NationStates Jolt Archive

To ease the concerns of some and stop the whining of others, we have decided to reveal our replacement for UNR # 7. I do realise that there will be some who do not agree with this. Fine. You wanted to see it, then here it is. Just keep in mind that this will never get anywhere unless "Sexual Freedom" is repealed.

Sexual Liberties

The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING the inherently private nature of sexual intimacy, and

DESIRING to guarantee an individual's right to such privacy,

1. DEFINES sexual activities, for the purpose of this resolution, as behavior, in the form of consensual physical intimacy, that may be directed to reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification. Excluded from this definition are acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant.

2. FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual who has reached the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place.

3. BANS the criminalization of any form of sexual activity provided that, a) it is performed in privacy, and b) all participants are consenting adults.

4. FORBIDS governments, their agents and agencies from interfering with, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults, subject to the exemptions below.

5. EXEMPTS from clause 4:

a. Obtaining evidence for determination of paternity,

b. Collecting information for epidemiological investigations,

c. Criminal or civil investigative activity where probable cause has been established requiring such information, and

d. Actions in situations where there is probable cause that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention.

There you have it. Are we satisfied now?

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

To ease the concerns of some and stop the whining of others

Thanks for being all diplomatic about it.

Can you please inform us as to why the current repeal must be passed for this resolution to go through? As the original resolution mandated nothing, I can't see how UNR 7 is in conflict with anything in this "replacement."

In fact, it might be better to pass this before attempting to repeal UNR 7; that way you could satisfy the concern about the "in-between" that many nations seem to have.

St Jello Biafra;11887658']Thanks for being all diplomatic about it.

Can you please inform us as to why the current repeal must be passed for this resolution to go through? As the original resolution mandated nothing, I can't see how UNR 7 is in conflict with anything in this "replacement."

In fact, it might be better to pass this before attempting to repeal UNR 7; that way you could satisfy the concern about the "in-between" that many nations seem to have.

No. That would be duplication, and that's illegal. Contradiction isn't the only way that old legislation can get in the way of new legislation.

Even though "Sexual Freedom" doesn't mandate anything, it is still legislation in the area of well, sexual freedom. We cannot add new legislation in that area until the previous legislation is removed.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

What is "serious injury"? How much (if at all) do you believe that the sex lives of those interested in BDSM is limited?

We also believe that "consensual physical intimacy" is simply to vague a term, yet we cannot offer at this moment more insight on a better wording.

Epidemiological investigations should only be allowed to monitor sex lives ONLY with written consent from all the sex partners (it is necessary to avoid words such as "both" due to the fact that more people may partake in activities) otherwise the epidemiological investigation is immoral, by scientific standards, and the UN should not be implied that it endorses that.

Your wording leaves leeway, unintentionally we think, for the close monitoring of the sex practices of adolescents, since they are not adults and you are not expressly forbidding the government to investigate and monitor them. If this was not unintentional, then it should be noted, that the sex lives of adolescents should not bother the government and in light of the resolution fullfilling its own set goals, we believe an improvement should be made. You are also allowing the criminalisation of adolescent sexual activities, which we also believe is unintentional. We believe again that wording needs to be improved.

Finally, perhaps the fact that English is not our first language, we don't really understand what is implied by 5a. Would the state be able to forecefully obtain DNA samples to verify paternity? We also think that this clause can be the window of opportunity for many governments to practically ignore the resolution.

It should be noted, that the state of Mairada will still oppose the repeal, but we are also interested in improving the suggested replacement should the current resolution be repealed.

Have a nice day!:)

Clause 4 bans governments from recording conversations of opposing militaries as long as the people they are spying on are performing sexual activities at the time.

Clause 4 bans governments from recording conversations of opposing militaries as long as the people they are spying on are performing sexual activities at the time.

No, it doesn't. We can still listen in on their conversation, we just can't pay attention to the sex.

What it says is that we cannot surveil their sexual activities. If they are conspiring against the government, it is entirely allowable for the government to listen in.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Clause 4 bans governments from recording conversations of opposing militaries as long as the people they are spying on are performing sexual activities at the time.This is a concern?

"Oh yeah baby... oh... oh... be at the... mmm... west gate at... OH! YES!... three o'clock... oh... harder... with the RPG... OH GOD YES!"



Yeah, I can't believe I wrote that either.

What is "serious injury"? How much (if at all) do you believe that the sex lives of those interested in BDSM is limited?

Juhani stands up, straightening his tie, keeping his outfit immaculate.
"Speaking as someone who has a relatively thorough knowledge of BDSM, I must tell you that it does not end in serious injury. Whipping, biting, binding, and oxygen deprivation might cause small wounds, but nothing that would need even first aid if done responsibly. Serious injury, however, would involve broken bones, lacerations that require stitches, goring, and things of that nature. We were sure to include the word Serious in the proposal to distinguish that. It is the opinion of the drafters that any activity that results in an injury that requires treatment should be left open to investigation, to ensure that foul play or neglect, or depraved indifference has not occured.

We also believe that "consensual physical intimacy" is simply to vague a term, yet we cannot offer at this moment more insight on a better wording.
Is there any reason that consensual physical intimacy would not refer to sexual activities? Beyond that, is there any reason that consensual physical intimacy would have anything to do with anything this proposal shouldn't cover?

Epidemiological investigations should only be allowed to monitor sex lives ONLY with written consent from all the sex partners (it is necessary to avoid words such as "both" due to the fact that more people may partake in activities) otherwise the epidemiological investigation is immoral, by scientific standards, and the UN should not be implied that it endorses that.
Um. No. If someone is going around spreading some highly contagious and lethal disease, we're not going to politely ask that they stop -- Something is going to have to be done. We're talking about epidemiological investigations. The root of that big word -- epidemic.

Your wording leaves leeway, unintentionally we think, for the close monitoring of the sex practices of adolescents, since they are not adults and you are not expressly forbidding the government to investigate and monitor them. If this was not unintentional, then it should be noted, that the sex lives of adolescents should not bother the government and in light of the resolution fullfilling its own set goals, we believe an improvement should be made. You are also allowing the criminalisation of adolescent sexual activities, which we also believe is unintentional. We believe again that wording needs to be improved.
As stupid as I personally think outlawing adolescent sex is, I respect that it's something that is reasonably left to the discretion of national governments. Note the definition of adult is such that it is determined by nations with an age of consent for sex. We're not about to tell them to remove those limits, even if we have.

Finally, perhaps the fact that English is not our first language, we don't really understand what is implied by 5a. Would the state be able to forecefully obtain DNA samples to verify paternity? We also think that this clause can be the window of opportunity for many governments to practically ignore the resolution.
I'm sure there are governments where child-bearing is a very monitored and even regulated thing. We allow them the right to check paternity.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Now, I support this draft, should Sexual Freedom be repealed. I was about to take issued with Clause 4 in regards to criminal investigations, but then I kept reading and became very happy.

Yes, good job all!

Defining "serious injury" as one needing admission to hospital or first aid - we are unsure where you actually draw the line - should be noted in the resolution itself. The intent is fully clear and we agree that albeit accidents are possible, one should be able to investigate their circumstances.

Consensual physical intimacy... I imagine breastfeeding could be dubbed as consensual physical intimacy. That was off the top of my head. We do agree though with your point that, indeed, breastfeeding shouldn't be monitored by the state :D Point taken :)

Is it then implied that the government will have full knowledge of one's personal health records and use them at their own discretion to limit one's freedoms with the intent of preventing the spreading of disease? Should not the UN protect the privacy of health records? You cannot force people to have medical exams simply because you want to, because you are establishing a precedent and next time we will have a resolution forcing countries to accept Insurance companies' rights to forcefully examine one's DNA before agreeing on a life policy. Prevention of disease is not a matter of the police, but of education and health-sector funding. STDs are not prevented by arresting carriers but by educating the people to take precautions. We are strongly opposed to what seems to be implied by the resolution and your words.

The problem, as I see it, is that the resolution seems very explicit in some areas (ie the exceptions) and vague in others. It is difficult to estimate what the goals set for the resolution are. That said, I am all in favour of allowing governments to regulate their states as they see fit under some basic guidelines from the UN, I've said so before that this is Mairada's stance on issues. So I won't debate your reply more. Our goal was constructive critique and notihng else. :)

If the resolution suggested goes in effect, there cannot be a UN nation that will have a regulated child bearing programme, or whatever you wish to call it, because the government is forbidden to interfere with sexual activities and these activities include those involving the proliferation of the species. In other words, the clauses are contradicting each other. You cannot use 5a to allow governments that interfere with sexual activities to identify fathers, when you are forbidding them to interfere with sexual activities in the first place. I hope my point is getting across in spite of language barriers.

Knife in your head = serious
Papercut on your finger = not so serious.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think a definition for 'serious injury' is necessary. It's a matter of common sense.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

If your goal is to protect people of the world, you need to define it. A totalitarian regime might wish to consider a papercut as something serious. Again I feel that the resolution is being too vague in some areas and too specific in others.

If your goal is to protect people of the world, you need to define it. A totalitarian regime might wish to consider a papercut as something serious. Again I feel that the resolution is being too vague in some areas and too specific in others.Reasonable Nation Concept.

Proposal authors don't need to write to every whackbag possibility out there; they need to write to reasonable nations. If some git wants to play with semantics, that's not the author's responsibility as they'd likely do it regardless. I'm not going to have Proposals bogged down by endless definitions.

Is it then implied that the government will have full knowledge of one's personal health records and use them at their own discretion to limit one's freedoms with the intent of preventing the spreading of disease? Should not the UN protect the privacy of health records? You cannot force people to have medical exams simply because you want to, because you are establishing a precedent and next time we will have a resolution forcing countries to accept Insurance companies' rights to forcefully examine one's DNA before agreeing on a life policy. Prevention of disease is not a matter of the police, but of education and health-sector funding. STDs are not prevented by arresting carriers but by educating the people to take precautions. We are strongly opposed to what seems to be implied by the resolution and your words.
You're missing the point. The key term you're ignoring is epidemic. Suppose AIDS infects more than one quarter of your population, and continues to spread. The concern is for public health. At this point, the government may take action to try to counteract that epidemic. If no exceptions were made for epidemiological reasons, then this Resolution would likely cause problems for nations trying to halt the spread of highly contageous disease. It's not about the slippery slope that you have in mind. There's no need for a medical exam before anyone can have sexual contact with someone else, or insurance companies.

Consensual physical intimacy... I imagine breastfeeding could be dubbed as consensual physical intimacy.
Breastfeeding is not directed toward reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification.

The problem, as I see it, is that the resolution seems very explicit in some areas (ie the exceptions) and vague in others. It is difficult to estimate what the goals set for the resolution are.
Please pardon me for being flippant, but how hard can "Governments may not outlaw any kinds of sexual activity so long as no one is coming to serious harm" be to estimate as the goal?

If the resolution suggested goes in effect, there cannot be a UN nation that will have a regulated child bearing programme, or whatever you wish to call it, because the government is forbidden to interfere with sexual activities and these activities include those involving the proliferation of the species.
Babies aren't made the instant people have sex (not in any species I know of). The government can regulate child-birth all it wants. Sex, however -- it keeps its nose out.

In other words, the clauses are contradicting each other. You cannot use 5a to allow governments that interfere with sexual activities to identify fathers, when you are forbidding them to interfere with sexual activities in the first place. I hope my point is getting across in spite of language barriers.
Incorrect. Read it again. "4. FORBIDS governments,..." "5. EXEMPTS from clause 4." It's not contradicting it at all, it states plainly that those are exemptions. Furthermore, the government wouldn't really be interfering to determine paternity, but investigating, but I think you get the idea.


Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

Breastfeeding is not directed toward reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification.

Juhani Viljakainen
Envoy

I'd agree with you with reguards to breastfeeding infants, anything else well, you never know.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

There is no doubt in my mind that this resolution far exceeds the original in clarity, content and coverage. The trick now is to convince UN members to vote for the repeal.

Freud would beg to differ regarding the sexual gratification infants get from breastfeeding, yet we already conceded the point to you, so it matters very little.

We fail to see why it is necessary to include clause 5a. The government, even if it is closely regulating the 9-month period after fertilization, would still be interfering with the sexual practices if it would arbitrarily investigate paternity. And there is no reason for that. The mother knows whose is the child and if she does not she can ask the potential father to have a DNA testing. Forcing him to one is well... borderline fascist. A UN resolution that aims at enforcing sexual freedoms should not involve such a clause.

As far as the epidemiology is concerned, we insist that the control of epidemics and/or pandemics is a matter of education and NOT a matter of the police. We insist that you are implying in the resolution and in your words that carriers will be arrested simply for being carriers. You did not adress the problem of the state knowing the health records of its population as well. A resolution regarding sexual freedoms need not make exceptions to prevent the spreading of disesase, for they are irrelevant. We repeat that the prevention of an epidemic is a matter of education and not a matter of allowing a state to intervene with its people's sex lives. In regions like Sub-Saharan africa, AIDS is a problem, yet allowing states there to interfere with the peoples' sex lives because of that, is both not solving the problem and creating a new one. Solving the AIDS pandemic means educating the people in these states to use condoms and if all goes well, get vaccines. We believe that this clause alone is enough for us to vote against this resolution should the current one be repealed.

As a side note, we believe that you are hostile towards our critique. It is unfortunate. As is the fact that some ignore that a dialogue means that you enter it with good spirit and willing to concede points to those that voice opinions and concerns.

We fail to see why it is necessary to include clause 5a. The government, even if it is closely regulating the 9-month period after fertilization, would still be interfering with the sexual practices if it would arbitrarily investigate paternity. And there is no reason for that. The mother knows whose is the child and if she does not she can ask the potential father to have a DNA testing. Forcing him to one is well... borderline fascist. A UN resolution that aims at enforcing sexual freedoms should not involve such a clause.Yet the proposal doesn't force fathers to submit to paternity tests; it only allows governments leeway to investigate.

As a side note, we believe that you are hostile towards our critique. It is unfortunate. As is the fact that some ignore that a dialogue means that you enter it with good spirit and willing to concede points to those that voice opinions and concerns.The author has barely spoken a word to you.

I like it.

As a side note, we believe that you are hostile towards our critique. It is unfortunate. As is the fact that some ignore that a dialogue means that you enter it with good spirit and willing to concede points to those that voice opinions and concerns.

Sweetheart, you haven't even begun to see hostile. Every representative has been debating. They are merely trying to point out where you are wrong and if at any point if you happen to be right, then they won't argue.

Now, who is this Freud person? He must be a fool if he says that babies get sexual gratification from breastfeeding. It's a built in reflex. It is something that they need to do to survive. As previously stated, breastfeeding is not directed toward reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification. It is them means by which the infant receives the nutrition it needs to survive and grow. It is also nature's way to help mother and infant bond.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

OOC:Take it from some one who knows from experience. Breastfeeding is not sexual in any way. A nice bonding experience and extremely beneficial to the infant, but not sexual.

As for the government being granted access to health records, such things are already covered and protected by the Patient Rights Act.

Now, who is this Freud person? He must be a fool if he says that babies get sexual gratification from breastfeeding. It's a built in reflex. It is something that they need to do to survive. As previously stated, breastfeeding is not directed toward reproduction, spiritual transcendence, or sexual gratification. It is them means by which the infant receives the nutrition it needs to survive and grow. It is also nature's way to help mother and infant bond.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

OOC:Take it from some one who knows from experience. Breastfeeding is not sexual in any way. A nice bonding experience and extremely beneficial to the infant, but not sexual.

The sexuality of breast feeding is an open question. Sexuality itself is a built in reflex towards gratification.

The polyamorous argue that we have built up walls around sexuality. They would say that breast feeding is considered non sexual because it is specifically defined so. This allows breast feeding to be done in public... as long as you are feeding a child;)

The sexuality of breast feeding is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It would be considered consensual physical intimacy and would be a protected private activity. Whether it gets public protection is a matter for other legislation, and not by the UN.

Actually, the last time I was breastfed, it was sexual. Oh, wait a minute...that was just the other night. Ah, what wonderful mammaries -- I mean, memories!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

*snip*
Your wording leaves leeway, unintentionally we think, for the close monitoring of the sex practices of adolescents, since they are not adults and you are not expressly forbidding the government to investigate and monitor them. If this was not unintentional, then it should be noted, that the sex lives of adolescents should not bother the government and in light of the resolution fullfilling its own set goals, we believe an improvement should be made. You are also allowing the criminalisation of adolescent sexual activities, which we also believe is unintentional. We believe again that wording needs to be improved.


Nope:

2. FURTHER DEFINES, for the purposes of this resolution, an adult as an individual who has reached the legal age of consent, as defined by the law of the nation in which the activity takes place.

The legal age of consent and the legal age of majority are not always the same.

Having been cleared on the legality (or lack thereof) of our original suggestion, we wholeheartedly support this replacement. Well done, Karmicaria, and good luck on the repeal.

The sexuality of breast feeding is an open question. Sexuality itself is a built in reflex towards gratification.

The what of what? I think it's time I start pulling some proper research on the subject. Unfortunately, my reference web pages are on my other computer at home. So for now I'll just make the ancedoctal statment that if beast feeding was all that sexually sensual I find it hard to see why so many lovely ladies insist on using formula.

Of course it has no bearing whatsoever with the question at hand. A good friend of mine once told me that she thought eating uni was better than an orgasm. Eating uni has no bearing whatsoever with the question at hand. Of course you can combine the question at hand with uni, but that also has no bearing whatsoever with the question at hand.

As far as the epidemiology is concerned, we insist that the control of epidemics and/or pandemics is a matter of education and NOT a matter of the police. We insist that you are implying in the resolution and in your words that carriers will be arrested simply for being carriers. You did not adress the problem of the state knowing the health records of its population as well. A resolution regarding sexual freedoms need not make exceptions to prevent the spreading of disesase, for they are irrelevant. We repeat that the prevention of an epidemic is a matter of education and not a matter of allowing a state to intervene with its people's sex lives. In regions like Sub-Saharan africa, AIDS is a problem, yet allowing states there to interfere with the peoples' sex lives because of that, is both not solving the problem and creating a new one. Solving the AIDS pandemic means educating the people in these states to use condoms and if all goes well, get vaccines. We believe that this clause alone is enough for us to vote against this resolution should the current one be repealed.


We're afraid that this statement by the representative rests on two flawed assumptions. The first is that education is the single countermeasure to be used against epidemics. It can certainly be an important weapon, but it may also be necessary to provide vaccinations, impose travel restrictions, provide isolated care in medical facilities, etc. No matter what countermeasures should be taken, the nature of the disease and its mode of spreading must first be clearly understood. That is what the exception allows.

The second problem is the assumption that epidemiological investigations will be carried out by the police. Nowhere in the proposal does it suggest that. The proposal talks about government agencies. In our case, that would be the Epidemiology Center in the Ministry for Science and Health. Police investigative resources might well be called on to asist, but not in a law enforcement capacity.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The what of what? I think it's time I start pulling some proper research on the subject. Unfortunately, my reference web pages are on my other computer at home. So for now I'll just make the ancedoctal statment that if beast feeding was all that sexually sensual I find it hard to see why so many lovely ladies insist on using formula.

Of course it has no bearing whatsoever with the question at hand. A good friend of mine once told me that she thought eating uni was better than an orgasm. Eating uni has no bearing whatsoever with the question at hand. Of course you can combine the question at hand with uni, but that also has no bearing whatsoever with the question at hand.

This is too tempting a topic, people may keep draggin us off topic.

Here is a new thread for this subject :)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11891826#post11891826

Um ok I guess that didn't drag us off topic. I didn't mean to kill the thread either. If ya wanna discuss breast feeding et all go here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505658

EDIT that's 2 threads closed on the subject. Here is 3rd attempt:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11896234

Meanwhile, does anyone have complaints about this replacement resolution?

Being the author of the resolution, I have no complaints about it. However, I am rather disappointed that this will never get submitted.

Me too.

Being the author of the resolution, I have no complaints about it. However, I am rather disappointed that this will never get submitted.

And why not? Surely you're not giving up on the repeal process already.

St Jello Biafra;11896004']And why not? Surely you're not giving up on the repeal process already.

This was the second time I've attempted to repeal Sexual Freedom. Someone else can give it a shot. If it hasn't been repealed within a year, them maybe I'll take another crack at it. If some one else can manage to actually get this crap resolution repealed, I will submit this replacement.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I'll submit the repeal if you like :) Not that I think that would help...

Personally, I think we should let the people do whatever they want. I mean, Can we really force them to not have sex in the privacy of their own homes? Seriosly. But I do think if we allow sexual freedom, then we should ban abortions.

Although broadly in favour of this proposal (and still hopeful that the repeal gets passed), we do have some concerns.

Excluded from this definition are acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant.

How is serious injury to be defined? Some consensual SM practices do leave marks and could therefore fall foul of this exclusion.

And, although death is generally not the intended outcome of any sexual activity, if we consent to take risks then we have no-one to blame but ourselves for the consequences.

As such, we would like to see the exclusion excluded.

it is performed in privacy

Some people are exhibitionists. Some are voyeurs.

While we recognise that most people don't want to see a random couple shagging on their front lawn while they're having breakfast, we would like to see a privacy defined in a manner that recognises any location as being private if the only people likely to be there are consenting adults.

Exemption 5.a

a. Obtaining evidence for determination of paternity

We fail to see how monitoring someone's sexual activity can be taken as a reliable indicator of paternity and feel that this exemption should be removed.

Exemption 5.b

b. Collecting information for epidemiological investigations

The state should seek consent of its citizens before collecting medical information. We would, therefore, like to see this exemption removed.

Exemption 5.d

d. Actions in situations where there is probable cause that death or serious bodily harm will result without immediate intervention.

As stated earlier, if we consent to take risks then we have no-one to blame but ourselves for the consequences. The responsibility for acting if things get out of hand should, therefore, lie with the consenting adults in question.

This exemption should also be exempted,

Okay, you're asking me to remove half the text from the proposal. I'm sorry,, but after months of working on this, those particular things are staying. Myself and the others that were involved in the drafting process feel that they are necessary. Perhaps you could suggest a re-wording of the clauses that you don't like. I will consider what you've said, but I don't see any of it being completely removed.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Not really. I'm saying that most of the exclusions and exemptions are unnecessary. Without them, I'm very happy with the proposal.

Steenhuffel;11897309']Although broadly in favour of this proposal (and still hopeful that the repeal gets passed), we do have some concerns.


Sure. Of course, it won't make a lick of difference if the repeal doesn't go through.


How is serious injury to be defined? Some consensual SM practices do leave marks and could therefore fall foul of this exclusion.

That debate was already dealt with. Honestly, it's not important, either.

And, although death is generally not the intended outcome of any sexual activity, if we consent to take risks then we have no-one to blame but ourselves for the consequences.

As such, we would like to see the exclusion excluded.

I'm sorry, but if you cut your partner for sexual pleasure or cause bodily harm greater than bruises or tiny cuts, then you should be arrested. We have very broad sexual freedoms in Allech-Atreus, but that sort of thing is not tolerated. It's just common sense.


Some people are exhibitionists. Some are voyeurs.

While we recognise that most people don't want to see a random couple shagging on their front lawn while they're having breakfast, we would like to see a privacy defined in a manner that recognises any location as being private if the only people likely to be there are consenting adults.

This is a valid point, but your changes do little to add to the resolution. I think it's counter-intuitive to define privacy, which is a generally accepted term that means "not out in the open." If there are five or six people screwing around while other people watch, and they're not in a public park, that's privacy. It doesn't matter how many people are there, as long as it's not out in the open.




We fail to see how monitoring someone's sexual activity can be taken as a reliable indicator of paternity and feel that this exemption should be removed.



Exemption 5.b



The state should seek consent of its citizens before collecting medical information. We would, therefore, like to see this exemption removed.

I'm sorry, but if there is a specific need to get medical information then the state has every right to enter a person's home. Medical emergencies are all too common, and sometimes officials need to search a home to gete medical information.




As stated earlier, if we consent to take risks then we have no-one to blame but ourselves for the consequences. The responsibility for acting if things get out of hand should, therefore, lie with the consenting adults in question.

Sorry, no. Considerable bodily harm done to a sexual partner in unacceptable. This exemption guarantees that law enforcement has the legal right to stop what appears to be bodily harm. There should be no if's and's or but's about it.

Personally, I think we should let the people do whatever they want. I mean, Can we really force them to not have sex in the privacy of their own homes? Seriosly. But I do think if we allow sexual freedom, then we should ban abortions.
I know you intended that to be a rhetorical question, but... yes. It's quite possible to force people to not have sex in their own homes, Of course, the home in a nation which would do such doesn't have anything resembling privacy. Also, I'd be really interested to hear what banning abortion has to do with allowing people to have sex however they want. Care to elaborate?

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

I'd like to take some "sexual liberties" with Dahlia Black, if you know what I mean...

Hey, she said I'm hot (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=22).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'd like to take some "sexual liberties" with Dahlia Black, if you know what I mean...

Hey, she said I'm hot (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=22).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I said no such thing Sheik Nadnerb and please do not talk about me that way. You will see no "sexual liberties" from me.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

I said no such thing Sheik Nadnerb and please do not talk about me that way. You will see no "sexual liberties" from me.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

But...but...it must be true! I read the quote in The Polar Picayune (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=22)!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I always pictured Lori Jiffjeff as not as cute as that.

As for Dahlia, I think she's got something going on with Accelerus [sp?].

I've read it as well, but I was apparently misquoted. Sorry, Sheik, but it's just not true. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a replacement to interview.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

OOC: I always pictured Lori Jiffjeff as not as cute as that.

As for Dahlia, I think she's got something going on with Accelerus [sp?].


OOC: On Jiffjeff, so did I, until I checked the "Meet the Reps" thread.

As for Dahlia, well, you think that's gonna stop ol' Nadnerb from trying? ;)

OOC: I always pictured Lori Jiffjeff as not as cute as that.

OOC: So did I.

I'm sorry, but if there is a specific need to get medical information then the state has every right to enter a person's home. Medical emergencies are all too common, and sometimes officials need to search a home to gete medical information.


I am sorry, but what you are saying sir, is simply not true. A doctor, or someone working for a doctor, cannot enter a house without any consent from the residents to snoop around looking for medications or health records or whatever. It is breaking and entering and it is illegal. If the doctor wants information he should simply ask the patient or his family for it or for permission to look around the house or scene of an accident etc Even if there is a medical emergency, the doctors are still not allowed to violate the privacy of one's residence without his consent or at least that of his family.

As is apparent, we are mostly in agreement with the ambassafor from Steenhuffel.

I am sorry, but what you are saying sir, is simply not true. A doctor, or someone working for a doctor, cannot enter a house without any consent from the residents to snoop around looking for medications or health records or whatever. It is breaking and entering and it is illegal. If the doctor wants information he should simply ask the patient or his family for it or for permission to look around the house or scene of an accident etc Even if there is a medical emergency, the doctors are still not allowed to violate the privacy of one's residence without his consent or at least that of his family.


Way to misunderstand me. Why the fuck did you think I was talking about doctors? That clause is intended to allow law enforcement officials to have access to medical information in the case of an emergency, not to allow a doctor to go to your house and steal your medicine or whatever the fuck you're talking about.

Honestly, this makes no sense. Your own doctor will have your medical records on file and will already know your history. He has no need to go to your house and look around your room, unless in your country doctors compete for patients and go around looking for sick people.

good lord.

I've read it as well, but I was apparently misquoted. Sorry, Sheik, but it's just not true. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a replacement to interview.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of KarmicariaGood God, another replacement?! Karmicaria goes through UN ambassadors faster than the Palentine spirits errant scribes off to Cleveland. :p

Good God, another replacement?! Karmicaria goes through UN ambassadors faster than the Palentine spirits errant scribes off to Cleveland. :p

Dahlia will be on her honeymoon, so there needs to be a temporary replacement while she's away. Karmicaria needs to have someone representing them on the floor. ;)

I am sorry, but what you are saying sir, is simply not true. A doctor, or someone working for a doctor, cannot enter a house without any consent from the residents to snoop around looking for medications or health records or whatever. It is breaking and entering and it is illegal. If the doctor wants information he should simply ask the patient or his family for it or for permission to look around the house or scene of an accident etc Even if there is a medical emergency, the doctors are still not allowed to violate the privacy of one's residence without his consent or at least that of his family.

As is apparent, we are mostly in agreement with the ambassafor from Steenhuffel.
If I recall correctly, the - oh wait, let me just re-read the proposed... proposal? He flips through some papers and pulls one back out.

Here we are. I believe you are referring to the following exemption clause:
b. Collecting information for epidemiological investigations,
Yes? Yes. Well, as has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, the key word there is "epidemiological". To use smaller words for your honoured representative self, that would mean the government can collect information from the indicated activites only for the purpose of preventing, reducing, or eliminating epidemics. Mind you now, that's the government, not doctors. Unless your government happens to be populated entirely by doctors, of course.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

We shall first adress the concerns of the ambassafor of Alech-Atreus.

First of all, we believe that words or phrases containing words such as "fuck" are a disrespect not only towards those adressed but also towards these halls and all those that debate therein or have done so in the past. Such words and phrases have no place in the General Assembly, we believe, yet we recognise of course, one's right to express oneself as they see fit. We reserve the right to judge them accordingly.

Now, if we may point to you in the transcripts what the ambassafor of Ausserland said regarding this subject. The second problem is the assumption that epidemiological investigations will be carried out by the police. Nowhere in the proposal does it suggest that. The proposal talks about government agencies. In our case, that would be the Epidemiology Center in the Ministry for Science and Health. Police investigative resources might well be called on to asist, but not in a law enforcement capacity.


It is apparent that at least 2 of the supporting ambassadors have different views on what the clause implies. One speaks of police, the other speaks fo an Epidemiology Center, which as far as I can understand involves medical personnel. We believe that this is cause for alarm and that the government of Karmicaria should improve the proposed resolution to clarify what is implied by it. If for some reason they believe this is not necessary, then we are inclined to believe that the majority of the nations will interprete this clause as referring to the police and thus, we believe it is an infringement on peoples' rights that we are not willing to agree on.

Moreover, sir, there are many cases when you will need to be treated by another doctor who will not have access to your medical files. For example, if you are found comatose and brought to a hospital, where your family physician is not present. In this example, the doctors, even though they have the best interest in mind, should not have access to your medical history unless you allow them to or unless your family allows them to, given your comatose condition. In any case, I should point out that a doctor has absolutely NO right to even test you for AIDS unless you give him a written consent. The stigma of an AIDS carrier is too great to allow doctors to test patients without their consent, but the problem is even more deeper than that. No doctor has the right to perform ANY test or treatment on an unwilling patient. The doctor knows best, but if there is no consent and barring insanity, which can be asserted by psychiatrists, the doctor has absolutely no right to intervene. It should be pointed out that he has no right to test the patient even if he is injured by his needle while drawing blood.

Allowing the police to do what even doctors are not allowed to, is beyond comprehension.

Moreover, if we are not talking about doctors and we are talking about the police, we fail to see how it is NOT fascist to allow the police to break into a person's home with a warrant based on a suspicion that he is a carrier of an STD and we've already explained why we believe it is fascist for the police to have access to one's medical records. We also believe it is fascist to allow the police to enter one's house in order to obtain medical information regarding his person. We do not believe that this body should endorse any legislation allowing for warrants to give the right to the police to enter people's homes for reasons like these. We would be terrorizing the people and opressing them.

Now, the ambassador of Eirisle brings up the matter of clause 5b. We have already expressed our opposition to it and explained our reasons. STDs are not transmitted by air or contact and therefore a quarantine helps not. They are transmitted by sexual contact and therefore education on safe sex is what is important what one should strive for. Allowing anyone, be they police or doctors or officials of any sort, to obtain medical records without consent is simply put fascist. Allowing anyone to interfere with someone's sex life because there is a belief that he might be a carrier of a disease, allows too much room for arbitrary decisions by those in power and because it depends on guessing and not on facts it is not good enough of a reason for this body to allow the supression of one's liberties simply because some official has a hunch. Next time officials will imprison people on a hunch and next time they will execute them.

We see 2 ways that an official/doctor/police could know/suspect that intercourse must be tampered with, either they know by knowing one's records or they suspect it by simply having a hunch. We explained why in both cases this is unacceptable.

Now, the ambassador of Eirisle brings up the matter of clause 5b. We have already expressed our opposition to it and explained our reasons. STDs are not transmitted by air or contact and therefore a quarantine helps not. They are transmitted by sexual contact and therefore education on safe sex is what is important what one should strive for. Allowing anyone, be they police or doctors or officials of any sort, to obtain medical records without consent is simply put fascist. Allowing anyone to interfere with someone's sex life because there is a belief that he might be a carrier of a disease, allows too much room for arbitrary decisions by those in power and because it depends on guessing and not on facts it is not good enough of a reason for this body to allow the supression of one's liberties simply because some official has a hunch. Next time officials will imprison people on a hunch and next time they will execute them.I brought up 5b? My apologies - I thought it was what you were already discussing. In that case, what were you discussing...?

But anyhow, to address your points. Well first off, I don't recall mentioning quarantines or STDs anywhere. Nor do I recall mentioning anything about beliefs or vague hunches. I'm going to assume that you either happened to misunderstand entirely everything that I said, or confused it with someone else's prior arguments. Either way, I'll attempt to clarify my position by presenting a scenario for you.

Mister A lives in Someville. Someville is currently part of an area being affected by epidemic X, and governmental agency Y is running an investigation through the whole area to try to determine the cause and/or transmittal of X. Mister A isn't feeling well and goes to the local hospital, where he discovers that he has X. As part of the process of collecting information to help determine the cause and/or transmittal of X, Y is authorised by that clause to ask A about his sexual practices.

There's nothing there about spying, nothing about STDs, nothing about beliefs or guesses or hunches.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

We are well aware of the fact that you did not make reference to quarantines. When we adressed it, we were adressing the point of the ambassador of Ausserland. Indeed, we were not clear enough.

Back on trach, in your example, Mr A should be able to decline answering the questions posed. Moreover, is the doctor treating him a government official? Where does medicine end and government begin? It is obvious that a gynaecologist would ask a woman if she has had intercourse during the week in order to determine the possibility of her being pregnant, but would that be something of any interest to the government? Would MrA's sex life be of interest to the government? No. The doctors who are treating him and who are taking his medical history will always be able to ask regarding his sex life and he will always be able to decline answering. The government will never need to know of MrA's in particular, sex life. The government needs only know the statistical data deriving from the medical exams and history of those treated in the regional hospital. The government official should not take direct part in collecting the information from the people. The doctors should and they should with respect to their privacy offer faceless mass data to the government and the results of their statistical/epidemiological analysis.

I know you intended that to be a rhetorical question, but... yes. It's quite possible to force people to not have sex in their own homes, Of course, the home in a nation which would do such doesn't have anything resembling privacy. Also, I'd be really interested to hear what banning abortion has to do with allowing people to have sex however they want. Care to elaborate?

Ran Daverson
UN RepresentativeA lot of the people who get abortions, at least the ones I hear say they didn't mean to have the baby because they thought they were having safe sex or the condom broke or something. So they don't think they should have to go through labor just for a baby they don't even want or put up for adoption. Supposing sex will get to happen freely inside the privacy of their own homes, then there will be more chances and more babies. If the people want sexual freedom, then don't have an abortion. I don't think it's fair to have it both ways.

We would like to congratulate the authors of this excellent proposal, albeit one that seems destined never to be debated on the UN floor. We would, however, like to make one note.

Wilkipedia includes the note "The acting epidemiologist works on issues ranging from the practical, such as outbreak investigation, environmental exposure, and health promotion, to the theoretical, including the development of statistical, mathematical, philosophical, biological, and psychosocial theory" in its definition of epidemiology. We feel that the clause exempting epidemiological studies might be tightened slightly so that it only addresses research that is directly pertinent to practical public health issues.

Having said that, best of luck getting this on the statute. If we are asked to vote on it we will do so positively.

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

We shall first adress [sic] the concerns of the ambassafor [sic] of Alech-Atreus.

First of all, we believe that words or phrases containing words such as "fuck" are a disrespect not only towards those adressed [sic] but also towards these halls and all those that debate therein or have done so in the past. Such words and phrases have no place in the General Assembly, we believe, yet we recognise of course, one's right to express oneself as they see fit. We reserve the right to judge them accordingly.Oh, please. We're all adults here; we don't need lectures about bad language. If you want to respond to A-A's actual arguments instead of raising irrelevancies about naughty words (OHNOEZ!!), go right ahead. Although the repeal is hours away from defeat, so discussing any possible replacement is rather pointless by now, isn't it? (And at this point I'm relatively certain that you're only being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I hereby dub thee Forgottenlord's heir. Congratulations.)

We did adress the valid concerns, but we felt obliged to comment on the language used to adress delegates of other nations in the halls of the UN General Assembly. Regardless of age and regardless of who might be offended, this place still remains a public official forum and we believe that the language used herein should reflect its status. Words such as the one we mentioned are not doing honour to anyone. If you disagree, it is your right.

Moreover, we are not contrary for the sake of it. We explained our position at length. Both why we did not approve of the repeal itself and our concerns with the replacement. It seems to us that certain nations are not willing to discuss matters and dimiss those that disagree simply by attacking their intellect or willingness to work, ie call them stupid and/or lazy. This is obviously not the point of a debate and we are rather dissapointed by what transpires in the General Assembly.

View pretty good from that high horse, Mairada?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/highhorse.jpg

To the Ambassador of Mairada:
Of course he can decline to respond. There isn't anything in the legislation forcing people to hand over the information to the government - it just gives the government the right to attempt to gather the information in those certain circumstances. However, I disagree that there is no reason they would ever want to know about his sex life. If there's a disease which is spreading rapidly through an area and you don't know what could possibly cause it, would you ignore the option of it being transmitted sexually just because that person's sex life is "none of your business"?

As for your apparently strong concerns over the divisions between the government and the medical community, I'd say that's rather an issue of local law. If your nation doesn't want your medical personnel and groups to be at all connected to the government, you're entirely free to go ahead and pass such legislation. The drafted proposal at hand doesn't state anything about the medical community at all, so it's entirely national legislation that would decide whether or not the doctors are subject to these restrictions or exemptions.

I'd also like to remind you that not all nations have such a widespread health care system as you seem to be assuming. The government may be the only organization with the resources to conduct such a survey - not the medical community.

And to the representative of Pompei V:
I do see your point - not necessarily agree with, but see. However, it's a bit irrelevant. This legislation doesn't grant people the right to have more sex; I'm sure people are having plenty as it is. It grants them the right to have any kind of sex. I believe that a lot of the more commonly frowned-upon activities covered by this proposal (homosexual, for example) wouldn't actually even result in a possible pregnancy.

Ran Daverson
UN Representative

We shall first adress the concerns of the ambassafor of Alech-Atreus.



If you can't even spell my nation's name right, I won't even dignify you with a response.

We did adress [sic] the valid concerns, but we felt obliged to comment on the language used to adress [sic] delegates of other nations in the halls of the UN General Assembly. Regardless of age and regardless of who might be offended, this place still remains a public official forum and we believe that the language used herein should reflect its status. Words such as the one we mentioned are not doing honour to anyone. If you disagree, it is your right.Color us increasingly annoyed at visitors to this forum who simply aren't mature enough to ignore strong language, and instead feel the need to detract from the central topic with schoolmarmish finger-wagging. Moderators already have a handle on forum behavior. You are not a moderator. So shaddup.

Moreover, we are not contrary for the sake of it. We explained our position at length. Both why we did not approve of the repeal itself and our concerns with the replacement. It seems to us that certain nations are not willing to discuss matters and dimiss [sic] those that disagree simply by attacking their intellect or willingness to work, ie call them stupid and/or lazy. This is obviously not the point of a debate and we are rather dissapointed [sic] by what transpires in the General Assembly.Yeah, well, whatever "concerns" you have about replacement are pretty much moot, as the repeal is going to be defeated in a couple hours.

IC: What is a moderator? And differences in accent (ooc double l in Allech) should be expected by those who speak english as a second or third or even fourth language. You say tomato, I say tomato, you say Allech, I falsely said Alech. In any case, our apologies if this has offended the state of Allech-Atreus, it was an unintentional and honest mistake. We still believe it is better to at least try to pronounce the name, rather than refer to your state as AA... It reminds us of Alcoholics Anonymous. As a side note, we do not own any sort of horse, we do have a car however, hybrid hydrogen-gas.

OOC: Does the moderator exist in IC context? I am sure hoping that he does not. Also, fuck and dick and whatever don't bother me. What bothers me is that this is the fucking General Assembly forum. I understand that there is no set of rules about it so I am not making an ooc fuss about it. I AM making an IC fuss about it, because my character genuinely feels that in the GA people should speak with respect and avoid such language.

We did adress the valid concerns, but we felt obliged to comment on the language used to adress delegates of other nations in the halls of the UN General Assembly. Regardless of age and regardless of who might be offended, this place still remains a public official forum and we believe that the language used herein should reflect its status. Words such as the one we mentioned are not doing honour to anyone. If you disagree, it is your right.

In the words of Shiek Nadnerb Bin Cluich, "Fuck off."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I hereby dub thee Forgottenlord's heir. Congratulations.

Whatever happened to Forgottenlord, anyway?

OOC: Does the moderator exist in IC context? I am sure hoping that he does not. Also, fuck and dick and whatever don't bother me. What bothers me is that this is the fucking General Assembly forum. I understand that there is no set of rules about it so I am not making an ooc fuss about it. I AM making an IC fuss about it, because my character genuinely feels that in the GA people should speak with respect and avoid such language.OK then, your character really needs to stop acting like a sniveling, superior little prick. How's that?

Whatever happened to Forgottenlord, anyway?Burnout. Quit playing.

OK then, your character really needs to stop acting like a sniveling, superior little prick. How's that?

Notwithstanding the rest of this discussion, I can't see what's wrong with a character being offended by adult language.

Notwithstanding the rest of this discussion, I can't see what's wrong with a character being offended by adult language.I suppose, from an "IC" standpoint, it's perfectly acceptable when a "character" wants to talk about copyright, when the topic is sexual freedoms? If Mairada's character wants to grouse about other ambassadors' foul-mouths, let him do it in the Strangers' Bar, or start his own thread about decorum. Here, it's only a distraction and contributes nothing to the discussion. Oh, and it gets on my freakin' nerves.

Threadjack over.

OOC: To begin with, I cannot understand when you are IC or OOC.

Secondly, I am quoting below some posters and I urge you to explain me how they relate to the topic at hand.I'd like to take some "sexual liberties" with Dahlia Black, if you know what I mean...

Hey, she said I'm hot (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=22).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I said no such thing Sheik Nadnerb and please do not talk about me that way. You will see no "sexual liberties" from me.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

But...but...it must be true! I read the quote in The Polar Picayune (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11896250&postcount=22)!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: I always pictured Lori Jiffjeff as not as cute as that.

As for Dahlia, I think she's got something going on with Accelerus [sp?].

I've read it as well, but I was apparently misquoted. Sorry, Sheik, but it's just not true. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a replacement to interview.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

OOC: On Jiffjeff, so did I, until I checked the "Meet the Reps" thread.

As for Dahlia, well, you think that's gonna stop ol' Nadnerb from trying? ;)

OOC: So did I.

Thirdly, my comment on language was a 4 line paragraph in a large post that was discussing the issue at hand. Some decided to quote that and comment on that and ignore the rest of what I was saying.

Fourthly, I wonder if telling me IC to "fuck off" or OOC that I am "sniveling superior little prick" is in violation of any forum rules.

Fifthly, debating language and moreover ooc doing so was not my intention but I was forced to it. If the mods feel that all of this should be a new topic, I am fine with that.

Sixthly, thanks ceorana.

OOC: To begin with, I cannot understand when you are IC or OOC.

OOC: I'm out of character now. That's what OOC means. Generally in this forum, all comments in a topic about a resolution or a proposal are In-Character unless specified otherwise. That's why most people sign their posts with their ambassador's names.

It takes experience to grasp when posters and postnig OOC or IC and they don't specify. Generally, you can tell. It's called common sense.

And honestly, you need to grow some thicker skin. The people here have learned, either by lurking or by experiencing it firsthand, to take the shit that gets shoveled here. You came in belligerently, and when people refuted you and you didn't calm down, they got angry.

So seriously, stop whining, because that's what you're doing. It's getting annoying, and all of this OOC complaining about IC stuff is turning people OOC against you, instead of their IC characters.



Thirdly, my comment on language was a 4 line paragraph in a large post that was discussing the issue at hand. Some decided to quote that and comment on that and ignore the rest of what I was saying.

Probably because your other assertions had already been answered or were silly. The regulars here have very little tolerance for people who complain about language, because it's an issue that has been repeatedly addressed before.

Fourthly, I wonder if telling me IC to "fuck off" or OOC that I am "sniveling superior little prick" is in violation of any forum rules.

It's not. See above, and see Fris' post above.


Okay, can we please end this massive threadjack now?

OOC: To begin with, I cannot understand when you are IC or OOC.
A lot of us don't bother with marking things OOC or IC, and instead 'sign' our posts when debating IC. A practice which I found to be aesthetically pleasing and have adopted myself. Note how this post doesn't have anything 'signing' the bottom, but my other posts to you did. That means this is OOC. :)

Also, while it's alright for your character to be a concientious prig when it comes to language in the GA, it's also just as acceptable for their characters to express their derision of said conctientious prig. However, it's generally not a good practice to get pissy when people react negatively to your representative being a prig.

(Er, yes, threadjack ending now. Won't reply to this subject again.)

We might as well continue the threadjack seeing as the proposal this threads about won't be submitted.:(

Enough already.

A character complaining about poor language is one thing. Dedicating the majority of a post to it is stupid, and completely off topic. Let's use common sense, people.

Oh, and locked.