NationStates Jolt Archive

Current Version:

[DRAFT 9]

[DRAFT 9]

Banning Slavery


CONVINCED that slavery is a barbaric practice not befitting civilized society.

BELIEVING that no person should ever again be forced into slavery, or treated as property,

The United Nations

(1)
DEFINES a slave as one who is owned, treated like, or declared the property of another person/group; or a person who is a victim of forced labour.

(2)
DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted against the will of the labourer. under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death against the laborer, or that of those for whom they care.

(2.1)
EXCLUDES from the proceeding, but not the above definition (assuming persons involved are treated humanely, and appropriately compensated for their efforts):

(I)
Any work or service normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention.
(II)
Any service of a military character required by law, with regards to conscentsous objectors.
(III)
Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

(2.2)
FURTHER DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death against the labourer, or that of those for whom they care.

(3)
DEFINES the slave trade as the trading, selling, purchasing, distributing, bartering, or giving of a person as property.

(4)
DEFINES a slave trader/slaver/slave master as one who sells, barters, trades, gives, distributes or claims ownership of a human being.

(5)
MANDATES that slavery and the slave trade shall be outlawed in all UN nations.

(6)
MANDATES that no UN Nation may allow slaves to be traded through their borders, or their citizens to be enslaved overseas.

(7)
MANDATES that no UN Nation may harbour slave traders, or those peripherally but knowingly involved with the slave trade.

(8)
INSTRUCTS all UN Nations to halt shipments of slaves found in UN controlled international territory, and to liberate found slaves and grant them refugee status.

(9)
MANDATES all UN Nations punish those violating the above clauses within UN Guidlines, and a minimum of a 20-year prison sentence and a suspension of all finances and bank accounts in UN Nations. Nations without prisons may apply an equivelant punishment, or transport the convicted to another willing UN Nation that does have prisons.

(10)
STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to pressure Non-UN Nations into outlawing slavery and the slave trade.

(11)
STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to halt trade with slavery supporting Non-UN Nations.

[DRAFT 5](III)
Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.


If in an arranged marriage where the woman is considered the property of the manl if this clause is intented to cover this then we okay with it.

Also children until they are adults are sometimes looked at by some as slaves to the parents thus this clause would I hope also cover that. As there would be no forced labor as the work would be done as part of their obligation to the family unit until they are on their own.. As can see some smart-A kid going to court claiming his parents are slave drivers/traders.. Because they have to do simple chores or go to work on weekends to help support themselves.

Grammatical corrections are bolded.

DEFINES a slave as one who is owned, or declared property of another person/group; or a person who is a victim of forced labour.
DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted against the will of the labourer, under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death of the labourer, or that of those for whom they care.
Not that "laborer" isn't correct as well, but you may as well be consistent.

Also you may want to seperate the definitions of "Forced Labor" into two, since you make exclusions in the next clause. All you're excluding special cases from is the part about labor against the will of the laborer, and not the part about threat of death, ruin, or familial death. Otherwise this Proposal could be used as justification for such treatment, despite the parenthetical note about humane treatment.

Perhaps you try this sequence:

DEFINES "forced labor" as labor conducted against the will of the laborer.

EXCLUDES from the above definition Tom, Dick, and Harry.

FURTHER DEFINES "forced labor" as conducted under threats of lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

Alternately, the EXCLUDES could read as "EXCLUDES from the preceding, but not the following definition Tom, Dick, and Harry." Somehow it has to be readable that you're not excluding people from the inhumane treatment.

Also, be sure to put the terms you're defining into quotation marks.

(2)
DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted against the will of the labourer, under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death against the laborer, or that of those for whom they care.
Add "imprisonment" to the list of consequences, and replace "whom they care" with "others" (someone could be working under the threat of destruction of the entire country except for the people they care about).

(10)
MANDATES all UN Nations punish those violating the above clauses however they please with in UN Guidlines, but with a minimum of a 20-year prison sentence, or for nations without prisons, that the convicted be transferred to a willing UN nation that does have prisons.
Could this be replaced with:

MANDATES all UN Nations use sufficient punishment or other deterrent to ensure that the above clauses are not violated.

or something similar. Ceorana doesn't like the UN interfering with our prison sentences, that's for our judges to decide.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I don't see 'debt slavery' here and its the main method of people trafficking in the sex industry as well as people trafficking in general.

a lot of people trafficking also involves illegal refugees as well as people holding passports and tourist visas.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassasor

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with slavery. So long as the slaves are treated as well as other workers, it can in fact be a good way to build up a body of work experience. Surviving slavery shows strength of character, and freedmen have historically been able to find themselves in positions of considerable stature within society. We do not see a ban on slavery as a worthy end in itself.

~The Sub-Vizier
Deputy Ambassador to the UN

my nation used to have child selling which is a sort of slavery and while the girls in question learned a trade such as being a courtesan or a geisha the practice was discontinued a century ago. There was also an element of debt slavery as well to this.

Now these are valid career choices where Kirisuban girls can go to college to learn these skills.

(3)
EXCLUDES from the above definition (assuming persons involved are treated humanely, and appropriately compensated for their efforts):


Being compensated for their efforts??? Doesn't that mean they are getting paid, so wouldn't that also mean that it isn't slavery (by name at least.)

Robert Matthews
Teklet Department of Foreign Affairs

Being compensated for their efforts??? Doesn't that mean they are getting paid, so wouldn't that also mean that it isn't slavery (by name at least.)
Slavery means that there is no freedom, not no payment.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Alright boys, this is your final chance to suggest what you will before I submit this to the UN.

[DRAFT 7]

[QUOTE]
Banning Slavery


CONVINCED that slavery is a barbaric practice not befitting civilized society.

BELIEVING that no person should ever again be forced into slavery, or treated as property,

The United Nations

(1)
DEFINES a slave as one who is owned, or declared propterty of anothe person/group; or a person who is a victim of forced labour.

(2)
DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted against the will of the labourer, under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death against the laborer, or that of those for whom they care.

(3)
EXCLUDES from the above definition (assuming persons involved are treated humanely, and appropriately compensated for their efforts):

(I)
Any work or service normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention.
(II)
Any service of a military character required by law, with regards to conscensous
(III) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

(4)
DEFINES the slave trade as the trading, selling, purchasing, distributing, bartering, or giving of a person as property.

(5)
DEFINES a slave trader/slaver/slave master as one who sells, barters, trades, gives, distributes or claims ownership of a human being.

(6)
MANDATES that slavery and the slave trade shall be outlawed in all UN nations.

(7)
MANDATES that no UN Nation may allow slaves to be traded through their borders, or their citizens to be enslaved overseas.

(8)
MANDATES that no UN Nation may harbour slave traders, or those peripherally but knowingly involved with the slave trade.

(9)
INSTRUCTS all UN Nations to halt shipments of slaves where found in UN jurisdiction, and to liberate found slaves and house them until they are able to return to, or start a new life of freedom.

(10)
MANDATES all UN Nations punish those violating the above clauses however they please within UN Guidlines, but with a minimum of a 20-year prison sentence and a suspension of all finances and bank accounts in UN Nations.* Nations without prisons may apply an equivelant punishment, or transport the convicted to another willing UN Nation that does have prisons.

(11)
STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to pressure Non-UN Nations into outlawing slavery and the slave trade.

(12)
STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to halt trade with slavery supporting Non-UN Nations.

For the last bloody time: one thread is enough.

I thought all the other threads got deleted or something, there are no other pages on the UN Forums.

Change your profile settings to show threads "From the beginning" as opposed to just the past day. The UN forum has over 300 pages of threads.

OOC: I'm confused. I thought slavery was already illegal in the UN.

I believe this is a replacement being finalized before a Repeal is attempted.

Ok, thanks for the clarification.

*stockpiles arms for battle that will start when repeal is proposed ;) *

Could this pass without a repeal of End Slavery?

No.


And DBL, you didn't make the changes I listed in my earlier post. The whole thing is worthless if you're definition of slavery is claiming people as propterty, since property is the word that hurts. And then the other points I made.

No.
Why not?

Why not?

Duplication? Is it the word or the spirit that defines a duplicate?

Duplication? Is it the word or the spirit that defines a duplicate?
Unsure. I'm inclined to think the former; however, the biological weapons thing (the old resolution banned nothing, but had to repealed first) makes me think the mods take the latter to be true.

Unsure. I'm inclined to think the former; however, the biological weapons thing (the old resolution banned nothing, but had to repealed first) makes me think the mods take the latter to be true.
Don't forget the deal with the "Sexual Freedom" resolution where the mods decided that even though the text of the resolution says nothing about sex because the title does it actually does garantee sexual freedom.:rolleyes:

Timothy Schmidt
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/ Bob Flibble's PA

Duplication? Is it the word or the spirit that defines a duplicate?Depends. Typically it's the content, but if the content is lacking (or nonexistant), then we go with the spirit. When it's utterly incomprehensible (ie: Save The Forests of the World), we usually just ignore it.

Vague titles help with that. It's hard to figure out the intent of "Save the Forests of the World" (save? How? From what? Which forests?) Only people refusing to consider a viewpoint other than their own would be that dumbfounded by something like "Sexual Freedom" or "Ban Biological Weapons". The intent of those seems crystal clear. At least to me.

Depends. Typically it's the content, but if the content is lacking (or nonexistant), then we go with the spirit. When it's utterly incomprehensible (ie: Save The Forests of the World), we usually just ignore it.

Vague titles help with that. It's hard to figure out the intent of "Save the Forests of the World" (save? How? From what? Which forests?) Only people refusing to consider a viewpoint other than their own would be that dumbfounded by something like "Sexual Freedom" or "Ban Biological Weapons". The intent of those seems crystal clear. At least to me.

So what about Banning Slavery and Banning Slavery II?

So what about Banning Slavery and Banning Slavery II?I'm assuming a Repeal is intended... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11325159&postcount=15)

Yah, I'm hoping that if the replacement is finished before I re-attempt a repeal, it will get more support.

Alright, since there seems to be little left to say about Banning Slavery, lets get the repeal on the road:

[DRAFT 2]

Repeal NSUN Resolution #6: End Slavery.

BELEIVES that slavery is an uncivilised practice

COMMENDS the intentions of NSUN Resolution #6: End Slavery.

NOTES, unfortunately, that End Slavery fails to effectively end slavery in the following ways:

(I)
End Slavery never actually ends slavery. It merely bans the purchase or sale of people. Under this resolution, people can still be traded, bartered, given, and/or owned, as slaves.

(II)
Much of the resolution's text is given to off-topic legislation, which has little or nothing to do with ending slavery, such as the right to own possessions, and the right to travel freely.

(III)
End Slavery, by it's existense and intent (if not content) blocks any sort of other legislation on the issue of slavery, including legislation that could more effectively control slavery and the slave trade, dissaffecting since End Slavery does not end slavery.

STRONGLY URGES The immediate replacement of End Slavery with another more effective resolution of the same purpose.

REPEALS NSUN Resolution #6: End Slavery.


The origional resolution, for your reading pleasure:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #6

End slavery
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Monocerous

Description: The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people.

Votes For: 6,939
Votes Against: 1,753

Implemented: Tue Jan 21 2003

(1)
DEFINES a slave as one who is owned, treated like, or declared the property of another person/group; or a person who is a victim of forced labour.

(2)
DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted against the will of the labourer. under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death against the laborer, or that of those for whom they care.

Well yeah I guess everyones worried about human rights and all that because we are homosapiens but... if you think about it. Doesn't that description play into our lives on how we treat animals...? In zoos and circuses and enclosed cages. But I guess no one really cares because hey they're just animals... it's not like they are living breathing beings that can have emotions and feel pain.

Hey, here's a pretty tree! (http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5593/redwoodtreelaketahoejw9.jpg) to go hug.

This proposal doesn't affect animal rights. Go deal with them elsewhere.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

Hey, here's a pretty tree! (http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/5593/redwoodtreelaketahoejw9.jpg) to go hug.

This proposal doesn't affect animal rights. Go deal with them elsewhere.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

lol. With your name I can't really tell if you're a male or female... So I don't really know how to answer that. To be honest I've never hugged a tree... people yes. Stuffed toys yes. But trees = no. I should though... wouldn't that be just dandy. But there are no freaking trees around my house. Damn Texas. Why don't you use photobucket instead of image shack? But hey whatever floats your canoe.

lol. With your name I can't really tell if you're a male or female... So I don't really know how to answer that. To be honest I've never hugged a tree... people yes. Stuffed toys yes. But trees = no. I should though... wouldn't that be just dandy. But there are no freaking trees around my house. Damn Texas. Why don't you use photobucket instead of image shack? But hey whatever floats your canoe.
Ouch, burn.

Ok, moving onto the repeal...I wouldn't make the point about "irrelevant legislation", but I would really stress that it doesn't ban slavery - say it more than once - and I think you're right to say that it blocks any future legislation on the subject, as many voters does not realize this otherwise.

Alright boys, this is your final chance to suggest what you will before I submit this to the UN.

Glad I got here when I did then


Banning Slavery


CONVINCED that slavery is a barbaric practice not befitting civilized society.

Why?

BELIEVING that no person should ever again be forced into slavery, or treated as property,

There are some individuals who greatly enjoy being treated as property. There are some industries (modelling, as an example) that treat almost all members as property, in some cases going so far as to tell their well-payed, willing, employees when they can sleep and what and how much they can eat.

The United Nations

That's us.

(1)
DEFINES a slave as one who is owned, or declared propterty of anothe person/group; or a person who is a victim of forced labour.

It could easily be said that a husband belongs to his wife, and vice-versa.

(2)
DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted against the will of the labourer, under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death against the laborer, or that of those for whom they care.

I have a job that I don't particularly like. I work hard to earn money to feed my family and myself. I'd really rather not have to work. I am forced to do so because bankruptcy, starvation and death will soon follow for myself and those I care about if I don't. Ain't capitalism great?

(3)
EXCLUDES from the above definition (assuming persons involved are treated humanely, and appropriately compensated for their efforts):

What qualifies as appropriate compensation? For that matter, what qualifies as humane treatment?

(I)
Any work or service normally required of a person who is under detention in consequence of a lawful order of a court, or of a person during conditional release from such detention.

This clause I like.

(II)
Any service of a military character required by law, with regards to conscensous

Maybe my brain didn't boot up properly this morning, bear with me. I think that word is concensus. So if the law requires a consensual military service, it's exempt. Nope. I still don't get it.

(III) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.

There should probably be something that outlines what 'normal civil obligations are.

(4)
DEFINES the slave trade as the trading, selling, purchasing, distributing, bartering, or giving of a person as property.

What of those who wish to be bought and sold?

(5)
DEFINES a slave trader/slaver/slave master as one who sells, barters, trades, gives, distributes or claims ownership of a human being.

So I guess every major sports franchises will be in trouble when they find out that they can't trade players ever again.

(6)
MANDATES that slavery and the slave trade shall be outlawed in all UN nations.

That was to be expected.

(7)
MANDATES that no UN Nation may allow slaves to be traded through their borders, or their citizens to be enslaved overseas.

But we can allow slaves to be traded within our borders and our citizens can be enslaved in bordering nations as long as they are on the same land mass?

(8)
MANDATES that no UN Nation may harbour slave traders, or those peripherally but knowingly involved with the slave trade.

Alright.

(9)
INSTRUCTS all UN Nations to halt shipments of slaves where found in UN jurisdiction, and to liberate found slaves and house them until they are able to return to, or start a new life of freedom.

0) This would mean that I would be allowed to step into other UN Nations with an armed "anti-slavery force" for the purposes of freeing those enslaved. I'm stangely comfortable with that. [muted maniacal laugh]

1) I don't guarantee housing for my own citizens, why would I guarantee such to people from other lands?

10) They could start a life of freedom any time they wished, really. Before emancipation. they are capable of freeing themselves of their mortal coil to escape the clutches of the tyrannical slavers. Post-emancipation, they could be just as free as everyone else. Free to get a job and contribute to society. Free to loaf around and end up a drain on society. Free to end up suffering under the burden of being a member of a free society and not being able to hack it. Free to wither and die like the rest of us. Their choices are limitless. At least as a slave, many of these choices are made for them.

(10)
MANDATES all UN Nations punish those violating the above clauses however they please within UN Guidlines,

However I please? I punish them with the burden of one million Squees and the option to either spend it right now or let it accumulate interest.

but with a minimum of a 20-year prison sentence and a suspension of all finances and bank accounts in UN Nations.*

Oh. Nevermind. So it isn't anyway that we please.

Nations without prisons may apply an equivelant punishment,

Which would amount to what? I need an example of what would qualify as being equivalent to a 20 year sentence of imprisonment, poverty and slavery.

or transport the convicted to another willing UN Nation that does have prisons.

So if Randomea, which has no prisons, discovers one of their own citizens trading slaves, and they wish to have them imprisoned, they can send them elsewhere to allow one of their citizens to be enslaved overseas? Gotcha.

(11)
STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to pressure Non-UN Nations into outlawing slavery and the slave trade.

(12)
STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to halt trade with slavery supporting Non-UN Nations.

Sure.

Nice idea. Needs work. It really needs to include some justification for the statement that slavery is bad.

lol. With your name I can't really tell if you're a male or female...Neither. Gruen's a fluffy goat.

Gruen's point stands, however. The... rights... of animals are utterly irelevent to the conversation at hand. If you wish to deal with animals and protect them, feel free to work on a Proposal to do that. You may wish to take note of the fact that there's already a Resolution protecting endangered animals.

(2) DEFINES forced labour as labour conducted against the will of the labourer, under threat of severe bodily harm, financial ruin or death against the laborer, or that of those for whom they care.
I have a job that I don't particularly like. I work hard to earn money to feed my family and myself. I'd really rather not have to work. I am forced to do so because bankruptcy, starvation and death will soon follow for myself and those I care about if I don't. Ain't capitalism great?

Good point, alas.

(II) Any service of a military character required by law, with regards to conscensous
Maybe my brain didn't boot up properly this morning, bear with me. I think that word is concensus. So if the law requires a consensual military service, it's exempt. Nope. I still don't get it.

Maybe that line's supposed to be about allowing conscientious objectors?

(III) Any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations.
There should probably be something that outlines what 'normal civil obligations are.

They probably vary too much, from nation to nation, to be defined in a single resolution... even if they were any of the UN's business, which my government would dispute...

(5) DEFINES a slave trader/slaver/slave master as one who sells, barters, trades, gives, distributes or claims ownership of a human being.
So I guess every major sports franchises will be in trouble when they find out that they can't trade players ever again.

H'mm. In those cases with which I'm familiar what they trade is actually the right to employ that player in that line of work, but the players themselves remain free (free, for example, to change careers: They can't be forced to continue playing Fieldball, for example, if they've decided to take up a position in the family business instead, although of course they might owe their former employer some financial compensation for their breaking their [freely-agreed] contract with him/her...). It's an interesting point, though, I agree...

(7) MANDATES that no UN Nation may allow slaves to be traded through their borders, or their citizens to be enslaved overseas.
But we can allow slaves to be traded within our borders and our citizens can be enslaved in bordering nations as long as they are on the same land mass?

Clauses #6 & 8 would seem to cover the first of those points. I agree that the reference to "overseas" needs changing to something along the lines of "abroad".

(9) INSTRUCTS all UN Nations to halt shipments of slaves where found in UN jurisdiction, and to liberate found slaves and house them until they are able to return to, or start a new life of freedom.
This would mean that I would be allowed to step into other UN Nations with an armed "anti-slavery force" for the purposes of freeing those enslaved. I'm stangely comfortable with that. [muted maniacal laugh]

1) I don't guarantee housing for my own citizens, why would I guarantee such to people from other lands?

I agree that the line about halting shipments of slaves needs re-writing, for the reason that you've given. As to "housing" the freed slaves, would you rather leave them roaming around loose within your nation? As this proposal doesn't actually specify any particular standard of housing, all you need to do is put them into an enclosure (where you can keep them under control) with perhaps some fairly basic huts (OOC: 'POW camp'-style, perhaps) until they can be sent home or sent to more welcoming nations or found paid employment...

Free to loaf around and end up a drain on society.

Only if 'society' is willing to accept this...

(11) STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to pressure Non-UN Nations into outlawing slavery and the slave trade.

(12) STRONGLY URGES UN Nations to halt trade with slavery supporting Non-UN Nations.

Are these two clauses actually legal? The limits of how far resolutions can indirectly affect non-UN nations and directly affect UN nations' interactions with non-UN nations aren't clearly defined, and are something about which I've been wondering for various reasons (including the suppression of piracy)...

Are these two clauses actually legal? The limits of how far resolutions can indirectly affect non-UN nations and directly affect UN nations' interactions with non-UN nations aren't clearly defined, and are something about which I've been wondering for various reasons (including the suppression of piracy)...

Ya I think it is legal.

Ya I think it is legal.Care to explain why?

Care to explain why?
Probably because they don't require the UN as a whole to actually affect non-member nations. And even then they only urge, albeit strongly, that UN members do those things.

Timothy Schmidy
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

Probably because they don't require the UN as a whole to actually affect non-member nations. And even then they only urge, albeit strongly, that UN members do those things.

Timothy Schmidy
UN Rep. (pro-tem)/Bob Flibble's PA

H'mm. So if 'Supression of Piracy' were to include a clause saying
'STRONGLY URGES member-nations to destroy any pirate bases that might exist in non-member nations'
do you think that that would be legal?

H'mm. So if 'Supression of Piracy' were to include a clause saying
'STRONGLY URGES member-nations to destroy any pirate bases that might exist in non-member nations do you think that that would be legal?

Actually a very interesting question...

I would normaly have expanded on the reason I thought i was legal, but the reason was I could not find anything it violated.

This kind of stuff is a pretty unclear line though so in the end it is a mod could easily justify getting rid of it or not. I belive(only an opinion) that the fact that it is optional(not breaking the optionaity rule of course btw) should be good enough.

Actually a very interesting question...

I'm pretty sure that it is legal since it suggests that UN members take a certain type of action. Even if it were mandated, the resolution would still only affect UN member nations. The actions of said nations would affect non-UN nations, but the resolution itself wouldn't. It suggests or requires nothing of those non-members at all. The mods might disagree, but that's where my logic flows towards.

I'm pretty sure that it is legal since it suggests that UN members take a certain type of action. Even if it were mandated, the resolution would still only affect UN member nations. The actions of said nations would affect non-UN nations, but the resolution itself wouldn't. It suggests or requires nothing of those non-members at all. The mods might disagree, but that's where my logic flows towards.

That would be my reading of it as well, but then, that's why I said it's an interesting question. I'm curious what the Powers That Be think. ;)

That's why I put STONGLY URGES, because I knew I couldn't Mandate it legally, and if I could it would still never make quorum.

BTW- It's been updated again.

Well, I'm going to submit the repeal tomorrow, so last call.