NationStates Jolt Archive

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

Now for the fun. I will be posting a link to the replacement. Right now, I have some work to do.

We were pleased to see that our regional delegate has already voted in favour of this proposed repeal. Best of luck in getting it passed.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Now for the fun. I will be posting a link to the replacement. Right now, I have some work to do.

In a case like this, it's all about the replacement, IMHO.

Agreed: on grounds of national sovereignty, I definitely hope there will be no replacement.

The Democratic States of Bevatt vote for this repeal, the language is far too vague. We will likely vote for a replacement as well. We are upset, however, to see that currently, while the resolution is young, that the voting is so close. No doubt some people are just reading 'Repeal: Sexual Freedom' and voting nay without reading the argument or the previous resolution.

The Democratic States of Bevatt vote for this repeal, the language is far too vague. We will likely vote for a replacement as well. We are upset, however, to see that currently, while the resolution is young, that the voting is so close. No doubt some people are just reading 'Repeal: Sexual Freedom' and voting nay without reading the argument or the previous resolution.
These orginal votes mean nothing.

Anyway I am in favor of the replacement. So I am reserving my vote for wether or not I think the replacement will pass.

In a case like this, it's all about the replacement, IMHO.

:rolleyes:

Agreed: on grounds of national sovereignty, I definitely hope there will be no replacement.

Hmm, are there many others with that line of thought? I was hoping for a stronger replacement.

In a case like this, it's all about the replacement, IMHO.Anyway I am in favor of the replacement. So I am reserving my vote for wether or not I think the replacement will pass.For Christ's sake, this vote is not about the replacement. We are voting on a repeal of Resolution #7, meaning our votes should be based upon the merits of the resolution we're targeting, and the arguments used to target it. Nothing more. In this case, Resolution #7 is a very flawed resolution, with overly broad language that serves to hamper law enforcement efforts in member nations, and encourage abuse of standing national and local laws ("You blatantly and unapologetically violated anti-incest laws and had sex with your brother?! Don't worry, ma'am -- we'll base your defense on UN Resolution #7!"); hence, repealing it would be beneficial both to the United Nations and to member states -- with or without replacement. Honestly, you people would prefer to keep a very bad law on the books rather than nothing at all? The logic of some delegates is astounding.

This vote is about Resolution #7, so unless you can come up with a good reason to keep said resolution on the books, you ought to be voting in favor of repeal.

The Federal Republic is in agreement with the arguments posed to strike out Sexual Freedom, and has thus cast its vote in favor.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

The nation of Kethland has voted for this repeal, but as of yet I am unsure of this decision. If the plan is to replace this piece of legislation with another stricter proposal, I will be forced to change my vote and try to keep the more vague, more free version of the sexual freedom resolution.

I believe that in matters such as these the individual member states should decide what is best for themsevles. Unless someone can explain the true, international, benifits of this resolution (an it's soon to be proposed replacement) I can see no reason to support the current resolution (#7) nor it's replacement.

I intend to:

Vote in favor or repealing resolution #7.
Against the replacement - though a careful review will be conducted by my government before the vote.

Regards,

Prince Nill
Prince of UberNothing

...
In this case, Resolution #7 is a very flawed resolution, with overly broad language that serves to hamper law enforcement efforts in member nations, and encourage abuse of standing national and local laws....
Ambassador to the United Nations

The resolution does say “consenting adults.” These words leave a very large area for individual nations to define “consent” and “adult” as they see fit. In this way the resolution is not as terribly written as past resolution. It is left up to the nation to decide how it is followed.

FYI: I still voted for. Just playing devils advocate
:)

The resolution does say “consenting adults.” These words leave a very large area for individual nations to define “consent” and “adult” as they see fit. In this way the resolution is not as terribly written as past resolution. It is left up to the nation to decide how it is followed.
You need to realize that the problem with resolution #7 has nothing to do with any sort of lack of definition of "consenting adults." The problem is that the text of the resolution never mentions sex, all it says is that what two consenting adults do in their home is none of the governments business even if they're breaking the law.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

In a case like this, it's all about the replacement, IMHO.

This is not all about the replacement. The focus right now is the repeal.

Link for the replacement here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493932)

In a case like this, it's all about the replacement, IMHO.

No, in cases like this, it's all about "Oh my god what is that thing?" The replacement comes later, after reasonable people can forget that this reslution ever happened. Bear in mind I am the "It's not that a reslution has to be bad for a repeal it has to be horrid" person. And, let me say that this resolution is beyond horrid. No, that's not enough, so let me quote the resolution itself.

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.).

Where can I begin? Perhaps the idea that this resolution doesn't even mention sex in the first place? "What goes on?" Does this include drug use, cannabalism, murder, building nuclear weapons? I mean it could mean literally anything! Then there is the medical reasons ... which should be health reasons. (As in transmitting disease, or lots of other reasons.)

"I'm sorry you can't arrest those terrorists."
"Why not? We caught them red handed planning the overthrow of the government through violent means."
"Because, they were planning their revolution in the 'privacy of their homes' and under UN Resolution 7 that's perfectly within their rights and is not your concern."

Replacement or not, this resolution has got to go!

But for a replacement, I will defer to the bards.

You say you want a resolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

You need to realize that the problem with resolution #7 has nothing to do with any sort of lack of definition of "consenting adults." The problem is that the text of the resolution never mentions sex, all it says is that what two consenting adults do in their home is none of the governments business even if they're breaking the law.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

My friends, the Honorable Representative raises an excellent point! Resolution #7 never mentions sex, except in its title. This can lead to enormous confusion!

The Community of His Fordians believe very strongly in sexual freedom. At this point, however, resolution #7 can only lead to misinterpretation. As such, I believe that it needs to repealed. Of course, we will support strongly and swiftly a replacement.

Repeal! This should be left up to individual nations. Is it any LESS intrusive for the UN to determine what can go on in the bedroom? What if one person claims they did something b/c of their sexual freedom when another person feels they have been violated and needs law enforcements interaction?

For Christ's sake, this vote is not about the replacement. We are voting on a repeal of Resolution #7, meaning our votes should be based upon the merits of the resolution we're targeting, and the arguments used to target it. Nothing more. In this case, Resolution #7 is a very flawed resolution, with overly broad language that serves to hamper law enforcement efforts in member nations, and encourage abuse of standing national and local laws ("You blatantly and unapologetically violated anti-incest laws and had sex with your brother?! Don't worry, ma'am -- we'll base your defense on UN Resolution #7!"); hence, repealing it would be beneficial both to the United Nations and to member states -- with or without replacement. Honestly, you people would prefer to keep a very bad law on the books rather than nothing at all? The logic of some delegates is astounding.

This vote is about Resolution #7, so unless you can come up with a good reason to keep said resolution on the books, you ought to be voting in favor of repeal.

The Federal Republic is in agreement with the arguments posed to strike out Sexual Freedom, and has thus cast its vote in favor.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ambassador Faisano,

My government has mixed feelings on what should and what should not be included in repeal debates. We do agree with your government's opinion that repeal votes should focus on the merits of the repeal and original resolution, but at the same time, in some cases we also feel that looking to see if there even is a serious effort for drafting a possible replacement is important to governments that approve of the general concept of the original resolution. This is especially important when a repeal acknowledges the merit of the original resolution, because this is in effect a suggestion that the original resolution is something that the repeal authors felt should be addressed by the UN ... they just have some reason for wanting to change what was done.

At this point Mikitivity has not cast its vote. I've asked my staff to consult with the NSWiki repository to see a copy of the original resolution, and based upon my office's analysis of the repeal and original resolution I will be better prepared to make an informed decision based upon whatever debate is disclosed here.

Respectfully,
Howie T. Katzman
Confederated City States of Mikitivity

Link for the replacement here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493932)

Thank you! That is a serious and well designed replacement. This will certainly influence my government's position. :)

I'd like to remind everyone about a mod ruling:

Generally, if your whole repeal is based on hair-splitting, such as ignoring that a resolution called 'sexual freedom' is probably talking about sex when it says 'what two consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home.' The entire argument was based on that failure to connect the title of the resolution to the rest of the resolution and thus implying the scope of #7 was so broad it would be illegal anyway under 'stupid' as it would basically ban NSUN nations from investigating all domestic crimes. It also gets it a strike for 'misleading title' since it should be called something like 'absolute privacy act' with this interpretation.

[Precident that you can't deliberately read a UN resolution in an illegal way is the 'Rights and duties of UN states' debate, where it was argued that UN optionality was laid down by #49's Section I article 1. It was ruled it in fact didn't and you could not claim it did in further proposals.]

More to the point, the resolution speaks about 'the afore mentioned activities' [sic]. Now, the only mention of any specific kind of activity is in the title, so we should assume #7 only has to do with sexual activities, not all activities.

(if you want to check it is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702195&postcount=8))

This was not talking about this repeal but it does have some importance to this repeal. It talks specficaly about a problem that was raised a good bit here.

You need to realize that the problem with resolution #7 has nothing to do with any sort of lack of definition of "consenting adults." The problem is that the text of the resolution never mentions sex, all it says is that what two consenting adults do in their home is none of the governments business even if they're breaking the law.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Truth.

And the mod's argument is seriously flawed because it's makes too many assumptions to be safe. In the court of law, the argument that a certain provision has a "understood" meaning will not fly because it never stated its intent and purpose, leading anyone to "assume" rightfully that a provision affects the said "understood" meaning.

Quite frankly, if you want to say something, don't avoid saying it because that leaves the interpretationn open to the person interpreting. This is the basis of our decision to repeal the resolution - such that a replacement that is more concise and more deliberate in its intentions is proposed and passed. We would have preferred to pass the replacement first, but since this is parliamentary procedure, we will do what it takes to get a replacement of the old resolution, so there is no more discussion about "understood" meanings. Mod's ruling or not, it makes no sense legally or logically to make unsolicited assumptions when reading a document.

Well, considering my satisfaction with the specifics of the proposed replacement, I will be voting in favour of repealing Resolution #7: "Sexual Freedom". I want extremely liberal laws put in place on the rights for citizens to be able to practise any sexual act they so choose, but, given the vagueness of the current resolution, the open interpretation could lead to confusion and misconception.

.... lead to confusion and misconception.

You'll have to forgive my sense of humour that finds it funny using the word "misconception" in reference to sex.

Because I'm of the opinion that resolution #7 has a nice idea behind it, but is otherwise seriously lacking in any redeemable qualities and is indeed subject to dangerous interpretations, as well as being incredibly ironic in proposing that national governments should keep out of the bedroom while putting the power of international law into that bedroom, y'all will have to understand that I've voted FOR the repeal of it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I'd like to remind everyone about a mod ruling:

(if you want to check it is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10702195&postcount=8))

This was not talking about this repeal but it does have some importance to this repeal. It talks specficaly about a problem that was raised a good bit here.
And I'd like to remind the representative from Newfoundcanada that there are several of us here who disagree with that particular ruling by the UN Secretariat mods. Especially as I believe that resolution #7 was passed before there were any rules reguarding proposals and therefore could not have been found to be illegal anyway.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And I'd like to remind the representative from Newfoundcanada that there are several of us here who disagree with that particular ruling by the UN Secretariat mods. Especially as I believe that resolution #7 was passed before there were any rules reguarding proposals and therefore could not have been found to be illegal anyway.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: To add to this, I personally believe it is the job of the mods to worry about what is / was illegal ... while it is our job to worry about what we like and don't like. This isn't to say we shouldn't help the mods by warning them about illegal proposals or clean up old ones ... but if something isn't hurting, I'd rather spend our time on the things that seem more important. <-- this is not me taking a stance on this repeal.

The Commonwealth of Torqana supports the repeal of the sexual freedoms statute as it currently stands. We agree with the PRINCIPLE of sexual freedom, but it is our position that such a statute must be better defined.

Having viewed the intended replacement for this statute, Torqana will support the replacement, should it come before the Assembly.

Humblest Regards,
Iain Lewis
Executor, Commonweath of Torqana

it is a sad day when these halls have to be spent debating whether or not governments should be involved in someones sex life. the fact that this resolution got passed in the first place is highly distrubing. no government, not even at the national level, has the right to be involved in this. i know this resloution is to allow complete sexual freedom but we don't need a resloution to tell us this. this is a personal issue and the UN shouldn't have even contemplated whether it is right or wrong. repeal this peace of s***

Salutations to all from the Commonwealth of the Wolf Guardians. It is the official opinion of the Commonwealth that the basis of UN Resolution No. 7 is well founded, but that it must be repealed in favor of a more specific replacement. It is also the opinion of the Commonwealth that this is indeed the business of the United Nations, as it pertains to furthering the rights of individual citizens in its member nations across the world, and the very fact that it came up before the UN is evidence that we do need to do something about it. It also saddens us to see that the Repeal is already losing, as it must be repealed whether or not there is a replacement, though we do hope one arises. This missive is intended to show our support of the repeal of UN Resolution No. 7 and the adoption of a superior replacement.

I'd like to remind everyone about a mod ruling:
I'd comment, but if I did I would probably be thrown out of the NS forums forever. Needless to say that if anyone tried to submit an resolution where the title and the subject was so mismatched as to not mention the title subject within the body, the mods today would probably delete it on the spot.

The Dark Empire of Shazbotdom votes FOR this repeal.

-unknown Shazbotdom UN Understudy

It is quite apparent that there's a lot of support for this resolution, and yet more people are voting against it. It seems that either they have not yet read these posts, or they have and they truly do not like the idea. I personally it is more the former than the latter, but if this repeal cannot pass, it is of no avail to consider Resolution 7 a powerful force in the land, since our interpretation is neither confirmable nor enforceable except by some whims of others' interpretations of the same matter.

...so unless you can come up with a good reason to keep said resolution on the books, you ought to be voting in favor of repeal.

In our fair nation of Karbakirb, citizens are free to enjoy the freedoms and privacies that all humans should be privy to. We feel that the original resolution which this repeal addresses is not only fine, it is perfectly adaptable to our own laws.

However, this is an issue that should be handled nation by nation, and one that does not seem to fall under the jurisdiction of U.N. control. It is a question of national sovereignty, not international law.

Therefore we have for the repeal of this resolution. We will also be voting against any efforts to bring about another resolution similar to the original one.

Denbar Oglestiff
Undersecretary of Apathy
Holy Empire of Karbakirb

Having read the replacement resolution and understanding the vagueness of the original resolution, the representatives of A Walled Compound are voting FOR this repeal.

I can't imagine there is going to be any big debate happening in here. Most of the nay-sayers are either quiet (unlikely) or not paying attention (quite likely) so I don't much expect the votes to match the forum.

Norderia is voting for the repeal. We are in favor of a guarantee for sexual privacy and freedom, but on first glance, unlikely to vote for the current draft of the suggested replacement. Our input regarding it will be placed in the proper thread.

The moral of the story is, everyone wants to kill Gilbert Gottfried.

EDIT: Well, on second reading, I would probably vote for the replacement, but only grudgingly, as that would mean the suggestions I just made were not used. And did I say Gilbert Gottfried? I meant Steven Segal.


And Gilbert Gottfried.

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the repeal.

Any resolution whose language is so muddled and imprecise that one is expected to look at the title to figure out what it means richly deserves to be stricken from the books. We believe it's quite debatable whether the resolution is overly limiting on legitimate functions of government or totally meaningless and does nothing. Whichever the case may be, its repeal is warranted.

We look forward to supporting the fine replacement now in draft.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The Commonwealth finds the losing state of the Repeal increasingly distressing. We feel certain that most people are merely reading the title, possibly skimming the actual content, and quite likely not glancing at the original Resolution. It is quite deplorable that there are Delegates who apparently cannot take five minutes to read up and come to a rational decision. Regardless of the reason for it, the Resolution must be repealed. Such lax regulations will surely be the undoing of the UN. Of what use is a governing body with unenforceable rules?

I'd like to remind everyone about a mod ruling:I'd like to remind you of another Mod ruling:

Since people don't seem to be getting the message, no further regional ads will be moved from the Nationstates forum to the Gameplay forum, they will simply be deleted. Do not post adverts for your region in this forum.

What do these have in common? They're both irrelevent here. GMC's ruling on the last attempt to Repeal this was a ruling on the Repeal itself. If people want to bring up arguments about how the Resolution doesn't mention the word sex, that's fine and dandy. Arguments in a thread are not the same as arguments in the Repeal itself.

The Wolf Guardians']The Commonwealth finds the losing state of the Repeal increasingly distressing.

i find the fact that the UN thinks they need to have a say in our sex lives distressing.

it is a sad day when these halls have to be spent debating whether or not governments should be involved in someones sex life. the fact that this resolution got passed in the first place is highly distrubing. no government, not even at the national level, has the right to be involved in this. i know this resloution is to allow complete sexual freedom but we don't need a resloution to tell us this. this is a personal issue and the UN shouldn't have even contemplated whether it is right or wrong. repeal this peace of s***
Swing and a miss.

#7, flawed as it is, attempted to make sure governments kept out of peoples' sex lives. If anything, the spirit of #7 did exactly what you're saying, it made sure governments weren't involved in sex. The fact that it did this in spirit only and as a result was so inherently flawed that it is subject to such ludicrous and deliberate misinterpretations is why it needs to be repealed.

It is quite apparent that there's a lot of support for this resolution, and yet more people are voting against it. It seems that either they have not yet read these posts, or they have and they truly do not like the idea. I personally it is more the former than the latter, but if this repeal cannot pass, it is of no avail to consider Resolution 7 a powerful force in the land, since our interpretation is neither confirmable nor enforceable except by some whims of others' interpretations of the same matter.
Y'think?!?

Not only have they not read any posts, nor have they likely ever read any of the considerable debate that happens in this forum, they probably have only read that a "sexual freedom" resolution is up for repeal. That's all. This is what passes for an "informed electorate" these days.

I have posited my stance on the repeal to my region in this missive:


Greater Seattlites:

I am hereby endorsing the current resolution, a repeal of resolution #7 "Sexual Freedom". I am voting FOR the repeal not only because of its egregious construction, but because a draft resolution (available for viewing in the UN Forum) replacing #7 resolves the problems it contained. Most notable of these were for too informal syntax and spelling, as well as an easily misinterpreted body text that makes no mention of the topic it approaches in its own title.

I have spent some time in the UN Forum debating the need for this repeal -- I was originally against the repeal -- and became convinced that #7's flaws far outweighed its benefits, and that the replacement does a much better job of delineating in letter what #7 only attempted in easily misinterpreted spirit.

As always, you should vote your conscience and the will of your individual nations, but I encourage you to support this repeal.

M Jubal


Hopefully their individual votes will align with my delegate vote...though with the current trend, I am losing hope for a successful repeal.

Hopefully their individual votes will align with my delegate vote...though with the current trend, I am losing hope for a successful repeal.

You are not the only one who is losing hope for a successful repeal. It falls on a weekend when the forum is all but dead. Maybe things will take a turn for the better come Monday.

First, if I may, we would sincerely like to thank the honorable Karmicaria for providing a draft on a replacement proposal. Though we still feel there could be circumstances and occasions that make this a potentially dangerous resolution. We feel the existence of replacement legislation (in draft form) is a commendable idea.

Honorable assembly, My government feels that a persons home is that persons "castle". We have many protections to keep our government out of the homes of our people.

That being said, we can see a very diverse group of nations assembled here. Are we to believe that the only way to deal with sex is without the government... that there is no way that another group of people couldn't practice sex in a different way... That there's no way a government of the people couldn't see another way to deal with sex? Granted our nation feels that the idea of #7 was spot on. But that should be a nations choice.

We voted against the repeal of the metric system, we felt that #24 helped the member nations interact with each other. How does this law help the member nations work with each other?

This is a clear case, to us, of the UN infringing on national sovereignty and as such we welcome this repeal!

Honorable Assembly,

As the Queendom of Ditzybliss's first act as a member nation, we feel that it is just to vote for the repeal of this Resolution.

We live in a vast world of many nations and many different cultures. Each of us are unique, each of us with a seperate set of socialistic and moral values.

To propose and present resolutions concerning the most individualistic and personal issue of sexuality would be a travesty.

As nations, we are able and capable of deciding legislation that is defined by our unique societies.

What is acceptable sexually in The Queendom of Ditzybliss may not be legal in other nations. However, our Queendom does not base it's personal freedoms on those of a broader world view of what is acceptable. Instead, we have a society that bases it's personal freedoms at a national level.

As such, The Queendom of Ditzybliss can not support any Resolutions that attempt to define such personal issues in a broader world view.

The Queendom of Ditzybliss would also vote against any Resolutions forthcoming to replace this one. Sexuality is a national issue, not a world issue.

For Christ's sake, this vote is not about the replacement. We are voting on a repeal of Resolution #7, meaning our votes should be based upon the merits of the resolution we're targeting, and the arguments used to target it. Nothing more. In this case, Resolution #7 is a very flawed resolution, with overly broad language that serves to hamper law enforcement efforts in member nations, and encourage abuse of standing national and local laws ("You blatantly and unapologetically violated anti-incest laws and had sex with your brother?! Don't worry, ma'am -- we'll base your defense on UN Resolution #7!"); hence, repealing it would be beneficial both to the United Nations and to member states -- with or without replacement. Honestly, you people would prefer to keep a very bad law on the books rather than nothing at all? The logic of some delegates is astounding.

This vote is about Resolution #7, so unless you can come up with a good reason to keep said resolution on the books, you ought to be voting in favor of repeal.

The Federal Republic is in agreement with the arguments posed to strike out Sexual Freedom, and has thus cast its vote in favor.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations


You're kidding me!?! Of course I'd rather keep a flawed law on the books rather then repeal it hoping someone will eventually write a replacement. Many people repeal resolutions hoping the territory will be "reclaimed" by a better replacement. If that is one's goal it is foolish to to support a repeal when the replacement isn't already well drafted and well supported.

Y'think?!?

Not only have they not read any posts, nor have they likely ever read any of the considerable debate that happens in this forum, they probably have only read that a "sexual freedom" resolution is up for repeal. That's all. This is what passes for an "informed electorate" these days.

This happens pretty often, it seems. Unfortunately details like the specific text of specific proposals really matter sometimes.

Honorable Assembly,

As the Queendom of Ditzybliss's first act as a member nation, we feel that it is just to vote for the repeal of this Resolution.

We live in a vast world of many nations and many different cultures. Each of us are unique, each of us with a seperate set of socialistic and moral values.

To propose and present resolutions concerning the most individualistic and personal issue of sexuality would be a travesty.

As nations, we are able and capable of deciding legislation that is defined by our unique societies.

What is acceptable sexually in The Queendom of Ditzybliss may not be legal in other nations. However, our Queendom does not base it's personal freedoms on those of a broader world view of what is acceptable. Instead, we have a society that bases it's personal freedoms at a national level.

As such, The Queendom of Ditzybliss can not support any Resolutions that attempt to define such personal issues in a broader world view.

The Queendom of Ditzybliss would also vote against any Resolutions forthcoming to replace this one. Sexuality is a national issue, not a world issue.

Aye, what we see as a travesty is a government action that is, in essence, a cockblocker. If the citizen has such a unique sexual culture, then they won't need to be told not to do something that goes against that culture. As I see it, if consenting adults want to break from culture and partake in a sex life that isn't "normal" then they should damn well have that right. A nation that would force its citizenry to confine to the social and sexual culture is exactly what R7 is meant to say "Down boy!" to.

Unfortunately, R7 is crap. A replacement would do well. I am also for a repeal of R7, but not because I feel that sexual behavior is icky and should be left alone in order to let sensitive, morally woundable nations to govern. Because I don't.

Swing and a miss.

#7, flawed as it is, attempted to make sure governments kept out of peoples' sex lives. If anything, the spirit of #7 did exactly what you're saying, it made sure governments weren't involved in sex. The fact that it did this in spirit only and as a result was so inherently flawed that it is subject to such ludicrous and deliberate misinterpretations is why it needs to be repealed.

ERRRNNNT Wrong. maybe you should read my post again before you open that mouth of yours. i hit it right on the head.

...i know this resloution is to allow complete sexual freedom but we don't need a resolution to tell us this.

i know exactly what #7 does but this is not an issue that the UN should be concered about. we have countries at war with each other an all you want to do is make sure we stay out of our peoples bedrooms. tell me. are you just too scared to doing something worth while in the world? is this why we have these idiotic resolution? while i and the president of our country believe that government has no buisness in the bedroom, it's not for the UN to tell us we can't. we need to get rid of all these pansy ass resolutions that do nothing except place control in the UN hands.

we have countries at war with each other an all you want to do is make sure we stay out of our peoples bedrooms. tell me. are you just too scared to doing something worth while in the world?

In regard to the Ambassador of Kajikku, there are many countries with many differing styles of warfare and as such, there are many wars, some in the UN nations, some without, some involving battles in space, some with knights. The UN does not have a standing army and is not allowed to try and create when, we would have to rely on member nations breaking their own agreements and getting involved.

We can not fight for every invaded nation, we can not decided what side is wrong or right but try to retain human rights for all people under the UN umbrella. Unless the Kajikku has a proposal on how to get involved in every war and win it then might I suggest the ambassador concentrate on the matter at hand?

Protecting sexual freedom between consenting adults can be seen as a human right issue, to allow lovers to express themselves by whatever means they agree to without government interference is perhaps a noble and worthwhile matter. Even if it isn't a worthwhile matter, the resolution already is enforced in your own country and so you should just repeal then vote against any attempt to bring a new bill into the UN law?

The Duke then turned to the rest of the UN, shaking his head at the youth of today.

Whatever my feelings or that of my government on sexual freedom, this resolution is too badly worded and is a problem for our attempt to enforce law, I gladly vote for a Repeal on this matter.

Sun Loyalds, Cuation diplomat to the UN

Razat votes for the repeal. This has little to do with our views on "Sexual Freedoms" and much to do with the flaws in #7.

this is pathetic. you guys vote on anything with great rhetoric and repeal anything with bad. there is no thought to whether or not this resolution is right. i could write a proposal for killing all blue people and you would vote it in if i worded it correctly. that was a sarcastic remark so don't come back with the whole UN for civil rights BS. the UN has lost it's way. it was formed so that genocides like what happened during WWII will not happen again. what the hell does our government denying a man from getting porked in the ass have to do with preventing it from killing all midgets. absolutly nothing. i do not propose we jump into every war there is in this world, nor do i say we should pick a side. what we should be doing protecting the innocent not hiding behind sexual freedoms because we are too scared to do anything else.

The original resolution gives far too much gray-area to the subject of "Sexual Freedom". What goes on within the bedroom should be private - but the original resolution is useless in reaching this end.

The original resolution:

[Quote]
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.).

Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

[/Quote}


I am frankly surprised the original resolution passed in the first place given all the areas it is laking. It fails to define the terms "consenting" or "adults" thus giving loopholes sexual predators can work through. My next point is the format. This resolution reads horribly, and just looks horrible, and a repeal is warranted just from that.

My final point is that the original resolution definitely steps on the toes of the foot called National Sovereignty. I won't go for that.

So, I say "REPEAL!!!" :mp5:

You're kidding me!?! Of course I'd rather keep a flawed law on the books rather then repeal it hoping someone will eventually write a replacement.

Wow, of all people I can't believe you would be the one to write that. Actually the replacement is already in the forum so it's not a question of whether or when it's a case of if this repeal passes the replacement will go on the queue.

But this is not about the replacement. Why? Because the replacement has different bedfellows than the repeal. The Read Nothings, those who only look at the title and neither the resolution nor the debates will vote Nay for the Repeal and For the Resolution. The Keep the UN out of my nation, will vote for the repeal and against the resolution. The Horrid laws must be replaced croud will vote for the repeal and for the resolution. If you want to have a complex two dimensional argument, be my guest, only it's well beyond the debating level of even this august (hey it's actually August) body!

I can't believe how wrong I was on this resolution. I thought the debate would be nasty ... it isn't and the Read Nothinigs generally bored. (They are not, this resolution has a good chance of being defeated by a slim margin.)

To Kajikku: No it's worse than that. The Read Nothings will vote anything in that has a spiffy title. For the small minority (and let's face it, only a small minority of deligates are in this forum anyway) who insist on proper text, the format is only another reason to reject. I know of few people who would approve a resolution on format alone.

You're kidding me!?! Of course I'd rather keep a flawed law on the books rather then repeal it hoping someone will eventually write a replacement. Many people repeal resolutions hoping the territory will be "reclaimed" by a better replacement. If that is one's goal it is foolish to to support a repeal when the replacement isn't already well drafted and well supported.I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of getting the point.

And at the risk of starting another threadjack ... copyrights!

the UN has lost it's way. it was formed so that genocides like what happened during WWII will not happen again.Oh, is that why it was founded? I seem to remember a story about a bunch of gnomes, lengths of parchment, old-fashioned quill pens, a night-school course on how to rewrite laws, and a dream ...

I'm really sick and tired of people saying that they will not vote for the repeal until they see a replacement. For almost two, maybe three weeks now myself and a few others have pointed out that the is a replacement in the works. Hell, it's posted here in the UN forum. It really pisses me off when people can be bothered to actually read anything. It seems that some are finding stupid, random things to bitch about. Read the bloody repeal and then go read the bloody replacement. If you still think that R7 is fine then, well.....nevermind. I'll be nice and not say what I really want to say right now.

Vote however you want. It's clear that most who have voiced their opinion against this haven't actually made the effort to read and understand what has been presented to them.

You're kidding me!?! Of course I'd rather keep a flawed law on the books rather then repeal it hoping someone will eventually write a replacement. Many people repeal resolutions hoping the territory will be "reclaimed" by a better replacement. If that is one's goal it is foolish to to support a repeal when the replacement isn't already well drafted and well supported.

Once more, the insufferably arrogant representative from Discoreversalism chooses to insult the membership of this Assembly with his sneering dismissal of any other approach to legislative decision-making than his own. "Foolish" are we?

There are many cases in which we hope that a repeal will be followed by a better replacement. In such instances, we weigh two factors. First, we consider the nature and significance of the flaws in the original resolution. If it is so flawed that it is useless, we vote for the repeal. If its flaws are such that it causes positive harm, we vote for the repeal. It may be our desire to have a better replacement, but there's nothing "foolish" about removing completely worthless or harmful legislation even if we doubt our desire will be fulfilled.

If neither of those conditions applies, we weigh the probability that the repeal will be followed by a better replacement. This does not mean that, as the representative of Discoraversalism requires, the replacement is "already well drafted and well supported". It's a far more complex judgment, including such factors as the degree of trust we repose in the promise of a replacement and whether we have seen meaningful work on a replacement. If that's "foolish", so be it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I am frankly surprised the original resolution passed in the first place given all the areas it is laking.
Alot worse resoultions where passed back then.
It fails to define the terms "consenting" or "adults" thus giving loopholes sexual predators can work through.
Concenting dosn't really need to be defined because it already has a clear definition. The definition of adult is usualy left up to nations to decide as a matter of national soverignty.

My next point is the format. This resolution reads horribly, and just looks horrible, and a repeal is warranted just from that.

Well you might want a good few repeals then. :D This type of writing was done for a long time. This is no reason to repeal a resolution if it is that old.

My final point is that the original resolution definitely steps on the toes of the foot called National Sovereignty. I won't go for that.

Yawn... almost everything does that. (there are exceptions like the abortion legality convention) What's special about this one?(I'd like him to answer that not somebody else I want to see what he would say)

Agreed: on grounds of national sovereignty, I definitely hope there will be no replacement.

Hmm, are there many others with that line of thought? I was hoping for a stronger replacement.


In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

We rise in support of the esteemed representative of Gruenberg, and add Our voice in assent. So-called "sexual freedom" has no place in this august body's deliberations, being a matter properly only for the individual society to address.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp).

We rise in support of the esteemed representative of Gruenberg, and add Our voice in assent. So-called "sexual freedom" has no place in this august body's deliberations, being a matter properly only for the individual society to address.
Actualy individual society does choose under both the replacement. The replacement says nations do not have he right to choose. Society's power is not effected at all(except for in democracy's if the soceity is enforcing it's belifs through the government)

Once more, the insufferably arrogant representative from Discoreversalism chooses to insult the membership of this Assembly with his sneering dismissal of any other approach to legislative decision-making than his own. "Foolish" are we?

There are many cases in which we hope that a repeal will be followed by a better replacement. In such instances, we weigh two factors. First, we consider the nature and significance of the flaws in the original resolution. If it is so flawed that it is useless, we vote for the repeal. If its flaws are such that it causes positive harm, we vote for the repeal. It may be our desire to have a better replacement, but there's nothing "foolish" about removing completely worthless or harmful legislation even if we doubt our desire will be fulfilled.

If neither of those conditions applies, we weigh the probability that the repeal will be followed by a better replacement. This does not mean that, as the representative of Discoraversalism requires, the replacement is "already well drafted and well supported". It's a far more complex judgment, including such factors as the degree of trust we repose in the promise of a replacement and whether we have seen meaningful work on a replacement. If that's "foolish", so be it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large


Sorry all, I got my threads confused :) I posted a reply elsewhere I should have posted here.

Ausserland, it is a pleasure to debate with you, when you are still willing to discuss an issue.

I do consider many actions by legislators here foolish, but you have mischaracterized my statements.

You are describing voting for a repeal because you want something repealed, and are willing to risk no replacement or an inferior replacement replacing it. If you doubt a replacement will be written then you aren't repealing in the hopes of replacing it, you are repealing it to get rid of it first, with replacement a seconday concern.

Why not reduce the risk by working on the replacement first?

You are describing voting for a repeal because you want something repealed, and are willing to risk no replacement or an inferior replacement replacing it. If you doubt a replacement will be written then you aren't repealing in the hopes of replacing it, you are repealing it to get rid of it first, with replacement a seconday concern.

Why not reduce the risk by working on the replacement first?

Your always risking no replacement whenever you repeal something because even when you do have a replacement it may not pass or may not be submitted.

If a resolution is harming or not doing anything, then if it is repealed and not replaced how much damage have you done? none if it was harmful then you have helped though. Also when a replacement is made it speeds up the process.

Your always risking no replacement whenever you repeal something because even when you do have a replacement it may not pass or may not be submitted.

If a resolution is harming or not doing anything, then if it is repealed and not replaced how much damage have you done? none if it was harmful then you have helped though. Also when a replacement is made it speeds up the process.

Why not mimize the risk by working on the replacement first?

There are cases where a resoltuion is just bad. In that case it is usually blocking better resolutions. Why not work on the resolution first? There has to be some reason besides laziness.

I agree that replacements speed up the process :) That's why I think they should be written before a repeal comes up for vote.

Sorry all, I got my threads confused :) I posted a reply elsewhere I should have posted here.

Ausserland, it is a pleasure to debate with you, when you are still willing to discuss an issue.

I do consider many actions by legislators here foolish, but you have mischaracterized my statements.

You are describing voting for a repeal because you want something repealed, and are willing to risk no replacement or an inferior replacement replacing it. If you doubt a replacement will be written then you aren't repealing in the hopes of replacing it, you are repealing it to get rid of it first, with replacement a seconday concern.

Why not reduce the risk by working on the replacement first?

Did you even bother to read what we said about probability of replacement? Apparently not.

Once again, you skew the discussion. You do not respond to member's statements, you misrepresent them. No one suggested that working on a replacement before submitting a repeal was a bad idea or shouldn't be done. As a matter of fact, if you had read our comment on probability of replacement with any attempt at reasoned understanding, you would have realized that we considered it wise. We simply reject the notion that voting for a repeal without the proposed replacement being already "well drafted and well supported" is "foolish".

In the case of the repeal at hand, we do strongly support a replacement. The proposed replacement by the author of the repeal has been carefully worked on in three different venues, but we could not honestly say we believe it's ready for submission. It is highly promising, though. And we have no idea how much support it will attract. But despite our considered judgment that probability of replacement is high, according to you we're "foolish" for voting for the repeal. Sorry, we don't think so.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

There is a replacement in the works - it just isn't on the quorum. This is precisely why I feel that the replacement shsould have been there as well, so people can attest to the fact that there is a replacement, because I guarantee that the majority of the "nay" votes are from people who don't know that there is a replacement.

the UN has lost it's way. it was formed so that genocides like what happened during WWII will not happen again. what the hell does our government denying a man from getting porked in the ass have to do with preventing it from killing all midgets. absolutly nothing. i do not propose we jump into every war there is in this world, nor do i say we should pick a side.

OC: This is nationstates, not real life. The UN here was not formed due to a World War as far as I am aware and the rules forbid us the UN from getting involved in wars as the UN itself, we are not allowed to have a UN army anyway. Someone correct if I'm wrong

IC:

What is this WWII that happened that so upsets you? If your government did something or your neighbour, then take it up with your region or seek out allies to help stop whatever the problem is. The UN's formation is somewhat of a legend, some say gnomes are involved as a certain other Ambassador pointed out.

Yes, sadly some members seem to go on titles or rhetoric but many meet up in these halls to discuss the issues. The UN has done many things for civil rights, the environment and trade in the past but sometimes we debate seemingly worthless matters that mean a lot to others. Genocide, as I recall, is banned among UN nations and strictly enforced but we can not and will not enforce our laws on non members. You may do as you will with your armies but it is both forbidden by higher powers then us mere Ambassadors and impossible.

Sun Loyalds

Alot worse resoultions where passed back then.

I know - I've seen them.

Well you might want a good few repeals then. :D This type of writing was done for a long time. This is no reason to repeal a resolution if it is that old.

I would love to repeal alot of the older resolutions because they are completely useless.

Yawn... almost everything does that. (there are exceptions like the abortion legality convention) What's special about this one?(I'd like him to answer that not somebody else I want to see what he would say)

The special thing about this resolution is that this is the one that is up for debate. Is that good enough?

When one of the other poorly written resolutions pops up for repeal I will say the same thing.

There is a replacement in the works - it just isn't on the quorum. This is precisely why I feel that the replacement shsould have been there as well, so people can attest to the fact that there is a replacement, because I guarantee that the majority of the "nay" votes are from people who don't know that there is a replacement.

And it will never get there if the orginal law isn't struck from the books, which is why the repeal has been submitted first.

And it will never get there if the orginal law isn't struck from the books, which is why the repeal has been submitted first.


It had to happen this way. If the replacement is submitted before the repeal passes, it will be deleted for a duplication illegality.

Why not mimize the risk by working on the replacement first?

There are cases where a resoltuion is just bad. In that case it is usually blocking better resolutions. Why not work on the resolution first? There has to be some reason besides laziness.

I agree that replacements speed up the process :) That's why I think they should be written before a repeal comes up for vote.

My God! Is that all you can bloody come up with? R7 is a terrible resolution, hence the bloody repeal. The repeal and the replacement were pretty much written at the same time, but there is no boody reason to submit the replacement unless the repeal passes and the original law is taken off the bloody books!

I don't think it can be made any more clear. Submitting replacement first = bad and will be deleted.

Submitting repeal first = good and no deletion, making room for the damn replacement. Assuming that whatever the repeal is for passes.

Yeah, I know about the whole National Sovereignty thing. Being a member of the NSO, I find myself being opposed to my own resolution.
This is Karmicaria talking about his replacement in the replacements thread. It makes me seriously doubt(don't want to say sure just in case) wether he is going to submit the replacement. Let alone give it enough votes to pass. Before people ask this is important to the repeal because if you are like me voting in favor of the replacement this kind of defeats the purpose.

This is Karmicaria talking about his replacement in the replacements thread. It makes me seriously doubt(don't want to say sure just in case) wether he is going to submit the replacement. Let alone give it enough votes to pass. Before people ask this is important to the repeal because if you are like me voting in favor of the replacement this kind of defeats the purpose.

The Republic of Krioval would like to note that simply because a proposal author abandons a proposal, for whatever reason, the proposal need not be abandoned altogether by the United Nations as a whole. Should any interested nation or nations wish to replace "Sexual Freedom" should it be repealed, said nation or nations may attempt to do so as they wish.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar
City of Neo Tyros
Republic of Krioval

This is Karmicaria talking about his replacement in the replacements thread. It makes me seriously doubt(don't want to say sure just in case) wether he is going to submit the replacement. Let alone give it enough votes to pass. Before people ask this is important to the repeal because if you are like me voting in favor of the replacement this kind of defeats the purpose.

I'll start off by saying that I am female. I always have been and I always will be. It's rather humerous how people assume that a man wrote this. If you ask me, that's rather sexist, but I really don't want to get into that at the moment. With that being said, on with explaining myself.

Yes, from a National Sovereignty standpoint, I am opposed to this. But, looking at it as a basic human right, I'm for it. I want to make sure that the people do not have their privacy of sexual relations infringed upon. I'm not trying to take people's sexual freedom away from them. It's quite the opposite.

Do you really think that I would have put forth the effort if the replacement wasn't going to get submitted? Hells NO! Trust me, I have better things to do than waste my time on something that isn't going to be submitted. Now, before someone skews my words, I have every intention of submitting the replacement. Try not to get your panties in too much of a bunch over it.

We feel that regardless of whether or not the new Resolution is drafted, this one is far too vague to remain in service, tearing great loopholes in itself that may be exploited by those who would do so. Furthermore, allowing such poor (if well-intended) writings to remain on the books sets a bad example for future proposals. We must make our messages as clear as possible to prevent them from being abused. Even if the new Resolution is never brought to vote, which we feel sure it will at some point or another, we feel that it would still have been pertinent to remove Resolution No. 7. We will, as earlier stated, applaud Karmicaria or any other writer if their proposal makes it to the books.

The Wolf Guardians']We feel that regardless of whether or not the new Resolution is drafted, this one is far too vague to remain in service, tearing great loopholes in itself that may be exploited by those who would do so. Furthermore, allowing such poor (if well-intended) writings to remain on the books sets a bad example for future proposals. We must make our messages as clear as possible to prevent them from being abused. Even if the new Resolution is never brought to vote, which we feel sure it will at some point or another, we feel that it would still have been pertinent to remove Resolution No. 7.

Thank you. You have given me proof that the entire world is not made up of idiots.

I'll start off by saying that I am female.
This is one of my odd things I have a habbit of refering to male in everything unless I know the differnce half the time even if I do:p. This is not because this forum is mostly males(which it is but not in anyway exclusivly) but I have done this on all forums I have been on. Some of which have been mostly females. Sorry if I offended you with some bad habit.

I don't think people on the forum as male or female. It is similar to when ships and cars are called she.


Yes, from a National Sovereignty standpoint, I am opposed to this. But, looking at it as a basic human right, I'm for it. I want to make sure that the people do not have their privacy of sexual relations infringed upon. I'm not trying to take people's sexual freedom away from them. It's quite the opposite. oh good... that post was pretty convincing though lol.

Do you really think that I would have put forth the effort if the replacement wasn't going to get submitted? Hells NO! Trust me, I have better things to do than waste my time on something that isn't going to be submitted. Now, before someone skews my words, I have every intention of submitting the replacement. Try not to get your panties in too much of a bunch over it.

Actualy I know of people doing it. (well... I'd rather not explain that) Also I thought of doing it at one point myself. So some person doing it would not surprise me. I did not change your words at all btw I took the exact entire post.

The reason someone might do that is that it convinces alot of people to vote for it.

The Commonwealth graciously accepts your complement and puts its full support behind you nation in your efforts to create a new, more complete Resolution. Karmicaria, that is.

OC: This is nationstates, not real life. The UN here was not formed due to a World War as far as I am aware and the rules forbid us the UN from getting involved in wars as the UN itself, we are not allowed to have a UN army anyway. Someone correct if I'm wrong

then this UN is more pathetic than the real one.

Genocide, as I recall, is banned among UN nations and strictly enforced but we can not and will not enforce our laws on non members.

then you continue to enforce. just because genocide is already banned doesn't mean that we should find the most obscured thing to vote on. there are many things we can do to protect the innocent that doesn't pertain to war. if laws prevent us from doing something to protect the innocent, maybe we should be focusing on how to change these laws. but obviously people like you are either control happy or too scared to do anything (judging by your nations name i am assuming that you're the later), so seeing this happen is not very likely.

Kajikku,

And you do know that changing when quoting someone, if you change the "Originally Posted by" section to include the stuff that you did, it can be considered FlameBaiting and/or flaming? As well as your responce to the second quote that you put up.

then this UN is more pathetic than the real one.

The NS UN has one advantage over the RW UN. The Compliance Gnome.
http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/146659234.jpg

Real nations in the UN often ignore UN resolutions, nation states in the NS UN get their stats changed by the gnome the moment the resolution passes, and this includes repeals.

This is Karmicaria talking about his replacement in the replacements thread. It makes me seriously doubt(don't want to say sure just in case) wether he is going to submit the replacement. Let alone give it enough votes to pass. Before people ask this is important to the repeal because if you are like me voting in favor of the replacement this kind of defeats the purpose.

Having known the honorable lady from Karmicaria for a short while and her distinguished colleague from Kivisto for much longer, we feel confident in giving our honorable colleague from Newfoundcanada our personal assurance that they honestly do intend to submit a replacement should this repeal succeed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Miulana Kapalaoa
Minister for External Affairs
Protectorate of Wailele Island

[stuff]Dial it back. Now. Insulting other players because you don't understand the norms and memes here is unacceptable. In fact, insulting other players period is unacceptable. Shape up or you'll be shipped out.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

The NS UN has one advantage over the RW UN. The Compliance Gnome.

Real nations in the UN often ignore UN resolutions, nation states in the NS UN get their stats changed by the gnome the moment the resolution passes, and this includes repeals.

Compliance Gnomes are a bullshit myth as far as I can tell. We ain't had none in HotRodia. Just some UN Inspectors from the Compliance Ministry, and they tend to get killed more often than they'd like.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

OOC: And by the way, gnomes changing stats is an odd mix of IC and OOC. If you want to say that gnomes make sure national laws are in line with UN resolutions, that's fine and it fits ICly. And if you want to say that the game engine changes national stats for nations who are in the UN at the time the resolution passes, you're absolutely right. But saying that UN Gnomes change national stats seems a little silly, because they...don't.

Compliance Gnomes are a bullshit myth as far as I can tell. We ain't had none in HotRodia. Just some UN Inspectors from the Compliance Ministry, and they tend to get killed more often than they'd like.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus DioceI had an IC rant all ready to lob at the Tzorslander rep, then figured it was way off-topic, and nixed it. But seeing as how scummy gnomes are apparently a much more interesting topic than, say, er, sex ... umm ... here it is, for your reading pleasure:

The Federal Republic doesn't put much stock in these gnomes; sure, they talk a big game, but they're quashed as easily as any other foe our nation has faced. Our Special Operations Forces have discovered that if your put holes in them, they fall down, just like anyone else. Our carnivorous natives have learned that they have meat on their bones, just like any other creature. Our C-4 Penguins have found that if you explode next them, they catch fire, just like any other animal. The Kennyite gnomes on my staff have found that they can be infiltrated and taken down from the inside, just like any other corrupt entity. Our Stripper Commandos have demonstrated that they're just as swayed by hormones as any other species. Our excellent Creative Solutions Agency advisers have determined that their directives can be sidestepped and cirumvented, just like any other laws. And mighty Thain Kornweasel of The Gnomish Warbands (www.nationstates.net/the_gnomish_warbands) has come to know the fear of God that can be put into any of his creatures, great or small, man or gnome, with terrible ear-splitting warcries and ferocious combat ferrets.

The oft-told legend of the UN Enforcers' invincibility is highly amusing, but our experience with them proves that in the flesh they are actually rather weak. The Kenny Armed Forces note the trepidation with which these gnomes approach our borders, and the pathetic remote devices they use to change our stats (very easily reversed), rather than engage our nation's gallant defenders. They have learned their place.

The Federal Republic comes into compliance via the Creative Solutions Agency. The gnomes are irrelevant.

And how do you "enforce" a repeal, anyway?

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Did you even bother to read what we said about probability of replacement? Apparently not.

Once again, you skew the discussion. You do not respond to member's statements, you misrepresent them. No one suggested that working on a replacement before submitting a repeal was a bad idea or shouldn't be done. As a matter of fact, if you had read our comment on probability of replacement with any attempt at reasoned understanding, you would have realized that we considered it wise. We simply reject the notion that voting for a repeal without the proposed replacement being already "well drafted and well supported" is "foolish".

In the case of the repeal at hand, we do strongly support a replacement. The proposed replacement by the author of the repeal has been carefully worked on in three different venues, but we could not honestly say we believe it's ready for submission. It is highly promising, though. And we have no idea how much support it will attract. But despite our considered judgment that probability of replacement is high, according to you we're "foolish" for voting for the repeal. Sorry, we don't think so.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I didn't make this statement "voting for a repeal without the proposed replacement being already "well drafted and well supported" is "foolish".

I made a similar statement, and I'm happy to discuss it.

You say it is wise to do A. Does that not make it foolish to do not A?

In case of repeals, I don't vote right away. I would much rather wait until the end of the process, when I have some idea what sort of replacement will occur, or the odds it won't get replaced in the foreseeable future.

You seem to support a replacement. Would you still support a repeal if you thought no replacement, only a blocker, would pass?

Strathcarlie voted against.
We think that what the people do in the privacy of their own home is their business, and as long as it doesn't include non-consenting adults, or any children under 15 it's none of the gov't business.
This extends further: if somebody wants to show up completely naked at their job, there's no law in the book prohibiting that, only the regulations of their workplace, and their boss and co-workers.
We think that any act of legislation curtailing personal freedom is despicable, and Strathcarlie will always work to undermine these governments.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Paramentsu chooses to Oppose this measure.

I have consulted with His Majesty and his Ministers, and it has been determined that Paramentsu shall oppose initiatives to restrict sexual freedom (with the exception of reasonable limits as prescribed by law). His Majesty's Ministry is concerned that if Resolution no. 7 were to be repealed, there would be an uncertainty as to what future resolutions might be brought in to compensate for the repeal.

Therefore, in the name of His Majesty Troy of Paramentsu, and Her Majesty Elizabeth II of the Second Crown, I declare the opposition of Paramentsu to this resolution (and the de facto opposing position of the Twin Empire).

then you continue to enforce. just because genocide is already banned doesn't mean that we should find the most obscured thing to vote on. there are many things we can do to protect the innocent that doesn't pertain to war. if laws prevent us from doing something to protect the innocent, maybe we should be focusing on how to change these laws. but obviously people like you are either control happy or too scared to do anything (judging by your nations name i am assuming that you're the later), so seeing this happen is not very likely.

We do enforce all the UN laws, or the gnomes force us too, but if you think there is a law that needs to be made then try to do that. We are supporting this repeal as the old law causes a threat to the security of our nation due to poor wording and the effects that has. Sadly this matter has little to do with sexual freedom, minor or major matter as that is, which always saddens my heart.

Go on, send in resolutions, garner support and advice on the matters, you can easily do that. Some would consider this repeal a security matter and sexual freedom a matter of civil rights. You accuse this UN of not trying to change laws to protect the innocent, yet that is what we are doing here so is it a waste? The law we are trying to repeal provides protection for those planning crimes even if we catch them red handed.

As for my nation name, it means in my native langue, "twin islands of war", I have very little control of the UN, I am just a minor ambassador here but nor am I scared to fight for my nations interests. I do not write resolutions, I am an administrator and a diplomat, I do not belive I have the ability to make law and will not try tounless something is so wrong that I have little choice.


Sun Loyalds

Compliance Gnomes are a bullshit myth as far as I can tell. We ain't had none in HotRodia. Just some UN Inspectors from the Compliance Ministry, and they tend to get killed more often than they'd like.

Well technically they are not really "gnomes" that's just their mascot, like Travelocity. I do hear that when a new person becomes employed in the ministry he does have to wear a gnome suit for the official photo.

It always stirkes me as odd, that no matter how they try to eliminate gnomes, the statistics ministry still manages to compile stats for their nation. Gnomes are everywhere. Sometimes they look like you or me.

OOC: Technically the "gnomes" introduce legislation, which under UN treaty must be approved, which in turn wanks the stats. Technically the national budget is a "stat" so direct legislation can directly change stats.

OOC: This is NationStates. It contains a game portion and a role play portion. I am a firm believer in the notion that you need to have both. If you want to ignore the role play, then don't come to the forum. If you want to ignore the game play, then why are you here in the first place? There are tons of pure role playing sites on the internet.

We think that what the people do in the privacy of their own home is their business, and as long as it doesn't include non-consenting adults, or any children under 15 it's none of the gov't business.

And we disagree, strongly in fact. The resolution is entitled "Sexual Freedom" but it is in fact neither. In the first place it doesn't mention sex whatsoever. Plotting rterrorist activities might just as well be covered under the resolution. In the second place, for a law on "freedom" it seems exceptionally restricted. "Their own home?" What about those who rent property? What about those who go to a hotel on their honneymoon or any other reason for a nice holiday? As I wrote previously, this resolution is downright horrid and I still believe in it.

As for the matter of a replacement, I think I have made my opinions well known on the matter. I am convinced that a replacement would have a good chance of passage. Even a mediocre replacement is vastly superior to what we have now, and the current resolution is actually good in our eyes.

So Discoraversalism, I hope you don't mind me using your exact same arguments when you attempt to bring up a repeal of copyright law then? After all, you didn't even have a replacement resolution when you first brought it up, and you still don't have one that is "well drafted and well supported." I would also suggest you check in to the nearest hospital because that wound in your foot, where you just shot yourself might get infected. If that happens it might have to be amputated and then your argument would no longer have a leg to stand on.

The People of Jacobic are against the repeal. We have read all the arguments and still believe the resolution as it stands is good enough to do the job.


Prime Minister of Jacobic

The People of Jacobic are against the repeal. We have read all the arguments and still believe the resolution as it stands is good enough to do the job.


Prime Minister of Jacobic

So, you would be okay with your citizens building nuclear devices or slaughtering another person, as long as they were doing it in a sexual manner?

They law as it currently stands is way too open for interpretation, which is why we want it off the books. Do you have any idea how many things can be done in a sexual manner. Hell, I could be typing in a sexual manner right now. It's an unclear law and is lacking.

But if that is the way you truly feel, then so be it.

The people of Slayberia are for the repeal because some changes should be made to the original document.

I don't see why your county needs to know what your doing sexual in your own home. Really come on do they need to know?

The People of Jacobic are against the repeal. We have read all the arguments and still believe the resolution as it stands is good enough to do the job.

I think I have already proven that it does a whole lot of things, but the only thing it doesn't do is "do the job." There is no protection for hotels, one can even argue that it doesn't apply for rental properties. It covers EVERYTHING that happens. This resolution is blatantly stupid, blatantly illegal (under the current requirements for resolutions) and blatantly wrong. And yet everyone loves it so.

A pile of manure is a pile of manure and resolution #7 is a pile of manure. Frankly if this is the level of intelligence in this body, I'm going back to the Starbucks. At least the barista there is intelligent.

Really, United Pacific. We all know that the government does not need to know what goes on in the bedroom. That is not what this is about. This is about a poorly written, loophole-prone law that must be removed and replaced by a better one. No one here has voiced the opinion that their government needs to know about the sexual lives of their nation, though a select few have pointed out that there might be some governments who, for some reason, want to know. That is why the UN is here. To make the majority decision. Most of us wish there to be a replacement guaranteeing that freedom immediately. However, we cannot do that until we repeal UN Resolution No. 7. Sadly, this looks highly unlikely at this time. There are simply too many Ambassadors who would read the title and nothing else, counteracting all those here who would actually do their job. The Commonwealth encourages the world in general to reattempt this repeal, as it seems doomed. Long live the UN, long live democracy, and long live people who actually read all the available information to reach a true, informed decision.

The Commonwealth encourages the world in general to reattempt this repeal, as it seems doomed. Well you normaly have to wait a good while if a repeal has been attempted. (btw I don't really know this from personal expirence just that's what people say alot)

Sadly, it seems that we have no choice, as the repeal is losing so badly.

So Discoraversalism, I hope you don't mind me using your exact same arguments when you attempt to bring up a repeal of copyright law then? After all, you didn't even have a replacement resolution when you first brought it up, and you still don't have one that is "well drafted and well supported." I would also suggest you check in to the nearest hospital because that wound in your foot, where you just shot yourself might get infected. If that happens it might have to be amputated and then your argument would no longer have a leg to stand on.

Please do :) You may notice I haven't even submitted a draft for a repeal, but I have submitted a draft for a replacement. My tactics here are an open book.

I'm working on support now (not making much headway :) ). The draft for the repeal comes later. I have a suplementary rights of the author resolution I'm working on first, then the replacement, then the repeal.

But that's all off topic, and belongs in another thread.

The Incorporated States of Bamboozlestan vote to repeal Resolution #7. Sexual Freedom, as it currently stands, is a farce at best. #7 is vague and ambiguous, however, the proposed replacement is not vague enough! Leave sexual rights up to individual nations. Mind your own business!

I am sorry if you value my opinions, and those who have also voted against this resolution, so little. But apparently you have not proven your point if so many of us are voting against the repeal.

The People of Jacobic will pray for you and hope you shall have more patience in the future.

Prime Minister of Jacobic

The people of Slayberia think that a replacement would be fitting in this situation. We shall immediately change our vote, since a replacement is being considered.

The Commonwealth, for one, values your opinion, honerable delegate from Jacobic. Why, specifically and expressly, do you not want Resolution No. 7. repealed in place of a new one? And don't forget that the majority opinion of the repeal is legal-based, not moral-based. We all want to protect the people from their governments, but we need a good way to do it. So, please, what do you think? We also thank Slayberia for understanding the current plight.

The people of Slayberia think that a replacement would be fitting in this situation. We shall immediately change our vote, since a replacement is being considered.

A replacement has been in the works since the beginning - people just don't know of it, or are very adamant about not repealing the resolution for reasons that we cannot conceive of being reasons.

The point has been proven well-enough to those who have heard - the point now is to make an information campaign so people for what they are voting (which is the ultimate flaw of Resolution #7 in the first place - it's vague, it lacks authority, and it furthermore avoids answering the question it seeks to answer.) The replacement is more well-versed, more concise, and it offers actuall authority in the way of providing protection for those engaged in sexual freedom.

The Incorporated States of Bamboozlestan vote to repeal Resolution #7. Sexual Freedom, as it currently stands, is a farce at best. #7 is vague and ambiguous, however, the proposed replacement is not vague enough! Leave sexual rights up to individual nations. Mind your own business!

Perhaps we would mind our own buisness but I do like the ability to arrest someone for crimes, like plotting mass murder, without them using the sexual freedom bill as a defence

Vote against the thing you dislike when it comes to vote, don't shoot down a good repeal becuase of it.

The language is too lax, I agree. Unless the residing members and delegates want to enjoy a surge in sexual crimes, the "sexual freedom" resolution should be re-written in order to prevent future loopholes in the justice system.

The language is too lax, I agree. Unless the residing members and delegates want to enjoy a surge in sexual crimes, the "sexual freedom" resolution should be re-written in order to prevent future loopholes in the justice system.

And because of this well written response, I have deceided to dismiss this resolution based on grounds of non compliance to proper grammatical structure.

That means it's poorly written and allows for sexual predators to have a "field day".

Forgive my confusion, but of which Resolution are you speaking, God_777?

The Democratic States of Bevatt is frankly concerned as it seems someone has been putting LSD in the water at the UN General Assembly. That is the only theory we have on why so many people would hallucinate that UN Resolution #7 is worth keeping.

In the meantime the delegate for the Democratic States of Bevatt will stick to drinking good old harmless beer.

The Community of His Fordians is still at lost at why the majority of UN members are voting against the current proposition. In truth, it would seem to me that the vast majority of the Nations who have spoken here are for the resolution.

This is a sad day indeed for the UN. I insist and invite all Nations opposing the current Proposal to come here and raise their voice, and let their opinions be known. This is the only way to work in this debate!

Otherwise... well... I believe it will show that the current UN is quite... disfinctionnal indeed.

Many voters seem to be misinterpreting the repeal draft. The draft is not outlawing sexual freedom, it just specifies that another resolution is needed to state what constitutes a sexual crime or not. Many cases in our courts are defining what consensual sex is, maybe the resolution should too. I would advise you all to read and consider a draft resolution that is currenlty being written among differing nations. This draft is much more specific in its language and it can be read here, http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=493932

The Democratic States of Bevatt is frankly concerned as it seems someone has been putting LSD in the water at the UN General Assembly. That is the only theory we have on why so many people would hallucinate that UN Resolution #7 is worth keeping.

In the meantime the delegate for the Democratic States of Bevatt will stick to drinking good old harmless beer.
Hi, I'm Ken Scott and I'm the Vice President of the Building Maintence department for the UN Building and I'd like to address to concerns from the ambassador form Bevatt.

Our water supply undergoes rigorous testing on a regular basis and I can assure you and everyone else that there is absolutly no lysergic acid diethylamide to be found in UN Building's water supply.

Hi, I'm Ken Scott and I'm the Vice President of the Building Maintence department for the UN Building and I'd like to address to concerns from the ambassador form Bevatt.

Our water supply undergoes rigorous testing on a regular basis and I can assure you and everyone else that there is absolutly no lysergic acid diethylamide to be found in UN Building's water supply.

There is, however, a nice stash of it in my office for medicinal purposes if you're so inclined.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

It is unfortunate that most seem to be against this repeal. I just don't understand it. Why in the world would people want to keep a law that is so open to interpretation and poorly written on the books. And trying to understand it all is making my brain hurt.

Sadly, it's pretty simple, Karmi.

They read the title: "Repeal: "Sexual Freedom""
They then stop reading.
They say something like: "What?! You can't do that! Sexual freedom is too important!"
Or they think: "Another repeal? Bah!"
They then vote against.

Granted, not everybody, but I wager that's the thought process on the majority of the votes.

Sadly, it's pretty simple, Karmi.

They read the title: "Repeal: "Sexual Freedom""
They then stop reading.
They say something like: "What?! You can't do that! Sexual freedom is too important!"
Or they think: "Another repeal? Bah!"
They then vote against.

Granted, not everybody, but I wager that's the thought process on the majority of the votes.

I can tell you how many tirades I've gone on about people not bloddy reading. Stop being so damn lazy and read things. GAH!

The Commonwealth wholeheartedly reiterates the anti-lazeness message! We'd recommend putting a sign up that says, "READ THE WHOLE BLOODY THING AND THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FIRST, YOU #*^&#!" except that, they wouldn't read it. The sign, that is. Long live well-informed democracy!

Sadly, it's pretty simple, Karmi.

They read the title: "Repeal: "Sexual Freedom""
They then stop reading.
They say something like: "What?! You can't do that! Sexual freedom is too important!"
Or they think: "Another repeal? Bah!"
They then vote against.

Granted, not everybody, but I wager that's the thought process on the majority of the votes.

Mikitivity actually abstained. We prefer the current draft replacement and do not like the format of the original resolution, however, we also take into consideration that the standards for quality of resolutions prior to 2005 were pretty lax. Since my government holds the belief that UN resolutions are but statements of international will, we're eagerly awaiting a new proposal reaching the UN floor instead of a repeal.

OOC:
The replacement really is good, and I'm surprised that the repeal is really this far behind. Even if I voted in favour instead of abstaining, it wouldn't make a bit of difference, and I do like to keep repeals to low voter turnout. It just doesn't sit well with me if resolutions were getting less votes than repeals. *shrug*

That said, I thought briefly having replacements instead of repeal and new resolutions might be interesting ... but the logistics called upon the moderators would be too much ... what is a replacement and what is just a blocker? (p.s. I created a short entry about "blockers" on NSWiki last week ... eventually I'd like us to create a list of them for the article)

but the logistics called upon the moderators would be too much ... what is a replacement and what is just a blocker? (p.s. I created a short entry about "blockers" on NSWiki last week ... eventually I'd like us to create a list of them for the article)

OOC: I searched for your entry about blockers on NSWiki but it didn't come up and I didn't find any links to it in any other UN-related articles... :confused:

Sadly, it seems that the substance of the repeal has been largely overlooked by the UN populace. Initial reactions in Dashanzi's region were almost exclusively negative; however, now that proponents within the region have presented deeper analysis and/or evidence of the superior replacement, it seems that the naysayers are being persuaded to reconsider. Too little, too late, I regret.

Benedictions,

The government of Jacobic would like to take this opportunity to inform you that we do read, thank you very much.

Also we voted against the repeal because we like the loose interpretation we are allowed with the existing proposal. Yes the possibility of bad things happening during a sex act can be construed as a violation of this resolution but the key word is possibility. Our law enforcement personnel do not see it as a bad as you have made it out to be.

And your arguments have not persuaded us to change our vote.

Our water supply undergoes rigorous testing on a regular basis and I can assure you and everyone else that there is absolutly no lysergic acid diethylamide to be found in UN Building's water supply.

Personally I think that the deligates who have been drinking outside of the voting device have been getting some sildenafil citrate, aka, 3-[2-ethoxy-5-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)sulfonyl-phenyl]-7-methyl-9-prop
yl-2,4,7,8-tetrazabicyclo[4.3.0]nona-3,8,10-trien-5-one; 2-hydroxyprop
ane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid, aka, viagra. This explains why they are voting against the repeal and not not staying for the debate. I think they have other things on their mind.

My aide has just suggested to me this might be the reason why they have risen to the occasion and expressed their firm support for a UN resolution that while generally impotent is still better than any potential future resolution yet to come. Why Amber, I didn't know Werepenguins were such infamous punsters.

Personally I think that the deligates who have been drinking outside of the voting device have been getting some sildenafil citrate, aka, 3-[2-ethoxy-5-(4-methylpiperazin-1-yl)sulfonyl-phenyl]-7-methyl-9-prop
yl-2,4,7,8-tetrazabicyclo[4.3.0]nona-3,8,10-trien-5-one; 2-hydroxyprop
ane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid, aka, viagra. This explains why they are voting against the repeal and not not staying for the debate. I think they have other things on their mind.

My aide has just suggested to me this might be the reason why they have risen to the occasion and expressed their firm support for a UN resolution that while generally impotent is still better than any potential future resolution yet to come. Why Amber, I didn't know Werepenguins were such infamous punsters.

Perhaps it is both that has been put into the water system. It is very unnerving that the vote has turned out the way it has. Maybe next time I will take Wolf Guardians advice and attach a great big sign saying "READ THE ENTIRE BLOODY PROPOSAL!" But, as he said, they wouldn't even read the sign.

The Republic Of Billpages has voted in favour of the repeal.

While we recognize, and strive to protect the social and political freedom of our citizens, we feel that greater measures need to be taken to ensure the safety of those unable to protect themselves.

Thank you,

The Republic Of Billpages has voted in favour of the repeal.

While we recognize, and strive to protect the social and political freedom of our citizens, we feel that greater measures need to be taken to ensure the safety of those unable to protect themselves.

Thank you,

Thank you.

If, indeed - as some delegates claim - Resolution #7 does not, in fact, have anything to do with sex, then it ought to be possible to write a replacement resolution and pass it without a prior repeal. Just call it "Preservation of Sexual Privacy", "Protection of Sexual Choice", or whatever.

Were the sponsors of this repeal to do that, and then follow with another attempt to repeal Resolution #7, I have no doubt that they would succeed.

But the sad truth is that no resolution protecting sexual choice could possibly pass under the current reactionary environment; thus calls to repeal Resolution #7 based on the promise of its replacement with “something better” are misguided. They will merely result in the loss of our freedoms for no good purpose, and this is not something we are prepared to countenance.

The People's Democratic Republic of Community Property understands full well that the present resolution is “flawed” in the sense that it doesn't do what it purports to do. We view it as a de facto “Right to Privacy” mandate and therefore support it on that basis. We understand and accept the fact that this privacy right could well be abused, for example, by entrepreneurs holding Tupperware parties and recruiting innocent victims into multi-level marketing schemes. But we believe that this is a small price to pay for the right to enjoy full freedom from unwarranted state intrusion into the privacy of our homes.

But the sad truth is that no resolution protecting sexual choice could possibly pass under the current reactionary environment; thus calls to repeal Resolution #7 based on the promise of its replacement with “something better” are misguided. They will merely result in the loss of our freedoms for no good purpose, and this is not something we are prepared to countenance.What the hell are you talking about?

What the hell are you talking about?Since what I wrote was in plain English, I'm going to assume that you disagree with me regarding something. So - rather than make me guess - would you like to share your point of disagreement?

I'm with OMGTKK on this one. I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.

But the sad truth is that no resolution protecting sexual choice could possibly pass under the current reactionary environment;

I think this is what confuses Kenny. I certanly don't see any "current reactionary environment." I do see a lot of odd factions, and each faction would react differently.

The largest faction is the "I just read the titles," faction. This faction tends to be fluffy liberal and thus is not only the reason why this repeal is failing by a wide margin, "Repeal Sexual Freedom? OMG he must be a Catholic or something." Logically it would be the reason why the replacement would succeed by a wide margin. "Sexual Freedom? Cool!"

This is followed by the National Soverginty faction. But it's a borderline issue that is sure to split the faction down the middle.

This is followed by the National Security faction. As long as you are not plotting terrorism in the privy of your own home (Now if the resolution was so poorly worded only to allow sexual activity in ones outhouse ... that would be funny!) the National Security faction would probably not oppose.

This is followed by the Free (and Fair) Trade faction. Once again, since we are not talking about restricting cross border sex, they will only produce a mild opposition at best.

My guess is that a mediocre sexual freedom bill would pass by a 2/3 margin, and a good one would pass by a 3/4 margin.

Since what I wrote was in plain English, I'm going to assume that you disagree with me regarding something. So - rather than make me guess - would you like to share your point of disagreement?Actually, I'd care to know the basis on which you make these assertions.

BTW, it hasn't been announced yet, but voting is closed and the repeal failed.

OOC, the “reactionary environment” statement makes sense when you consider the source (IOW, it's an IC assessment, not an objective one). But that aside, I do believe that the political environment within the NSUN is different from what it was a year ago. Back then, when I introduced my “Universal Disarmament” proposal, I felt that – had I worked hard at it – it probably could have made the floor. Today, such a proposal wouldn't stand any chance at all of even coming up for a vote.

I disagree with you assessment that a “Sexual Privacy” resolution would pass in the present environment. In fact, I think things have reached the point where – were #7 to have been repealed – a “Ban Homosexuality” resolution would have a 50-50 chance of passage. Maybe you still see the NSUN as dominated by liberals, but at this stage I don't.

Still, my initial point remains unchallenged. Resolution #7 is so poorly written (in terms of achieving its proclaimed intent) that I believe a well-drafted resolution guaranteeing sexual freedom could be brought to the floor without breaking NSUN rules – as long as it had some other name.

So why didn't I vote for repeal? Again, to summarize: Because I don't believe a replacement resolution - however well written - can pass in the current environment, even if brought to the floor,


Because - completely aside from my beliefe that it has no chance of passage - I think we can actually bring the replacement now being proposed to the floor with only minor changes, requiring no prior repeal and thus minimizing the risk of removal of all rights without any surviving guarantee,


Because I actually want there to be some kind of privacy right, whatever it's called, and Resolution #7 will suffice until someone writes something better.

Last UN Decision

The resolution "Repeal "Sexual Freedom"" was defeated 8,879 votes to 4,150.This is a shame. The Federal Republic hopes for a time when the delegates to this Assembly can read the title of a resolution repealing sexual freedoms, and instead of knee-jerkingly opposing it and terming Ms. Chase a "fascist," they can approach the topic with an open mind, fairly assess the author's motivations, maybe even read the argument for the repeal. In this case, the repeal clearly endorsed a replacement, and we had personal knowledge that a draft replacement was already in the works. We would have opposed it, but at least it would have improved our national civil rights statistics.

We congratulate Ms. Chase for her noble efforts toward improving the quality of UN legislation and wiping a particularly awful UN resolution from the books.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

This is followed by the National Security faction. As long as you are not plotting terrorism in the privy of your own home (Now if the resolution was so poorly worded only to allow sexual activity in ones outhouse ... that would be funny!) the National Security faction would probably not oppose.



OOC: Major LoLs!

IC: I have, in fact, heard rumors that Razatian terrorists have been plotting in outhouses while having sex. It is thought that they have received "leaked" memos of the possible loopholes in #7.

OOC, the “reactionary environment” statement makes sense when you consider the source (IOW, it's an IC assessment, not an objective one). But that aside, I do believe that the political environment within the NSUN is different from what it was a year ago. Back then, when I introduced my “Universal Disarmament” proposal, I felt that – had I worked hard at it – it probably could have made the floor. Today, such a proposal wouldn't stand any chance at all of even coming up for a vote.

I disagree with you assessment that a “Sexual Privacy” resolution would pass in the present environment. In fact, I think things have reached the point where – were #7 to have been repealed – a “Ban Homosexuality” resolution would have a 50-50 chance of passage. Maybe you still see the NSUN as dominated by liberals, but at this stage I don't.Interesting, but way off base. In the past six months alone we have passed a nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and human rights accords protecting scientific freedom, artistic freedom, right to die, worker safety, union rights, patients' rights and rights of the disabled. For God's sake; most of this stuff was sponsored by members of the National Sovereignty Organization! I can understand why a lefty such as yourself would want to charge back into this forum and rail against the current climate for not being so terminally fluffy as it was in your time, but any claim that we've all lurched to the far right and we wouldn't give human rights or sexual freedoms a fair shake is not even remotely true. And a bill to ban homosexuality still wouldn't have a prayer at passing this body; just imagine all the repeals we'd have to launch to make such a proposal even possible!

Maybe you still see the NSUN as dominated by liberals, but at this stage I don't.
Maybe you see the NSUN as dominated by fundamental conseratives, but at this stage I don't.

There is no way, this body would even seriously take up a ban on Homosexuality ... that's a strawman and not worthy to be brought up in the discussion. Yes, it's not as easy to bring in a blatently liberal resolution and have it pass by a wide margin, but the opposition is not the same and it's not always conserative.

Universal disarmerment is a completely different issue, because of the rise of the national security group. Once again it's not a case of liberal conserative, but a case of multiple factions each with their own sacred cows to protect and agendas to promote. But in the end none of these matter compared to the power of the never read the resolution, and never read the forums fluffy title voter. Your vote, my vote, even the feeders votes are insignifcant compared to the power of the fluffy force.

I would like to point out that repeals have all had hard times lately not just this one. there is a current culture of thought that says "repeals are bad" which will have to change sooner rather than later.

the Empire of Kirisubo was one of the nations that voted against this repeal since we were happy to retain UNR #7 as it stands.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

I can understand why a lefty such as yourself would want to charge back into this forum and rail against the current climate for not being so terminally fluffy as it was in your time...Ah, so you admit that the NSUN has moved to the right, then... ;)

(BTW, a year ago, I had a different member nation; I won't say who I was, but most people back then called me a right-winger...)

On a more serious note, though, I really think that we ought to just proceed with the replacement. It's not like Resolution #7 can't be ignored for that purpose...

(BTW, a year ago, I had a different member nation; I won't say who I was, but most people back then called me a right-winger...)Allemande? :p

Allemande? :pOh, sh_t. You got it on the first guess! :p

So I guess that means I could reintroduce my “Collective Security” resolutions and nobody would accuse me of plagiarism, right?

(Actually, Community Property was created as a parody of the very “fluffy bunny” members that everyone here has condemned. Although I do believe that #7, for all its shortcomings, does make a good subsitute for a “Right to Privacy” resolution. Hmmmmm. Maybe if I don't call it “Sexual Freedom” or mention sex....)

If, indeed - as some delegates claim - Resolution #7 does not, in fact, have anything to do with sex, then it ought to be possible to write a replacement resolution and pass it without a prior repeal. Just call it "Preservation of Sexual Privacy", "Protection of Sexual Choice", or whatever.

Were the sponsors of this repeal to do that, and then follow with another attempt to repeal Resolution #7, I have no doubt that they would succeed.

But the sad truth is that no resolution protecting sexual choice could possibly pass under the current reactionary environment; thus calls to repeal Resolution #7 based on the promise of its replacement with “something better” are misguided. They will merely result in the loss of our freedoms for no good purpose, and this is not something we are prepared to countenance.

The People's Democratic Republic of Community Property understands full well that the present resolution is “flawed” in the sense that it doesn't do what it purports to do. We view it as a de facto “Right to Privacy” mandate and therefore support it on that basis. We understand and accept the fact that this privacy right could well be abused, for example, by entrepreneurs holding Tupperware parties and recruiting innocent victims into multi-level marketing schemes. But we believe that this is a small price to pay for the right to enjoy full freedom from unwarranted state intrusion into the privacy of our homes.

We had expected better from an experienced and respected member of this Assembly. The logic here -- if there is any -- completely escapes us. The representative claims that "no resolution protecting sexual choice could possibly pass under the current reactionary environment; thus calls to repeal Resolution #7 based on the promise of its replacement with “something better” are misguided." Yet the repeal of "Sexual Freedom" just failed by a 2-to-1 margin. Not exactly an indication of a "reactionary environment", in our book.

He then states that he "understands full well that the present resolution is “flawed” in the sense that it doesn't do what it purports to do." Yet he voted against its repeal. He'd apparently rather keep a useless resolution on the books than clear the way for the possibility of a better replacement.

He apparently is also unaware that there has been a mod ruling that the resolution does, in fact, apply to sexual activity -- based solely on the title. While we disagree with the ruling, we -- and he -- must accept it. If he thinks a better proposal could be written without violation of the duplication or contradiction rules, we invite him to do it.

And we have no idea what a "de facto 'Right to Privacy' mandate" might be. If this resolution contained such a mandate (which it doesn't, since it mandates nothing), it would obviously be de jure.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

He then states that he "understands full well that the present resolution is “flawed” in the sense that it doesn't do what it purports to do." Yet he voted against its repeal. He'd apparently rather keep a useless resolution on the books than clear the way for the possibility of a better replacement.Just because the resolution doesn't do what it set out to do doesn't mean that it doesn't do anything at all.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.).What you have here is an impediment to state intrusion into the home. It doesn't protect individuals who act in isolation from others, but it does protect collective action – any kind of collective action (passing joints, Tupperware parties, etc.) - as long as all participants are willing.He apparently is also unaware that there has been a mod ruling that the resolution does, in fact, apply to sexual activity -- based solely on the title.Well, of course it does. But that's not the same as saying that it blocks any other resolution from getting to the floor.While we disagree with the ruling, we -- and he -- must accept it. If he thinks a better proposal could be written without violation of the duplication or contradiction rules, we invite him to do it.Is that a challenge? ;)And we have no idea what a "de facto 'Right to Privacy' mandate" might be. If this resolution contained such a mandate (which it doesn't, since it mandates nothing), it would obviously be de jure.It depends on how you read the normative “should”. If that “should” has any force, it's a privacy guarantee, created because someone was overly broad in drafting a sexual privacy guarantee.

The irony, though, is that as overbroad as this is, I don't believe that it blocks anything. Try it and see...

The Commonwealth commends everyone for their efforts to improve the global situation. We learned something today. <OCC:*snickers*> It is a sad state in the world when people make a decision based on three words, but apparently it happens. We must come up with a way to improve awareness of the delegates, somehow. Based on the lack of opposition here (which I acknowledge IS present, and I acknowledge their opinions, and commend their ability to actually present an argument, as most did not) compared to the number of votes, one of the following must have happened. 1) Us supporters missed something belatantly obvious. I think we can discount this one, as no-one has pointed out any obviousness. 2) The world likes loopholes. A possibility, given how many lawyers are in the world. 3) Delegates truly are not reading anything but the title. Short of hunting down individuals, tying them up, and giving them an audiovisual presentation of the Resolutions, the Commonwealth can not find any way to counteract this... this apathy. We also feel that this is not the last we've seen of the Repeal of Resolution No. 7.

Proposed “Individual Privacy” Resolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11515532#post11515532)

A MAGISTRATE shall be considered any member of the judiciary who enjoys jurisdiction over the place and crime in question;

Side note: Odd choice of words. However, your Proposal has the support of the Commonwealth, unless someone can determine a reason it should not. We sense potential conflicts with existing Resolutions, including No. 7, and, if this were brought into law, No. 7 would still need to be repealed, as it would be completely unnecessary.

The Wolf Guardians']Side not: Odd choice of words. However, your Proposal has the support of the Commonwealth, unless someone can determine a reason we should not. We sense potential conflicts with existing Resolutions, including No. 7, and, if this were brought into law, No. 7 would still need to be repealed, as it would be completely unnecessary.We'll see. I think the fact that it focusses on individuals and encompasses accomodations as well as private homes, as well as the fact that it speaks of what governments are not permitted to do (monitor individuals in their own homes and declare harmless and voluntary private activity criminal) makes it sufficiently different from #7 as to be legal.

And, yes, “enjoy” is an odd word, but I think the right one. I guess I could have said “holds” or “exercises”; or maybe someone else will find a better word. I would have preferred to dump the defintions altogether; I'm not sure we need one.

It is always a good idea to define important words in the Resolution. It would be funny, if completely pointless, to see someone define every word, though. OCC: lol

The Wolf Guardians']It is a sad state in the world when people make a decision based on three words, but apparently it happens. We must come up with a way to improve awareness of the delegates, somehow.

I think we have to realize that the NS UN has gone to hell in a handbasket and all we are ever going to get is a lousy T-shirt. There is nothing one can do on the matter of the mindless moronic fluffies. The only people who in the long run can stand this game are those people who love to jump on their broken down ass and headlong charge the windmill. Singing all the while, "to dream ... the impossible dream."

Actually I think this has interesting long term potential. The war is not over, but like the 100 years war, the next battle may in fact be many months away.

OOC: Gah?! Community Property posted my typo in this thread too??? AAARGH!!! My OCD HURTS

IC: Ahem. I agree. <twitches>

a “Ban Homosexuality” resolution would have a 50-50 chance of passage.Except that, you know, that would be a "Grossly Offensive" violation and would be deleted.

Oh, sh_t. You got it on the first guess! :p

So I guess that means I could reintroduce my “Collective Security” resolutions and nobody would accuse me of plagiarism, right?

(Actually, Community Property was created as a parody of the very “fluffy bunny” members that everyone here has condemned. Although I do believe that #7, for all its shortcomings, does make a good subsitute for a “Right to Privacy” resolution. Hmmmmm. Maybe if I don't call it “Sexual Freedom” or mention sex....)

You realize you registered for the UNOG under both names? Makes the conclusion a bit easier to arrive at.

We congratulate Ms. Chase for her noble efforts toward improving the quality of UN legislation and wiping a particularly awful UN resolution from the books.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Seconded. Thank you Ms.Chase, I am just sorry that you where not allowed to call it "free candy for all" or something vote winning.

Sun Loyalds

LOL, that would actually be funny to see a serious proposal with a goofy name and let it fly (OCC: I know it can't, so don't say it, please), just to see the actual reaction to it. From the ReadNothings, that is. The Commonwealth always enjoys a good... er... social experiment.