NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a proposal that I have submitted twice, the second time with some things that might have not gone against prior UN proposals but apparently it still did. It has been deleted twice. This is my final draft and I need help figuring out how to make it so that it won't get deleted again.

Be it hereby enacted by the United Nations

WHEREAS, the United Nations has the responsibility to enforce the right of governments to prune its population, so that only contributing citizens remain;

RESPECTING, Resolution #26 and the like, which state equal protection under the law;

CONCURRING WITH, Resolution #26 and the like, whereas an individual that does not contribute to society is not defined as a citizen;

ACKNOWLEDGING, that this resolution does not allow genocide,

The United Nations hereby pass Population Pruning Procedures:

Preamble

Nations have citizens that contribute nothing to society, and, in some cases, are detrimental to society. Nations have the right to forcibly export these citizens to a nation that does not exercise this right AND is willing to accept the said citizens. If no such nation exists, or if the citizen refuses to be exported, the citizen may be humanely executed.

Operative Section

Article I: Definitions

Section I: A citizen is defined as a member of a nation, born or naturalized, who owes their allegiance to that nation, in return for that nations protection.

Section II: Allegiance is defined as contributing to the nation and society, and in doing this affirming your loyalty to the said nation.

Article II: Situation

Section I: If a citizen does not offer their allegiance, that is to say contributes to society, then the government has the right to hold that person to a trial and convict them of not contributing, which will remove that citizen from society.

Section II: By the definitions set forth in this resolution, a nation has the right to no longer consider that citizen a citizen, and truly to consider them as an enemy of the state. Therefore that citizen is not eligible for the rights that may be given to citizens through other resolutions and other laws in that nation.

Section III: A citizen can be selected as not contributing in several ways. If a citizen does not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income or does not do any type of volunteer work, or not doing any type of government work, it is considered not contributing. Also if a citizen is detrimental to society, that is contributing to an underground economy that does not contribute to the government of a society, or disrupting society to the point that other citizens do not contribute, then they are not contributing to society.

Article III: Consequence

Section I: If a citizen is believed by the government to not be contributing, the government must give the citizen 90 days notice. If behavior has not changed then the government may exile or execute the citizen.

Section II: Exile must be to an uninhabited area, or to another nation that will accept the citizen.

Section III: Execution must be done humanely through lethal injection.

Article IV: Enforcement

Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly then he must gain a petition of 5% of the government’s population agreeing with him. Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a commission appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly.

Section II: This resolution will be enforced by the United Nations in all member states, by member states.

Article V: Activation

Section I: This resolution will go into effect upon the final reading of the legislative body of the United Nations.

OOC: Most likely, it simply didn't reach quorum, rather than being deleted.

IC: Dear lord no. This is beyond stupid and in the realm of you possibly needing to get your mental health checked. You do realize that this allows nations to execute people for stupidity?

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Representative

What a sick bastard you are. And as those who've been around these hallowed halls for even a few days can tell you, coming from me, that says a lot.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

While I may somewhat agree that sometimes, death may be necessary to those that may be dangerous to the nation, I do think the current laws of the Nation are able to handle it. If a nation feels as though it needs to do such a thing, it will do it. We can try people for crimes, you know, like treason, murder, etc.

If you are worried that you need regulation to prevent people from doing genocide, remember that if a nation does commit genocide, the whole world will know it and then militarly invade that nation, blowing the whole country up and freeing the people of that nation. It happens all the time. So, don't worry.

While I appreciate that you are taking the function of the state to its logical conclusion and doing so in an imminently practical manner, I ain't a big fan of the state to begin with, so you can see how I would be opposed to this proposal.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Yes I realize that people who are mentally retarded people may be subject to this proposal, but my real question is how do I prevent my proposal from being deleted on the grounds that it breaks resolutions about fair trial and genocide (which I don't think this is either from the wording in my proposal). And yes, I am absolutely certain that this was deleted because it was gone before it had a chance to reach quorum and I got a telegram from the moderators each time it was deleted.

The Divinely Exquisite Grand Inquisitor of the Divinely Exquisite Utopia of Milonnia

OOC: Most likely, it simply didn't reach quorum, rather than being deleted.

No, it was deleted both times. We send telegrams, y'see, so he knows it too.

People with mental handicaps are still people nonetheless, ergo have the undeniable right to exist. We hope no nation under sane mind seriously supports this proposal.

Lostelle Caelia (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Lostelle_Caelia)
UN Delegate Pro Tempore
The United States of Cookesland

undeniable right to exist
Sez who?

Any time anyone uses unequivocal absolutes in their rejection of a thesis, I start looking at the other side of the equation to see how I can help the debate. You're starting with your conclusion, Ambassador Caelia, and arriving at your premise from there. Better dust off your logic, 'cause that ain't gonna cut it.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria

To support Amb. Donovan's angle on things here, I will now employ my favourite gravedig.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7696959&postcount=3


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.

This is a proposal that I have submitted twice, the second time with some things that might have not gone against prior UN proposals but apparently it still did. It has been deleted twice. This is my final draft and I need help figuring out how to make it so that it won't get deleted again.

*sighs*

Yet again with the "we hate your proposal so we'll debate its merit even though you asked for help on wording and legalities"

Be it hereby enacted by the United Nations

WHEREAS, the United Nations has the responsibility to enforce the right of governments to prune its population, so that only contributing citizens remain;

RESPECTING, Resolution #26 and the like, which state equal protection under the law;

CONCURRING WITH, Resolution #26 and the like, whereas an individual that does not contribute to society is not defined as a citizen;

ACKNOWLEDGING, that this resolution does not allow genocide,

That's not acknowledging. Acknowledging is conceding a point that people will try to raise. NOTING is to declare something that might be raised as an objection or seen as a potential flaw.

The United Nations hereby pass Population Pruning Procedures:

You use hereby in the first line and last line. Before you submit a "Population Pruning Procedures" proposal, you should employ a "Proposal Pruning Procedures" manual to it.

Preamble

I would think that your previous 6 lines would classify as a "Preamble", unless you're calling it a Pre-preamble, but then it just gets confusing. I'd actually just drop the word Preamble, but you may wish to put the following line into the ALL CAPS 1 WORD MODE (BELIEVING might be appropriate)

Nations have citizens that contribute nothing to society, and, in some cases, are detrimental to society.

Nations also have citizens that people disregarded as being unable to contribute anything to society make gigantic contributions in multiple forms - from being an inspiring individual inventing things or utilizing what few things they are still able to do to make a new invention or new theory or whatever. It is ignorance and arrogance to be dismissive of anyone and to say they are incapable of accomplishing anything. I have met fully able bodied people who are detrimental to society but having amazing potential value. Who are you to determine what a person's worth to society is?

Nations have the right to forcibly export these citizens to a nation that does not exercise this right AND is willing to accept the said citizens.

I'm fairly sure that forced Emigration is illegal, but I can't recall what resolution that might be. On an equally worthy note, it is easier, in today's UN, to shoot such a person than to export them. You'd have about as much of a chance of passing such a resolution (none), but trust me, it is easier.

By the way, this isn't a preamble clause, this would be a "DECLARES" clause which would therefore belong in the Operative section

If no such nation exists, or if the citizen refuses to be exported, the citizen may be humanely executed.

I see you have that option available. By the way, same comment about it's proper location

*snip body

Ok, drop Article V. COMPLETELY rewrite the title and preamble so it doesn't read as if you're gunning for the disabled or otherwise handicapped. That will get you around UNR #160. I am SURE that forcing "allegiance" is illegal somewhere, but I'd have to research further.

By the way, don't consider my snipping out your body and not looking at it as a sign it's good, more of it's a sign that I have to completely readjust my filter and will be back when that has been achieved

By the way, you probably wish to append to those two rights you declare at the top that they are "subject to the limitations of other, previously passed International legislation". That will probably complete you getting around (directly) the Genocide question (as well as the disabled, the indigenous, the women, the homosexuals, the labor unions, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc). The fair trial question is more complex as it deals with whether you can force exile from one's home nation and whether the procedures you have outlined are actually within the legalities of the UN. I've been out of the loop lately so I don't remember where or if that sort of thing has been disallowed.

OOC: Kiv: greatest quote EVER!

OOC: Kiv: greatest quote EVER!

OOC: Thanks. I think you know where I found it. For me, that one comes in just a little ahead of

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8359668&postcount=11

Let those who can, do, and those who can't, die. Next?

*sighs*

Yet again with the "we hate your proposal so we'll debate its merit even though you asked for help on wording and legalities"



Did it ever occur to you that some of us find the basic premise behind the proposal -- that states should be permitted under the banner of international law to banish or even execute "undesirables" -- so incredibly repugnant that we refuse to help?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Nations have citizens that contribute nothing to society, and, in some cases, are detrimental to society.

"There is nothing more useless than a newborn baby."

Let's kill 'em all. Why waste 18 years waiting for them to turn into fry cooks at McDonalds or some other dumbass entry-level job. Useless, the lot of them.

Did it ever occur to you that some of us find the basic premise behind the proposal -- that states should be permitted under the banner of international law to banish or even execute "undesirables" -- so incredibly repugnant that we refuse to help?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right, being a stuck up prick who only cares to bash in the idiots and help those that agree with me is a much preferable alternative to the way I currently handle things: believing that some of the most intelligent individuals don't always agree with me and sometimes they are worth talking to so that I can get a better idea of why they believe what they believe in and possibly reason with them that it isn't the correct thing to believe, and never forget that perhaps the UN could use more proposals of high quality so that people have to read the arguments rather than look at how many times the author wrote "u shud vote 4 this" and generally welcome and encourage people who might give reasonable and intelligent debate. What was I thinking?

OOC: Thanks. I think you know where I found it.

I actually didn't remember the debate, but I do know that I've used the quote in quite a few others - mainly abortion.

For me, that one comes in just a little ahead of

Y'know, when I joined UNOG, I was absolutely astonished to find out that the pair of them were members. Having had my ass whooped I don't know how many times by them, I thoroughly understand why.

I actually didn't remember the debate, but I do know that I've used the quote in quite a few others - mainly abortion.

After the first time I read it, I started waiting for the chance to use it. The topics don't come up too often anymore, though. Oddly enough, I've now used it twice today.

Y'know, when I joined UNOG, I was absolutely astonished to find out that the pair of them were members. Having had my ass whooped I don't know how many times by them, I thoroughly understand why.

That's similar how I felt when I found you there. I seem to recall being on the danger end of Ambassador MacDougall more than once right after I joined the UN.

Oh, I'm sorry. You're right, being a stuck up prick...

Pot, meet Kettle. :rolleyes:

...who only cares to bash in the idiots and help those that agree with me is a much preferable alternative to the way I currently handle things: believing that some of the most intelligent individuals don't always agree with me and sometimes they are worth talking to so that I can get a better idea of why they believe what they believe in and possibly reason with them that it isn't the correct thing to believe, and never forget that perhaps the UN could use more proposals of high quality so that people have to read the arguments rather than look at how many times the author wrote "u shud vote 4 this" and generally welcome and encourage people who might give reasonable and intelligent debate.

Yes, perhaps we could reason with the author of this proposal and get him to make the language all pretty. That still wouldn't change the fact that executing "undesirables" is a disgusting concept. I would think you'd agree, but then you're too high up on that horse, waving and playing the great educator of newcomers. But if you think we need a proposal of high quality that will permit what this proposal is aiming for, well...there's just no reasoning with you, is there?

What was I thinking?

You weren't. You were too busy being your usual haughty self. You should've stayed retired.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Pot, meet Kettle. :rolleyes:

No comeback I could think of would be considered suitable for the UN floor.

Yes, perhaps we could reason with the author of this proposal and get him to make the language all pretty. That still wouldn't change the fact that executing "undesirables" is a disgusting concept.

I agree with you. However, I see no reason to act as if both objectives are mutually exclusive. You will notice that in the very post you originally attacked, I spent as much time making suggestions on improvements as I did criticizing his arguments. That's how I have always worked.

I would think you'd agree, but then you're too high up on that horse, waving and playing the great educator of newcomers.

I'm sitting up on my high horse? Do you recall, Ambassador, when you were near being forcibly removed from the UN floor because you were acting like anyone that considered even SOME leniency towards those who watched, bought or otherwise entertained themselves with child porn? Do you remember your handling of the debate over UNR #169?

I debate with people, I disagree with people, I sometimes even get frustrated with those I debate with, but at least I can keep a level head and have respect and understanding for the opposing position - even if I disagree with it. Mr Ambassador, explain to me how that means I'm on a high horse?

Or do you just like to sit from the very definition of hypocracy?

But if you think we need a proposal of high quality that will permit what this proposal is aiming for,

It has nothing to do about the contents of this proposal. It has everything to do with a vision of what the UN should be.

well...there's just no reasoning with you, is there?

Hmm....and here I thought I was talking about reason to begin with.

You weren't. You were too busy being your usual haughty self. You should've stayed retired.

What, and leave people like you unchecked? Someone had to keep banging the IntFed drums.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: just out of curiosity, this fued has been going on, to my knowledge, since shortly after I retired because I can't come back here without running into it and don't recall it existing before I retired. As such, I'm wondering, how the heck did it start?

Did it ever occur to you that some of us find the basic premise behind the proposal -- that states should be permitted under the banner of international law to banish or even execute "undesirables" -- so incredibly repugnant that we refuse to help?

Did it ever occur to you that "undesirables" could be anyone? Terrorists? Traitors? Criminals? Evil Alien races that want to destroy all of mankind? Of course, sometimes, people call certain races "undesirable" and then do genocides, which is immoral. But other times, like with the evil alien race case, they really are undesirable, and they have to be destroyed. Case-by-case basis is necessary, I'll agree that most removal of 'undersiables' are wrong, but we need to deal with the grey issues, mind you.

I think you can do such an removal of undesirable already under UN laws, and it is happening anyway. The thing that matters is that this resolution wants to REGULATE it, so that genocide does not actually occur.

Plenty of ways already to deal with the terrorists or alien invaders. Prison, execution, or whatnot in the first case and war in the second.

...in fact, why the hell would you not only allow but help a terrorist escape to a different country?

We are once again somewhat disconcerted to find ourselves in agreement Sheik bin Cluich. This proposal is possibly the most reprehensible idea we have seen generated in this chamber, which given some of the recent debates is saying quite a lot.

Aside from trivial drafting details such as proper use of English grammar and punctuation, and the fundamental concept which we regard as exceptionally repellant, we would fault this proposal for asserting that nations have rights which they do not have under UN law, and denying that individuals have rights which they do have under UN law. It is also unhelpful in the extreme that the drafter has chosen to arbitrarily redefine the term 'citizen' part way through the proposal, and is then inconsistent in which definition is being used throughout.

On a very interesting note, I'm now having a harder and harder time of firguring out what this proposal is for. The more I think about it, the more I see a few thousand different identities of what it could possibly be about - the major candidates, of course, being an approval of exiling people who fail to hold allegiance to the nation or an attempt to standardize how exile courses of action are supposed to be conducted. The latter, I think, would be less objectional to the UN from a moral stance, but would likely still fail due to National Sovereignty issues as was represented by Texan Hotrodders earlier.\

Would the author be so kind as to clarify his actual intent?

Would the author be so kind as to clarify his actual intent?I thought it was rather obvious. Weed out the weak. Social Darwinism at its finest.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

I thought it was rather obvious. Weed out the weak. Social Darwinism at its finest.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

What is curious is that while the title and preamble certainly go to great lengths insinuating about the weak and Social Darwinism, further analysis of the proposal suggests that perhaps it is really looking at those who intentionally are lazy or counter-productive to society (eg: the ones on eternal welfare and those who commit crimes or more directly treasonous activites). In fact, it is the very fact that the body of the proposal deals with allegiance that clued us in that the first glance of the proposal was not as clear as further analysis. In this bodies swiftness to condemn, I fear that it may have overlooked the actual purpose and I would like to verify whether this is, indeed, the case.

If this passes, I'd like to nominate Milonnia's representative to be the first citizen this legislation applies to.

This draft strikes us as useless on one hand, and appalling on the other. As we read it, this draft would give nations the right to expel or exile unwanted residents - something they already have the right to do. That's the useless part. The appalling part, naturally, is the executing unwanted citizens bit. We would not - could not - support that clause, and would be morally obligated to oppose it in every legal way possible.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

OOC: just out of curiosity, this fued has been going on, to my knowledge, since shortly after I retired because I can't come back here without running into it and don't recall it existing before I retired. As such, I'm wondering, how the heck did it start?

OOC: We had a brief, albeit rather explosive, OOC feud a while back (by my recollection, it exploded a year ago this month, if memory serves), but it wasn't here. However, it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. I'm guessing you think there's still some sorta OOC feud going on, because Nadnerb and MacDougall are always getting into it. That's all IC stuff. The two have never liked each other. They really have no reason to, either. They're practically polar opposites.

Thanks for your help everyone. I think I've got it down. Here's the final draft.

Be it hereby enacted by the United Nations

WHEREAS, the United Nations has the responsibility to enforce the right of governments to prune its population, so that only contributing citizens remain;

RESPECTING, that this proposal may be subject to the limitations of previously passed international legislation;

CONCURRING WITH, previously passed international legislation, whereas an individual that does not contribute to society is not defined as a citizen;

DECLARING THAT, this resolution merely gives a nation’s government a right that they may or may not enforce;

BELIEVING, that this resolution does not allow genocide;


The United Nations hereby pass the Population Pruning Procedures:

Preamble

Nations have citizens that contribute nothing to society, and, in some cases, are detrimental to society. Nations have the right to hold these citizens on trial in which the punishment is to remove those citizens from society in any way possible. If a nation exists that will take the noncontributing citizens and the citizens are willing to leave their nation then the citizen has the option to be deported. If this does not exist then the government may find another way to remove that citizen from society.

Operative Section

Article I: Definitions

Section I: A citizen is defined as a member of a nation, born or naturalized, who owes their allegiance to that nation, in return for that nations protection.

Section II: Allegiance is defined as contributing to the nation and society, and in doing this affirming your loyalty to the said nation.

Article II: Situation

Section I: If a citizen does not offer their allegiance, that is to say that he contributes nothing to society, then the government has the right to hold that person to a trial and convict them of not contributing, which will remove that citizen from society.

Section II: By the definitions set forth in this resolution, a nation has the right to no longer consider that citizen a citizen, and truly to consider them as an enemy of the state. Therefore that citizen is not eligible for the rights that may be given to citizens through other resolutions and other laws in that nation.

Section III: A person must be at least three years older than the age of becoming an adult in that nation to be a subject of this resolution.

Section IV: A citizen can be selected as not contributing in several ways. If a citizen does not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income or does not do any type of volunteer work, or not doing any type of government work, it is considered not contributing. Also if a citizen is detrimental to society, that is contributing to an underground economy that does not contribute to the government or society, or disrupting society to the point that other citizens do not contribute, then they are not contributing to society.

Article III: Consequence

Section I: If a citizen is believed by the government to not be contributing, a trial must be held so that the citizen may make a case to prove that they are contributing. If the citizen cannot do so, the government must give the citizen 90 days to begin contributing. If behavior has not changed then the government may exile, execute, or otherwise remove the citizen from society.

Section II: Exile must be to a nation that will accept the citizen if the citizen is willing to leave.

Section III: Execution must be done humanely through lethal injection.

Section IV: If the nation has found another way to remove the citizen they may, as long as it is within the any other UN resolutions throughout history.

Article IV: Enforcement

Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly then he must gain a petition of 5% of the government’s population agreeing with him. Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a commission appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly.

Section II: This resolution will be enforced by the United Nations in all member states, by member states.

Article V: Activation

Section I: This resolution will go into effect upon the final reading of the legislative body of the United Nations.

Thanks again,
The Divinely Exquisite Grand Inquisitor of the Divinely Exquisite Utopia of Milonna

When you're saying "contribute to society," you're really saying "contribute to the state."
Section II: Allegiance is defined as contributing to the nation and society, and in doing this affirming your loyalty to the said nation.

Even worse, if the state decides someone isn't "contributing," the state can execute him?

Section I: If a citizen is believed by the government to not be contributing, a trial must be held so that the citizen may make a case to prove that they are contributing. If the citizen cannot do so, the government must give the citizen 90 days to begin contributing. If behavior has not changed then the government may exile, execute, or otherwise remove the citizen from society.
[emphasis added]


Still bloody repugnant. Take your dreams of psychotic totalitarianism elsewhere, like an episode of The Twilight Zone (http://www.scifilm.org/tv/tz/twilightzone2-29.html), where they belong.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Thanks for your help everyone. I think I have an acceptable final draft.

Be it hereby enacted by the United Nations

WHEREAS, the United Nations has the responsibility to enforce the right of governments to prune its population, so that only contributing citizens remain;

RESPECTING, that this proposal may be subject to the limitations of previously passed international legislation;

CONCURRING WITH, previously passed international legislation, whereas an individual that does not contribute to society is not defined as a citizen;

DECLARING THAT, this resolution merely gives a nation’s government a right that they may or may not enforce;

BELIEVING, that this resolution does not allow genocide;


The United Nations hereby pass the Population Pruning Procedures:

Preamble

Nations have citizens that contribute nothing to society, and, in some cases, are detrimental to society. Nations have the right to hold these citizens on trial in which the punishment is to remove those citizens from society in any way possible. If a nation exists that will take the noncontributing citizens and the citizens are willing to leave their nation then the citizen has the option to be deported. If this does not exist then the government may find another way to remove that citizen from society.

Operative Section

Article I: Definitions

Section I: A citizen is defined as a member of a nation, born or naturalized, who owes their allegiance to that nation, in return for that nations protection.

Section II: Allegiance is defined as contributing to the nation and society, and in doing this affirming your loyalty to the said nation.

Article II: Situation

Section I: If a citizen does not offer their allegiance, that is to say that he contributes nothing to society, then the government has the right to hold that person to a trial and convict them of not contributing, which will remove that citizen from society.

Section II: By the definitions set forth in this resolution, a nation has the right to no longer consider that citizen a citizen, and truly to consider them as an enemy of the state. Therefore that citizen is not eligible for the rights that may be given to citizens through other resolutions and other laws in that nation.

Section III: A person must be at least three years older than the age of becoming an adult in that nation to be a subject of this resolution.

Section IV: A citizen can be selected as not contributing in several ways. If a citizen does not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income or does not do any type of volunteer work, or not doing any type of government work, it is considered not contributing. Also if a citizen is detrimental to society, that is contributing to an underground economy that does not contribute to the government or society, or disrupting society to the point that other citizens do not contribute, then they are not contributing to society.

Article III: Consequence

Section I: If a citizen is believed by the government to not be contributing, a trial must be held so that the citizen may make a case to prove that they are contributing. If the citizen cannot do so, the government must give the citizen 90 days to begin contributing. If behavior has not changed then the government may exile, execute, or otherwise remove the citizen from society.

Section II: Exile must be to a nation that will accept the citizen if the citizen is willing to leave.

Section III: Execution must be done humanely through lethal injection.

Section IV: If the nation has found another way to remove the citizen they may, as long as it is within the any other UN resolutions throughout history.

Article IV: Enforcement

Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly then he must gain a petition of 5% of the government’s population agreeing with him. Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a commission appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly.

Section II: This resolution will be enforced by the United Nations in all member states, by member states.

Article V: Activation

Section I: This resolution will go into effect upon the final reading of the legislative body of the United Nations.

Thanks again!

Thanks for your help everyone. I think I have an acceptable final draft.

You think wrong.

OOC: And you could've just edited your previous post and made changes, rather than posting drafts twice, just a few minutes apart, y'know.

OOC: And you could've just edited your previous post and made changes, rather than posting drafts twice, just a few minutes apart, y'know.

OOC: At least they didn't post back to back.

OOC: At least they didn't post back to back.

OOC: Would have, had I not taken forever to type out my intervening post, as I kept editing it.

Thanks for your help everyone. I think I have an acceptable final draft.

No you don't. You don't even have a legal draft from what I can determine. You have dealt with only one issue: Fair Trial. You have failed miserably at dealing with the many other human rights resolutions in existance. You have ignored the vast majority of my comments about format. You have no arguments about why this resolution should be passed. You are just asking to get into further trouble.

When I went to mock United Nations this was the format that we wrote our resolutions. I'm not changing the format, but I've dealt with free trial, genocide, mental handicaps, age, and forced emmigration. If there is another problem with a conflicting resolution tell me. If not don't complain about my format.

Since there is no machinery for controlling the population of individual nations in the game, I think this constitutes a violation of the rules for UN resolutions. (You can't add features to the game.) Unless a feature is added that allows the player to adjust his nation's population, this resolution will remain existentially meaningless.

Since there is no machinery for controlling the population of individual nations in the game, I think this constitutes a violation of the rules for UN resolutions.

Unfortunately there are also a few daily issues that purport to do the same thing but technically can't because of the game mechanism problem.

When I went to mock United Nations this was the format that we wrote our resolutions. I'm not changing the format.

Allow me to point out that this is not your mock UN. This is NationStates, and we have our own way of doing things. If you don't write this so that it doesn't conflict with existing law, it WILL be deleted.

If somebody wants to do a legal review of existing law, and show the author how many current laws this breaks, that would probably be the most helpful. The author can then do a point by point analysis and attempt to get this into compliance.


On a purely personal note ...

You've set it up so that a single bureaucrat can declare someone as 'non-contributing', and they may be given a trial (minimum, one judge, two lawyers) before being executed. Four people. One dead citizen.

On the other side, a citizen of Frisbeeteria would need a petition signed by 351,800,000 of his fellow citizens to void the decision of these four people. Does that sound remotely equitable to you? If it does, I'll lay you odds that this won't pass. I'll put up four bucks, you put up 350 million dollars. Winner take all.



Edit: I stand corrected. Even half a billion signatures wouldn't void the decision - it would just put the nation on trial to see if they were 'performing everything correctly'. If they passed the UN test, the citizen would still be executed. Man, you've put a lot of effort into being fair here, haven't you?

Given its general vagueness I'm not sure how definitely this contradicts anything, but most obviously it runs up against Freedom of Conscience, in that it seems to advocate executing people who disrupt society.It also directly contradicts Fair Sentencing Act, but that section of the resolution is an incidental one. The idea of 'eliminating non-contributors' doesn't seem in itself illegal: just safely silly enough that it would never reach quorum, let alone pass.

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

When I went to mock United Nations this was the format that we wrote our resolutions. I'm not changing the format, but I've dealt with free trial, genocide, mental handicaps, age, and forced emmigration. If there is another problem with a conflicting resolution tell me. If not don't complain about my format.

1) This United Nations has evolved in ways that your mock United Nations would never have been able to apply. The entire context of this United Nations is completely different. No longer is this a body with near universal membership and only 200 members to decide on everything, rather this is a body where only a quarter of the world claims membership, over 200 resolutions have set precedents, we have a secretariat that has a stringent rules policy of what can and cannot reach the floor, and we have a system of opinions and beliefs far evolved from the basics that you discuss. Further, this is a United Nations were resolution compliance is mandatory or suffer the wrath of the Gnomes, where Penguins have had extensive direct influence on our policy, and where the legal-wanking has become the norm. My suggestions are not made because I sit on a high horse as the representative of Cluichstan insinuates, but because it will improve your resolution to what is considered acceptable within this body.

And yes, I mean this body as a whole. Your proposal, as currently written, is one that is extremely complex, verbose, and deals with gigantic loops

2) Show me where you actually dealt with mental handicaps?

3) FAIR Trial, not free trial

4) Trust me, the line I suggested you use - the "subject to the limitations of previously passed resolutions" line - that is much more effective in bypassing all the legalities.

OOC: Isn't the character limit 3500 or something? My MSWord counts 3518 without spaces and 4263 with, I'm not sure whether or not spaces count.

IC: "The Great Commonwealth is utterly, completely, disinterested in this proposal, as it has absolutely zero chance of passing given the current attitude of the United Nations. This, combined with the disgusting nature of the proposal, means there's no point." With that, Wolfgang walked out of the room.

Trust me, the line I suggested you use - the "subject to the limitations of previously passed resolutions" line - that is much more effective in bypassing all the legalities.
Yes, but it's also a bit lazy.

Yes, but it's also a bit lazy.

And wouldn't pass the legality test. Exclusions need to be explicit, not catch-all.

And wouldn't pass the legality test. Exclusions need to be explicit, not catch-all.

That's....different.... I was still operating on the standard by which UNR #110 worked with, which certainly wasn't explicit...

That's....different.... I was still operating on the standard by which UNR #110 worked with, which certainly wasn't explicit...
I'll have to revisit precedent then. I didn't realize somebody had snuck something that vague through the system.

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

Perhaps not quite as vague as what I had been pushing, but it still is pretty much a catchall for any weapons-related resolutions whereas my comment was a catchall for persecution resolutions....if worded correctly and put in the right place.

My impression (without bothering to read all the passed resolutions word-by-word) was that this proposal, as written, was probably in direct contradiction of multiple passed Human Rights proposals. You can't brush off contradiction when the contradicting parts are the core of your new law.

That's why I suggested that one of you long-time regulars do an analysis for the author. I don't have time to do the research, but I'll be glad to review it if someone else does so.



I still think that "humanely killing useless people" = "genocide", no matter how you dance around it or claim it isn't. The only question is, does the Eon Convention cover this?

The only question is, does the Eon Convention cover this?

probably. Mass killing=genocide, genocide=bad. that's just one player's opinion though

Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion)

Depends on what you declare "value to society" as being, though it isn't explicitly listed.

My specific line was specifically designed to address the problem of utilizing the proposal as grounds for genocide (er....that could be problematic if your declared definition is accurate), or the execution of women, gays, indigenous peoples, handicapped.....I can't think of what else we could append to that list, but basically the various groups that might be protected under various UN resolutions.

Unfortunately, I'm not nearly as good as Gruen when it comes to recalling the details of nearly every resolution on the books - I don't know how he does it.

Anyways, QoD raised Freedom of Conscience

1) DEFINE a ‘prisoner of conscience’ as a person who is detained or imprisoned, not for use of, nor encouragement to use, violence; not for openly supporting nor recommending hatred for racial, religious, sexual or similar reasons to provoke people to discriminate, or to be hostile or violent; but for their political, religious or other beliefs, or their ethnic origin, gender, sexuality, colour or similarly unjustifiable reasons; and accordingly

INSIST that all member states immediately and unconditionally release any prisoners of conscience they are currently detaining and

PROHIBIT member states from detaining prisoners of conscience in the future.

Now THAT cannot be avoided with the way this resolution is worded

Well, let's take a look.

The Eon Convention on Genocide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680087&postcount=84)

Look to me like there are a couple of interesting issues here.

1. Does the PPP's criteria of allegiance and everything it entails rate as "arbitrary" under the language of the Eon Convention?

2. If it does, could the PPP work with the Eon Convention by claiming that such actions are in self-defence and then letting the cases go before TPP?

Sez who?

Any time anyone uses unequivocal absolutes in their rejection of a thesis, I start looking at the other side of the equation to see how I can help the debate. You're starting with your conclusion, Ambassador Caelia, and arriving at your premise from there. Better dust off your logic, 'cause that ain't gonna cut it.

MJ Donovan, CEO Emeritus
The Conglomerated Oligarchy of Frisbeeteria


I do see your point to argue my position Mr. Donovan, and i see my error of wording. What i probably should of said was that people should not be executed because of the way they are, be it mentally handicapped, Homosexual, or any other type of person. The people in question do not have control over who they are and should not be treated as second class citizens, or in this case executees.

Lostelle Caelia (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Lostelle_Caelia)
UN Ambassador Pro Tempore
The United States of Cookesland

Alright, first of all, I was talking about my mock UN experience because some people were complaining about the format in which I had written my proposal (preamble, operative section, etc.). That is roughly the way the real UN writes their resolutions. Secondly, I did put in the vauge catchall that this is subject to prior resolutions: "RESPECTING, that this proposal may be subject to the limitations of previously passed international legislation;". That should take care of any specific genocide as well as protect not only human rights but also mentally handicapped citizens as prior resolutions protect them. I do have specifically defined, what is not contributing: "Operative Section, Article II, Section IV: A citizen can be selected as not contributing in several ways. If a citizen does not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income or does not do any type of volunteer work, or not doing any type of government work, it is considered not contributing. Also if a citizen is detrimental to society, that is contributing to an underground economy that does not contribute to the government or society, or disrupting society to the point that other citizens do not contribute, then they are not contributing to society." This is subject to the nation excercising this right, and if the citizens don't think that they are doing it according to UN standards then they can send a petion to the UN: "Operative Section, Article IV, Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly then he must gain a petition of 5% of the government’s population agreeing with him. Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a commission appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly." Lastly someone mentioned that this breaks the rules because it changes the game and it does not. It declares a right that a nation has. There are several resolutions on the books that are purely hypothetical as this one is. If there is anything wrong with any of these explanations or another legal problem I overlooked please tell me.

Now THAT cannot be avoided with the way this resolution is worded

How so? The excerpt from Freedom of Conscience that you cited makes reference to beliefs, and PPP proscribes actions (and/or prohibits lack of actions).

I missed that Freedom of Conscience thing. Any ideas on how to fix it?

CONCURRING WITH, previously passed international legislation, whereas an individual that does not contribute to society is not defined as a citizen;What legislation would that be? I don't remember ever reading that bit in anything that's passed.
BELIEVING, that this resolution does not allow genocide;
As per multiple comments, the arbitrary nature of the definition of allegiance seems to disagree with this statement.

Section II: Allegiance is defined as contributing to the nation and society, and in doing this affirming your loyalty to the said nation.

Article II: Situation

Section I: If a citizen does not offer their allegiance, that is to say that he contributes nothing to societyThis is a loyalty clause, and allows nations to eliminate dissidents based on arbitrary considerations. This appears to be in violation of Res #26, Universal Bill of Rights, Article 2.

It doesn't even state who in 'the government' has the right to make such a claim. If somebody tosses a rotten tomato at the driver of a government-owned garbage truck, does the driver get to arrest the bloke for disloyalty? It's certainly implied, and that's certainly arbitrary.

Section II: By the definitions set forth in this resolution, a nation has the right to no longer consider that citizen a citizen, and truly to consider them as an enemy of the state. Therefore that citizen is not eligible for the rights that may be given to citizens through other resolutions and other laws in that nation.Not all rights are reserved for citizens. This inclusion as 'enemy' would render such people as wards under Res #31, Wolfish Convention on POW

Also if a citizen is detrimental to society, that is contributing to an underground economy that does not contribute to the government or society, or disrupting society to the point that other citizens do not contribute, then they are not contributing to society.Clearly arbitrary. Don't all nations with the descriptor "The private sector is almost wholly made up of enterprising fourteen-year-old boys selling lemonade on the sidewalk" fall into the 'underground economy' clause?

Section III: Execution must be done humanely through lethal injection.This is the sticking clause, and I believe that the very concept of taking another's life cannot by definition be considered 'humane'. That doesn't make me anti-death-penalty, just stating that I'd never be obtuse enough to call executions 'humane'

he must gain a petition of 5% of the government’s population agreeing with him.The population? The government? The bureaucracy? What the hell does this mean? In a dictatorship, the government's population is 'one', the dictator. In an anarchy, it's everyone. In Frisbeeteria, it's either the 32 CEOs that make up the board, or it's 5% of the citizen-employees that make up our population. So either the poor schmoe has to personally get two top CEOs to sign his petition, or he has to get signatures from 350 million working citizens. Both are equally daunting tasks. Not that it matters, because ...Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a commission appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly. ... this clause actually doesn't offer the option of a commutation of sentence. Regardless of the outcome, all that happens is that the execution is delayed. There is no provision to overturn the sentence, only to affirm that the nation was "performing everything correctly".

I only got up to page 7 of 41 and found clear violations, and several subtler possible violations. We got better at writing later in the game, so I'm sure there are many more protections that get stomped on by this proposal.

No, this isn't ready for publication. Not by a long shot.

Alright, first of all, I was talking about my mock UN experience because some people were complaining about the format in which I had written my proposal (preamble, operative section, etc.). That is roughly the way the real UN writes their resolutions.

The real UN, this is not. Further, I noted Article V (and, actually, Article IV Section II) was unnecessary and a waste of paper within the context of this United Nations. Considering that there is one member of my region that continually complains about proposals that are "too long", looking for ways to shorten your proposal is not a bad thing. Further, considering that your proposal is still in the midst of legal wrangling, shortening it gives you more luxury to fiddle so that you can remain under the cap room. I also made notes about ways that you could improve your efficiency in the pre-preamble. I also noted illogicality in the section titles. The real UN is bound to her customs and norms just as this UN is bound to its own. You wouldn't take a bill from the Canadian Parliament and stick it in the American Congress to be debated without changing her extensively to suit the customs and norms of the latter.

Secondly, I did put in the vauge catchall that this is subject to prior resolutions: "RESPECTING, that this proposal may be subject to the limitations of previously passed international legislation;". That should take care of any specific genocide as well as protect not only human rights but also mentally handicapped citizens as prior resolutions protect them.

That's not, quite, the same. That's basically affirming the mod rule on the matter. You have to target the specific line that this would be applicable to, which is the declaration of the right in the Preamble. That would be what Fris was banging around about

I do have specifically defined, what is not contributing: "Operative Section, Article II, Section IV: A citizen can be selected as not contributing in several ways. If a citizen does not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income or does not do any type of volunteer work, or not doing any type of government work, it is considered not contributing. Also if a citizen is detrimental to society, that is contributing to an underground economy that does not contribute to the government or society, or disrupting society to the point that other citizens do not contribute, then they are not contributing to society."

(By the way, can you use paragraphs next time?)

This would be...I think....the 6th or 7th time I've gotten confused about your intended purpose because I re-read one section and it seems to be, in essence, at odds with other sections. You talk about allegiance in one second, criminal behavior in another, and failure to work in a further one. You have been accused of endorsing genocide and abusing mentally handicapped individuals. For the sake of the sanity of this community: back away from the proposal and tell us what you ACTUALLY want to do instead of assuming we understand what you are trying to do. When we ask, it's because it isn't clear

This is subject to the nation excercising this right, and if the citizens don't think that they are doing it according to UN standards then they can send a petion to the UN: "Operative Section, Article IV, Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly then he must gain a petition of 5% of the government’s population agreeing with him.

As Fris pointed out, that means you need 4 people to eject a person and 5% of the nation to undo the ejection. HELLO corruption.

Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a commission appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly."

Which, I should've noted earlier, is questionable on legalities under the metagaming clause and would generally require an AUC (Another Useless Committee) to implement.

Lastly someone mentioned that this breaks the rules because it changes the game and it does not. It declares a right that a nation has.

Just because your core declares something doesn't make it legal and doesn't state that it doesn't change the rules. The vast majority of legality debates on these forums are about the content, not the topic. Yes, that includes the game mechanics debates.

There are several resolutions on the books that are purely hypothetical as this one is. If there is anything wrong with any of these explanations or another legal problem I overlooked please tell me.

We're working on it

Formats of resolutions have changed many many times. There are so many different formats, that I myself am confused. But I will remove the fifth article and revise the preamble for character count's sake. And just to reduce the confusion that I'm sorry for having induced, what I am trying to do here is give nations the right to remove "freeloaders"; people that only consume in society but do not contribute anything back. Several important points were brought up that my resolution does not protect the mentally handicapped nor did it protect children until recently. Lastly I don't think that it is arbitrary as it is clearly defined what is the offense of course I do need to revise the judging procedure. Thanks for your help so far.

Sorry, Fris, but both of your stated contradictions with passed legislation don't seem accurate

This is a loyalty clause, and allows nations to eliminate dissidents based on arbitrary considerations. This appears to be in violation of Res #26, Universal Bill of Rights, Article 2.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

It defines allegiance based upon actions resulting in contributions rather than statements of loyalty. UNR #26 talks solely about communication of position verbally or through mediums. I don't see the conflict

Not all rights are reserved for citizens. This inclusion as 'enemy' would render such people as wards under Res #31, Wolfish Convention on POW

Actually, no

The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them. The Convention shall also apply to all cases of occupation, even if the occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Enemies of the state seem to fail to be covered by this

Yes, you get final word on the matter, but these don't seem to actually meet the bar.

How so? The excerpt from Freedom of Conscience that you cited makes reference to beliefs, and PPP proscribes actions (and/or prohibits lack of actions).

Y'know......I'm so bloody confused about this resolution right now, that I have no clue how anything is working anymore. It's like he turned English on its head and wrote a resolution. DLE couldn't redefine words this effectively

Alright let's see how this next draft pans out. I tried to reduce confusion as much as possible, cut out a lot to shorten it, and put in specifics on past resolutions.

Be it hereby enacted by the United Nations

WHEREAS, the United Nations has the responsibility to enforce the right of governments to prune its population, so that only contributing citizens remain;

DECLARING THAT, this resolution merely gives a nation’s government a right that they may or may not enforce;

BELIEVING, that this resolution does not allow genocide as it does not target a specific group of people that are incapable of changing their conditions;

Article I: Situation

Section I: If a citizen does not contribute to society, then the government has the right to hold that person to a trial and convict them of not contributing, which will remove that citizen from society.

Section II: A person must be at least three years older than the age of becoming an adult in that nation to be a subject of this resolution. If that person is receiving an education at the time, they are also exempted from being a subject of this resolution. Also if a person has a legitimate excuse for not contributing (handicaps, mental disorders, etc.) then they cannot be a subject of this resolution.

Section III: If a citizen does not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income or does not do any type of volunteer work, or not doing any type of government work, it is considered not contributing.

Article II: Consequence

Section I: If a citizen is believed by the government to not be contributing, a trial must be held so that the citizen may make a case to prove that they are contributing. The trial must be preformed in the normal criminal proceedings of that nation and is subject to the appellate proceedings of that nation. If the citizen cannot prove that they are contributing in the trial, the government must give the citizen 90 days to begin contributing. If behavior has not changed then the government may exile, execute, or otherwise remove the citizen from society.

Section II: Exile must be to a nation that will accept the citizen if the citizen is willing to leave.

Section III: If the nation has found another way to remove the citizen they may, as long as it is within the any other UN resolutions throughout history.

Article IV: Enforcement

Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly then he must gain a petition of 1% of the nation’s population agreeing with him. Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a committee appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly. If the committee finds that the nation is performing the procedures in this incorrectly, that is that they are removing citizens from society that are indeed contributing, then they may overturn the nation’s rulings. If the nation refuses, the punishment will be ejection from the United Nations.

Section II: This resolution will be enforced by the United Nations in all member states, by member states.

Yes, you get final word on the matter
While it's true that I could wipe this out with a flick of the mouse, NS mods tend to recuse themselves from threads in which they actively participate. The only way I'll remove this for illegality is as part of a consensus ruling with other UN-active mods.

Personally, I find this sort of eugenics mindset repugnant, and desperately hope that the General Assembly give it the sound thrashing it so richly deserves.

Professionally, if it meets the rule of law, it has a place in the Proposal list as soon as it's ready. Which, in my professional opinion, it is not.

What does it need to be ready for the proposal list?

Well, now that you've gutted your original idea to a meaningless voluntary exile, you only have one line that must come out.

If the nation refuses, the punishment will be ejection from the United Nations.
That's a Game Mechanics violation. The only ways to leave the UN are by voluntarily resigning or by being ejected by a moderator. Since we can't police nearly 100,000 nations (or who-knows-how-many RP threads), we don't allow resolutions to call for ejections.

OOC: Sorry for interrupting your work on polishing this draft. I just want to say that you are proposed amazingly funny atrocity. Lol, I can’t stop laughing even now. I’m really hope that collectively you will be able to find the way to make this legal, and it will be wonderful if this thing somehow reach quorum. Sadly I’m too inexperienced to help you in this, so I just wish you good luck.

So other than that one line, which I've just removed my proposal is legal?

Alright let's see how this next draft pans out. I tried to reduce confusion as much as possible, cut out a lot to shorten it, and put in specifics on past resolutions.

Ah, so clean to the point we have finally discovered what is sitting at the core of this proposal: a resolution affirming the right of nations to kick people out if they are perpetually unemployed.

Be it hereby enacted by the United Nations

WHEREAS, the United Nations has the responsibility to enforce the right of governments to prune its population, so that only contributing citizens remain;

DECLARING THAT, this resolution merely gives a nation’s government a right that they may or may not enforce;

This line strikes me as potentially an optionality issue Perhaps reword as:

NOTING that this resolution grants a nation's government a right and sets down the procedures of how to exercise said right if it so chose to.

Addresses optionality....though the rewording may be unnecessary.

BELIEVING, that this resolution does not allow genocide as it does not target a specific group of people that are incapable of changing their conditions;

Now that the entire thing has been gutted, the necessity of this line is negligible - especially since the allegiance thing is gone. Quite frankly, it works against the "flow" of the resolution.

Article I: Situation

Section I: If a citizen does not contribute to society, then the government has the right to hold that person to a trial and convict them of not contributing, which will remove that citizen from society.

Section II: A person must be at least three years older than the age of becoming an adult in that nation to be a subject of this resolution. If that person is receiving an education at the time, they are also exempted from being a subject of this resolution. Also if a person has a legitimate excuse for not contributing (handicaps, mental disorders, etc.) then they cannot be a subject of this resolution.

Section III: If a citizen does not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income or does not do any type of volunteer work, or not doing any type of government work, it is considered not contributing.

Section III I would suggest putting higher and marking it as defining a lack of contribution. Something along the lines of

"Defining not contributing as making no income, not doing any volunteer work, and not doing any type of government work"

Speaking of which, those "or"s should be "and"s.

Article II: Consequence

Section I: If a citizen is believed by the government to not be contributing, a trial must be held so that the citizen may make a case to prove that they are contributing. The trial must be preformed in the normal criminal proceedings of that nation and is subject to the appellate proceedings of that nation. If the citizen cannot prove that they are contributing in the trial, the government must give the citizen 90 days to begin contributing.

Possibly "minimum 90 days"? You could also call it a "90 day grace period" and then use that to help the next sentence

If behavior has not changed then the government may exile, execute, or otherwise remove the citizen from society.

Section II: Exile must be to a nation that will accept the citizen if the citizen is willing to leave.

Modify the latter part part of this sentence. Eg:

"Exile must be to a nation that will accept the citizen and with the citizen's consent"

Section III: If the nation has found another way to remove the citizen they may, as long as it is within the any other UN resolutions throughout history.

within the -> in compliance with

Article IV: Enforcement

Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly then he must gain a petition of 1% of the nation’s population agreeing with him. Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a committee appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly. If the committee finds that the nation is performing the procedures in this incorrectly, that is that they are removing citizens from society that are indeed contributing, then they may overturn the nation’s rulings. *snip ejection line*

This need a grammar check on it. You may wish to split this section up into multiple sections or sub-sections so as to increase readability

Section II: This resolution will be enforced by the United Nations in all member states, by member states.

Well, if you really like this line, fine. I don't see the need for it, personally.

Nerfing the whole prosapl to allow for deportion of people you dislike is a fine move. Many nations would like to deport people, like illegal aliens, and having that right secured is pretty good. People may not like it, but it is better to be kicked out of your home than to get killed.

Let just see if this will make it to quorom.

This one feels like a winner.

Be it hereby enacted by the United Nations

WHEREAS, the United Nations has the responsibility to enforce the right of governments to prune its population, so that only contributing citizens remain;

NOTING, that this resolution grants a nation's government a right and sets down the procedures of how to exercise said right if it so chose to;

Article I: Situation

Section I: If a citizen does not contribute to society, then the government has the right to hold that person to a trial and convict them of not contributing, which will remove that citizen from society.

Section II: A citizen is classified as not contributing if they do not contribute economically, that is to say that he makes no income, does not do any type of volunteer work, nor does any type of government work.

Section III: A person must be at least three years older than the age of becoming an adult in that nation to be a subject of this resolution. If that person is receiving an education at the time, they are also exempted from being a subject of this resolution. Also if a person has a legitimate excuse for not contributing (handicaps, mental disorders, etc.) then they cannot be a subject of this resolution.

Article II: Consequence

Section I: If a citizen is believed by the government to not be contributing, a trial must be held so that the citizen may make a case to prove that they are contributing. The trial must be preformed in the normal criminal proceedings of that nation and is subject to the appellate proceedings of that nation. If the citizen cannot prove that they are contributing in the trial, the government must give the citizen a minimum of 90 days to begin contributing. If behavior has not changed then the government may exile, execute, or otherwise remove the citizen from society.

Section II: Exile must be to a nation that will accept the citizen with the citizen’s consent.

Section III: If the nation has found another way to remove the citizen they may, as long as it is in compliance with any other UN resolutions throughout history.

Article IV: Enforcement

Section I: If a citizen believes that the government is using this power unfairly, then he may gain a petition containing 1% of the nation’s population agreeing with him.

Section II: Upon reviewing this petition all exiles and executions due to this resolution in that nation will be halted until a committee appointed by the UN can go and affirm that the nation is performing everything correctly.

Section III: If the committee finds that the nation is performing the procedures in this incorrectly, that is that they are removing citizens from society that are indeed contributing, then they may overturn the nation’s rulings.


Let's hope it reaches quorum.

If behavior has not changed then the government may exile, execute, or otherwise remove the citizen from society.


You're still advocating killing people for not working, you sick bastard. Even if that were acceptable (which it most definitely is not), what of the extremely elderly, the handicapped, and any others who can't work for one reason or another? Just kill them, too?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We are not debating whether you like it or not; we are debating the legality of it. And as such the elderly and the mentally handicapped are protected.
"Also if a person has a legitimate excuse for not contributing (handicaps, mental disorders, etc.) then they cannot be a subject of this resolution." The elderly are protected because it isn't their choice not to contribute.

We are not debating whether you like it or not; we are debating the legality of it.
Whether or not a proposal will get enough support to make quorum is just as valid topic as legality. And just for the record, I find this idea both reprehensible and repugnant.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Let's hope it reaches quorum.

You go ahead and hope. Don't presume to speak for the rest of us.

While it may be legal, I'm still entirely opposed to it, and frankly appalled by the apparent disregard of life expressed in the earlier drafts. It's ruthless, promotes a eugenics mindset, and qualifies in my mind as evil in the purest governmental form.

There is no measure of the cost to society inherent in this proposal, only arbitrary bureaucratic definitions of 'contributions'. If I chose to sit on a hillside contemplating my navel, existing solely on the water from nearby streams and the berries growing in the meadow, who is to say that I am not contributing? I'm certainly not a burden on society. You want to build condos in my meadow? Go ahead. I'll move over the ridge to the next meadow.

You may have removed the most visibly illegal phrases (and your ruthlessness to discard that which you appeared to hold dear was also alarming), but you've ultimately substituted bureaucratic inertia in the place of individual liberty. This is the libertarian's nightmare scenario. I'll campaign against any possibility of it ever reaching quorum, much less hitting the floor of the General Assembly.

It's not illegal to be evil. But I don't have to like you, and I don't.

We are not debating whether you like it or not; we are debating the legality of it. And as such the elderly and the mentally handicapped are protected.
"Also if a person has a legitimate excuse for not contributing (handicaps, mental disorders, etc.) then they cannot be a subject of this resolution." The elderly are protected because it isn't their choice not to contribute.


Quite frankly, I don't care whether it's legal or not. I'm sure I could come up with a whole host of repugnant proposals that would be perfectly legal. However, they'd still be bloody repugnant.

Let's call a spade a spade here. What you're really hoping to get out of this is international legislation legitimising a slave state, one in which everyone must "contribute" to the state or face exile or even (holy feckin' shit!) execution. As anyone who's been here for even a few weeks could tell you, I'm not the big "human rights" advocate -- by any stretch of the imagination -- but this is beyond the pale even for me. And those who know me and my history here in the UN also know that that's saying quite a bit.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I missed that you had re-introduced the 'execute' phrasing into your last draft. I hereby withdraw the ruling that it's legal, pending further investigation of the Genocide conventions.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Thanks for your help everyone. I think it's going to stay this time. Although it might not make quorum, It's good to try huh?

Thanks for your help everyone. I think it's going to stay this time. Although it might not make quorum, It's good to try huh?Somehow, I doubt that.

I missed that you had re-introduced the 'execute' phrasing into your last draft. I hereby withdraw the ruling that it's legal, pending further investigation of the Genocide conventions.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop
See what I mean?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

With all due respect, execute was in every draft. I had never taken it out. When you told me it was legal Frisbeeteria, I had figured that it was legal since it was coming from a Nationstates Moderator. Now I'm scared that I'm going to get kicked out of the UN again because I have already posted it.

Since it was posted to the queue with a mod notice that it was legal, there will be no penalty if it needs to be taken down again. Fair is fair.

With all due respect, execute was in every draft. I had never taken it out. When you told me it was legal Frisbeeteria, I had figured that it was legal since it was coming from a Nationstates Moderator. Now I'm scared that I'm going to get kicked out of the UN again because I have already posted it.

OOC: Again? LOL! Oh, that's just rich. *wipes a tear*

Thanks Frisbeeteria! So do I have to take out execute entirely to make it legal?

In response to how it might conflict with UNR #83, let's have a look-see at this bit from it:

Article 1: Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).

Would employment status constitute "arbitrary criteria" under UNR #83? Seems to me that an argument could certainly be made that it would.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Thanks Frisbeeteria! So do I have to take out execute entirely to make it legal?

I'm too tired to make any more snap judgments, and I probably shouldn't have been doing so all along. Most proposals under construction take days, or even weeks, to reach their final version. You've been doing this for less than 30 hours. Maybe it's time to let it sit for a few hours or days and get some other opinions.

At the risk of repeating something that might already have been brought up in those pages of discussion we have merely skimmed: dare we presume that everyone commenting on this has read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"? It has become required reading in our glorious if mostly-vertical homeland... along with the excellent if viscerally disturbing writings of the eminent Thomas Malthus.

Those who have done neither can get the summary version by viewing the films Logan's Run or Soylent Green.

We of Kula Kangri wish it to be known that we most emphatically do not support this resolution. We equally wish it to be known, however, that we are somewhat distressed at the reactions of some of our fellow delegates... who appear to be so devoted to the protection of life that they entirely overlook the dangers of ever-increasing populations. We are, in fact, to borrow the words of one of our more esteemed fellow delegates:

frankly appalled by the apparent disregard of life expressed

by the apparent unwillingness—implied, not stated, we acknowledge—to consider any form of population control at all... since any such resolution would be subject to similar objections as those raised here. Such an attitude would indeed be indiciative of a "disregard of life," since there is no greater threat to life than its own uncontrolled proliferation—and it is an undeniable certainty that more "life" will be lost as a result of overpopulation diebacks than would ever be lost through, for example, the proposal put forward here.

And that's just human life. It's also a certainty that most other forms of life would be exterminated entirely in the attempt to feed the aforementioned population... and house them, provide them with resources and energy, make room for their wastes (and their remains, should the world not opt to turn these into a source of food, or at the very least fertilizer).

So, mindful of the unacceptable nature of this particular proposal... we would be very interested to see what our fellow delegates might put forward in the alternative?

by the apparent unwillingness—implied, not stated, we acknowledge—to consider any form of population control at all... Population control is not a justification for genocide.

The argument could be made that it is arbitrary, but that in itself is an opinion. However, I will try to outline some procedure that will make the proposal less arbitrary for argument's sake.

Article 1: Definition And Limits

§1. Genocide is defined as the systematic and deliberate extermination of a society, or part of a society, based on arbitrary criteria (such as skin colour, genetic conditions or religion).

OOC: Arbitrary criteria is very broad definition, but from my point of view economic contribution to the society can be at least less arbitrary than given examples because it have much more direct impact on ability of the society to survive. Genetic conditions can make impact on the ability to survive of the future generation, but it will have major effect for the society only after very long time and if people will not contribute to the society it can destroy the society very fast. Of course, this all is very subjective.

I’m started to seriously think about this draft. This is actually very serious issue, can the society through away or even kill someone who willingly do not participate in the attempts of everyone to survive. I think that if this draft will reach the quorum it can really stimulate at least someone to seriously think about such matters. That’s why I’m thinking that it can be really good if this draft will survive and reach the quorum.

(OOC: first, the apologies. I had a dissection of this whipped up in about three quarters of an hour yesterday, but Jolt collapsed when I tried to post it. Which is just as well since Fris's subsequent analysis was much better. Then I had to leave for the airport.)

Given that the proposal has been submitted now, we shall refrain from mentioning the drafting issues we dislike, albeit they do not make the proposal illegal.

We wish to echo what has been said by others about the sheer wickedness of this proposal, and of any nation that would choose to implement it. Fortunately it is something of a self-correcting problem, since it makes being a full-time mother illegal, since they make no income, perform no voluntary work by any legal definition of the term we have ever seen, and do no governmental work.

I'd like to state that I highly doubt that this idea has any chance of getting even remotely close to quorum. And in the extremely unlikely event that it actually makes quorum and passes, I'll quit my job as the Flibbleite UN Representative.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I think that I would have to do the same. Sorry, but I honestly hope that this doesn't reach quorum. Actually no, I'm not sorry.

Tana Petrov
UN Rep
Harem of Karmicaria

My government has directed me to state it's strong opposition to this proposal. Hirota will not condone UN sponsored genocide by member states.

We appeal for common sense to win the day, and for this proposal to never see the light of resubmission ever again.

Hirota will not condone UN sponsored genocide by member states.Aww... come on... some of those people deserve it, don't they?


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

If it is at all possible, I would like to ask premission from the author of this propsal to go and edit it so that all it would do is allow nations to merely exile "undersiables". No genocides, no violence, nothing. Also some more regulations to make sure that it is people ACTIVELY harming the government, not just being lazy people.

Well, just to tell you guys the mods didn't like the word execute so it was deleted again. I'm trying to make it less arbitrary so it won't be genocide. Maybe some UN involvement in the procedure or something.

Removing the word 'execute' would certainly remove the genocidal aspects of this proposal, at which point we would be willing to add other comments concerning the drafting. It would reduce the proposal from 'wicked' to 'selfish', though we have to say that is not much of a reduction in our eyes.

Might we suggest that you indicate that they can be punished by the highest degree available (this will need to be reworded so it actually makes sense). Therefore, nations that employ Capital Punishment would be free to utilize it on this crime.

Might we suggest that you indicate that they can be punished by the highest degree available (this will need to be reworded so it actually makes sense). Therefore, nations that employ Capital Punishment would be free to utilize it on this crime.

Crime? Unemployment is now a crime?

Crime? Unemployment is now a crime?

It would be if this reprehensible piece of garbage they're trying to pass off as a proposal passes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Crime? Unemployment is now a crime?

OOC: There may have been some RL countries where that was the case, I think, specifically communist ones where the state was the only employer allowed/available and so refusing to take a job that its agencies found for you was classed as 'parasitism'...

It would be if this reprehensible piece of garbage they're trying to pass off as a proposal passes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative


I realise that. I was merely drawing attention to Ms. Macdougall's apparent acceptance of such a deplorable notion.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I realise that. I was merely drawing attention to Ms. Macdougall's apparent acceptance of such a deplorable notion.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You think I do accept such a notion? Me, who denounced the economic award for looking at economy at the exclusion of all else? Who rambled on about the evils of the almighty dollar? Is your memory truly short enough that you have forgotten when I truly stand for and why I do this anyways? I would've thought our little spat a mere 3 days ago would've been education enough. Perhaps I was wrong.

You think I do accept such a notion? Me, who denounced the economic award for looking at economy at the exclusion of all else? Who rambled on about the evils of the almighty dollar? Is your memory truly short enough that you have forgotten when I truly stand for and why I do this anyways? I would've thought our little spat a mere 3 days ago would've been education enough. Perhaps I was wrong.

Quite the contrary. In assisting this psychopath with his reprehensible draft proposal, it seems as though you yourself have forgotten what you stand for, Ms. Macdougall.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Quite the contrary. In assisting this psychopath with his reprehensible draft proposal, it seems as though you yourself have forgotten what you stand for, Ms. Macdougall.

He's just being friendly, helping out a brand-new nation with a draft proposal. You can go and help a new player out in the game while still condemning his actions, which is what I believe Ms. Macdougall is doing.

If the proposal is reprehensible, it will never see the light of day. If it does see the light of day, then you can expect that a repeal will be born and will also see the light of day. Already, nations has this right to exile people they hate according to the Eon Convention (which bans murder, but not exile).

Aww... come on... some of those people deserve it, don't they?


Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Some people may deserve it, Doctor, but that doesn't mean we should condone genocide.

Tana Petrov
UN Rep
Harem of Karmicaria

He's just being friendly, helping out a brand-new nation with a draft proposal. You can go and help a new player out in the game while still condemning his actions, which is what I believe Ms. Macdougall is doing.

That's kinda like saying, "I really don't like all this beheading you're doing, but here, lemme sharpen that machete for you."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Quite the contrary. In assisting this psychopath with his reprehensible draft proposal, it seems as though you yourself have forgotten what you stand for, Ms. Macdougall.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

He's just being friendly, helping out a brand-new nation with a draft proposal. You can go and help a new player out in the game while still condemning his actions, which is what I believe Ms. Macdougall is doing.

Ambassador Nadnerb, the fact that the ambassador from SilentScope001 has grasped the concept of what I am doing, what I believe in, and why I am taking the route that I have chosen and you fail merely proves my previous statement that you have forgotten (or never understood in the first place) the entire purpose behind my actions.

I think it as morally reprehensible to be so blinded by your disgust of people that you are unable to treat them with the respect afforded to all Ambassadors as it is to hold the very opinions you so disagree with.

OOC: Apologies if the method of addressing him is incorrect, Nadnerb seemed to be the only distinguishing name from your other characters so I utlized it.

That's kinda like saying, "I really don't like all this beheading you're doing, but here, lemme sharpen that machete for you."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Actually, it's more like "I don't like you, but I don't think you are worth fighting yet, so let me train you and then we can have a duel when your training is complete"

OOC: Apologies if the method of addressing him is incorrect, Nadnerb seemed to be the only distinguishing name from your other characters so I utlized it.

OOC: No, actually, you may well be the first person in the year and a half since I've been here who's gotten it precisely correct. The "bin Cluich" bit is just a clan identification, and only the highest strata of Cluichstani society use them. Those not members of highly placed clans, like Bala, don't have surnames (Tarquin is the lone exception, but only because I love his silly name).

Back IC:

Actually, it's more like "I don't like you, but I don't think you are worth fighting yet, so let me train you and then we can have a duel when your training is complete"

Oh? Do you also train murderers and other criminals in Forgottenlands, just to keep your police similarly challenged?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Oh? Do you also train murderers and other criminals in Forgottenlands, just to keep your police similarly challenged?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone who has domestic authority in Forgottenlands.

Further, as was pointed out, this resolution has little chance of passing and even if it does pass, it had little chance of remaining on the books for a long period of time. Further, aside from the fact that it endorses such a repugnant position, it does not force nations to do anything with their unemployed until such a time as you actually decide that unemployment is a crime worthy of punishment. Its total net effect, should it pass, is that the UN looks like an inferior body, and attempts by the UN to decriminalize lacking a job would be blocked. On the flip side, nations that utilize this already existing right for themselves would find themselves in a legal mess as they try to implement this resolution, not to mention that there would be all sorts of other problems such as potential flooding of the courts.

Unless I'm mistaken, these are all points on which this proposal should fail, but I fail to see how helping the author improve the proposal is akin to brandishing a knife.

On a side note, the former Night Sister program that was conducted while Forgottenlord was President of the Forgotten Territories included many ex-terrorists and ex-criminals - nearly all of which had committed murder. While they were never used to challenge the Police forces of Forgottenlands or any of her sister nations, it is fair to argue that both my predecessor for this post and Forgottenlands which he ruled has, in the past, trained Murderers and criminals.

Some people may deserve it, Doctor, but that doesn't mean we should condone genocide.

Tana Petrov
UN Rep
Harem of Karmicaria

I suspect, Ambassador Petrov, that the Doctor is trailing his coat -- or, as we say in Ardchoille, stirring the possum.

-- DIcey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

I suspect, Ambassador Petrov, that the Doctor is trailing his coat -- or, as we say in Ardchoille, stirring the possum.

-- DIcey Reilly, wrongfully President of Ardchoille.

You may be right. Meh. I'm going to get a drink.


Tana Petrov
things.....

I suspect, Ambassador Petrov, that the Doctor is trailing his coat -- or, as we say in Ardchoille, stirring the possum....stirring the what?!


Meh. I'm going to get a drink.Mind if I join you? This whole thing is damnably silly.


Doctor Denis Leary
So on and so forth

or, as we say in Ardchoille, stirring the possum.

OOC: You really don't want to see the image that that expression conjured up in my mind...
*(goes to have mind washed clean again)*

;)

Sick puppyism. We will gladly take all of your citizens and export them to offworld colonies. We need workers for the pharmaceutical farms on Muse. We will also gladly offer asylum to any citizen of yours that escapes from your country as well. They too will be offered a one way ticket off earth.

Rex Smiley, UN Representative