NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hereby repeals UNR # 26 Universal Bill of Rights

Co-authored by: Kivisto

At the moment, I'm looking for comments, suggestions and help determining whether this is ready to be submitted or not.

If you don't have anything constructive to add, please move along.

CONCERNED that the open interpretation of Article 1 prevents governments from restricting the actions of extremist religious groups that could include, practices that could be considered abhorrent to the international community;
This argument really doesn't mean anything. Why would a government interpret it openly if those were the consequences?
DISTURBED that Article 3 would prevent governments from prohibiting assemblies that would disrupt essential services or dangerously interfere with the normal flow of traffic;
No it wouldn't. It says people have a right to peaceable assemble, not peaceable assemble wherever and however they want.
RECOGNIZING that article 4 would force governments to grant and guarantee the same rights and privileges to convicted and imprisoned felons as are granted to the rest of the populace, including but not exclusive to, the right to travel freely within the nation as guaranteed by UNR #6 "End Slavery";
No it wouldn't. The law can treat everyone equally; that doesn't mean that can't be affected by their actions.

ALSO RECOGNIZING that Article 4 could be interpreted as requiring governments to accord all the same privileges to aliens as they do to their own citizenry;
So don't interpret it that way. This argument doesn't hold water; if a nation wants to commit nationcide by wild interpretations of resolutions, it deserves to get messed up.
AWARE that freedom from torture and the like, provided by Article 5, is sufficiently guaranteed by UNR #41, "End Barbaric Punishments";
So?

DISCOURAGED that Article 6 does not require accuracy or validity in the "explicit list" of offences, doing nothing to prevent governments from arresting and exiling individuals without just cause, and;
So write a resolution on it. You can't argue both sides in one repeal - either it does bad stuff or it doesn't do anything, not both.

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

Karl §Ezekiel (son of Ezekiel) of Tidaea
Acting UN Representative

This argument really doesn't mean anything. Why would a government interpret it openly if those were the consequences?

That government might not care. That's why the repeal refers to the international community.

No it wouldn't. It says people have a right to peaceable assemble, not peaceable assemble wherever and however they want.

UBR makes no such stipulations. A peaceful assembly is still peacefull if it occurs in the middle of a thoroughfare.

No it wouldn't. The law can treat everyone equally; that doesn't mean that can't be affected by their actions.

Again, no such stipulation is made in UBR.

So don't interpret it that way. This argument doesn't hold water; if a nation wants to commit nationcide by wild interpretations of resolutions, it deserves to get messed up.

That is the remarkably compassionate viewpoint taken by way too many member nations that drives repeals such as these.

So?

So it is unnecessary. Redundancies, while not actively harmful, are cumbersome to the law books.

So write a resolution on it. You can't argue both sides in one repeal - either it does bad stuff or it doesn't do anything, not both.

I disagree. When a resolution attempts to do a great many things all at once, it can very easily fall short in some areas, go way too far in others, and completely miss everything resembling the point in the rest. All the more reason to get rid of it.

Yay! More protection for the accused!

Again, redundancy. Use of Tidaean sarcasm noted. Lack of concern for fellow man and member nations noted.

Anything else to offer?

That government might not care. That's why the repeal refers to the international community.
If the government didn't care, it would keep on doing it even without this repeal. All the argument is saying is that nations might take this idea and mess themselves up. Repealing this isn't going to help that.

UBR makes no such stipulations. A peaceful assembly is still peacefull if it occurs in the middle of a thoroughfare.
When a resolution makes no stipulations on a subject, it is up to member nations to interpret. You still have the right to peaceable assemble if you have to do it in a public park or somewhere. The resolution doesn't guarantee the right to choose where you peaceable assemble.


Again, that means nations get to decide.

[QUOTE]That is the remarkably compassionate viewpoint taken by way too many member nations that drives repeals such as these.
Er...what exactly are you saying here?

So it is unnecessary. Redundancies, while not actively harmful, are cumbersome to the law books.
I don't know about you, but I'd rather have too many protections of my rights than too few. Most nations' legal codes would fill hundreds of books; UN resolutions are a drop in the bucket, with a total length of under 200 pages, which you're just adding to with this repeal.

I disagree. When a resolution attempts to do a great many things all at once, it can very easily fall short in some areas, go way too far in others, and completely miss everything resembling the point in the rest. All the more reason to get rid of it.
But just because a resolution falls short on something doesn't mean we have to repeal it. That argument doesn't really support the repeal: there are better ways to tackle that particular problem, i.e. passing a resolution that does cover them.

Again, redundancy. Use of Tidaean sarcasm noted. Lack of concern for fellow man and member nations noted.

If we're being bombarded by cannonballs (those who would seek to remove all criminal protections) and we have two concrete walls (the two resolutions in question), do we really want to tear down one of them because it's redundant?

What has me concerned in the UBOR is the fact they are all aimed at humans, which means non-humans are still subject to abridgment of their rights. Would I have to repeal this if I wanted to see to it coverd non-humans?

What has me concerned in the UBOR is the fact they are all aimed at humans, which means non-humans are still subject to abridgment of their rights. Would I have to repeal this if I wanted to see to it coverd non-humans?

Yes.

What has me concerned in the UBOR is the fact they are all aimed at humans, which means non-humans are still subject to abridgment of their rights. Would I have to repeal this if I wanted to see to it coverd non-humans?
No.

Yes.I disagree.

Run a google definition of "human rights." Some refer to humans, most refer to individuals, and to peoples and do not use the term human to define human rights.

If we assume elves are people, then they fit under the definition

Moreover, if we assume humanity is the most common species in the NS setting, one can easily accept the phrase to encompass all peoples.

Thirdly, the category is used in the game itself - if you argue the phrase "human rights" does not apply to every species, then it shouldn't be used as a category.

Alright, the third one is tenuous.

I disagree.

Run a google definition of "human rights." Some refer to humans, most refer to individuals, and to peoples and do not use the term human to define human rights.

If we assume elves are people, then they fit under the definition

Moreover, if we assume humanity is the most common species in the NS setting, one can easily accept the phrase to encompass all peoples.

Thirdly, the category is used in the game itself - if you argue the phrase "human rights" does not apply to every species, then it shouldn't be used as a category.

Alright, the third one is tenuous.

I'm sorry, you are right. Then no, you wouldn't have to repeal UBR to have something that would cover non-humans since as was pointed out, UBR does cover them.

<blinks>

I don't know if others would agree - back in late '05 there was a discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=457531) that expressed concern non-humans would not be covered. There was even a proposal put in by Reformentia which was pretty well supported on the boards.

Yes, there are others that won't agree. However, I agree with your first statements.

I'm going to go back and rework my arguments for the repeal. Anyone who is willing to help, is more than welcome to.

You wanted only constructive comments, but I can't really offer anything constructive on this repeal. Instead, I'll say: why not try to repeal a different resolution? Repealing this one will be hard - prohibitively so, I'd bet. It won't achieve a great deal. And there doesn't seem to be any great motivating factor for doing so, other than there being a couple of ways in which nations could screw themselves by adopting the most warped interpretation of its mandates.

Instead, use this resolution: cite it in a repeal of another resolution. For example, Artistic Freedom. This resolution already guarantees freedom of expression: why do we need another one? If you don't like freedom of assembly, repeal the specific resolution on that. Or repeal End Barbaric Punishments as a) redundant and b) utterly useless. Because, if you do that, you can strike out maybe three or four redundant resolutions, right? But if you repeal this one, you can only remove this one, and have to leave the others. So if your interest is clearing up redundancy, it can only make sense to repeal everything but this.

I don't really care about this resolution, and whether it repeals or not. But it seems like you're setting yourself a pretty unachievable target, when you could pursue much more profitable legislative paths.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

You have very some very good advice and it is advice that we're willing to follow. I suppose all that's left to do is go back to the drawing board and make the attempt to repeal something else. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Madison.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria