NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Free education"
(http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=free)
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #28 (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=27)
Proposed by: Jey (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=display_nation/nation=jey)

Description: UN Resolution #28: "Free education" (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=27) (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

COMMENDING Resolution #28 for its efforts to bring about widespread education availability throughout member nations;

HOWEVER CONSIDERING that Resolution #28 fails to bring about its intended purpose by providing absolutely no mandate to do so, and simply providing the clause "To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education";

FURTHER CONSIDERING Resolution #28's complete lack of: any form of educational standards, references to the type(s) of education to be provided, or financial considerations regarding nations' abilities to provide said education;

BELIEVING that the age of 18 is an inappropriate threshold for international legislation, given the existence of a wide range of sapient species that exist in certain member nations' populations;

UNDERSTANDING that Resolution #171: UN Educational Aid Act fully addresses many concerns of educational standards throughout member nations, including, but not limited to, declarations to help: ensure educational opportunities, support projects for educational services, strike out unfair education practices, and provide financial assistance for various education initiatives through the UN Educational Advancement Fund;

ALSO UNDERSTANDING UN Educational Aid Act's entrustment of nation's rights to "decide on the structure of their public education systems and the role of private [education] institutions";

DEEMING Resolution #28 as an ineffectual resolution with no actionable language for UN members, whose concerns over education within the United Nations are widely addressed within other legislation;

REPEALS Resolution #28: Free education.

Approvals: 172

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

----

Original Resolution:

Free education (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=27)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Nastic 2

Description: To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education

Votes For: 11,276
Votes Against: 3,264

Implemented: Tue Aug 19 2003

The Free Lands of Krioval approve of this resolution. While Resolution 28, "Free education", was passed with good intentions, they do not make it worthwhile to keep it around. I hope that this repeal is a success.

Ambassador Jevo Telovar-kan
Free Lands of Krioval

Regretfully, we too must vote for the repeal. "Regretfully", because we believe that everyone under the age of adulthood, whatever that may be, should have a free education; but "must" because this doesn't provide it.
___________________
Dicey Reilly, president of Ardchoille.

Despite the spectacular irrelevance of a goodly portion of the repeal's arguments, we'll vote for it, because the original resolution is crap. We fully acknowledge that in doing this, we are committing a heinous sin against liberty, and offer our preemptive apologies to our former brethren in the IDU for our reckless disregard for everything we should hold sacred, including that most holy of all: legislative pap.

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

Aye, it needs repealing.

I agree completely with Mr. Madison.

Roderick Spear
That One Guy From That One Nation

I support the repeal of that human-centric piece of, um, legislation.

The Conch Republic of Retired Werepenguins cannot support this repeal and as long as I am here in the United Nations I will vote against this repeal. Simply put Resolution #28 established a Human Right. That's why the category is Human Rights! The question of funding is a moot one. Individual nations can figure that out on their own, thank you very much, and along with a number of other UN resolutions they have been doing that quite nicely.

The "eighteen" argument is an interesting one, but not worthy of a repeal. If your race is immature enough to have a childhood lasting for centuries no one is stopping you from expanding this right. Yes I suppose we could argue that it might be better reworded to include some sort of generic term, but frankly, I don't see how this is causing positive harm in any manner whatsoever.

So the question becomes, "Do you believe that a free education is not the basic fundamental right of sentient beings?" If you do believe that beings should live in ignorance and stupidity, vote to repeal. As for me, I vote for knowledge and thoroughness!

(Please note that by the time this comes up to a vote the grief stricken Flash Blonde might have returned from the funeral of the lady who might have been his bride and that Blonde is just stupid enough to vote for this trash, especially if he is properly insulted in a financial way.)

Tzor Red Brown

Retired WerePenguins, Im sure that almost every nation here would agree with you on principle. However, considering the briefness of the resolution, and its lack of definition on the many problems that arise from the ideal of free education, I would have to say that it should be repealed, at least temporarily. As stated in this resolution, resolution #171 already mentions alot of the issues concerned with free education: I feel that this is an unnecessary resolution, and its only real clause, about free education until 18 years of age, is a controversial suggestion, and definitely requires qualifiers. Please, do not let strong belief in ideals blind you to practicality.

snip

Here's how the original resolution doesn't do a damn thing to guarantee the right of anyone to anything.

Hypothetical situation:

I will guarantee everyone (human, gnome, or otherwise) the right to a free education until they are 18.

Here are the qualifiers added on by the nation:

18 refers to 18 seconds of age. We will teach them for the first 18 seconds after they depart their mother's body or are otherwise "born".

The education we grant them will be to teach them how to avoid being swamshnoozled by the Gravebulontous Blaggrooter of Flizzvomml 5. It's quite easy, really. See, the trick is - OOPS sorry, your time is up.

Free refers to the fact that the education we offer is guaranteed, 100%, calorie and content free. We also charge half of the mother's annual income for this education.

To the letter of the law, this will satisfy the requirements put forth by the document in question.

Already approved, and look forward to voting FOR the repeal.

Yeah, "To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education" doesn't really do anything for anybody. Hell, that's not even a real sentence. I'll be voting FOR the repeal.

Approved, and gladly.

"Do you believe that a free education is not the basic fundamental right of sentient beings?"

Yes, I believe that a free education is not the basic fundamental right of sentient beings. Perhaps it's freedom of thought, perhaps it's the right to escape torture, perhaps it's limited free will, perhaps it's something even more basic. As for a basic fundamental right, I disagree with that too. Yes, education is very, very important. Perhaps it is right for a government to tax its people to provide education for all. But it is most definitely not a basic fundamental right of all sentient beings. First of all, there are a lot of different kinds of sentient beings. Dogs, dolphins, etc. could be classified as sentient, whether you consider sentience the ability to suffer, the ability to perceive and observe, or the ability to have emotions. The word you are probably looking for is "sapience". Secondly, education is not a basic fundamental right. An education is provided by other people. If the people that provide you education decide to, say go on strike, are they violating human rights? Do you have a right to control these people, to force them to give you a free education? Furthermore, the reason (correct me if I'm wrong) that Free Education was submitted under Human Rights was that the NS version at the time did not have an Education and Arts category.

We cannot in good conscience support this repeal in the present circumstances. As the honoured Deputy Ambassador for the Conch Republic pointed out, Resolution 28 established a right to education for all. We freely admit that it suffers greatly from imprecision, but that on its own does not damn it. Had we heard any convincing proposals for the replacement of this resolution we would of course consider the matter differently, but none such have come to our attention. In such a case we can but see this repeal as an attack on a civil right that we hold very dear, and must react accordingly.

To be disagreeing with you.

Resolution 28 established a right to education for all.
Did it? Here is the text of UNR #28 in its entirety:
To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education
How does that "establish" anything? What does it require my government to do?

To be explaining this.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

We cannot believe the absurdity of this repeal. Liubenia is opposed.

"Now, now, guvnuh, lets not do anythin' hasty.." A loud crash echoed through the halls followed by a few bangs and the sound of a shattering window.

Lio Vandenburg walked slowly into the general assembly brushing off his hands. "I can't believe they let that buffoon take my place.." He grumbled as he took his seat and looked over the legislation at hand.
He shrugged, tossing it over his shoulder. "While Crythythia holds education to be one of the most important things for its people, repealing this legislation with not effect our nation at all." He smirked, "And we hate to have useless legislation on the books that doesn't do anything. We'll support the repeal of this fluff."

Liubenia is opposed.
To explain your opposition.

(on a side note, it would have been hilarious if the last line of the repeal had been "TO REPEAL Resolution #28: Free education")

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Or so it goes in that fantasy game called the "real world." Now one must wonder why I have brought up such fantasy in a serious discussion on this floor, but the fact remains that even fantasy has the seeds of reality. Human rights simply have to be declared. It is the duty, nay the required obligation of nations to follow them in order for such powers to be letigimate. The right to life, for example, is a fundamental human one. No nation would ever consider genocide without getting themselves in serious hot water in the international community.

Now you may argue that the right to a free education is not a true free right. David6 has made such an argument and I applaud him for it. It is a reasonable argument to make, and if it wasn't for the fact that the votes for was 11,276 and the votes against was 3,264 I might be inclined to agree.

So far I have seen the following arguments.
The resolution is too short. Of course it's short. The only thing one needs to do to establish a fundamental right is to state it. Brevity, last time I checked, is a virtue, not a vice.
The resolution has some stupid 18 or something. So? Frankly I could care less! Is this a "World Health List" where economies are being destroyed as we debate this? No. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It's a good argument to not approve in the first place, but frankly it is a pathetic argument for that of a repeal.
The resolution has no implementation details. Sure, right, it's not supposed to. A human rights resolution only has to establish a human right. We can all agree on the right to life without the necessity of having to go into detail on how such a right would be implemented. Moreover such details are probably best for a completely different category.

Frankly I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the crap arguments coming from the Antarctic Oasis. It is manure reasoning like this that caused the intellectuals of Retired Werepenguins to revolt against the tyranny of the sexually frustrated moronic in the first place. Sure this can be another victory for Gatesville, but I'd rather see resolutions that cause positive harm be struck down and not see resolutions that, to anyone with even a grain of common sense, is not a serious threat to the nations of the United Nations.

The harm it causes stems largely from the inability to pass new, better legislation whilst it is in place, as one cannot duplicate or ammend existing legislation, as I'm sure you are aware. Whilst it is in place, we currently have to educate babies for free when they come out of the womb, for starters. Indeed, as it uses the termonology "everyone" it means we have to provide free education to, say, a dog. Secondly, it doesn't state what counts as education. A farmer teaching his son to use a plough would count as education under this legislation without any other teaching, such as mathematics or the ability to read and write. Similarly, a government could emply one teacher who teachers every kid for one minute during their entire 18 years for free. Still legal under this resolution. Or a government could give free "how to be a suicide bomber" legislation, and nothing else, and that would be counted as legal under this act. And most importantly, it doesn't actually mandate anything - using the classic Life of Brian scenario, a man can have the right to have babies, without actually being able to have babies. So everyone can have the right to free education, but if you build no schools or employ no teachers, it doesn't matter. And this is still legal under this proposal.

Or so it goes in that fantasy game called the "real world." Now one must wonder why I have brought up such fantasy in a serious discussion on this floor, but the fact remains that even fantasy has the seeds of reality. Human rights simply have to be declared. It is the duty, nay the required obligation of nations to follow them in order for such powers to be letigimate. The right to life, for example, is a fundamental human one. No nation would ever consider genocide without getting themselves in serious hot water in the international community.

Now you may argue that the right to a free education is not a true free right. David6 has made such an argument and I applaud him for it. It is a reasonable argument to make, and if it wasn't for the fact that the votes for was 11,276 and the votes against was 3,264 I might be inclined to agree.

So far I have seen the following arguments.
The resolution is too short. Of course it's short. The only thing one needs to do to establish a fundamental right is to state it. Brevity, last time I checked, is a virtue, not a vice.
The resolution has some stupid 18 or something. So? Frankly I could care less! Is this a "World Health List" where economies are being destroyed as we debate this? No. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It's a good argument to not approve in the first place, but frankly it is a pathetic argument for that of a repeal.
The resolution has no implementation details. Sure, right, it's not supposed to. A human rights resolution only has to establish a human right. We can all agree on the right to life without the necessity of having to go into detail on how such a right would be implemented. Moreover such details are probably best for a completely different category.

Frankly I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the crap arguments coming from the Antarctic Oasis. It is manure reasoning like this that caused the intellectuals of Retired Werepenguins to revolt against the tyranny of the sexually frustrated moronic in the first place. Sure this can be another victory for Gatesville, but I'd rather see resolutions that cause positive harm be struck down and not see resolutions that, to anyone with even a grain of common sense, is not a serious threat to the nations of the United Nations.
To find your arguments unconvincing.

The harm it causes stems largely from the inability to pass new, better legislation whilst it is in place, as one cannot duplicate or ammend existing legislation, as I'm sure you are aware.

Were there any proposals for such replacement legislation, we would find this a more convincing argument. To date, no such proposals have been made known to us.

to give everyone under 18 the right to a free education

Doesn't do anything.

Were there any proposals for such replacement legislation, we would find this a more convincing argument. To date, no such proposals have been made known to us.

Several times, probably before the representative of Gobbannium joined this Assembly, we have made the argument that having useless legislation on the books makes it less likely that better legislation in the subject area will be forthcoming. We'll make it again.

Bad legislation is a psychological deterrent to good legislation. A member would like to write a sound proposal promoting free education. He or she checks the list of passed resolutions and sees this one. He or she knows that to have the new proposal enacted would require two drafts -- one to repeal this one and one for the new legislation. Two telegram campaigns. Two debates. A basic principle of performance management tells us that people are more easily motivated to do easy things than hard things. So the mere existence of this resolution on the books makes the creation of better law on the subject less likely.

In the instant case, it could be properly argued that UNR #28 is so amazingly worthless and useless that you could write 50 proposals on free education without a duplication or contradiction violation. We know that. We've been around this Assembly since the last ice age. But would a new member recognize that? Probably not. And people react to their perceptions, not reality.

Removing poor legislation from the books makes the creation of better law more probable. We believe in taking out the trash.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Frankly I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the crap arguments coming from the Antarctic Oasis. It is manure reasoning like this that caused the intellectuals of Retired Werepenguins to revolt against the tyranny of the sexually frustrated moronic in the first place.Which explains why not two months ago you wanted to be our delegate. In the inverse to your "arguments," we see no "positive harm" that would be inflicted on the members of this Assembly by reversing a worthless resolution, so we intend to vote for this repeal.

Were there any proposals for such replacement legislation, we would find this a more convincing argument. To date, no such proposals have been made known to us.Then write one.

Were there any proposals for such replacement legislation, we would find this a more convincing argument. To date, no such proposals have been made known to us.
Then write one.
We are intrigued to discover that it seems to have become our responsibility to convince ourselves. We regret to say that we seem not to be doing a very good job of that at present.

Then write one.
To agree with Kenny.

We are intrigued to discover that it seems to have become our responsibility to convince ourselves. We regret to say that we seem not to be doing a very good job of that at present.
To try harder.

Oh come on. Don't you think that if a nation was sane enough, everybody would be given school, unless they are corporate dictatorships? I personally say repeal this and let the member countries figure out best how to teach their species.

To hope Yelda will continue writing every sentence in the infinitive.

To note that one of the "Retief" science fantasy series has a character (an obnoxious ambassador, I believe) who talks in this fashion all the time;

To be unable to remember which one;

To wish to strangle Yelda for recalling it to mind, causing the mental equivalent of an unscratchable itch;

To go consult Google Books to try to track it down, and

To resume normal communications modes:

We're still in favour of a repeal, despite the persuasive arguments of the Retired WerePenguins delegate. It is true that the expression of sapient rights requires only a simple declarative statement; however, the statement under discussion is not simple. It achieves the unlikely feat of going too far while not going far enough. Sadly, we will be well rid of it.

__________________________________

Dicey Reilly, president of Ardchoille.

To hope Yelda will continue writing every sentence in the infinitive.
To assure you that in this thread, I will.

Were there any proposals for such replacement legislation, we would find this a more convincing argument. To date, no such proposals have been made known to us.


There's no point in writing a new proposal until this one is repealed, due to possibility of failure. Why waste time with something that could ultimately prove to be unable to be institued?

As a nation that provides free primary, secondary and tertiary education to all its citizens, Altanar supports this repeal.

Surprised? You shouldn't be. The original resolution is so brief and poorly written that it is, in itself, an insult to literate people everywhere. Add to that the fact that the original resolution does almost nothing to help further the cause of education, and we're amazed it ever passed in the first place.

- Jinella Agaranth, Acting Ambassador

Which explains why not two months ago you wanted to be our delegate.

That, was Flash, and frankly he is a "Blonde." (Why in hell he would want a position when everyone was telling him to shut the curse word up is still beyond me.) I should point out we had a different Faithful Navigator at the time as well, one who went topless on prime time pay per view to get ratings for our nation.

I, on the other hand am a Red Brown. I have a higher IQ totaly bomed drunk out of my mind than you have when completely sober, and if it wasn't for the recent regional tradegy, I would be sitting nicely on Sunset Pier watching some idiot do bizzare things to cats while watching the sun set once again on another perfect day. Do you know how hard it is to find a good morning "Con Leche" around here?

I don't mind repeals. I do mind moronic monologue on the only resolution type can can never be struck out. I do mind that this sets up the preceident that all human rights resolutions must somehow provide funding. I can hear th idiots now saying, "OMG, we can't support a fundamental right against XYZ ... how can we FUND IT?"

Tzor Red Brown

There's no point in writing a new proposal until this one is repealed, due to possibility of failure. Why waste time with something that could ultimately prove to be unable to be institued?

We recognise that putting much effort into replacement legislation would be unwise at this juncture, but thus far no one has even intimated that it is intended to put any effort into such action later. In the absence of such an intimation, we find ourselves suspicious of the motives of the repealers in this regard. Their keenness to palm the work involved onto ourselves does not encourage us to reduce that level of suspicion.

We recognise that putting much effort into replacement legislation would be unwise at this juncture, but thus far no one has even intimated that it is intended to put any effort into such action later.

As my argument against the repeal has been that repeal fails to recognize the real purpose for the resolution in the first place, and sets up a strawman in order to burn it down, I can't see how anyone would even begin to write a replacement that would be remotely close to the purpose of the original.

So here is my attempt.

WHEREAS, it is the fundamental duty and responsibility of each generation to maintain and pass on the collected wisdom and understanding of all previous generations, the right of all citizens to be educated to a commonly accepted educational standard, without cost to that individual, shall be considered a fundamental human right, supported by national and international law for all citizens under the age of legal responsibility.

Not that I would vote for the above POS, but then again I'm currently against the repeal as well. And I threw in the "citizens" for added fun because otherwse we would be educating the tourists, and tourists are for eating!

As my argument against the repeal has been that repeal fails to recognize the real purpose for the resolution in the first place, and sets up a strawman in order to burn it down, I can't see how anyone would even begin to write a replacement that would be remotely close to the purpose of the original.


We frankly don't give two thirds of a tinker's dam what the purpose of the resolution was. The road to hell is paved with lofty purposes as well as good intentions. What we care about is its effect. The effect of the resolution is simply to clutter up the rolls of legislation with a fluffy, feel-good statement that does absolutely nothing for the citizens of any nation. We could write a replacement that would have all the effect and impact of the original. In fact, here it is:

" "

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

Human rights simply have to be declared.

Why?

It is the duty, nay the required obligation of nations to follow them in order for such powers to be letigimate.

Why?

The right to life, for example, is a fundamental human one.

Here's a grave dig I've been awaiting a chance to use.

From Dec 13, 2004 (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7696959&postcount=3)
Excuse me while I laugh for a bit.

There, done.

Where do people get this "right to life" bull from? The only unalienable right you have is the right to die. It's the only thing that cannot be taken from you. About the only people with an unalienable right to life are immortals, and I don't exactly see that many around.

Life is not a right, just a luxury most people enjoy.


No nation would ever consider genocide without getting themselves in serious hot water in the international community.

Unsupported Logical Fallacy.

Now you may argue that the right to a free education is not a true free right. David6 has made such an argument and I applaud him for it. It is a reasonable argument to make, and if it wasn't for the fact that the votes for was 11,276 and the votes against was 3,264 I might be inclined to agree.

Fundamental rights are not matters of popular vote. Your argument is foolish.

So far I have seen the following arguments.

And of course your attempts to refute them.

The resolution is too short. Of course it's short. The only thing one needs to do to establish a fundamental right is to state it. Brevity, last time I checked, is a virtue, not a vice.

Brevity at the cost of desired effect is still a waste of air. It fails to establish anything meaningful.

The resolution has some stupid 18 or something. So? Frankly I could care less! Is this a "World Health List" where economies are being destroyed as we debate this? No. The perfect is the enemy of the good. It's a good argument to not approve in the first place, but frankly it is a pathetic argument for that of a repeal.

It's a solid argument that such an arbitrary number without any clarification renders the entire sentiment of it useless. If you wish to put something forth for nations to follow as an ideal, you should really make sure that they cannot completely bastardize it as I've already demonstrated is easily possible. It accomplishes nothing.

The resolution has no implementation details. Sure, right, it's not supposed to. A human rights resolution only has to establish a human right.

I actually agree with you on this one. Unfortunately, the resolution in question doesn't establish anything at all.

We can all agree on the right to life without the necessity of having to go into detail on how such a right would be implemented.

I don't agree to any universal right to life. See the above grave dig.

Moreover such details are probably best for a completely different category.

Like what?

Frankly I am disappointed, but not surprised, by the crap arguments coming from the Antarctic Oasis.

You mean the arguments that left you trailing in the dust when you attempted to run for delegacy? Yes, yes "That was Blonde". Whatever. You're better than that and you know it. To even sink to this level of name calling only serves as indication that you have no real arguments.

It is manure reasoning like this that caused the intellectuals of Retired Werepenguins to revolt against the tyranny of the sexually frustrated moronic in the first place.

To follow the ones that were actively telling you to STFU instead of staying with the one that encouraged you to speak your mind. That genius logic.

Sure this can be another victory for Gatesville,

More like a victory for the literate.

but I'd rather see resolutions that cause positive harm

Like this one.

be struck down and not see resolutions that, to anyone with even a grain of common sense, is not a serious threat to the nations of the United Nations.

Grain of common sense here will be read as "severe case of comprehensive incapacity"

I have a higher IQ totaly bomed drunk out of my mind than you have when completely sober,

And yet, you still can't spell any better than your predecessor.

I do mind moronic monologue on the only resolution type can can never be struck out.

Or form proper sentences. Seems that free education has failed you.

I do mind that this sets up the preceident that all human rights resolutions must somehow provide funding.

Hardly. When the right in question will cost money to institute, finances should be given consideration.

In the absence of such an intimation, we find ourselves suspicious of the motives of the repealers in this regard.

My guess is that their motives in this regard are to remove this waste from the legislative books. That's it. No further. Anyone else's desires in the matter of replacement are inconsequential to this repeal as written.

Their keenness to palm the work involved onto ourselves does not encourage us to reduce that level of suspicion.

That keenness is derived from your own strong desire to see a replacement. You want one. They don't want to write one. Write one yourself, or bring the idea to some form of think tank to collaborate on it. Honestly, it's a good idea. If you feel compelled to see one, then you would be fairly well suited to assist in the drafting as you are personally interested in the outcome.

I wouldn't waste your time on him. Not worth it.

Their keenness to palm the work involved onto ourselves does not encourage us to reduce that level of suspicion.
That keenness is derived from your own strong desire to see a replacement. You want one. They don't want to write one. Write one yourself, or bring the idea to some form of think tank to collaborate on it. Honestly, it's a good idea. If you feel compelled to see one, then you would be fairly well suited to assist in the drafting as you are personally interested in the outcome.
Our suspicion remains. It has been noted before that, however much this repeal proposal may praise it, the UN Education Aid Act does not require member nations to provide free education to any age of citizen. In fact, we would draw your attention to article 6 of that resolution:

6. Entrusts nations with the right and responsibility to decide on the structure of their public education systems and the role of private institutions, mandatory, encouraged and prohibited subjects, skills and course elements in educational institutions, and the financing of educational programs, subject to previous UN legislation still in effect;
The clause we have emphasised would cause this resolution to be in conflict with any subsequent attempt to mandate free education. If one is to believe the arguments that we have been presented with that the mere existence of a resolution that must be repealed is a deterrent to the improvement of legislation, then one can but conclude that the right to free education for the young is about to be lost for some considerable time. If does not accept those arguments, as we do not, we can only repeat that we do not accept the arguments given for any need to repeal the Free Education resolution.

I wouldn't waste your time on him. Not worth it.

Good god, which one? The dog who follows the master who beats him, or the conspiracy theorist?

We do not accept the arguments given for any need to repeal the Free Education resolution.

Completely failing to refute the fact that Free Education doesn't actually accomplish anything anyways....You done yet, son? There are some of us that actually like conversation to progress past the blatantly obvious.

The clause we have emphasised would cause this resolution to be in conflict with any subsequent attempt to mandate free education. If one is to believe the arguments that we have been presented with that the mere existence of a resolution that must be repealed is a deterrent to the improvement of legislation, then one can but conclude that the right to free education for the young is about to be lost for some considerable time. If does not accept those arguments, as we do not, we can only repeat that we do not accept the arguments given for any need to repeal the Free Education resolution.

Lio scratched his head as he read the highlighted section. "The interesting part there being, due to the wording of that Act put together with Free Education, is that, No nations in the UN are actually currently required to provide free education or really, to finance it what-soever. And in order to fix that, Free Education, as well as the Education Aid would have to be repealed?"

It has come to my attention that some of my comments towards the ambassador of Retired Were-Penguins could have been construed as attacks upon the region in which he resides. I wish to formally apologize for any insult taken by the Antarctic Paradise Region and it's founding members, most notably Lady Deathstrike, The Misbehaving Sultanate of Cluichstan, and Karmicaria. I have nothing but the highest respect for these nations and the region which they have created. My comments were intended only to demonstrate the fallibility of the logic of the ambassador for RWP in his comments directed at the Antarctic Oasis as a whole. While it is true that RWP was not treated to the best care while residing within AO, his treatment was not dissimilar to that which everyone else recieves therein. Should he have been treated to extra special care because his is a race of half-breeds? I don't believe so. They have the same basic mental capacities as everyone else and will be judged on how they use them. That they retreated from the region to follow one of the primary perpetrators of the "STFU scenario" speaks ill of their deductive capacities in that matter, which leads us to believe that they were following out of whipped toadyism more than anything else.

To reiterate, I bear no malice nor ill-will of any nature towards the Antarctic Paradise as a whole. That my comments may have come across as such hangs heavily upon my soul.

Our only issue is with those who attempt to verbally assault my home region for fallacious and foolish reasons, with no actual regard as to their own participation in these matters.

Thank you for your time, and sorry about the misunderstanding.

Brevity at the cost of desired effect is still a waste of air.

Enough with the wit. I can't put it all into my sig line. :(

It's pretty sad the Retired WerePenguins has actually started a telegram campaign against the repeal. Good luck knocking this one below quorum...

telegram campaign against the repeal.
To be amused.

And a pretty crappy one at that.
I have noticed that your nation has approved “Repeal ‘Free Education’” currently on the queue for voting in the General Assembly of the United Nations. I would strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this resolution repeal. Resolution #28 establishes as a fundamental human right the notion of a “free” education for those under a certain age. Most of the arguments against resolution #28 deal with a straw man resolution that is not the purpose of resolution #28. Clearly in some respects it is not a perfect resolution. But not being perfect is no reason for a repeal, for no UN resolution is perfect. Please say no to the random desecration of fundamental human rights by withdrawing your support for this bogus repeal argument. Thank you for your time.
1. No, it doesn't establish that as a fundamental human right.
2. I particularly like the complete ignoring of the anthrocentricism comes from the nation that wouldn't shut up about Repeal "Definition of Marriage" for three fucking months.
3. The perceived purpose of Free Education is irrelevant.
4. No, not being perfect isn't a reason for a repeal. Being a crap resolution and, you know, the reasons actually written in the repeal, are.

With such catastrophically stupid arguments being used, it's not surprise it's stayed comfortably at quorum.

It's pretty sad the Retired WerePenguins has actually started a telegram campaign against the repeal.I have noticed that your nation has approved “Repeal ‘Free Education’” currently on the queue for voting in the General Assembly of the United Nations. I would strongly urge you to reconsider your support for this resolution repeal. Resolution #28 establishes as a fundamental human right the notion of a “free” education for those under a certain age. Most of the arguments against resolution #28 deal with a straw man resolution that is not the purpose of resolution #28. Clearly in some respects it is not a perfect resolution. But not being perfect is no reason for a repeal, for no UN resolution is perfect. Please say no to the random desecration of fundamental human rights by withdrawing your support for this bogus repeal argument. Thank you for your time.Truly, truly pathetic.

Well, if all you can do to oppose a proposal is spout misleading, semi-hysterical polemic, do it in a counter-TG campaign. That way there's no danger of someone pointing out that your arguments are worthless.

Our level of respect for the representative of Retired Werepenguins is falling by the minute.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The Democratic Republic of Noranius agrees with the repeal proposed by the Allied Empire of Jey.

Education should be the private matter of the member state, and its internal institutions of education. Education and knowledge are key to raising our youth into exceptional members of our societies today, and I believe each member state of the UN will decide wisely in their best interests on education, in its link to national progression.

Thank you,

Kendrik Diaz
Foreign Minister

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka is strongly opposed to this repeal. Resolution #28 doesn't really block any future attempts to enforce free education in all nations. It is better to have resolution like this, than don't have any.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

OOC: Sorry for my poor English.

Ausserland has cast its vote FOR this repeal of a completely worthless resolution.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

As has Paradica.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

The only way that Magic Muffinland could ever support this repeal is if there was an immediate vote on a more complete, better worded version. Certainly the resolution is flawed and incomplete, but we cannot condone repealing this inalienable right simply because the proposition is badly worded.

The Anarchist Alliances official view on the resolution at vote the Sun Feb 18 2007:

The Professorate of Scientific Research and Youth Education of The Anarchist Alliance has voiced their concern for removing the resolution 28.
The Anarchist Alliance remarks with uttermost displeasure and resentment to the fact that many members of the United Nations are more concerned with removing a resolution that has some room for improvement before it can truly guaranty a good and free education for children but that at least state the children’s right to an education at all, than trying to improve the existing resolution or creating a new resolution that would guarantee every child below 18 years of age of every nation a proper and useful education.
The council of advisors of peoples rights and obligations find it suspicious that those who vote to repeal the 28 resolution claim that they only want to remove a resolution that has no effect anyway when it should be clear from their lack of effort to improve the existing or creating a new resolution that would enforce a minimum standard of the education of children and guaranty that all children in fact received this education, that they simply want to deprive the children of a quality education that would make them able to understand their country’s political and economical situation and turn the power over the nation to the nations subject themselves.
Roland Dechain, Elected Marshall of The Armed Militia Defenders of The Anarchist Alliance supports this claim and demand that all the subjects of a nation should be well enough educated that they can take the control over their life’s situation and the nations laws and politics themselves, not needing any enforcing organ that decides in their place what they should want, what they should think and what they should feel.

The current resolution, proposal to repeal the previously passed UN Resolution #28: Free education has been decided by a vast majority of our people that should be kept, so all children actually are guaranteed an education by law. The Anarchis Alliance has therefore voted to preserve UN resolution 28 and strongly urges any other nation that concern itself with its subjects wellbeing and therefore sees the value of children education to vote against this horrible and obscene robbery of children’s ability to solve tomorrows political, economical and ecological problems.

Igor Reidarovich
Elected First Speaker of The Anarchist Alliance

Gandalf the Wise
Elected Speaker of the Professorate of Scientific Research and Youth Education of The Anarchist Alliance

Roland
Elected Marshall of The Armed Militia Defenders of The Anarchist Alliance

Fyodor Dostoevsky
Elected Speaker of The Council of Advisors of Peoples Rights and Obligations within The Anarchist Alliance

Narmoth
Elected First Speaker of International Affairs of The Anarchist Alliance

Write one yourself, lazyface.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

"The Great Commonwealth supports this repeal of a well-intentioned but ill-executed one-liner. It's not even a complete sentence, and I'm quite the Grammar Nazi. Off with its head, I say. Furthermore, such language means that it isn't providing any inalienable right, anyway. It does nothing." Wolfgang sat down and continued to play Oblivion.

Yeah, "To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education" doesn't really do anything for anybody. Hell, that's not even a real sentence. I'll be voting FOR the repeal.
We are avare of the somewhat poor wording of this resolution, but since the intent of it is good and it in fact strives to insure one of the basic human rights as defined by The Anarchis Alliance, namely the "basic education of every human being so he or she might read, write, perform calcualtion and understand the basics of politics, economy, ecology and medicine so he or she might prevail and live a good life" we believe that the resolution should be kept as long as there are no resolution that is more specific and at the same time states clearly every childs right to education.

Gandalf the Wise
Elected Speaker of the Professorate of Scientific Research and Youth Education of The Anarchist Alliance

Retired As stated in this resolution, resolution #171 already mentions alot of the issues concerned with free education:

Unfortunately, and to our greates regret, resolution 171 don't guarantees or states childrens right to education, and is therefore not a substitute for resolution 28. We will not vote for rebound of any of these resolutions until a resolution that guarantees childrens basic eduacation and how it should be attained and enforced is ratified.

Fyodor Dostoevsky
Elected Speaker of The Counsil of Advisors of Peoples Rights and Obligations within The Anarchist Alliance

The People's Republic of Seventh Avenue must vote to repeal this resolution, simply for the fact that it doesn’t really do anything. All it really does is take up space as a useless resolution. It is regrettable that the author of this resolution, didn't clearly illustrate they're point, and reinforce that point with stronger language. It is better to repeal this resolution now than have it confuse future members tomorrow. This is why we chose to vote to repeal this good-intending resolution.

The People's Republic of Seventh Avenue must vote to repeal this resolution, simply for the fact that it doesn’t really do anything. All it really does is take up space as a useless resolution. It is regrettable that the author of this resolution, didn't clearly illustrate they're point, and reinforce that point with stronger language. It is better to repeal this resolution now than have it confuse future members tomorrow. This is why we chose to vote to repeal this good-intending resolution.
Well said, comrade. This resolution doesn't propose anything constructive, therefore The People's Republic of Uruk-Shaa-Kigal declares it incompetent, and will vote AGAINST.

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka is strongly opposed to this repeal. Resolution #28 doesn't really block any future attempts to enforce free education in all nations. It is better to have resolution like this, than don't have any.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

OOC: Sorry for my poor English.

We have to disagree with the representative of Citenka. He's right that the resolution isn't actually a blocker. It's meaningless. You could write a dozen proposals about free education without contradicting or duplicating it. The problem with leaving it on the books is that it could very well discourage people from writing a good proposal on the subject. Say someone gets the idea to write a proposal about free education. He or she has some really good ideas. Then they take a look at the list of passed resolutions. They see this meaningless thing. "Oh," they say, "there's already a resolution about that". And they give up the idea.

We have to remember that not everyone who has good ideas for proposals is familiar with the ins and outs of the UN rules and procedures. Having bad legislation on the books can discourage the writing of good legislation. That's why we firmly believe that resolutions like this one must be repealed.

[OOC: You don't have to apologize for your English. It looks like it's not your first language, but you're doing very well with it.]

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

This resolution is not specific enough, and appears to have been run off very quickly, for the sake of having a resolution on the right to free education. Pax in Aeternum would prefer to have no resolution to having a resolution like this. The reason? Countries which have significant human rights will have free education, and ones without them, will not have free education. Since all nations are in these two groups, and for both groups it doesnt matter if we have the resolution or not, I feel that taking the time to make a good resolution is worth it. There are many different controversial ideas in this topic, and the current resolution does not cover them. for example, religion in education? when to have free education until? some of these are the business of individual states, but I still feel that we require a proper, thorough, and properly written reso on this. As a result, PiA is in full support of repealing resolution #28, and will eagerly look forward to any new suggestions of improved resolutions on the topic.

PS: sorry if my argument doesnt make much sense, im exhausted at the moment!

Pax in Aeternum
Peace can only be reached through rejection of idealism

Believe me, your argument makes more sense than that of a lot of people here.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

The Dominion of Ciudatenia, although a tiny and new addition to the UN, opposes to this resolution. I strongly believe that repealing Resolution #28 doesn't help any country and is useless because it doesn't bring anything, it merely destroys.
Upon seeing that something is not built right (and I agree that Resolution #28 is incomplete) I won't throw it away first, then look for something better. I'd just keep using it until I find something better and only then replace it in the shortest time. Now this would be a good idea.
Almost anyone can ask repeal a resolution, but replacing it with something better, well, that's another story, and a much more complicated one.

We have to disagree with the representative of Citenka. He's right that the resolution isn't actually a blocker. It's meaningless. You could write a dozen proposals about free education without contradicting or duplicating it. The problem with leaving it on the books is that it could very well discourage people from writing a good proposal on the subject. Say someone gets the idea to write a proposal about free education. He or she has some really good ideas. Then they take a look at the list of passed resolutions. They see this meaningless thing. "Oh," they say, "there's already a resolution about that". And they give up the idea.

We have to remember that not everyone who has good ideas for proposals is familiar with the ins and outs of the UN rules and procedures. Having bad legislation on the books can discourage the writing of good legislation. That's why we firmly believe that resolutions like this one must be repealed.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Actually, I can't agree with you hear. If someone qualified will choose to write resolution about free education, she will see all weak points of Resolution #28, so it will not stop her from writing such resolution. But if not enough qualified person will write such resolution, it will do situation only worse, because badly written resolution can show everyone this idea from the bad side, or it can even become a blocker to really good resolution.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

While the legislation that states that all people under the age of 18 should recieve, if wanted, an education, is admirable for its efforts and intentions, it should be noted again, as it has been before, that the legislation never talks about what kind of education that the people recieve. I agree that it must be repealed, but another piece of legislation that has greater stipulations should be introduced in its place. However, for the time being, I do have to vote on the repeal of this legislation.

... I won't throw it away first, then look for something better. I'd just keep using it until I find something better and only then replace it in the shortest time. Now this would be a good idea.
Almost anyone can ask repeal a resolution, but replacing it with something better, well, that's another story, and a much more complicated one.

"You are almost 100% correct. HOWEVER, in this case, it's kind of a no harm no foul situation because the original resolution literally does nothing. This isn't one of the ones that kind of does something. It does nothing. Thus, it won't hurt to get rid of it, and removing it will also create a chance that someone would be more inclined to write a better one.

"Personally, I would never have tried to submit such a repeal, because, as the original does nothing, it's hardly worth it, other than the fact that it looks bad. But, since it has come to vote, it ought to be a no-brainer that we should shoot the original down, thus encouraging a better resolution to replace a virtually-nonexistant one."

While I can agree with the premise of the original resolution (I am a relatively new nation and was not around for the first discussion), it was poorly addressed from the very initial determination. "Free Education" is not free. No matter how education is provided, whether by taxing an entity and the providing said funding to a school, or just forcing certain people to be teachers for a certain period of time. Nothing is "free".

Two. What is a free education to consist of? Is the UN going to dictate the curriculum that all citizens of all nations learn?

Three: It's not a human right. The human right is the ability to make the choice to learn, and be provided the opportunity to do so. With this ruling if a person chooses to be an uneducated fool, and we force education upon them, whose humans rights are we violating now.

For these and a multitude of the already debated issues, the resolution should be abolished.

If you want to pass meaningful human rights based education reforms, pass something that requires member nations to allow citizens to pursue the knowledge that they (or their parents/guardians) see fit, so that a nation may not interfere with a path chosen by a citizen.

The Nudist Wellfare organization of The Anarchist Alliance suggest that the education in UN resolution 28 should be sex education.
The Counsil of The Anarchist Alliances Religions and Sects propose that the education that all under 18 years of age should reseive according to the UN resolution 28 should be in mathematics, science and sociology so they can see the glory of the created universe and learn how to be better people themselves and how to help other people improve their non-spiritual life.

These views are not the official views of our nation, but the laws of The Anarchist Alliance allows every person and every organization to express their personal or common view through diplomatical channels. (This unfortunately leads to dimplomatic messages like 13 year old Paul sends a big F. you to the opressive dictator of Elbonia, but the law is the law)

Narmoth
Elected Speaker of
Internaional Affairs for
The Anarchis Alliance

Seeing as there are no real arguments against this repeal, The Dominion of Kivisto stands in support of it, and has voted accordingly.

<snip>Countries which have significant human rights will have free education, and ones without them, will not have free education. Since all nations are in these two groups, and for both groups it doesnt matter if we have the resolution or not, I feel that taking the time to make a good resolution is worth it. <snip> (emphasis inserted)

The exhausted representative of Pax in Aeternum, despite his condition, has come straight to the heart of the matter. Even while this resolution has been in force, nations have been able to disregard it. That's because it hasn't done, and doesn't do, anything, not even state that free education IS a human/sapient right. (Ardchoille accepts it as such, but that's a whole other debate.)

I'm all for the repeal, but that line about how the reason 18 is an arbitrary number is because of the wide variety of sapient species in each of our nations...
What? XD Since when?
Well anyway, it's arbitrary because it's a number. all numbers are.

I'm all for the repeal, but that line about how the reason 18 is an arbitrary number is because of the wide variety of sapient species in each of our nations...
What? XD Since when?
Well anyway, it's arbitrary because it's a number. all numbers are.

First, it would be good if the resolution was quoted correctly. It doesn't say there is a wide variety of species in each of our nations. It notes "a wide range of sapient species that exist in certain member nations' populations". It is quite correct.

Our nation is an example, and there are many others. Our population is primarily dwarven, but we also have substantial populations of giants and standard humans. Further, we have small numbers of Ulrheks, Hrmdrrr,
Taadefs, and several others among our citizenry.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

Further, we have small numbers of Ulrheks, Hrmdrrr,
Taadefs, and several others among our citizenry.


Most of which are pronouncable, we hope :p

Actually, it's not just a problem for nations with multiple species like Ausserland or my own nation. It's a problem for any nation with dominant species with a dfferent life span than human. A nation populated entirely by giant turtles would have a similar problem.

Though the original resolution sets a specific age, the people of Mikitivity agree with the general sentiments of the original resolution and have voted against this repeal. We have done so on the grounds that this particular resolution was adopted at a time prior to many of the current standards held by this body, and as such, we also feel that it is only an expression of a general international desire.

Most of which are pronouncable, we hope :p

Actually, people don't have much problem with Ulrhek and Taadef names. With the Hrmdrr, it's a different story. We did find it necessary, on our Diplomatic Service site, to give folks a little help pronouncing the name of our Special Envoy to Wailele Island, Mr. Mr. Mrdxm Lrrrmhrmm: "Lrrrmhrmm is pronounced "LURM-hurm". Stretch out the r in the first syllable a lot and the m in the second a little bit." As for his first name, we gave up trying. He goes by "Max".

:p

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I honestly don't give two shits about Resolution #28, so I'm abstaining. That is, of course, unless someone can convince me to change my mind.;)

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

... That is, of course, unless someone can convince me to change my mind.

Dammit, Bob, you know our economy's been imploded for the past three years! Would several cases of Ardchoille Old 'n' Funky be, ah, convincing?

_______________________
Dicey Reilly, president of Ardchoille.

It's pretty sad the Retired WerePenguins has actually started a telegram campaign against the repeal. Good luck knocking this one below quorum...

I think the key word was "started." I telegramed the first 30 nations on the aproval list not counting WZ Forums (because I didn't want to send a nastygram ... I'm still thinking about writing a joke resolution where everyone e who approves the resolution would be evicted from the UN - Yes I know it's blatently illegal - just to see if WZ Forums would approve) mostly as an academic exercise to see what the response would be.

Personally I would rather be delivering singing valentines than attempt to get this out of the queue and that was precisely what I did. (Although in two days I only did about 15 singing valentines ... of course you have to personally deliver them as opposed to hitting the send button.)

Truly, truly pathetic.

Thank you. Your "pathetic" really means a lot to me. :p

As a result, PiA is in full support of repealing resolution #28, and will eagerly look forward to any new suggestions of improved resolutions on the topic.

You argument is quite cogent despite your exhaustion, we merely disagree. Such is life. However, since the response to queries related to your final quoted aspiration has always been "So write one yourself," we find ourselves considerably more dubious about the prospect.

You should hear some Alstituan names someday.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

I think it was fine. Winiki is against this repeal.

Ian John Locke II must agree with the repeal. Free education is a wonderful ideal, however, the U.N.R. "Free Education" does not entail any means of providing this free education. It provides loop holes.

Also, should free education be compulsory?

WHEREAS, it is the fundamental duty and responsibility of each generation to maintain and pass on the collected wisdom and understanding of all previous generations, the right of all citizens to be educated to a commonly accepted educational standard, without cost to that individual, shall be considered a fundamental human right, supported by national and international law for all citizens under the age of legal responsibility.

Not that I would vote for the above POS, but then again I'm currently against the repeal as well. And I threw in the "citizens" for added fun because otherwse we would be educating the tourists, and tourists are for eating!

Fine. In our nation a person can't earn the status of 'citizen' -- rather than just that of 'national' -- until after they've passed the relevant age of legal responsibility for their species...

The Dominion of Ciudatenia, although a tiny and new addition to the UN, opposes to this resolution. I strongly believe that repealing Resolution #28 doesn't help any country and is useless because it doesn't bring anything, it merely destroys.
Upon seeing that something is not built right (and I agree that Resolution #28 is incomplete) I won't throw it away first, then look for something better. I'd just keep using it until I find something better and only then replace it in the shortest time. Now this would be a good idea.
Almost anyone can ask repeal a resolution, but replacing it with something better, well, that's another story, and a much more complicated one.

I appreciate your analogy, but unless what is "not built right" is at all salvageable, there's ample reason to tear it down. If the framework is shot or rotting and won't hold new sheet-rock, you wouldn't still try to use the framework, would you? No. You'd tear it out and build new wall fames with new studs and new wood (or whatever some of you build with).

That's why this repeal is important. We can't hang a new roof on old, insubstantial and rotting timbers, so the timbers must go, down to the very foundation. The foundation in this case is the idea of free education, and it is highly likely that this debate has stirred one of the more careful and thoughtful resolution writers to begin work on a new framework to top that foundation.

So, thank you for the excellent analogy -- I've used it to show you why #28 must go. Please vote FOR the repeal.

Morally/fundamentaly I understand the frustration expressed in regards to the repeal of the amendment and am equally disturbed by repeal. However, in all practicality it is neccesary and I believe the majority of those still supporting the original legislation have either not read or not considered many of the issues addressed in this debate regarding its function. My heart extends to the patriots fighting against the repeal but it is my position that this repeal is neccesary.

Chancellor Anguimalla
Nex Messor

The empire of the 9th Layer is in full support of this repeal, and thinks that it is a good start on the way to repealing required free education all together. This would be highly beneficial to all, as we would then have more money to put toward more important government departments, such as law and order, defense, and economy. I hope that we can continue to work towards fixing this problem once and for all. Thank you, and please support this repeal.

Resolution #28 does absolutely nothing with regards to safeguarding the right to a free education. I can quite understand the hesitation of some nations to support this repeal as they agree with the sentiments behind the original resolution. The Sanguinoi also agree with the sentiments behind the original resolution but can also see that having good intentions does not make something a good resolution or one worth keeping.
As another delegate mentioned previously those nations that agree with the idea of a free education will have free education, those that do not, will not. In that sense legislatively no one would notice if this resolution has removed.
We would fully support the writing of a new resolution on free education, in fact if I had more time and had enough endorsements I might even consider making an attempt at writing one myself.
I can see the logic behind the arguments that as this resolution does nothing it is perfectly possible to write a new resolution without worrying about conflicts with #28. However I do not see why that is a reason for keeping a resolution that fails to do anything to support its cause in a far more spectacular way than many other resolutions that have been repealed or voted down for the same reason.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

As I read resolution 28 it is a statement of principle. There is no harm in statements of principle and indeed it is useful to have ambigous ones as this makes us think and consider our actions while keeping our lawyers and philosphers busy (and out of the country!!). As a statement of principle we indeed would argue all education should be free with no age limitation. What we consider to be education perhaps needs defining.

Rather than be repeal the resolution we would seek its ammendment. For this reason and because as we see it the resolution does no harm we will be voting against the repeal. Why spend this time discussing it when we could be trying to make resolutions about the more serious concerns in our world ( the treatment of penguin species across the nations for example).

Welcome to the United NationsRather than be repeal the resolution we would seek its ammendment. For this reason and because as we see it the resolution does no harm we will be voting against the repeal.Whilst repeals are legal, ammendments are not. Therefore, to improve on the current situation, we have to remove a resolution via repeal, and then submit a redrafted proposal.

This is a common misconception, something that many new arrivals to the UN are not aware of, and we hope Aleshia will take the time to learn this and the other rules for UN resolutions, and become a contributing member to the UN.

such as law and order, defenese, and economy. I hope that we can continue to work towards fixing this problem once and for all. Thank you, and please support this repeal.See, now if you had free education you'd have been able to spell defenese correctly :)

See, now if you had free education you'd have been able to spell defenese correctly :)I'm sorry; was that you bitching about "politeness"?

No no no, see, he's being quaintly roguish; it's only when people disagree with him that's it's appalling and rude. For example, when he says that all Catholics are Nazi, it's light-hearted flippancy; when someone disagrees with that assessment, it's brutal and heinous trolling.

See, now if you had free education you'd have been able to spell defenese correctly :)


The fact that I spelled defense wrong, because of a mistake, is not due to the fact that I think free education is harming my nation. In fact, free education would not help to remedy this problem at all, because 1. free education cannot exist except in a fully socialist state where no money is used at all. The people still have to pay taxes that then pay for the education. And 2. the fact that someone is getting a "free" education doesn't make it a "good" education (I am loathe to use that term, as it is fully opinion), nor does it make the information that they are being taught correct or complete. Clearly your reason for wanting free education is wrong then, or would you not agree?

No no no, see, he's being quaintly roguish; it's only when people disagree with him that's it's appalling and rude. For example, when he says that all Catholics are Nazi, it's light-hearted flippancy; when someone disagrees with that assessment, it's brutal and heinous trolling.

Now, now, just because it might be accurate doesn't mean we need to continue or prolong the bickering, does it?

it's only when people disagree with him that's it's appalling and rude.No, it's not people, it's just you, Gruenberg. And it's not just when you disagree with me either - you are just a naturally irritable fellow.I'm sorry; was that you bitching about "politeness"?Oh, you're just so marvellously funny! A bit slow on the whole uptake (by several months or so), but meh. Funny. Hah.

Oh, and I was hardly being rude, old boy. Just a little harmless poking. Or quaintly roguish, yes thank you QUOD!

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad45rf.pnghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad43ps.pnghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/overreact.gifhttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/zombies.jpghttp://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/hug3fw.jpg

But errrrr....when did I say I was consistent?Now, now, just because it might be accurate doesn't mean we need to continue or prolong the bickering, does it?It's harmless, they (one or more) try and pick a fight with me, and I either shrug it off, or make them look silly. <shrugs>

But this is hardly the place for yet another attempt is it? This is about the repeal, not for mud slinging.

The Justified Ancients of -MU-MU- would offer their support for this repeal, mainly because our domain contains many inhabitants with a lifespan wildly outside of conventional measurements.

And secondly because the variety of species within our domain is vast, with no species a majority.

As I read resolution 28 it is a statement of principle. There is no harm in statements of principle and indeed it is useful to have ambigous ones as this makes us think and consider our actions while keeping our lawyers and philosphers busy (and out of the country!!). As a statement of principle we indeed would argue all education should be free with no age limitation. What we consider to be education perhaps needs defining.

Rather than be repeal the resolution we would seek its ammendment. For this reason and because as we see it the resolution does no harm we will be voting against the repeal. Why spend this time discussing it when we could be trying to make resolutions about the more serious concerns in our world ( the treatment of penguin species across the nations for example).

Of course, you can't legally write amendment to Resolution #28, but you can write another resolution about free education that will not duplicate Resolution #28. Because Resolution #28 is so insubstantial it is not very hard thing to do.

But this is hardly the place for yet another attempt is it? This is about the repeal, not for mud slinging.

Agreed and you have my apology; I wasn't "piling on", but pleading for civility.

For God's sake, won't SOMEBODY think about the NEWBIES?

But this is hardly the place for yet another attempt is it? This is about the repeal, not for mud slinging.

So, then this....

See, now if you had free education you'd have been able to spell defenese correctly :)

and this....

It's harmless, they (one or more) try and pick a fight with me, and I either shrug it off, or make them look silly. <shrugs>

Are helpful how exactly?

If you wish to discuss the repeal, then discuss the repeal. If you wish to sling mud, then sling mud. If you wish to claim that they started it and you are above such things after you initiated a verbal attack on someone, then save us all the hypocricy and leave. "Take you ball and go home." as it were.

Thanks.

i agree completely with repealing this bill and any other that try broad attempts at conformity and i voted accordingly. and why are you all fighting above me there? not very fitting behaviour for world leaders is it?

i agree completely with repealing this bill and any other that try broad attempts at conformity and i voted accordingly. and why are you all fighting above me there? not very fitting behaviour for world leaders is it?

To use an RL example, the representative of Brazil referred to GW Bush as demonspawn who made the whole chambers reek of brimstone and sulfur for days. I think we accomplish more decorum than that, here. Other than that, most of us just don't deal well with hypocrisy.

well fair play finding such an example but i dont believe a representative is actually a world leader and all he did was refer to GWB as demon spawn. the actualy leader did not actually call GWB this to his face, so i believe that point was flawed.

[Originally Posted by Quintessence of Dust
No no no, see, he's being quaintly roguish; it's only when people disagree with him that's it's appalling and rude. For example, when he says that all Catholics are Nazi, it's light-hearted flippancy; when someone disagrees with that assessment, it's brutal and heinous trolling.]

on the other hand i think refering to all catholics as nazis does show a particularly high standard of decorum.

and why are you all fighting above me there? not very fitting behaviour for world leaders is it?Meh. You've obviously never met Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich or Manuelo Fernanda. It's just as well. Carry on.

To use an RL example, the representative of Brazil referred to GW Bush as demonspawn who made the whole chambers reek of brimstone and sulfur for days.OOC: Actually that was the president of Venezuela. :p

well fair play finding such an example but i dont believe a representative is actually a world leader and all he did was refer to GWB as demon spawn. the actualy leader did not actually call GWB this to his face, so i believe that point was flawed.

Kenny fixed that one up for me. It was the President of Venezuela, so he was a world leader. It's also worth mentioning that many of us here are only representatives of their nations, not the leaders themselves. Myself, for example, am simply an ambassador. The leader of Kivisto has far too much to deal with to be running off to the UN building to deal with these matters himself all the time.

No no no, see, he's being quaintly roguish; it's only when people disagree with him that's it's appalling and rude. For example, when he says that all Catholics are Nazi, it's light-hearted flippancy; when someone disagrees with that assessment, it's brutal and heinous trolling.

on the other hand i think refering to all catholics as nazis does show a particularly high standard of decorum.

You're either attempting to be funny, or need to recheck your dictionary for a proper definition of "decorum". I'm not sure which it is.

Of course, you can't legally write amendment to Resolution #28, but you can write another resolution about free education that will not duplicate Resolution #28. Because Resolution #28 is so insubstantial it is not very hard thing to do.
Not quite so simple, we fear, since doubtless a number of lawyers will need to be well endowed before a replacement resolution can be drafted that does not fall foul of article 6 of the UN Education Aid Act. We suspect it can be done, but given the general apathy of the supporters of this repeal we feel it more appropriate to press our educational advantage.

For God's sake, won't SOMEBODY think about the NEWBIES?
This particular newbie, if we understand the terminology correctly, is finding the entire contretemps most amusing and highly illuminating.

(At least he is IC; OOC a few people clearly need to go and de-stress).

Not quite so simple, we fear, since doubtless a number of lawyers will need to be well endowed before a replacement resolution can be drafted that does not fall foul of article 6 of the UN Education Aid Act. We suspect it can be done, but given the general apathy of the supporters of this repeal we feel it more appropriate to press our educational advantage.


Certainly you are right, but this has nothing to do with Resolution #28. Actually, good thing about Resolution #28 is that it is block attempts to completely outlaw free education. Resolution #171 “UN Education Aid Act” also helps with this, but to do free education mandatory in all UN nations it must be repealed.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

... most amusing and highly illuminating.


I would urge the Gobbannean delegate not to become too illuminated, as it would be better light never be cast on some of the darker corners of the General Assembly.

On the question of leadership versus representation, I must confess that I am currently the President of my nation and the UN representative, but I was condemned on a technicality, my lawyer was drunk, it was somebody else anyway, the witnesses were suborned and I am appealing against the sentence.

It has occurred to me to wonder, should I ever become displeased with the delegate from Gobbannium -- an unlikely event, given the quality of his contributions, but these things do happen in the heat of debate -- and adjure him to shut his Gobb, would there be any theological repercussions, or is his an entirely secular position?

Finally, on the ostensible reason for our still being here at this hour of the morning, to wit, the repeal proposal, I can only beg delegates to please do the decent thing.

Dicey Reilly, president of Ardchoille.

The nation of Dextropia must stongly disagree with this course of action. Allowing children under the age of 18 to have free education is essential if we want to mold them into productive members of society. Who will fill essential job positions further on down the line, only the rich who can afford to pay to have their children educated. Think about all the pontential doctors, lawyers, scientists who will never be able to reach their full potential because their families did not have a lot of money. What I ask you will happen to all the people who are unable to pay for an education? Will they be able to find work in a world where having a good education is the key to securing employment, or will they have to find other was to make money. If 28 is repealed it will cause a marked increase in unemployment as more and more uneducated people are unable to secure jobs. Poverty rates will soar to new hights as well as well as an encrease in the amount of people who have lost their homes and all of their possesion because they were unable to pay their bill. The last thing, would be the increase in the crime rate. People who were left without homes or who have little or no money would be forced to find other ways to survive, such as robbery or selling drugs.
In closing I would just like to say that repealing 28 would be the biggest mistake that the UN has ever made. It would destroy the lives of many innocent people for generations to come. At the most some revison must be made to 28 to make it more standardized. Thank you

On behalf of the people of the Most Serene Republic of Iunor, I, the President, wish to express my concerns with the repeal of Resolution #28 Free Education, which are the following:

Why is a human right thrown away in favour of no right for both humans and non-humans? Should emancipation not mean that the rights of minorities are equaled to those of the majority instead of the other way around? Wouldn't a simple change of Resolution #28 take care of this? And what will happen to children in countries where education only has been free because of this resolution? Will they be kicked out of school if they can't afford the tuition fee?

On behalf of the people of the Most Serene Republic of Iunor I would like to be informed of the actions undertaken by the UN after the repeal of Resolution #28. If a new resolution will not be implemented expressing those concerns and guaranteeing free education for both humans and non-humans, I will have to decline the repeal.

Kenny fixed that one up for me. It was the President of Venezuela, so he was a world leader. It's also worth mentioning that many of us here are only representatives of their nations, not the leaders themselves. Myself, for example, am simply an ambassador. The leader of Kivisto has far too much to deal with to be running off to the UN building to deal with these matters himself all the time.

the point is that you were under the impression that he was a rep so stating it in response to my critisism of the behaviour of world leader was wrong on the underlying principle, even if he did end up being a president.

You're either attempting to be funny, or need to recheck your dictionary for a proper definition of "decorum". I'm not sure which it is.

and that was sarcasm, which in fairness does not come across the best in writing but the next time ill be sure to include a wee smiley face or something so you are able to follow me.

Also i think free education to all those under 18 years of age is essential but should not be regulated by a body such as this because it lacks the ability to put into action its proposal. this sort of issue would be more suitible for a body eqilivant to the EU to regulate because they have monetary backing to what they decide if the need is there. simply telling every country to give their citizens free education without any regard to their wealth or religious groups is simply wishful thinking and purely unrealistic.

and that was sarcasm, which in fairness does not come across the best in writing but the next time ill be sure to include a wee smiley face or something so you are able to follow me.

Groovy. That's kinda what I figured, but couldn't be sure.

Also i think free education to all those under 18 years of age is essential but should not be regulated by a body such as this because it lacks the ability to put into action its proposal. this sort of issue would be more suitible for a body eqilivant to the EU to regulate because they have monetary backing to what they decide if the need is there. simply telling every country to give their citizens free education without any regard to their wealth or religious groups is simply wishful thinking and purely unrealistic.

On these points, we completely agree.

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

Hellao!!! It is me again!! Borat Sogadiev! This proposal is a very nice!!! I fully support it simply because it takes away the "educational" commitee that UN doesn't have in the first place, because UN is very "uneducated". In my country, you would be executed for bringing up a commitee that doesn't even exist. Besides who needs to spend money on education, when you can spend it on weap...hahem...other important things?

-Rep. Borat Sogadiev

Quite frankly, this is a common-sense proposal.

Countries should not be forced to empty their funds into federalized education. Take for example, the former USSR, which believed that "everyone had the right to an education." The consequence of such as system was that sub-Ural daughters of goat-herders, who had no other desire but to work on that farm, were forced to learn physics.

You want to defend the "right to free education?" Well the whole point of a "RIGHT" is to make it AVAILABLE, not to impose it on anyone else. It is the decision of individual nations based on their economy, their private sector, and their at-home policies.

Nothing more.

i comply

i comply

How does that work, exactly? For a repeal, I mean. There's nothing to comply with.

It has occurred to me to wonder, should I ever become displeased with the delegate from Gobbannium -- an unlikely event, given the quality of his contributions, but these things do happen in the heat of debate -- and adjure him to shut his Gobb, would there be any theological repercussions, or is his an entirely secular position?

Our position is entirely secular; we are UN ambassador by virtue of our election to the Throne of Segontium, which currently by the will of the High Prince confers that post as well as responsibility for the coordination of all of Gobbannium's ambassadors. Vigorous abjuration to ourself, as a member of the royal family, is in theory a minor theological matter, but centuries of practical analysis have demonstrated this can be safely ignored. Indeed, we would observe that our Permanant Undersecretary's favoured method of alerting us to an oncoming indelicacy which she believes we may be about to commit is to kick us sharply on the shin.

We would like to commiserate with President Riley, having heard some rumours concerning her recent elevation. We too had no intention of becoming an ambassador, which occurred because of what we can only describe as rank carelessness in our failure to notice that the responsibilities of the Throne of Segontium had changed in the recent past. When we stood for this office, we had been looking forward to charge of Wildlife Control and Preservation, and had tentatively planned a great many fact-finding missions to the more extensive national hunting reserves.

How does that work, exactly? For a repeal, I mean. There's nothing to comply with.
He agrees to stop doing that whole "To give every person under the age of 18 the right to a free education" thing. It would have been funnier if he had said "to comply".

My thanks to Prince Rhodri for his compassionate response to my plight (and, indeed, for the implied permission to abuse him unmercifully should the occasion arise).

I commiserate with his disappointment, and only wish I could offer him some hunting in Ardchoille to soften the pangs. Unfortunately, as Ardchoille is a magical nation, pursued beasts have a tendency to turn into unclad and nubile youths or maidens, or, worse, into exasperated deities, so we have had to ban the practice.

However, there are a number of helpful neighbouring countries in my home region which may be able to accommodate his desires. I envisage him pursuing the wily ferret throughout the Glorious Northerness of Bahgum, discussing the philosophy of the Single Sock with the gentle Naked Wandering Peoples of Nemonicus, or even eagerly exploring the generous slopes of the Ample Endowment of Thessadoria.

With the Prince's permission, I shall contact the regional powers of Zhaucauozian Friendship forthwith to see if a consensual invitation can be obtained.

Dicey Reilly, president of Ardchoille.

We are delighted to hear of the opportunities to be afforded in the Zhaucauozian Friendship, but would not wish to put the Ambassador to any great trouble on our behalf. There are no shortage of hunting opportunities in the Land Without Shrimp, whether one prefer the naturalist's approach of seeking out Gobbannium's rare dusk mole, the more adventurous pursuit of wild otters of Cirque de Otter, or the expert hunter's favoured prey, the killer rabbit of the Perpetually Crazy. Of course, there are always issues; vampire hunting is a sport to be undertaken with care at present, since a number of our fellow nations are attempting to improve their colonies of brooding vampires for ecological reasons. Or so they tell us.

None the less we would be delighted to speak informally with the good Ambassador concerning the clear common interests our two regions hold, in the hopes of future mutual cooperation.

Muttering is heard in the Ardchoillean delegation.

"This is bloody embarrassing, Bast."

"You brought it on yourself, Dicey."

"Yes, but .."

"Say it, Dicey."

"Oh, very well. Er ... I am glad to hear that the Prince is not lacking in opportunities to hunt, as it has been pointed out to me by my Presidential Feline Advisor that his avowed canine-friendly policies would not be compatible, even for a brief hunting tour, with the current popular feelings in ..."

"No, make it clear."

"Oh, very well. Your Highness, I shouldn't have invited you, not even for the briefest of hunting-trip holidays, because we're a 50% Cat nation and you're, if you'll forgive the term, a dog-loving nation. So this is another dumb thing I've done and I'm sorry, but the invitation, um, no longer stands."

"Is withdrawn."

"Is withdrawn. Dammit."

We understand the awkwardness of your position, Ambassador, and take no offense. In the interests of fairness to both of our nations, we should point out that while we personally are a dog-lover, albeit one harbouring no dislike of felinoids, we as a nation are entirely ambivalent on the subject.

Perhaps we should continue our conversation in the Strangers' Bar, where our misunderstandings will be less mutually embarrassing?