NationStates Jolt Archive

Sexual Privacy Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Karmicaria

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.

Let the debate begin....

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

*takes a long drag on a Fine Yeldan Cigarette™*

I like this.

*exhales slowly*

I like this a lot.

*leans forward*

I am honoured to announce that The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda offers its full support for this much needed legislation. We offer our congratulations to The Excessively Bored (though I'm certain not boring) Queendom of Karmicaria and wish the best of luck in the coming vote.

Bari Devæno
Attaché, Yeldan Ministry of Culture

OOC: I wish they would move the reply button back to where it used to be.

IC:

We would like to thank The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda for their support. The queen will be thrilled to know that such a fine nation is in support of this legislation.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
The Excessively Bored Queendom of Karmicaria

honoured delegate of Karmicaria,
the People's Republic of Leninia-Trotskya sees this fine resolution as a most necessary step towards the peace and security of our world. You have our vote, and full support.
We do wonder about certain exemptions in clause 5, however we feel that delegates who are civilized and considerate enough to join the UN would most certainly not take advantage of these exemptions.

Colonel Marco Ignatius
General Assembly Delegate,
People's Republic of Leninia-Trotskya

honoured delegate of Karmicaria,
the People's Republic of Leninia-Trotskya sees this fine resolution as a most necessary step towards the peace and security of our world. You have our vote, and full support.
We do wonder about certain exemptions in clause 5, however we feel that delegates who are civilized and considerate enough to join the UN would most certainly not take advantage of these exemptions.

Colonel Marco Ignatius
General Assembly Delegate,
People's Republic of Leninia-Trotskya

Yeah, it's clause 5 that concerns us, the workers, farmers, and intelligentsia of the People's Republic of Al-Land. Certainly everybody is entitled to the right to privacy, but to provide for its abuse in the same resolution that affirms the right to privacy is something that the people of Al-Land will undoubtedly find ridiculous and cannot support.

The Noble People of the Theocracy of MacDraiocht, and it's Holy Church, stand in Proud Support of this Proposal , in it's entirety, and offer their Full Support.

Good Luck, come the vote, Honoured Delegate.

News commentary from the Fanny Moo (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fanny_Moo) Examiner on Line.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g136/regnans/East%20Gippsland/examiner.gif

”DISHONEST” PROPOSAL BEFORE UN

Amid growing disquiet among civil libertarians the Protector of Foreign Affairs and Other Overseas Activities, iveitu, has instructed Errinundera’s (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Errinundera) ambassador to the United Nations (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/United_Nations), oasyourto, to strongly oppose the resolution currently at vote. “It is deliberately misleading to call it the Sexual Privacy Act,” says iveitu, “but that is so typical of the dishonesty of some conservative NationStates. It should more properly be called the Sexual Surveillance Act or the Sexual Intrusion Act. The usual goal of this sort of resolution is to curb civil and political rights using pretty sounding weasel words to hide their real intent.”

iveitu drew our attention to the sponsoring nation, Karmicaria. "The UN rates it as follows - political freedoms: outlawed; civil rights: some. How mendaciously dishonest can you get? Karmicaria doesn't care a fig about privacy."

The section of the Act that is so alarming people throughout Errinundera is clause 5 which allows governments to abuse human rights if they are doing the following:

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.

We spoke the eminent jurist, ambassador to Ariddia (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Ariddia), and former Fanny Moo (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Fanny_Moo) magistrate, snapisnapiestu (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Snapisnapiestu), who is appalled by the resolution. “These exemptions could be interpreted in the most dangerous ways. Really, this allows governments to interfere in the bedroom whenever they want. I mean, why do you need to watch people having sex in order to resolve a paternity case? I can only suppose that some nations will film all sexual activities so that evidence can be gathered for possible future claims.

“It gets worse. Who defines what warrants criminal or civil investigation? A government might declare illegal any intercourse between two different groupings of people, ie between Oo and Zu-vendi, or between atheists and Buddhists, or people with blues eyes and people with brown eyes. The government then has the power to persecute these people in any way it sees fit. This resolution must be stopped."

We asked iveitu what effect would there be on Errinundera (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Errinundera) if the resolution were passed. “Very little,” he responded. “The libertarian record of successive Errinundrian governments has been impressive ever since the 1941 Liberation. Current laws already provide absolute privacy within the bedroom. I worry, however, about the hellhole nations that litter our NationStates world.”

The Elleltian Delegation gives its full support behind this necessary legislation, including clause five, which provides freedom for investigative practices that are commonly used around the world.

We fail to see any flaw in this proposal and give it our whole hearted support. It is too bad in our opinion that comrade Khernynko was called back to New Stalingrad on important state business. He would be proud to vote for a resolution that actually did what it said it was going to do well. However, I have been authorized by him to vote in favor of this necessary legislation.

Demitri Petrolovich
Secretary to Elleltian Ambassador Khernynko.
Acting UN Representative.

Clearly Errinundera's foolishness is only exceeded by its paranoia. Its claims are ridiculous, unfounded, and, sadly, quite common among what seems to pass for debate in these halls.

Then again, personally, I find their own record on Civil Rights to be lacking, so I guess I can just discount their opinions. Hm. This whole "ignoring the argument" thing is pretty convenient.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Ladies and Gentlemen of the United Nations, I am glad that this issue has made its way to the floor of the assembly. I see there are a number of posters who have expressed their concerns about the exceptions listed in clause 5. I would like to play “devil’s advocate,” if you will to your concerns. But in order to do that we need a proper devil. I have asked my secretary Red Hot Blonde to be that devil, and she has agreed to don some devilish wings for the debate. And so may I present my secretary Red Hot …

http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/13075459/t-218963686.jpg (http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/13075459/218963686.jpg)

Miss Blonde, I think you might have had a bit too much to drink there. Yes I know, how devilish of you and quite in character.

Now let’s look at clause 5: 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. Yes that is it. There are four sub-clauses in clause 5. But first, what are we exempting from in the first place? “FORBIDS governments, their agents and agencies from interfering with, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults.”

I should note that clause 4 only concerns governments and government agencies. It doesn’t apply to private investigators. It doesn’t say that governments can’t use information collected by private investigators either. Yes I’m sure Guy Noir is quite happy about this resolution. (Unfortunately Guy won’t return my phone calls.) You might not drive the Death Star through this loophole, but small aircraft carriers might be able to navigate through it. Of course if such a government were so unscrupulous it would probably just leave the UN anyway, but I digress.

No only the finest of the fine nations are in the UN anyway and all are above board. Let he who represents such a nation be the first to admit it. Now on to the points:

Point D is pretty much fluff since we have so defined sexual activity “acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant.” So logically the government can investigate since it is not covered under the act. Point C is pretty much important as well since we are talking about probable cause, so it’s a limited situation we are talking about here. Please note that consent is in clause 3 but not in clause 4. Frankly I can’t think of any good cases where consensual sex is the probable cause of a crime, but I can think of plenty where non consensual sex is a probable cause; like perhaps rape? Clause B is important, given the perpetual problems of the VODIAS epidemic. Clause A is interesting and one might say that a DNA test is more effective, but who are you going to test? You need to ask the woman who she was having sex with in order to determine who you need to test. That’s an investigation, at least as far as I am aware.

So I think we can see that the points raised in the clause 5 are simple logical exceptions designed to prevent people from going “OMG you are so anti-police and helping the murderers and everyone!” The details are in the devil, and I would like to thank Red Hot for portraying the devil I have just advocated for. I am sure she enjoyed portraying the devil as much as you did watching her portray the fictional being. Let’s give a big round of applause for my secretary.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o18/tzor/bouncefaerie111x171.gif Thank you!

How does that stuff stay on her so well?

Intangelon and Greater Seattle vote FOR.

RECOGNIZING the inherently private nature of sexual intimacy,

So far, so good. Though there's a portion of Intangible society whose rocks are gotten off through brushes with public intimacy. It's not a crime here unless either of the public participants or their actions are deemed visually unpleasant by a two-thirds majority of those present when a complaint is made. And even then, the punishment is a modest fine and twelve hours of compulsory attendance at the Intangible School of Performing Artists.

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

A worthy desire, to be sure. Unless one's aforementioned rocks are gotten off by coitus interruptus, and that can be done by pre-arrangement as opposed to just hoping someone barges in on me -- uh... -- one.

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.

No provision for things like Interco-robics and TantraThin exercise programs, but we'll wait for any court cases before worrying.

Seriously -- what provisions, in any are necessary, are to be understood for acts directed toward sexual gratification that are not, by strict definition, consensual. I don't mean rape or sexual assault, but masturbation and related solo activities? I'm not trying to be contrarian, but just probing (yes!) for loopholes.

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.

Outstanding clause. NatSovvies can't have a problem with this.

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.

Ah. My first responsory paragraph's issue is addressed nicely here. Criminalization of PUBLIC sexual activity is not banned, but neither is it encouraged or required. See, I reply like this in the vain hope that this post might be read by some of the more literal members of our august body.

I can see the ubermoralists (and the actual Uberbaptist Church) objecting to this on their usual platform of prudery, repression and holy-book-based faux superiority. However, I'll wager that their numbers are not sufficient to sink this resolution.

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.

I am certain that many members of the NSUNGA will be glad to read this particular clause, given the nature of the goings-on in the Strangers' Bar. All that's left to contend with are the photos and recordings made by the paparazzi and private investigators. Which makes me wonder how this clause would fare in a divorce proceeding wherein a PI was hired by the petitioner. If the court accepts any recorded evidence of sexual activity by the respondent from said PI, is the PI thereby an agent of the court in any way?

Yes, I am splitting hairs.

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.

This is the stickiest part of the resolution, but stickiness is relative. I'm not talking corn-syrup-spilled-on-a-vinyl-seat-during-a-Texas-summer-afternoon-and-left-overnight sticky. More like kettle-corn sticky. The method by which these exemptions are exercised -- this would be as per standard "knock-and-rock" warrant-based search and seizure? What I mean is something like this: Party A suspects that party B is the father of her child, and orders a sample to be obtained for the purposes of determining paternity. A warrant is issued, all above-board 'n legal-like, and the police are sent to the home of B. At the time of the authorities' arrival, B is engaged in fucking the ever-loving excrement out of party C. Said warrant could then be served in the traditional manner?

I ask only to clarify for future posters.

After considerable debate within the Prime Minister's Cabinet this morning, Ethorelia has decided to support this UN resolution. As stated by members of Cabinet and some UN delegates, there may be possible negative aspects of the resolution, but the positive aspects far outway any negativities.

Dr. Wade, Minister of Health and Human Welfare, supported the Sexual Privacy Act fully, stating:

"We must look to our citizens' rights in this measure. This Act forbids government from obtaining a role in monitoring or legislating sex. As a libertarian nation, we owe it to our citizens to support this Act to the fullest extent. It does, after all, make concessions for instances in which our citizens' health or safety is jeopardized."

Deputy Prime Minister Ott, leader of the Libertarian National Committee, also supported the Act for the good of the people. "The less government interferes in the private lives of its citizens the better," he stated.

Sir William Larner, Minister of Justice, countered their arguments with his own:

"We cannot allow ourselves to support an Act which impedes criminal investigation into sexual crimes. The seriousness of this type of criminal behavior demands that intensive interrogation and full investigation be allowed for the safety of our citizens. Even though exemptions are made for criminal investigations, legal mumbo-jumbo will impede these and allow criminals to escape prosecution. I cannot support such a measure."

Despite Sir William's pessimistic view, the Cabinet vote came to nine ayes and five nays. The vote was approved by the Grand Duke with an added amendment of personal support. Ethorelian Ambassador to the UN, Sir Errol Reudenhaus, Baronet Reudenhaus, voted for the resolution today.

Ethorelian News Agency Correspondent Jefferson Mayfair reporting

While this article is a vast improvement over its particularly awful predecessor (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6), we have light concerns that its definitions and stated exemptions do not allow national legislators and government prosecutors enough leeway respectively to outlaw and investigate cases involving, for example, incest, or even bestiality (since this bill only protects activities involving consenting "adults," a stretch to be sure). Add to that our view that regulating sexual privacy in such a detailed manner ought to be the province of national governments, and it is excessive and silly to grant international diplomats jurisdiction over such activities.

We intend to cast our vote in the negative, but we implore the delegations of Errinundera and others: keep it up. Clause 5 at the very least gives governments latitude to enforce laws ensuring their peoples' safety and well-being. If this brand of asshattery continues, we may well change our minds and simply abstain.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

For the same reasons that the representative from Omigodtheykilledkenny voted AGAINST, Paradica finds itself inclined to abstain from voting at all. However, as UN Delegate for Charis, my vote represents the interests of the entire region, not just Paradica itself. Therefore, my vote is (probably) FOR.

Roderick Spear
Blah blah blah you know all this

Altanar fully supports this legislation. We do find it odd that most of the objections expressed to it specifically center around the following:

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.

It is foolish to state that this is some kind of "conservative" plot; Altanar is hardly a right-wing state, yet we are very much in favor of this legislation. It is also highly annoying that certain delegations seem to have skipped over the clauses of this legislation that would promote and advance the eminently desirable concept that governments should keep themselves out of the bedrooms of their people, subject to a small number of exceptions. We fail to see what issues a sane and logical state could possibly have with these provisions. Would the objectors deny people the ability to prove paternity for the purposes of allocating child support? Would they deny governments the ability to investigate and prevent outbreaks of sexually transmitted illnesses? Would they deny governments the ability to investigate horrible crimes such as rape or child molestation? These are responsibilities any government has to protect their people from harm. To assert that these are not concerns worthy of legislation is ludicrous and expresses an appallingly cold attitude.

Altanar urges the opponents of this resolution to consider the matter in a more humane and logical light, and rethink their opposition.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

As is the nature of my people, this act infringes upon the democratic ideals they have set. Therefore, Aermain and the Centralist Commonwealth will NOT support the document.

The nature of parts of this legislation presses an ideal of some countries on other countries who's citizens do not support that ideal. It is therefore in contradiction of the democratic system.


OOC, I was looking at proposals, and this document still doesn't have support. It shouldn't be at vote at all.

OOC, I was looking at proposals, and this document still doesn't have support. It shouldn't be at vote at all.

OOC: You really have no idea what you're talking about. The proposal had received the required amount of approvals(and then some) to reach quorum, which is why it is now at vote. I think you might be thinking of The Sexual Piracy Act (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=piracy)

OOC, I was looking at proposals, and this document still doesn't have support. It shouldn't be at vote at all.
Care to explain? If you think it duplicates Sexual Freedom, you're wrong.

EDIT: Oh, now I get it. Ignore, Karmicaria's post directly above has the proper answer.

OOC: And I just answered that same question in the Tech forum.

Oh. That explains it. Thanks.

Still, I can't in my right mind support this legislation due to several of the clauses. I agree with some parts in principle, but there's too much outside of the box for me and my constituents.

Also, this might conflict with my recently proposed repeal of the Sex Workers Industry Act.

Congressional disquiet at UN official's behaviour

The Northern Observer

Less than a week into the 'Grand New Project' of Quintessence of Dust's membership in the United Nations, there is already concern amongst Congressional representatives that the State Department's commitment is less than absolute. During the morning session, Rep. Fina Reshing (SD-IN) introduced a motion to censure George Madison, Legislative Director of the new Department of UN Affairs, for comments he made on the Departmental website, in response to an Errinunderan newspaper article.

Lambasting the author of the piece as 'terrifyingly ignorant' and 'dangerously allergic to common sense', Madison dismissed claims that the current resolution at vote before the General Assembly, the Sexual Privacy Act, was detrimental to civil liberties in a post he made entitled 'Don't Listen To Them, They're Just Idiots'. The piece was brought to the attention of Reshing by an aide, and she introduced a floor resolution to have him stricken of his post.

Madison was originally mentioned as a possible Ambassador to the United Nations, but his forthright and brusque nature during his time in Congress, coupled with his perceived scepticism of the institution and disagreement on policy issues with the current Social Democrat majority prevented this. Now, there is concern amongst some Social Democrats that he may be wielding as much, or even more, power than he would as Ambassador.

"We cannot use this sort of language towards potential allies," explained Reshing. "I mean, I do agree that clearly the concern raised by the Examiner piece regarding the criminalisation of specific liaisons was moot by virtue of the proposal's earlier clauses. But saying it was 'idiotic'? We really can't have that. And it sets a bad tone for things to come from the Department." She added that she did not disagree with Madison's rebuttal in principle, but simply felt it could have been more diplomatically handled.

Madison also mocked the piece's author as 'blind to every article of UN legislation already in existence', offered to 'send him a copy of the Uni-fucking-versal Bill of Rights', and derided the questioning of the intent of the Karmicarian delegation as 'pretty fucking rich from a country that legislates what its citizens are allowed to eat and wear', adding sarcastically that he 'always turned to nations that have banned cars and voted against proposals like Freedom of Assembly to decide how best to protect privacy rights'.

The bill did not receive wide support, but was eventually passed as QC 48/09/42 once it was amended into an act to channel federal funding into a bridge development project in Reshing's district and raise the annual salary of Congressional delegates.
I am pleased to vote FOR this legislation, and my congratulations to those involved in the drafting.

-- Coriolanus Digweed
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

We of the Palentine prefers the government to stay out of this subject...after all if you are an adult, and want to dress up like a Japanese schoolgirl, while wearing a red ball gag, and be spanked by a rubber iguana in time to the Stars and Stripes Forever,by John Philip Sousa, its none of my or the government's business...I may think you're a weirdo, but being a weirdo is still legal.

Anyway, now that I put that image in your head, The Palentine will be voting yes. Now I'm off to hobnail my liver.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
Deputy Prime Minister

I'm voting against this resolution, as it fails to exempt from Clause 4 actions in situations where there is probable causethat psychological trauma or harm will result without immediate intervention.

Also, I'm really waiting for the Sexual Piracy resolution to come up.

Most Honoured Delegate of Karmicaria,
On behalf of the people of the Empire Of Kuhanten I would like to announce that we are voting for and standing behind you One Hundred percent on this act.


Jerensia Draven
The People's Voice
The Empire Of Kuhanten

It is foolish to state that this is some kind of "conservative" plot; Altanar is hardly a right-wing state, yet we are very much in favor of this legislation. <some text snipped for brevity> These are responsibilities any government has to protect their people from harm. To assert that these are not concerns worthy of legislation is ludicrous and expresses an appallingly cold attitude.

Altanar urges the opponents of this resolution to consider the matter in a more humane and logical light, and rethink their opposition.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

While I agree that it is foolish to assert some sort of conservative plot being behind the current resolution, and also agree that the state should not interfere in the sexual acts between consenting individuals, I'm still not going to support this.

Primarily because I don't see how it's any more the business of the UN to make legislation regarding sexual privacy than it is the business of the national government to tell you in whom and in what orifice you can stick your dick.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

While I agree that it is foolish to assert some sort of conservative plot being behind the current resolution, and also agree that the state should not interfere in the sexual acts between consenting individuals, I'm still not going to support this.

Primarily because I don't see how it's any more the business of the UN to make legislation regarding sexual privacy than it is the business of the national government to tell you in whom and in what orifice you can stick your dick.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

How wonderfully crude, Accelerus.

So, you mean to tell me that you don't want your privacy protected? Come now, darling. We're not telling in whom or in what orifice you can stick whatever into, we just want to make sure that when you do do it, that such a private act is kept that way. Unless of course the act involves an individual that has not consented.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

How wonderfully crude, Accelerus.

So, you mean to tell me that you don't want your privacy protected? Come now, darling. We're not telling in whom or in what orifice you can stick whatever into, we just want to make sure that when you do do it, that such a private act is kept that way. Unless of course the act involves an individual that has not consented.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

My privacy is protected just fine. And I have numerous means of, shall we say, persuading folks to continue leaving my privacy that way.

But that's really just a red herring. My concern is, as always, that UN interference in plainly domestic matters is no better than national interference in plainly personal matters, and that the United Nations should not be perpetuating the wrongs it opposes.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Consensual sex between a married and unmarried adult seems to be allowed by this provision. How would I go about keeping adultery illegal if this passes?

I ask you what is wrong wiht increasing protection of privacy? Especially in anenvironment that is that personal and intimate?

Jerensia Draven
The People's Voice
The Empire Of Kuhanten

I'm voting against this resolution, as it fails to exempt from Clause 4 actions in situations where there is probable causethat psychological trauma or harm will result without immediate intervention.

We’re pleased to hear that another nation gives psychological issues the same gravity and weight that we do. We’d like to take this opportunity to commend you and hope, like us, you continue to be an advocate of its inclusion in relevant resolutions.

However, in this case we believe that it would be possible that if an act is found to be psychologically distressing then this means one individual or individuals do not desire participation, this further means there is no consent. therefore this act no longer applies and governments can take necessary steps to protect the individual or individuals if they so desire.

Also, the majority of causes for psychological trauma relating to this area are derived from actions which cause serious injury which also appears to be exempted from this resolution.

On a different note:

We’d like to praise the representative from Karmicaria for a wonderfully drafted resolution however, whilst we can guarantee there will be not vote against from our nation, we are presently abstaining until such a time that we can clearly establish whether protection of the individual or national sovereignty takes precedence in this area.

We’d like to stress that this does not mean that we believe the resolution to be flawed, in fact we believe it to be quite the opposite.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

For a peaceful nation such as Quaton this resolution works great. We know exemptions 5. a-d wont be abused and will only be used if nessesary.

What we do worry about are nations who will abuse rule 5 a-d. Its foolish to say these "loopholes" will not be used by corrupt dictatorships to have fun with their little puppets. Eg. Installing cameras for "sexual prevention" crimes, or compulsory DNA samples from all citizens. It is most definitly a "big brother" type resolution for corrupt dictatorships, but a sexual saving grace for peaceful nations.

For Quaton the 5. a-d rules are a bit too foggy. Our vote is on hold until we hold more discussions on the matter. But we are leaning for the yes vote, hoping the exemptions arent widely abused.

Quarthon
International Rep. of Quaton

I should note that clause 4 only concerns governments and government agencies. It doesn’t apply to private investigators.

It includes government agents. A PI hired by the government would be considered an agent of the government by any rational court.

Point D is pretty much fluff since we have so defined sexual activity “acts that result in the death or serious injury of a participant.”

*ahem*
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.

Please note that consent is in clause 3 but not in clause 4.

*sigh*

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.

outlaw and investigate cases involving, for example, incest, or even bestiality (since this bill only protects activities involving consenting "adults," a stretch to be sure).


Dealing with beastiality could be covered under epidemiological investigations, as there are any number of public health risks surrounding the act. Incest....I think you may have something there.

As is the nature of my people, this act infringes upon the democratic ideals they have set.

[emphasis mine]

Er....what? Do you mean democratically arrived at ideals? Or are you saying that this resolution runs contrary to democracy? Either way, I'm a little confused with how you would justify that.

This does seem to be going quite well for the author so far. Better than 3:1 FOR. These are, for the most part, the same voters who recently decided that the UN should be allowed to have a military under its control, so I can't really say that that means anything for the validity of the proposal, though.

In any case, The Dominion of Kivisto has yet to decide if we will erect a flag in support of this proposal. We felt our way along the contours of the text and decided that prematurely spouting our position might leave us with egg on our face. Rather than risk whistling dixie in the corners, we are open to enticement from anyone on either side who might wish to seduce our hand.

In the past we have had missionaries position themselves within our nation to attempt to coerce us into altering our laws regarding the sexual proclivities of our populace. They have generally been told where they can find cab fare home. We do, however, understand that there are those who would like to stick it to their people in their bedrooms, voyeuring into every peephole to see what dirty deeds are being done and by whom.

We feel that we must harden our point. Governments should stay out of the affairs of law-abiding individuals. The UN should generally keep their fingers out of national honey-pots. We find our resolve to strongly support either side flaccid, and we are apparently impotent to rectify the matter on our own. We are torn, and pleading for mercy. Lost at sea in our little canoe, is there any who might have an oar that could row us back to shore. We are breathless with anticipation...

[OOC: currently undecided, awaiting further argument to convince us one way or the other.]

We understand the representatives concerns; however, we'd also like to suggest that some of them are unfounded and explain why if we may?

compulsory DNA samples from all citizens

Firstly, even if this resolution did somehow authorise this we believe that it would only authorise it for 50% of the populace as we’d love to see an unscrupulous regime attempt to justify taking female DNA in an attempt to establish paternity.

Also, in the case of establishing paternity we believe an allegation would have to be made against a male therefore a government can’t simply take samples from all the men in a nation because there would be no allegation against all of those men meaning no justifiable grounds to consider it an attempt to establish paternity.

Installing cameras for "sexual prevention" crimes
We’d like to say that the key phrase which we believe negates the possibility of pre-emptive measures to "protect" citizens is “probable cause” as this refers to a belief based on the existence of facts. If something is a pre-emptive measure then there can’t possibly be facts can there?

Of course, we may have misunderstood which exemption you were deriving this from in which case we apologise and ask for elaboration.

but a sexual saving grace for peaceful nations.
We believe that most individualistic or socially libertarian nations will already allow this so it would have no effect for them.

Also, we'd would like to object to the representative’s use of "peaceful" and "dictator" if we may. A peaceful nation isn't inherently democratic or respecting of the individual and a dictator can be benevolent and respecting of those they rule.

We apologise if we seem pedantic but we wished to advise you so that you do not offend other member states in the future.


Incest....I think you may have something there.
Perhaps the genetic abnormalities arising from such actions could be considered a health risk also?

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

[Ack! I wish the forum would work properly for me. :(]

The Republic of Thokstar is currently voting for this resolution. We admit that it is not perfect (the concern about dealing with adultery seems a valid one), but it a solid proposal.

We believe that certain concerns against this proposal are ill-founded; most cases of bestiality and incest are not protected under this proposal in our reading, as they involve "participants" who are by definition not "consenting adults". In particular, a country could reasonably ban all bestiality and ban any case of incest involving somebody below the age of consent if it so chooses.

(While the Republic of Thokstar frowns on incest of any kind, we recognize that not all civilizations feel the same way. Moreover, we are much more concerned with the issue of potential child abuse than with enforcing our moral views).

We believe that adultery can be partially handled indirectly through contract law, as married couple may agree (at their own discretion) to faithfulness as part of the marriage contract. However, there seems to be no method to censure an unmarried person who sleeps with a married person.

We have no problems with the exceptions given in section 5.

I have one problem with this proposal...

It would allow from promiscuity beyond what I believe is acceptable. I think people should wait until they are truly in love to share themselves like that. If you do not know who you are truly in love with, giving yourself like that is pointless. It leaves you no way to truly express how special the one you love is to you, because the act is less special. This will hurt the person you do eventually fall in love with and may hurt you as well, making you regret past decisions. If we were to include that couples should be engaged in order to engage in such behavior, I would approve of this proposal.

Preol

there seems to be no method to censure an unmarried person.

*Moros grabs the microphone while Anravelle rifles in her file*

Sum countries think stonin’ wurks bloody well don’t thi?

*Anravelle wrestles the microphone from Moros “You *muffled* idiot, what the *crackle* hell do you think you’re playing at?! “Sum bugger ad to say it dint thi?” “You’re such a *static*crackle*pop*!!”*

What our delegation meant to say is that we’re sure there are ways via which adultery can be dealt with. Perhaps the fact that exemption C doesn’t detail what constitutes criminal allows for this and was probably intended as a national sovereignty respecting move on the part of the author?

If we were to include that couples should be engaged in order to engage in such behavior, I would approve of this proposal.
We respect your beliefs representative; however we also request that you respect ours when we say that should an addition be made then we would use our vote to register a firm against.

The tradition of engagement which other nations partake in does not exist in Ithania and we would prefer not to have it forced on us by the international community. We also do not believe that something being old or traditional is an argument to continue such practices either but each nation is entitled to its own beliefs.

To quote the representative's national motto "To each his own..."(or her).

Whether or not the passage of this present resolution or any resolution on this subject is equally unacceptable to force on such government systems as theocracies we are still yet to decide.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

I know I probably sound old-fashioned, but I think I have a point here. Some old-fashioned beliefs are valid.

While I, being pretty old, have a lot of old-fashioned views that I happen to think are valid, I don't necessarily think that those views should be made law.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The nation of Havvy will abstain until a provision of allowing an exception based on adultery.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

The nation of Havvy will abstain until a provision of allowing an exception based on adultery.

Please explain; do you mean you want an exception allowing adultery? I'm not seeing anything in the resolution that prevents it, if such a dishonorable practice is what you desire to do.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

There is nothing in the resolution that prevents adultery, though why anyone would want to do that is beyond me.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
The Excessively Bored Queendom of Karmicaria

Oh, I found a loophole.

I'll say that adults are to be 999,999,999 years old. Now I can ignore this resolution. Ha ha Ha pawNZed!!!11! [/noob]

Anyways, we can't stop the people preforming adultery once it has started. Now, adultery isn't illegal in my country, (so yes, many people are considered dishonoring by your standards) , but it is some countries.

Oh, I found a loophole.

I'll say that adults are to be 999,999,999 years old. Now I can ignore this resolution. Ha ha Ha pawNZed!!!11! [/noob]

Anyways, we can't stop the people preforming adultery once it has started. Now, adultery isn't illegal in my country, (so yes, many people are considered dishonoring by your standards) , but it is some countries.

This does not outlaw adultery, as has been stated before.

And congratulations on finding a meaningless loophole. You get an oatmeal cookie, because they are less delicious and therefore less satisfying that other cookies.

Enjoy.

Most courteously,

Personally, I support this endeavor. Sure, i'd prefer the government to just keep their fuckin' noses out of who fucks who and where they do it, I sure don't mind if you stick your gee-gaw into any boing-holes, or fersnuggle any goochie-sticks, but that's just me. But it's better that we at least try to set down some ground-rules about what nations can and cannot outlaw.

Hey, maybe we'll even be able to take a crack at Sexual Freedom if this puppy gets approved. We've had a huge problem with unlisenced crackhouses croppin up in local neighborhoods, but we try to get around that by redefining the word "home" to mean "in an airtight concrete bunker."

I digress. We likey.

Rang Erman
Advisor
Minister of Yes My Name Does Sound Like Wang

... My concern is, as always, that UN interference in plainly domestic matters is no better than national interference in plainly personal matters, and that the United Nations should not be perpetuating the wrongs it opposes.



The tradition of engagement which other nations partake in does not exist in Ithania and we would prefer not to have it forced on us by the international community. We also do not believe that something being old or traditional is an argument to continue such practices either but each nation is entitled to its own beliefs.


Good Day!

We think that the honorable representatives have a point. Each nation has a different interpretation of the right to privacy, if it is recognized by the state.

In the case of adultery, which is illegal in Brutland (but not in Norden), we believe that the resolution may present a hindrance to the detection of the crime. In the province of Brutland, though the complainant will be the one to present the evidence, verification and possible subsequent investigations may be prohibited by this act. However, in other jurisdictions where adultery is illegal and where the state conducts the investigation, the resolution will render their law toothless.

Though the Kingdom of Brutland and Norden stands by the principle of this resolution and congratulates the great nation of Karmicaria for an excellently-worded resolution, His Majesty's Government prefers to withhold its vote pending further debate.

Dr. Cestre l'E. Montòccegliano, M.D.
His Majesty's Government's Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Acting Assistant Foreign Minister for the United Nations
NP (MP) for Vilònordà Sordosta-Píarmognazzo-Sint'Angelo di l'Ollino (Norden)

Good Day!

In the case of adultery, which is illegal in Brutland (but not in Norden), we believe that the resolution may present a hindrance to the detection of the crime. In the province of Brutland, though the complainant will be the one to present the evidence, verification and possible subsequent investigations may be prohibited by this act. However, in other jurisdictions where adultery is illegal and where the state conducts the investigation, the resolution will render their law toothless.



Your questions are well noted, but unfortunately the situation you describe would already be a legal issues due to the influence of the UN Resolution entitled "Sexual Freedom," which grants blanket legal immunity to all acts (legal or not) performed in the privacy of a bedroom. Therefore, such adultry laws are already toothless, having been pulled by previous legislation.

This resolution provides an important backdrop to the repeal of "Sexual Freedom," while trying to maintain reasonable exemptions for national laws.

Furthermore, it may be argued that this resolution would only ban the criminalization of sexual activity, and national law restricting the application of sexual activity does not fall under this definition, since it merely restricts the instances in which sexual activities may be performed.

Of course, that's a completely legalistic and nearly bullshit loophole. Take from it what you will.

Most courteously,

While we certainly applaud the intent to increase personal freedom for all, we must question whether this particular proposal isn't basically an expanded rehash of what is in Resolutions 7 & 9, the Sexual Freedom and Right to Privacy Resolutions, respectively.

We can't vote for redundant resolutions, and should respect the work that both we, and our predecessors have done before us.

While we certainly applaud the intent to increase personal freedom for all, we must question whether this particular proposal isn't basically an expanded rehash of what is in Resolutions 7 & 9, the Sexual Freedom and Right to Privacy Resolutions, respectively.

We can't vote for redundant resolutions, and should respect the work that both we, and our predecessors have done before us.


I would agree with you if either one of the cited resolutions dealt specifically with the act of sex. Neither one does. They both tickle around the subject, but this proposition actually penetrates into the core of the matter. Sex is not something that should be handled ham-handedly by hoping that what others have done in the past should suffice. There should be a willingness to delve deeper and with greater thoroughness than others have done before you. Otherwise, why bother at all?

I'm for it!

I'm reprizenting Tik Mahdelideene... um... I'm not that literate, and I feel asleep through most of the debate... but where I'm from we have a saying... and that saying is "???^-^" it may not mean much... or anything really. Never the less it means alot to me. In Tik Mahdelideene we believe that you can't have too many freedoms... so the idea that this might be "redundant" does not register in my mind. I mean what does redundant mean anyway.

sorry if my statements are wasting your time... I'm not really good at this whole UN business. I may not have gone to school or anything. I mainly support it becuase it's catorgorized as civil liberties... and that's proof enough for this undergraduated, slightly high, visionary.

Now if you excuse me, I have a monkey at home who's waiting to battle me.

Sincerly,
the ever confused Adam Welsh, reprisentitive for Tik Mahdelideene.

Sex is a right.

It is a state duty, not a private matter.
People should not be allowed to procreate without guidelines in place.

Vote AGAINST.

This opens the door to anyone having sex,
families, orgies, stupid people.

This is an abomination.

OOC: Having said everything else I need to say about this in another forum, it remains only for me to re-iterate:

Full support.

Waterana has voted for this resolution, not without some nervousness over the exceptions however. We feel the state has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens whatsoever, but understand why the exceptions needed to be included, and can live with them because of the context they are put into under the rest of the legislation.

The talk on beastiality made me smile. Don't you people have any animal cruelty laws? We do, and sex with an animal isn't defined as sex in our nation, it is defined as animal abuse, and anyone who does rape an animal is brought before our courts and punished exactly the same as those who starve or beat animals which, considering how leftist, tree hugging and animal loving we are, is quite harshly.

The adultary thing made me laugh. I'm glad this doesn't contain provision to punish adulterers. If it did, I'd be violently against it and screaming no from the rafters. The aim of this resolution is to keep governments out of their citizens bedrooms, with a few needed exceptions, not give them more leeway to intrude in something that should only ever be the business of those involved.

After having read once again the proposal vote, we realized that there is absolutly no reason for a government to conduct surveillance on someone sexual activity for obtaining evidence for determination of paternity.

This is not only a loophole, as it's not a good clause with a side effect, but it's the objective of this clause that both has no reasons and can be harmful.

If a person want to know if he is or not the father he can do a DNA test.

Then we have shifted our vote AGAINST and we are sad as we really like all the other claue of this poposal.

anyone who does rape an animal
We'd like to concur with the representative on this matter; beastiality can’t possibly be considered “consensual physical intimacy” can it?

(OOC: How ironic that Waterana's use title is "pimp" and feels "the state has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens":D)

This opens the door to anyone having sex,
families

We’d like to state what we and others have said; the majority of incestuous activities are between an adult and non-adult, those which are between consenting adults would be subject to national laws if they ban the practice of it based upon medical grounds under exemption B.

orgies
On a personal note; I’d like to thank the representative for reminding me of an engagement I must attend this evening.

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.
We believe the exemption stated by the representative from Love and esterel is necessary in the instance highlighted because an enquiry in "private consensual activities" would be a necessity to ascertain whether the potential father had intercourse with the mother.

If this exemption were not present then we believe the mother may make an accusation but the potential father would simply be able to claim the government has no right to know such information therefore preventing him having the rightful responsibility for his progeny placed on him.

Also, this could be seen as a post-intercourse allegation therefore pre-intercouse exemptions or exemptions whilst intercourse is still occuring (e.g."interfering with", "conducting surveillance on") would either not be possible (far too late) or not be applicable.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

I dig man, I dig

We'd like to concur with the representative on this matter; beastiality can’t possibly be considered “consensual physical intimacy” can it?

(OOC: How ironic that Waterana's use title is "pimp" and feels "the state has no place in the bedrooms of its citizens":D)

Yes, I should have mentioned the consent aspect as well, but really when it comes to animals, their inability to consent is a no brainer.

(OOC: I was hoping no-one would notice that horrible title. I hate it and would visit the spam forum to get rid, except for the fact I tried it out with a long gone nation two or so years ago, and nearly died of boredom. Spam is seriously over-rated :p)

After having read once again the proposal vote, we realized that there is absolutly no reason for a government to conduct surveillance on someone sexual activity for obtaining evidence for determination of paternity.

This is not only a loophole, as it's not a good clause with a side effect, but it's the objective of this clause that both has no reasons and can be harmful.

If a person want to know if he is or not the father he can do a DNA test.

Then we have shifted our vote AGAINST and we are sad as we really like all the other claue of this poposal.

With all respect to the honorable representative of Love and Esterel, we believe this argument fails the test of reason. We suggest he read the applicable provisions in context:

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,

Without the exemption in clause 5a, clause 4 could easily be read as prohibiting the obtaining of a DNA sample or any other inquiry as to whether the sexual act was consummated between the parties.

Further, we question the whole notion that sexual activity would be surveilled in matters of paternity determination. The issue of paternity does not arise unless there is a pregnancy. That is something that cannot be known until some time after the sex act. How could a government now turn back the clock and "surveil" the activity?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Both the representative body and the president of Manyut have thoroughly examined and discussed this issue. Based on its support of civil rights, The Democratic Republic of Manyut stands stoutly for this law.

United Nations Agency of Manyut

My government is against this proposal, as it interferes with their ability to control certain activities. However, I personally am for it, and so are my 3 secretaries. Their husbands might disagree. I think you can guess my opinion on any laws against adultery. Not that I admit to any such activity!

My government has instructed me to vote against this proposal, on the grounds that clause #3 is against National Sovereignty, although our legal advisors think that we should be able to use clause #5 to keep it from blocking any of our current laws (which are actually fairly relaxed about most such matters, apart from the ban on incest) anyway.

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Ambassador to the UN
for
the Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(and still required to wear this bloody penguin costume...)


Further, we question the whole notion that sexual activity would be surveilled in matters of paternity determination. The issue of paternity does not arise unless there is a pregnancy. That is something that cannot be known until some time after the sex act. How could a government now turn back the clock and "surveil" the activity?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: Have you forgotten which characters are running Tzorsland? ;)

I'm all for the resolution except for the last sentence in clause 1. It throws up a but of a problem.

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.

This basically says that the father of a child is guilty of murder if the mother dies in child birth. Don't know if anyone else agrees with me but thats the way it looks to me

Er....what? Do you mean democratically arrived at ideals? Or are you saying that this resolution runs contrary to democracy? Either way, I'm a little confused with how you would justify that.

The bill itself does not run contrary to democracy, but it forces upon my people an ideal who the vast majority would condem. I am their voice through the electoral process, so if I vote for something against their will with out a very good reason, I am going against democracy. If this bill passes, it will infringe on the choice of the people, as something is being forced on them by outsiders.


By the way, there is only one clause I object to. Other than that I would vote for the proposal (#3)

I'm for it!

I'm reprizenting Tik Mahdelideene... um... I'm not that literate, and I feel asleep through most of the debate... but where I'm from we have a saying... and that saying is "???^-^" it may not mean much... or anything really. Never the less it means alot to me. In Tik Mahdelideene we believe that you can't have too many freedoms... so the idea that this might be "redundant" does not register in my mind. I mean what does redundant mean anyway.

sorry if my statements are wasting your time... I'm not really good at this whole UN business. I may not have gone to school or anything. I mainly support it becuase it's catorgorized as civil liberties... and that's proof enough for this undergraduated, slightly high, visionary.

Now if you excuse me, I have a monkey at home who's waiting to battle me.

Sincerly,
the ever confused Adam Welsh, reprisentitive for Tik Mahdelideene.

Allow me to welcome you to these halls. I don't personally believe you to be wasting our time with your comments. Now go spank that monkey.

Sex is a right.

Agreed.

It is a state duty, not a private matter.

Disagreed.

People should not be allowed to procreate without guidelines in place.
Were this to deal specifically with procreation, I might agree. It deals with sex in general, and there are a number of method of controlling procreation that don't involve outlawing any form of sex.

Vote AGAINST.

I'm unconvinced.

This opens the door to anyone having sex,

Nope. Just consenting adults.
families,

My wife, were I to have one, would be my family. Should I not be allowed to engage in marital relations with her?

orgies,

With careful use of the epidemiological clause, you could restrict the occurance of orgies.

stupid people.

While I commend your efforts at keeping the gene pool clean, there are other ways of avoiding the passage of "stupid" genes.

This is an abomination.

If your above arguments are your reasoning for that statement, I think you need to get off the top and let someone else take control.

After having read once again the proposal vote, we realized that there is absolutly no reason for a government to conduct surveillance on someone sexual activity for obtaining evidence for determination of paternity.

This is not only a loophole, as it's not a good clause with a side effect, but it's the objective of this clause that both has no reasons and can be harmful.

If a person want to know if he is or not the father he can do a DNA test.

You'd need to investigate the sexual activities of the mother to determine who to do the DNA test on.

I dig man, I dig

Shafting into the dark abyss, even?

Both the representative body and the president of Manyut have thoroughly examined and discussed this issue. Based on its support of civil rights, The Democratic Republic of Manyut stands stoutly for this law.

You have delved deep, explored the contours and crevices, and reached your decision based solely upon the face (category)? Ever hear about the guy that went to bed at 2am with a 10....?

The bill itself does not run contrary to democracy, but it forces upon my people an ideal who the vast majority would condem. I am their voice through the electoral process, so if I vote for something against their will with out a very good reason, I am going against democracy. If this bill passes, it will infringe on the choice of the people, as something is being forced on them by outsiders.


Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.

Thumbs down. Though well-intentioned, it's the UN overstepping its bounds, interfering with the rights of the member nations.

Thumbs down. Though well-intentioned, it's the UN overstepping its bounds, interfering with the rights of the member nations.

We are not interfering with the rights of the member nations. We are attempting to give them more rights. The right of sexual privacy is something that should be granted to our citizens.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

*takes a long drag on a Fine Yeldan Cigarette™*

I like this.

*exhales slowly*

I like this a lot.

*leans forward*

I am honoured to announce that The People's Democratic Republic of Yelda offers its full support for this much needed legislation. We offer our congratulations to The Excessively Bored (though I'm certain not boring) Queendom of Karmicaria and wish the best of luck in the coming vote.

Bari Devæno
Attaché, Yeldan Ministry of Culture

I believe this is stupid cos it is!!!!!!!!!!

We are not interfering with the rights of the member nations. We are attempting to give them more rights. The right of sexual privacy is something that should be granted to our citizens.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Yeah bull. you only want to control all the nations and nothing else so you're trying to restrict everything our governments are doing.

I believe this is stupid cos it is!!!!!!!!!!

You can leave now.

I believe this is stupid cos it is!!!!!!!!!!Yeah bull. you only want to control all the nations and nothing else so you're trying to restrict everything our governments are doing.

Zing! How can we possibly disagree with such well-crafted arguments?

Sex is a right.

It is a state duty, not a private matter.
People should not be allowed to procreate without guidelines in place.

Vote AGAINST.
Sen. Sulla looks up from field stripping his Colt 1911a. A bottle of Wild Turkey sits on his desk. He takes a slug of the whiskey straight from the bottle and says,
"Sex is a right? Who decreed that?<picks up copy of government documents and thumbs through it>Hmm....ummmm...lets see...Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.....Good Gravy it is a right??!!!!!"
<He puts the book down>
"I would have to argue though, even though this might be inconsistant with my previous statement to this august body, but then again consistancy is for small minded individuals.:p Sex is most definately a private issue, Unless a crime is involved then the state really has no business in the bedroom. As forno procreation without guidelines in place...well sweetheart, I hate to brak this to you, but for thousands of years the human race has been doing so, and if world population figures are correct, doing a damn fine job on its own without much help."

This opens the door to anyone having sex,
families, orgies, stupid people.
This is an abomination.
"Once again, apart from incest, the last time I checked orgies and stupid people mating were legal acts, so unless your nation has a law on the books prohibiting those, then yes, anybody can have sex. It may be an abomination, deviation, or plain weird, but totally legal. Now if you excuse me, I've got some more stripping to do."
<goes back to his Colt 1911a, and quietly hums the Hedgehog can never be Buggered.>

I'm all for the resolution except for the last sentence in clause 1. It throws up a but of a problem.



This basically says that the father of a child is guilty of murder if the mother dies in child birth. Don't know if anyone else agrees with me but thats the way it looks to me

Not, what they mean is the act of procreation, not the birth act. That is an entirely seperate issue my friend.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

We are not interfering with the rights of the member nations. We are attempting to give them more rights. The right of sexual privacy is something that should be granted to our citizens.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

With all due respect, Mrs Dioce, you should read his original comment again.

Thumbs down. Though well-intentioned, it's the UN overstepping its bounds, interfering with the rights of the member nations.

Yes, you are guaranteeing the rights of the individual. At the cost of the rights of nations. The UN is stepping into internal matters of nations. That's what he's saying. Not that you're trying to remove human rights.

I believe this is stupid cos it is!!!!!!!!!!
That's spectacular, Mr Midge. Remarkable and simple in its' complete lack of argument, support, or logic.

With all due respect, Mrs Dioce, you should read his original comment again.

Yes, you are guaranteeing the rights of the individual. At the cost of the rights of nations. The UN is stepping into internal matters of nations. That's what he's saying. Not that you're trying to remove human rights.

You are correct, Oskar. I apologise the the representative from Hustlertwo.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild commends the Queendom of Karmicaria on this resolution. We find that it grants certain rights within the member nations and none of the attendant exception clauses are unusually invasive or frankly, beyond the margin of routine business.

For those representatives seeking to find a reason to vote against this resolution because it may open the door to bestiality, incest or those under the legal age, it might be noted that the term "consenting adults" customarily refers to both parties legally able to consent and refers to only one species. If there were species additions or exceptions they would have to have been specified in clauses. So I am confident we are not granting the sexual right to bang a billy goat or some other barnyard animal legally, I am somewhat confident that barnyard animals cannot legally consent to coitus, fellatio or manual sexual stimulation for purposes of some person's sexual gratification.

This right does not specifically exclude nations from prohibiting incest although incestuous activity is rarely specifically prohibited in legal codes. It is more of a social stigmata that developed from a time when royal families intermarried and interbreeded to the point of the genetic penalties becoming apparent (hemophilia and the like).

Finally, this document does not grant a consenting adult the ability to legally have sex with a minor child, a minor child cannot legally consent. As such, the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild votes IN FAVOR of this resolution.

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston, KCB
Ambassador, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Lord Geoffrey Gosford, KCB, KCMG
Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

I'm all for the resolution except for the last sentence in clause 1. It throws up a but of a problem.

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.

This basically says that the father of a child is guilty of murder if the mother dies in child birth. Don't know if anyone else agrees with me but thats the way it looks to me

The honorable representative from Sammorussia is mistaken. The resolution places limits on the ability of nations to snoop into peolple's sex lives. The definition lays out what is meant by that. That specific sentence excludes acts that result in death or serious injury from the provisions of the resolution. In other words, it says that, if a sexual activity results in death or serious injury, the nation has a right to investigate the matter. It doesn't say that anybody's guilty of anything.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

The Democratic Republic of Tel onga offers its support for your resolution, but with one reservation. If read literately it implies that states may not outlaw adult incest. We wondered if this was your intention.

Jose Ramon
Telongan Health Minister

No, this does not imply that nations cannot prohibit incest, although (and I do apologise to the representative from Schwarzchild for quoting them exactly) incestuous activity is rarely specifically prohibited in legal codes.



Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

The Democratic Republic of Tel onga offers its support for your resolution, but with one reservation. If read literately it implies that states may not outlaw adult incest. We wondered if this was your intention.

Jose Ramon
Telongan Health Minister

This proposal would not outlaw incest as there are health risks associated with the practice. Further, incest would fall under the exemption clauses of epdidemiology and paternity.

Most courteously,

First I would like to commend the nation of Karmicaria for it writing of this bill and say that I am quite impressed with it.
However I must say that I would have compulsarary voting before I voted to pass this bill. And this is why:

1) the exemptions provided for are not useful in the least and are a bit barbaric. Parenting is determined by DNA tests, as in hair or blood. Medical investigations never involve the the regulation of the act of intimacy. I don't know of any criminal investigations which require the invasion of this kind of privacy. And what of disease which does not result in death or serious harm?

2) What about those who are adults, but are not mentally competent to take care of tem selves, are they to be taken advantage of?

3) New STDs are being discovered all of the time. Not all of which are fatal. This bill has no provision for the means a government may find necessary inorder to protect the citizens.

4) Forgive my old fashioned nature, but I believe that the government should still have the right to regulate what goes on in its barracks and between its students and teachers (most seniors in high school are 18).

My concern is this, that the UN cannot write a bill in such a way as to protect AND RESPECT the sovreignty of each nation. We are autonomous for a reason, and that is because we each have seperate concerns and needs, which something as broad and indistinct as this does not take care of.

O be wise, what can I say more?

[FONT="Book Antiqua"]First I would like to commend the nation of Karmicaria for it writing of this bill and say that I am quite impressed with it.
However I must say that I would have compulsarary voting before I voted to pass this bill. And this is why:

1) the exemptions provided for are not useful in the least and are a bit barbaric. Parenting is determined by DNA tests, as in hair or blood. Medical investigations never involve the the regulation of the act of intimacy. I don't know of any criminal investigations which require the invasion of this kind of privacy. And what of disease which does not result in death or serious harm?

This proposal doesn't regulate the act of intimacy, it simply provides for situations in which the privacy of the act can be violated. Two different things.

2) What about those who are adults, but are not mentally competent to take care of tem selves, are they to be taken advantage of?

That would fall under the definition of consent, which mentally unfit people cannot give.

3) New STDs are being discovered all of the time. Not all of which are fatal. This bill has no provision for the means a government may find necessary inorder to protect the citizens.

This falls under epidemiological investigations, in which case the state may violate sexual privacy in the interests of the public. Furthermore, the state may also restrict sexual activity where such activity would be harmful, and result in the spread of disease.

4) Forgive my old fashioned nature, but I believe that the government should still have the right to regulate what goes on in its barracks and between its students and teachers (most seniors in high school are 18).

The age of majority is different in many nations. For us, it's about 30 or so, but that's because the average life expectancy is 200 years. Furthermore, you are free to restrict sexual activity between adults and minors, since it doesn't fall under the purview of this resolution. I don't see how restricting the sexual activity between a teacher and an adult student is an issue.

My concern is this, that the UN cannot write a bill in such a way as to protect AND RESPECT the sovreignty of each nation. We are autonomous for a reason, and that is because we each have seperate concerns and needs, which something as broad and indistinct as this does not take care of.

That's the tradeoff you make when you join the United Nations. The Karmicarian delegation has spent a long time drafting this, trying to find the right balance of sovereignty and interference, to make good legislation, and to tell the truth, they've done a good job.

It is much more successful than it's predecessor, "Sexual Freedom." Beyond that, this is the best we've got.

Most courteously,

With all respect to the honorable representative of Love and Esterel, we believe this argument fails the test of reason. We suggest he read the applicable provisions in context:

Without the exemption in clause 5a, clause 4 could easily be read as prohibiting the obtaining of a DNA sample or any other inquiry as to whether the sexual act was consummated between the parties.

Further, we question the whole notion that sexual activity would be surveilled in matters of paternity determination. The issue of paternity does not arise unless there is a pregnancy. That is something that cannot be known until some time after the sex act. How could a government now turn back the clock and "surveil" the activity?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large


You'd need to investigate the sexual activities of the mother to determine who to do the DNA test on.

Thanks for your anwers, I admit having missed "investigate" when reading the proposal.
So, if i understand correctly, this clause is for cases where the mother is dead or when the mother cannot/don't want to say who the father is/could be?
LAE will shift once again its vote to FOR, while just regretting that 5a is not for "investigation" only.
Well done.

This resolution infringes on national sovereignty. Hafun and the Islamic nations that I represent are against certain types of sexual behavior since it violates our religion, which is also the foundation of our nation and our government. Anyway, the UN should not have the right to dictate which laws a nation can and cannot make. No international organization should have the right to tell which laws I can and cannot make.

This right does not specifically exclude nations from prohibiting incest ...If all participants are consenting adults, and if it is performed in privacy, then yes it does. We care not what some delegations present have contended, insisting that Article 5 makes an exception for epidemiological research and the like, as there is a fair amount of difference between simply investigating or conducting research into some activities, and specifically outlawing them. It is Clause 3 that deals with legality; Clauses 4 and 5 cover only investigation, and under the ramifications of Clause 3, all sexual activities as defined by this legislation are protected under the law, provided that all participants are consenting adults and the activities are done in private. Therefore, incest is allowed, even if subject to investigation by authorities.

We remain unconvinced.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Tommo the Stout enters the GA with Juha Viljakainen and Ana Koskinen in tow. Without much fanfare, the trio make their way to the bench and dust off the little "Norderia" placard on the front of it.

The Stout rises again when his turn to speak comes. "After reviewing the legislation on hand, the Norderian delegation has decided to vote FOR this Resolution. The opinions of the North Sea reflect this decision unanimously.

"It is a curiosity to us that this Resolution has come to vote without a once believed-to-be-necessary repeal of the original Sexual Freedoms. It comes as no surprise though that, as this delegation surmises, that the previous Resolution has so little in the way of content that is likely impossible to contradict or duplicate without employing the same words or their inverses verbatim.

"In any case, we congratulate the distinguished delegation of Karmicaria on achieving a quorum for this Resolution. Once again, we have voted FOR it."

The Stout takes his seat, but he seems removed and withdrawn -- much less jovial than is usual. Apparently, his delegation's time away was stressful.

Whilst I agree the - seemingly accidental - compulsory legalisation of incest is unfortunate and could have been avoided, I'll say the following:

1. Except in the case of actually producing children, why should incest be illegal? If both adults are of age and able to give consent, and there's no coercion involved, then other people's discomfort shouldn't be an obstacle to them.

2. In the case of producing children, it's a bit more complex, because it's genetically risky. But how consistent would it be to ban such a union? Do we, for example, ban people with inheritable genetic conditions from reproducing? (If yes, then ok.)

3. I don't see it as unreasonable to use the exemptions of 5 and the provisions of Abortion Legality Convention to require anyone who becomes pregnant as a result of incestuous union to take a morning-after pill, or have an abortion if it's too late for that.

-- Coriolanus Digweed
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

No international organization should have the right to tell which laws I can and cannot make.
This one does. You can either accept that or resign, because there aren't any other choices.

Anyway, the UN should not have the right to dictate which laws a nation can and cannot make. No international organization should have the right to tell which laws I can and cannot make.

With all due respect, that is an absurd statement. While Altanar tends to side with the preservation of national sovereignty, there are many issues that legitimately require an international response. To make a blanket statement that the UN should never intervene in national affairs is ridiculous. The UN should just do it as little as possible.

Now, if you want to debate whether or not this resolution meets that standard, that's a completely different matter. We believe that it does.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

3. I don't see it as unreasonable to use the exemptions of 5 and the provisions of Abortion Legality Convention to require anyone who becomes pregnant as a result of incestuous union to take a morning-after pill, or have an abortion if it's too late for that.Alright, even if my government did view a policy of forced abortions as "not unreasonable," and even if it could justify such a mandate under Clause 5's exemptions (epidemiological research? determination of paternity? -- either is a stretch), I still don't view this as a reason to support this legislation.

The Satanic Horde of Necronomika wishes to point out that the currently proposed legislation is NOT in the best interests of the philosophy of Satanism and the ideologies held by Necronomika's Glorious High Priest.

The Satanic Horde notes that sexual freedom must be upheld in ALL cases, including when one party is non-consentual or one party dies as a result of the sexual act.

Furthermore, the peace and security of all other nations is NOT in the best interest of the Satanic Horde of Necronomika.

As a side note, for some background:

Necronomika officially allows murder, theft, rape, and any combination of the three. We will not have any UN sanction seek to bar us from allowing such actions within our sovereign nation.
Glorification of the Individual is our Motto.

-Fledermaus-Mann Hut-Kerl
High Priest and UN Delegate
Satanic Horde of Necronomika

As a side note, for some background:

Necronomika officially allows murder, theft, rape, and any combination of the three. We will not have any UN sanction seek to bar us from allowing such actions within our sovereign nation.
Glorification of the Individual is our Motto.

-Fledermaus-Mann Hut-Kerl
High Priest and UN Delegate
Satanic Horde of Necronomika

Uh...wow. To each their own, I suppose. Honestly, I have no idea what to say to that. How in the world do you still have a population?

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Wouldn't this resolution allow prostitution? If you recall the repeal of the Legalization of Prostitution, and the excllent points it made in that.

We also feel this resolution doesn't provide enough strength and enough detail to prevent the involvment of minors in a private situation. This pretty much is too subjective and too much of potental for problems. What about the potental for spreading STD's?


Delegate,
Alejandra Cannon

Wouldn't this resolution allow prostitution? If you recall the repeal of the Legalization of Prostitution, and the excllent points it made in that.That res was replaced with Sex Workers of the World Unite! or somesuch, so I see no problems with this at all.

We also feel this resolution doesn't provide enough strength and enough detail to prevent the involvment of minors in a private situation.Is "provided that all participants are consenting adults" not enough detail for you?

This pretty much is too subjective and too much of potental for problems. What about the potental for spreading STD's?Perchance have you read Clause 5?

No it's not enough because it makes no mentions to ensure that minors will not be involved. Two consulting adults, who's going to know if they are two consulting adults? This resoultion forbids survelience with out probable cause? What if there is no reason or cause to assume illegal acitivity is going on, what then?

Assume you do an investigation, to check for STDs how long will that take? I'll tell you, Weeks and Months. In that time period do you know how many people can potentally be infected while the results get back? Who going to stop that person from going out? You can't stop them, you can't arrest them, this resolution protects them from arrest. Some laws will protect them from arrest.

No it's not enough because it makes no mentions to ensure that minors will not be involved. Two consulting adults, who's going to know if they are two consulting adults? This resoultion forbids survelience with out probable cause? What if there is no reason or cause to assume illegal acitivity is going on, what then?What part of "all participants are consenting adults" do you not understand?

Assume you do an investigation, to check for STDs how long will that take? I'll tell you, Weeks and Months. In that time period do you know how many people can potentally be infected while the results get back? Who going to stop that person from going out? You can't stop them, you can't arrest them, this resolution protects them from arrest. Some laws will protect them from arrest.Attempted murder and assault are still crimes, so even if the guy can't be held for having sex, he can still be held for attempting to inflict deliberate harm upon another individual. If the concern is "the testing takes too long," what would you have the government do? Speed up time?

The Satanic Horde of Necronomika wishes to point out that the currently proposed legislation is NOT in the best interests of the philosophy of Satanism and the ideologies held by Necronomika's Glorious High Priest.

The Satanic Horde notes that sexual freedom must be upheld in ALL cases, including when one party is non-consentual or one party dies as a result of the sexual act.It only runs counter to your cartoonish interpretation of Satanism; which, if I may be so bold, is a silly little religion that is little more than hedonism with another name. Actually, now that I think about it, you version of "satanism" sounds like something an Roman Catholic would cook up, or like something out of a Chick Tract (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1053/1053_01.asp).


As for incest, I agree with Mr. Digweed. Mostly. I don't think forced abortions are reasonable, but I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect people to take proper precautions if they decided to engage in incestuous activities. Furthermore, those relationships have a higher risk of birth defect; it's not guaranteed. Just because other people are queasy about it doesn't mean it should be outlawed.

I mean, hell, as far as I'm concerned all you humans look disgusting and weird when copulating, but you don't see me making a motion to outlaw it.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

No it's not enough because it makes no mentions to ensure that minors will not be involved. Two consulting adults, who's going to know if they are two consulting adults? This resoultion forbids survelience with out probable cause? What if there is no reason or cause to assume illegal acitivity is going on, what then?

Assume you do an investigation, to check for STDs how long will that take? I'll tell you, Weeks and Months. In that time period do you know how many people can potentally be infected while the results get back? Who going to stop that person from going out? You can't stop them, you can't arrest them, this resolution protects them from arrest. Some laws will protect them from arrest.

As is our normal custom, we tried very hard to find something in the post to respond to with respectful, logical argument. We failed. This is complete and utter nonsense.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Greetings!

After consulting the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and the governors of the country's two constituent Kingdoms, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to vote FOR the resolution. This commendable resolution is a step towards the advancement of human rights.

His Majesty's Government also reviewed statements of those for and those against the resolution and noted several issues:

Incest: "Sexual Privacy Act" does not have the power to enjoin governments to legalize or prohibit incest:
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.

Since the resolution only applies to sexual activity done between consenting adults, and incest involves a minor, states can still ban incest. Likewise, the inability of an animal to give consent puts bestiality outside the reaches of this resolution, and states can still ban bestiality.

Prostitution: This does not directly legalize prostitution but rather prohibits surveillance of sexual activities by the state. However, the Kingdom's Minister of Justice and the governor of Brutland pointed out an interesting clause:
5. EXEMPTS from clause 4:
c. Criminal or civil investigative activity where probable cause has been established requiring such information
In states where prostitution is illegal (as in Brutland), once that cause has been established, investigation can ensue. What this prohibits is the invasion of privacy of citizens without any probable cause. However, the governor of Norden implores countries to be lenient towards prostitutes.

Adultery: The governor of Brutland assured me that this will not affect her province's prohibition of adultery. Aside from clause 5, section C, Brutland courts place the burden of evidence on the complainant, and thus this falls outside the resolution's reach.

UN Intervention vs. Self-government: In a regional debate forum, one particular reply (nonetheless blunt) centered on the premise that if you do not want UN intervention, then leave the UN. The UN is a democracy, sometimes you are with the winning side, sometimes the losing side. If you do not really want the resolution to be implemented in your country, leave the UN, and no one will force you to do so. (After implementation has occurred, can you apply for readmission? In that way maybe you can escape implementation ;) )

All in all, the resolution just reinforces the status quo existing in the Kingdom of Brutland and Norden. His Majesty's Government had given its approval and wishes for the passage of this resolution.

Thank you very much.

Dr. Cestre l'E. Montòccegliano, M.D.
His Majesty's Government's Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Acting Assistant Foreign Minister for the United Nations
NP (MP) for Vilònordà Sordosta-Píarmognazzo-Sint'Angelo di l'Ollino (Norden)

If all participants are consenting adults, and if it is performed in privacy, then yes it does. . . <snip>Therefore, incest is allowed, even if subject to investigation by authorities.

We remain unconvinced.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

As I have some respect for the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny, despite the absurd hat (http://www.wearwithstyle.com/hat5.html) he is wearing, I feel I must point out to him the dangerous path he treads. He has made a number of moderate, intelligent and relevant remarks in this debate, even flirting with unabashed humanitarianism in his attitude to forced abortions. If he continues in this heedless manner, he may well find himself whipped back to Paradise City for close attention by Cdr Chiang and other members of the Stripper Commandos . . .

*suddenly realises that, in view of the professional attributes of Cdr Chiang and her cohorts, this line of argument may not carry real force with Mr Faisano*

Er, yes, well. All that aside, I feel we are allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by the issue of incest. It seems to me that that problem, if it is one, has its own Darwinian solution. In any case, I believe that in one book of the sacred TANSTAAFL Texts -- and I am sure the representative from Intangelon will correct me if I err -- the Blessed Lazarus Long actually performed a marriage between a brother and sister. So we may be bordering here on a religious question which, I contend, is irrelevant to this proposal.

The proposal bans the criminalisation of specified forms of sexual activity but does not ban their religious condemnation. Religions ban many activities which the UN does not call upon member nations to criminalise. Religions endorse many activities which the UN does not call upon member nations to reward. For Mr Faisano and others who are "unconvinced" or undecided about incest, you may remain so and still vote for this resolution. It does not seem to be a matter on which convincing or deciding is necessary.

The point of this proposal is to secure sexual privacy for individual adults from intrusion by national governments. It does, allowing intrusion within reasonable and defined limits for reasons of child welfare, health or safety. My government cannot see any reason to withold our support.

EDIT: While applauding Dr Montòccegliano's national stance, we would point out that incest (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incest) does not necessarily involve a minor.
_______________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

There is nothing in the resolution that prevents adultery, though why anyone would want to do that is beyond me.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
The Excessively Bored Queendom of Karmicaria

Well that changes everything. That was the clause which I was all hung up on. I that case, you get the Aermain and the Centralist Commonwealth's vote. Other than that one clause it was a good idea.

I have a question about 5b.
I have my own intepretation of it, and I can also see an intepretation I strongly disagree with -

"Collecting information for epidemiological investigations"

So my reading of this is that if someone is discovered to have, let's say, HIV
then the government could investigate who this individual has had sexual relationships with? In the interest of public health?
The eventual fall out from that COULD be that someone who knowingly has HIV and has sex with someone HIV negative, could possibly face legal punishment.

Now, the OTHER possible reading of this I see is -
The government and government agencies can monitor anyone and everyone they like in the privacy of their own homes as long as they then claim to be doing some clinical trial?
If so, this violates the individual's privacy AND the individual's right to informed consent. Informed consent is the cornerstone of epidemiological investigations.
It seems to me, being read in this way, the government can persecute as they please as long as they produce a paper every so often that proclaims some shocking scientific revelation "People are more likely to have sex with partners they find physically attractive"

The resolution does not allow those kinds of actions more than the governments allow it to.

Simply put, the resolution does not say anything about those instances, instances which, as a medical doctor, I usually find objectionable.

However, in most countries, ethical considerations are always taken as a factor in conducting researches and clinical trials. Such undertakings require the consent of the person and/or approval of an ethics board. Epidemiological studies would usually try to get the consent of the individual. However, in very rare cases, some of the individual's rights may have to be temporarily sacrificed in order to protect the public health; an example is when individuals' right to movement have to be restricted during quarantine in order to prevent the spread of a very communicable disease. I believe that is the instance the resolution does not want to touch. Exemption does not necessarily mean approval.

I believe that the resolution's non-interference in this issue does not greatly negate the benefits the passage of the resolution would bring.

Dr. Cestre l'E. Montòccegliano, M.D.
His Majesty's Government's Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Acting Assistant Foreign Minister for the United Nations
NP (MP) for Vilònordà Sordosta-Píarmognazzo-Sint'Angelo di l'Ollino (Norden)

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.
This doesn't change my vote, but can't a government ban actually giving consent? For example, couldn't a nation ban incest by saying it is illegal to give consent to members of your own family?

Roderick Spear
Prime etc.

*Dahlia stands to address some more of the concerns raised by other representatives, but is interrupted when Tana enters with a oddly wrapped package.*

“This is the gift you requested, Mrs. Dioce. If you ask me, it seems rather…um..odd.”

“No, it’s perfectly fine. Thank you Tana. Have a seat.” She gestures to the chair beside her. “Now, I was going to address the concerns that a few of the other representatives have raised, but that will have to wait. I have a gift for Dicey Reilly for their absolutely wonderful response to Mr. Faisano’s concern about incest.”

At this point, Dahlia wanders over to the Ardchoillean(?) and hands them the oddly wrapped package.

“Go ahead. Open it. I promise you that it won’t bite.”

This (http://www.bubbygram.com/kitschic/items/hats/pinkflowers2.jpg) is what your gift is. Hope you like it, Dicey!

*She wanders back to her seat.*

If all participants are consenting adults, and if it is performed in privacy, then yes it does. We care not what some delegations present have contended, insisting that Article 5 makes an exception for epidemiological research and the like, as there is a fair amount of difference between simply investigating or conducting research into some activities, and specifically outlawing them. It is Clause 3 that deals with legality; Clauses 4 and 5 cover only investigation, and under the ramifications of Clause 3, all sexual activities as defined by this legislation are protected under the law, provided that all participants are consenting adults and the activities are done in private. Therefore, incest is allowed, even if subject to investigation by authorities.

We remain unconvinced.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

You just repeated what I said. This resolution does not specifically prohibit incestuous activity, nor does it prevent a member nation from prohibiting incest either.

I have found that most nations allow the social stigma associated with incest to do the job rather than legislate against it specifically. There certainly are exceptions to this practice, but on the whole the social argument (along with the attendant genetic markers that result from excessive interbreeding among family lines) has won the day (at least for now).

You are certainly free to "remain unconvinced" and I commend you for it. But your concerns are minimal and I think are out of proportion to the issue at hand.

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild does not encourage incest, but we do not legislate against it either. We trust our citizens to be discerning and wise enough to know the eventual problems that will come from breeding within the same genetic pool for a few generations.

Finally, as a very solid principle we feel that interfering with consensual sexual relations between those that consent to said activity is unwise, unworthy and not in the best interest of the people of Schwarzchild and the government of Schwarzchild. Naturally we do reserve the right to investigate cases of sexual assualt, rape and cases where sado-masochistic (as a subset of BDSM) and other alternative sexual practices result in harm to a party. Gay marriage is legal in our country as well.

We see nothing with this legislation that will take away from our laws or unduly interfere with our internal policies and we actually see granting of new rights to the world's citizens to be beneficial. The only nations that suffer from this resolution are socially repressive regimes, nations run by conservative religious fiat and other nations that feel it is their right to dictate to their citizens what to do every moment of every day.

I won't lose sleep over them being mad or upset. I might even pop some popcorn and watch the resultant wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Be seeing you,

Lord Geoffrey Gosford
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Incest: "Sexual Privacy Act" does not have the power to enjoin governments to legalize or prohibit incest:

Since the resolution only applies to sexual activity done between consenting adults, and incest involves a minor, states can still ban incest.And what of adult incest, "Doctor"?

Prostitution: This does not directly legalize prostitution but rather prohibits surveillance of sexual activities by the state. However, the Kingdom's Minister of Justice and the governor of Brutland pointed out an interesting clause:

In states where prostitution is illegal (as in Brutland), once that cause has been established, investigation can ensue. What this prohibits is the invasion of privacy of citizens without any probable cause. However, the governor of Norden implores countries to be lenient towards prostitutes.Well, they should be. Prostitution is already supposed to be legal in all member states, anyway.

Adultery: The governor of Brutland assured me that this will not affect her province's prohibition of adultery. Aside from clause 5, section C, Brutland courts place the burden of evidence on the complainant, and thus this falls outside the resolution's reach.Regardless of the exemptions for investigation (not criminalization) under Clause 5, or where your government places the burden of proof, Clause 3 explicitly states that all private, consensual sexual activities are to remain legal. So I guess your governor's gonna have to lift the ban.

This resolution does not ... prevent a member nation from prohibiting incest ....Yes it does. Do you know how to read?

What, so now you've got to be a non-UN member to prohibit homosexuality in your own nation?
Not to mention those people that tie belts around their necks...

Privacy is what ought to be banned.

What, so now you've got to be a non-UN member to prohibit homosexuality in your own nation?

Yes. That is exactly right.

Not to mention those people that tie belts around their necks...

Depends on purpose and intent of the belt.

Privacy is what ought to be banned.

Good luck with that. Especially with things like Stop Privacy Intrusion on the books.

(After implementation has occurred, can you apply for readmission? In that way maybe you can escape implementation ;) )

OOC: Yes, but speaking from experience doing that is a pain in the butt, and you only escape the stat changes your nation will still have to be in compliance with all UN resolutions.

Aside from his occasional remarks throughout, Oskar had been sitting quietly, only half listening to the continuing debate about a nation’s rights involving interfering with private sex lives. He had been considering the various factors that have been brought up. National Sovereignty vs Human Rights. Government Protection vs The Right to Privacy. How would the Dominion best be served in this regard? How will the members of the UN, and their citizens, best be served?

Oskar makes a quick and quiet call on his cell. He ponders a moment longer, scratching his chin. He takes off his suit jacket, undoes the buttons on his left shirt sleeve and rolls it up just enough to glance at his inner fore-arm, and an apparent tattoo located there.

Oskar rises.

The Dominion of Kivisto will be casting its vote in favour of the Sexual Privacy Act.

While we recognize and respect the argument that the UN need not legislate on this matter, we must also accept that it already has, and in a much more intrusive way, in the past. We must also acknowledge that this legislation will not hinder a nation’s capacity to protect and serve its citizens, nor will it impair its capability to prevent or punish criminal acts within their territory.

Further, we, the Kivistan people, have, since time immemorial, believed that the right to privacy for consensual sexual congress is sacrosanct, and can hardly stomach the idea of infringing upon it without very good reason. We are left with the question of why any government would want to spy on people, consensual adults, who are simply engaging in intercourse, but we find that we don’t want to know the answer. Their reasons for voyeurism are just as valid as anyone else’s, I’m sure, and I’m not interested in anyone else’s, either.

Oskar Feldstein
Kivistan Ambassador to the UN
Resolved to Acquire Private Gratification

EDIT: While applauding Dr Montòccegliano's national stance, we would point out that incest (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incest) does not necessarily involve a minor.

Oh yes, and sorry for the mix-up. What I was talking about was the involvement of minors in sexual activity. (Most cases of incest involve minors, and these can still be persecutable even with the resolution.)

As for adult incest, the Kingdom had just decriminalized that except in outstanding cases that is still admissible by clause 5 and those that violate clauses 1 and 2.

As for adultery, Brutland law does not outlaw having sex with another woman but having sexual relationships with another woman. It is under the category called "faithlessness in marriage" which does not necessarily involve sex. Adultery in the province does not include those instances such as having intercourse with another woman just once.

I would like to apologize again for the mix-up.

Dr. Cestre l'E. Montòccegliano, M.D.
His Majesty's Government's Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Acting Assistant Foreign Minister for the United Nations
NP (MP) for Vilònordà Sordosta-Píarmognazzo-Sint'Angelo di l'Ollino (Norden)

No. The fact of the matter is that adultry should be a crime. Sex out of wedlock is, in many countries, totally unacceptable. If in your nations you wish to allow such, blasphamy, than fine. But do not take away the right of a nation to be reverent!

No. The fact of the matter is that adultry should be a crime. Sex out of wedlock is, in many countries, totally unacceptable. If in your nations you wish to allow such, blasphamy, than fine. But do not take away the right of a nation to be reverent!

So say you. And, if your people are truly reverent, they wouldn't commit adultery in the first place. You may therefore punish them for failing to be truly worshipful, rather than being adulterous.

Why should adultery be a crime? Why should it be any concern of the state? Yes I can see how in many cultures it can be considered immoral. I can see how it can be considered a breaking of a civil contract between two people. But such contracts are a concern between those people and should be a civil offense not a criminal one.

There is nothing in this resolution that prevents spouses who think their loved ones are unfaithful from investigating and pursuing this to the fullest extent of the law.

Likewise I can see no interest in the state making any limits on who can have "sex" (as defined by this resolution which is somewhat broad in the first place) with whom. I can see an interest in who can procreate with whom, incest being a common example, but one can argue for a number of recessive gene combinations who should not procreate with other recessive gene combinations. Recessive gene combinations can result in cases where the children can have a fatal situation in their late teens or shortly after their childbearing years, leaving their own children orphans.

But even in those cases there are a number of things that are defined by this resolution as "sex" that have no potential whatsoever to result in procreation.

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR the resolution.

The resolution is well thought out, well written, and strikes an appropriate and necessary balance between the proper expectation of privacy during the most intimate and personal of human activities and those exceptional instances in which the welfare of the individuals involved or the public at large demands that government be able to impinge upon that privacy.

We thank the distinguished representative from Karmicaria for all the hard work that went into the drafting of this resolution and commend her for producing an excellent piece of legislation.

By order of His Royal Highness, the Prince of Ausserland:

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

This (http://www.bubbygram.com/kitschic/items/hats/pinkflowers2.jpg) is what your gift is. Hope you like it, Dicey!

*She wanders back to her seat.*

"Dahlia, my petal! Daisies! That's bloomin' marvellous!"

(Thinks: I knew she hadn't forgiven me! Just because I created a little bit of a riot (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11978587&postcount=75) at her wedding ... but it was all over (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12059779&postcount=79) in no time. Some people!")
______________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille

Yes it does. Do you know how to read?

In point of fact I do and it does not specifically prohibit laws against incest. I could very easily pass a law prohibiting incest as a matter of public interest and cite the conclusive genetic evidence that incestuous sexual congress cause harm (Incest, which I define as sexual intercourse between blood relations) as my reason. I don't even think my citizens would think twice about such a law.

The definition of incest is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Faisano.

Nonetheless, I am not likely to propose such a statute. I frankly don't need one. Incest is not anywhere near a problem in my country as our education system does not neglect sexual education at any level.

If your objection to this particular resolution is based strictly on an argument concerning incest, you have greater internal problems to deal with than are fit to be discussed.

Kind regards,

Lord Geoffrey Gosford; KCB, KCMG
Prime Minister, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Whatever happened to popular sovereignty? While I agree with the principle represented in the bill, I cannot see my way forward to telling other sovereign nations and peoples that they can't ban sexual practices odious to them on whatever political, religious, philosophical or ethical grounds.

The Confederated States of Hocolesqua are a non-sectarian, secular confederation of states, but if the shoe were on the other foot, and the majority opinion were against sexual freedom, I certainly wouldn't want our internal affairs dictated by foreign powers. C.S.H. votes no.

This is the most retarded thing ever. Ok its fine if you have relations in privacy of ones home but it promotes prostitution and makes prosecuting prostitutes very hard.

This is the most retarded thing ever. Ok its fine if you have relations in privacy of ones home but it promotes prostitution and makes prosecuting prostitutes very hard.

1) How, exactly, does this promote anything of the sort?

2) If you criminalize the exchange of money (or whatever) for sex, then the sex is still legal, but the transaction is not. The prostitute can still be prosecuted, along with the John, who wouldn't be so hard anymore.

3) By proper definition of "retarded", this most definitely is not. It is retarding to governments who wish to oppress the sexual practices of its people, but that is point of this resolution.

4) Why only in the home? Is there something wrong with hotel rooms? Or tents? Or secluded log cabins in the woods, far from prying eyes? Or in the VIP lou - ...I've said too much already.

This is the most retarded thing ever. Ok its fine if you have relations in privacy of ones home but it promotes prostitution and makes prosecuting prostitutes very hard.

OOC: I want to say that this was some kind of jolt glitch, but half an hour later? Yikes! Server must be revving up for a huge crash or something. Fun times...

I'm all for the resolution except for the last sentence in clause 1. It throws up a but of a problem.



This basically says that the father of a child is guilty of murder if the mother dies in child birth. Don't know if anyone else agrees with me but thats the way it looks to me

Please -- ask anyone who has borne a child whether or not the activity was even remotely sexual.* I'd suggest wearing a cup and ducking after asking the question, lest your own fertility be compromised.



*Yes, I said "anyone" -- I learned many posts ago that there are enough races in NS which do not comply to anthopocentric ideals to justify some generalizations. Hell, I could still be offending the handful of races for which childbirth myight be a VERY sexual experience -- and for that, I apologize.

Er, yes, well. All that aside, I feel we are allowing ourselves to be sidetracked by the issue of incest. It seems to me that that problem, if it is one, has its own Darwinian solution. In any case, I believe that in one book of the sacred TANSTAAFL Texts -- and I am sure the representative from Intangelon will correct me if I err -- the Blessed Lazarus Long actually performed a marriage between a brother and sister. So we may be bordering here on a religious question which, I contend, is irrelevant to this proposal.


Spot-on reference, President Reilly. And well said overall, especially in beating me to the punch on the erroneous definition of incest mentioned earlier.

In point of fact I do and it does not specifically prohibit laws against incest. I could very easily pass a law prohibiting incest as a matter of public interest and cite the conclusive genetic evidence that incestuous sexual congress cause harm (Incest, which I define as sexual intercourse between blood relations) as my reason. I don't even think my citizens would think twice about such a law.

The definition of incest is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Faisano.And apparently, so is the reading of this proposal. Article 5 only gives exemptions for government investigations for prosecuting other crimes, or for conducting scientific research. You can't come back with research conducted under Article 5 and try and outlaw incest, because Article 3 explicitly states that all private consensual sexual activity is to remain legal. Or did you miss that part?

If your objection to this particular resolution is based strictly on an argument concerning incest, ...Don't worry. It isn't.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

So my reading of this is that if someone is discovered to have, let's say, HIV
then the government could investigate who this individual has had sexual relationships with? In the interest of public health?
The eventual fall out from that COULD be that someone who knowingly has HIV and has sex with someone HIV negative, could possibly face legal punishment.

"Fall out?" "Possibly?" Are you saying that someone who KNOWINGLY passes HIV along through sexual activity (or indeed uses the virus as a weapon in ANY way) SHOULDN'T be subject to legal punishment? Intangible Laws currently in effect make it felony assault to engage in potentially infective behavior with the knowledge that you have any currently recognized virus deemed to be life-threatening or -shortening. I would ask the representative of Greebo Matlock why such laws are NOT in effect in his nation, if that is, in fact, the case.

Now, the OTHER possible reading of this I see is -
The government and government agencies can monitor anyone and everyone they like in the privacy of their own homes as long as they then claim to be doing some clinical trial?
If so, this violates the individual's privacy AND the individual's right to informed consent. Informed consent is the cornerstone of epidemiological investigations.
It seems to me, being read in this way, the government can persecute as they please as long as they produce a paper every so often that proclaims some shocking scientific revelation "People are more likely to have sex with partners they find physically attractive"

A "clinical trial" cannot possibly be construed as an investigation into an epidemic. Or rather, if it can be, it requires such a convoluted stretch of reason and logic as to be moot on principle. Epidemiology does not include studies on sexual attraction. Any experiment that might come close to what you're trying to lay out here would be a traditional one subject to the rule and ethics of all clinical experiments. When HIV was identified, people's houses were not invaded, people were solicited for the experiments that determined things like incubation, transmission and the like.

I respect your thoroughness, but it seems like you're reaching.


Benjamin Royce
Intangible Minister UN

*snip*
The definition of incest is in the eye of the beholder, Mr. Faisano.
*snip*


:eek:

You are hereby declared persona non grata in Intangelon.

I'd also suggest that you never seek to practice or draft law, either.

And apparently, so is the reading of this proposal. Article 5 only gives exemptions for government investigations for prosecuting other crimes, or for conducting scientific research. You can't come back with research conducted under Article 5 and try and outlaw incest, because Article 3 explicitly states that all private consensual sexual activity is to remain legal. Or did you miss that part?

Once again, no I did not and I disagree with you, let's leave it at that shall we? I have not once made a comment about your reading skills or made this personal, enough is enough, Mr. Faisano. You choose to interpret this resolution as an inflexible document that disallows any exceptions, that is your lookout, mate.


Don't worry. It isn't.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

I am so pleased for you.

Gosford,
PM of Schwarzchild

:eek:

You are hereby declared persona non grata in Intangelon.

I'd also suggest that you never seek to practice or draft law, either.

Err, excuse me.

There are two types of incest. Blood incest, or incest with direct blood relations and indirect incest, or incest between persons related by marriage. Blood incest among royal families is what has led in history to hemophilia and other genetic defects in those family lines. Indirect incest, such as between 2nd cousins by marriage falls into the technical definition of incestuous activity, but does not risk the consequences of the above as the gene pools are usually sufficiently diverse as the only reason the cousins are related is due to a marriage.

If that is what makes you uncomfortable about my conversation with Mr. Faisano, I'm sorry. It does not mean that I or people in my nations routinely practice incest of any sort.

You are perfectly welcome to visit Schwarzchild.

I promise to not let my inability to read or draft or practice law to prevent me from showing you around the many wonders of my country. Forgive my inadequacies in the area in question.

Perhaps the author of the resolution in question would be as so kind as to correct me if I am wrong about being able to use proven genetic research as a way to prohibit incest. I will gladly take correction from the Queendom of Karmicaria in this matter.

I will even grant you and Mr. Faisano an open acknowledgement of my inadequacies in interpretation of said resolution as a courtesy despite his open discourtesy.

Kind regards.

Gosford

Once again, no I did not and I disagree with you, let's leave it at that shall we?There is a certain difference between a simple "disagreement" over interpretation and reading something completely wrong, but I'll let you sort that out.

This is the most retarded thing ever. Ok its fine if you have relations in privacy of ones home but it promotes prostitution and makes prosecuting prostitutes very hard.
No, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8134803&postcount=92) "promotes prostitution and makes prosecuting prostitutes very hard."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Err, excuse me.

There are two types of incest. Blood incest, or incest with direct blood relations and indirect incest, or incest between persons related by marriage. Blood incest among royal families is what has led in history to hemophilia and other genetic defects in those family lines. Indirect incest, such as between 2nd cousins by marriage falls into the technical definition of incestuous activity, but does not risk the consequences of the above as the gene pools are usually sufficiently diverse as the only reason the cousins are related is due to a marriage.

If that is what makes you uncomfortable about my conversation with Mr. Faisano, I'm sorry. It does not mean that I or people in my nations routinely practice incest of any sort.

You are perfectly welcome to visit Schwarzchild.

I promise to not let my inability to read or draft or practice law to prevent me from showing you around the many wonders of my country. Forgive my inadequacies in the area in question.

Perhaps the author of the resolution in question would be as so kind as to correct me if I am wrong about being able to use proven genetic research as a way to prohibit incest. I will gladly take correction from the Queendom of Karmicaria in this matter.

I will even grant you and Mr. Faisano an open acknowledgement of my inadequacies in interpretation of said resolution as a courtesy despite his open discourtesy.

Kind regards.

Gosford

Ambassador Gosford, I apologize for taking it as understood that the standard of actual blood kinship was the only genetically dangerous (and therefore reasonably prohibitable) form of incest. Intangible society long ago let bygones be bygones with regard to in-law "incest" -- so long ago, in fact that I feel compelled to type the word "incest" in quotation marks when referring to in-law "incest".

In short, to me and all Intangible society, incest has always been the "babies with nine heads" variety (to quote Neil Simon). I simply was not aware that unrelated cousins or step-relatives could engage in incest, seeing as how their kinship was not by blood, but by judicial or religious fiat. Far from being uncomfortable with that secondary type of "incest", I have, in fact, been married to someone I'd imagine would be my sister-in-law in other nations for the last fifteen happy, harmonious, and defect-free scion-producing years.

In shorter, if it ain't blood, it's all good.

As I'd not formalized the aforementioned (and far too hair-triggered) barring of your person from Intangelon, I hereby withdraw it and replace it with a sincere apology and an invitation to visit the temperate rainforests, alpine vistas and rain-kissed coasts of Intangelon at your leisure, and, by way of reparations for my hasty pronouncement, on my dime.

With sincere regret,

Benjamin Royce
mI-UN

Ambassador Jackson rises shakily, eyes somewhat red from another night of overindulgence.

“Where in the Hell are my notes... Oh, here they are... <clears throat>... Yeah, like, we really dig this resolution, given the importance of sex in people's lives. In fact, the only thing we don't like about it is that it don't protect the rights o' people who wanna do it in the road. And to Hell with them damned scared horses, anyhow.

“That's it.”

With that, he plunks back down into his seat and continues cleaning his favorite little metal pipe.

Ambassador Gosford, I apologize for taking it as understood that the standard of actual blood kinship was the only genetically dangerous (and therefore reasonably prohibitable) form of incest. Intangible society long ago let bygones be bygones with regard to in-law "incest" -- so long ago, in fact that I feel compelled to type the word "incest" in quotation marks when referring to in-law "incest".

A thoroughly enlightened point of view. My Ambassador, Sir Thomas Lynniston who normally conducts these affairs on behalf of the government was given a chance to relax as this issue is personally important to me. I am the Prime Minister of Schwarzchild, Sir Thomas is my UN Ambassador.


In short, to me and all Intangible society, incest has always been the "babies with nine heads" variety (to quote Neil Simon). I simply was not aware that unrelated cousins or step-relatives could engage in incest, seeing as how their kinship was not by blood, but by judicial or religious fiat. Far from being uncomfortable with that secondary type of "incest", I have, in fact, been married to someone I'd imagine would be my sister-in-law in other nations for the last fifteen happy, harmonious, and defect-free scion-producing years.

In shorter, if it ain't blood, it's all good.

I think this is a wise and fair minded policy, sir.


As I'd not formalized the aforementioned (and far too hair-triggered) barring of your person from Intangelon, I hereby withdraw it and replace it with a sincere apology and an invitation to visit the temperate rainforests, alpine vistas and rain-kissed coasts of Intangelon at your leisure, and, by way of reparations for my hasty pronouncement, on my dime.

I am certain my partner and I will be delighted with such a splendid vacation. May we make this a combination holiday and state visit? I do not see it as a bad thing to meet with the leader of your nation and yourself in addition to some badly needed recreation time. As far as the expense goes, what say Schwarzchild meets you halfway? 'Tis only fair.


With sincere regret,

Benjamin Royce
mI-UN

Regards,

Lord Geoffrey Gosford; KCB, KCMG
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Memo from the office of Kazzarking's UN Ambassador: Fizzitz Zazark.

Greetings fellow delegates of the UN, I have been instructed by our Glorious Emperor, Kzz Krakow, to convey our distaste at the appalling practices of this UN. ‘We had applied with the understanding it was comprised of reasonable nations that did not try to force their insane beliefs upon other nations. We have been shown, however, that this is not the case as it seems to be mostly comprised of drugged out sexual deviants with bleeding hearts for the worthless and guilty, not matter how evil and murderous they may be, who love to force they disgusting beliefs upon others, as a small segment of our populace are a prime example as a number of common people (as with all common people of any nation) are made up of the irresponsible and less then ‘bright’ of mind, who used the debilitating artificial and addictive Flaw adding drugs the UN forced upon our Glorious Empire to add laws accepting. Of course they were executed for their pathetic self-crippling. We of the Glorious Empire of Kazzarking shall not stand for yet another atrocity, especially one so glaring. Recently we have discovered the primary genes that run the construction of the parts of the brain responsible for certain sex-related tastes and responses. While we have begun screening flawed specimens from our new generations, we can, and will, continue to execute all of those degenerates who managed to be born before we discovered what broken sequences lead to the wrong minded individuals that are caught within our boarders. We care not what other nations do in relation to this or other problems. We of the Glorious Empire of Kazzarking feel it is the responsibility of each nation to decide such issues, and the farce of ‘urge’ and the truth of inspected forcing until the glacier like officials bring up the proper rewrites of laws for the correcting of such wrongs is very close to begging for nuclear war. We of the Glorious Empire of Kazzarking shall not abide such behaviors, especially as We have yet to see more then approximately one third of the UN vote on an issue during our time in this preposterous organization.’

Signed by

Emperor Kzz Krakow
&
UN Ambassador Fizzit Zazark

Memo from the office of Kazzarking's UN Ambassador: Fizzitz Zazark.

Greetings fellow delegates of the UN, I have been instructed by our Glorious Emperor, Kzz Krakow, to convey our distaste at the appalling practices of this UN. ‘We had applied with the understanding it was comprised of reasonable nations that did not try to force their insane beliefs upon other nations.

Where on earth did you get the notion that the UN would not try to enforce laws upon you?

We have been shown, however, that this is not the case as it seems to be mostly comprised of drugged out

That needs justification.

sexual deviants

While some of us may be sexually different from yourself, I doubt you could rationally call anyone truly deviant in this rather eclectic mix of nations.

with bleeding hearts

You really don't know us very well.

for the worthless and guilty,

What the hell are you talking about?

not matter how evil and murderous they may be,

You really have no clue what you're prattling on about, do you?

who love to force they disgusting beliefs upon others,

Some of us do enjoy the act of legislation, but I find little of what has been going on to be disgusting. Unless, of course, you were referring to your own comments, in which case I might be inclined to agree that there is a certain level of disgust raised at your obvious lack of understanding about the matter upon which you are attempting to speak.

as a small segment of our populace are a prime example as a number of common people (as with all common people of any nation) are made up of the irresponsible and less then ‘bright’ of mind,

You probably should not attempt to speak for every nation here. There are a great many nations who pride themselves upon ensuring that even the lowest class citizen is offered the highest possible quality of education and guidance.

who used the debilitating artificial and addictive Flaw adding drugs the UN forced upon our Glorious Empire to add laws accepting.

I can only assume that you are currently referring to the recently passed UN Drug Act, which did not force any nation to do any such thing. What it did was allow nations to decide for themselves what their own policies regarding the use of recreational drugs would be. You know, exactly the opposite of what you claim it does. In any case, it is completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Of course they were executed for their pathetic self-crippling.

Your nation is a pillar of self-righteous ignorance. Congratulations.

We of the Glorious Empire of Kazzarking shall not stand for yet another atrocity, especially one so glaring.

Odds are, as before, you still have no idea what is really going on and have not actually made the effort to read through the arguments to try to understand the facts of the situation.

Recently we have discovered the primary genes that run the construction of the parts of the brain responsible for certain sex-related tastes and responses.

Good for you. Here's a cookie.

While we have begun screening flawed specimens from our new generations, we can, and will, continue to execute all of those degenerates who managed to be born before we discovered what broken sequences lead to the wrong minded individuals that are caught within our boarders.

And that has what to do with anything? You want to be able to kill sexual "deviants"? Perhaps you should look back at some other passed resolutions that would prohibit that form of discrimination anyways. Unless you have no issues with openly declaring your nation's non-compliance with UN law.

We care not what other nations do in relation to this or other problems. We of the Glorious Empire of Kazzarking feel it is the responsibility of each nation to decide such issues, and the farce of ‘urge’ and the truth of inspected forcing until the glacier like officials bring up the proper rewrites of laws for the correcting of such wrongs is very close to begging for nuclear war.

I'm convinced. You have no comprehension at all of what's going on, or how these things work.

We of the Glorious Empire of Kazzarking shall not abide such behaviors, especially as We have yet to see more then approximately one third of the UN vote on an issue during our time in this preposterous organization.’

Well over a third has already voted on this one. And that's about the best voter turnout that you're likely to see anytime in the near future. The rest of us can hardly be blamed that these others do not care enough about their participation to cast their vote one way or the other. If you have some issue with the low participation rate, consider it your own personal mission to improve it by contacting every single one of them to persuade them to go vote every single time any issue comes up.

That was actually kind of refreshing. There haven't been as many of these as usual during this debate. A lovely individual who not only seems completely unaware of the what any of the UN laws might mean, but doesn;t even address the issue that is currently at hand.

Good friend from Kazzarking, next time save yourself a whole lot of time and effort and just holler out "NOG NO GET! NOG NO LIKE! NOG SMASH!" More of the assembled representatives will actually pay attention to what you say, and you'll still be getting your basic message across. Thanks.

NEXT!

Oh. That explains it. Thanks.

It's OK. Mods delete proposals that confuse them and make them think too much^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Ware joke proposals.

It's OK. Mods delete proposals that confuse them and make them think too much^W^W^W^W^W^W^W^Ware joke proposals.

OOC: No, they delete proposals that are illegal and/or downright stupid.

News item from the First Creek Falls (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/First_Creek_Falls) Age:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g136/regnans/East%20Gippsland/Agemasthead.gif

BACKFLIP ON UN SEXUAL PRIVACY RESOLUTION

MINISTER TO RESIGN?

Despite strongly worded public statements from the Protector of Foreign Affairs and Other Overseas Activities, iveitu, about the “dishonesty” of the resolution currently before the UN, Errinundera’s ambassador to the UN, oasyouto, has confirmed that she has been instructed to support it. The ambassador has refused to explain the change of position.

In a hastily called press conference, Errinundera’s Protector of Foreign Affairs and Other Overseas Activities, iveitu, claimed that the Government had not changed its position on the resolution. “The exemptions are broad enough to drive a railway locomotive through,” he told the gathered press gallery. "This resolution won’t reduce liberties in libertarian nations and won’t protect them in authoritarian nations. So why bother?”

But there was the one question the reporters wanted answered: “Why the back flip?”

The Protector fessed up: “Well, we’re the regional delegate for Forest and we got rolled. The other UN members in the region want us to support it. That’s politics. Sometimes you’ve got to swallow your pride and do what you’ve got to do.”

Was he going to resign after this embarrassing farce? “I’ll be speaking with our house leader, the Protector of Various Things, and then consider my options. Personally, I don’t see why I should. The resolution is dangerous and I will continue to express that opinion. But, like all of you here, I am a democrat. And that means, implementing the will of others even if you don’t like it. It’s because I’m a democrat that I will always support the United Nations even if it passes ill-conceived resolutions.”

The resolution Sexual Privacy Act was passed 9,771 votes to 2,323, and implemented in all UN member nations.

The Queendom would like to take this opportunity to thank those who supported, defended and voted for this resolution. We would also like to thank those who helped with the drafting process. We would have never been able to get to this point without you.

On behalf of her Royal Highness, Queen Adrienne,

Dahlia Dioce
Queendom of Karmicaria
UN Representative

A thoroughly enlightened point of view. My Ambassador, Sir Thomas Lynniston who normally conducts these affairs on behalf of the government was given a chance to relax as this issue is personally important to me. I am the Prime Minister of Schwarzchild, Sir Thomas is my UN Ambassador.

Good grief! And here I am calling you "Ambassador"! A thousand pardons, Your Excellency.

I am certain my partner and I will be delighted with such a splendid vacation. May we make this a combination holiday and state visit? I do not see it as a bad thing to meet with the leader of your nation and yourself in addition to some badly needed recreation time. As far as the expense goes, what say Schwarzchild meets you halfway? 'Tis only fair.

As you wish, Lord Gosford. I shall have the Intangible Ministry of State contact your State Department and hash out the various details. Bring your appetite, Sir, the salmon of the River Bronze are running for the next two months, and there is no finer fish in all of Greater Seattle.

The resolution Sexual Privacy Act was passed 9,771 votes to 2,323, and implemented in all UN member nations.

The Queendom would like to take this opportunity to thank those who supported, defended and voted for this resolution. We would also like to thank those who helped with the drafting process. We would have never been able to get to this point without you.

On behalf of her Royal Highness, Queen Adrienne,

Dahlia Dioce
Queendom of Karmicaria
UN Representative

On behalf of Magister Jubal Harshaw and the Intangible citizenry, congratulations!

--Ben Royce

Congratulations to the Karmicarian delegation for passage of a fine resolution.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Memo from the office of Kazzarking's UN Ambassador: Fizzitz Zazark.

<blah, blah, blah> ... <rant, rant, rave> ... <demonstrate complete and utter ignorance of this body's purpose> ... <pompously bloviate>

Signed by

Emperor Kzz Krakow
&
UN Ambassador Fizzit ZazarkAmbassador W.E.B. Jackson looks up from the metal bowl that he's been polishing.

“Door's that way, man. Don't let it hit yo' ass on the way out.”

i comply

Our congratulations to the distinguished representative of Karmicaria on the passage of this excellent resolution.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Yay.

Most courteously,