NationStates Jolt Archive

Submitted for approval. I'm sure this will liven up the debate floor.

The United Nations;

COMMENDING the "Universal Bill of Rights" for its efforts to protect and uphold the rights of all persons;

CONCERNED that the open interpretation of Article 1 prevents governments from restricting the actions of extremist religious groups that could include, practices that could be considered abhorrent to the international community;

FURTHER CONCERNED that Article 2 does not allow governments to restrict freedom of speech in the interest of public safety or national security to ensure accuracy of the information being disseminated;

DISTURBED that Article 3 would prevent governments from prohibiting assemblies that would disrupt essential services or dangerously interfere with the normal flow of traffic;

RECOGNIZING that article 4 would force governments to grant and guarantee the same rights and privileges to convicted and imprisoned felons as are granted to the rest of the populace, including but not exclusive to, the right to travel freely within the nation as guaranteed by UNR #6 "End Slavery";

ALSO RECOGNIZING that Article 4 could be interpreted as requiring governments to accord all the same privileges to aliens as they do to their own citizenry;

AWARE that freedom from torture and the like, provided by Article 5, is sufficiently guaranteed by UNR #41, "End Barbaric Punishments";

DISCOURAGED that Article 6 does not require accuracy or validity in the "explicit list" of offenses, doing nothing to prevent governments from arresting and exiling individuals without just cause, and;

NOTING that the assumption of innocence, required by Article 7, is amply guaranteed for by UNR #21, "Fair Trial", as amplified by UNR #47, "Definition of Fair Trial";

Hereby repeals UNR # 26 Universal Bill of Rights

Co-authored by: Kivisto

COMMENDING the "Universal Bill of Rights" for its efforts to protect and uphold the rights of all persons;
Cool.

CONCERNED that the open interpretation of Article 1 prevents governments from restricting the actions of extremist religious groups that could include, practices that could be considered abhorrent to the international community;
So don't interpret it like that then.
FURTHER CONCERNED that Article 2 does not allow governments to restrict freedom of speech in the interest of public safety or national security to ensure accuracy of the information being disseminated;
Meh...it just says "express themselves", not "say anything", which could be interpreted in an OK way...you could argue that it bans capitalism and communism at the same time, because both provide some interference/barriers to starting a media company...but I'm not convinced, frankly.

DISTURBED that Article 3 would prevent governments from prohibiting assemblies that would disrupt essential services or dangerously interfere with the normal flow of traffic;
It says they have the right to assemble, not assemble wherever they want.

RECOGNIZING that article 4 would force governments to grant and guarantee the same rights and privileges to convicted and imprisoned felons as are granted to the rest of the populace, including but not exclusive to, the right to travel freely within the nation as guaranteed by UNR #6 "End Slavery";
This isn't valid. All that being treated equally under the law means is that the law doesn't discriminate between different people. If you're in prison for a crime, you're being imprisoned under equal law as a person who hasn't committed a crime.

ALSO RECOGNIZING that Article 4 could be interpreted as requiring governments to accord all the same privileges to aliens as they do to their own citizenry;
So don't interpret it like that.

AWARE that freedom from torture and the like, provided by Article 5, is sufficiently guaranteed by UNR #41, "End Barbaric Punishments";

DISCOURAGED that Article 6 does not require accuracy or validity in the "explicit list" of offenses, doing nothing to prevent governments from arresting and exiling individuals without just cause, and;

NOTING that the assumption of innocence, required by Article 7, is amply guaranteed for by UNR #21, "Fair Trial", as amplified by UNR #47, "Definition of Fair Trial";
Fine. That's not a sufficient reason to repeal it.

Hereby repeals UNR # 26 Universal Bill of Rights
Nope.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm all in favor of repealing that bad-boy, but realistically, we'd face stiff opposition without a viable replacement and a focus in the repeal on the fact that there would be a replacement. And even then...

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The purpose of an Universal Bill of Rights would be to guarantee these rights universally. As long as it could be interpreted in a way other then intended, someone will. As a result, the UBR fails to universally guarantee these rights.

The bill prevents governments from interfering with peaceful assemblies, wherever that assembly may be.

The prisoner is being discriminated against because they are a criminal. Their right to travel freely through the nation is being infringed upon.

Fine. That's not a sufficient reason to repeal it.

So a law that is both useless and open to gross misinterpretation needs more reason to be repealed than the fact that is it both useless and open to gross misinterpretation. How about if we add on that it completely fails at its own stated purpose?

The purpose of an Universal Bill of Rights would be to guarantee these rights universally. As long as it could be interpreted in a way other then intended, someone will. As a result, the UBR fails to universally guarantee these rights.
OK, fine, so the title doesn't describe exactly what this does. Meh.

The bill prevents governments from interfering with peaceful assemblies, wherever that assembly may be.
No it doesn't. It just says people have a right to peaceably assemble. Not a right to assemble whenever they want. Not a right to not be interfered upon. Just a right to peaceable assemble.

The prisoner is being discriminated against because they are a criminal. Their right to travel freely through the nation is being infringed upon.
In the Ceoranan justice system at least, the felons are discriminated against because they have committed a crime, not because they are criminals. The law says that any human being that commits a felony will be locked up. This is the same for all human beings.

So a law that is both useless and open to gross misinterpretation needs more reason to be repealed than the fact that is it both useless and open to gross misinterpretation. How about if we add on that it completely fails at its own stated purpose?
The misinterpretation would just make things harder for nations, so I don't see why they'd misinterpet it. And certain clauses are useless, but certainly not the whole thing. In addition, this doesn't have to be a binding law. In fact, you can just say that the UN simply "endorses" it and doesn't mandate anything. But that is a crucial purpose of the resolution! It gives people in nations that don't guarantee these rights a solid backing for campaigning for them. (credit to Ardchoille for making this point a long time ago, which is where I got the idea)

I'm all in favor of repealing that bad-boy, but realistically, we'd face stiff opposition without a viable replacement and a focus in the repeal on the fact that there would be a replacement. And even then...

HotRodian UN Representative

Accelerus Dioce

I agree, but I am not going to be the one to write the replacement. If some one wants one, they can write it themselves.

Dahlia Black
Queendom of Karmicaria

We will approve this, regardless of any flaws in the arguments. Article #10 of UBoR discriminates against those nations that have "unwritten constitutions" rather than formalised ones that include 'Bills of Rights' of their own, even if & when those nations actually were already granting their peoples more rights than some of the nations that did have their own Bills of Rights before they became subject to UBoR....

Nation 'A', with an unwritten constitution, previously granting 80% of the rights listed in UBoR -> must grant the other 20% too.
Nation 'B', with its own Bill of Rights before UBoR became applicable, only granting 50% of those rights -> can continue only granting that 50%.

How is that either "universal" or fair?

Thank you. As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another poorly writtend resolution that needs to go.

Approved. This meddlesome legislation must be removed from the books.

OK, fine, so the title doesn't describe exactly what this does. Meh.

The only thing I have to say to this is 'Sexual Freedom'. The title means a lot.

No it doesn't. It just says people have a right to peaceably assemble. Not a right to assemble whenever they want. Not a right to not be interfered upon. Just a right to peaceable assemble.

It makes no restrictions upon when, where or how the people peaceably assemble. If the governments attempt to restrict it in any way, that would infringe upon their right to peaceably assemble and be in violation of that article.

In the Ceoranan justice system at least, the felons are discriminated against because they have committed a crime, not because they are criminals. The law says that any human being that commits a felony will be locked up. This is the same for all human beings.

If they have committed a crime, that makes them a criminal. While it is commendable that all citizens would be treated equally once they become criminals, your criminals still do not have the same rights as the rest of your citizens.

The misinterpretation would just make things harder for nations, so I don't see why they'd misinterpret it. And certain clauses are useless, but certainly not the whole thing. In addition, this doesn't have to be a binding law. In fact, you can just say that the UN simply "endorses" it and doesn't mandate anything. But that is a crucial purpose of the resolution! It gives people in nations that don't guarantee these rights a solid backing for campaigning for them. (credit to Ardchoille for making this point a long time ago, which is where I got the idea)

OOC: If it didn't mandate anything, then the strength would be mild, not strong.

It makes no restrictions upon when, where or how the people peaceably assemble. If the governments attempt to restrict it in any way, that would infringe upon their right to peaceably assemble and be in violation of that article.
No it doesn't. You still have a right to assemble, even if you're not allowed to do it in the middle of the street, which is all the resolution requires.

If they have committed a crime, that makes them a criminal. While it is commendable that all citizens would be treated equally once they become criminals, your criminals still do not have the same rights as the rest of your citizens.
I get paid for serving as the Ceoranan Ambassador to the United Nations. If I serve as an ambassador, that makes me an ambassador. But I'm paid for what I do, not who I am or what my job is. Same with criminals. They're imprisoned for what they've done, not whether or not they're a criminal. They're treated under equal laws as other citizens.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations
OOC: If it didn't mandate anything, then the strength would be mild, not strong.

Lots of old resolutions have incorrect strengths. It doesn't make any difference in their effects.

No it doesn't. You still have a right to assemble, even if you're not allowed to do it in the middle of the street, which is all the resolution requires.

The resolution makes no such distinction.

I get paid for serving as the Ceoranan Ambassador to the United Nations. If I serve as an ambassador, that makes me an ambassador. But I'm paid for what I do, not who I am or what my job is. Same with criminals. They're imprisoned for what they've done, not whether or not they're a criminal. They're treated under equal laws as other citizens.

The criminals are not guaranteed the same rights as the other citizens.

Lots of old resolutions have incorrect strengths. It doesn't make any difference in their effects.

OOC: The strength of a resolution is all about the effects. If it had no mandating clauses, it would have been mild.

The resolution makes no such distinction.

One could point out that an assembly that illegally blocks traffic is by nature not peaceful. An assembly of people who have gathered to collectively perform an illegal act is conspiracy to commit that act, not a peaceful assembly.

The criminals are not guaranteed the same rights as the other citizens.

Actually, criminals are guaranteed the same rights as other citizens. However, other citizens, equally, are guaranteed the same treatment if they become criminals. You're confusing equal treatment under the law with precisely equal circumstances at a given time.

All citizens being treated equally under the law requires that all criminals of a given type be treated the same way, not that all criminals be treated as if they're not criminals. That's as silly as claiming the resolution requires all patients on life support equipment to be taken off it because it restricts their freedom of movement.

Also, since the resolution has sections pertaining to arrest and sentencing, it's obviously not saying that at all. Only resolution #80 is allowed to be that contradictory.

Thank you. As far as I'm concerned, this is yet another poorly writtend resolution that needs to go.

Bah, poor writing is a poor reason to repeal.

Bah, poor writing is a poor reason to repeal.

You know, it's "logic" like this which makes it so hard to get rid of resolutions which are so poorly written that they're completely inneffective.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

You know, it's "logic" like this which makes it so hard to get rid of resolutions which are so poorly written that they're completely inneffective.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Ineffective is a poor reason to repeal too, unless you are talking about replacing it.

HARMFUL is the test that must be passed before a resolution deserves elimination. If it sucks I support amendment, but that's a long complicated subject.

Okay, this thread is dead. Please do not try to resurrect it.

Quit feeding the trolls please.

Okay, this thread is dead. Please do not try to resurrect it.

Quit feeding the trolls please.

It's your thread, can we get a lock?

Being taken care of......

The United Nations;

COMMENDING the "Universal Bill of Rights" for its efforts to protect and uphold the rights of all persons;

CONCERNED that the open interpretation of Article 1 prevents governments from restricting the actions of extremist religious groups that could include, practices that could be considered abhorrent to the international community;

FURTHER CONCERNED that Article 2 does not allow governments to restrict freedom of speech in the interest of public safety or national security to ensure accuracy of the information being disseminated;

DISTURBED that Article 3 would prevent governments from prohibiting assemblies that would disrupt essential services or dangerously interfere with the normal flow of traffic;

RECOGNIZING that article 4 would force governments to grant and guarantee the same rights and privileges to convicted and imprisoned felons as are granted to the rest of the populace, including but not exclusive to, the right to travel freely within the nation as guaranteed by UNR #6 "End Slavery";

ALSO RECOGNIZING that Article 4 could be interpreted as requiring governments to accord all the same privileges to aliens as they do to their own citizenry;

AWARE that freedom from torture and the like, provided by Article 5, is sufficiently guaranteed by UNR #41, "End Barbaric Punishments";

DISCOURAGED that Article 6 does not require accuracy or validity in the "explicit list" of offenses, doing nothing to prevent governments from arresting and exiling individuals without just cause, and;

NOTING that the assumption of innocence, required by Article 7, is amply guaranteed for by UNR #21, "Fair Trial", as amplified by UNR #47, "Definition of Fair Trial";

Hereby repeals UNR # 26 Universal Bill of Rights

Co-authored by: Kivisto

This has been submitted, so any changes that people suggest cannot be made. Comments are more than welcome though.

Please use your old thread. (EDIT: Not to be a pain or anything.)

Will do. I'll find the other thread and get this one closed. Thanks Kenny.

Merged.