumstances designate someone to be a "known child pornographer", and lastly, there could be a section 6 mandating that, in the event two nations have a dispute regarding the interpretation of the resolution, they must seek out an impartial third nation, agreed upon by both parties, to arbitrate that dispute.

The resolution would still be wrong, at least from our ethical standpoint, but it would be /clear/ and /enforceable/.

It almost pains us to say this, but you need not fear any military reprisal from the Federal Republic for acquiesing in the pornographication of an 11-year-old girl. Underaged teenagers use webcams or cameraphones to videotape themselves having sex or arousing themselves all the time; it doesn't mean we need to invade a nation who has unwisely decided to legalize it.

Apparently it bears repeating - it's nice that the Federal Republic is capable of holding it's temper. That does nothing, however, to ensure that two less "reasonable" nations do not go to war over misunderstandings created by the resolution as it is currently written.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Suvyamara']You have obviously made zero effort to read either the proposal itself or the arguments against it. Don't presume to show up to a debate emptyhanded.

Aye, and I am certain that many others who aren't vocalizing such an opinion in the forum feel the same way as they read vote "yes."

"Who would possibly vote against this? Bunch of freaks..."

:rolleyes:

So we can declare ourselves unreasonable and ignore every resolution in the UN? You're right... that doesn't sound rational at all. Is there a definition out there somewhere regarding what constitutes a "reasonable" nation?No, the reasonable nation thing primarily applies when writing a resolution, basically it means that you don't have to try to take into account every conceivable possibility when writing a resolution.

You're not being asked to bend over backwards. You're being asked to draft resolutions with a single, clear interpretation. For extra credit, you might include provisions regarding the handling of disputes.You want a "single, clear interpretation" huh. Well I've got good news, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance... Wait, wait, wait, that not the good news I wanted to tell you. Oh yeah, now I remember, what I was going to say was that this resolution does in fact have a single, clear interpretation, when it passes, child pornography will be banned in all UN nations. How much clearer can it be?

Our proposed remedy would be to change the wording in section 1 to clarify exactly whether or not the resolution bans the portrayal of simulated sex acts by people, words and artwork /portraying/ minors, or just the simulation of a sex act /by/ an actual minor.And you can't decide whether or not it does that in your nation yourself, why?

We would also see a clause added to section 3 that offers some guidance for what an "appropriately tough penalty" would be,The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has previously gone on record as opposing any attempt by the UN to decide how we punish our criminals, even if it's only a suggestion.

particularly a requirement that the more punitive legal system be given primary jurisdiction in matters of prosecution, along with the establishment of a liaison officer position in every nation to determine amongst themselves which nation has the more punitive legal system.And if multiple nations are involved with child porn under this resolution they can decide for themselves which nation gets to prosecute.

Section 4 could be much more clear on what circumstances designate someone to be a "known child pornographer",Hello, obviously a "known child pornographer" is someone who is known to produce ordistribute child pornography. What are we going to do next, debate the definition of the word "is?
"
and lastly, there could be a section 6 mandating that, in the event two nations have a dispute regarding the interpretation of the resolution, they must seek out an impartial third nation, agreed upon by both parties, to arbitrate that dispute. And that would most likely be illegal, the best bet for something like that would be to set up a committee to make those decisions, however it's a moot point now as you can't edit a resolution once it hits the floor.

The resolution would still be wrong, at least from our ethical standpoint, but it would be /clear/ and /enforceable/. I'm sure that the UN Gnomes will have no problem enforcing it as it's written.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]
[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]
[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]
[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]

[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]
[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]
[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]
[QUOTE=Omigodtheykilledkenny]
OOC: What's with all these extra Omigodtheykilledkenny quote tags?

No, the reasonable nation thing primarily applies when writing a resolution, basically it means that you don't have to try to take into account every conceivable possibility when writing a resolution.

Well, that makes a lot more sense, at least. Still, even if you don't have to go crazy trying to take every little possibility into account, surely considering some of the common possibilities is in order?

You want a "single, clear interpretation" huh. Well I've got good news, I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance... Wait, wait, wait, that not the good news I wanted to tell you. Oh yeah, now I remember, what I was going to say was that this resolution does in fact have a single, clear interpretation, when it passes, child pornography will be banned in all UN nations. How much clearer can it be?

Well, given that it sets standards that make something child pornography in one nation but not another, it could at least make an attempt to clarify which nation's laws take precedence in an international incident. That'd be clearer, I think.


The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites has previously gone on record as opposing any attempt by the UN to decide how we punish our criminals, even if it's only a suggestion.

Ah yes, and it's definitely not worth including any clause that would cause the resolution not to get /your/ vote.


And if multiple nations are involved with child porn under this resolution they can decide for themselves which nation gets to prosecute.

In theory, sure. In practice, if they fail to reach a compromise, can you guarantee no one's going to pull the proverbial gun to end the argument? Best to minimize the number of arguments as much as possible - which is done by making the resolution as clear as possible.


Hello, obviously a "known child pornographer" is someone who is known to produce ordistribute child pornography. What are we going to do next, debate the definition of the word "is?


I apologize, I wasn't clear enough in my own meaning. Does "known" mean one cop has a strange thought that the suspect might have done that once, or does it mean only those convicted in a court of law in the past? Or anything in between?


And that would most likely be illegal, the best bet for something like that would be to set up a committee to make those decisions, however it's a moot point now as you can't edit a resolution once it hits the floor.

Noooo, it's not moot. That's what a vote is for. You vote against it and say, "Sorry, word this better and resubmit."

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."


OOC: What's with all these extra Omigodtheykilledkenny quote tags?
OOC: Meh, you saw them before I editted them out. :) That's just something I do when replying to a long post, I start by cutting that off the top and pasting it to the bottom several times, so I can break up the post as needed for my response. This time I forgot to erase the extras when I was done.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/3812/tangolebiscuitbarrelly1.jpg

This is not true, and has not been true for as long as I have been around. And I am 41 years old. But then, it is not true that there is a single legal standard in the United Kingdom: there are wholly separate legal systems in Scotland and in the single legal entity of England and Wales, and a third in Northern Ireland. I am most acquainted with the Scottish system, under which it is not necessary to wait until eighteen to marry without parental consent. Nor is it necessary anywhere in the UK to be twenty one before purchasing any form of alcohol or gambling.

I cannot in all conscience support this resolution. While of course I am in agreement with the principle of the illegality of child pornography, the legalistic defining of terms such as "obscenity" is notoriously difficult without involving such personally subjective sentiments as "I know it when I see it," which do not in any circumstances belong in such as a United Nations resolution, and I do believe the spirit of the resolution is that of the promulgation and imposition of the religious and moral attitudes of the delegate proposing it and those supporting it, and further that that is the reason for the appallingly loose inclusion of the word "nudity" in the resolution and the extremely immoderate language in this forum regarding "liberal child-haters" and the like.
Whilst I generally agree with the spirit of both the above statement and the resolution, there are already differences in what may be deemed the age of consent - 16 in England, 13 in Japan, 17 in Holland, I believe. Other nations set different ages - not to mention of course the fact that sex is legal for young men at a different age to young women. Then there is the question of homosexual sex - illegal in many arab states...
At the same time, in the UK you cannot vote until 18 but you can fight in the army from 16 in theory!
Others have highlighted the problems defining 'obscene' and how innocent family photographs can lead to 'do-gooders' taking wholly innocent parents to court.
This resolution seems to be fraught with all kinds of problems despite its good intent and maybe there should be separate resolutions dealing with points raised by members and delegates.
King Michael

Well, that makes a lot more sense, at least. Still, even if you don't have to go crazy trying to take every little possibility into account, surely considering some of the common possibilities is in order?True, however the same thing can be accomplished by allowing wiggle room in the proposal to allow nations to fit the proposla to meet their unique situtation.

Ah yes, and it's definitely not worth including any clause that would cause the resolution not to get /your/ vote. *points to his nametag which reads "Regional Delegate"
You do realize that as a Regional Delegate I have the responsibility of approving proposals in order to get them to the floor to be voted on.

I apologize, I wasn't clear enough in my own meaning. Does "known" mean one cop has a strange thought that the suspect might have done that once, or does it mean only those convicted in a court of law in the past? Or anything in between?Since it doesn't say one way or the other, it's probably meant to be left up to the individual nations to define.

Noooo, it's not moot. That's what a vote is for. You vote against it and say, "Sorry, word this better and resubmit."

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."
Hmm, let's see.
*looks at the big board (http://www.nationstates.net/21981/page=un)
Current vote totals are 9,666 For, to 1,666 Against making an 8,000 vote difference with about 24 hours left to vote. I'll stand by my calling it a moot point.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Here's teh thing though. If you want the proposal to have "wiggle room" and the ability to define these things in your nation... why bother having the resolution, in the first place? Name me a UN country that doens't have child porn laws already in effect that shouldn't be up for review as to whether they should be included at all. i just don't see the point to it.

why bother having the resolution, in the first place?Because it bans child pornography. Not mandating the nature of the punishement is not the same as not mandating any punishment. Do try to keep up.

Name me a UN country that doens't have child porn laws already in effectHave you been reading this debate? There are plenty coming out of the woodwork that, for some insane reason, grant children as young as 5 full rights. Also, as the "nation" of HotRodia has no government, it therefore has no laws, and thus has no laws against child pornography.


I'm telling you people... Reading Comprehension resolution...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like me to convey congratulations on his behalf to the drafter of this resolution. Unless a magical eight-thousand people come out of the wordwork and vote no on the Child Pornography Prohibition Act, this resolution is "in the bag" as the kids say. Congratulations to you all.

He would also like to convey his astonishment that Denis Leary has a doctorate and is a UN Ambassador. You learn something new every day, he says.

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo

I'm telling you people... Reading Comprehension resolution...


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack
And as i said before, it wouldn't help because nobody who needs to read it would read it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Costa Bravo']The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like me to convey congratulations on his behalf to the drafter of this resolution. Unless a magical eight-thousand people come out of the wordwork and vote no on the Child Pornography Prohibition Act, this resolution is "in the bag" as the kids say. Congratulations to you all.

He would also like to convey his astonishment that Denis Leary has a doctorate and is a UN Ambassador. You learn something new every day, he says.

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo

He's not a UN ambassador.

He's not a UN ambassador.
Why whatever do you mean? It says quite clearly
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

He's not a UN ambassador.Yeah, I don't get it. :confused:

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo would like to convey that he is currently banging his head on his keyboard.

Phillipe Renoir
Emissary to the UN
The Armed Republic of Costa Bravo

So we can declare ourselves unreasonable and ignore every resolution in the UN? You're right... that doesn't sound rational at all. Is there a definition out there somewhere regarding what constitutes a "reasonable" nation?Flib's already covered this.

These are the semantics of the example, and do not address our point itself. If it helps you grasp the nature of our example better, let's replace the boy with a man in his mid-thirties, and add another adult as the cameraman during the sex act. Does your position remain unchanged?Well, now, see, there, that man in his mid-thirties would be in violation of United Nations Resolution #22 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029629&postcount=23). Hopefully your nation is in compliance; elsewise, you'd start a needless war. :rolleyes:

You're not being asked to bend over backwards. You're being asked to draft resolutions with a single, clear interpretation. For extra credit, you might include provisions regarding the handling of disputes.I've drafted several of them already, and a legal document with a "single, clear interpretation" is near-impossible. There's always going to be a clause or two open to interpretation. Which is just as well: otherwise, our Creative Solutions Agency staffers wouldn't have anything to do.

Our proposed remedy would be to change the wording in section 1 to clarify exactly whether or not the resolution bans the portrayal of simulated sex acts by people, words and artwork /portraying/ minors, or just the simulation of a sex act /by/ an actual minor. We would also see a clause added to section 3 that offers some guidance for what an "appropriately tough penalty" would be, particularly a requirement that the more punitive legal system be given primary jurisdiction in matters of prosecution, along with the establishment of a liaison officer position in every nation to determine amongst themselves which nation has the more punitive legal system. Section 4 could be much more clear on what circumstances designate someone to be a "known child pornographer", and lastly, there could be a section 6 mandating that, in the event two nations have a dispute regarding the interpretation of the resolution, they must seek out an impartial third nation, agreed upon by both parties, to arbitrate that dispute.In other words, you cannot issue findings on the law yourself, and you desperately need for the gnomes to hold your hand. What the hell are you doing ruling a nation if you don't even know how to interpret laws??

The resolution would still be wrong, at least from our ethical standpoint, but it would be /clear/ and /enforceable/.It already is "/clear/ and /enforceable/," with or without your nifty forward slashes, and those of us with the capacity for abstract thought will be implementing its provisions in our nations within a matter of hours. We're even certain that if it's not enforced in the exact same way in all 30,000 member states, there will not be a war.

Apparently it bears repeating - it's nice that the Federal Republic is capable of holding it's temper. That does nothing, however, to ensure that two less "reasonable" nations do not go to war over misunderstandings created by the resolution as it is currently written.Stop being stupid. Nations do not go to war just because one sees a man as a child pornographer and the other does not. There are several people charged in the United States with far more serious crimes who are currently hiding out in France, and France refuses to extradite them because they will face the death penalty in the States. Has the United States invaded France yet? Hmm?

Has the United States invaded France yet? Hmm?
OOC: What's the point in invading France? All they can do in surrender anyway?:p

Why whatever do you mean? It says quite clearly


Bob Flibble
UN Representative

sighs

Uh, yeah... About that...

runs off in another direction



To be fair, though, TMGH isn't a UN member...

To be fair, though, TMGH isn't a UN member...The Federal Republic wasn't a UN member, either, yet for some reason this delegation was never informed. Apparently the administration wanted to keep Riley out of the country for as long as it possibly could. Imagine that! :p

The Federal Republic wasn't a UN member, either, yet for some reason this delegation was never informed. Apparently the administration wanted to keep Riley out of the country for as long as it possibly could. Imagine that! :p

Who could possibly want Riley out of their country? It's... It's...

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-8/1070810/inconceivable_1.jpg

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means...


I suppose I should call myself an attache or liason, but I get a better discount with CPESL if my title is "ambassador".


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That word you keep using... I do not think it means what you think it means...


I suppose I should call myself an attache or liason, but I get a better discount with CPESL if my title is "ambassador".


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

You should call yourself "Minister Plenipotentiary to the UN". Nobody would object, since nobody would be quite sure what that meant, and anyway, they'd get stuck trying to spell "plenipotentiary". And you'd probably get a better discount from CPESL because they'd figure you must be really important.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador at Large

Very true. I will leave the remainder of this "debate" to my assistant, with instructions for him to take note of any nations that refuse to comply with the UN resolution outlawing pedophilia so that the Cluichstani Armed Forces can invade them to protect their children.

The governments of the several nations that collectively comprise the Godwinnian Commonwealth have not yet decided whether the use of military force would be appropriate in this situation, because of course innocents within the countries attacked would suffer during those conflicts (and in any subsequent 'insurgencies' within the conquered lands) too: A team of experts has beeen assembled to look at the probabilities involved & calculate which option[s] would be preferable... Each of our nations has, however, issued clear instructions to its Outsidestuff FirstthaneHall that nobody from any of the "offending" nations is to be granted recognition as a diplomat within our territories, so that any of those people who come here and break our laws will not be able to shelter behind the veil of diplomatic immunity...

What was the record for the largest margin of victory in a UN Resolution? I remember someone else had a boast about it in their sig.

Is 10,000 enough to break it? Cuz we're above that point.

Really? Someone was boasting about having passed the most successful UN resolution of all time? I barely noticed. ;)

Safalra's Female Genital Mutilation passed by over 13,000 votes.

IC remarks in a bit.

That's right, I remember now! It was Safalra's female genital mutilation act, and it passed by over 13,000 votes!

I did some research.

course, more people actually voted in the UN back then. Perhaps this one wins by a larger percentage of the votes?

Nope.

FGM: 92%
CPP: 90%

Close though.

I believe that a totall ban on child exploitation in general should be put on the stands and put to the gallows.

This may seem contradictory to my statment above, but does not every country have a legal age of concent, so what may seem to be the exploitation of children, may very well be legal in thier nation.

I believe that a totall ban on child exploitation in general should be put on the stands and put to the gallows.

This may seem contradictory to my statment above, but does not every country have a legal age of concent, so what may seem to be the exploitation of children, may very well be legal in thier nation.

Sounds great. But if you don't define exploitation and child you don't accomplish anything except make legislators feel better, and if you do you will piss people off with the details.

This legislation was careful not to accomplish anything, so it passed easily.

The governments of the several nations that collectively comprise the Godwinnian Commonwealth have not yet decided whether the use of military force would be appropriate in this situation, because of course innocents within the countries attacked would suffer during those conflicts (and in any subsequent 'insurgencies' within the conquered lands) too: A team of experts has beeen assembled to look at the probabilities involved & calculate which option[s] would be preferable... Each of our nations has, however, issued clear instructions to its Outsidestuff FirstthaneHall that nobody from any of the "offending" nations is to be granted recognition as a diplomat within our territories, so that any of those people who come here and break our laws will not be able to shelter behind the veil of diplomatic immunity...

Good idea, let us know who doesn't comply with this :) The only forseeable reason I can see not to comply is if you have some weird country where sex itself is outlawed... where the age of majority is like 30 or something. What's the highest age of majority reported so far?

Well, now, see, there, that man in his mid-thirties would be in violation of United Nations Resolution #22 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029629&postcount=23). Hopefully your nation is in compliance; elsewise, you'd start a needless war.

Nope. Since the resolution fails to define "sexual molestation", we are left to our own counsel with regard to dictionary definitions, and since the word "molest" means "to bother", we interpret this resolution to mean that nonconsensual sex with prepubescents is illegal. Which is good, since there are probably plenty of nations out there that do allow nonconsensual sex with pubescent and postpubescent people because of some BDSM fetish or other strange law, and it's nice that at least some people are protected from that.

I've drafted several of them already, and a legal document with a "single, clear interpretation" is near-impossible. There's always going to be a clause or two open to interpretation.

We concede that. However, look at the resolution above - while our interpretation of it is likely flexible compared with the drafter's intent, it does still have SOME bearing on life, since there is no loophole (at least not that we can think of) that would allow someone to forcibly rape a five year old. Thus the resolution has some meaning, at least, and does succeed in preventing the worst of what it wants to prevent.

When a resolution has so many large loopholes that not a single bit of it needs to be considered relevant, that's when it's become a waste of ink.

In other words, you cannot issue findings on the law yourself, and you desperately need for the gnomes to hold your hand. What the hell are you doing ruling a nation if you don't even know how to interpret laws??

Oh we can handle ourselves just fine internally. Our objection is regarding international scope.

Stop being stupid. Nations do not go to war just because one sees a man as a child pornographer and the other does not. There are several people charged in the United States with far more serious crimes who are currently hiding out in France, and France refuses to extradite them because they will face the death penalty in the States. Has the United States invaded France yet? Hmm?

Well, of course, we've never heard of this "France" you refer to, and there are so many countries out there that start with "United States" that it is hard to discern which one you mean. Irregardless of that, your example is a little off base with what we're talking about. This is not about refusing to turn dissidents over to their own government; this is about innumerable incidents of contraband floating across a border with the offended country insisting that the contraband's producers are violating international law.

Obviously this is something we already deal with to an extent now, much the same way nations with cocaine farmers have to deal with their product finding it's way into countries which outlaw cocaine. We make no efforts as a government to sell things to countries in which they are illegal, prohibit business-to-business sales from the private sector, and those countries' customs officers catch most of what their citizens buy here during visits. Problem solved, except of course that the countries in question find the whole thing to be a large nuisance and a burden on their customs department. But, hey, nothing else they can really do about it, right?

Enter the resolution. Now they can insist that we are violating international law as they interpret it simply by allowing the materials to be manufactured in our own borders. We, of course, insist that we are not. Embargoes pop up in some cases, but that's not a big deal since medical supplies are never embargoed and everything else is pretty much just a luxury. Where does it typically go from there?

this is about innumerable incidents of contraband floating across a border with the offended country insisting that the contraband's producers are violating international law.

Obviously this is something we already deal with to an extent now, much the same way nations with cocaine farmers have to deal with their product finding it's way into countries which outlaw cocaine. We make no efforts as a government to sell things to countries in which they are illegal, prohibit business-to-business sales from the private sector, and those countries' customs officers catch most of what their citizens buy here during visits. Problem solved, except of course that the countries in question find the whole thing to be a large nuisance and a burden on their customs department. But, hey, nothing else they can really do about it, right?

Enter the resolution. Now they can insist that we are violating international law as they interpret it simply by allowing the materials to be manufactured in our own borders. We, of course, insist that we are not. Embargoes pop up in some cases, but that's not a big deal since medical supplies are never embargoed and everything else is pretty much just a luxury. Where does it typically go from there?

Black markets will be created any time someone tries to outlaw a product in high demand. Fortunately, child pornography isn't in very high demand. If nation A has set the age of consent at 30 though... I can easily see a black market springing up depicting porn featuring 21 year old actors.

If nation B has the age of consent set at 21, citizens of nation B are likely to violate this resolution by bringing in porn featuring 21 year old actors into nation A.

Ladies and gents of this fine Assembly,

I am very proud to stand before you today for the first time as the duly confirmed (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11460525&postcount=20) ambassador from my nation, which was recently readmitted as a member of the United Nations. My first act as the Federal Republic's official representative was to cast its vote firmly in favor of the standing resolution. Beyond the relentless quackings from this bill's very loud opponents lies the critical international issue of trafficking children across international borders for the sick purposes of creating kiddie porn. This body in the past has made progress in the fight to protect children from exploitation and abuse, enacting initiatives to halt the sexualization of young children and to prevent child labor -- but until today it has failed to pass a comprehensive law specifically guarding minors against being exploited, traded and/or smuggled for use in pornographic materials. For the first time in its history (and over the objections of moral nihilists who in their struggle to find something, anything by which they could oppose outlawing child pornography, shamefully chose to exploit semantics), the United Nations has resolved to criminalize child pornographers and urge nations to take cooperative, proactive measures to halt the trade of children for this purpose.

On the heels of this overwhelming victory for our side, I offer my personal congratulations and those of the Federal Republic to the excellent Gruenberger delegation, the leaders of our region's UN contingent. I'd also like to set aside the bitter tone of this debate and strike a chord of magnanimity and conciliation toward the leaders of the opposition:

In your FACE, pedophile-apologists!

Yeah, that's right.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

P.S. Lori Jiffjeff is QUEEN BITCH!!!

Nope.

FGM: 92%
CPP: 90%

Close though.

Goober's resolution was pretty high up as well. In general resolutions protecting children (reguardless of category type) have faired well -- suggesting people do at least scan the resolutions.

Congrats to Gruenberg.

Speaker Faisano, as has been said before, the ambiguity in this resolution is far from constructive. Holes large enough 'for lawyers to climb right through', as the saying goes in my nation, do not help.

And considering that an apologist is just someone who defends a particular thing, 'pedophile-apologist' is perhaps less appropriate than 'sexuality-apologist' or even 'common sense apologist'.

But, as your side has shown previously, Speaker Faisano, it matters not what might be best for the people when the interest of protecting children from a potential occurance is at hand. Collectively, I heard 'OMAGAH TEH BAYBEEZ'. But maybe that was just my perception.

We will not be adopting a strict interpretation of this resolution.

Rain Beechwood
Magister of the Empyrean Citadel of Lydania

Beyond the relentless quackings from this bill's very loud opponents lies the critical international issue of trafficking children across international borders for the sick purposes of creating kiddie porn.

Well, there's a popular film studio here named "Fantasy Filmmaking" which does home movies for people who want to play out a sexual fantasy and have someone add in special effects and whatnot. They're offering a 75% discount for Kennyite children who want to use the service starting the day after the resolution passes. Hope that's not trafficking, since, of course, they aren't exactly planning your citizens' travel itinerary, just offering an incentive in the name of free cultural exchange. :)

In your FACE, pedophile-apologists!

Yeah, that's right.

Oh gasp, a completely useless piece of legislation with literally any possible interpretation validly available.

Yup, you've definitely defeated pedophilia once and for all now. Quaking in their boots. Really.

Oh gasp, a completely useless piece of legislation with literally any possible interpretation validly available.

Yup, you've definitely defeated pedophilia once and for all now. Quaking in their boots. Really.

No one supports this resolution because it will accomplish something, silly. It just makes every feel better to have symbolically fought something that is not easily fixed.

I want to separate myself from many of the other opposition to this legislation. I am not on board with antagonizing anyone. I respected the goal of this Resolution, but cannot in good conscience vote for anything that takes a harmless action out of a person's legal potential (no, not child molestation, rape, or children's right to do porn, that's not the harmless action I'm referring to). I don't think there's any reasonable loophole, and I'm certain that it does not accomplish "nothing."

Congratulations to Gruenberg, as little as I enjoy saying it.

The resolution Child Pornography Prohibition was passed 11,641 votes to 1,358, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Don't think anyone posted the final vote count yet, so there...

The United Nations, July 18, 2003:

The resolution Outlaw Pedophilia was passed 11,739 votes to 1,363, and implemented in all UN member nations.The United Nations, July 29, 2006:

The resolution Child Pornography Prohibition was passed 11,641 votes to 1,358, and implemented in all UN member nations.Heh. Eery.

Wow... That's a remarkable similarity.

Freaky. Cue the 'Twilight Zone' music.

*snip*You best stop peddling shit, buddy, 'cause I ain't buyin'. Your "interpretations" of applicable international law are neither reasonable, justifiable, nor sane; you got even my Creative Solutions Agency advisors scratching their heads over this. I don't know why you'd even bother twisting yourselves into pretzels trying to circumvent this law -- if you're not a member (www.nationstates.net/kuraurisand) of the United Nations to begin with. As to your assertions that divergent interpretations of this convention would only breed discord among member states, I'd like to remind you: prior to the passage of this bill, there were no international guidelines on child-pornography laws at all, meaning the capacity for disagreement was far greater before Resolution #169 than after. This mandate will actually help repair the patchwork of differing legislation in the UN-osphere, and consequently reduce international incidents stemming therefrom.

Funny you should make such a risible overture toward our nation's children, Ambassador, as the State Department has just classified your regime as "Staggeringly Derranged," and as a result the Federal Congress has passed an embargo expressly forbidding Kennyites from traveling anywhere inside your nation's borders. I will be with the Destructor in Paradise City tomorrow when he signs it.

Now fuck off.

*snip*I will thank you to stop mistaking me for the speaker of the Federal Assembly, Magister, as she is some years older than I, white, and a woman. I can forgive the error, though I find your dismissive slights about "my side" and our irrational desire to protect children from pornographers to be obtuse and unhelpful. We're amused to find your nation also in the business of loophole exploitation, and normally the Federal Republic extends to fellow UN nations the assistance of its Creative Solutions Agency for that purpose, but we find stretching loopholes to their limit to get around a child-pornography ban to be just plain sick.

I want to separate myself from many of the other opposition to this legislation. I am not on board with antagonizing anyone. I respected the goal of this Resolution, but cannot in good conscience vote for anything that takes a harmless action out of a person's legal potential (no, not child molestation, rape, or children's right to do porn, that's not the harmless action I'm referring to). I don't think there's any reasonable loophole, and I'm certain that it does not accomplish "nothing."Again, we disagree with your assessment of this law, but we are heartened that your grand Nordic republic would disassociate itself with some of the extremists opposing this ban. I sincerely hope our professional relationship in these halls will be a vast improvement over that which you shared with my predecessor, Mr. Stout.

Sammy Faisano (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sammy_Faisano)
Ambassador to the United Nations

To be fair, though, TMGH isn't a UN member...


OOC: Neither is Cluichstan, technically speaking...

IC:

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/3812/tangolebiscuitbarrelly1.jpg

Well, there's a popular film studio here named "Fantasy Filmmaking" which does home movies for people who want to play out a sexual fantasy and have someone add in special effects and whatnot. They're offering a 75% discount for Kennyite children who want to use the service starting the day after the resolution passes. Hope that's not trafficking, since, of course, they aren't exactly planning your citizens' travel itinerary, just offering an incentive in the name of free cultural exchange. :)

OOC:
Under US law, when I (an American) travel to other countries, I'm still accountable to US law, which means if I were to go to the Netherlands and smoke pot, I could still be busted. I don't think it has ever happened, but there is no reason why a nation couldn't simply make it illegal to travel to your nation due to circumstances / conditions you've created. You aren't really circumventing anybody else's laws, just starting a mud slinging contest between your nation and whatever other nation you are singling out.

Stick with the repeal replace if this debate has left you wanting to change things ... but my advice is to move on. The debate was won by a landslide in NationStates terms.

An older woman walked up to the podium and began to address the general assembly.

"Greeting ambassadors, I am Caroline Thistletwat and I am the founder of The Matrons Of Morality. I am here today on behalf of MOM to express our gratitude to the United Nations and in particular to Mrs. Jiffjeff on the passage of this fine resolution. In fact, we'd like to present Mrs. Jiffjeff with our MOM of the Month award for her work in writing this resolution and getting it passed."

Caroline Thistletwat (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/MrsThistletwat)
Founder of MOM

OOC:
Under US law, when I (an American) travel to other countries, I'm still accountable to US law, which means if I were to go to the Netherlands and smoke pot, I could still be busted. I don't think it has ever happened, but there is no reason why a nation couldn't simply make it illegal to travel to your nation due to circumstances / conditions you've created. You aren't really circumventing anybody else's laws, just starting a mud slinging contest between your nation and whatever other nation you are singling out.

(OOC) Australia does something similar with people who go overseas for child sex under the Australian child sex tourism laws. They are arrested and charged when they return to this country, if there is enough evidence to do so of course.

Congrats to the author (who I know hates it when people mispell his nation name, which I am feeling too lazy at the moment to look up, so won't try to do :p). This is a good peice of legislation that deserved to pass by the landslide it did. Well done :).

OOC: A weekend away, internet trouble, and frankly, being bored with it all, means I won't be responding to any more posts. Sorry.

To those who I didn't respond to, I apologise, but I don't have the time, and we should move on. To those who contested this resolution and engaged in reasonable and interesting debate, thank you; to the rest of you, nahhh. Thanks to everyone who supported it (drafting help, delegate approvals, votes for, TGs and messages of support, arguments in this thread).

I'm done.

An older woman walked up to the podium and began to address the general assembly.

"Greeting ambassadors, I am Caroline Thistletwat and I am the founder of The Matrons Of Morality. I am here today on behalf of MOM to express our gratitude to the United Nations and in particular to Mrs. Jiffjeff on the passage of this fine resolution. In fact, we'd like to present Mrs. Jiffjeff with our MOM of the Month award for her work in writing this resolution and getting it passed."

Caroline Thistletwat (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/MrsThistletwat)
Founder of MOM

Can we expect more moral legislation on the horizon?

Can we expect more moral legislation on the horizon?
And why would you say that, Mrs. Thistletwat is not part of the Flibbleite delegation, in fact the only connection that I have to her is that she was my kindergarden teacher.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And why would you say that, Mrs. Thistletwat is not part of the Flibbleite delegation, in fact the only connection that I have to her is that she was my kindergarden teacher.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Mrs. Thistletwat is well representative of many like minded individuals who believe governments should participate more heavily in moral matters. We have a strong libertarian streak, we think most moral problems should be solved by society. Military and Economic problems are the business of government.

"Greeting ambassadors, I am Caroline Thistletwat and I am the founder of The Matrons Of Morality. I am here today on behalf of MOM to express our gratitude to the United Nations and in particular to Mrs. Jiffjeff on the passage of this fine resolution. In fact, we'd like to present Mrs. Jiffjeff with our MOM of the Month award for her work in writing this resolution and getting it passed."
Mrs Thistletwat, I should indeed be honoured to accept this prestigious award, and I thank you for your kind words regarding the recent resolution. Much time and effort went into securing its passage, and although knowing the lives of children around the world have been helped by this important step is reward enough, your organization's honour is an additional cherry on top.

I look forward to MAWS and MOM working together in the future.

~Lori Jiffjeff
Legal Aide
Minister of Sandy Vaginas
Chair, "Mothers Against Weird Stuff"

The government of Ausserland (belatedly) congratulates the distinguished representative of Gruenberg on the passage of this fine resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Can we expect more moral legislation on the horizon?[OOC: I sure hope so; the Kennyite moralist organization could use some play. I don't have a Jiffjeff-esque character just yet, but it sure would be fun to play one. :p]

If it means the ruin of your precious libertarian (copyright-free) society, then yes, we would support more moralist dictates from the NSUN, if only for that purpose.

~State Department Staff

Can we expect more moral legislation on the horizon?

Give us time...

Mrs. Thistletwat is well representative of many like minded individuals who believe governments should participate more heavily in moral matters. We have a strong libertarian streak, we think most moral problems should be solved by society. Military and Economic problems are the business of government.
While that may or may not be true, as she is not a member of the Flibbleite delegation she has absolutly no effect on what proposals, if any, I will be proposing.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

While that may or may not be true, as she is not a member of the Flibbleite delegation she has absolutly no effect on what proposals, if any, I will be proposing.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: I tweaked her NSWiki entry to reflect her participation in this thread ... but it couldn't hurt to re-edit my edits of the character to point out that she is essentially a representative of a NGO and plays a behind the scenes role in moral legislation. When in doubt, your character, your rules ... I just added more to her to help fill things out!

I'd like to encourage others to do the same and from time to time create Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) reps to represent a different Point of View from your nations. It helps emphasis that we the players aren't *exactly* the same as the characters we put force, and with a *great* amount of luck can tone down things like this resolution's debates.

OOC: I tweaked her NSWiki entry to reflect her participation in this thread ... but it couldn't hurt to re-edit my edits of the character to point out that she is essentially a representative of a NGO and plays a behind the scenes role in moral legislation. When in doubt, your character, your rules ... I just added more to her to help fill things out!

I'd like to encourage others to do the same and from time to time create Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) reps to represent a different Point of View from your nations. It helps emphasis that we the players aren't *exactly* the same as the characters we put force, and with a *great* amount of luck can tone down things like this resolution's debates.

One of the things that comes from having as limited a central government as we do is that our country is largely run by NGOs. Are they still considered NGOs if they have any government funding or support though?

Could the mods please lock this thread. I consider the topic finished.