NationStates Jolt Archive

See below!

Individual Privacy

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed By: Community Property

Description: Noting that this body has on more than one occasion affirmed that individuals deserve a life free of close governmental scrutiny, and

Observing that no guarantee yet exists that serves to protect individuals from unwarranted state scrutiny in the privacy of their own homes,

Believing that such guarantees are essential to the health and well being of free persons everywhere,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY MANDATE

That no member state, nor any of its constituent governments, shall endeavour to observe or monitor anything that goes on within any private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, unless it can show in advance to the satisfaction of a local magistrate that such observation or monitoring is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual in the course of committing a crime, and unless this magistrate in question shall then issue a warrant permitting such observation or monitoring;

That no member state, nor any of its constituent governments, shall declare criminal any activity that might occur within a private dwelling or place of accommodation that does not cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, or does not involve the use of force or fraud to cause any living being to act against its will or to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will.

For the purposes of this resolution,

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

JURISDICTION shall be considered the effective geographical and constitutional area within which a magistrate or governmental body has legal authority to act;

A WARRANT shall be considered a court order permitting law enforcement personnel to take extraordinary measures in the prevention or investigation of a crime;

A PRIVATE DWELLING shall be considered any residence where an individual may maintain domocile;

A PLACE OF ACCOMMODATION shall be considered any place that offers space for use by non-residents as temporary lodging;
temporary lodging.

(2128 Characters)

Suggestions?

(This draft shall be modified as suggestions are accepted, but corrections will be kept visible as this is done.)

The latest version of this resolution can be found in post #17 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11885268&posted=1) of this thread; our apologies for the confusion, but that is because these threads were merged.

Before commenting on this resolution, please go to the updated version (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11885268&posted=1) and examine that.

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.

Not sure how to best incorporate it, but this needs to include 'probable cause' situations somehow. I'll fine toothe comb it a little later on.

OOC: Gah! You quoted my typo! Grr, that messes with my OCD. :)

Oh, and furthermore... thank you for drafting a serious, well written proposal. I was just looking through the proposals, and two are particularly silly. Repeal "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act" talks about some "U.S." and "middle east", which I've never heard of (OOC: READ THE BLOODY RULES FIRST, PEOPLE!) and "Gambling" which simply says: "gambling is now considered stupid and any1 who uses it will b considered a frenchy". Such horrid proposals are further proof of the apathy that surrounds us here at the UN.

Oh, and furthermore... thank you for drafting a serious, well written proposal. I was just looking through the proposals, and two are particularly silly. Repeal "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act" talks about some "U.S." and "middle east", which I've never heard of (OOC: READ THE BLOODY RULES FIRST, PEOPLE!) and "Gambling" which simply says: "gambling is now considered stupid and any1 who uses it will b considered a frenchy". Such horrid proposals are further proof of the apathy that surrounds us here at the UN.That's what the Silly Proposals thread is for, silly.

I know. I just wanted to thank Community Property for being... sensible.

His Grace's government would like clarification on the following passage in the draft.
"....that does not cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, or does not involve the use of force or fraud to cause any living being to act against its will or to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will."

Could these not be objectively determined to the wishes of any government if the draft does not define these harms and by what measure will these "harms" allow monitering of a private domicile?

The government of the St Edmundan Antarctic objects, on the grounds that this clause is far too limiting towards the cause of law & order: That no member state, nor any of its constituent governments, shall declare criminal any activity that might occur within a private dwelling or place of accommodation that does not cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, or does not involve the use of force or fraud to cause any living being to act against its will or to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will.
As written, especially as it seems to say that it's only whether the actions occurring within any private accomodation cause harm/damage there and not whether they could potentially have harmful after-effects elsewhere that can be used as a basis for declaring acts illegal, it would seem to let people use private accomodation with impunity for various types of misdeeds that we would prefer to continue classifying as criminal, for example _
making bombs (which could cause harm when those bombs were actually used [presumably elsewhere], of course, but would not necessarily cause harm within that actual accomodation if the materials were handled properly);
processing illegal drugs (again, with harmful effects very likely when the products are taken elsewhere but less likely within the accomodation & actual processing operation);
buying, storing &/or selling illegal goods (even if those goods might, if & when taken elsewhere, also be used to cause harm to living beings);
producing counterfeit currency, bootleg audiovisual materials, and other "fake" goods;
raising zombies without a licence;
transmitting [illegally-acquired] "classified" information to foreign nations;
making conspiracies to commit crimes;
destroying evidence of crimes already committed.

It may surprise you to hear that I thought about many of these issues while drafting the resolution. My take on it was – and still is – that these things shouldn't be problems.

First, let me ask a semantic question: is “possession” an “activity”?

If we say, “$Person possesses $Item”, then its use as a “action” verb would seem to be clear. But if we say, “$Person is in possession of $Item”, then its less clear whether or not we can say that what $Person is doing constitutes an “activity”. This isn't a trivial matter, because most laws in fact use the second construction as opposed to the first.

Second, even if we deem “possession” to be an “activity”, we haven't made contraband any less illegal; we've just said that people can't be arrested for keeping (or using) it in “protected spaces”. But that doesn't mean that the police can't still get a warrant, can't enter a “protected space”, can't search for and find the contraband (or evidence) sought, and then haul it off for destruction or use in supporting prosecution. Together with forfeiture laws, this can provide the authorities with the means to inflict considerable damage on people who seek to hide behind this resolution.

Further, there's no reason why the authorities can't draw the logical conclusions and ask, “How did this stuff get there?” This could easily result in prosecutions for possession outside the home.

And that's not even considering the ability of creative legislators to work their way around this proposed resolution. Approaching and entering a “protected space” for the purpose of furthering a wider criminal plot or enterprise could easily be criminalized; this would make use of one's home or a public accommodation as a bomb factory, drug lab, or the headquarters for a subversive or terrorist movement anything but safe.

The foregoing is not to say that you haven't raised reasonable criticisms; it is to say that I'm not sure we need a lot of added verbiage to deal with these issues.

Let me use the foregoing approach to address the specific issues raised:making bombs (which could cause harm when those bombs were actually used [presumably elsewhere], of course, but would not necessarily cause harm within that actual accomodation if the materials were handled properly);Unless the explosives were whipped up on site, the participants would be guilty of: Possessing explosives outside a “protected space”,


Not reporting the presence of explosive devices within a “protected space”,


Entering a “protected space” for the purpose of furthering a terrorist plot (or whatever).processing illegal drugs (again, with harmful effects very likely when the products are taken elsewhere but less likely within the accomodation & actual processing operation);Again, unless the drugs were entirely produced on site, the same (or similar) charges as listed above could be applied.buying, storing &/or selling illegal goods (even if those goods might, if & when taken elsewhere, also be used to cause harm to living beings);Failure to report the presence of contraband within a “protected space”, if nothing else.producing counterfeit currency, bootleg audiovisual materials, and other "fake" goods;See the sections on bomb and drug manufacturing above.raising zombies without a licence;Oh, this one's easy: Recieving dead bodies without a mortuary license,


Failure to report the presence of zombies within a “protected space”,


Reckless endangerment of the neighborhood.transmitting [illegally-acquired] "classified" information to foreign nations;Another chestnut: Unlawful receipt of state secrets,


Unlawful use of the airwaves/telephone lines/internet backbone for the transmission of classified informatio.making conspiracies to commit crimes;Entering a “protected space” in furtherance of an illegal activity, etc.destroying evidence of crimes already committed.A cinch: Illegally transporting evidence from a crime scene,


Failure to surrender evidence in a criminal case to the authorities.You get the idea...

I really like this proposal, it is extrmely well written and thought out. However, I do have some nitpicks I would like to ask be corrected:

unless it can show in advance to the satisfaction of a local magistrate

What if the local magistrate just needs a half-mad rant from a street drunk? I think this should be tightened up to prevent any magistrates from abusing their power, or just being cosmically stupid.

...demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property,...

Several problems here.

A) Any living being is far to broad, as it could encompass rodents, insects, bacteria and even plants (15 years for herbicide!). This defenitley needs to be tightened up. Save animal rights for another proposal.

B) Any living being could include themselves, and sitting in front of the TV munching cheesies all day could be phsychological and physical harm. Set some basic standards of harm. And getting angry and smashing your worthless glitchy computer could be damaging property. Define an appropriate level of harm, as well as an appropriate level of self harm. You should also include something regarding child discipline, as well as what defines whos property.

OOC: Yes, let's impose a Western-style legal system on the whole world... :rolleyes:

Let me use the foregoing approach to address the specific issues raised:Unless the explosives were whipped up on site, the participants would be guilty of: Possessing explosives outside a “protected space”,
Not reporting the presence of explosive devices within a “protected space”,
Entering a “protected space” for the purpose of furthering a terrorist plot (or whatever).

*(etc)*

Maybe so, but then if governments could still do all of that then why bother hindering their ability to fight those crimes by taking away their right to act more directly against the actions involved if those occur in private accomodation?
And, in that case, couldn't a charge along these linesEntering a “protected space” for the purpose of *snip*be used by repressive governments, in conjunction with laws against carrying out various types of sexual or quasi-sexual (or other) activities (at least without hard-to-obtain official permits), to punish people for carrying out all of those activities too?
It seems to me that this proposal either hinders law-enforcement authorities too badly or, if we can allow exceptions as easily as you now suggest is the case, could so easily be bypassed by the authorities that it's effectively useless...

It seems to me that this proposal either hinders law-enforcement authorities too badly or, if we can allow exceptions as easily as you now suggest is the case, could so easily be bypassed by the authorities that it's effectively useless...

Well, thats why we draft resolutions before submitting them. Keep going and I think we can find a balance. If not, then vote against it, it fails, and we move on (not that I want it to fail). This, in my opinion, is a resolution cocnept worth persuing to the end.

Given who this is by (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409392), I'm inclined to be suspicious.

Anyway, I would argue this is redundant by way of Sexual Freedom and Stop privacy intrusion. I'm not going to, though, because I don't want the inevitable five-page analysis such a comment would bring from this author.

Individual Privacy
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Community Property

Description: NOTING that this body has in the past expressed the view that individuals deserve a life free of close state scrutiny, and

OBSERVING that no guarantee yet exists to protect individuals from such scrutiny within the privacy of their own homes, and further

BELIEVING that such guarantees are essential to the happiness and liberty of free persons everywhere,

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises; monitoring of communications to and from such premises; incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any surveillance permitted under this resolution and local law; and incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any legal entry into the same, including but not limited to the execution of a legal warrant, hot pursuit of a criminal suspect, or impromptu entry in response to clear evidence of a crime in progress, where said evidence has been gathered through some means not otherwise prohibited under this resolution or local law;

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation, where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will, nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: theft; embezzlement; breaking and entering; destruction of evidence; espionage; aiding, abetting, or harboring a criminal suspect or escapee; counterfeiting or forgery; production, possession, use of, or trafficking in, contraband; criminal conspiracy; and deliberate, reckless, or negligent endangerment of the lives, health, or property of others;

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION,

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

JURISDICTION shall be considered the effective geographical and constitutional area within which a magistrate or governmental body has legal authority to act;

A WARRANT shall be considered a legal order permitting law enforcement personnel to take extraordinary measures in the prevention or investigation of a crime, issued in accordance with due process of law;

A PRIVATE DWELLING shall be considered any residence where an individual may maintain domicile;

A PLACE OF ACCOMMODATION shall be considered any place that offers space for use by non-residents as temporary lodging;

LOCAL LAW shall be considered any and all laws in force within the jurisdiction in question.

Character Count: 3497

Approvals: 174 (Iron Felix, Belarum, Chandelier, Kwyliathiotarup II, The Great Irwin Rommel, Xenious, Castilion, Asragoth, Hippocras, Sedgistan, Uddevalla, Farhkan, FreeChina, Nurdia, Oblivion-Oathkeeper, Ducks of Snow, Snake Venom, Alstala Alsan, Manchurian Zabraks, WZ Forums, Lahat Ay Isa, Alpha Centauri 89, Mommy D, Witchcliff, Torontal, Errinundera, Tathagatonia, Rykkland, Dionistic, Sorgloss, Gaiah, New Myopia, Sythia-Undefined, Industrial Collectives, Gortania, Riddim, Gilgaraan, Shasoria, Britanic Maximus, Cherene, An Trosc Mor, Kendertopia, ExistentialistFascists, Voluxia, Kuro Hi, Lamkinwah, Krieglon, Prudent, Battistan, The Derrak Quadrant, Altanea, Shiyadowa, Beautiful Wastelands, Kizil Orda, Santa Matilda, Ashevagas, Manussa, Tillerest, Rodriganda, Ann of the Word, OCR, Mr Ts people, Skye the Seventh, Esperantania, Deanre Strake, Upper Upland, Chumbalakka, Brazil South, Hurdegaryp, Misplaced States, Hensby, Come Find Us, Pirate Lumber Jacks, Ultrasilvania, Aveous, Imperial Moose, Rubina, Lackland, Ellenburg, Firebert, Puebloville, Ganjapeople, Party Mode, Worldia555, Marcus Gipps, Kytheros, The Belima, Eirisle, Freemen Lands, HannibalCook8, Chelucia, Lobster Ville, Zphd, Gareth Gareth, Gateborg, Bradendon2, Northern habamastan, Martinbia, The Golden Sunset, Unquale Messor, Juntunium, Solage, Lazy network admins, Aqua Terrus, Neanisium, Free Soviet Peoples, Tarmsden, Sexy Jacks, Bent the Great, Nuevo Cimmeria, Fish and Pie, Mancialcha, Khanatah, Great Bights Mum, Big H, Athesitica, NewTexas, Robinski, Norma Dia, Bellaben, The Benevolent Jedi, We can not hear you, Mannana, Bardus Gubernatio, Rattsix, Vegas Batman, Royal Polynesia, Scoopy, Stormsland, Umma-Gumma, Gaming Dragons, The Common Masses, Pastafarica, Eastern Baltia, Rhodesia Newydd, Sinsvyka, Scraknurst, Knappish, Bordoria, Xarvinia-Wurttemburg, PleaseComeOutTonight, Kalymnos, The Felicitous, Brillnir, Jonnation, Sineredemption, Prahaistan, Leavry, The Talisman, Crazy Ninja Warriors, Budingerschik, Lusapha, Erith Avlantia, Absintheurs, Fat sackville, Complacent Boredom, Duzon, Lardpigs, Venerable libertarians, Dez2, Crushtania, Zeta Neapoli, Antalope, Piffleswitch, Jastreb, Wayland 13, HGTV Watchers, The Discordian Wilds, Mindalia, The Western Canadians, Calthea, Juventino, Moroboshi, KSSR)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

NOTE: Upon resubmission on Saturday, November 4th, 2006, added the blue text above.

This is a rewrite and resubmission of a proposal we've been working of for a number of weeks.

The original discussion thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11532649) has been redirected here.

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises; monitoring of communications to and from such premises; incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any surveillance permitted under this resolution and local law; and incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any legal entry into the same, including but not limited to the execution of a legal warrant, hot pursuit of a criminal suspect, or impromptu entry in response to clear evidence of a crime in progress, where said evidence has been gathered through some means not otherwise prohibited under this resolution or local law;

So are you saying that tapping phones, interception of internet traffic including emails, opening of letters, trapping mobile phone messages, etc.. are expressly PERMITTED i.e. made legal in all UN member nations WITHOUT a warrent as required by this resolution for other intrusive activities should any of these occur to/from a device within a house? What about externally to the house? in places of business?

N.B. The bolded bit

So are you saying that tapping phones, interception of internet traffic including emails, opening of letters, trapping mobile phone messages, etc.. are expressly PERMITTED i.e. made legal in all UN member nations WITHOUT a warrent as required by this resolution for other intrusive activities should any of these occur to/from a device within a house? What about externally to the house? in places of business?Yes and no.

First, there is a rule that says that resolutions can't duplicate the work of other resolutions. There is already another resolution, UNR #10 (“Stop Privacy Intrusion (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=9)”) that addresses this issue:UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10
Stop privacy intrusion
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Petkania

Description: We feel alarmed by the increasing intrusion of privacy by the governments in the world. Therefore, we propose that legislation is passed by each UN member that all personal communication, including, but not limited to:

face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet

shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. This evidence shall be reviewed and approved by the Judiciary before eavesdropping, phone tapping, network traffic monitoring, and other kinds of interception of communications is allowed.

Votes For: 11,733
Votes Against: 7,033

Implemented: Tue Apr 22 2003... And thus this resolution can not prohibit electronic surveillance.

(Do note, however, that UNR #10, like UNR #7, is also under attack; at some point we will probably need to prepare a replacement for timely introduction to prevent a blocker by anti-privacy forces; for now, however, our best strategy is to pass this resolution while defending UNR #10, and let the two resolutions support one another.)

Second, just because this resolution permits, for example, a government to pass a law saying that swatting flies is illegal in the privacy of your own home (which this resolution would allow; flies could certainly be classified as “living beings” under local law, after all) doesn't mean that it has to pass such a law. This resolution represents a limit limit on our right to privacy, or - to state it conversely, an upper limit on the degree to which goverment can intrude on the same; it does not require government to avail itself of all possible options for limiting privacy, however; local law and custom can always be more restrictive of state authority.

So, even if UNR #10 were to fall, that would not make wiretapping, mail interception, etc. instantly legal everywhere; it would mean that governments could legalize such measures, if they wished to.

The same is true, BTW, for many of the exceptions built into this proposed resolution. Take possession of contraband as an example: government could define marijuana (for example) as contraband and criminalize its possession outside the home, but that doesn't mean that it has to criminalize its possession within the home; that decision is left to said government.

This allows for some minor differences in implementation from one country to another, which is - at least as far as we are concerned, anyway - a good thing.

The thing is it EXPRESSLY PERMITS governments to not worry about the WARRANT and other requirements which IMO goes against UNR#10.

If that line was non-existant in the EXPRESSLEY PERMITS there would no issue.. particularily if the bolded phrase was added into the first FORBID


FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything, subject to previous UN Regulations, that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;

The thing is it EXPRESSLY PERMITS governments to not worry about the WARRANT and other requirements which IMO goes against UNR#10.

If that line was non-existant in the EXPRESSLEY PERMITS there would no issue.. particularily if the bolded phrase was added into the first FORBIDWe believe that you are reading the resolution incorrectly.EXPRESSLY PERMIT(S) the following exceptions to the foregoing...... Where the foregoing is this:FORBID(S) any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction...The exception explicitly references the prior clause, in which we limit government surveillance of one's domicile or temporary lodgings. That exception does not extend any further than the paragraph cited (i.e., “the foregoing”); it doesn't provide an exception to anything else, and certainly not to other United Nations resolutions - it just modifies the preceding paragraph.

So while we appreciate what you're suggesting that we do with the suggested “prior resolutions” caveat, we don't believe it necessary.

(Not to mention the fact that it won't fit: at 3488 characters, we can only add 12 more to the resolution [there's a 3500 character limit on resolutions] - far too few to allow for any changes without dropping something else.)

Given who this is by (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=409392), I'm inclined to be suspicious.

Anyway, I would argue this is redundant by way of Sexual Freedom and Stop privacy intrusion. I'm not going to, though, because I don't want the inevitable five-page analysis such a comment would bring from this author.And you provide a link to a resolution proposed by Allemande?

OOC: Allemande and Community Property may belong to the same player; they are nonetheless different nations, and have different goals and beliefs. For example, in the current debate over UNR #7, Allemande would probably vote to repeal were it still a member of the U.N.; in contrast, Community Property votes against the repeal because it would be out of character for them to do anything else.

Ultimately, Allemande is meant to be a stereotypical G7-style Western democracy, with all that implies (including that unique form of spineless centrism that comes from its rulers' desire to get themselves re-elected). In contrast, Community Property is a parody of starry-eyed student radicalism of the kind you find in most college towns (and especially here in Ann Arbor, MI - where do you think all those references to John Sinclair and the Blues Doctors came from!?)

Your attempt to depict Community Property as insincere and hypocritical is therefore unwarranted, and smacks of a desire to act on a personal grudge you, as a player, have against another player. It's bad form, and you are strongly encouraged to reconsider your actions.

Really, while we are on good terms with our Pacific neighbor, we hardly can be held responsible for their views. We have no idea where the Ambassador from Gruenberg is trying to go with this.

OOC: What's bad form is the annoying use of bold text.

OOC: What's bad form is the annoying use of bold text.OOC: Meh. I'll start using blue to distinguish OOC from IC remarks, if that will make you happy.

Now can we get back to the debate?

OOC: You can just tag it as OOC, like I did here, y'know. Cuts down on the obnoxious factor and all.

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Community Property

I'll do my level best to remain fair and impartial during analysis of this.

Description: NOTING that this body has in the past expressed the view that individuals deserve a life free of close state scrutiny, and

OBSERVING that no guarantee yet exists to protect individuals from such scrutiny within the privacy of their own homes, and further

Other than Sexual Freedom, Stop Privacy Intrusion, and a couple of others. I realize that this is only preamble, but this line is logically flawed.

BELIEVING that such guarantees are essential to the happiness and liberty of free persons everywhere,

Why? Why should law abiding citizens be concerned about law enforcement agencies observing them? If they have done nothing wrong, and have nothing to hide, what worry should they have about it? It could easily be argued that they might feel more secure knowing that they are being watched, just in case something unfortunate occurs, like a burglar breaking in and trying to rob them at gun point, or a member of the household snapping and stalking from room to room with an Armalite AR 10 carbine gas-powered semi automatic weapon pumping round after round into family members and loved ones. I think that that family might be happier in the knowledge that, were such a tragic thing to occur, that the government was immediately on hand to stop it before it really had a chance to begin since they were right there watching all along.

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

And into the meaty bits....

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;

No. From the descriptions given, we would need to issue warrants for individual jail cells to be able to monitor them, either with video, audio, or personnel. That's the first scenario that jumps to mind, though I am sure there are others.

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises;

Preceding would have been a better word than foregoing, but that's hardly a major point.

With this we would be able to examine the exterior of people's homes with any equipment we wish, incuding, but not exclusive to, thermal scopes, x-ray technology, audio equipment, or anything else we wish to use to "see" into the interior.

monitoring of communications to and from such premises;

Someone else already mentioned the flaw with this. I understand the desire to avoid duplication, but if the resolution does more than just the duplicated area, then it will probably be allowed. As is, this is a fatal flaw. If Stop Privacy Intrusion gets repealed (and it really needs to be), then there will be a huge legislative issue created by this. Not only that, but any replacement for Stop Privacy Intrusion would then have to work around not duplicating or contradicting this bill.

A resolution must be able to stand on its own. This is relying on other resolutions to cover its gaps. While not severe enough for HoC violation, it would be bad legislative practice to do this.

incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any surveillance permitted under this resolution and local law;

Combining this with previous bits, I could have a guy standing outside your windows, surveilling the exterior of your home and the approaches to it, who just happens to see into your bedroom windows every 30 seconds or so.

and incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any legal entry into the same,

This bit doesn't fit. I say that because I don't have any particular issue with it.

including but not limited to the execution of a legal warrant, hot pursuit of a criminal suspect, or impromptu entry in response to clear evidence of a crime in progress, where said evidence has been gathered through some means not otherwise prohibited under this resolution or local law;

"Prabable Cause". This is the commonly accepted phrase. I say this because failure to answer the door could be construed as evidence that some wrongdoing has transpired or is in the process of transpiring.

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation, where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will, nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;

This sounds a little too extreme in its forbiddance. I can't quite nail the feeling down, so I won't argue it much.

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: theft; embezzlement; breaking and entering; destruction of evidence; espionage; aiding, abetting, or harboring a criminal suspect or escapee; counterfeiting or forgery; production, possession, or trafficking in contraband; criminal conspiracy; and deliberate, reckless, or negligent endangerment of the lives, health, or property of others;

Probable could have been simplified somehow, especially given that some of these things may not be considered criminal in all nations.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION,

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

Holds jurisdiction would have been a better phrase. Not all of them enjoy it, and there are probable some who did not wish to preside over the jurisdiction, but were appointed to it. I know what you mean, and the term "enjoys" does work, I'm just nit-picking.

JURISDICTION shall be considered the effective geographical and constitutional area within which a magistrate or governmental body has legal authority to act;

Unnecessary.

A WARRANT shall be considered a legal order permitting law enforcement personnel to take extraordinary measures in the prevention or investigation of a crime, issued in accordance with due process of law;

Too specific. A warrant is a legal order (usually issued by a magistrate) that grants right to do something. The details would be included within the warrant itself.

A PRIVATE DWELLING shall be considered any residence where an individual may maintain domicile;

Too broad. I could maintain domicile in a residence constructed of cardboard within a dumpster, but I wouldn't expect my privacy to be protected there.

A PLACE OF ACCOMMODATION shall be considered any place that offers space for use by non-residents as temporary lodging;

Same issue, but more strongly. A "non-resident" could take up temporary lodging in a pine tree, but nobody would have any expectation of privacy there.

LOCAL LAW shall be considered any and all laws in force within the jurisdiction in question.

Which would include UN law, I suppose....

Character Count: 3488

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 122 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Nov 4 2006

updated:

Approvals: 35 (WZ Forums, Dionistic, Eirisle, Kizil Orda, Firebert, Lusapha, New Myopia, Fat sackville, Witchcliff, Iron Felix, Neo-Platonia, Krieglon, Gareth Gareth, Shasoria, Scoopy, Vikingr Var Veldi, Lamkinwah, Kytheros, Chandelier, Errinundera, Belarum, The Belima, Alstala Alsan, Dunellen, Bent the Great, Deanre Strake, Athusan, Chumbalakka, Rubina, BlueJayWay, Hensby, Sedgistan, Ducks of Snow, Alissaria, Rodriganda)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 87 more approvals)

Here's a thought though. Even if this doesn't duplicate Stop Privacy Intrusion, it still comes damn close to contradicting Sexual Freedom, which makes a blanket ban of gov't surveillance into people's homes. This makes exceptions to that. If the repeal of Sexual Freedom fails, this might get deleted, and that would be strike one.......Good luck with that, I guess, but you're going to want Sexual Freedom to pass if you want this to be legal.

NOTING that this body has in the past expressed the view that individuals deserve a life free of close state scrutiny, and

OBSERVING that no guarantee yet exists to protect individuals from such scrutiny within the privacy of their own homes, and further
Other than Sexual Freedom, Stop Privacy Intrusion, and a couple of others. I realize that this is only preamble, but this line is logically flawed.BELIEVING that such guarantees are essential to the happiness and liberty of free persons everywhere, Why?We won't spend much time on the preamble; its a statement of opinion, and if the resolution passes, then by definition it is true.

On the first point, “Sexual Freedom” provides protection to groups, not individuals; “Stop Privacy Intrusion” addresses communications, which (arguably) occur in whole or in part outside the home.

On the second point, the simple answer is – as stated above – that if the resolution passes, then almost by definition this body will have gone on record as believing that some privacy is better than total security (or state scrutiny, to whatever extent we can identify the latter with the former).FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;No. From the descriptions given, we would need to issue warrants for individual jail cells to be able to monitor them, either with video, audio, or personnel. That's the first scenario that jumps to mind, though I am sure there are others.Arguable. First, jail cells are at best “places of accommodation”; I don't believe that government need classify them as private homes (i.e., domiciles). Second, they are open at one end, which leads to questions about their degree of privacy. But should one or both of these arguments fail, there's always those “incidental observation” exceptions (remember that the authorities have the run of prison corridors for a legal purpose; thus observation in the course of their rounds is allowed).EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises; With this we would be able to examine the exterior of people's homes with any equipment we wish, incuding, but not exclusive to, thermal scopes, x-ray technology, audio equipment, or anything else we wish to use to "see" into the interior.True, but one could argue that using technology more intrusive than necessary might be impermissible.

We will consider modification if the current submission fails.monitoring of communications to and from such premises; I understand the desire to avoid duplication, but if the resolution does more than just the duplicated area, then it will probably be allowed. As is, this is a fatal flaw...

A resolution must be able to stand on its own. This is relying on other resolutions to cover its gaps. While not severe enough for HoC violation, it would be bad legislative practice to do this.We believe that this approach to legislation is required under U.N. Rules, whatever its wisdom. Yes, if creates legal mosaics; but then too, it allows legal modularity.

And, to be honest, electronic surveillance really is, in our opinion, as second subject to be considered in its own separate resolution.If Stop Privacy Intrusion gets repealed (and it really needs to be), then there will be a huge legislative issue created by this. Not only that, but any replacement for Stop Privacy Intrusion would then have to work around not duplicating or contradicting this bill.First, we don't believe that this situation places a tremendous burden on the writers of any replacement for “Stop Privacy Intrusion”; second, we agree that the existing resolution will eventually get repealed and will have to be rewritten. We don't see this as a problem; as our earlier comments suggest that we believe that such legal compartmentalization is both necessary and probably a good thing.incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any surveillance permitted under this resolution and local law;Combining this with previous bits, I could have a guy standing outside your windows, surveilling the exterior of your home and the approaches to it, who just happens to see into your bedroom windows every 30 seconds or so.Perhaps our verbiage is inadequate, but the use of the word “incidental” is intended to prevent deliberate abuse of the state's ability to conduct exterior surveillance.

IOW, while it may be a judgment call (and while this does in fact give individual nations some wriggle room), we hold that this is a reasonable way to handle the fine line between eavesdropping and forcing law enforcement personnel to ignore what they can clearly see through an open window.

We guess the message to individuals who value their privacy is to draw the blinds and turn up the radio.including but not limited to the execution of a legal warrant, hot pursuit of a criminal suspect, or impromptu entry in response to clear evidence of a crime in progress, where said evidence has been gathered through some means not otherwise prohibited under this resolution or local law;"Prabable Cause". This is the commonly accepted phrase. I say this because failure to answer the door could be construed as evidence that some wrongdoing has transpired or is in the process of transpiringWe wanted to avoid Westernisms; as for presumptive intrusion, the word “clear” is intended to impede such hairsplitting.EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: theft; embezzlement; breaking and entering; destruction of evidence; espionage; aiding, abetting, or harboring a criminal suspect or escapee; counterfeiting or forgery; production, possession, or trafficking in contraband; criminal conspiracy; and deliberate, reckless, or negligent endangerment of the lives, health, or property of others; Probable could have been simplified somehow, especially given that some of these things may not be considered criminal in all nations.The clause is permissive; while not all these things are crimes everywhere, most are likely to be crimes somewhere.

To put it differently, this resolution doesn't make these things crimes; it permits the state to make them crimes.JURISDICTION shall be considered the effective geographical and constitutional area within which a magistrate or governmental body has legal authority to act;Unnecessary.Dotting “i's” and crossing “t's”; we'll consider dropping at the next opportunity, but we're inclined against it.A WARRANT shall be considered a legal order permitting law enforcement personnel to take extraordinary measures in the prevention or investigation of a crime, issued in accordance with due process of law;Too specific. A warrant is a legal order (usually issued by a magistrate) that grants right to do something. The details would be included within the warrant itself.Again, plugging loopholes; the definition is local to this resolution; nations can define warrants as they wish, but this clause sets down requirements for a court order to be valid in this context.A PRIVATE DWELLING shall be considered any residence where an individual may maintain domicile;Too broad. I could maintain domicile in a residence constructed of cardboard within a dumpster, but I wouldn't expect my privacy to be protected there.We'd think a cardboard box would be an accommodation at best, due to the word “residence”, but...A PLACE OF ACCOMMODATION shall be considered any place that offers space for use by non-residents as temporary lodging;Same issue, but more strongly. A "non-resident" could take up temporary lodging in a pine tree, but nobody would have any expectation of privacy there.The word “offers” is the issue here; we think your interpretation would be correct if we used the word “affords” (as in,“The tree afforded safe haven for the night”); the intention of “offers” (as in, “The innkeeper had three rooms to offer”) is to suggest a contractual relationship (as in “offer and acceptance”, the fundamental basis of the the Law of Contracts).LOCAL LAW shall be considered any and all laws in force within the jurisdiction in question.Which would include UN law, I suppose....Correct.Here's a thought though. Even if this doesn't duplicate Stop Privacy Intrusion, it still comes damn close to contradicting Sexual Freedom, which makes a blanket ban of gov't surveillance into people's homes. This makes exceptions to that.First, this depends on the meaning of the word “should”; current interpretation appears to be that this word permits exception like those we permit here.If the repeal of Sexual Freedom fails, this might get deleted, and that would be strike one.......Good luck with that, I guess, but you're going to want Sexual Freedom to pass if you want this to be legal.We'll take our chances, but we think they're good.

Groovy. Not much use in splitting hairs on most of the points, and you're right that it's probably legal. I'm left with one thing, though, that would still be a deal breaker for me.

The purpose of this sort of resolution is to protect people from oppressive governments that are going to try to find a way around any law that we pass. They will look at some of the areas that we agree are arguable and legally rape their way through any pin-hole sized loophole that they can find.

As for prisons, I have no idea why any government would want to interpret a law in such a way that they couldn't watch the prisoners, it was simply a thought, but some of the other things, like thermal equipment, if it could be argued, then someone will interpret it in such a way that they can do what they want.

Groovy. Not much use in splitting hairs on most of the points, and you're right that it's probably legal. I'm left with one thing, though, that would still be a deal breaker for me.

The purpose of this sort of resolution is to protect people from oppressive governments that are going to try to find a way around any law that we pass. They will look at some of the areas that we agree are arguable and legally rape their way through any pin-hole sized loophole that they can find.We look at it this way: oppressive governments will do that anyway, regardless of what you do. In 3500 words, it isn't possible to close all those loopholes.

We see the resolution as a balance; in earlier drafts it was stronger, but left crime- and security-conscious governments unsatisfied with their ability to do what they felt must be done to promote public safety. In its current form, we believe that authorities now have sufficient leeway to conduct all reasonable surveillance and to enforce all reasonable laws that may require criminalizing behavior within a private domicile or public lodging; at the same time, there are enough obstacles to keep the less zealous advocates of police-state tactics from going overboard in violating domestic privacy, and probably even enough to give the most egregious offenders a fair amount of grief in the course of their abuse of police power.

Some fiddling could probably still produce a better resolution, but at some point you just have to go for it. We think the current draft is ready for prime time.

I know this is going to create a headache for the mods, but I thought I would challenge this anyway. The proposal is illegal:
FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;
This section contradicts "Stop privacy intrusion" (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029598&postcount=11), because it refers to "a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises", whereas SPI talks only about the more general "Judiciary". Furthermore, this states that a warrant must be granted, whereas SPI is again vague, saying only that it must be "approved". Finally, this does not allow for the collection of evidence of a committed crime - only the capture of an individual - whereas SPI clearly does make allowances for the former.
EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises;
This exception is not granted by SPI, therefore there is a further contradiction.

If you want to replace "Stop privacy intrusion", you will have to repeal it first.

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation, where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will, nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;
This seems to contradict a number of standing resolutions. For example, this would prevent governments from criminalising abortion within a private dwelling; yet the Abortion Legality Convention clearly grants them the right to do so. Without a "subject to previous legislation still in effect" clause or whatever, this clause is also illegal.

So, I believe this proposal should be deleted.

I believe challenges have been alluded to previously, so I'll give CP a chance to respond to your claims. Preferably without footnotes.

OOC: A more detailed, point-by-point response will be added later; I must gather materials in preparation for (U.S.) voting today. What follows is a quick, off the cuff analysis. Expect editing.

We thank the delegation from Gruenberg for their keen eye; however, we think in this case it is a bit too keen. No Overlapping Jurisdiction: SPI addresses the interception of communications, especially electronic; here, we speak of the observation of activities in general - a far broader brush than communications. Also, this resolution does not address search and seizure; indeed, it is clear from the exceptions listed that search warrants are to be covered (if at all) by a separate resolution, and that the requirement of magisterial review doesn't apply to such activity any more than it does to wiretaps.


Explicit Exception: We deliberately exclude communications to and from dwellings and accommodations from coverage under this resolution (the meaning of the first “EXPRESSLY PERMIT[S]” clause) , precisely because they are covered by the SPI (note the use of the words “to the foregoing [clause]” [and not “to existing legislation {such as UNR #10}”]). This is mentioned and discussed (with Bazalonia) in the thread above.


Terminology: We believe that the differences in terminology between this resolution and SPI are trivial; most are simply a matter of phrasing and the use of synonyms (“magistrate” vs. “judiciary”, “granted” vs. “approved”, “evidence of a crime” vs. “surveillance ... needed to apprehend [a suspect]” [the reason evidence is collected is to apprehend a suspect]).


Common Exception: This resolution does not limit police activity in stakeouts, and neither does SPI. No resolution is prohibited from ignoring something ignored by another resolution.


Harm Test and Abortion, Etc.: Since the ALC does not explicitly define a fetus as “(not) a living being” and does not describe abortion as “(not) harm(ful)” sto aid fetus (both of which assertions would be contrary to common belief and scientific fact), we believe that the criminalization of abortion is legal (but not mandatory) under this proposal.

We concur with the distinguished representative of Gruenberg that this proposal is illegal. We base our objection principally on the fact that this provision of the proposal directly and explicitly contradicts NSUN Resolution #10, "Stop Privacy Intrusion":

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY...EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing:... monitoring of communications to and from such premises;

Please note that, as worded, the proposal does not simply provide exceptions to its own provisions; it "expressly permits" the listed activities.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Expect editing.
I would honestly prefer if you made a separate post: I'm not going to spend all day checking back at old posts to see if they've been edited. A new post bumps the thread, and hence is more likely to be noticed.

SPI addresses the interception of communications, especially electronic; here, we speak of the observation of activities in general - a far broader brush than communications.
That is no kind of rebuttal: your resolution has to deal with something separate, not something "broader" because, fairly obviously, such activities would still include communications.

We deliberately exclude communications to and from dwellings and accommodations from coverage under this resolution (the meaning of the first “EXPRESSLY PERMIT[S]” clause) , precisely because they are covered by the SPI.
No, as noted by others, that clause doesn't simply exempt them from under the resolution because, funnily enough, "permit" means "permit". You are permitting nations to monitor communications, something that they had previously been prohibited from doing.

We believe that the differences in terminology between this resolution and SPI are trivial; most are simply a matter of phrasing and the use of synonyms (“magistrate” vs. “judiciary”, “granted” vs. “approved”, “evidence of a crime” vs. “surveillance ... needed to apprehend [a suspect]”
I disagree: you're reshaping definitions. Nonetheless, this contention is more minor, so I'll concede this point.

[the reason evidence is collected is to apprehend a suspect]).
Nope, evidence could also be collected for use in a court case against a suspect.

Since the ALC does not explicitly define a fetus as “(not) a living being” and does not describe abortion as “(not) harm(ful)” sto aid fetus (both of which assertions would be contrary to common belief and scientific fact), we believe that the criminalization of abortion is legal (but not mandatory) under this proposal.
Not trying to be funny or smart: I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you mean by this. You're going to have to rephrase.

I'd just like to also include that your contention that there is some major difference between 'surveille' and 'search' is, frankly, absurd.

The act of searching involves surveying, or surveilling, the area for what you are looking for. The two words are almost interchangeable. Claiming that they are different enough to avoid contradiction or duplication issues is kinda silly.

Terminology: We believe that the differences in terminology between this resolution and SPI are trivial; most are simply a matter of phrasing and the use of synonyms (“magistrate” vs. “judiciary”, “granted” vs. “approved”, “evidence of a crime” vs. “surveillance ... needed to apprehend [a suspect]” [the reason evidence is collected is to apprehend a suspect]).
[Bolding added]

Wrong. The collection of evidence may well be done to provide grounds for arrest or apprehension, but the principal purpose is use in judicial proceedings against the accused. This is quite obvious, since, in many cases, collection of evidence continues after a suspect has been apprehended.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

*Oskar rises from his chair, rests his hands on the edge of his desk, takes a deep breath and slowly raises his head.*

My fellow esteemed representatives, and observers,

Since it has been brought back up, I've been going over Individual Privacy again, and I found myself getting more and more irate at certain parts of it. Some of this has been said before and an attempt to address the issues was put forward, but not in a satsfactory manner.

I grew upset over the whole thing the more I realized how many and horrific the flaws are. I was tempted to simply rail away about it here, but allowed reason to win out. I took a quick break to go vent my frustrations outside (http://z6.invisionfree.com/OUTSIDE/index.php?showtopic=77&view=findpost&p=7453301), in a setting that is more appropriate to such outburts, instead of allowing semi-coherent ravings clutter up a proper discourse.

I had hoped that such venting would allow me to view the matter more calmly. I fear that I had hoped in vain. If anything, it simply delineated the problems all the more clearly to my mind. There are a few points that need to be reiterated. Scratch that. There are a great many points that cannot be overemphasized for importance. I, along with a few others, have brought up some of these issues, along with others, already, but they bear repeating. The bill has been submitted, and as such cannot be changed. This simply compounds the issues.

Let me start at the beginning once again...

Noting that this body has in the past expressed the view that individuals deserve a life free of close state scrutiny,

That exact sentiment has not actually occured, that I recall. Limitations on government scrutiny, sure, but I don't recall the GA ever agreeing that everyone should live free of state scrutiny. The argument that was given to defend this is that if this were to be passed into legislation, then the statements would be true by definition. I cannot agree with this logic. That is a weak justification of attempting to slip something past the GA in a preamble under the hopes that nobody would notice. In and of itself, this isn's a major issue, but it does not stand alone.

OBSERVING that no guarantee yet exists to protect individuals from such scrutiny within the privacy of their own homes, and further

No. Let's not go any further. This line is logically and factually flawed. There are at least two resolutions that deal with protecting individual privacy within homes. Sexual Freedom, and Stop Privacy Intrusion. They may not be the best pieces of legislation, but they do exist to attempt to protect these privacies. Again, as it is only preamble, not a major deal on its own, but with the previous line as well, it is beginning to show a pattern of fabrication that I would rather not see included in any UN Resolution.

What would it say of us, the assembled ambassadors of a myriad of nations, if we were to be taken in by such easy and obvious lies, and allow them to slip into our laws in such a casual fashion? I shudder to think at what future generations would think of us.

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;

I made the concession to this earlier, but having given it further thought it must be brought back to the fore. A prison cell is an inmate's place of accomodation. The prison is within the government's jurisdiction. There is no interpretation to be had. Governments would need to legally acquire warrants to watch their own criminals. I cannot endorse anything as foolish as that.

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing:
exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises;

I'm going to set up a squad of 60 trained surveillance experts around your house to examine every square millimeter of everything with every piece of the latest high tech forensic and espionage gizmos and gadgets. This resolution permits this. Hell, it EXPRESSLY PERMITS it.

monitoring of communications to and from such premises;

This is explicitly contrary to Stop Privacy Intrusion. I see no reason why we should begin passing laws that contradict extant legislation.

incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any surveillance permitted under this resolution and local law;

So the aforementioned crack team of surveillance experts that incidentally happen to see you having sex with 17 hookers and a sheep dog are allowed to do so? Groovy. Runs contrary to Sexual Freedom.

and incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any legal entry into the same,

The most rational line in the whole proposed legislation is also one of the most useless. Saying that the officers are allowed to see the house while they search it is redundant to a level that I can barely conceive.

including but not limited to the execution of a legal warrant,

Which would qualify as legal entry.

hot pursuit of a criminal suspect,

You are now risking further changes to a nations laws. This states very plainly that me busting through your home to chase somebody that took the long way around consitutes legal entry. Not only that, but if I happen to see a joint on the table while charging through your home uninvited and unnecessarily, I can arrest you for drug possession. Yeah. That makes tons of sense.

or impromptu entry in response to clear evidence of a crime in progress,

I must ask again, What qualifies as clear evidence?

Scenario: A child has been abducted. The officers are canvassing the area for information. They knock on your door. Nobody answers. They knock again. They hear a child crying. They bust down the door, sweep through the house, knocking stuff over, arrest you for kidnapping, and whisk off your sister's kid that you had been babysitting for the afternoon. You were in the basement doing laundry and hadn't heard the door. The kid was napping and had a bad dream. It all gets cleared up in court, but not before you lose your job, and your girlfriend leaves you because there have been public allegations about you being a kidnapping pederast.

where said evidence has been gathered through some means not otherwise prohibited under this resolution or local law;

Considering that just about everything is permitted by this, this really means nothing.

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation,

A very dangerous start to anything, no matter what exceptions are granted.

where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property,

There's a woman who has an exceptionally severe case of OCD. Her husband feeds the goldfish one day. She needs to undergo intense therapy for months to get over the psychological trauma that results. The government should be allowed to outlaw this man feeding the fish, then?

nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will,

Whenever a pretty girl bats her eyelashes, she is attempting to use social force to alter the way people will act towards her. Whenever intelligent people debate a subject, they are attempting to use mental force to alter their oppositions stance on a subject. Whenever a person tells a lie for any reason, they are perpetrating fraud against the truth, usually in an effort to affect how people will act. These are things that the government would be allowed to outlaw with this in place.

nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;

My four year old daughter doesn't want to take a bath. I bathe her anyways. The government would be allowed to criminalize this.

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing:

You don't need to offer exceptions. The preceeding didn't forbid anything.

FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS RESOLUTION,

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

JURISDICTION shall be considered the effective geographical and constitutional area within which a magistrate or governmental body has legal authority to act;

A WARRANT shall be considered a legal order permitting law enforcement personnel to take extraordinary measures in the prevention or investigation of a crime, issued in accordance with due process of law;

These are common enough terms that definition should not be necessary. By including them, you have opened this bill up for further misinterpretation and abuse.

A PRIVATE DWELLING shall be considered any residence where an individual may maintain domicile;

I may maintain domicile in a tree. That could be considered my residence. And as long as we're defining everything, where's the definition for 'Residence'? You can't possibly believe that it is a common enough term given everything else that has been defined here.

A PLACE OF ACCOMMODATION shall be considered any place that offers space for use by non-residents as temporary lodging;

That dumpster looks very inviting. It looks as though it would offer enough space for me to stay in for a little while.

LOCAL LAW shall be considered any and all laws in force within the jurisdiction in question.

Including UN law, which is hardly local to any area.

One other major thing that needs to be included in Privacy legislation:

Expectation of Privacy - If you are doing anything in front of a gigantic picture window that can be easily seen from the street, there is no expectation that it would be private. Just an example.

Even if the UN Secratariat doesn't decide that this proposal is illegal, there are still far too many gaping wounds within the text to make it sound law. The only ways that it is manageable is if it is propped up with other resolutions, which is not safe legal practice. Were something to happen to these other resolutions, realizing that attempts are underway to remove them, then this bill would become full license to governments to oppress their people any way they wish.

Individual Privacy doesn't protect privacy, it scares the hell out of it and sends it running for cover. It doesn't uphold a human right, it holds a human right in front of itself to conceal it own deficiencies. This is not a bill that the UN should even consider. This isn't a resolution, it's a travesty. It sickens me to think that it has even reached quorum.

*Oskar shakes his head in disappointed disgust as he resumes his seat.*

OOC: For the sake of clarity, I will address some of the issues raised in individual posts, category by category.

The question has been raised as to whether or not this proposed resolution violates the ALC (Abortion Legality Convention (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=146)).The United Nations,

REAFFIRMING Article 5 of The Universal Bill of Rights, that no one may be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment,

RECOGNISING that both scientific and moral opinion remains, and is likely to remain, irreparably divided over the issue of at what stage human life begins,

ACKNOWLEDGING that there are many societies within the NSUN that would consider a fetus, and especially a developed fetus in the third trimester, to possess human characteristics and be deserving of special protection, whilst others would not,

REGRETTING that such divisions render global resolution over abortion unlikely,

SEEKING to establish a fair compromise:

1. DECLARES that states have the right to declare abortion legal or illegal, and to pass legislation extending or restricting the right to an abortion;

2. RECOMMENDS that in cases of rape, incest, severe fetal abnormality or where the continuation of the pregnancy poses severe medical risk to the mother, states permit abortion procedures;

3. URGES states to prevent the Intact Dilation and Extraction (IDX or 'partial birth') procedure;

4. CALLS FOR increased international research in fetal development, so as to develop greater understanding of the ramifications of abortion;

5. REMINDS states that in the absence of completely reliable contraception, there may always remain a demand for abortion, and that legalisation and regulation is more likely to provide sanitary abortion possibilities.

Authored by GruenbergThe operant section of “Individual Privacy” that we must consider here is the following:FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation, where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will, nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;It is clear that this resolution permits governments to “declare criminal any activity” that does “cause demonstrable physical ... harm to any living being”. The operant “FORBID”, after all, is negated by the conditional “where (it) does not”. To “not forbid” is to permit; this is simple Boolean logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_logic).

Thus nations may prohibit activities within protected premises that are harmful to any living being.

The question that emerges then is this: is an embryo or fetus a “living being”? The ALC deliberately avoids this question (see the blue bolded text above); the matter is therefore legally left to Member states to decide. Since member states that decide to criminalize abortion are free (and arguably even likely) to declare embryos and fetuses “living beings” - which is indeed consistent with scientific evidence (the abortion question hinges, after all not on whether embryos and fetuses are alive, but on whether they are human beings, with all the rights and privileges attendant thereupon), it follows that any prohibition on abortion so constructed will be legal under both resolutions¹.

At the same time, it must be understood that “not forbidding” is not the same as “requiring”: just because this resolution permits the criminalization of activities “harm(ful) ... to (a) living being” doesn't mean that it requires nations to do so.

An example should suffice: the proposed resolution allows nations to forbid the slaughter of animals in residential areas; it doesn't require such a prohibition, however, so nations that wish to permit their citizens to lop the head off a chicken or drop a live lobster into the pot for dinner are certainly free to do so.

This should address all questions regarding the legality of this resolution in light of the ALC.

¹As for any abortion law that is not supported by a legal assertion that embryos and fetuses are “living beings”, it is certain that the Gnomes would automatically add the needed items to such laws in order to maintain their viability.

¹As for any abortion law that is not supported by a legal assertion that embryos and fetuses are “living beings”, it is certain that the Gnomes would automatically add the needed items to such laws in order to maintain their viability.

While my temporary replacement, Sheik Larebil, might've been confused into simply thinking "Pretty colours...", I am not. You cannot simply assume the gnomes will add anything to previously passed legislation. They won't. They enforce the laws as they are passed, not tacking on extra words as you might see fit -- and through an irritating footnote, no less -- in order to justify a clearly contradictory proposal. The gnomes serve the UN, not your whim (although either way, they will get shot if they set foot in Cluichstan).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The question has been raised as to whether or not this proposed resolution violates SPI (Stop Privacy Intrusion (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=9)).We feel alarmed by the increasing intrusion of privacy by the governments in the world. Therefore, we propose that legislation is passed by each UN member that all personal communication, including, but not limited to:

face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet

shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. This evidence shall be reviewed and approved by the Judiciary before eavesdropping, phone tapping, network traffic monitoring, and other kinds of interception of communications is allowed.The operant section of “Individual Privacy” that we must consider here is the following:FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises; monitoring of communications to and from such premises; incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any surveillance permitted under this resolution and local law; and incidental observation of the interior of such premises in the course of any legal entry into the same, including but not limited to the execution of a legal warrant, hot pursuit of a criminal suspect, or impromptu entry in response to clear evidence of a crime in progress, where said evidence has been gathered through some means not otherwise prohibited under this resolution or local law;To properly consider this question, it is necessary to understand the proposed resolution's grammatical structure correctly.

In essence, the wording of the proposal is neither permissive nor compulsory; it is restrictive with exceptions. A simpler restatement of the approach it uses is this:Government is forbidden from doing certain things, with a number of exceptions to these prohibitions.Much has been made of the “EXPRESSLY PERMIT(TED) ... exceptions” supposedly violating the SPI. This is impossible, simply because the exceptions in question are not to the SPI, but to the mandates of this very resolution. To see this, consider the differences between the following:FORBID(S) ...

EXPRESSLY PERMIT(S) ...FORBID(S) ...

EXPRESSLY PERMIT(S) the following exceptions to the foregoing ...Ignoring those six words - “the following exceptions to the foregoing” - completely changes the meaning of the second clause. In the first case, it's blanket authorization for Member nations and their constituent governments to take the listed actions; in the latter case, however, it's simply a statement that the limitations elaborated in the first clause do not apply under the circumstances listed in the second. It's a clarification and restriction of the scope of the act, akin to the sign that says “No Parking 8AM-8PM Except Sundays and Holidays”.

Thus, when we see among the “expressly permitted exceptions” to the list of a “forbidden activities” the following...... monitoring communications to and from such premises;...we must take this to mean that the scope of this act does not apply to government attempts to monitor communications “to and from” “private dwelling(s) and place(s) of accommodation”.

In other words, the authority of this resolution does not extend to those circumstances; they fall completely outside of its scope.

So what does cover these situations? Why, SPI, of course! We've deliberately cut an exception within this resolution to avoid trampling on the authority of that one. Thus there is little if any basis for contradiction between SPI and this resolution, for the simple reason that there can be no contradiction where there is no overlapping jurisdiction.

Of course, for the sake of completeness, we need to ask if there are ever any circumstances in which the jurisdiction of SPI and this resolution overlap. The answer is that there are – specifically, in the case of conversations undertaken solely within the confines of a protected premises.

But even here, there is no contradiction between SPI and this resolution, simply because the standards of behavior imposed on the authorities are very nearly the same.... personal communication, including, but not limited to:

face-to-face conversations, mail, telephone, radio, LAN and Internet

shall NOT be intercepted by the government, unless there is serious evidence of a planned or committed crime. This evidence shall be reviewed and approved by the Judiciary before eavesdropping, phone tapping, network traffic monitoring, and other kinds of interception of communications is allowed.FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from attempting to observe or monitor anything that goes on within a private dwelling or place of accommodation anywhere within its jurisdiction, save where it proves in advance, to the satisfaction of a magistrate with jurisdiction over the premises in question, that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime, and then only where said magistrate proceeds to issue a warrant authorizing such surveillance in advance of its execution;Both resolutions require the presentation of evidence to a member of the judiciary. Much has been made of the use of the term “magistrate” in “Individual Privacy”, but this is nitpicking. The resolution at hand contains its own definition of the term:A MAGISTRATE shall be considered any member of the judiciary who enjoys jurisdiction over the place and crime in question;. Clearly, approval by a magistrate would constitute approval by “the Judiciary”. Note also that, in both cases, prior approval is required (in the wording of SPI, “before [surveillance] ... is allowed”; in the wording of this resolution, “in advance of its execution” ).

This leaves the question of evidentiary standards. In the SPI, the governing standard is that “serious evidence of a planned or committed crime ... shall be reviewed and approved”; in the current resolution it is of “(proof) in advance, to the satisfaction (of a member of the Judiciary) ... that such surveillance is necessary in order to prevent a crime or apprehend an individual suspected of committing a crime.” The questions to be asked here are: Are the standards the same?


If not, are the standards [i]compatible?For the most part, there is a strong degree of congruence; we are speaking of evidence of a crime - committed, impending, or in progress; moreover, the standard is in both cases one of satisfaction and approval. Are the standards identical? No. Do they need to be identical? No.

In both cases, we are speaking of a hurdle that needs to be crossed before action can proceed. If the later standard – ours – is less restrictive, then if would represent a lessening of the obstacles to surveillance, and thus a violation of SPI. But if that later standard is more restrictive, then it is perfectly legal: nothing prevents this body from adding new laws and procedures to the ones we have, unless earlier rules insist that we can not.

In the case of the SPI, all that is required is “evidence of a ... crime”. There is no requirement that the surveillance to be implemented be justified as necessary to further investigation or prevention of that crime, or any other crime. To use an admittedly absurd example, showing the court a person's unpaid parking tickets could be used to justify the bugging of that person's home.

In contrast, our standard embraces the older one, but goes further: it isn't enough to show that a crime has, is, or will occur; the authorities must show that surveillance is needed to prevent a pending crime or produce an arrest. Gratuitous surveillance undertaken with no evidence that it will further the cause of justice is not allowed.

The result is that both standards are satisfied; “serious evidence of a planned or committed crime ... (is) reviewed and approved”, and further “the Judiciary” is “satisfied ... that such surveillance is necessary” in the furtherance of police work.

In conclusion, while “Individual Freedom” steers clear of the regulation of wiretapping operations, mail interception, the monitoring of radio transmissions, data network surveillance, or – for that matter – stakeouts and tailing, in those few areas of overlap (mostly the placement of listening devices within a premises under observation [“bugging”]), it satisfies all of the requirements of SPI before going on to impose additional limits upon the exercise of police power by law enforcement and state security authorities.

Ya know, I passed my law classes several years ago, and have since sworn off overinflated disertations.

Would it be possible for you to quit pretending this is a lecture and make your points in a clear and concise manner without the needless quotations, fonts and colors?

I mean, seriously... you make SCOTUS rulings look like potboilers. When I find myself falling asleep two lines into to your defense, you're doing something wrong.

A common complaint that we have encountered in the course of sheparding this resolution to quorum is that it isn't broad enough: if doesn't address wiretapping, search and seizure, landlord behavior, privacy in the workplace, or a multitude of other issues.

Our response is simple: of course it doesn't address these things. To do so would be poor legislation, because law should be narrowly focused, in order to achieve the highest possible level of modularity.

A single omnibus privacy law would be a complete disaster; it would be too vague to be meaningful (as least in the face of the current fashion of legal deconstructionism), yet too important due to its expansive scope to be safely repealed in favor of better legislation. If we're going to subject every resolution to microscopic analysis, better that we create a legal mosaic made up of several laws that dovetail together than to try and toss a ratty horse blanket over the whole affair and call the job done.

Thus, an ideal set of privacy laws would include a law to cover search and seizure, another to cover privacy in residences and places of accommodation, another to cover eavesdropping, another to cover Internet anonymity, another to cover landlord/tenant relations, and so on. If we then find that changing needs and circumstances require amendment of our privacy laws, we can perform the work one section at a time, with little fear of having to throw away all our freedoms in a single pass.

It is this philosophy that has guided our hands in crafting this resolution.

Our interpretation: This crosses into areas that are already covered by other legislation, either duplicating or contradicting the extant law.

Your interpretation: This leaves holes in itself that the other laws cover, requiring their continued existence to maintain itself as a protector of privacy.

How the hell is your scenario any better than ours? What happens when either SPI or Sexual Freedom gets repealed and leaves a gigantic legislative gap in Individual Privacy? Were something to happen to SPI, governments would suddenly be EXPRESSLY PERMITTED to perform unwarranted wiretaps and the like on all communications into and out of any residence. Believe me when I say that there are governments that will take advantage of it.

This is why my analysis of Individual Privacy came from a view that the other resolutions did not exist. Sure, with them in place, this might be workable, though I doubt that. The fact remains that any piece of legislature must be able to stand on its own in case any supporting legislation happens to get removed from the books. (OOC:Hence the reason for the HoC violation existing). Not only that, but your own preamble to this 'proposal' pretends that these other laws, upon which Individual Privacy leans, don't even exist in any way, shape, or form.

If you wanted to ensure that things like the monitoring of communications was not covered by this resolution, you should not have included it at all. A minor wording change to one line, and the removal of that exception, and there would be no mention of anything that even touched on communications. Why mention it at all, for that matter? Now that it is there, if SPI gets repealed, we will be unable to fashion proper legislation surrounding such things because the UN will already have something on the books stating that governments are EXPRESSLY PERMITTED to do it. No, they won't be required to do it, but they can if they choose, and there won't be any other legislation to keep them from doing it, so those six words about the foregoing will be irrelevant.

Those six words, what were they, ahhh yes the following exceptions to the foregoing

Let's play with words a bit, shall we....

The foregoing what? It doesn't say. The foregoing clause? That's what you intended, I'm sure, but it doesn't say. The foregoing legislation? Could be, I guess. That would mean that this is offering exceptions to every single piece of legislation that came before it. WOW! Quite a feat. Won't always make sense, but half of the laws on the books barely make sense anyways, so no big deal, right? Wrong. This would require making amendments to all relevant laws. That just ain't gonna happen. The UN Secretariat and Gnomes have better things to do with their time than go over all the old papers and try to figure out where and how to fit these ridiculous exceptions in.

Bit of a stretch? Maybe. But so is thinking that this half thought out and poorly executed attempt at a proposal is anything other than crap.

There comes a point when you have to realize that there are too many issues with what you've got and it's time to scrap it and go back to the drawing board. That time is here. You're either duplicating previous law, which is completely unnecessary, or you're contradicting it, which is just silly, or you're relying on previous legislation too heavily for this to be of any effect without them, which is bad legislative practice, or you're making the UN staff go into overdrive to meet the requirements that this bill would make of all previous law, which is hardly fair of the Gnomes that are respectful enough to stay in UN held territory. Or maybe it's all of the above. Or none. Not really for me to decide, unfortunately, or we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

Aside from all of that, there still remain far too many glaring loopholes and logical errors, and falsehoods for any self-respecting and intelligent ambassador to support this.

I beg of you, recant the submission of Individual Privacy. Give it some more work. Deal with some of the issues that have been raised here. Most of them will require simple wording changes, and nothing more. It is worth the time spent on it to be able to offer a much better piece of law to the GA, one that does not lie to them, or offend the sensibilities of those who be forced to live with the tripe that you currently have submitted, should it pass.

<The ambassador from Community Property rises and begins to slowly applaud>

<clap ... clap ... clap ... clap>

The ambassador has treated us to a performance worthy of his name...*Oskar rises from his chair, rests his hands on the edge of his desk, takes a deep breath and slowly raises his head.*
...*Oskar shakes his head in disappointed disgust as he resumes his seat.* You may pick up your statue in the Strangers' Bar, along with a gilded pen that we offer as a gift. We figure that it may help you sign all those autographs your fans will be demanding.

In addition – on a personal note – I'd like to express my appreciation of the delicate satire embodied in the ambassador's choice of script (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11658220&postcount=270):"... and upon further reading of Resolution #67, interpreting the word 'is' to mean 'militant breast-feeding moms,' and 'recognizes' to mean 'Incredible Hulk SMASH!!!', it is painfully clear that, interpreting this article's citation of 'individual freedoms' to mean 'giant radioactive mutating squid,' this proposal -- if one reads it upside-down while cross-eyed and glaring at it through a kaleidoscope -- actually commands us to eat our children!"It's seldom that a person in this line of work gets to see herself lampooned so artfully. My compliments, good sir.

<Pauses to sip a glass of water before continuing>

On a more serious note, we hope that nobody here on the floor actually expects us to respond to any of the so-called “points” raised in the ambassador's comic rant. None of what he said is worthy or response, given the hyperbole of his entire statement. Beyond that, we prefer – for the moment – to address the issue of legality, which we take seriously. We would hate to see the desire of so many delegates to see this matter brought to a vote frustrated by semantic perversions on the part of our adversaries.

Only after a ruling has been issued on the proposal's legality will we move on to the issue of its merits; and, for the sake of keeping this debate clear and on track, we implore our opponents to do the same.

This debate will be a Roman carnival, we have no doubt about that; but let's just hold off on hauling out the elephant sh_t until we've decided if this matter is even going to come to a vote, shall we?

<Begins to sit, stops, turns to face Cluichistan, laments not being able to give the late ambassador that hash ball carved into the shape of a Death Star>

If a Member nation is too stupid to preface its anti-abortion legislation with a statement to the effect that embryos and fetuses are living things – employing something like the ages-old formula that “human life begins at the moment of conception”, or the equivalent thereof – and its Ministry of Compliance is so careless as to not add such wording after the fact to preserve their basic abortion law, that is hardly the fault of this body, and hardly grounds for declaring this resolution to be in violation of the ALC. We think it was the delegation from Gruenberg that said that it was not the responsibility of this body to worry about nations shooting themselves in the foot in their interpretation of the resolutions that we pass – and we believe this was in the course of debating a piece of legislation whose opponents claimed it would gut collective bargaining rights guaranteed by other U.N. resolutions.

The argument that this resolution violates the ALC because stupid legislators might not realize that all they have to do is issue a legal statement that the unborn are living beings is pure sophistry.

In the midst of his interminable and tedious attempt to defend this proposal against the charge that it contradicts NSUN Resolution #10, the representative of Community Property states:

To properly consider this question, it is necessary to understand the proposed resolution's grammatical structure correctly.

We understand the grammatical structure of the proposal quite well, thank you. The proposal does not state: "The following are exceptions from the provisions of this resolution" or "These actions are excepted from the foregoing provision" or anything like that. It delares that the NSUN "expressly permits" the actions. Do the actions in fact require exception to the prohibiting clause in order to be legal? Yes they do. But the proposal goes beyond providing those exceptions and declares them "expressly" permitted. With regard to the subject of communications monitoring, it contradicts NSUN Resolution #10. It is illegal.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Apparently I'm being too subtle.

Hi, Community Property. I'm Hack. I'm a Game Mod. I currently think your Proposal contradicts/duplicates an existing Resolution, and I can delete it with a click of my mouse. Please quit screwing around and show me why this is not the case.

Don't give me in character grandstanding.
Don't give me out of character grandstanding.
Don't color code your reply.
Don't yammer on and on and on and on and on.
Don't use excessive quote boxes.

Give me a brief and concise response, or I'll be forced to assume that you agree that it's illegal, and you're ignoring me with the hope that I'll confuse longwinded in character nonsense with a defence.

This is not a request.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

No, you're not being too subtle. But since some people chose to respond IC, and since this thread will - if the resolution isn't deleted - become part of the debate thread, I felt that a response IC was appropriate.

The second clause refers to the first clause, just as the fourth clause refers to the third. “Expressly permits the following exceptions to the foregoing” can only logically mean that the list of items to follow must be read as exceptions to what has already been stated within this very proposal.

Any other interpretation is unsupported by the commonly accepted rules of English grammar. “Following” and “foregoing” are not meaningless, throwaway words; when joined together in this way, they can only be read to mean that the exceptions given in the second (and fourth) clauses are to the dictates of the first (and third) clauses (respectively).

Without the second clause, the resolution would be illegal; it would duplicate SPI by issuing new wiretapping rules. Thus, an exception to the prohibitions of the first clause was required; in order to make this exception (and others that were desirable for the sake of balancing civil rights against public safety needs) clear and easy to read, a second clause was added listing exceptions to the first. The words “expressly permit” were chosen to match the intended force of the resolution (strong); the next six words (“the following exceptions to the foregoing”) were then added to direct the force of this clause upward, towards the “foregoing” one.

Without those six words, the resolution would be illegal; it would overrule SPI by granting a blanket authority to wiretap. Instead, the second clause with those six words essentially says that the first clause doesn't apply to wiretaps (or mail interception, data interception, radio monitoring, stakeouts, tails, intrusions into the home during warrant service, hot pursuit, emergency entry, etc.). It is precisely this qualification that makes the resolution legal.

I think it's important to note that everyone opposing this resolution acts as though those six words aren't there. They focus on the first two and then uses ellipses (“...”) to skip over the very qualifiers that prove them wrong (or just stop at the first two words, depending on the person making the complaint). If you would agree with them, then you must ask yourself what those six words mean, and why they don't make any difference.

As far as duplication goes, other resolutions have overlapped in minor ways. It happens all the time in arms control legislation; I can cite you all kinds of examples. As long as no obviously contradictory change occurs, minor differences in phrasing have been allowed. In this case, I chose words like “magistrate” rather than “judge” or “judiciary” to avoid the excessive use of Americanisms, a common problem here. The effect, however, is the same: in those rare cases where both this resolution and SPI are applicable, procedures are consistent across the board.

Finally, on a personal note, I'll apologize if nobody here likes my writing style, even though I'm not at all certain an apology is called for. I ask you not to let your dislike of that style – or of me – cloud your judgment.

Whilst those six words make it clear that the second clause does not contradict the first, they cannot modify the meaning of "permit" to the extent you are suggesting. To permit something is to allow it - just because you didn't pile that word into your annex of definitions doesn't mean it has no common meaning. You are allowing nations to monitor communications - that is an express contradiction of SPI. That you happen to be excepting such allowances from the first clause is nice, though largely incidental.

Incidentally, in case there's suspicion I'm just trying to be destructive or get a proposal whose style I dislike deleted, here's a suggestion for how you could make that bit legal:

"Nothing in this resolution shall be intepreted as affecting the right of nations to engage in..."

Or similar. If it said that, I'd have no grounds to contest contradiction.

The representative of Community Property is, quite understandably, trying to convince those charged with a decision on the legality of the proposal that it says what he meant it to say, rather than what it says.

THESE UNITED NATIONS DO HEREBY

***

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises; monitoring of communications to and from such premises; [etc.]

What does the United Nations "EXPRESSLY PERMIT"?

Exterior surveillance of any private dwelling or place of accommodation along with any and all approaches to such premises; monitoring of communications to and from such premises; [etc.]

If the representative had simply stated that these were excepted from the provisions of this proposal, no problem. But he chose to fancy up the text with language that placed it in direct contradiction of NSUN Resolution #10.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

What does the United Nations "EXPRESSLY PERMIT"?It expressly permits you to ignore the foregoing paragraph in any of the cases that are listed thereafter.

Look at the whole phrase, in its context, rather than those two words, out of context.

It expressly permits you to ignore the foregoing paragraph in any of the cases that are listed thereafter.

Look at the whole phrase, in its context, rather than those two words, out of context.

Since you like to talk so much about those particular words, let's look at what wasn't included in those words. It is not mentioned what it was that came before that we are to make these exceptions to. It does not say anything about the foregoing paragraph. It say nothing about the foregoing clause. It does not stipulate that we are to look at the foregoing bits of this proposal. It simply says "the foregoing". The common sense inference is that it refers to anything and everything that came before it. That would include all previous legislation. Which would include SPI. Which would make this illegal. I said it before, a simple wording change, and the whole matter gets cleared up.

ps-ignoring me or my points won't make either one or the others go away

It simply says "the foregoing". The common sense inference is that it refers to anything and everything that came before it. That would include all previous legislation. Which would include SPI. Which would make this illegal.That is easily the most perverse interpretation imaginable; if I'd wanted to strike all previous legislation, I'd have said “all previous legislation”.

Or just left the words out altogether, like all of you want to pretend I did.I said it before, a simple wording change, and the whole matter gets cleared up.It doesn't need a wording change. If the whole lot of you weren't bent on reading it upside-down while cross-eyed and glaring at it through a kaleidoscope, it would make perfect sense.fore·go·ing (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/foregoing), adj.
Said, written, or encountered just before; previous: Refer to the foregoing figures.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.It says, “just before”, not “anything and everything written anytime in the last half-dozen years”. Look at the example, for Heaven's sake: “Refer to the foregoing figures.” That doesn't mean, “Look at the numbers we published in the tenth report back, the one we wrote four years ago”; it means, “Look at the numbers directly above”.

This isn't Tolstoy, for crying out loud. It's simple, common-sense English. Didn't any of you people pass English in high school?!?

I swear, you'd find anything I wrote illegal, and that's just the plain truth of it. If I said “the preceding paragraph”, you'd be screaming about how there was a paragraph in UNR #10 that “preceded” anything in this one; if I said - as Gruenberg suggests - that, “Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of nations to engage in...”, you'd claim that I was given nations a right to do something they couldn't do before, because I didn't say that, “Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting prior prohibitions against nations engaging in...”

Quit playing word games and read this the right way.ps-ignoring me or my points won't make either one or the others go awayIgnoring common sense and turning English on its head won't make your points valid. Your argument reeks - that's the long and the short of it.

I think I'm going to take a break from reading this long and extremely disgusting debate to hose the pretension off myself.

No, I'm not going to weigh in on the legality of this proposal. The five other people seem to be doing quite well.

What I am going to do, however, is state outright that I will not support this proposal. I didn't endorse it, and I'm going to vote against it. I will be completely straightforward about it, I don't like it and I won't vote for it.

There, that's all.

There. Was that so hard? Getting yourself all worked up in a quite a tizzy over this. I requested clarification. You have finally made some effort at clarifying a single point. Congratulations. You're actually somewhat along the way to learning how to deal with people diplomatically. Now if we can get the bull-headed ignorance of reality out of your mind, we'll be well on our way to achieving something.

If you proposed something worthwhile, that was well-written, coherent, and not so full of loop-holes, then we would be more than willing to offer you our full support. The problem here is that you have not done any such thing, and, as such, we will not.

OOC: to clarify, it is not us, the players that you need to convince of legality. It is the mods. We will attack various points that we see at potential illegalities, but the mods have the final say. We have little choice but to abide by their decisions on the matter, so getting up in arms at us won't accomplish anything except invite further attack./OOC

Those six words that you keep repeating are not being ignored. They are simply irrelevant. They are not being taken out of context either, they are simply being put into a grander context. With the format and wording that you have chosen to use, this does grant express permission for nations to utilize tactics and methods that are prohibited by prior legislation. The fact that this exception in Individual Privacy is only to the foregoing statement is irrelevant. It grants nations permission to do something. Had it been phrased as such:
EXPRESSLY EXEMPTS from the foregoing......
this would not be an issue, but you chosee to phrase it such that is granted nations express pemission to except certain things from UN prohibition.

Had there been something in this that made mention that this bill should not be taken to override previous legislation, there would be no problem. Such mention is not made. Quite the contrary, Individual Privacy explicitly denies the existence of such legislation.

Moving away from that single issue for the time being, there still remain any number of other issues with this piece of legislation that have yet to be rectified, and cannot be until it is rewritten. Accusing your opposition of being uneducated won't change the fact that these flaws exist. Presuming to think that there is only one right way to read something is mere proof that your own experience with the english language is lacking.

I seem to recall that, not so long ago, you were amongst the most vocal of a group that demanded a certain level of decorum within the UN. You seem to have set your standards higher than you are able to fly. Have fun with the crash landing into the ocean of reality, Icarus.

It grants nations permission to do something.No, it does not. It has a scope; it defines that scope through a pair of rules followed by exceptions to those rules. Within its scope, it forbids certain actions; it is not at all permissive - rather, it is restrictive. Outside its scope, it has no operation; matters outside its scope are left to other legislation.

You're confusing an absence of scope with positive permission. That's like saying that zoning laws permit murder.

OOC: to clarify, it is not us, the players that you need to convince of legality. It is the mods. We will attack various points that we see at potential illegalities, but the mods have the final say. We have little choice but to abide by their decisions on the matter, so getting up in arms at us won't accomplish anything except invite further attack./OOC
Let's not start down that path again, please.

We won't get involved in our official roles if we can avoid it. We may participate in the debate as extremely well-informed players, and we will (if there is an unresolvable roadblock) make an official ruling when we must. We do NOT want to be the ultimate arbiters unless there is literally no other choice.

You're the General Assembly. Arguing about the phrasing should be your job. We can be asked about this minor point and that minor point, but dammit, you guys have more time for this. You work it out and figure out how to compromise. We want to be enigmatic advisors, not playground monitors.

OOC: My apologies, Fris. I didn't phrase that bit very well. Just comes down to the moderators having the final say if there is contention, is what I was trying to get across. Both sides are stating their cases, and the end result won't really be affected by how vitriolic we are.

Yeah, I'll just shut up about Mod involvement, now.

I swear, you'd find anything I wrote illegal, and that's just the plain truth of it. If I said “the preceding paragraph”, you'd be screaming about how there was a paragraph in UNR #10 that “preceded” anything in this one; if I said - as Gruenberg suggests - that, “Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting the right of nations to engage in...”, you'd claim that I was given nations a right to do something they couldn't do before, because I didn't say that, “Nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as affecting prior prohibitions against nations engaging in...”
Lose the persecution complex already. I gave you that line to try to be helpful. Just because this proposal is illegal, doesn't mean we'd try to argue against everything of yours by default (though, should your peace corps one get anywhere, I would do so for that too). You need to get over yourself...

EDIT: As proof, I can't see anything illegal about this (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=the%20right).

Anyway, you are quite clear permitting the monitoring of communications. Yes, that permission is excepted from the prohibition of the first clause; it does not mean you are somehow not permitting it, though. That monitoring of communications is in contradiction. You go on about our not understanding English (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/permit)...but you don't seem willing to acknowledge what your own words mean.

Anyway, you are quite clear permitting the monitoring of communications. Yes, that permission is excepted from the prohibition of the first clause; it does not mean you are somehow not permitting it, though.We may be getting somewhere, at last. Just as well; I've haven't torn every hair out of my head yet, and with a good night's sleep, maybe we can reduce the level of contention from “global thermonuclear war” to “intense conventional war punctuated by an occasional tactical nuclear strike”.

If you recognize that the second clause is a laundry list of exceptions to the first, then the question that you really need to be asking is not whether anything in the second list contradicts an existing resolution; what you need to be asking is if there's anything missing from the second list, such that the rule of the first contradicts something in a past resolution.

The only way I can see that happening is if there's a resolution out there that reserves (implicitly or explicitly) to governments something that I've forbidden in the course of the first paragraph. It has to be a forbidden power that's reserved by some other resolution because of the compound logic of the two clauses; this can be seen by the following exaggerated example:WE FORBID <$Action>

WE EXPRESSLY PERMIT as an exception to this prohibition: <$Nothing>WE FORBID <$Action>

WE EXPRESSLY PERMIT as an exception to this prohibition: <$Everything>In the second case, we've written a trivial pair of clauses, because excepting <$Everything> means that the prohibition never applies (“except everything” is “nothing”). That which never applies can not possibly be illegal; you can't contradict or duplicate something with nothing.

In the first case, however, it's a blanket prohibition, and that could be illegal, depending on whether we are taking away from nations a power that we reserved to them in another resolution.

Glancing at the list of resolutions now in force, I can see no such reserved power.That monitoring of communications is in contradiction.As far as I can tell, the only possibly place that can happen is in the case of communications conducted wholly within the confines of a protected premises, and that would pretty much limit the potential conflict to face-to-face conversations and the passage of notes (since mail, data [physical or wireless], and traditional telecommunications [radio, telephone, fax, and courier mail] are generally subject to the “to or from” exclusion).

Leaving aside the idea that “observation and monitoring” is quite apart from “search and siezure” (implicit, in the exception for warrant service), the questions that I think need to be asked are: Does the protection from observation and monitoring actvities in the home duplicate the protection from eavesdropping in SPI?


Is the handling of police authority to override that protection inconsistent between the two resolutions?In recent months I've noticed a greater tendency for the mods to tolerate overlap as long as the overlapping resolutions aren't substantially attempting to do the same thing. An example would be environmental regulation aimed at the protection of wildlife habitats and that aimed at the protection of wilderness areas. It's clear that in some cases we're talking about the same thing, but I hesitate to say that such an overlap alone would be grounds for dismissal on the basis of duplication.

The question of differential handling is also a tricky one: where two resolutions overlap, is it necessary that they handle matters in exactly the same way, substantially the same way, or that the later resolution doesn't override the process established by the earlier one? In the last case, depending upon whether the resolutions in question are permissive or restrictive, non-contradiction might be as simple as asking whether the number of steps involved in the process of enacting or circumventing the rules represents an obstacle to the execution of the earlier resolution.

In the case of private conversations occurring entirely within the domicile (which I believe represent the only overlap), I don't see this resolution as reducing their protection from state scrutiny; it is possible, however, that it could further restrict the state in its efforts to intercept such communications (simply because a greater linkage must be shown between the act of eavesdropping and its role in addressing the crime cited as an excuse for eavesdropping; this is the example cited above: under the strictest possible interpretation of SPI, I could order a wiretap based on a parking violation, even without any reasonable proof that I need the wiretap to advance the parking violation investigation).

The question then becomes this: is it a violation of SPI if authorities face additional difficulties in gaining exceptions to its restrictions? Clearly, it would be a violation if we made it easier for authorities to eavesdrop. But I can think of all sorts of ways we could make like more difficult for the police in the course of an SPI-authorized intercept operation that would have nothing to do with eavesdropping per se (e.g., chain of evidence rules), and I'm pretty sure that these would not violate SPI just because they made wiretapping harder on the police.

We may be getting somewhere, at last. Just as well; I've haven't torn every hair out of my head yet, and with a good night's sleep, maybe we can reduce the level of contention from “global thermonuclear war” to “intense conventional war punctuated by an occasional tactical nuclear strike”.
You're the one taking it unnecessarily personally. I'd suggest simply "stopping".

If you recognize that the second clause is a laundry list of exceptions to the first, then the question that you really need to be asking is not whether anything in the second list contradicts an existing resolution; what you need to be asking is if there's anything missing from the second list, such that the rule of the first contradicts something in a past resolution.
That's not what I'm recognising, though. I'm saying that whilst it is an exception to the first, it still has the legal force of "permit". It is permitting nations to monitor communications.

Otherwise, you're getting excessively verbose again. Here's another dictionary word (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/concision) for you. I'm not going to plough through all this, just to make the same basic point.

I'm assuming at some stage the mods are going to indicate whether they'll delete this or not. I've made my case as best I can; I don't consider it rebutted; I don't have a lot of energy left to continue it, though, so my inclination is just to fuck it, and move on.

Sorry, f_ck.

I need someone else to tell me if I'm being a dick with some of this, because I'm having an off day and just can't be sure myself.

The strangest thing occured earlier today. Before I came to meet with today's GA session, I was making pizza dough. This is not a difficult task, and leaves my mind free to contemplate recent issues. I spent some time on the subject of repeals, and illegalities, and how and why we legislate the way we do. A few things occured to me in fairly rapid succession. Some of these are irrelevant to this debate, but there was one that really jumped out.

Every now and then, things cross lines in the strangest of places. I would never have thought that Individual Privacy would run afoul of Child Pornography Prohibition, but it does. At least, I think it might.

FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation, where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will, nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;


None of the exceptions included within this clause cover certain forms of child pornography as defined by Child Pornography Prohibition, which, as you might guess, outlaws such things. We have arrived at a contradiction.

It is possible that I misread something here, but I don't think so.

None of the exceptions included within this clause cover certain forms of child pornography as defined by Child Pornography Prohibition, which, as you might guess, outlaws such things. We have arrived at a contradiction.
No, we haven't, because "possession...of contraband" is excepted in the fourth clause.

No, we haven't, because "possession...of contraband" is excepted in the fourth clause.

What about the creation of it? Nitpicking, I know, but still...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

What about the creation of it? Nitpicking, I know, but still...
No, "production" (the same word as used in #169) is also exempted.

Whilst I'm really uneasy about the third clause, I can't find any precise problem; I really think that lies in the first clause.

Good point. I guess I just didn't think of it as contraband. Man, I really am having an off day. Must've been something in the pizza dough.

Yeah, it's gotta be the dough. Between Clauses 3 and 4 Individual Privacy seems to forbid governments from outlawing necrophilia. A dead body would not be considered contraband under a great many circumstances. Nor is it living, so it can't be made to act against its will. I don't even want to get into arguing if it is property or not. It is entirely, and easily, possible that the body doesn't constitute any form of evidence, and even if it did, then the government would be arresting them for destruction of evidence, not necrophilia.

Gotta be the dough. Sorry, even I think I'm being a dick, now. I'm going to go somewhere that doesn't involve me picking on somebody for a while.

I'm going to go somewhere that doesn't involve me picking on somebody for a while.

General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)?

General (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227)?

What? Are you crazy, man? Every time I even think about General, I'm afraid I'm gonna get my ass banned for telling some of those people exactly what I think about whatever it is they're completely skewing.

Well.....maybe.....if I'm careful.....just this once......since you asked......Will you respect me in the morning, Fris?

That (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11931059&postcount=33) wasn't so bad. Fairly tame. Not sticking around to see what the reaction is to me telling an entire thread that they are judging MTAE unfairly, but it wasn't so bad. Yeah. I can still sleep tonight. I'll be okay........

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

Child Pornography Prohibition
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Gruenberg

Description: The United Nations,

Horrified by the involvement of children in the pornography industry,

Reaffirming its support for freedom of speech, expression, and media,

Recalling Clause 2 of Resolution #138, "Artistic Freedom", and its provision that work that directly harms others does not constitute protected work,

Further recalling its previous Resolutions #22, "Outlaw Pedophilia", and #25, "The Child Protection Act",

Saddened that there are those who would produce material that does harm others, especially where such harm is sexual, and involves minors,

Determining that such material is not protected from restrictions of production and distribution,

Resolving to adopt a strong stance against child pornography in all forms, and work towards eliminating this moral cancer,

Imploring all UN members to think of the children:

1. Defines for the purposes of this Resolution:
- "child pornography" as any explicit representation of real or simulated sexual acts performed by a child, or any explicit image of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes;
- "child" as any person below the legal age of consent in their nation of nationality;

2. Requires member nations to prohibit:
- the possession, production, distribution and trade of child pornography;
- any act of coercing a child to participate in the production of child pornography;
- the trade of children for the purposes of the production of child pornography;

3. Requires member nations to institute appropriately tough penalties for such criminal acts;

4. Promotes international cooperation in:
- the capture of and facilitation of appropriate legal proceedings against those suspected of involvement in the child pornography trade;
- the seizure, and appropriate further action, such as shipment for the purposes of use as evidence, and thereafter full destruction, of all child pornography;
- the extradition of those suspected of involvement in the child pornography trade for questioning and trial;
- the identification and repatriation of children taken abroad through the child pornography;
- the sharing of information on known child pornography producers and distributors between law enforcement agencies;

5. Supports all efforts at providing for the wellbeing and recovery of victims of child pornography.

Votes For: 11,641
Votes Against: 1,358

Implemented: Sat Jul 29 2006No, it can handle the CPP.

Clause 2 effectively requires Member Nations to declare kiddie porn “contraband”. Hence...FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation, where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will, nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;

EXPRESSLY PERMIT the following exceptions to the foregoing: theft; embezzlement; breaking and entering; destruction of evidence; espionage; aiding, abetting, or harboring a criminal suspect or escapee; counterfeiting or forgery; production, possession, use of, or trafficking in, contraband; criminal conspiracy; and deliberate, reckless, or negligent endangerment of the lives, health, or property of others;Again, the logic of the fourth clause is the same as the logic of the second: we have a list of exceptions to the foregoing prohibition. Among these exceptions is “production, possession, use of, or trafficking in, contraband”, which pretty much handles kiddie porn, drugs, guns, plutonium, etc. - choose your poison.No, we haven't, because "possession...of contraband" is excepted in the fourth clause.<snap>

Beat me to it...A dead body would not be considered contraband under a great many circumstances.Actually...

<chuckles>

... That's exactly what I figure it to be - although technically ON violates UNR #10 (at least as long as two or more people ... never mind; I think I'm going to be sick...)

Seriously, I figured that there'd be a law that says “unauthorized” possession of a corpse (for sexual purposes?) is illegal. Maybe that's a stretch, but that's what I figured would happen.

Alternately - and this is probably more straightforward - UNR #178 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=177) already gives us the legal framework we need to outlaw necrophilia:OBSERVING many cases of emotional damage to the families of deceased individuals in cases of necrophilia,FORBID any Member nation, or any of its constituent governments, from declaring criminal any activity occurring entirely within a private dwelling or place of accommodation, where said activity does not threaten or cause demonstrable physical or psychological harm to any living being or its property, nor involve the use of force or fraud in an effort to cause any living being to act against its will, nor to cause anything to be done to any living being against its will;UNR #178 says it hurts people emotionally, so...

Good. I was pretty sure I was just being a dick with some of that. Nice to see I wasn't wrong.

I still can't support Individual Privacy, but I guess I'll leave the legality issues alone. I think I'm out of ammo on that front anyways.

I would suggest starting a new thread for this when it gets near vote. There's no particular need for people to have to wade through all the legality debates during a voting discussion. Legality may be brought up again during that, but there's no need to force it to be there.

Yeah, I should note that Gruenberg being opposed to this proposal is incidental to this legality discussion (hence I supported through approval your "Right to Disarm" proposal, even though I think it's illegal).

I'll restate my final challenge, but it doesn't seem like the mods are going to delete it. Oh well:

This resolution permits governments to monitor communications, in a way that is prohibited by Resolution #10. The six words following "permits" do not change the fact that the proposal permits governments to do such; they only mean that the second clause does not contradict the first. It is a contradiction, and should be deleted.

I think we've argued the legality of this resolution enough, and unless someone raises a new point of order, I'll wait for the mods to rule.I would suggest starting a new thread for this when it gets near vote. There's no particular need for people to have to wade through all the legality debates during a voting discussion. Legality may be brought up again during that, but there's no need to force it to be there.I was about to say the same thing.

I'll restate my final challenge, but it doesn't seem like the mods are going to delete it. Oh well.
Hack and I have been waiting for y'all to finish arguing. There isn't any particular time pressure, what with multiple proposals in queue ahead of it. I think we've argued the legality of this resolution enough, and unless someone raises a new point of order, I'll wait for the mods to rule.
We'll wade through this mess and eventually come up with something, then.

Hack and I have been waiting for y'all to finish arguing. There isn't any particular time pressure, what with multiple proposals in queue ahead of it.
We'll wade through this mess and eventually come up with something, then.

For our part, we're done. No sense hammering the poor deceased equine any further. ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

For our part, we're done. No sense hammering the poor deceased equine any further. ;)Our attorneys call that equine necroflagellation. ;)

Ruled illegal.

This proposal will not be rewritten or resubmitted.

Please lock this thread.

Thread lock requests are usually made in Moderation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1231).