NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the repeal that I have been working on. As the title of this thread suggests, it is still in the drafting phase. I welcome any and all input that anyone here would be willing to give. There is also a replacement being developed that will get it's own discussion thread when it is closer to being finished. With that being said, here is the repeal.


Whereby UN Resolution #7 Sexual Freedom shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The United Nations

RECOGNIZING the Universal right to privacy for sexual relations;

COMMENDING the intent of Sexual Freedom to protect such privacy;

MINDFUL, however, that incidents, crimes or accidents may occur during the course of consensual sexual activity of which government agencies should be made aware;

FEARFUL that loose interpretations of Sexual Freedom's broad language may result in such incidents not being properly reported or investigated;

WISHING to curtail continued omissions;

ENCOURAGING a more detailed replacement; hereby

REPEALS UNR#7 Sexual Freedom

The ever-sovereign Regent of the Armed Republic of Costa Bravo, Jonah Jebediah Rudabaugh, would like to convey his support for this prospective resolution.

I am opposed to the repeal of this until I see a good replacement that should be able to pass in the UN.

FEARFUL that this very misinterpretable Resolution is very open to abuse

I would like to note there was a mod ruling HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702195&postcount=8)
Just putting this in before people say something silly.

Can you give me realistic example(s) of when it can be misinterpreted? If you cannot take that line out

I am opposed to the repeal of this until I see a good replacement that should be able to pass in the UN.

I would like to note there was a mod ruling HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702195&postcount=8)
Just putting this in before people say something silly.

Can you give me realistic example(s) of when it can be misinterpreted? If you cannot take that line out


It could be intrepreted such that two consenting adults could rape someone in the privacy of their bedroom and the government would be powerless to do anything about it. There are at least two consenting adults engaging in sexual activity, and information about such would not necessarily be needed for medical purposes. An illegal act has taken place. The victim could even go so far as to run to the police about it, but they would be unable to assist since there were two or more consenting adults involved and it took place in the privacy of their own bedroom.

The line stays.

It could be intrepreted such that two consenting adults could rape someone in the privacy of their bedroom and the government would be powerless to do anything about it. There are at least two consenting adults engaging in sexual activity, and information about such would not necessarily be needed for medical purposes. An illegal act has taken place. The victim could even go so far as to run to the police about it, but they would be unable to assist since there were two or more consenting adults involved and it took place in the privacy of their own bedroom.

The line stays.

With all due respect sir, your example is frankly bizarre. Let's examine the wording again:

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state

Now if someone is raped, are they consenting? By definition they're not, which means that someone could complain, because it's not an act involving "two or more consenting adults". Two consented, one (or more) didn't. It doesn't meet the standard set by the resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Police have to investigate consensual sex sometimes. For example, police timelines. For instance, if John and Betty were at home having sex at 11:45, how could they possibly have robbed the museum at midnight? Police would have to verify the alibi, by talking to neighbors to see what time they were home, what time they entered the house, if they heard any noises, etc., and they couldn't. Because the sexual activity of consenting adults "is not the concern of the state."

With all due respect sir,

For starters, I am not a sir. I guess I should have made that clear before. At any rate, Ms. Chase will do just fine.

your example is frankly bizarre.

I could have come up with something much more bizarre. I was asked to give a realistic example, which I did.

Now if someone is raped, are they consenting? By definition they're not, which means that someone could complain, because it's not an act involving "two or more consenting adults". Two consented, one (or more) didn't. It doesn't meet the standard set by the resolution.

Irrelevent. There are two or more consenting adults in the room. The resolution makes no exceptions for non-consenting participants.

Police have to investigate consensual sex sometimes. For example, police timelines. For instance, if John and Betty were at home having sex at 11:45, how could they possibly have robbed the museum at midnight? Police would have to verify the alibi, by talking to neighbors to see what time they were home, what time they entered the house, if they heard any noises, etc., and they couldn't. Because the sexual activity of consenting adults "is not the concern of the state."

Just going to further show how the resolution, as it stands, is flawed and lacking.

Wanna go even further? OK then. Police stakeouts. The cops can't camp outside Nick the Knife's home, 'cause he might be banging his wife from time to time in there. Also, drug deals. Katrina wants heroin, so she trades sex for an insane amount of it. Now, my law enforcement officials can't investigate her drug deal, because it was "sealed," so to speak, in the privacy of Donnie the Dealer's home. Finally, my nation suspects Larry the Leaker is a spy, so we decide to start tracking him day and night. Turns out a lot of his clandestine activities involve sex with foreign agents. Whoops! Feds can't track him anymore, because they cannot "concern" themselves with consensual sex in the privacy of either his or his foreign-agent friends' homes! What do you expect the police to do? Cover their eyes?

while these scenarios are interesting fantasies I'm sure that the honourable Kennyite has a good reason for wanting a repeal.

I would like to see this resolution tidied up and improved even although I support the principle of it.

Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador from the Empire of Kirisubo

Wanna go even further? OK then. Police stakeouts. The cops can't camp outside Nick the Knife's home, 'cause he might be banging his wife from time to time in there. Also, drug deals. Katrina wants heroin, so she trades sex for an insane amount of it. Now, my law enforcement officials can't investigate her drug deal, because it was "sealed," so to speak, in the privacy of Donnie the Dealer's home. Finally, my nation suspects Larry the Leaker is a spy, so we decide to start tracking him day and night. Turns out a lot of his clandestine activities involve sex with foreign agents. Whoops! Feds can't track him anymore, because they cannot "concern" themselves with consensual sex in the privacy of either his or his foreign-agent friends' homes! What do you expect the police to do? Cover their eyes?

Very well put good sir.

while these scenarios are interesting fantasies I'm sure that the honourable Kennyite has a good reason for wanting a repeal.

I would like to see this resolution tidied up and improved even although I support the principle of it.

Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador from the Empire of Kirisubo

If you would like to see this REPEAL tidied up, then why don't you offer some suggestions as to how that could be done. As I said in the opening, any help would be good. That's why this is still in the drafting stage.

For starters, I am not a sir. I guess I should have made that clear before. At any rate, Ms. Chase will do just fine.

My apologies Ms. Chase.

I could have come up with something much more bizarre. I was asked to give a realistic example, which I did.

I think your definition of 'realistic' may differ slightly from mine.

Irrelevent. There are two or more consenting adults in the room. The resolution makes no exceptions for non-consenting participants.

Did you read my answer?

What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state.

Which means that the behaviour referred to is clearly that of the consenting parties between themselves, not their behaviour pertaining to the non-consenting party.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

P.S.

Wanna go even further? OK then. Police stakeouts. The cops can't camp outside Nick the Knife's home, 'cause he might be banging his wife from time to time in there. Also, drug deals. Katrina wants heroin, so she trades sex for an insane amount of it. Now, my law enforcement officials can't investigate her drug deal, because it was "sealed," so to speak, in the privacy of Donnie the Dealer's home. Finally, my nation suspects Larry the Leaker is a spy, so we decide to start tracking him day and night. Turns out a lot of his clandestine activities involve sex with foreign agents. Whoops! Feds can't track him anymore, because they cannot "concern" themselves with consensual sex in the privacy of either his or his foreign-agent friends' homes! What do you expect the police to do? Cover their eyes?

Just say you were tracking and observing the drug dealing, not their sexual intercourse. It gets you round the resolution easily, by focusing on the non-sexual aspect of their conduct.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you too.

Just say you were tracking and observing the drug dealing, not their sexual intercourse. It gets you round the resolution easily, by focusing on the non-sexual aspect of their conduct.That's insufficient. Many crimes involve sex, and sometimes, the police simply have to know about it. If Katrina's getting drugs by selling her body, if foreign agents are obtaining state secrets while fucking Larry, it might be nice if the government was informed. But this resolution says no. End of story.

That's insufficient. Many crimes involve sex, and sometimes, the police simply have to know about it. If Katrina's getting drugs by selling her body, if foreign agents are obtaining state secrets while fucking Larry, it might be nice if the government was informed. But this resolution says no. End of story.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It would be hard for a sex crime to take place between two consenting adults and if it were the case that drugs were being obtained through sex, that doesn't mean that the sexual act itself is responsible. It's just an acessory of sorts. So accuse her of drug possession, regardless of how she obtained it. This resolution concerns "sexual freedom" as GMC ruled and concerns sexual matters, not matters where sex might be involved.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

My apologies Ms. Chase.

This is not a big issue. However, apology accepted.

I think your definition of 'realistic' may differ slightly from mine.

Then what would you deem a 'realistic' example?

Did you read my answer?

I did and it's still irrelevent. You seem to be looking at the original resolution without realising the damage that could be caused without the aforementioned exception regarding non-consenting individuals and criminal activity. Go back to the beginning and take another look.


Which means that the behaviour referred to is clearly that of the consenting parties between themselves, not their behaviour pertaining to the non-consenting party.

Again, I believe that you are reading the original resolution. You had asked about misinterpretation. As the original resolution does not explicitly state any exceptions towards criminal activity of any nature, such misinterpretation is possible. Try again please.

Otterby takes a deep breath and tries again:

I did and it's still irrelevent. You seem to be looking at the original resolution without realising the damage that could be caused without the aforementioned exception regarding non-consenting individuals and criminal activity. Go back to the beginning and take another look.

I have read it and re-read it and re-re-read it. I have pointed out the section of the resolution which invalidates your argument in bold and I'm going to do it again.

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state

I think you are misunderstanding the point of the resolution. It is not an attempt to limit sexual freedom, but an attempt to set out the basic rights of individuals to not have the sex lives arbitrarily interfered with. Thus, what goes on between two or more consenting adults in the privacy of their homes with regards to matters sexual, should not be the concern of the state. It is enabling a right, not restricting it. If a party is involved that has not consented then the action in question is not covered by the resolution's protection because it is not taking place between two or more consenting parties.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

It could be intrepreted such that two consenting adults could rape someone in the privacy of their bedroom and the government would be powerless to do anything about it. There are at least two consenting adults engaging in sexual activity, and information about such would not necessarily be needed for medical purposes. An illegal act has taken place. The victim could even go so far as to run to the police about it, but they would be unable to assist since there were two or more consenting adults involved and it took place in the privacy of their own bedroom.

The line stays.
The line blows.

"Sexual freedom" doesn't condone rape. Rape is the antithesis of freedom, and more assault/battery than sexual.

Otterby takes a deep breath and tries again:

.

I have read it and re-read it and re-re-read it. I have pointed out the section of the resolution which invalidates your argument in bold and I'm going to do it again.



I think you are misunderstanding the point of the resolution. It is not an attempt to limit sexual freedom, but an attempt to set out the basic rights of individuals to not have the sex lives arbitrarily interfered with. Thus, what goes on between two or more consenting adults in the privacy of their homes with regards to matters sexual, should not be the concern of the state. It is enabling a right, not restricting it. If a party is involved that has not consented then the action in question is not covered by the resolution's protection because it is not taking place between two or more consenting parties.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Unfortunately, such a clarification is not given within the original resolution. It ignores the very idea that there might be non-consenting participants within the situation. The presence of such an individual does not nullify the laws effect. There are two or more consenting individuals involved, so the law applies. It makes no mention of any exceptions granted for situations where others are involved. It should. It may seem common sense that it is implied. It is not, however, there to clear up such disputes. The very fact that we are having this debate over such a point is proof that there can be different interpretations of the law as written.

Furthermore, if you will refer to the examples given by the Kennyite delegation, there are any number of other situations involving illicit activities that would go unpunishable by police forces or any other government agency as a result of the sexual activities tied up into the midst of things.

We applaud the endeavor to ensure Human Rights are protected in such issues, but Sexual Freedom, worded as it is, inhibits a nations capacity to protect its internal security. We have already begun work on a replacement for Sexual Freedom that will continue to ensure that the governments keep their noses out of the bedrooms of UN citizens, while still allowing them to adequately investigate criminal activity.

Unfortunately, such a clarification is not given within the original resolution. It ignores the very idea that there might be non-consenting participants within the situation. The presence of such an individual does not nullify the laws effect. There are two or more consenting individuals involved, so the law applies. It makes no mention of any exceptions granted for situations where others are involved. It should. It may seem common sense that it is implied. It is not, however, there to clear up such disputes. The very fact that we are having this debate over such a point is proof that there can be different interpretations of the law as written.

It's not a bloody clarification, it's fairly integral to the resolution. The fact is (and I am not going to higlight this again, because I frankly cannot be bothered) that the resolution refers to consensual activities taking place between two or more people. The fact that it doesn't mention a non-consenting party does not mean that they are ignored somehow, it simply means that they are not included as protected sexual behaviour under the auspices of the resolution, which refers to sexual acts taking place within the individual's private domain. So if rape is taking place, you are free to stop it, because it is not sexual behaviour between two or more individuals within the privacy of their own home.

Furthermore, if you will refer to the examples given by the Kennyite delegation, there are any number of other situations involving illicit activities that would go unpunishable by police forces or any other government agency as a result of the sexual activities tied up into the midst of things.

Kenny doesn't seriously believe in this example and neither should you, the resolution is clearly (and a mod ruling exists to back this up) intended to apply exclusively to sexual conduct, not anything else going on.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

Unfortunately, such a clarification is not given within the original resolution. It ignores the very idea that there might be non-consenting participants within the situation. The presence of such an individual does not nullify the laws effect. There are two or more consenting individuals involved, so the law applies. It makes no mention of any exceptions granted for situations where others are involved. It should. It may seem common sense that it is implied. It is not, however, there to clear up such disputes. The very fact that we are having this debate over such a point is proof that there can be different interpretations of the law as written.

One word, if you'll read it, fixes this:

Between.

Two consenting adults may consent with one another, but your hypothetical third person hasn't consented to anything, thus standing in breach of #7. You're really reaching if you're trying to interpret around something this obvious.

Furthermore, if you will refer to the examples given by the Kennyite delegation, there are any number of other situations involving illicit activities that would go unpunishable by police forces or any other government agency as a result of the sexual activities tied up into the midst of things.

The Kennyite delegation has made points that conflate two different concepts. The surveillance is taking place not because the police suspect that the couple in question is using an immoral sex position, but because they're suspected of an actual crime (drugs, treason, whichever). Conflating those two concepts is a deliberate willingness to sidestep reality and the spirit of the law. A law so Byzantine as to include every possible scenario that might or might not apply is not a law anyone here will ever write, as it would take far too much space and time to execute.

My delgation and my votes stand firmly, but uselessly, thanks to the emotional knee-jerk I'm sure this issue will generate, AGAINST.

The line blows.

"Sexual freedom" doesn't condone rape. Rape is the antithesis of freedom, and more assault/battery than sexual.



FEARFUL that this very misinterpretable Resolution is very open to abuse

This line? This is the line that you say blows?

If you would care to read some of the rest of the debate, you would see how 'Sexual Freedom', while not condoning rape, can allow it to happen in such a way that government agencies would not be able to stop it, along with any number of other criminal activities.

It's not a bloody clarification, it's fairly integral to the resolution. The fact is (and I am not going to higlight this again, because I frankly cannot be bothered) that the resolution refers to consensual activities taking place between two or more people. The fact that it doesn't mention a non-consenting party does not mean that they are ignored somehow, it simply means that they are not included as protected sexual behaviour under the auspices of the resolution,

Actually, it ignores the posibility that there could be another person around at all. Going by the text of the resolution, as long as there are at least two consenting adults engaged in sexual activity, the whole scene is sacrosanct and untouchable by governments or their officials.

which refers to sexual acts taking place within the individual's private domain. So if rape is taking place, you are free to stop it, because it is not sexual behaviour between two or more individuals within the privacy of their own home.

Just to clarify, you are saying that rape is not sexual in nature, a sexual violation. An act that can be perpetrated by more than one offender on the same victim at the same time. The two or more consensual adult offenders engaging in this sexual activity in the privacy of their home would be protected by this law as it stands now. The resolution makes no clarification to the say otherwise, either explicit or implicit.

Kenny doesn't seriously believe in this example and neither should you,

I wouldn't presume to speak for Kenny, neither should you. It's rude.

the resolution is clearly (and a mod ruling exists to back this up) intended to apply exclusively to sexual conduct, not anything else going on.

Correct. Are you continuing to claim that rape is not sexual activity?

Actually, it ignores the posibility that there could be another person around at all. Going by the text of the resolution, as long as there are at least two consenting adults engaged in sexual activity, the whole scene is sacrosanct and untouchable by governments or their officials.

I'm not sure whether to weep copiously or bang my head against my desk repeatedly. The question is not whether there are two or more consenting adults engaged in sexual activity, we all agree on that, what is being said is.

a). If there is an non-consensual party, then what goes on isn't covered by the resolution. The resolution is protecting sexual acts between consenting parties within the privacy of their own homes, no more, no less. If there's a non-consenting party, they aren't covered under the resolution, which means that if you do try and perform a sexual act involving the non-consenting party, then the authorities have every right to barge in and stop you.

b). The resolution refers to sexual activities, not non-sexual ones. So all this hullabaloo about drug-busts being stopped, etc, is hyperbole and unfounded hyperbole at that.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Kenny, neither should you. It's rude.

That was written in frustration. Still, I think Kenny is more concerned about repealing this on NatSov grounds than anything else.

Correct. Are you continuing to claim that rape is not sexual activity?

Yes, of course it's a sexual activity. What I meant was and what I hope to say for the last time before I go completely insane is that it is not protected sexual conduct, as defined by the resolution.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

One word, if you'll read it, fixes this:

Between.

Do you really want to get into a debate over what can actually occur between two people while engaged in sexual activities? ;)

Two consenting adults may consent with one another, but your hypothetical third person hasn't consented to anything, thus standing in breach of #7.

The third person isn't recognized by Sexual Freedom at all. The governments cannot even investigate to find out if they exist.

You're really reaching if you're trying to interpret around something this obvious.

That's very unfortunate that your limited imagination cannot see how such things are possible.

The Kennyite delegation has made points that conflate two different concepts. The surveillance is taking place not because the police suspect that the couple in question is using an immoral sex position, but because they're suspected of an actual crime (drugs, treason, whichever). Conflating those two concepts is a deliberate willingness to sidestep reality and the spirit of the law. A law so Byzantine as to include every possible scenario that might or might not apply is not a law anyone here will ever write, as it would take far too much space and time to execute.

All it needs it to allow the governments to make exception to this privacy law under circumstances where there is probable cause to believe that criminal activity is taking place. They would then be allowed to follow normal procedures (acquiring warrants, etc) to perform their duties in the best interest of the law. As is, they would be unable to properly execute their duties in the given examples because there are sexual activities occuring in a private setting and such things are off-limits for their investigations.

My delgation and my votes stand firmly, but uselessly, thanks to the emotional knee-jerk I'm sure this issue will generate, AGAINST.

That's fascinating. Especially since nothing has even been submitted for approval, let alone vote, as yet.

For the sake of the Compadrian delegation, shall I perchance try a different tactic....

What if there werer two consenting adults engaged in completely consensual sexual activity. There are no other people, gnomes, dogs, children or anything of that nature. Just those two. These two individuals decide that they would like to try something new, something exciting, perhaps something dangerous. They decide to try erotic asphyxiation (sp?). During the course of this, one of the individuals gets a little carried away and collapses the others esophagus. The whole thing happens so fast that neither one of them has a chance to realize what is happening or remove consent. Suddenly, one of them is dead. The surviving member is terrified. They don't want to go to jail, so they don't tell anybody about it. The police, even if they begin to suspect anything, cannot actually investigate the murder (in Kivisto it would be considered manslaughter as it was accidental and in the height of passion) as it happened during the course of consensual sexual activity as protected by "Sexual Freedom".

How would you interpret this one?

For the sake of the Compadrian delegation, shall I perchance try a different tactic....

What if there werer two consenting adults engaged in completely consensual sexual activity. There are no other people, gnomes, dogs, children or anything of that nature. Just those two. These two individuals decide that they would like to try something new, something exciting, perhaps something dangerous. They decide to try erotic asphyxiation (sp?). During the course of this, one of the individuals gets a little carried away and collapses the others esophagus. The whole thing happens so fast that neither one of them has a chance to realize what is happening or remove consent. Suddenly, one of them is dead. The surviving member is terrified. They don't want to go to jail, so they don't tell anybody about it. The police, even if they begin to suspect anything, cannot actually investigate the murder (in Kivisto it would be considered manslaughter as it was accidental and in the height of passion) as it happened during the course of consensual sexual activity as protected by "Sexual Freedom".

How would you interpret this one?

This is a tricky one.

Let me stress that I'm not necessarily opposed to a repeal of the resolution. I think it's slapdash, but I found the arguments employed so far to justify a repeal a little hyperbolic and somewhat innaccurate. This however is an example of where the resolution runs into trouble.

If a good, comprehensive repeal were guaranteed, I'd vote for a decent repeal like a shot, but if the repeal is based on what I think are incorrect premises or on NatSov grounds, I won't support it.

I thank the honourable delegate for bringing a relevant and real flaw to my attention.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the aforementioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Aside from the grammar, this resolution is too vague. If you read the resolution as it stands here [no title], there is no mention of sex. There is no mention of anything but the activity of "two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes". First of all, my government is very concerned about the activities of its citizens, public or private. This resolution says that it is not our affair in our citizens homes - perhaps valid, but unnecessarily inconclusive.

Furthermore, the ensuing comment about "it is necessary to about the aforementioned activities for medical reasons" makes it strongly implicit that the "aforementioned" activity is sexual contact, but unfortunately, the "aforementioned" activity isn't explicitly mentioned (except in the title, which offers nothing except the two words "Sexual Freedom"). Furthermore, the example provided in the second comment has little or nothing to do with the unmentioned "aforementioned" activity. You can say that the title gives away the intention, but to me, this resolution is weak on language regardless of the title.

Tell me, if there are two persons in their house, working on a illegal project (fill in the "project" with whatever - dirty bombs, drugs, torture, etc...), and they both perform the project with mutual concensus, is it not protected by the resolution - which says that it is none of the government's concern - even though there is no sexual interchange? If it is our interest to preserve the safety and the security of our citizens, it is our interest to know what citizens do in their homes, to insure that no illicit activities are being performed.

Simply put, this resolution seriously needs a re-work, because if it intends to protect the freedoms of sexual preference (which I assume to be the principal aim of the resolution, but again, the resolution makes no mention of it on its own),[I] it needs to say it. I will support any repeal to get something that is more concrete and more definitive in what it's supposed to be doing in the first place, especially for this resolution. In fact, I will be willing to help draft a replacement for the resolution, since it is so vague and ineffective in its interpretation.

A few alterations have been made in the hopes that a few of the arguments will be put to rest.

The misinterpretation line has been removed and replaced with the following:

MINDFUL that incidents or accidents may occur during the course of sexual activities that government agencies should be made aware of

FEARFUL that such incidents or accidents may not be properly reported

WISHING to curtail continued omissions

Simply put, this resolution seriously needs a re-work, because if it intends to protect the freedoms of sexual preference (which I assume to be the principal aim of the resolution, but again, the resolution makes no mention of it on its own), it needs to say it. I will support any repeal to get something that is more concrete and more definitive in what it's supposed to be doing in the first place, especially for this resolution.

I can tell by your post that you read only the original resolution and not my repeal. Go back to the beginning and read from the very first post. The first quoted is the repeal. The second quoted is the original resolution.


In fact, I will be willing to help draft a replacement for the resolution, since it is so vague and ineffective in its interpretation.

Thank you, but I already have a replacement in the drafting stage. It looks like you haven't actually been paying attention. Go back to the first page and read everything.

Do you really want to get into a debate over what can actually occur between two people while engaged in sexual activities? ;)

No. But I will say that consent is the issue, not the act.

The third person isn't recognized by Sexual Freedom at all. The governments cannot even investigate to find out if they exist.

ENOUGH! NO law accounts for how many people MAY or may NOT be enganged in any legal or illegal activity beyond the base definition of the crime in question. The PRESENCE of "two consenting adults" does NOT allow for a third person to be magically "rapable". The rape is happening to the third person who has not (by definition of rape) given consent.

That's very unfortunate that your limited imagination cannot see how such things are possible.

Insults. Nice. Look, my imagination can conjure up plenty. What it can't fathom is why you're seriously arguing that two people suddenly void the illegality of raping a third by saying that they consent with each other to attack the third person. Let me say it one more time. The third person did not consent. Seeing as how it's impossible to rape someone without interacting with them, the "consenting" pair can rape them to their heart's content in their minds, but once they touch #3, guess what? That doesn't make it a threesome, that makes it #1 vs. #3 in an non-consensual act and #2 vs. #3 in another non-consensual act. What #1 and #2 consent to is irrelevant.

What you're saying is like excusing any assault because the two thugs who beat up grandma told each other it was okay to do it.

I will thank you to keep your insults out of this deliberative body, sir.

All it needs it to allow the governments to make exception to this privacy law under circumstances where there is probable cause to believe that criminal activity is taking place. They would then be allowed to follow normal procedures (acquiring warrants, etc) to perform their duties in the best interest of the law. As is, they would be unable to properly execute their duties in the given examples because there are sexual activities occuring in a private setting and such things are off-limits for their investigations.

Swing and a miss. The sexual activity is (again) happening outside the context of the other crimes being surveilled, searched, warranted, whatever. You're fantasizing that all some pair would have to do when the cops came to investigate for drugs with a legal warrant is start having sex. That's a farce of logic and is in no way part of the law. The law is SEXUAL freedom and by not including every possible crime that could take place before, during or after sex, that does NOT mean those crimes would be uninvestigable or unactionable. Consensual sex and crime are two different things. This law does not conflate the two. You are choosing to interpret it in such a far-fetched and deliberately obtuse manner for reasons I cannot understand.

That's fascinating. Especially since nothing has even been submitted for approval, let alone vote, as yet.

My apologies for getting ahead of you -- you are correct. My withholding of votes is unnecessary. This proposal won't reach the queue.

My apologies for getting ahead of you -- you are correct. My withholding of votes is unnecessary. This proposal won't reach the queue.I will make it my personal goal to assure that it does. You lose.

For the sake of the Compadrian delegation, shall I perchance try a different tactic....

What if there werer two consenting adults engaged in completely consensual sexual activity. There are no other people, gnomes, dogs, children or anything of that nature. Just those two. These two individuals decide that they would like to try something new, something exciting, perhaps something dangerous. They decide to try erotic asphyxiation (sp?). During the course of this, one of the individuals gets a little carried away and collapses the others esophagus. The whole thing happens so fast that neither one of them has a chance to realize what is happening or remove consent. Suddenly, one of them is dead. The surviving member is terrified. They don't want to go to jail, so they don't tell anybody about it. The police, even if they begin to suspect anything, cannot actually investigate the murder (in Kivisto it would be considered manslaughter as it was accidental and in the height of passion) as it happened during the course of consensual sexual activity as protected by "Sexual Freedom".

How would you interpret this one?
Simple. A murder has happened. Investigate the murder. #7 doesn't stop the police from doing that. What you've described, however, would be a conniving way to try and dodge a premeditated (First Degree) charge for a lesser (as you said, Manslaughter) charge.

That's why #7 is called Sexual Freedom. Murder isn't sex. Drugs aren't sex (well, some say X is, but that's a different thread). Racketeering isnt' sex. Consenting partner dies during sexual misadventure, it's no longer sex.

#7 prevents the police from investigating someone and embarrassing them by exposing what some may call "deviant" sexual practices which are legal but either frowned on or in some way potentially damaging to one's image (such as the RL US South and the laws against sodomy, even in heterosexual sex). #7 says you can't get a warrant to search a house based on a suspicion of sodomy. Not murder, not theft.

Aside from the grammar, this resolution is too vague. If you read the resolution as it stands here [no title], there is no mention of sex. There is no mention of anything but the activity of "two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes". First of all, my government is very concerned about the activities of its citizens, public or private. This resolution says that it is not our affair in our citizens homes - perhaps valid, but unnecessarily inconclusive.

Furthermore, the ensuing comment about "it is necessary to about the aforementioned activities for medical reasons" makes it strongly implicit that the "aforementioned" activity is sexual contact, but unfortunately, the "aforementioned" activity isn't explicitly mentioned (except in the title, which offers nothing except the two words "Sexual Freedom"). Furthermore, the example provided in the second comment has little or nothing to do with the unmentioned "aforementioned" activity. You can say that the title gives away the intention, but to me, this resolution is weak on language regardless of the title.

Tell me, if there are two persons in their house, working on a illegal project (fill in the "project" with whatever - dirty bombs, drugs, torture, etc...), and they both perform the project with mutual concensus, is it not protected by the resolution - which says that it is none of the government's concern - even though there is no sexual interchange? If it is our interest to preserve the safety and the security of our citizens, it is our interest to know what citizens do in their homes, to insure that no illicit activities are being performed.

Simply put, this resolution seriously needs a re-work, because if it intends to protect the freedoms of sexual preference (which I assume to be the principal aim of the resolution, but again, the resolution makes no mention of it on its own),[I] it needs to say it. I will support any repeal to get something that is more concrete and more definitive in what it's supposed to be doing in the first place, especially for this resolution. In fact, I will be willing to help draft a replacement for the resolution, since it is so vague and ineffective in its interpretation.
I agree that the resolution is poorly worded and grammatically deficient. But the title cannot be taken out of the resolution. Your first paragraph depends on ignoring the title. The Mods have already ruled that you can't do that.

I will make it my personal goal to assure that it does. You lose.
Wow. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. I lose because...you say so.:rolleyes:

The Kennyite Delegation may intimidate other delgates. Not me. Personally, I don't care if it's repealed, I think the justifications used so far are wildly inaccurate and specious interpolations and conflations. Get it to queue for all I care. I know that, once there, it'll pass. Repeals almost always do.

A few alterations have been made in the hopes that a few of the arguments will be put to rest.

The misinterpretation line has been removed and replaced with the following:
I just don't see why that's necessary. Sex is not murder. #7 doesn't say that if an alarmed neighbor's 911 call leads the police to a house and they go in on probable cause (or whichever principle the several UN nations use), and see battery taking place while sex is happening on the couch, the police don't have to leave and ignore the battery. In fact, if the sex and not the battery is what alerted the neighbor, the screwing couple could be cited for noise ordinance violations, but not for sodomy (or similar taboo consensual act).

I will make it my personal goal to assure that it does. You lose.Will you promise to leave this august body, if you can't deliver? ;)

No. But I will say that consent is the issue, not the act.

Okay....obviously you don't seem to have much of a sense of humour. Moving on.


ENOUGH!

Temper. Temper.

NO law accounts for how many people MAY or may NOT be engaged in any legal or illegal activity beyond the base definition of the crime in question.

Except this one.

The PRESENCE of "two consenting adults" does NOT allow for a third person to be magically "rapable". The rape is happening to the third person who has not (by definition of rape) given consent.

This is irrelevant. The language of the law allows for such an interpretation. Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant.


Insults. Nice. Look, my imagination can conjure up plenty.

I'm going to leave this one alone for now.

What it can't fathom is why you're seriously arguing that two people suddenly void the illegality of raping a third by saying that they consent with each other to attack the third person. Let me say it one more time. The third person did not consent. Seeing as how it's impossible to rape someone without interacting with them, the "consenting" pair can rape them to their heart's content in their minds, but once they touch #3, guess what? That doesn't make it a threesome, that makes it #1 vs. #3 in an non-consensual act and #2 vs. #3 in another non-consensual act. What #1 and #2 consent to is irrelevant.

I am not agruing that two people are suddenly void to the illegality of raping a third person. What I am arguing, is that the law does not allow us to investigate it.


What you're saying is like excusing any assault because the two thugs who beat up grandma told each other it was okay to do it.

Again, not saying that it's okay. I am saying that Sexual Freedom, as it currently stands, does not allow us to investigate it.

I will thank you to keep your insults out of this deliberative body, sir.

Just a question, are you new here? Just for your information, it's Ms. Chase.

Swing and a miss. The sexual activity is (again) happening outside the context of the other crimes being surveilled, searched, warranted, whatever. You're fantasizing that all some pair would have to do when the cops came to investigate for drugs with a legal warrant is start having sex. That's a farce of logic and is in no way part of the law. The law is SEXUAL freedom and by not including every possible crime that could take place before, during or after sex, that does NOT mean those crimes would be uninvestigable or unactionable. Consensual sex and crime are two different things. This law does not conflate the two. You are choosing to interpret it in such a far-fetched and deliberately obtuse manner for reasons I cannot understand.

That is because you fail at reading comprehension.

My apologies for getting ahead of you -- you are correct. My withholding of votes is unnecessary. This proposal won't reach the queue.

I believe the Kennyite Delegate has taken this one, so I do not feel the need to.

Simple. A murder has happened. Investigate the murder. #7 doesn't stop the police from doing that. What you've described, however, would be a conniving way to try and dodge a premeditated (First Degree) charge for a lesser (as you said, Manslaughter) charge.

That's why #7 is called Sexual Freedom. Murder isn't sex. Drugs aren't sex (well, some say X is, but that's a different thread). Racketeering isnt' sex. Consenting partner dies during sexual misadventure, it's no longer sex.

#7 prevents the police from investigating someone and embarrassing them by exposing what some may call "deviant" sexual practices which are legal but either frowned on or in some way potentially damaging to one's image (such as the RL US South and the laws against sodomy, even in heterosexual sex). #7 says you can't get a warrant to search a house based on a suspicion of sodomy. Not murder, not theft.

Look Ma! A one trick pony. He's picked a catch phrase and just won't let go of it.

The consenting partner dies during sex, so it's no longer sex. But the act happened DURING a protected sexual act.

#7 doesn't in any way say anything about warrants of any sort, search or otherwise. In fact, it makes no stipulations of any kind.

If this argument is all you have to offer, you will henceforth be ignored. In short, hush now, the adults are talking.

I am not agruing that two people are suddenly void to the illegality of raping a third person. What I am arguing, is that the law does not allow us to investigate it.And that's a ridiculous reading. You suggest that others fail in reading comprehension, when it is you yourself who seem to be lacking in that ability.

Resolution #7, regardless of its simplicity (which is not a repealable defect per the good gnomes) grants the right of privacy only to consenting partners, whether there are two or twenty. The presence of even a single non-consenting partner removes that right and allows investigation of whatever activity occurs. In the same way, the presence of a non-sexual criminal activity occurs outside of the right of privacy granted by "Sexual Freedom" and is subject to investigation. What is not allowed under Resolution 7 is criminalization of sex acts, regardless of their nature, between consenting adults. And that seems to scare the hell out of you.

Your attitude and insults to other delegates is abhorent, yet not unexpected given the company you keep. Find another resolution to repeal in order to validate yourself with the "repeal at any cost" crowd.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece

Your attitude and insults to other delegates is abhorent, yet not unexpected given the company you keep. Find another resolution to repeal in order to validate yourself with the "repeal at any cost" crowd.

The company I keep? I can assure you that they have nothing to do with my attitude. If you can think of a better way to word the repeal, I'd like to hear it.

I don't really want to find another resolution to repeal. Not at this point anyway. I'm too busy with this and the replacement for #7.

Who exactly is the "repeal at any cost crowd'? Not familiar with the term.

I will make it my personal goal to assure that it does. You lose.

I stand with my Kennyite friend. And to the Rubinan wanker who wants my friend out of this august body, no, Cluichstan won't be out of the UN if this repeal doesn't pass. We will just keep assisting the esteemed representative from Karmicaria in refining the repeal proposal until it does pass.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Your attitude and insults to other delegates is abhorent, yet not unexpected given the company you keep. Find another resolution to repeal in order to validate yourself with the "repeal at any cost" crowd.

Jim Jones
NSUN Mouthpiece

Jim,

Go drink your own Kool-Aid please.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We will just keep assisting the esteemed representative from Karmicaria in refining the repeal proposal until it does pass.

And the assistance that has been given thus far is greatly appriciated. Anything further will be more than welcome.

I would like to note there was a mod ruling HERE (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702195&postcount=8)
Just putting this in before people say something silly.Saying the Resolution is "open to abuse" is different than saying "This Resolution doesn't mention sex so it allows everything in the universe".


CONCERNED by the lack of definiton of key terms such as adult, homes, or what acts qualify for this protectionThis raises an eyebrow as it is a little nitpicky. While loophole departments may exploit these terms, it is perfectly rational to assume the following:

Adult means any person in the nation of the age of majority/consent.
Home means a dwelling, permanent or temporary (house, apartment, hotel room, etc.)
Acts means anything of a sexual nature (as per title).

I would suggest either editing or removing the phrase completely. It's not really necessary to the Repeal, and the other arguments are more solid anyway.

Saying the Resolution is "open to abuse" is different than saying "This Resolution doesn't mention sex so it allows everything in the universe".


This raises an eyebrow as it is a little nitpicky. While loophole departments may exploit these terms, it is perfectly rational to assume the following:

Adult means any person in the nation of the age of majority/consent.
Home means a dwelling, permanent or temporary (house, apartment, hotel room, etc.)
Acts means anything of a sexual nature (as per title).

I would suggest either editing or removing the phrase completely. It's not really necessary to the Repeal, and the other arguments are more solid anyway.

I was just considering that. In fact, I'm doing it right now. Thank you. Is there anything else that you would suggest?

As per the suggestion of The Most Glorious Hack, I have made a revision. I have also removed the original resolution from the first post. I'm not sure, but I think some were getting confused as to what the topic at hand was.

I thank all who have so far given constructive criticism and supported the repeal.

This is the repeal that I have been working on. As the title of this thread suggests, it is still in the drafting phase. I welcome any and all input that anyone here would be willing to give. There is also a replacement being developed that will get it's own discussion thread when it is closer to being finished. With that being said, here is the repeal.

I can deal with your proposed repeal. It's direct and easy to read. And Resolution #7 gives me the same sense of disgust I get from a piece of gator-shit in an old bayou, and it's about as useful, so I ain't gonna miss it none.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I can deal with your proposed repeal. It's direct and easy to read. And Resolution #7 gives me the same sense of disgust I get from a piece of gator-shit in an old bayou, and it's about as useful, so I ain't gonna miss it none.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

That's what I was attempting. Some just don't seem to be able to wrap it around their brains. It's a little frustrating.

That's what I was attempting. Some just don't seem to be able to wrap it around their brains. It's a little frustrating.

That it is. I recommend a bottle of HotRodia Tequila Argent for easing the frustration. Or punching other ambassadors. That seems to help some folks.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

... no, Cluichstan won't be out of the UN if this repeal doesn't pass. As far as we know, you haven't thrown a temper tantrum and resigned when you didn't get your way.

Jim, Go drink your own Kool-Aid please.What an excellent suggestion. Come by the office and we'll have a tasting party. I've got some lovely grape mixed up right now.

Jim

That it is. I recommend a bottle of HotRodia Tequila Argent for easing the frustration. Or punching other ambassadors. That seems to help some folks.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'm not really one for violence (unless I'm pushed far enough), but I will be more than happy to have a bottle of HotRodia Tequila.

Let me stress that I'm not necessarily opposed to a repeal of the resolution. I think it's slapdash, but I found the arguments employed so far to justify a repeal a little hyperbolic and somewhat innaccurate. This however is an example of where the resolution runs into trouble.

If a good, comprehensive repeal were guaranteed, I'd vote for a decent repeal like a shot, but if the repeal is based on what I think are incorrect premises or on NatSov grounds, I won't support it.Thus proving to everyone that you haven't read the repeal argument at all. (It's not "NatSov"; it's calling for replacement. Go ahead! Read it.)

I'm not really one for violence (unless I'm pushed far enough), but I will be more than happy to have a bottle of HotRodia Tequila.

Feel free to stop by my office some time and have a drink of it. Just make sure to avoid my pet snake. He hasn't been fed in a while, and pythons that large have a fierce appetite.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Feel free to stop by my office some time and have a drink of it. Just make sure to avoid my pet snake. He hasn't been fed in a while, and pythons that large have a fierce appetite.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'll have to do that at some point very soon. Especially if things keep going the way the are. Just do me the favour and make sure you've fed that snake of yours.
I am going to avoid asking the question about your snake that could possibly turn this debate into something that it really shouldn't be.......

Thank you for the invitation.

Ms. Casandra Chase

And now to get back to the matter at hand........

Is there anything else that you would suggest?Legally, it looks good to me. I'll leave the aesthetics to the others.

Legally, it looks good to me. I'll leave the aesthetics to the others.

Thank you.:p

Thus proving to everyone that you haven't read the repeal argument at all. (It's not "NatSov"; it's calling for replacement. Go ahead! Read it.)

You quoted me out of context, I was referring to the earlier repeal wording.

Can I just stress I'm not anti-repeal, I'm just anti the arguments used so far (for the most part).

And I thank the honourable delegate for Intagelon for venting the steam that builds up in me every time I read Karmarica's arguments.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

When we're talking about a repeal, I always think it's a good idea to take a hard look at the resolution to be repealed. So let's do that.

United Nations Resolution # 7

Sexual Freedom

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Armstrongonia

Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

The first thing that strikes me is the complete and utter vagueness of the thing. Yes, there's a Mod ruling (which I disagreed with and still do) that the title makes it clear that the "what goes on" applies to sexual acts and that takes care of everything. But any resolution that makes you go to the title to try to determine what it's about has big-time problems.

Second thing is the limited scope. "Their homes"? So the government's entitled to concern itself with people's private sexual activity anywhere else? And we won't even get into the problem of whose "homes" we're talking about.

Third... What does the resolution prohibit? Nothing. It simply states that the activity should not be a concern of governments. It's a statement of principle, not a directive. Yeah, you can weasel-word it. But should isn't shall.

But now let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the resolution actually does something and prohibits government inquiry into any sexual activity between two or more consenting adults in their own homes -- except for the medical bit. As pointed out, this would preclude investigation of manslaughter during sexual activity. It would also preclude investigation of incidents where serious injury was done to one of the people, who may have consented to the sex, but not the injury. I can think of other examples, too, but somebody would probably whimper that they're too far-fetched to bother with.

My government agrees with the intent of the resolution. We don't think the government should be prying into people's sex lives as long as there's no crime committed as part of it or no medical necessity. We'd support a good, solid replacement. Our problem with the existing resolution is that it isn't good or solid. It's either a vague and toothless piece of make-nice-nice that can be loopholed to death in a heartbeat, or unacceptably broad and limiting. It's so poorly done that you could argue either way. It needs to go.

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

When we're talking about a repeal, I always think it's a good idea to take a hard look at the resolution to be repealed. So let's do that.



The first thing that strikes me is the complete and utter vagueness of the thing. Yes, there's a Mod ruling (which I disagreed with and still do) that the title makes it clear that the "what goes on" applies to sexual acts and that takes care of everything. But any resolution that makes you go to the title to try to determine what it's about has big-time problems.

Second thing is the limited scope. "Their homes"? So the government's entitled to concern itself with people's private sexual activity anywhere else? And we won't even get into the problem of whose "homes" we're talking about.

Third... What does the resolution prohibit? Nothing. It simply states that the activity should not be a concern of governments. It's a statement of principle, not a directive. Yeah, you can weasel-word it. But should isn't shall.

But now let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the resolution actually does something and prohibits government inquiry into any sexual activity between two or more consenting adults in their own homes -- except for the medical bit. As pointed out, this would preclude investigation of manslaughter during sexual activity. It would also preclude investigation of incidents where serious injury was done to one of the people, who may have consented to the sex, but not the injury. I can think of other examples, too, but somebody would probably whimper that they're too far-fetched to bother with.

My government agrees with the intent of the resolution. We don't think the government should be prying into people's sex lives as long as there's no crime committed as part of it or no medical necessity. We'd support a good, solid replacement. Our problem with the existing resolution is that it isn't good or solid. It's either a vague and toothless piece of make-nice-nice that can be loopholed to death in a heartbeat, or unacceptably broad and limiting. It's so poorly done that you could argue either way. It needs to go.

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

A replacement is currently being developed on both the AO board and the UNOG board. It will eventualy be posted on the UN forum in it's own thread as well.

Okay....obviously you don't seem to have much of a sense of humour. Moving on.

Another insult. Is this really the way you foster international cooperation? A sense of humor needs to have stimulus -- something actually funny. While I appreciate that you feel your bon mots have fallen on deaf ears, I assure you, were they indeed funny, I would have laughed. It is the person whose joke has failed who accuses the audience of the absence of humor.

Temper. Temper.

Ah, another attempt to make yourself look rational when you're behavior is borderline childish.

Except this one.

If you choose to, ANY law can be deliberately misinterpreted. You can imagine all kinds of situations or places where laws "didn't allow for" any set of circumstances. Does that mean that all laws need to account for such outlandish interpretations? No.

This is irrelevant. The language of the law allows for such an interpretation. Whether it is correct or not is irrelevant.

You have not shown that the law allows for any such thing. You've steadfastly ingored that the title is part of the law and assumed that sex happening in conjuntion with other crimes makes the other crimes uninvestigable. That notion pure tripe. Your vessel doesn't hold water and needs to be broken and re-cast.

I'm going to leave this one alone for now.

And well you should. Further insults only damage your credibility.

I am not agruing that two people are suddenly void to the illegality of raping a third person. What I am arguing, is that the law does not allow us to investigate it.

It doesn't prohibit it, either. Your argument is specious and void.

Again, not saying that it's okay. I am saying that Sexual Freedom, as it currently stands, does not allow us to investigate it.

Nor does it disallow it. Why do you insist on repeating an argument that's been vaporized over and over again? Perhaps your "sense of humor" thinks it's funny?

Just a question, are you new here? Just for your information, it's Ms. Chase.

Nope, though I could ask you the same question, what with my join date and post count right next to my name. I simply forgot that you are female, and since you're behavior suggests obstinacy for the sake of fun, in the absence of that memory, I assumed you were male.

That is because you fail at reading comprehension.

A third insult.

EDIT: And a fourth in her following post. If you wish to further debate and not stifle it, why do you insist on insulting those who engage you? If you feel so strongly that I'm not "getting it", then either refine your argument or agree to disagree. There's no need for abusive ad-libs.

I believe the Kennyite Delegate has taken this one, so I do not feel the need to.

Fellow Delegates, I am hereby concluding my debate with Ms. Chase -- I see no need to continue to repeat myself and certainly no need to absorb any more uncalled-for insults and assaults on my character. I have spoken, when necessary, of her behavior. She has insulted me directly, and that is no way for a representative to a world forum to behave.

I seek no retribution, but rather peace from her feeble attempts at gamesmanship. My points have been made. Good day.

Magister Jubal Harshaw
Intangelon

I agree that the resolution is poorly worded and grammatically deficient. But the title cannot be taken out of the resolution. Your first paragraph depends on ignoring the title. The Mods have already ruled that you can't do that.

Even with the title, the resolution lacks any purpose or authority. It needs a serious remodel to make it more distinct and less susceptible to misinterpretations. If there is a purpose, STATE IT EXPLICITLY <<< that's my point right there..., so the person voting knows for what they are voting. Honestly - what does "sexual freedom" mean to you? Because that's the only instance that the word "sex" in some form is used at all in the resolution.

And most of the other posts are awfully hot and don't really discuss the resolution itself - please keep the ooc chatter to a minimum so it's easier to read the substantive materials.


--- And to reply to the following post, I did read the repeal and I like the idea of a replacement very very very very very very very much. It would silence half of the critics in this thread - including me - and it would likely be more effective and more concrete in its purpose. That's my hope to say the least.

Even with the title, the resolution lacks any purpose or authority. It needs a serious remodel to make it more distinct and less susceptible to misinterpretations. If there is a purpose, STATE IT EXPLICITLY <<< that's my point right there..., so the person voting knows for what they are voting. Honestly - what does "sexual freedom" mean to you? Because that's the only instance that the word "sex" in some form is used at all in the resolution.

And most of the other posts are awfully hot and don't really discuss the resolution itself - please keep the ooc chatter to a minimum so it's easier to read the substantive materials.

Okay. I'll start by saying that I will try to refrain from using insults.

Again, please do me and everyone else the favour of reading the repeal. It has been reworked over and over again. In fact, it is currently being overhauled once again. It's on the very first page of this thread. We're not discussing the original resolution here. We're discussing the repeal. I even went so far as to remove the original resolution from this thread, but *sigh* it didn't seem to help.

The replacement will shortly get it's own thread in an attempt to keep the agruments separate.

Please try to stick to the repeal. I'm getting really tired of people not actually reading it. If they had, then, well I wouldn't need to be posting this.

Ms. Casandra Chase

The Intangelonian Delegation eagerly awaits the replacement thread. If the proposal within it attempts to resurrect the misinterpretation-prone spirit of #7, it will have our approval.

The Intangelonian Delegation eagerly awaits the replacement thread. If the proposal within it attempts to resurrect the misinterpretation-prone spirit of #7, it will have our approval.

ahhh? do you support a misinterpretation-prone spirit or a misinterpretation-proof spirit? If you support the prone spirit, why support the repeal in the first place, since it is already prone to misinterpretation. (unless my dictionary is lying to me.)

The Intangelonian Delegation eagerly awaits the replacement thread. If the proposal within it attempts to resurrect the misinterpretation-prone spirit of #7, it will have our approval.

:confused: http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/smilies/violent/killtard.gif

:confused: http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f105/juhanikivisto/smilies/violent/killtard.gif
What, exactly did I post to you that deserves such an offensive reply?

I demand an apology.

ahhh? do you support a misinterpretation-prone spirit or a misinterpretation-proof spirit? If you support the prone spirit, why support the repeal in the first place, since it is already prone to misinterpretation. (unless my dictionary is lying to me.)
The resolution was prone to misinterpretation. Admittedly, it takes a fevered imagination to do so, but I concede that it's possible.

I support a replacement if it is a LESS misinterpretation-prone expression of the spirit of #7. Apologies for the semantic confusion (I went for economy and left out too much).

The resolution was prone to misinterpretation. Admittedly, it takes a fevered imagination to do so, but I concede that it's possible.

I support a replacement if it is a LESS misinterpretation-prone expression of the spirit of #7. Apologies for the semantic confusion (I went for economy and left out too much).


I apologize, my previous post was not intended to offend but to demonstrate my confusion which you have since cleared up with the above statement.

OFFICIAL DIPLOMATIC MESSAGE
The Dark Empire of Shazbotdom supports this repeal and the impending replacment for the resolution in question.

Even with the title, the resolution lacks any purpose or authority. It needs a serious remodel to make it more distinct and less susceptible to misinterpretations. If there is a purpose, STATE IT EXPLICITLY <<< that's my point right there..., so the person voting knows for what they are voting. Honestly - what does "sexual freedom" mean to you? Because that's the only instance that the word "sex" in some form is used at all in the resolution.

And most of the other posts are awfully hot and don't really discuss the resolution itself - please keep the ooc chatter to a minimum so it's easier to read the substantive materials.


--- And to reply to the following post, I did read the repeal and I like the idea of a replacement very very very very very very very much. It would silence half of the critics in this thread - including me - and it would likely be more effective and more concrete in its purpose. That's my hope to say the least.

I apologise for the misunderstanding. No one told me how frustrating this can be.

Ms. Casandra Chase

Honoured UN Members;

While Her Majesty agrees that the proposed repeal of the Sexual Freedoms Resolution is indeed needed, She has some concerns as to the possible after-effects of said repeal.

The spirit of the Sexual Freedoms Resolution, that of human and civil rights, is a primary concern of Her Majesty's. She fears that without a resolution of #7's nature, member nations shall remain unprotected from the abuse of said "sexual freedoms" at the hands of conservative governments.

As such, She considers it essential that should the Resolution be repealed, a replacement be proposed as soon as possible. Therefore, Her Majesty, newly acquainted with the United Nations, would like to inquire as to whether Ms. Chase, or anyone else in support of the repeal, would venture to offer a replacement should the repeal be successful.

Cordelia Ehrenreich,
Ambassador to Her Majesty Queen Tilayaha Fustayil
Windling

(ooc: please don't tear me a new one this is my very first post and I have no idea what I'm doing yet)

Honoured UN Members;

While Her Majesty agrees that the proposed repeal of the Sexual Freedoms Resolution is indeed needed, She has some concerns as to the possible after-effects of said repeal.

The spirit of the Sexual Freedoms Resolution, that of human and civil rights, is a primary concern of Her Majesty's. She fears that without a resolution of #7's nature, member nations shall remain unprotected from the abuse of said "sexual freedoms" at the hands of conservative governments.

As such, She considers it essential that should the Resolution be repealed, a replacement be proposed as soon as possible. Therefore, Her Majesty, newly acquainted with the United Nations, would like to inquire as to whether Ms. Chase, or anyone else in support of the repeal, would venture to offer a replacement should the repeal be successful.

Cordelia Ehrenreich,
Ambassador to Her Majesty Queen Tilayaha Fustayil
Windling

(ooc: please don't tear me a new one this is my very first post and I have no idea what I'm doing yet)

You can assure Her Majesty that we do in fact, have a replacement for #7. It is still in the drafting phase, but it will be put out soon for people to, for lack of a better term, rip apart.

What, exactly did I post to you that deserves such an offensive reply?

I demand an apology.

Well, someone's rather easily offended...

Well, someone's rather easily offended...


Very.

Well, someone's rather easily offended...
Kivisto posted a "retarded" smiley that exploded after a few seconds. Given that I have already suffered no fewer than four insults at the hands of another delegate in opposition to me, the obvious implication was that this delegate is mentally deficient. I do not see the difficulty in taking offense by something so juvenile presented in a deliberative body like the UN. It's a direct insult to my person and to the entire community of those genuinely afflicted with such conditions to use them as a casual insult. Kivisto explained that the image was intended to express his own confusion, and I take him (forgive me if I have the wrong pronouns) at his word.

Thus the matter is concluded. My thanks to Kivisto for the explanation.

Karmicaria posted a "retarded" smiley that exploded after a few seconds, thus implying that this delegate is mentally deficient. I do not see the difficulty in taking offense by something so juvenile presented in a deliberative body like the UN. It's a direct insult to my person and to the entire community of those genuinely afflicted with such conditions to use them as a casual insult.

I await my apology.

As I recall, it was Kivisto who posted that smiley, and Kivisto who apologized shortly thereafter.

Why wait? Grab a Snickers.

As I recall, it was Kivisto who posted that smiley, and Kivisto who apologized shortly thereafter.

Why wait? Grab a Snickers.
Fixed via edit just before you posted. I just saw the K and took off -- not a hard mistake to make given her earlier slights.

I'm dismayed by how readily the proponents of this repeal slander, smear and belittle its opponents. The original resolution does have its flaws, granted, but effectively dismissing critiques of the repeal as the ravings of morons smacks of desperation.

I hope the hinted-at replacement is a good one, for without it you wil not receive the support of my people.

Okay, the repeal has been revised yet again and editted into the very first post.

I'm dismayed by how readily the proponents of this repeal slander, smear and belittle its opponents. The original resolution does have its flaws, granted, but effectively dismissing critiques of the repeal as the ravings of morons smacks of desperation.

I hope the hinted-at replacement is a good one, for without it you wil not receive the support of my people.

Honestly people, that was nothing. I have no intentions of taking it any further, that is, unless myself and a few others are provoked.

Have no worries about the replacement. It's pretty difficult to be worse than the orginal #7.

Honestly people, that was nothing. I have no intentions of taking it any further, that is, unless myself and a few others are provoked.

Have no worries about the replacement. It's pretty difficult to be worse than the orginal #7.
How generous.

I look forward to seeing the replacement and hope it isn't the latest in a long line of sops to sovereigntists, masquerading as progressive legislation.

I'm dismayed by how readily the proponents of this repeal slander, smear and belittle its opponents. The original resolution does have its flaws, granted, but effectively dismissing critiques of the repeal as the ravings of morons smacks of desperation.And I'm sick and tired of delegations who, rather than discuss the topic at hand, would use their time to lecture other nations for not meeting some arbitrary standard for decorum. I believe our security attache has addressed this matter before ... ah, yes. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11423831&postcount=287) it is:

Whining about a perceived lack of decorum in legislative sessions is such worthless bullshit, and it only serves to distract from the topic at hand. One's tone does not dilute the strength of his arguments, and it is primarily the latter that must be attacked, not the former. We're not baking cookies here; we're crafting international law, and there's no reason on Earth why we shouldn't express the positions of our respective governments with all due clarity, and bluntness. One wonders why you bothered sticking your neck out at all if you didn't want to be criticized. You wanna make friends? Go visit the Strangers' Bar -- and as long as we're tossing out cliches, if ya can't take the heat, buddy, get the fuck out of the kitchen!Now, my friend, there are a good number of strong arguments made in favor of this repeal, plenty of material for you to respond to; do you wanna discuss the actual proposal, or would you rather keep bitching about its proponents' behavior?

I look forward to seeing the replacement and hope it isn't the latest in a long line of sops to sovereigntists, masquerading as progressive legislation.

I hope the hinted-at replacement is a good one, for without it you wil not receive the support of my people.We're also sick and tired of threats to withhold support absent replacement. I do believe Ms. Chase has already directed interested nations to the relevant off-site fora where the replacement is already posted. So cease your self-righteous tirades about the sovereigntists and go read it.

I'm so sick of repeating myself. If people want to see the bloody replacement, go either to the Antarctic Oasis offsite forum or the UNOG offsite forum. This is the last time that the replacement will be mentioned in this thread. As I have previously mentioned, there will be a separate thread for it.

This is the thread for the REPEAL.

And I'm sick and tired of delegations who, rather than discuss the topic at hand, would use their time to lecture other nations for not meeting some arbitrary standard for decorum. I believe our security attache has addressed this matter before ... ah, yes.

Now, my friend, there are a good number of strong arguments made in favor of this repeal, plenty of material for you to respond to; do you wanna discuss the actual proposal, or would you rather keep bitching about its proponents' behavior?
I find this vitriol baffling. Perhaps this is a cultural difference, for such personal sleights are anathaema to a Dashanzi politician. I shall say no more on the matter but to express my hope that a civil tone is maintained for the remainder of this discussion.

We're also sick and tired of threats to withhold support absent replacement. I do believe Ms. Chase has already directed interested nations to the relevant off-site fora where the replacement is already posted. So cease your self-righteous tirades about the sovereigntists and go read it.
I would simply prefer - in this case - to retain the flawed original rather than have no legislation in place at all.

My comment on "sops to sovereignists" was not intended as a tirade against sovereigntists themselves; rather, it is a criticism of those who push through legislation that promises rather more than it delivers. But no more on this.

Regrettably, I do not have the time to trawl through numerous conference rooms and discussion portals to find the draft in question. If the author would be so kind as to post it here, then I will take pains to devote my closest attention to it.

Addendum:

I'm so sick of repeating myself. If people want to see the bloody replacement, go either to the Antarctic Oasis offsite forum or the UNOG offsite forum. This is the last time that the replacement will be mentioned in this thread. As I have previously mentioned, there will be a separate thread for it.

This is the thread for the REPEAL.
For me, the two are inextricably linked. I regret that we do not see eye to eye on this.

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic will be pleased to see Resolution #7 repealed, not because we want to oppress our people (which we don't, at least by what we regard as reasonable standards, and wouldn't even if more than a few of them were actually living within our own territories) but because it's both badly-written and useless...

Consider that that resolution only guarantees its behavioral freedoms if there's no possible reason for investigation on medical grounds: If the authorities do see such a reason as existing then not only do they have a right to intrude upon the privacy of the people involved but -- by one possible reading of the resolution's wording, which I will agree probably isn't the interpretation that the resolution's author intended but would argue is semantically valid -- they can completely over-ride the resolution's granting of other sexual freedoms too.
Now consider that, given the existance of sexually-transmitted diseases, congenital diseases, and potentially risky BDSM practices, any government that wants to pry into its subjects' sex-lives could use that clause to justify not only that prying but the passage of legal restrictions on sexual activity (as we do, for example, by maintaining our traditional ban on sexual relationships between people who are very closely related...): It's useless.
So, let's repeal it and -- if we must have a resolution on the matter at all -- pass a replacement that's not only better-written but that guarantees reasonable levels of freedom without making sensible national legislation impossible along the way...

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN for the St Edmundan Antarctic,
Observer of the UN for the Kingdom of St Edmund.

I'm dismayed by how readily the proponents of this repeal slander, smear and belittle its opponents. The original resolution does have its flaws, granted, but effectively dismissing critiques of the repeal as the ravings of morons smacks of desperation.

I hope the hinted-at replacement is a good one, for without it you wil not receive the support of my people.

I certainly hope that none of what I have posted was ever determined to be offensive, because all that I care about is fixing something that needs extensive repair. And honestly, lambasting opponents is not the best way to garner support for a resolution. I've already given my points abouut why I would support a repeal - that is to replace the resolution with something more concrete and something that is less prone to misinterpretation. I have not yet read the edit, but once I post this I will read it - and I hope that other people will read it, to consider what it entails and furthermore how they can do something to improve the material provided - either in the repeal or the replacement.

I certainly hope that none of what I have posted was ever determined to be offensive, because all that I care about is fixing something that needs extensive repair.

As do I, which is why I put this repeal up for debate, but it just seems like people are not reading what has been posted. As far as I know, your comments have been fine.

And honestly, lambasting opponents is not the best way to garner support for a resolution.

In all honestly, I wouldn't have resorted to the insults (if you can actually call them that) unless I felt they were deserved. Which, I did.

I've already given my points about why I would support a repeal - that is to replace the resolution with something more concrete and something that is less prone to misinterpretation. I have not yet read the edit, but once I post this I will read it - and I hope that other people will read it, to consider what it entails and furthermore how they can do something to improve the material provided - either in the repeal or the replacement.

I will post the replacement later this afternoon or this evening.

Ms. Casandra Chase

I'm dismayed by how readily the proponents of this repeal slander, smear and belittle its opponents. The original resolution does have its flaws, granted, but effectively dismissing critiques of the repeal as the ravings of morons smacks of desperation.

I hope the hinted-at replacement is a good one, for without it you wil not receive the support of my people.
The proposed repeal is up and running and is excellent. I support it with only a mild reservation about "common sense" terminology in Article 5.

I applaud Ms. Chase's work.

m. Benjamin Royce
Intangelon

The proposed repeal is up and running and is excellent. I support it with only a mild reservation about "common sense" terminology in Article 5.

I applaud Ms. Chase's work.

m. Benjamin Royce
Intangelon

Not to be a nitpicker, but it's the replacement proposal that I have posted in it's own thread. This is the repeal thread. :)

This repeal will be sumbited for approval Monday afternoon.

Submitted.

I would like all to take note that it is the work of Karmicaria that has been submitted. I have done the courtesy of submitting it for her as she is not an active member of the UN as yet.

Approval link >> www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=sexual

Approval seems to be going well, but it is still early.

Thank you again to everyone who helped with this.

Approval seems to be going well, but it is still early.

Thank you again to everyone who helped with this.

Only 49 approvals short of quorum, with a little more than two days to go. It is looking good.

It is now only 42 short. It still has a couple of days. Now is when I keep my fingers crossed.

33 approvals to go.

23 to go now, with a little over a day left on the proposal list.

Only 18 left to go. :p

2

It has reached quorum. :p

This sucker's next in line. Do you want to use this thread or make a new one?

This sucker's next in line. Do you want to use this thread or make a new one?

I think a new one would be good.

can't wait for that. i need to vent some aggression :p