NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Rights of Minorites and Women"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #80
Proposed by: Amsterdam junior

Description: UN Resolution #80: Rights of Minorities and Women (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:

RECOGNISING the importance of protecting the rights of women and minorities throughout the world to ensure that no one feels 'unequal' and ensure that these groups of people do not become 'disenfranchised' from their U.N member-state and may cause violence because of their disenfranchisement.

CONCERNED that U.N Resolution #80 does not advance the rights of minorities at all as it indicates that with regards to minorities, that "no race is better than another" which does not really protect minority rights in general and is already covered by other U.N. Resolutions before it.

CONCERNED that U.N Resolution #80 does not advance the rights of Women and Minorities, because it is a piece of legislation that repeats a 'declaration' held by U.N resolutions that came before it, for instance;

UN Resolution #7 "Sexual Freedom"
UN Resolution #19 "Religious Tolerance"
UN Resolution #26 "The Universal Bill of Human Rights"

UNDERSTANDS from U.N resolution # 7 "Sexual Freedom", citizens in U.N member-states are allowed to freely have whatever sexual relations they want in their home wether it is with a partner of a different gender or of the same gender.

AS WELL, U.N. resolution #19 "Sexual Tolerance" already confirms that every religion within U.N member-states is on the same standing and is equal.

AND FINALLY, "The Universal Bill of Human Rights", U.N Resolution #26 protects all human beings in what activities they do 'if it is at home or at work'.

THEREFORE, UN Resolution #80 should be repealed as it causes more paperwork to deal with than necessary for U.N memberstates.

REPEALS Resolution# 80, "Rights of Minorities and Women".

I am fully in support of this repeal. The resolution "Rights of Minorities and Women" was well-intended, but incredibly redundant and merely perpetuates the same sort of discriminatory nonsense this body has been working so hard to eliminate.

Hellar Gray

So does that mean my repeal is good or does it need some changes to it before Resolution #80 is repealled since it did get a 2 to 1 approval rating when it was first passed.

It didn't mean anything.

??

"Meh..."

--Random Shazbotdom Understudy to the UN Deligate

If you want to repeal 80, two suggestions:

i) cite Resolution #192, "Sexual Privacy Act", rather than "Sexual Freedom", which doesn't do a lot;
ii) criticise its third point in particular: saying that no belief is better than any other would seem to endorse the discrimination its other clauses oppose.

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

ii) criticise its third point in particular: saying that no belief is better than any other would seem to endorse the discrimination its other clauses oppose.

As much as that is an intriguing argument, confusing the crap out of the few individuals that read resolutions but don't understand them is probably not the most wise approach.

As much as that is an intriguing argument, confusing the crap out of the few individuals that read resolutions but don't understand them is probably not the most wise approach.
Nor is being so arrogant milk curdles in your presence, but hey, each to our own.

RoMaW is a contradictory resolution. Its Articles I and III are incompatible with II and IV. You can have ethical relativism or you can have universal moral precepts, but I don't see how you can have both. People should be allowed to express their love? Great. But then, cultures that don't accept that are not just the same as ones that do: we're judging them to be worse. Similar, it makes no sense to say that men and women are equal, and that the belief that women are inferior is equal to the view that they're not.

Yes, parts of it are redundant, but I don't see why we shouldn't argue against it.

-- George Madison
Almost-Completely-De-Zombified Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Nor is being so arrogant milk curdles in your presence, but hey, each to our own.

You really just said that?

RoMaW is a contradictory resolution. Its Articles I and III are incompatible with II and IV. You can have ethical relativism or you can have universal moral precepts, but I don't see how you can have both. People should be allowed to express their love? Great. But then, cultures that don't accept that are not just the same as ones that do: we're judging them to be worse. Similar, it makes no sense to say that men and women are equal, and that the belief that women are inferior is equal to the view that they're not.

Yes, parts of it are redundant, but I don't see why we shouldn't argue against it.

-- George Madison
Almost-Completely-De-Zombified Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Because whether it is accurate or not, whether it is how the system works or not, whether we like it or not, the representatives of this body will look at the essence of the resolution before they'll look at the hard-legalistics of it. When they read that line, they think it applies to religion rather than seeing a line saying "women are equal to men is a belief of equal value to women are inferior to men". Hell, the average politician would think of that first when they see that line. I agree that the contradiction exists within the text and I agree that when you think from the advance philosophical aspects of this world, that such a contradiction is clear, but the fact of the matter is we're writing our proposals so the average voter understands and agrees with them and the average voter will not agree with that argument.

Because whether it is accurate or not, whether it is how the system works or not, whether we like it or not, the representatives of this body will look at the essence of the resolution before they'll look at the hard-legalistics of it. When they read that line, they think it applies to religion rather than seeing a line saying "women are equal to men is a belief of equal value to women are inferior to men". Hell, the average politician would think of that first when they see that line. I agree that the contradiction exists within the text and I agree that when you think from the advance philosophical aspects of this world, that such a contradiction is clear, but the fact of the matter is we're writing our proposals so the average voter understands and agrees with them and the average voter will not agree with that argument.
I find it really, really difficult to understand what you're saying, but I think that's my fault, because I'm acclimatised to 'English'. What I would say, though, is that most attempts to predict how the representatives of this body will think or act fail. Maybe not word for word, but at some point all of these things have been said by the wise old regulars of the UN:
- '"Abortion Rights" will never be repealed (and if it is, something more aggressive will replace it)'
- 'it's a shame no one will be able to repeal/replace "Elimination of Bio Weapons"'
- 'it's a shame no one will be able to repeal/replace "UN Biological Weapons Ban"'
- (this one was real): 'your repeal [of Legalize Prostitution] won't go anywhere, PC, repeals don't pass'
- 'the fluffies will never go for it' (usually said just before the fluffies go for it)

I don't doubt you have a good knowledge of the UN's history and can make useful legal commentary, but when it comes to predicting the UN no one (except, apparently, Pilot? I missed all that) has been able to accurately anticipate results, except from incredibly late on, or with wild and lucky guesses. So I dismiss your notion of 'the average voter' and 'the average politician', and in any case I don't really give a shit: since when were cowardice and vacillation our legislative priorities.

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

I find it really, really difficult to understand what you're saying, but I think that's my fault, because I acclimatised to 'English'. What I would say, though, is that most attempts to predict how the representatives of this body will think or act fail. Maybe not word for word, but at some point all of these things have been said by the wise old regulars of the UN:
- '"Abortion Rights" will never be repealed (and if it is, something more aggressive will replace it)'
- 'it's a shame no one will be able to repeal/replace "Elimination of Bio Weapons"'
- 'it's a shame no one will be able to repeal/replace "UN Biological Weapons Ban"'
- (this one was real): 'your repeal [of Legalize Prostitution] won't go anywhere, PC, repeals don't pass'
- 'the fluffies will never go for it' (usually said just before the fluffies go for it)

I don't doubt you have a good knowledge of the UN's history and can make useful legal commentary, but when it comes to predicting the UN no one (except, apparently, Pilot? I missed all that) has been able to accurately anticipate results, except from incredibly late on, or with wild and lucky guesses. So I dismiss your notion of 'the average voter' and 'the average politician', and in any case I don't really give a shit: since when were cowardice and vacillation our legislative priorities.

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

First of all, Abortion Rights did have a stronger proposal get shoved through, only it was moments behind Abortion Legality Convention and thus never had a chance to be voted upon. Would it have passed? No, but that doesn't mean a stringent proposal that would've protected Abortion, would've been more effective than Abortion Rights but wasn't looking for things like public funding wouldn't have been successful. Add on that I recall there being at least one if not more TG campaigns centered around "we need to pass ALC to protect our nation's right to abortion". Actually.....I think I got 4 different TGs for ALC, 3 of which were making that case (2 of which part of the same campaign).

Second, there's a considerable difference between those 5 and this case. Why? Because there is another option. I'm not talking about saying a proposal is unrepealable or that the effort isn't worth investing time into, I'm saying that a repeal which is already taking shape shouldn't add that argument in because I think it will make it harder for that repeal to pass (because, as I've said before, I don't think most people will agree with the claim).

And, as I've just said and you've completely ignored, almost as many times as you've built a statue to your own hubris, the UN regulars have espoused the established wisdom and then seen a proposal pass/fail anyway, against their expectations. Your solemnly informing the repeal author (don't mind us, dear) what his best chances are is no more likely to be of service than my actually trying to help him by outrageously suggesting that adding in some form of real argument might not make it harder for the repeal to pass.

Furthermore, think it of a different way. When you repeal a bad law, do you want the argument to be 'it's bureaucratic'? No, you want it to be 'the law is bad', even if it also happens to be bureaucratic, because not to mention this is a slight to those who have been wronged by it.

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

And, as I've just said and you've completely ignored, almost as many times as you've built a statue to your own hubris,

I've got to ask since this is the second time in 3 posts you've gunned my ego, what the hell did I do to you? Considering I was gone before you arrived, it can't possibly be based upon something that happened before I left.

Unless this is one of those OOC bleeding into IC incidents....

the UN regulars have espoused the established wisdom and then seen a proposal pass/fail anyway, against their expectations. Your solemnly informing the repeal author (don't mind us, dear) what his best chances are is no more likely to be of service than my actually trying to help him by outrageously suggesting that adding in some form of real argument might not make it harder for the repeal to pass.

And so it comes down to weighing the perceived pros and cons that the various arguments could possibly do to the chances of a proposal passing and thus the author looks to various UN members to convince him that an argument is useful and how best to utilize it. It still boils down to "what do we recommend" and I'm recommending he doesn't use that argument for reasons I have stated while you call me an idiot because UN regulars have been wrong before and work from the strength of the argument itself as the reason why it should be used and therefore anyone who thinks it shouldn't be used is an arrogant prick. Do you disagree with that assessment? Or is it just me that must be an arrogant prick?

Furthermore, think it of a different way. When you repeal a bad law, do you want the argument to be 'it's bureaucratic'? No, you want it to be 'the law is bad', even if it also happens to be bureaucratic, because not to mention this is a slight to those who have been wronged by it.

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

Oh, right.....we forgot to offer our own suggestions to the original proposal of how we feel its best to spruce up because red flags were flashing when we heard of what argument you wanted to be used. Our apologies for leaving you in the delusion that we didn't think there was room for improvement on the proposal.

(I'll get back to those in a bit)

There are just a few minor things, okay not really minor but whatever, that I would like to point out.

AS WELL, U.N. resolution #19 "Sexual Tolerance" already confirms that every religion within U.N member-states is on the same standing and is equal.
[Emphasis mine]

This should be "Religious Tolerance", not "Sexual Tolerance.

AND FINALLY, "The Universal Bill of Human Rights", U.N Resolution #26 protects all human beings in what activities they do 'if it is at home or at work'.

[Again, emphasis mine]

It's "The Universal Bill of Rights".

Sorry for the nitpick, but I figured if you were going to cite past resolutions, you would want to have the names right.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

So you're trying to say this legislation is being attempted to be repealed because other proposals that have been written make this redundant?

The Blue Eyed Man (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/The_Blue_Eyed_Man)
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Repeal "Rights of Minorites and Women"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #80
Proposed by: Amsterdam junior

Description: UN Resolution #80: Rights of Minorities and Women (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument:

RECOGNISING the importance of protecting the rights of women and minorities throughout the world to ensure that no one feels 'unequal' and ensure that these groups of people do not become 'disenfranchised' from their U.N member-state and may cause violence because of their disenfranchisement.

CONCERNED that U.N Resolution #80 does not advance the rights of minorities at all as it indicates that with regards to minorities, that "no race is better than another" which does not really protect minority rights in general and is already covered by other U.N. Resolutions before it.

I don't know about this argument. In fact, I don't feel that the "no race is better than another" is an argument that sells itself without an explanation and the rest is redundant (and emulates the wording too which bugs me to no end....)

CONCERNED that U.N Resolution #80 does not advance the rights of Women and Minorities, because it is a piece of legislation that repeats a 'declaration' held by U.N resolutions that came before it, for instance;

UN Resolution #7 "Sexual Freedom"
UN Resolution #19 "Religious Tolerance"
UN Resolution #26 "The Universal Bill of Human Rights"

With notes about Karmi and Quod's points, you could also go at UNR #99, Discrimination Accord. Between them all, you have a much more complete listing of duplicate resolutions

UNDERSTANDS from U.N resolution # 7 "Sexual Freedom", citizens in U.N member-states are allowed to freely have whatever sexual relations they want in their home wether it is with a partner of a different gender or of the same gender.

As Quod noted, don't use UNR #7. There are large disputes on the actual meaning of UNR #7 and while mod rulings have set a precedent to say you are correct, it is not universally read the way mods decree (and mod rulings aren't encoded into resolutions either, which doesn't help).

UNR #192 does fill the void that UNR #7 was able to sufficiently address.

AS WELL, U.N. resolution #19 "Sexual Tolerance" already confirms that every religion within U.N member-states is on the same standing and is equal.

Not sure I believe that. Religious Tolerance is a poem about the necessity of religious tolerance, which isn't the same as affirming the concept of religious equality.

AND FINALLY, "The Universal Bill of Human Rights", U.N Resolution #26 protects all human beings in what activities they do 'if it is at home or at work'.

Where does it say that?

THEREFORE, UN Resolution #80 should be repealed as it causes more paperwork to deal with than necessary for U.N memberstates.

Try "as it is redundant" or "as it duplicates multiple other resolutions"

REPEALS Resolution# 80, "Rights of Minorities and Women".

Sure

THEREFORE, UN Resolution #80 should be repealed as it causes more paperwork to deal with than necessary for U.N memberstates.

I wholeheartedly support this repeal and Swedansto, as the above statement demonstrates that they both align themselves with one of Pathetic Romantics' main tenets, namely, the tenet of "Damn the bureaucracy." Kudos, Swedansto, kudos.

Saucy Jack
Sexiest Man Alive
High Sultan of Pathetic Romantics

We would be opposed to this repeal on the grounds that equality of belief is addressed nowhere else. The Universal Bill of Rights comes closest, in as much as it outlaws state religious persecution, but the much-cited resolution #19 on Religious Tolerance is, as Ambassador Macdougall noted in passing, singularly useless in actually doing anything. If anything needs repealing, it is resolution #19!

We would be opposed to this repeal on the grounds that equality of belief is addressed nowhere else. The Universal Bill of Rights comes closest, in as much as it outlaws state religious persecution, but the much-cited resolution #19 on Religious Tolerance is, as Ambassador Macdougall noted in passing, singularly useless in actually doing anything. If anything needs repealing, it is resolution #19!

Might we recommend the representative of Gobbannium then work on a repeal and replacement for UNR #19. To our knowledge, no serious campaign has ever been attempted for this particular document.

Unfortunately, due to the restrictions placed by the Secretariat, to pass a good resolution on a particular topic, we must first create a legislative hole to put the resolution in to.

Might we recommend the representative of Gobbannium then work on a repeal and replacement for UNR #19.

We would be delighted to do so, and the resolution is indeed on our list, though it is by no means the most useless resolution the UN has passed. We were however intending to have another go at plugging the Age of Consent loophole in the Sexual Privacy Act first, as we have had some time to consider the flaws various ambassadors kindly pointed out in our initial attempt.

We would be opposed to this repeal on the grounds that equality of belief is addressed nowhere else.
Enough of a reason to repeal, in my book. Beliefs aren't all equal, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Sebastian Ennuk,
UN Rep for Emen Un.

Enough of a reason to repeal, in my book. Beliefs aren't all equal, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Sebastian Ennuk,
UN Rep for Emen Un.

And again

Thank you for proving my point.

Enough of a reason to repeal, in my book. Beliefs aren't all equal, and shouldn't be treated as such.

Sebastian Ennuk,
UN Rep for Emen Un.

With all due respect (and I mean that literally), that's a ridiculous stance. If another nation considered your beliefs inferior to theirs, are we to assume that you'd be okay with that nation deciding to treat you as inferior as a result? We thought not.

As for this draft, Altanar would stand in opposition to any attempt to repeal #80. We simply are not convinced that the resolution is not needed, especially given the "inferior" beliefs some nations still hold about how people should be treated.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

OOC: I just want to make clear from the outset that the following is the position of Sebastian Ennuk, not me. I don't have a set position on the matter of moral relativism, Sebastian does.
IC:
With all due respect (and I mean that literally), that's a ridiculous stance. If another nation considered your beliefs inferior to theirs, are we to assume that you'd be okay with that nation deciding to treat you as inferior as a result? We thought not.
You misrepresent my position. No, I wouldn't be 'okay' with it, because that would be defeatist. I might understand why they did it, but I certainly wouldn't be 'okay' with it.

There are times when you need to not only state your beliefs, but back them up with actions that defy the beliefs of others. You need to assert that your belief is indeed better than the opposition's. To do otherwise is only to accept that your opponent is better than you.

Is that not we, as the UN, are meant to be doing? We have passed laws guaranteeing abortion rights despite the pleas of those who believe abortion to be murder. We have passed laws regarding prostitution, courtroom behaviour, weaponry and countless other matters despite many saying that their beliefs were being held back. This is what the UN should be doing, and it's why I am here.

Sebastian Ennuk,
UN Representative for Emen Un.

There are times when you need to not only state your beliefs, but back them up with actions that defy the beliefs of others. You need to assert that your belief is indeed better than the opposition's. To do otherwise is only to accept that your opponent is better than you.

We acknowledge the fact that defending your beliefs is a necessity sometimes. However, we would rather attempt to compromise and come to a mutual understanding with nations that have differing beliefs, rather than simply dismiss them out of hand, as your one-liner seemed to do. If we misunderstood your position, we apologize, but would also state that this is why glib comments are desirable things to avoid in a debate.

Is that not we, as the UN, are meant to be doing? We have passed laws guaranteeing abortion rights despite the pleas of those who believe abortion to be murder. We have passed laws regarding prostitution, courtroom behaviour, weaponry and countless other matters despite many saying that their beliefs were being held back. This is what the UN should be doing, and it's why I am here.

That's why we're all here. But it ultimately depends on where you stand in regards to protecting rights. We do not feel #80 is redundant or duplicative, and also feel that its goals are desirable ones. If you do not, it would be better to explain why, and try to convince people, instead of rattling off one-liners that are dismissive of others' beliefs.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I'm all for this repeal, however, as I noticed after reading both UNR26 and 80, Rights of Minorities and Women was written as a supplement to Universal Bill of Rights, as some countries and cultures may not consider Minorities and Women to be human beings under their individual definition (as no definition is given in the resolution itself). If you are going to repeal this, I strongly suggest you have something to back yourself up with, such as another resolution defining what a human being is considered. (I know the Definition of Marraige was repealed, but the definition of what a human being is is something more universal than what a marraige is.)

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Damanucus

Rights of Minorities and Women was written as a supplement to Universal Bill of RightsI don't believe it was. I wager it was just another poorly written, fuzzy-headed bit of dross.

as some countries and cultures may not consider Minorities and Women to be human beings under their individual definitionTalk about splitting hairs.

My major issue with Rights of Minorities and Women is that it assumes that a majority of our cultures are male dominated and primarily ruled by a single cultural sub-group, which just isn't necessarily the case. The Queendom of Karmicaria leaps to mind, where the government is primarily run by women, and there is no real sign of any minority groups within their borders.

While there are many nations, I'm sure, for whom this resolution provides some form of equality, such just isn't the case enough of the time (in my experience) to warrant something saying "Protect the Women, Protect the Minorities". Yeah, it's all nice and dandy to protect them, but what if they don't need proteccting? What about all of those true egalitarians out there who are insulted that someone thinks it actually necessary to single out a portion of the populace and declare that they are deserving of specially protected rights? What of all of the oppressive Matriarchies out there who refuse to grant men the rights that women are guaranteed? What of nations that are ruled by a powerful minority, who domineer over vast numbers of others through military might?

The simple answer is that there are already other reso's covering discrimination in general, leaving this one fairly unnecessary and foolish to boot.

I know most of this has already been said, but I'm having a cranky morning and wanted to hear myself speak.

My major issue with Rights of Minorities and Women is that it assumes that a majority of our cultures are male dominated and primarily ruled by a single cultural sub-group, which just isn't necessarily the case.

We regret to inform the ambassador that this is true solely of the title of the Rights of Minorites and Women resolution. The resolution itself is entirely even-handed about genders and makes no assumptions of which (if any) dominates. Further, as is usually the case with resolutions, those nations which don't have minorities issues are not the ones who need such legislation to curb their imbalances.

We regret to inform the ambassador that this is true solely of the title of the Rights of Minorites and Women resolution. The resolution itself is entirely even-handed about genders and makes no assumptions of which (if any) dominates. Further, as is usually the case with resolutions, those nations which don't have minorities issues are not the ones who need such legislation to curb their imbalances.

Then why is it not gender-neutral? The point our Kivistan friend was making, I believe, is that it doesn't protect the rights of men under a matriarchal society. Apparently, we only need to make sure that women have rights, and if men are subjugated, well...fuck them. That's crabshit.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Then why is it not gender-neutral? The point our Kivistan friend was making, I believe, is that it doesn't protect the rights of men under a matriarchal society. Apparently, we only need to make sure that women have rights, and if men are subjugated, well...fuck them. That's crabshit.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

And all of us who've been here long enough know that a resolution's scope is always determined by it's title.:rolleyes:

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.

Here we go. It is indeed gender-netural.

And, in a matriarchal society, males would be in the minority, and therefore, would count as a "minority". Therefore, they also apply to this resolution's title as well.

Here we go. It is indeed gender-netural.

And, in a matriarchal society, males would be in the minority, and therefore, would count as a "minority". Therefore, they also apply to this resolution's title as well.
OOC: Interestingly enough, men are in the minority in many RW countries. 49% is still a minority. Your logic breaks down, however, if you think that makes them matriarchies.