NationStates Jolt Archive

I've run this by UNOG and modified it accordingly, but I wanted to post it here for further input before I submit it. So... comments?


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA


= = = = =

HOUSING ACT

THE UNITED NATIONS here assembled,

AFFIRMING that the right to shelter from the elements is a basic and essential right of all people,

AFFIRMING ALSO that it is the duty of the State to ensure and provide basic rights to all persons under its jurisdiction,

COMMENDING the initiatives of private charitable organisations and individuals, and

MINDFUL of the need to complement these initiatives so as to implement the right to shelter for all persons within the United Nations,

DEFINING, for the purpose of this act, “Housing” as any building or building complex providing temperature regulation, shelter from the elements, and other necessities, including bedding and access to running water,

HEREBY MANDATES that each Member State of the United Nations will provide housing to all persons, legally recognised as nationals under the jurisdiction of that State, who are unable to obtain housing by means other than an appeal to the State, and who make such an appeal;

AUTHORISES Member States

(1) to supplement the provision of housing with obligations incumbent upon the beneficiary, such as the obligation to accept a specific offer of employment, in so far as the beneficiary can reasonably be expected to fulfil this obligation, and

(2) to terminate this provision of housing once the beneficiary has sufficient means to obtain rented accomodation, in so far as rented accomodation is verifiably obtainable, or once a charitable organisation or individual offers to provide alternative accomodation;

STIPULATES that nothing within this Act may be construed in such a way as to deny housing to any homeless person lacking the means to house him- or herself, and willing to work to increase his or her financial means.

HEREBY MANDATES that each Member State of the United Nations will provide housing to all persons,

EXEMPTS extremely poor and/or underdeveloped nations from the full application of this Act
Optionality is illegal. This will not fly.

Also, what category did you plan to submit this under? (Hint: it ain't Human Rights.)

DEFINING, for the purpose of this act, “Housing” as any building or building complex providing warmth, shelter from the elements, and other necessities, including bedding and access to running water,


Change "building or building complex" to "enclosure" or "shelter". As long as it provides shelter from the elements, warmth, and necessities, why do care exactly what it looks like?

Ceorana opposes, because, while we're probably in compliance, given our insanely high social welfare budget, we're not comfortable being hemmed in on the topic by the United Nations.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Optionality is illegal. This will not fly.

That clause was added after some suggested the proposal would place too great a strain on poor countries. I can remove it if it's illegal, but I predict a chorus of protests.


Also, what category did you plan to submit this under? (Hint: it ain't Human Rights.)

No kiddin', Billy. As I said in the UNOG forum (http://z6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?showtopic=1292&st=0), but forgot to specify here: Social Justice.

I was thinking strength: Significant, but a mod view on that point would be appreciated.

Change "building or building complex" to "enclosure" or "shelter". As long as it provides shelter from the elements, warmth, and necessities, why do care exactly what it looks like?


We don't, but a "building" can be any structure that's built, by definition. Including a shed, as long as that shed doesn't let the cold and rain in. Or it could be an igloo. Whatever. I used "building" to avoid governments handing out cardboard boxes as "shelter".


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

None of the UN's business.

If it passes, and we're still in the UN at that time? Oh well, I suppose we can always bring back the workhouses...

None of the UN's business.


I disagree. The UN is pointless if it does not guarentee such a basic right as the right to shelter from the elements. It is one of the most elementary rights of sentient beings.


If it passes, and we're still in the UN at that time? Oh well, I suppose we can always bring back the workhouses...

As long as your "workhouses" comply fully with the letter of this resolution.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I disagree. The UN is pointless if it does not guarentee such a basic right as the right to shelter from the elements. It is one of the most elementary rights of sentient beings.

Considers the existence of at least one nation of sapient dolphins...

Considers the existence of at least one nation of sapient dolphins...

Well, d'uh. Nobody in that nation would apply to the State for housing, would they?

I would encourage the honourable representative to read the text of the proposal.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We don't, but a "building" can be any structure that's built, by definition. Including a shed, as long as that shed doesn't let the cold and rain in. Or it could be an igloo. Whatever. I used "building" to avoid governments handing out cardboard boxes as "shelter".

But if the cardboard boxes provide shelter, warms, bedding, etc., why do you care, and why should the UN?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

But if the cardboard boxes provide shelter, warms, bedding, etc., why do you care, and why should the UN?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

It's rather difficult for me to imagine a cardboard box providing full and adequate shelter, along with heating; I'm going to assume you only apply this to countries with a warm, dry climate. And that access to running water would be provided in addition to the box, rather than inside it.

Such unusual cases stretch the imagination somewhat, and I'm sure the honourable Ambassador Lopez would agree it is better to guard against governments which would be tempted to issue cardboard boxes in violation of the spirit of this proposal.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

It's rather difficult for me to imagine a cardboard box providing full and adequate shelter, along with heating; I'm going to assume you only apply this to countries with a warm, dry climate. And that access to running water would be provided in addition to the box, rather than inside it.

Such unusual cases stretch the imagination somewhat, and I'm sure the honourable Ambassador Lopez would agree it is better to guard against governments which would be tempted to issue cardboard boxes in violation of the spirit of this proposal.

Cardboard boxes aren't the only non-building thing nations might want to use, and there are many nations with warm climates and lots of water fountains.

What about tents? They're not buildings either. What if a nation had a huge campground for unemployed workers? What's the problem there?

There are lots of ways to provide adequatehousing for homeless people. Don't force yours on us.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

How would this sound, then?


DEFINING, for the purpose of this act, “Housing” as any building, building complex or other form of shelter providing warmth, protection from the elements, and other necessities, including bedding and access to running water,



Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Well, d'uh. Nobody in that nation would apply to the State for housing, would they?

I would encourage the honourable representative to read the text of the proposal.

I have read the text of this proposal. You mean this clause HEREBY MANDATES that each Member State of the United Nations will provide housing to all persons, legally recognised as nationals under the jurisdiction of that State, who are unable to obtain housing by means other than an appeal to the State;
, yes?
As I read it, regardless of what you may have intended, it doesn't say that the State must only supply the housing if those people actually appeal to the government for it: The wording used actually says that the State must supply such housing to anybody who couldn't obtain it without such an appeal, apparently regardless of whether they've appealed or not... which means that in a nation whose members don't use shelters from the elements -- & therefore hadn't built any before this passes (if it does pass) -- the State would suddenly become responsible for providing enough shelter for everybody even though nobody actually wanted it...
Perhaps a slight re-wording might be in order?

As I read it, regardless of what you may have intended, it doesn't say that the State must only supply the housing if those people actually appeal to the government for it: The wording used actually says that the State must supply such housing to anybody who couldn't obtain it without such an appeal, apparently regardless of whether they've appealed or not... which means that in a nation whose members don't use shelters from the elements -- & therefore hadn't built any before this passes (if it does pass) -- the State would suddenly become responsible for providing enough shelter for everybody even though nobody actually wanted it...
Perhaps a slight re-wording might be in order?

You may have a point. I assume governments will interpret it as meaning that nobody who does not request housing actually needs it, but I could always add a few words:


HEREBY MANDATES that each Member State of the United Nations will provide housing to all persons, legally recognised as nationals under the jurisdiction of that State, who are unable to obtain housing by means other than an appeal to the State, and who make such an appeal;



Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You may have a point. I assume governments will interpret it as meaning that nobody who does not request housing actually needs it, but I could always add a few words

Thank you, that does seem to solve that potential problem... but of course I still think that this is a "national" matter rather than an "international" one and therefore should be left for national governments to handle by themselves.
(OOC: I had a moderately long response about "fundamental" rights, the extent to which the UN has a purpose, democracy [which the UN can't require of its members] as a more important right than ones like this [because it allows a nation's people to request whichever other rights they want] and so on typed up, but the computer-system on which I was posting earlier went funny and I can't be bothered to recreate it in the limited onlime time that I have available now...)

I would suggest, by the way, that in some respects this proposal is fairly pointless: Given that liberal &/or socialist governments are likely to have such measures in place already, if that their polices haven't already rendered them too poor to do so (Oh, look: the UN classifies Ariddia's economy as "imploded"... ;-), and given that more conservative, capitalist &/or repressive regimes can easily exploit the loose definition of the housing that must be provided (workhouses, prisons, gulags, pig-stys...), just who is it actually aimed at? Will it really change many governments' policies?

(In case you're wondering about the situation in St Edmund, and thus for the St Edmundan Antarctic's nationals as by far the majority of them live there: Our "powerhouse" economy means that just about anybody who's capable of working can find a job that pays at least enough to cover decent housing as well as their other basic needs, our strong charitable sector [mostly organised by & through the various churches] generally provides adequate facilities for those who can't earn a living and don't have other means of support, and we have prisons for those who choose crime as their source of income... That really only leaves a relatively small number of drop-outs who could work but refuse to do so, and they're free to emigrate if they can't find enough soft-hearted people to support them: Are your borders open to them?)

Our borders are open to those wishing to flee oppressive capitalist regimes (:p) and work within the framework of our economic system (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddian_economy). Even if governments try to exploit loopholes in this proposal (which I've tried to limit), they can't get around certain basic, clearly stated requirements, which will be an improvement in many people's lives.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

We can't support this resolution.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the United Nations

We can't support this resolution.


May I ask why? It would be helpful to know.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Fuck this shite.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Fuck this shite.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Indeed. The Cluichstani slums and panhandler-clogged streets are vital elements of the nation's tourism industry.

Think of the travel agents!

Dashanzi tentatively supports this proposal. Our resolve will be firmer should a compromise be found for economically struggling nations. Would a committee be useful for the purposes of arbitration?

Perhaps some concerns may be alleviated by making the proposal less focussed on state action, instead indicating that the state should liaise with private institutions for the purpose of working towards a satisfactory solution.

Benedictions,

Indeed. The Cluichstani slums and panhandler-clogged streets are vital elements of the nation's tourism industry.

Think of the travel agents!

Dashanzi tentatively supports this proposal. Our resolve will be firmer should a compromise be found for economically struggling nations. Would a committee be useful for the purposes of arbitration?



Slums? Panhandlers? We've got none of these in Cluichstan. Our nation is an Antarctic libertarian paradise.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We don't believe that it is the State's responsibility to provide free things for it's people, with the exception of public education and transportation. That's about it.

Since the Empire is a very strongly capitalist, consumerist nation, we hold to the belief that the people are responsible for themselves. The individual is responsible for getting a job, making money, and providing for himself (and sometimes his family). We hold to this belief very strongly.

That said, we understand the objective of the proposal, and we understand the political position of the nation of Arridia. We just believe that minimal government intervention is in the best interest of the largest amount of people. Interventionist policy crushes responsibility and initiative, and is ultimately harmful to our system of government. In fact, we'd be much more likely to license private companies to do the same thing, rather than waste money on it.

Therefore, we will not support this proposal.

Landaman Pendankr dan Samda
Baron of Khaylamnian Samda
Ambassador to the UN

Slums? Panhandlers? We've got none of these in Cluichstan. Our nation is an Antarctic libertarian paradise.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
It is always refreshing to encounter a positive politician. I'm sure that for most Cluichstanis the cup is indeed half full. And yet:

Its hard-nosed, hard-working population of 2.094 billion enjoy some of the most opulent lifestyles in the region, unless they are unemployed or working-class, in which case they are variously starving to death or crippled by easily preventable diseases.
Clearly something is rotten in the not-quite-state of Cluichstan. Although this is not proof positive of slums and panhandlers, I admit.

AUC, huh?

Why must the UN outsource everything to unaccountable gnomes?
It is by no means an ideal solution; it is my hope that this is a path we can avoid if at all possible but sometimes needs must.

Benedictions,

It is always refreshing to encounter a positive politician. I'm sure that for most Cluichstanis the cup is indeed half full. And yet:


Clearly something is rotten in the not-quite-state of Cluichstan. Although this is not proof positive of slums and panhandlers, I admit.


Crime -- especially youth-related -- is crippling, probably because of the country's utter lack of prisons. Dashanzi's national animal is the giant panda, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation, and its currency is the yuan.

Confucious say: He who live in glass house not throw stones. Or shit in woods. Or something like that.

Too true, sadly. In my defence, I have never claimed Dashanzi as a paradise, libertarian or otherwise.

But you have me, dear sir. I blush at my behaviour and offer humble apologies.

It is always refreshing to encounter a positive politician. I'm sure that for most Cluichstanis the cup is indeed half full. And yet...

For all Cluichstanis, it is -- if not completely full. None of our citizens are required to pay for others. They can take care of themselves, without leeching off of the government and their fellow citizens, unlike what the representative of Dashanzi would have with this proposal.

Clearly something is rotten in the not-quite-state of Cluichstan. Although this is not proof positive of slums and panhandlers, I admit.

Thank you for admitting you are leaping to conclusions, but..."the not-quite-state of Cluichstan"? Save your jibes for another forum. "Dashanzi's Funniest Home Videos," perhaps?

It is by no means an ideal solution; it is my hope that this is a path we can avoid if at all possible but sometimes needs must.


You're right. It's not ideal. Actually, it's total shite. I stepped in it on said path, and I'm having a helluva time scraping it off of my shoe. If you need this sort of thing in your nation, so be it. Do as you will. Don't force us to step in your piles of manure.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Chluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Thank you for admitting you are leaping to conclusions, but..."the not-quite-state of Cluichstan"? Save your jibes for another forum. "Dashanzi's Funniest Home Videos," perhaps?
Oh, dear me! This was intended as a respectful nod to the libertarian nature of your government, not as a slight. Again, humble apologies. I fear my knees will protest most grievously come the end of this diplomatic session.

You're right. It's not ideal. Actually, it's total shite. I stepped in it on said path, and I'm having a helluva time scraping it off of my shoe. If you need this sort of thing in your nation, so be it. Do as you will. Don't force us to step in your piles of manure.
Hence my suggestion that provision is made to allow governments to engage with private entities to address the problem if they so prefer.

Dashanzi tentatively supports this proposal. Our resolve will be firmer should a compromise be found for economically struggling nations. Would a committee be useful for the purposes of arbitration?


Thank you for your support. It was our original intention to include an exempting clause for economically struggling nations, but we have been informed that would be illegal (OOC: Fris' mod ruling). Therefore I assume a committee for such purposes, much as we would support this reasonable idea, would also, alas, be illegal.


Perhaps some concerns may be alleviated by making the proposal less focussed on state action, instead indicating that the state should liaise with private institutions for the purpose of working towards a satisfactory solution.


We've attempted to word this proposal in such a way as to encourage cooperation with private institutions; indeed, this proposal says only that States should step in where private institutions cannot cope, and that States are fully authorised to delegate to private institutions whenever and wherever possible.

Suggestions for further modification are always welcome, though.


That said, we understand the objective of the proposal, and we understand the political position of the nation of Arridia. We just believe that minimal government intervention is in the best interest of the largest amount of people. Interventionist policy crushes responsibility and initiative, and is ultimately harmful to our system of government. In fact, we'd be much more likely to license private companies to do the same thing, rather than waste money on it.


The proposal authorises you to require the beneficiary to accept a job (thus stimulating your economy and reducing unemployment), and encourages States to coordinate with - and delegate to - private companies.

We have taken great care to place minimal burden on the State, in an attempt to formulate a proposal which could create consensus. If you examine the wording closely, you will find the State has considerable latitude in implementing this proposal, and faces few obligations.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Of course, I see it now. We will consider the issue again, but we make no promises.

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador to the UN

We thank you for your consideration.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

If there are no further comments or suggestions, I'll submit this tomorrow.

Submitted! Minus the exemption clause, which Fris said should be removed.

It's currently on the fourth and last page in the list of proposals.

OOC:
This will fail some time today. Thank you to all who supported it, and to those who suggested modifications. I'll re-submit it one day with an actual TG campaign to see how well it can do.

My apologies. I will definitly support this come the next submission. Basic shelter (and with a demand that those receiving it work) is a right that I find can and ought to be defended by the United Nations.

God forbid a few multi-billionaires have to fork over another fraction of a tenth of a percent of their income to help support the implementation.

Norderia is satisfied that the benefits to humanity will outweigh the costs to an extent that the only inconvenience is a drop in the pond. You have the support of the Cold Shores.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

My apologies. I will definitly support this come the next submission. Basic shelter (and with a demand that those receiving it work) is a right that I find can and ought to be defended by the United Nations.

God forbid a few multi-billionaires have to fork over another fraction of a tenth of a percent of their income to help support the implementation.
Norderia is satisfied that the benefits to humanity will outweigh the costs to an extent that the only inconvenience is a drop in the pond. You have the support of the Cold Shores.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador


Yeah, more "soak the rich" crap. :rolleyes:

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN

Yeah, more "soak the rich" crap. :rolleyes:

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN

Yeah, more "worked hard to get where they are today" crap. :rolleyes:

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

<SNIP>

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

On behalf of my government and delegation, thank you. We'll inform you when we re-submit it.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Yeah, more "soak the rich" crap. :rolleyes:
Actually, you soak them after you have shot them. You meant with petrol, correct?

Yeah, more "worked hard to get where they are today" crap. :rolleyes:

Tommo the Stout
Ambassador


I advise the Norderian representative not to put words in my mouth.

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN

* ooc: Eat the rich. Soak them in brandy and use the fat wads of bank notes on their person to feed the fire that flame grills them. *

* ooc: Eat the rich. Soak them in brandy and use the fat wads of bank notes on their person to feed the fire that flame grills them. *

OOC: Didn't expect anything more from you. :rolleyes:

OOC: Didn't expect anything more from you. :rolleyes:
* ooc: Please keep any personal gripes to yourself and take things a little less seriously. *

Still opposed (although only mildly, given the loophole potential) on natsov grounds.
No longer a regional delegate (my nation having lost the last election for that post), so couldn't approve it even if I wanted to do so.
SUGGESTING that in this clause DEFINING, for the purpose of this act, “Housing” as any building or building complex providing warmth, shelter from the elements, and other necessities, including bedding and access to running water, the word "warmth" should be followed by "(or coolth, if that would be preferable)"...

Edit: Oops! Accidentally posted using the wrong nation... The name attached should be 'St Edmundan Antarctic' instead...

SUGGESTING that in this clause the word "warmth" should be followed by "(or coolth, if that would be preferable)"...

Well... I'm not sure what others think, but I'd consider it more important to provide warm shelter in a cold climate rather than homes with cooling systems in hot climates. Housing in itself is often cooling in a hot climate. Yes, I know, we could mandate providing both, but I don't think "coolth" is a priority.

Well... I'm not sure what others think, but I'd consider it more important to provide warm shelter in a cold climate rather than homes with cooling systems in hot climates. Housing in itself is often cooling in a hot climate. Yes, I know, we could mandate providing both, but I don't think "coolth" is a priority.

You obviously haven't visited HotRodia recently if you don't think "coolth" is a priority. Air-conditioning is a necessity for many in the Modified Acceleration Engine. Perhaps we could call it something more neutral, like "temperature regulation".

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

You obviously haven't visited HotRodia recently if you don't think "coolth" is a priority. Air-conditioning is a necessity for many in th Modified Acceleration Engine. Perhaps we could call it something more neutral, like "temperature regulation".


That would be a good idea. Thank you.

My only concern (based on past criticism) is that some will claim it's going too far, that nobody really needs temperature regulation, bla bla bla...


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

That would be a good idea. Thank you.

My only concern (based on past criticism) is that some will claim it's going too far, that nobody really needs temperature regulation, bla bla bla...


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

You're quite welcome, and I'm confident that we can address their potential complaints adequately in the debate.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Actually, it could be. Temperature regulation could mean that temperatures would actually have to be kept the same by some electronic system. Ceorana would prefer "protection from normally-occurring extreme temperatures" or something of the sort.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Actually, it could be. Temperature regulation could mean that temperatures would actually have to be kept the same by some electronic system. Ceorana would prefer "protection from normally-occurring extreme temperatures" or something of the sort.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Some folks do better in extreme temperatures, and it's a pretty relative term. Perhaps "harmful" rather than "extreme" would be more useful.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Actually, it could be. Temperature regulation could mean that temperatures would actually have to be kept the same by some electronic system. Ceorana would prefer "protection from normally-occurring extreme temperatures" or something of the sort.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Well, so long as "temperature regulation" is potentially amibiguous, it remains up to each member State to define it, so no-one can force any interpretation upon you.

I've included the words "temperature regulation" for now, but I'm open to changing it to something more specific as you suggest. I'd like to hear what other nations' representatives think about it.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I advise the Norderian representative not to put words in my mouth.

Sincerely,
Bala
Cluichstani Deputy Ambassador to the UN

Glasses houses and what not.



I think the temperature issue is really simply one of ensuring that there is access to places where dangerous temperatures are countered. Through what means is up to each individual nation, so I suggest that the term be "protection from dangerous temperatures." That way we avoid assuming that extreme is dangerous, and we leave it open enough for hot and cold nations.