NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

Believing that slavery violates the most basic principles of individual liberty,

Rejecting the notion that any nation has the right to permit persons to be subjected to slavery,

Further considering that international cooperation is required to eliminate the slave trade,

Therefore strongly desirous of enacting firm prohibitions on slavery,

Further wishing to deal with the problems presented by freed slaves, such as repatriation, economic restitution and the prevention of discrimination,

Realizing that where slavery persists, all forms of diplomatic and economic pressure, including exclusion and embargo, should be directed at ending the practice,

Noting that trafficking in persons constitutes a form of slavery that has proved particularly resilient to attempts at abolition and that special vigilance is required in this regard,

Also calling for future legislation on the subject of unfree labour in order to fully prevent de facto slavery from persisting:

1. Declares that all persons are free, and that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts;

3. Condemns slavery in all its forms;

4. Prohibits member nations from returning persons to countries still practicing slavery, where there is probable cause to believe such persons will be returned to a condition of slavery or punished for attempting to escape from such conditions;

5. Permits member nations to require such persons to leave their territory for other nations willing to accept them;

6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;

7. Requires member nations to take criminalise and take reasonable action to prevent reprisals against freed slaves;

8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude;

9. Encourages member nations to contribute assistance to areas previously reliant on slavery, in order to facilitate the transition of economic and social structure;

10. Prohibits the importation into any member nation of goods produced, in whole or in part, through slavery;

11. Further prohibits investment in companies using slavery;

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;

13. Requires nations to examine possible causes of and catalysts to trafficking in persons and to work, on their own and with other nations, towards the elimination of them;

14. Encourages even those nations having already abolished slavery to remain vigilant to forms of de facto slavery that may return and to fully assist in international efforts to totally eliminate all forms of slavery.

OOC: Wow...this does a lot, which makes categorising difficult. I would say HR, but there's a tricky clause that seems out of place (to me, at least) in terms of game mechanics:

12. Institutes a UN-wide embargo, except as required by previous UN legislation still in effect, of any goods made using forced labour, as prohibited by this resolution;

Embargoes have an economic effect that -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- would be out of step with the effects of a HR res. You might wiggle around it, though, by changing "institutes" to "urges" or something similar.

Don't we already have a Slavery Ban (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5) on the books? It may be a poor second cousin of this one, but I believe they are similar enough that #6 must be repealed first.

Ban Slavery doesn't, actually, ban slavery - unless we're ruling that the title contradicts this resolution even though the text does not.

I support this resolution. The current resolution on this subject is pathetically inadequte, but has defied attempts to repeal it. This is not surprising, considering that the title of any successful repeal would be Repeal "Ban Slavery" hardly an attractive notion.

Once this resolution is passed, it would be far easier to repeal the earlier resolution on the grounds of repetitiveness and ineffectiveness.

Ban Slavery doesn't, actually, ban slavery - unless we're ruling that the title contradicts this resolution even though the text does not.That's kinda of playing with semantics. Yes, it says "I propose", but it does include "- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people."

That's kinda of playing with semantics. Yes, it says "I propose", but it does include "- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people."

But not the ability to possess or enslave others. Either way, even if it wasn't addressed in UNR #6, it was addressed in UNR #62 (IIRC) "Bnan traffickning fo Peorsions" or something like that. The fact of the matter is that slavery is still legal, owning people is still legal and there is a large legal area that we can still address regarding slavery that isn't handled on any scale by UNR #6.

So this has duplications of two other Resolutions.

So this has duplications of two other Resolutions.

Well....ok, point 10 is duplication and possibly a couple others (6 and 11 being the two most likely). However, I'm more concerned about getting the other elements of slavery (possession of people, enslavement of people, forced labor, etc) acknowledged as untouched by the UN - 'cause I believe they haven't been addressed and certainly don't see them in the text of #6 or 62.

OOC: On the question of duplication, sure, there's some overlap, but this proposal would ban the ownership of people. Neither UNR #6 or #68 do that. They merely ban the sale and trafficking. If I already own slaves, they do nothing to prevent me from keeping them. I just can't sell them. Moreover, they do nothing to prevent me from keeping their offspring as slaves either. Proposals have been allowed to overlap exisiting resolutions before, so long as there was a considerable bit of new legislation included in the proposal. I'd say banning the ownership of people would constitute considerable additional legislation.

What about prison slavery? Many people, once they have been sentenced to prison are required (forced) to work. It has been aragued that this too is slavery, because the penal system is benefitting from bascially free labour, and the inmates do not get a fair return (if any) for the work they do and the goods they make. i am not talking about the jobs that have to done inside a prison e.g. laundry, cooking, cleaning etc. but how private enterprise benefits from sub-contracting to prisons where there is an abundence of free labour. please could include such slavery in the motion?

Ban Trafficking in Persons = #68

This was originally conceived as a replacement for "End Slavery", so yes, it would follow a straight repeal/replace format. It was pointed out to me it could possibly stand on its own, and I'll attempt to defend that now, but I don't want to get drawn into a protracted 'legal' (i.e. dictionary-bashing) discussion, so if the mods' opinion is that it's duplication, so be it, and I'll move on.

End Slavery does not ban ownership of persons. You can't sell or trade your slaves, but you can keep them. Hence Article 1 doesn't duplicate existing law. Articles 2-9 and 12-14 don't have corollaries in End Slavery. Those things End Slavery does deal with - protection from bodily harm, right to leave one's job, right to travel - aren't dealt with in this proposal.

Clauses 10 and 11 do more obviously duplicate Ban Trafficking in Persons, except that that resolution doesn't really do anything. It lays out some definitions, but it doesn't prohibit those defined activities. The sum total of its operative section is 'Decriminalize the women in prostitution but criminalize both the men who illegally buy women and children against their will, and anyone who promotes sexual exploitation, particularly pimps, procurers and traffickers.'

Yes, there is some duplication. The rules on this say: 'If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast.' It's not the majority of the proposal. It's two clauses out of 14, and a bit of a third. Hence, I would argue, this proposal can stand on its own without a repeal.

I have neither the time nor will for a really long ping-pong about this, and I'll bet a dozen puppets that the mods don't either. I completely understand that I am already getting to rules-lawyering territory, so if the mods say that I will have to repeal either #6 or #68, or both, then that's what I'll have to do. If I have to repeal both before I can submit this, I'll have to split it in two and rewrite it.

I'll look over all three and think about it; you raise good points.

The Lerasian Government objects to this. We will only agree to it if we are allowed to have forced labour camps for Prisoners of any kind. of coarse we are against slavery of poor civilians because of race and religion and all that but people that murder or speak out against the governmnet or great president of Lerasia deserve to be driven into harsh labour. either way
Lerasia has a number of Labour Camps for political opponents and killers and criminals and they will continue to operate.

The Lerasian Government objects to this. We will only agree to it if we are allowed to have forced labour camps for Prisoners of any kind. of coarse we are against slavery of poor civilians because of race and religion and all that but people that murder or speak out against the governmnet or great president of Lerasia deserve to be driven into harsh labour. either way
Lerasia has a number of Labour Camps for political opponents and killers and criminals and they will continue to operate.

You're right, they will so long as you read the text before you complain

9. Requires the abolition of forced labour, with the exception of:
- forced labour as a judicial punishment, where sentencing meets national and international law on fair trial and the due process of law,

I believe that my nation would be able to support this proposal, although our doing so might surprise some of the other delegations here, despite the fact that it isn’t exactly ‘Sovereignty’-friendly. Although our current government certainly isn’t amongst those regimes that regard it as reasonable for everything claimed as a matter of ‘Human Rights’ to over-ride national sovereignty, or amongst those who say that only the most “fundamental” rights should do so but then seem to define just about every ‘Human Right’ that’s proposed here as being a fundamental one, there are a few rights that we regard as important enough to be guaranteed in this way and ‘Freedom from Slavery’ is one of those. In fact, the region of ‘Conservative Paradise Reborn’ where we are now located is currently holding a Constitutional Convention and the draft document that has been jointly submitted to this by the governments of Godwinnia and St Edmund — and that, so far, seems likely to be accepted with hardly any changes — actually includes the prohibition of Slavery (along with the prohibition of Genocide) in its list of basic principles that the region’s members will follow…

Alfred Devereux Sweynsson,
Ambassador to the UN
for
The Protectorate of the St Edmundan Antarctic
(And still required to wear this bloody penguin costume!)

I see almost nothing in that relating to the proposal at hand: waffling about your personal philosophy and your region is of no consequence. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to stay on topic.

Okay. Sorry for the delay, but you know how it goes. First, I would like to say that #6 and #68 are complete and utter crap. Somebody should Repeal them.

Anyway, looking over this draft, it's clear that it goes far beyond either of the previous Resolutions, and is much better than both of them. Indeed, without the other two, and some strengthening of the language, it could easily replace both.

The hangup I'm seeing is in my phrasing in the Duplication rule:
If the majority of your Proposal is covered by an existing Resolution, your Proposal is toast. We've got enough of these things already, we don't need to double up (i.e. the UN has already banned landmines, we don't need to do it again). As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones. (see: House of Cards)Yes, that's a clunky phrase, but I did have a point when I wrote it. Specifically, that we didn't need (or want) to have the same law in multiple Resolutions. Remember the Repeal of Gay Rights? Much of it was predicated on the fact that numerous Resolutions granted all the rights that Gay Rights did, making it nothing more than a name and a waste of space.

Yes, this bans people-traffiking better than the other ones, but we already have that banned in two Resolutions, we don't need a third to ban it, even if it does a better job.

Consequently, the duplicating clause(s) should either be removed or softened to an APPLAUDING-type clause.

No problem about the wait (which was only like a day anyway) given I won't be able to submit this for a couple of weeks anyway.
Yes, this bans people-traffiking better than the other ones, but we already have that banned in two Resolutions, we don't need a third to ban it, even if it does a better job.

Consequently, the duplicating clause(s) should either be removed or softened to an APPLAUDING-type clause.
Fair enough. Back to the drawing board for a little while. I think I know how I can proceed now.

I see almost nothing in that relating to the proposal at hand: waffling about your personal philosophy and your region is of no consequence. I'd appreciate it if you'd try to stay on topic.

OOC: So, no IC-related material is wanted in this thread? If that's so then, considering how often such material crops up in this forum, shouldn't you have made a request to that effect in the first post? Or were you just taking yet another opportunity to snipe at me, as you'd already done on several other ocasions recently?

Hack, I'm not sure I understand the logic in your ruling.

As an aside, since the UN has already banned biological weapons, you don't need to include it in your Proposal to ban nuclear and chemical ones.

Nuclear and chemical weapons are very different from biological weapons...

Specifically, that we didn't need (or want) to have the same law in multiple Resolutions.

This resolution and End Slavery are fundamentally different; End Slavery ends the slave trade, this ends slavery.

Hack, I'm not sure I understand the logic in your ruling.

Nuclear and chemical weapons are very different from biological weapons...

This resolution and End Slavery are fundamentally different; End Slavery ends the slave trade, this ends slavery.

He's referring to the specific point of buying/selling people. He is not, by any means, referring to slavery itself. We've got the green light for a slavery ban, just not for a duplication of the specific clauses of either resolution.

Nuclear and chemical weapons are very different from biological weapons...Main Entry: 1ex·am·ple
Pronunciation: ig-'zam-p&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French essample, example, from Latin exemplum, from eximere to take out, from ex- + emere to take -- more at REDEEM
1 : one that serves as a pattern to be imitated or not to be imitated <a good example> <a bad example>There were several anti-WMD Proposals that attempted to ban all three. Since biological weapons were already banned, there was no need to ban them again in an omnibus Proposal.

This resolution and End Slavery are fundamentally different; End Slavery ends the slave trade, this ends slavery.Please read what I wrote.

We've got the green light for a slavery ban, just not for a duplication of the specific clauses of either resolution.Correct.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

Believing that slavery violates the most basic principles of individual liberty,

Rejecting the notion that any nation has the right to permit persons to be subjected to slavery,

Further considering that international cooperation is required to eliminate the slave trade,

Therefore strongly desirous of enacting firm prohibitions on slavery,

Further wishing to deal with the problems presented by freed slaves, such as repatriation, economic restitution and the prevention of discrimination,

Realizing that where slavery persists, all forms of diplomatic and economic pressure, including exclusion and embargo, should be directed at ending the practice,

Noting that trafficking in persons constitutes a form of slavery that has proved particularly resilient to attempts at abolition and that special vigilance is required in this regard,

Also calling for future legislation on the subject of unfree labour in order to fully prevent de facto slavery from persisting:

1. Declares that all persons are free, and that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts;

3. Condemns slavery in all its forms;

4. Prohibits member nations from returning persons to countries still practicing slavery, where there is probable cause to believe such persons will be returned to a condition of slavery, subjected to forced labour as prohibited by this resolution, or punished for attempting to escape from such conditions;

5. Permits member nations to require such persons to leave their territory for other nations willing to accept them;

6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;

7. Requires member nations to take reasonable action to prevent reprisals against freed slaves;

8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude;

9. Encourages member nations to contribute aid to regions previously reliant on slavery, in order to facilitate the transition of economic and social structure;

10. Prohibits the importation into any member nation of goods produced, in whole or in part, through slavery;

11. Further prohibits investment in companies using slavery or forced labour;

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;

13. Requires nations to examine possible causes of and catalysts to trafficking in persons and to work, on their own and with other nations, towards the elimination of them;

14. Encourages even those nations having already abolished slavery to remain vigilant to forms of de facto slavery that may return and to fully assist in international efforts to totally eliminate all forms of slavery.

Some initial points of concern:
- is the prohibition of slavery sufficiently absolute? and of forced labour?
Slavery, yes, we think so. Is the prohibition of forced labour intended to still permit chain gangs of prisoners and the like? If so, the prohibition is sufficient as best we can tell.

- are there are any instances in which the discrimination outlawed by 6. would be needed/valuable/permissible?
Technically, the requirements of clauses 5 and 7 are positive discrimination based on the prior state of slavery, so exempting them would be a good idea.

- is the embargo a good idea?
We would certainly support it.

Slavery, yes, we think so. Is the prohibition of forced labour intended to still permit chain gangs of prisoners and the like?
Yes. For one, if it's a form of punishment we can't prohibit it (because of Fair Sentencing Act); for two, whatever I might feel about such things, humane treatment of prisoners is a separate issue. So it's intended to allow it.
Technically, the requirements of clauses 5 and 7 are positive discrimination based on the prior state of slavery, so exempting them would be a good idea.
Duh. Hadn't thought of that. Thanks.

Obviously, I'm reluctant to do anything with the repeal until the replacement is as good as possible, so if you have comments on this draft (other than "I agree" or "good" or "waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle") please do make them. Some initial points of concern:
- is the prohibition of slavery sufficiently absolute? and of forced labour?

The only possible thing I could think of is to declare it a duty of member nations to prosecute anyone found to be possessing slaves.

- are there are any instances in which the discrimination outlawed by 6. would be needed/valuable/permissible?

Reparations?

- is the embargo a good idea?

I don't think we've ever had one so whether it would hinder or help, I really don't know. However, we certainly saw a few people who proclaimed that they wanted to sink slaver ships in the Maritime Neutrality Act so there's probably a few that would jump at the opportunity. Though....they'd probably support this in the first place.

Honestly, from a purely curious point of view, I'd LOVE to see how it would pan out. There isn't another platform we have where we could make a reasonable case for an embargo that people would jump on. It would be educational, if nothing else, how the UN responds to such a proposal.

- could the preamble suck any more?

Ever read my preambles?

- is the prohibition of slavery sufficiently absolute? and of forced labour?

Looks pretty solid to me, although the lack of a definition clause for slavery and/or forced labour seems kind of odd. I hope this is a sign that where getting away from the "Define everything in the resolution" thing.

- are there are any instances in which the discrimination outlawed by 6. would be needed/valuable/permissible?

Not that I can see, 'cept perhaps if someone was previously a slave because they committed a crime. Then again, that would be discrimination because they are criminals, not ex-slaves. I think the clause is solid.

- is the embargo a good idea?

The embargo is an excellent idea, and something I remember including in my origioinal draft "Banning Slavery", when I tried to repeal and replace End Slavery.

- have we missed anything obvious?

If it where obvious, I probably would have noticed, so no. Then again, you may have missed something not-obvious, but non-obvious things usually elude my attention.

- could the preamble suck any more?

There is nothing wrong with a simplistic preamble, resolutions that go on too long without operative clauses tend to annoy people anyways.

I must say, I really really like this proposal, and I absolutley adore the idea of repealing End Slavery. I've tried twice, and was soundly defeated both times, I wish you the best of luck and offer my full services as a UN member and regional delegate.

Some small amendments have been made, thanks to the comments of the Ausserlander delegation, and a preliminary category/strength has been picked. We are wondering what people thought about adding disinvestment and non-economic boycotts to the import ban, and whether that might be 'overkill' or not.

-- Samantha Benson

3. Condemns slavery in all its forms;

Just in case maybe should define slavery in all it forms? just a thought.

- The Blue Eyed Man

Just in case maybe should define slavery in all it forms? just a thought.

Going into a thorough definition of all forms of slavery could potentially make the proposal too long and would open too many semantics debates. Additionally, it would make the proposal rather cumbersome to read, and many people would give up on the proposal before ever reaching the meat of it. It's a form of ballot fatigue, methinks. Using an umbrella statement and foregoing a detailed definition of 'slavery in all its forms' also allows each individual nation to make their own legal judgment call. Personally, I prefer the umbrella. Unless it's a blanket. I get the two statement types confused.:rolleyes:

A well thought out, well written replacement for Resolution #6 and we will be proud to support it.

One question though. I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet here or elsewhere and if it has I apologise, but what about repatriation of freed slaves to their former nations? I recognise that in cases where the slavery was multi-generational the former slaves might want to remain in the nation where they were held, as they would have no (or few) cultural ties to their former homeland. However, in cases where the enslavement was fairly recent they would likely want to return home.

Might it be possible to add something to Article 6 to provide for the repatriation of those who wanted to return? The resolution as written already endorses programs to assist their integration into society and it doesn't seem that a program assisting them with voluntary repatriation would be unreasonable if they chose to go that route.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

A well thought out, well written replacement for Resolution #6 and we will be proud to support it.

One question though. I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet here or elsewhere and if it has I apologise, but what about repatriation of freed slaves to their former nations? I recognise that in cases where the slavery was multi-generational the former slaves might want to remain in the nation where they were held, as they would have no (or few) cultural ties to their former homeland. However, in cases where the enslavement was fairly recent they would likely want to return home.

Might it be possible to add something to Article 6 to provide for the repatriation of those who wanted to return? The resolution as written already endorses programs to assist their integration into society and it doesn't seem that a program assisting them with voluntary repatriation would be unreasonable if they chose to go that route.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We'd hate to see the proposal and the discussion get bogged down in laundry-listing of the many ways which might be used to mitigate the aftereffects of slavery. However, the representative of New Leicestershire has an excellent point. Voluntary repatriation can be a critical issue upon the abolition of slavery. We concur with his suggestion to include it in the listing in Section 6.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations.

disinvestment and non-economic boycotts to the import ban, and whether that might be 'overkill' or not.

...That's a tricky one. While slavery is an absolutely abhorrent practice, how far should we go to make non UN-nations quit?

I can't say definitivley for myself, but I'm leaning towards adding disinvestment and non-economic boycotts. I'd rather have slavery over-dead then barely alive, so to speak.

Oh, and waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle pancake.

One question though. I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet here or elsewhere and if it has I apologise, but what about repatriation of freed slaves to their former nations? I recognise that in cases where the slavery was multi-generational the former slaves might want to remain in the nation where they were held, as they would have no (or few) cultural ties to their former homeland. However, in cases where the enslavement was fairly recent they would likely want to return home.

Might it be possible to add something to Article 6 to provide for the repatriation of those who wanted to return? The resolution as written already endorses programs to assist their integration into society and it doesn't seem that a program assisting them with voluntary repatriation would be unreasonable if they chose to go that route.
Very well: thank you for the excellent suggestion, Ambassador Watts. I have amended clause 6 to read:
6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;
If you can think of a better phrasing, do say.

-- Samantha Benson

As a nation ahborring slavery, Damisar would be happy to vote in favour of this bill.

Would indentured servitude and exploitation of foreign cheap labor fall under the definition of "slavery in all its forms"?

And what about the issue of affirmative action?

Would indentured servitude and exploitation of foreign cheap labor fall under the definition of "slavery in all its forms"?
I believe that even though the indentured party may have entered into the arrangement voluntarily and even if it is only for a set period of time it would still fall within the definition since it involves one person owning another.

As for "exploitation of foreign cheap labor" being defined as slavery, no. Were you being serious?

And what about the issue of affirmative action?
This is an American term with which I am vaguely familiar. If you mean the practice of giving preferential treatment to certain groups to redress the effects of past discrimination then I think that would be left up to individual governments to decide. Article 6 says:
6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;
But it doesn't mandate preferential treatment or establish quotas for hiring or university enrollment or suchlike.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Would indentured servitude and exploitation of foreign cheap labor fall under the definition of "slavery in all its forms"?
The second issue, no. Sweatshops are for other legislation to deal with. But I would greatly appreciate advice on the first, because indentured servitude is something we considered including, but decided against as it was too complex. We see the following possibilities:
- make some provision, in this proposal, for prevention of indentured servitude;
- address it in a separate proposal;
- do nothing about it.

This is definitely an issue on which input would be very strongly welcomed, because we're not sure in ourselves how cut and dry the issue (having, in Quintessence of Dust, no history of indenture).
And what about the issue of affirmative action?
This is the reason that clause 8 begins 'Otherwise prohibits': to allow for nations to take every affirmative action to help former slave populations towards equality. This proposal does not prohibit it, but it won't mandate it either.

-- Samantha Benson

The second issue, no. Sweatshops are for other legislation to deal with. But I would greatly appreciate advice on the first, because indentured servitude is something we considered including, but decided against as it was too complex. We see the following possibilities:
- make some provision, in this proposal, for prevention of indentured servitude;
- address it in a separate proposal;
- do nothing about it.

This is definitely an issue on which input would be very strongly welcomed, because we're not sure in ourselves how cut and dry the issue (having, in Quintessence of Dust, no history of indenture).
Now that I've had more time to think about this I'd have to say that indentured servitude would not be covered under your current text. From a strictly legal standpoint, it is different than slavery since it doesn't involve the legal ownership of one person by another.

From a practical standpoint however, it is often virtually the same as slavery because the indentured servants are often "paid" only with basic subsistence (food, clothing, shelter, etc), the contracts can be extended at the discretion of the holder for a variety of reasons and indentured servants who run away may be punished.

So technically it isn't slavery since no legal ownership of persons is involved, but in a very real sense it is a form of slavery since many of the conditions are the same. I think it falls close enough to slavery that it should be addressed, but I'm not sure if it should be in this document or another.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

I think that there are enough specific details regarding indentured servitude that legally separate it from slavery that it would be best dealt with either attached to something more appropriate, like some form of workers rights act, or entirely on its own. If for no other reason than because of that basic difference regarding ownership, it needs to be handled differently than slavery.

There are cultures in which apprenticeship to a craft or trade involves indentured status ( possibly even including RL modern Britain, as I seem to recall at least one of Dick Francis's books saying that this was still the case for trainee jockeys! ): I would prefer not to see an outright ban on this practice...

On the other hand, what about Serfdom?

Serfdom would be more a concern than indentured servitude in my eyes. When the Hyperboreans were still running around, they had serfs and -- as I recall -- it was very similar to slavery, as the lord owned the land that the serfs worked on. Then again, the lord only took a percentage of the food and provided the serfs with the land itself as well as protection.

I guess I wouldn't consider it slavery proper. Certainly not an equitable deal, but there was at least some quid pro quo.


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

Really, I'd avoid getting into the realms of feudal serfdom alltogether. The feudal system, at least on a certain level, is completely different from the owning of one human- without serfs the lord can't create income, and without the lord the serfs have neither land nor protection.

But let's not dwell on serfdom- indentured servitude, where contract length is arbitrary at the discretion of the indenturer, is basically slavery anyway. It would be wise, perhaps, to ban such practices that allow employers to retain their employees indefinitely at their discretion.

Most courteously.

We're going to give indentured servitude a little more thought; however, we may try to include it in this proposal. Give us a day or two, and obviously, feel free to express further opinions.

With regards to serfdom, however, we will not legislate against that, here. The issue is outside the - already pretty broad - remit of this proposal. Further, I'm not sure if prohibiting serfdom would be legal as it might be considered an ideological ban on feudalism.

We've made vague mentions of 'a second proposal'. That could possibly take the form of a free labour proposal guaranteeing certain very basic rights to workers: it would be the obvious opportunity to replace End Slavery's provision for bodily safety. Honestly, though, three proposals would be very wearing on us and hence hint hint hint if anyone else were interested in taking up such an effort...if not, however, the need to deal with indentured servitude here becomes more apparent.

-- Samantha Benson

We've made vague mentions of 'a second proposal'. That could possibly take the form of a free labour proposal guaranteeing certain very basic rights to workers: it would be the obvious opportunity to replace End Slavery's provision for bodily safety. Honestly, though, three proposals would be very wearing on us and hence hint hint hint if anyone else were interested in taking up such an effort...if not, however, the need to deal with indentured servitude here becomes more apparent.

-- Samantha Benson
We would be willing to undertake the drafting of such a proposal, pending the successful repeal of End Slavery.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

We would be willing to undertake the drafting of such a proposal, pending the successful repeal of End Slavery.
Alright, excellent. That should ease the load here, somewhat.

indentured servitude, where contract length is arbitrary at the discretion of the indenturer, is basically slavery anyway. It would be wise, perhaps, to ban such practices that allow employers to retain their employees indefinitely at their discretion.

If any such ban was defined as being against only this form of indentured service, rather than on forms with durations fixed at their start as well, then I think that that would be acceptable to my government.

Further, I'm not sure if prohibiting serfdom would be legal as it might be considered an ideological ban on feudalism.
It is actually quite possible to operate a feudal system with free peasants rather than just serfs.
(RL example: England from at least the middle of the 15th century onwards, and effectively earlier in many villages especially in certain parts of the country, with the last feudal tenure of farmland not formally abolished (and replaced with standard 'leasehold' arrangements) until the 1920s! )

bbbuuuUUUMMMPPP!!

The news today:
- this is still going ahead, but the repeal is not going to be submitted just yet
- indentured servitude and other forms of unfree labour will not be dealt with this in this proposal, but will be dealt with in New Leicestershire's proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529375); please address comments on such to that thread;
- the current draft is still here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=12579951#post12579951): I am looking to get it finalised.

So:
- UN lawyers, do your best: I think I've eliminated all major contradictions/duplications, and have included what I think is the appropriate category, but if you can see any further problems do say (although hopefully this thread won't get too [much more] legalistic);
- any further comments or suggestions for addition, this is probably the last call: speak now, or forever hold your peace (or, more likely, bring it up again and again in debate);
- the preamble needs work and will be rewritten, but I will do that myself; nonetheless, I'll gladly listen to any suggestions.

The plan of action is:
- once this and Unfree Labour are finalised, publicise them (if anyone with feeder/large region contacts would help with this, we'd be much obliged);
- hit and hope with the repeal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=526616);
- dashingly fend off 'oh but no one ever submits replacements, waaah' comments;
- if it passes, submit this and Unfree Labour (doesn't matter too much which order they go in).

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust

Just one thought... Assuming the passage of the "Unfree Labour" proposal, should Article 10 be removed as duplicative?

Also, it was our understanding that, following the repeal of "End Slavery" and passage of the two replacement resolutions, there would also be an effort to repeal the unfortunately worded NSUNR #68, "Ban Trafficking in Persons". That resolution would be rendered superfluous by the broader provisions of this proposal. Is that still the intent?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

What does people have against slavery? It sure is better than being addicted to an over-powerful landlord or something! A slave is like an animal, you need to take care of them, whilst extreme poorness is a much worse, since the man the people depend on doesn't have any duties towards them!

What does people have against slavery? It sure is better than being addicted to an over-powerful landlord or something! A slave is like an animal, you need to take care of them, whilst extreme poorness is a much worse, since the man the people depend on doesn't have any duties towards them!

Um, what? I suppose now the n00bs weigh in.

*groan*

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Just one thought... Assuming the passage of the "Unfree Labour" proposal, should Article 10 be removed as duplicative?
Hmm. Well, I suppose so, so long as Unfree Labour does indeed replicate 10's provisions, which it would seem to. Regarding clauses 11 and 12, would that then mean we should strike reference to 'forced labour', or change it to 'unfree labour'?
Also, it was our understanding that, following the repeal of "End Slavery" and passage of the two replacement resolutions, there would also be an effort to repeal the unfortunately worded NSUNR #68, "Ban Trafficking in Persons". That resolution would be rendered superfluous by the broader provisions of this proposal. Is that still the intent?
Yes, it certainly is: I should have mentioned that before.
Um, what? I suppose now the n00bs weigh in.
Seemingly.

-- George Madison
Ambassador to the UN

What we should probably do, once you and New Leicestershire are satisfied that the content of both drafts is locked in concrete, is plop the two in a single post and look them over as a set. That way we can make sure there are no contradictions, needless duplications or unfilled loopholes. I'd suggest we do that on Reclamation.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: Draft edited into Post 1. Would people be ok with Human Rights, Strong? I think there are a few social justice-y provisions in the proposal, but hopefully not so many that it makes it a category violation.

Hm. I'd say significant or strong, yeah.

[indent][center]
1. Declares that all persons are free, and that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;What criminals convicted of crimes as until you define slavery and clear up what it is one could consider them slaves once put into prison.. by a court system.

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts;Using the term LEGAL means now that you are overriding contracts that under the laws of nation even the UN are now voided because they may be regarded as imposing slavery on others. All resolutions inacted make slaves of members if they require them to do anything they as free individuals choose not to. Even if it imposes on nations and they have to do anything they don't want to as then their freedom is inslaved by the UN under such resolutions. So it being legal will be ended under this.

3. Condemns slavery in all its forms;Either we missed it but see no definition of slavery in this to clearly set up what it is and what you condemn.

4. Prohibits member nations from returning persons to countries still practicing slavery, where there is probable cause to believe such persons will be returned to a condition of slavery, subjected to forced labour as prohibited by this resolution, or punished for attempting to escape from such conditions;This opens a door where criminals may be considered slaves and not returned to nations to stand trial.

5. Permits member nations to require such persons to leave their territory for other nations willing to accept them;Please clear up who this is refering to as 'such persons' in the clause as it not clear as written.

6. Strongly endorses programs to assist freed slaves with adaptation to society, including the provision of education, vocational training, financial assistance and housing as required, as well as voluntary repatriation to nation of origin on request;How do you endorse something we will not have to put into place if we don't have or want it in place? So this as is does nothing as I simply don't have welfare programs for free citizens and refuse to start them for freed slaves that might come into my nation seeking residence because of out benifits given citizens.

7. Requires member nations to take reasonable action to prevent reprisals against freed slaves;
That word 'reasonable' is open for definition as many rulers of member nations don't know what the word means.

8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude;This would violate other resolutions on 'discrimination' or to me be amending them to cover 'free slaves' in them since they may not have directly covered them in the original resolution.

9. Encourages member nations to contribute aid to regions previously reliant on slavery, in order to facilitate the transition of economic and social structure;Here we believe that the only way to help others is to make sure you need nothing from them for free. Thus they should not need anything from you that you have as if you can get it then they can also.

10. Prohibits the importation into any member nation of goods produced, in whole or in part, through slavery;Since many members trade with nations not in UN this will cause violations of possible trade treaties between member nations and non member nations..... and also may kill a nation who is in a region with all non member nations that they rely on for most of their trade goods.

11. Further prohibits investment in companies using slavery or forced labour;Again the term forced labor opens doors as it is not clearly defined what forced labor it.

12. Endorses and encourages diplomatic and economic efforts by member nations and international organizations to eliminate the practice of slavery in non-member nations, including efforts to support compensated manumission;So a pat on the back and you epect to see slavery come to an end in places where it is present. As far as 'support' we believe individual nations are responsible for their own status in this world and should not require welfare from other nations who have worked hard to get it.

13. Requires nations to examine possible causes of and catalysts to trafficking in persons and to work, on their own and with other nations, towards the elimination of them;Here you now require this and have seen that nations in the UN many times can't work together on issues more important than this so how do you expect them to do it on this?

14. Encourages even those nations having already abolished slavery to remain vigilant to forms of de facto slavery that may return and to fully assist in international efforts to totally eliminate all forms of slavery.Also how do you encourage anyone to do something as see many times it requires rewards for doing it or profits made for doing it. This has not solution to funding any efforts to end slavery just encourages nations to support it. Many will say they don't have funds to spend on free slaves as they go to their own future citizens..

I'm not going to respond in ping-pong fullness to that, partly because large sections of it don't appear to be in recognisable English, but a few general points (I have also spared you the indignity of responding to your mutually contradictory points; my response mainly deals with the 'too strong' half of your schizophrenic output, but if you'd prefer I tackled the 'too weak' half, do say):
to incarcerate someone or to make them a ward of state is not to make them the property of a person or institution; prisoners are not 'owned' by their jailers, but simply detained by them;
given the UN imposes no requirement of extradition, your point on clause 4 is null;
the very reason the programs are only 'strongly endorse[d]' is that this proposal is not the place to start a debate on what welfare requirements the UN can require of nations; that said, we weren't anticipating a great deal of opposition to providing some limited forms of support to people you had previously been holding in a state of bondage;
congratulations on identifying the very point of the embargo: nations should not be reliant on slave labour, and hence they will indeed be forced to seek free labour for imported goods.

Additionally, your argument that the UN making requirements of its member nations is a form of slavery and hence prohibited by this proposal is so explosively silly that I am going to set aside the next two minutes of my life to laughing at it:
hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador and Secretary of State for UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude; You forgot to comment on this and the idea it ammends any existing Discrimination resolution to include freed slaves... It 'Prohibits Discrimination' something either poorly covered or not covered in other existing resolutions thus is clearly and attempt to ammend any existing resolution of discrimination... Or in itself reverse discriminate in that it may give protections to freed slaves that person never slaves never had as if no current resolution or existing laws give those protections to free folks then this should not give them those rights until all have them.... otherwise freed slaves will have more protections under this than those never slaves.

Also this is a proposal on ending slavery not ending discrimination... Separate issues that to my understanding need to be and have been addressed as such..

We would also direct you to R198 Emigration Rights.. since they are no longer slaves they fall under it as far as rights to travel. Thus this only amends that to cover freed slaves in regards to travel/imigration a subject covered clearly in R198.

4 - STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to facilitate the travel of persons fleeing hostile situations including, but not limited to, war, civil unrest, ethnic or racial persecution, or governments that are viewed as oppressive or unethical by the fleeing persons, to locations that are more friendly towards the person; We also believe this in R198 covers your section 2..... 2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognise such conditions and contracts; in that they are now free since R198 only strongly encourages them protections you are amending it and giving freed slaves more than those never slaves whould have under R198 per this.... since it is required here for them.. or if not in section 2 then you do it for them in section 7... anyway it gives them protections in these areas that anyone never a slave may not be getting...

Also R230 Fairness and Equality Act in protecting folks from discrimination based on 'cultural background' would cover them since one can consider 'slavery' a culture in itself.. one born and raised a slave grows up knowing that as their way of life...

Have not have time to get to other resolutions but working my way there. As see this is an attempt to ammend those to include freed slaves when it not needed since they free they already covered under those. Those it not needed to restate them here just for freed slaves as should those be repealed and any rights given under them then freed slaves should be in same boat as rest of folks.

You forgot to comment on this and the idea it ammends any existing Discrimination resolution to include freed slaves... It 'Prohibits Discrimination' something either poorly covered or not covered in other existing resolutions thus is clearly and attempt to ammend any existing resolution of discrimination...Probably because it isn't amending anything. This is simply covering an area that the existing resolutions don't.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

4 of 198 and 2 of this proposal need to be fully compared before you pass a judgment.

4 - STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to facilitate the travel of persons fleeing hostile situations including, but not limited to, war, civil unrest, ethnic or racial persecution, or governments that are viewed as oppressive or unethical by the fleeing persons, to locations that are more friendly towards the person;

Whereas "including but not limited to" can be safely ignored, if the condition is undefined, it's "too optional" to cover anything but what was explicitly listed.

2. Requires the immediate release of any persons so owned, the immediate dissolution of any legal contracts enacting such ownership, and that all member nations henceforth refuse to recognize such conditions and contracts;

Note the word "requires" and the specific condition set forth.

The two clauses are different enough to give him the legal wiggle room to safely ignore R198.

I'll throw my few bits of opinion out here though.

First I must say the preamble is extremely long for my tastes, but it does get the points across. You said you were going to work on it though, so I'll leave that alone. However:

Item 1 could probably be reworded as to not step on the toes of certain governments that don't practice slavery, but would take issue with the word "free". Not a requirement mind you, just a thought. (Possibly remove "all persons are free, and that" to read: "1. Declares that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;".

Item 3 could use some definition of slavery, or a removal. The whole rest of the resolution explicitly condemns slavery, so that's really an optional clause to begin with.

Item 5 does seem redundant with R198. The right to emigrate is already assured.

I think that with the recent passage of 230 that item 7 might be superfluous, but that's alright as it was passed after that draft was written. It should at least be re-examined.

Item 8 may or may also come into conflict with R230. Much like item 7.

You could close up a possible loophole(even though it is a suggestion clause) in item 9 by replacing "aid to regions" with "aid to nations or regions".

Item 10 should somehow grandfather goods produced before compliance with this resolution from nations that are now in compliance with this resolution.

All that said, I'd support this as-is, but I think it could stand a few small improvements.

OOC: Links to R198 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199) and R230 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13254819&postcount=1)

Probably because it isn't amending anything. This is simply covering an area that the existing resolutions don't.

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeYes but it deals with discrimination and that is covered in a number or resolutions to where it gives about the same rights to everyone that this would give to freed slaves.. If they didn't have those rights in the original they now being free do.. Also why give rights to freed slaves that nobody else has per any resolution but should have? If there is to be any resolution on discrimination it should include all people not just a certain groups in it. This is why see this as ammending any existing resolution on discrimination as to ammend it to add to something.. that which might not have been put in the original or to correct an error in it. Here if slaves were not included in any resolution on discrimination once they become free and citizens of any nation they are then covered under it. Thus no need to mention discrimination as any existing laws or resolution already ends it. Especily not for one group... freed slaves... and not include others..

As this8. Otherwise prohibits discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under the law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude; Makes this an ammendment since it 'prohibits discrimination'... a subject in part covered in another resolution but not giving protection directly to freed slaves so this does that... this also gives them more protections as it is written than the original gave free folks. So we ask why give this group better protection here than they might have if they were never slaves and set free? You will here ammend or change other discrimination resolution that lack protections in them just for one group freed slaves.

OOC:Check out in this the use of 'otherwise' to open this as we see that setting this as amending other resolutions on discrimination.. as: something or anything else : something to the contrary :is how we read it. As this would be something or anything else but what anyone might have per current resolutions or even contrary to what they might not have or have.

Well honestly I'll bet item 8 gets re-examined when he gets around to reading the thread. The item was written before R230 was even thought up, so it's understandable that it would conflict.

In other words, don't use it as the crux of your argument, since it probably won't be there tomorrow. If you have something new to add, that'd be cool. ;)

Well it all part of the nature of the game as if one was to be voted on and approved today and this conflicted with it then... it would have to be changed or that one repealed. By conflict this one either ammends or changes the content of the one that is in place. Amending is adding information that was not put in the original thus any effort to cover discrimination or travel in this clearly is and effort to me to ammend and existing resolution that covers it and gives protections or rights or whatever. Thus the writer will need to not include clauses on those issues until the other has be repealed and then we feel must keep the subjects separate. As adding things in another resolution that may have been an issue when debating the other that would have kept it off the books thus it was left out to get it on.. without that clasue... is amending it and doing it on the sly as far we see it thus not legal.

Freedom of Speech is just that to us and should only include SPEECH not give people the rights to do what they want to do in any other area than say what they may want to. Print it you moving to another level, record it and you moving again to another level. I want to express my concern and love for you and how you live so give me your address and let me come stay with you for next six months and express it and help you change your ways. Here I have expressed an issue but when I show up at your door with my bags prepared to stay a while you have every right to express your views on it and send me to jail or the nut house or wherever. I by coming can't say you have to let me because I just saying what I feel or trying to say it. I'm acting or expressing it and violating other rights you have. I tell folks you have a pink tatttoo of a fairy under you belly button and others in other places... I show pictures and say it you see that pretty fairy under the belly button. I have express something but they two separate areas. You can prove actions but it hard to prove I said something one. Especialy after it goes through more than one person to come back around. Thus I may have only told you had to fairy tattoo under BB then next person adds one some place else and as it moves you get covered in them.. as somebody along way pulls out the photo and more folks ride the issue by keeping it vocal and going around adding their own version of what was said. Your TV news folks are like that and need to be made accountable for what they show or say. I have seen them take certain parts of a speech and present them in a manner that without the full text of a speech makes the speaker satan. This is done with the Bible as folks take only what they want from it and make their point using just single lines. They are expressing their beliefs and have every right to do it but when they act on those to force changes in others who have read or heard the full text of the issue and found that part they want to follow then it become criminal.


The base of this is good and intent is good but we feel it covering issues that need to be separate due to the nature of the issues. As voicing ones thoughts is okay, acting on them is criminal is there are laws in place saying you can't do it.

Firstly, before we take one further step, it is spelled
amends.
You forgot to comment on this and the idea it ammends any existing Discrimination resolution to include freed slaves...
That's because I'd rather not waste my time pandering to mind-numbing stupidity, when there are more fun things in the world such as eating, sleeping, and nailing my own scrotum to a wall. You clearly fail to understand the concept of 'amendment' - that you are unable to spell it was, I'll admit, a clue - so I will, briefly, explain (I've mislaid my hammer):
'addition' is to do something a previous proposal has not done. If a proposal legalises carrots, it is addition to legalise apples. This is legal;
'amendment' is to change the effect of a previous proposal. To recriminalise carrots, or to say that only carrots that are longer than six inches are legal, would be amendment. That is illegal;
If you can point me to a prior resolution that states a set of eligible criteria for protection, that excludes previous condition of servitude therefrom, and that states that those listed criteria are the only grounds on which the UN can prohibit discrimination, I will take your point. You have not done such, and until you do so, I will not.

This, incidentally, is why the following
Well honestly I'll bet item 8 gets re-examined when he gets around to reading the thread. The item was written before R230 was even thought up, so it's understandable that it would conflict.
is false.
Also this is a proposal on ending slavery not ending discrimination... Separate issues that to my understanding need to be and have been addressed as such..
Your understanding is, thankfully, wrong. A resolution to end de jure slavery, which contains no protections against the incipient threat of de facto slavery, would be abominably irresponsible.
We would also direct you to R198 Emigration Rights.. since they are no longer slaves they fall under it as far as rights to travel. Thus this only amends that to cover freed slaves in regards to travel/imigration a subject covered clearly in R198.
"Emigration Rights" only covers emigration; the clue's kind of in the title, nah? '[T]ravel permission' is clearly a broader category that would encompass many other aspects of travel, such as travel within a nation without leaving it. The point is really to prevent laws that reinstate a de facto slave system by cordoning them off into specific zones or denying them access to areas where they might benefit from free labour.
We also believe this in R198 covers your section 2..... in that they are now free since R198 only strongly encourages them protections you are amending it and giving freed slaves more than those never slaves whould have under R198 per this.... since it is required here for them.. or if not in section 2 then you do it for them in section 7... anyway it gives them protections in these areas that anyone never a slave may not be getting...
See above for why you are wrong, wasting my time, and hopefully about to shut up. For what it's worth, I entirely agree that this resolution cannot override "Emigration Rights"; fortunately, it doesn't.
Also R230 Fairness and Equality Act in protecting folks from discrimination based on 'cultural background' would cover them since one can consider 'slavery' a culture in itself.. one born and raised a slave grows up knowing that as their way of life...
I think the crucial word here is 'can'. This is not intended as a criticism of Resolution #230, but 'cultural background' is sufficiently vague that it by no mean has to include 'prior condition of servitude', which is considerably more precise. Furthermore, you are assuming a particular kind of slavery: one is not necessary born a slave but might be enslaved later on in one's life (if everyone were born a slave, who would have been the first slave?). I don't even think you're doing this, but at the very worst you're pointing to a minor redundancy. Show me how it actually causes some real legislative damage and I'll be much more interested.
Yes but it deals with discrimination and that is covered in a number or resolutions to where it gives about the same rights to everyone that this would give to freed slaves..
First, if you're going to invoke 'a number or [sic] resolutions', you're going to have to cite them. I'm not sure which resolutions you're alluding to, given they clearly can't include such as #88 (which applies only to the UN, not member nations) or #99 (which lists criteria not including prior condition of servitude).
--further blatherings--
Can't be fucked any more. If it comes to vote, vote against it.

Now:
First I must say the preamble is extremely long for my tastes, but it does get the points across. You said you were going to work on it though, so I'll leave that alone.
This is a reasonable point; however, I wanted to try to include justifications for all of the actions in the even longer operative section. In fact, word count meant I had to exclude a note about de facto slavery anyway. And given there's not obviously much more to include in the operative section, I'm going to leave it as is.
Item 1 could probably be reworded as to not step on the toes of certain governments that don't practice slavery, but would take issue with the word "free". Not a requirement mind you, just a thought. (Possibly remove "all persons are free, and that" to read: "1. Declares that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;".
Heh. You're right, of course, but to make an admission, I thought it would be quite funky to have a UN resolution to declare that everyone was free. Perhaps you're not getting the full effect: I recommend re-reading the clause while listening to Barber's Adagio. Then you'll get it.

Beyond that, I suppose it is unnecessary rhetoric, but I'm not sure I'd want a government that's going to be offended by terming it's people 'free' to vote for anything I wrote anyway.
Item 3 could use some definition of slavery, or a removal. The whole rest of the resolution explicitly condemns slavery, so that's really an optional clause to begin with.
To some extent this is as above: I think it's important for the UN to on record as condemning slavery, even if that doesn't really entail any legislative action. Partly, I'm hoping it will give those crusading to end slavery elsewhere something to fall back on: it's not just their pet peeve, it's a UN-condemned practice. This was the Safalran tactic in Resolution #62, "Female Genital Mutilation".

As for a definition of slavery, I really wanted to avoid that because I don't think it's necessary. I'm also worried about it being too exclusive; and I think it's pretty clear what slavery means in the context of clause 1, anyway.
Item 5 does seem redundant with R198. The right to emigrate is already assured.
I think you're misinterpreting 5. That's not about emigration, but deportation. I can't legitimately force nations to keep any slaves that seek asylum there indefinitely, and I think it's legitimate for them to say 'you have to leave now' (much as my own nation would never do that, I understand some would, and that fight is not something I want to bog down this debate). "Emigration Rights" covers voluntary emigration, not compulsory emigration.
I think that with the recent passage of 230 that item 7 might be superfluous, but that's alright as it was passed after that draft was written. It should at least be re-examined.
I'm just not sufficiently convinced that 'economic or cultural background' definitely includes 'prior condition of servitude'. In a system where slavery isn't hereditary, the two aren't necessary cognates. And I really do want to make sure reprisals don't occur. I may reword it slightly, though, so watch this space.
Item 8 may or may also come into conflict with R230. Much like item 7.
See above, really. As I say, at worst, it's somewhat redundant, but I doubt the duplication would be sufficient for the proposal to become illegal.
You could close up a possible loophole(even though it is a suggestion clause) in item 9 by replacing "aid to regions" with "aid to nations or regions".
Eh...it's only an '[e]ncourages' clause, so there's no loophole: you can simply not do it. I have edited it to 'assistance', though, so as to avoid the 'giving huge stacks of cash to former slaveholders' association of 'aid', and 'regions' to 'areas' to avoid confusion with Regions.
Item 10 should somehow grandfather goods produced before compliance with this resolution from nations that are now in compliance with this resolution.
Again, I think this might be a misinterpretation. The clause is worded like this because we in Quintessence of Dust aren't big fans of blanket embargoes on nations. So it will still be legal to import from nations practicing slavery: just not any goods specifically produced by slavery. It is hoped the consequent upset of the trade balance will help a natural trend away from slavery anyway (because free labour goods will become more economically viable). So I don't think any grandfathering is necessary.
All that said, I'd support this as-is, but I think it could stand a few small improvements.
Well, thanks anyway: constructive criticism is always much appreciated.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador and Secretary of State for UN Affairs
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

'addition' is to do something a previous proposal has not done. If a proposal legalises carrots, it is addition to legalise apples. This is legal;By the nature of the debate others have seen this is amending not adding to it. Also this is a proposal to free slaves not give them more rights once free than those never slaves.


'amendment' is to change the effect of a previous proposal. To recriminalise carrots, or to say that only carrots that are longer than six inches are legal, would be amendment. That is illegal;I call giving protections and rights to freed slaves that were not given in a resolution changing the effects of that resolution as now you have a group who have those protections and rights that were not given. Once they are free slaves are covered under current laws and existing resolution thus news special laws resolutions are not needed just for them... if you want to give them protections and rights do it for all not just them.


One of the reasons some things are not included in resolutions is strong opposition to it in debate so it is either left out or worded to avoid the opposition. Thus later may find folks wanting to include it in a new one or as you do stick it in one and let it go through. Just by the debate here this is clearly a clause in discrimination to give freed slaves rights and protections not given them by the other and thus not given anyone as have not seen a resolution single out freed slaves getting anything or not getting it. The resolution covers all person free and slave unless it is set to exclude them by working.

As free they will have any protections and rights given anyone else. We that resolutions include all people any status and not just free people or one group.. thus they to us had existing rights and continue to regardless of their status change, but don't want to give them special attention over other groups that will lead to problems when they say I have this right by this.. and that group didn't get nor has the right.

OOC: One of the main causes of trouble over slavery and native american issuses in US to me is blacks and natives blaming me for something before my time and crying I owe them because of what my ancestors may or may not have done to them.

IC:To single out freed slaves and start giving them rights and protections under your proposal will only result in problems when they start demaning things based on what is given and those who were not involved in their slavery are forced to listen and support them because they have been bound to in your resolution.

As they are free they have the rights and protections they need all you need to do it set them free.. if the system is set up to educate them then they will be eductated like anyone else, don't make special clauses to set up schools for them... same with health care and other things. If the people all have it then they can get it and should get it. They can take the same legal actions as anyone free to get what is theirs or protections from abuse.

Adding to or amending something is a close call as you add words in a sentence or sentences on and it will change what was written.... thus you have amended it.. and changed in some cases the effects of what was prior written.


OOC:Will try to keep my typos down as get in a rush use more than two fingers and get messy.

IC: I've sent my secretary to the state work camp to learn to type until she gets back I will be doing my own typing. so hope the erroirs and tyhpos are not a bourbon tro you.

One last bit, and I'll leave you be.

Item 10 will be kinda hard to implement without grandfathering, as all items produced with slave labor will have to be cataloged and recorded. It's a simple matter to institute a labeling program while a product is being produced, quite another economic stumbling block to have to record and label everything you've ever produced with slave labor.

Then again, if you were using slaves you probably deserve it.

One last bit, and I'll leave you be.

Item 10 will be kinda hard to implement without grandfathering, as all items produced with slave labor will have to be cataloged and recorded. It's a simple matter to institute a labeling program while a product is being produced, quite another economic stumbling block to have to record and label everything you've ever produced with slave labor.

Then again, if you were using slaves you probably deserve it.
Maybe I'm being dense, but I still don't see the relevance of this. If you're saying the embargo will be somewhat difficult to enforce, then I accept that, but I'd rather other resolutions dealt more fully with enforcing trade regulations, labeling standards, and so on. Whether a product was made using slave labour prior or subsequent to this proposal's (hopeful) passage, it would still be eligible for embargo.

-- George Madison

For clarity, I'm saying this.

1. "Nation A" produces "product Z" with slave labor. "Nation B" imports it and uses it to produce "product Y".
2. This resolution passes.
3. "Nation A and B" outlaw slavery, and begin to produce "product Z and Y" with normal labor. "Nation A" has a huge stockpile of "product Z" from before they outlawed slavery. "Nation B" also has a stockpile of goods created before the ban.
4. "Nation A" cannot export the previously created product, even though they are making every attempt to comply with this resolution. Beyond that, they must literally track down every product ever made with slave labor and ensure it doesn't get traded internationally. "Nation B" also cannot export "product Y" because the good is created in part with slave labor. They face similar problems as "Nation A".

As I said though, they might deserve it, and I may be the only one who even notices that. Also maybe I'm misreading it's intent, but that's how it reads to me. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to argue against this, just spotted something that I thought may be problematic.

10. Prohibits the importation into any member nation of goods produced, in whole or in part, through slavery;

We approve of this idea, but just have a little problem with the, um, spelling, yes, spelling of the proposal, but luckily, it will be spelt the correct way once I tell them the spelling---

Alright, enough with the facade, just seriously, what?

Free trade is supposed to be free, it's not supposed to be micromanaged every single second. You know how many nations are in fact in the UN? Only a third. Two thirds are not, and many of those two thirds may in fact use slaves or use de facto slaves.

If an entire car is made, and one slave added in a small piece onto it, like, I don't know, the steering wheel, the whole car cannot be submitted because it is 'contimanted' with slave labor.

If a nation has a criminal syndicate who uses slaves, and the nation bans this criminal syndicate and tries to stop them at whatever cost, but the criminal syndicate is very wise and crafty and able to disguise the products its slaves make as 'legit' products, then I can't buy ANYTHING, legit or non-legit from the nation, due to the fear of slave 'goods' entering my capital city...instead of doing the smart thing and helping the nation hunt down the evil criminal syndicate.

And while nations that pratice slavery are immoral bastards who should be annihlated from the high heavens, the fact is, those nations who have slavery also do other pratices as well with the main goal of increasing profitablity...and they usually succed in being major economic superpowers, meaning, to be perfectly honest, wheter we like it or not, we're addicted to their cheap oil, for crying out loud! Don't take that away from us and risk us having to go through an actual economic collaspe!

Now, you might be stating, "Oh who cares? There are millions of nations that don't use slaves! Just find them!" That's the problem, are we going to spend all that money doing research to figure it out, to verify? And then deal with the consquences of lower effiency, when our brand new trade partners may not provide as effective a service? And what if our brand new non-UN trade partners accidently put in a dumb policy to do enslavement of a small fraction of the population? Must we do the exact same soul-search AGAIN?

No.

(Not to mention, of course, that you don't ban exporting goods to those nations. Can we say "protective tariff" for the win?)

Dr. Bob,
UN Represnative of SilentScope003

P.S.:
And what about the idea of using trade as a way to influence nations to change their way? I buy some clothing from Slave Nation of Slaveistan, defend their national soverignty a bit, and then prode the Slave Nation to slowly reform and change their ways. "Constructive engagement" works wonders, and is far more effective than simply declaring an embargo and harming the economies of both nations.

For clarity, I'm saying this.The previously created items are grandfathered in and thus immune to the prohibition?

Wouldn't article II of "No Ex Post Facto Laws" apply here?
(II) No nation or governmental subdivision thereof shall enact any law with ex post facto provisions. Any ex post facto provisions in existing laws shall be rendered null and void.The act of production using slaves wasn't illegal at the time, thus the item produced was legal and its status can't be changed without punishing someone (the owner) for a (technically) legal act.

On the other hand,
If an entire car is made, and one slave added in a small piece onto it, like, I don't know, the steering wheel, the whole car cannot be submitted because it is 'contimanted' with slave labor.Yeah. From the point of passage forward, if a UN nation purchases slave-made materials and then uses them to manufacture another product, the final product is contaminated and can't be sold to other UN nations. To do otherwise would allow an end-run around the ban on slavery and provide those nations so inclined an economic advantage, since the source parts would be cheaper than those produced by non-slave labor.

--Leetha Talone.

Yeah. From the point of passage forward, if a UN nation purchases slave-made materials and then uses them to manufacture another product, the final product is contaminated and can't be sold to other UN nations. To do otherwise would allow an end-run around the ban on slavery and provide those nations so inclined an economic advantage, since the source parts would be cheaper than those produced by non-slave labor.

I understand the logic (even though you fail to realize that slavery already have economic advantages that you can't get rid of ...and that this resolution protects against [i]de facto slavery, which is too vague and would likely ban trade with most capitalistic nations as well), but do you know how much it cost to ENFORCE it? For the nation itself?

After all, you are basically telling me to send in Inspectors to inspect every single Non-UN nation's factory from which I buy stuff from in order to ensure that their workers are treated fairly and not being enslaved. If I find one person being enslaved, I gotta mark the whole factory as being "evil" and stop trading with that single factory until that slave is freed and the factory is 'cleansed'.

And then, I have to send inspectors to all UN members who I trade with as well as well, to ensure they aren't importing goods from Non-UN members who are using slaves and then using those imported goods to make new goods to sell to us. Oh, and what about nations who buy stuff from other nations, then sell them to a third nation, who then sells to us?

Due to the complexities of free trade, I think it's rather likely that we have to send inspectors to every single nationstate in the whole world to ensure that I remain in compliance.

Free trade would be crippled by such a legalisation. Who's going to be a fool to go and allow me to infringe on their national soverginty by having this team of Inspectors going all around and ensuring all is fine? And the alternative being, "Whatever the government says must be true, so if the government says, 'We don't use slaves', then that must be true, and any evidence to the contray is lies spread by an evil conspiracy of gnomes...", well, we wouldn't be allowed to do that then. That would be violating the UN resolution.

If you really have to put this in there, you gotta ensure the rest of the UN get dragged down too. Mandate that the UN gnomes has to compile a list of all Non-UN nations that are currently using slaves and prohibit us from trading with them. And have the UN pay for all these inspections in all nationstates, UN and Non-UN, to ensure that we are buying 'legal' goods. And if a nationstate does not allow for the Inspectors, just place an embargo on them anyway, just to be safe. Even then, we will be somewhat upset, but at least we don't have to pay for the burden of enforcing this UN resolution.

Dr. Bob,
Represnative of SilentScope003

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong

The United Nations,

Believing that slavery violates the most basic principles of individual liberty

From the start you put me off kind sir. What are the "most basic principles?" Give me proof and your sources. Human beings have the most basic rights? Who gave them their most basic rights? Other human beings? A higher moral? Where is this higher moral coming from? If you are speaking about God, than my God could be different about your God.

Individual liberty can still exist in slavery. You have the most basic choice. To do something or not. That is the most basic individual liberty one has even under any kind of social stratus. So please leave you wash down religious ideals at home it does not belong in the UN, unless you want God in the UN?

So kind sir and madams, please don't be fooled by the politians who hide behind fancy words to get their relgious points passed.

Where are nation's rights any more? Among the people? Among God? Perhaps I believe that I'm only subject by Him. If it is among the people, is not your religion taking God out of the picture, and puting humanism in its place? Vote no on this issue. Take this point some where else besides "individual" freedom. Attack it on another side.

We would find it hard to say that the mixornoal switzit in a new car were produced by slave labor... and efforts to determine if they were would divert funds from finding out where slave labor is being used in violation of this should it go in place and thus not prevent a thing. As more effort and funds might be put on figuring out what was made by slave labor than ending slave labor so nothing else is made of it. You have to first find companies who produce by slave labor.

OH and what about drugs that are produced by slave labor be they sold legal or not so. Cocaine is cocaine how do you tell if the person cut it or mixed it or picked is was a slave until you catch the drug producers and dealers?

Then the end of these products might just end funds for stopping it.. As there would be a loss of taxes and where will that loss be made up.. to maintain other government needs. Look at tobacco and how they tax it and are suppose to use those funds to end smoking... and help those effected by the bad side of tobacco.

To be honest, if you absolutely cannot determine the origin of a product, it's probably impossible to bring you into compliance with this. That's ok, as long as you're making an effort to comply(in the goods where you CAN determine origins), it won't be an issue.

But doesn't the UN sorta of forces you to be in compliance with this resolution, NO MATTER WHAT?

If I could make the best effort, and likely fail in the process, that would be fine (I still feel we are losing 'constructive engagement', but whatever), but from what I am told, compliance is mandatory, and if I fail in complying, bad stuff happens...

Dr. Bob,
Ambassador to SilentScope003

OOC: For all intents and purposes, compliance is automatic. You don't even have to do anything and you'll be in full compliance. If you're in the UN, there is no way you wouldn't be in compliance.

However, we're dealing with this in a realistic manner, so it's best not to mix the two. Realistically, it expects nations to try their damnedest to enforce the resolution. If something stops you, or you find it almost impossible to do so, make a good faith effort, and you'll pass the test of international law.

OOC: Ah, alright. Thanks.

I understand the logic (even though you fail to realize that slavery already have economic advantages that you can't get rid of [if we don't trade, then the slave nations will just trade with each other and there would be no incentive for them to reform]We're quite aware of the "advantages" of slavery. However, an appeal of the type "non-members can still do $foo, so we must also, in order to not be disadvantaged" carries little water. The UN has no authority over non-members, can do little about them, and must needs merely shake our heads at their lack of foresight and intelligence for not being members. Such an argument is of the same calibre as the one in which your mother replied, "Well, if all your friends ate donkey turds, would you?"

... but do you know how much it cost to ENFORCE it? For the nation itself?

After all, you are basically telling me to send in Inspectors to inspect every single Non-UN nation's factory from which I buy stuff from in order to ensure that their workers are treated fairly and not being enslaved.
We would find it hard to say that the mixornoal switzit in a new car were produced by slave labor... Surely your nations develop intelligence on the nations you do business with? If your intelligence gathering agency is worth its salt, the knowledge that a nation (and yes, even a particular manufacturer) engages in slavery would be difficult to hide. Just as importantly, your manufacturers keep invoices and source documents for items they import. Mix and match and the difficulty is much less than you maintain.

If I find one person being enslaved, I gotta mark the whole factory as being "evil" and stop trading with that single factory until that slave is freed and the factory is 'cleansed'.We suspect slaves are like potato chips. One doesn't have just one.

--L.T.

We suspect slaves are like potato chips. One doesn't have just one.


OOC: Beautiful Analogy.

IC: Evoinia agrees with the sentiments expressed by our friend from Rubina and finds the practice of enslavement, in any form, repugnant.

OH and what about drugs that are produced by slave labor be they sold legal or not so. Cocaine is cocaine how do you tell if the person cut it or mixed it or picked is was a slave until you catch the drug producers and dealers?

In that case you would do as Rubina suggests and do enough research on the nations your dealing with to see which are enforcing anti-slavery legislation and choose to deal with those who you can be sure do not use slaves.

State-run Drug Trades, like that found in Evoinia, would be a great market for you to purchase such things if your nations allows the possession of such products.

Surely your nations develop intelligence on the nations you do business with? If your intelligence gathering agency is worth its salt, the knowledge that a nation (and yes, even a particular manufacturer) engages in slavery would be difficult to hide. Just as importantly, your manufacturers keep invoices and source documents for items they import. Mix and match and the difficulty is much less than you maintain.

We suspect slaves are like potato chips. One doesn't have just one.

--L.T.We only care that the product we get is a good stable product. If a nation uses one=eyed=bald=apes to make it them it okay with us. As long as the standards we want in the product are met and the cost is right and they can produce what we might need we buy it and use it. We do not go into a nation to inspect their factory we buy an item test it then decide we want them or don't then order what we want. They ship it to us... we pay them... if what we get works as expected we continue to buy if they start failing or are found defective we stop buying... The same goes for those who buy from us.... they are not permitted into our factories.... they can buy a number of items like anyone and run their own tests on them... then if they like what they find can order them or not order them.


Evoinia, as with any product we buy them right off the shelf and test.. them and care little how they produced and by who they produced. We look for quality in a product... and a good price to us for it. Drugs and medicines and such that are legal here are obtained in the same manner as a car or chair or TV or other product.. random samples bought and tested then we decide what we do from there. We feel this prevents fraud or eye-wash by a company putting out the good stuff for us and once we buy send us crap..... Or taking us through their best cleanest plant with the robot workers programed to smile and look good to show us how things done... and not the other plants we never see where most of the product it made.

Funding here goes to finding good stable safe products for our nation not deal with how they produced and under what conditions. If a product meets our test standards we allow it into our nation. If it fails those standards then we block it coming in to protect our citizens from unsafe or just bad products. Spending money trying to decide if a company uses slaves or robots or whatever to make these items is to use diverting funds to the wrong area. Especialy with drugs/medicines as the nation sets high standards for them if they come in and then controls on their use as we do with other items that could cause harm to the user.. Guns and cars are prime examples of such items we control but allow citizens to have and use, and are not concerned how they made but how they used or might be used. Thus funds are spent on that end (using) not the front (obtaining) end.. except in the area of safety and stablility...

We only care that the product we get is a good stable product. If a nation uses one=eyed=bald=apes to make it them it okay with us. It's certainly beginning to look like the "offending" clause was written specifically for nations like yours. Enabling slavery, by making it profitable, is as evil as directly engaging in the slavery.

--L.T.

I think that this Proposal is TOTALY Right Slavery is WRONG and it should be OUTLAWED!!!!
Color of Skin, Religion, Hair Color, Eye Color, How Tall, How Fat, no matter what you shouldnt be considered "inferior"

Cancelled of slavery will be most shamefull thing ever!!!

This repeal and new resolution brings up an interesting issue. It would make sense for there to be the possibility to put amendments or additions onto previous amendments rather than requiring the resolution to be repealed and repassed. With the current system, it is possible for a decent resolution to be repealed and then the better resolution is rejected. This makes no sense, and makes the process of repeal and revisons quite dangerous. However, I'm not totally sure how to change the current system to this effect.

-The Allied States of Liberated Musicians

This repeal and new resolution brings up an interesting issue. It would make sense for there to be the possibility to put amendments or additions onto previous amendments rather than requiring the resolution to be repealed and repassed. ... However, I'm not totally sure how to change the current system to this effect.Ignorance is bliss, my friend, because it's never going to happen. The idea's been raised more times than anyone cares to mention, and it's always shot down. You just have to live with the current system.

Still, couldn't it be better to just pass the new resolution, and THEN repeal the old resolution? Gruen tried to do that with his landmine repeal and replace. If the replacement fails, then stop the repeal. If the replacement succeds, and then the repeal fails, nothing bad happens.

We're quite aware of the "advantages" of slavery. However, an appeal of the type "non-members can still do $foo, so we must also, in order to not be disadvantaged" carries little water. The UN has no authority over non-members, can do little about them, and must needs merely shake our heads at their lack of foresight and intelligence for not being members. Such an argument is of the same calibre as the one in which your mother replied, "Well, if all your friends ate donkey turds, would you?"

So wait, now, you are insulting other nations for not joining the UN? People don't join the UN for varities of reasons, most of all the fact that the UN has real flaws.

I hate slavery, I don't do it, and my appeal wasn't that sort of lame, "non-memebrs can do it, why can't I?"

It's about the fact that the NSUN has a big effect on the economy. When that repeal of the UN Patent Act passed, for 'moral reasons', my economy went into a economic depression. My nation is still weak and unstable, and to let me throw the switch and do this micro-mangining, you're likely going to see this nation get destroyed yet again.

We can't afford this luxury to do this. And if you are going to laugh at us when our economy gets blown to obilvion...oh well. You now know why people don't join the UN.

Dr. Bob
***
Also, does this resolution harms certain forms of governments?

Iron Fist Consumers:
Citizens are kept under strict control by the oppressive government, which measures its success by the nation's GDP and refers to individual citizens as "human resources."

Psychotic Dictatorship:
Citizens are ruled without fear or favor by a psychotic dictator, who outlaws just about everything and refers to the populace as "my little playthings."

Now, of course, other governments may enslave, according to your definition, but all IFCs and PDs do enslave, as the dictator/government calls the citizen as "playthings"/"human resources", meaning that they OWN the person. Meaning buying stuff from anyone with that form of government is illegal, regardless of whatever else they do. Is that an correct interpretion?

This isn't a criticism. This may very well be the only good thing we like about this proposal. We don't like Dictatorships or Capitalist slave drivers.

Dr. Bob,
UN Ambassador

A company can consider people human resources, it's not a facet of ownership, it's a facet of resource management. As for playthings, that's a stretch, but even if I conceded that playthings mean what you say, I'd argue that it still doesn't meet the criteria for this resolution.

The resolution is solid, despite the attempts to poke holes in it.

Support it or don't.

Still, couldn't it be better to just pass the new resolution, and THEN repeal the old resolution? Gruen tried to do that with his landmine repeal and replace. If the replacement fails, then stop the repeal. If the replacement succeds, and then the repeal fails, nothing bad happens.
If there are any points in the replacement that either duplicate or contradict existing law, we delete it. While your method makes a bit of sense in the real world, here in the land of mechanic effects to game events, it has to be a bit more clear-cut.

Sorry, no.

If there are any points in the replacement that either duplicate or contradict existing law, we delete it. While your method makes a bit of sense in the real world, here in the land of mechanic effects to game events, it has to be a bit more clear-cut.

Ah, alright then. I was thinking you could get away with stating, "REAFFIRMS [yadda yadda]" so that you can duplicate the parts of the End Slavery resolution, then repeal the End Slavery resolution, thereby getting rid of that resolution, but since that 'Reaffirm' clause is there, whatever you want to keep in End Slavery is still kept.

But if you can't, you can't.

Oh well, we deal with the cards we are dealt with.

So wait, now, you are insulting other nations for not joining the UN? People don't join the UN for varities of reasons, most of all the fact that the UN has real flaws.

I hate slavery, I don't do it, and my appeal wasn't that sort of lame, "non-memebrs can do it, why can't I?"Ah, no. At least we weren't intending an insult as we are aware of the many reasons to join, and not to join, the UN, though we would strongly disagree about the UN's perceived flaws. We do forget, at times, that Rubinan sarcasm (a national sport) does not easily translate into the various languages used here.

Your argument wasn't simplistic or lame, nor did I suggest such. It was, however, the argument frequently seen here, to wit, the UN shouldn't do X because it will put UN members at a disadvantage with respect to non-members. All UN resolutions have the potential of placing members at a disadvantage in some fashion, especially if economic power is one's guiding principle. Ultimately however, it is an empty argument as membership is voluntary and each member must weigh for themselves the advantages and disadvantages of membership.

--L.T.

If the repeal passes, then this will be submitted on the Thursday morning after the major update. Obviously, that is 12 hours or so, and I suspect other proposals will be submitted, but I won't be able to submit it Wednesday evening anyway. That's just by way of information, such that when the replacement doesn't immediately appear there's not a panic. It will come, quickly.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

Before this proposal is submitted, we would like a final look at one part of it. We note that there are two resolutions being proposed as replacements for the flawed Resolution #6: this one and its sister proposal, "Unfree Labor (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529375)".

In the sister proposal, there is an exemption for compulsary penal labor:

8. Excludes from the provisions of this resolution:

a. Persons performing (1) military service or (2) alternative national service required by law.

b. Persons serving sentences of imprisonment or community service imposed in accordance with standing NSUN resolutions.

However, in this proposal, we do not see the distinction made between "slavery" and "penal labor". Would passage of this resolution conflict with the sister resolution over this issue?

We note that in our nation, penal labor is a common and accepted form of redress from those found guilty of violations of our Law. We would not wish to see our ability to enforce our Law impaired by an otherwise well-meaning and wisely thought out resolution.

However, in this proposal, we do not see the distinction made between "slavery" and "penal labor". Would passage of this resolution conflict with the sister resolution over this issue?

We believe that the honoured nuncia's concerns are unnecessary in this case. What this resolution bans is the owning of people. Penal labour can no more be deemed a form of ownership than any other form of custodial sentence, in our opinion, so there is no distinction to be made.

QoD might I suggest we do the same telegram campaign as was done for the repeal?

I do not see any conflict with the 'sister proposal', nor with the concept of penal labour in general. To reiterate, I have no intention of prohibiting such; hence the removal of any mention of 'forced labour', which will - I hope - be fully dealt with by the other proposal. This proposal only legislates ownership of persons, and penal labour is not a derivative thereof.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

OOC: Douria, thanks, but I'm going to do this next one on my own, as I have more free time.

I have little to add, and have not had the time to properly research the discussions on this proposal, however I would ask that you ensure the wording provides the protections it describes for those of non-human descent or origin as well. It is perhaps not a well known fact that some nations have created or enslaved non-human races as a way around some laws that prohibit slavery.

Also, Vulpes Vixenis will openly welcome any former slaves, though perhaps those of anthropomorphic or animalistic natures would feel most at home among us. We look forwards to seeing this proposal put into law.

~ Queen Vaela Dorn

i really think we should really stop slavery it is very wrong :)

It looks like someone chose the exact same title for their replacement (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abolition). It's got two days left on the list, so hopefully there's no TG campaign attached.

In the meantime, I'd obviously suggest altering your title, Quod.

EDIT: Nevermind (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13306947&postcount=107).

I've finally had a chance to read through it and I'm in awe. It's beautifully written Quod, and I don't see anything that could keep it from being passed. There is one thing that makes me think.

The proposal calls those in bondage "persons." Would that be an encompassing term considering that not all nations in the UN are human?

Please don't start this again. There's a separate thread about sapient rights.

That proposal mentions the EU - a RL political body. That makes it illegal doesn't it?

That proposal mentions the EU - a RL political body. That makes it illegal doesn't it?What proposal? And if the answer isn't Quod's "Abolition of Slavery", then the other discussion (whichever it is) is where that needs discussed.

--L.T.

Please don't start this again. There's a separate thread about sapient rights.

Sorry, didn't see it.

What proposal? And if the answer isn't Quod's "Abolition of Slavery", then the other discussion (whichever it is) is where that needs discussed.

--L.T.

Sorry, I must have been too cryptic for you. I was refering to the proposal mentioned here (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=abolition) that was brought into this discussion by OMGTKK.

The only other thread I saw the linked proposal discussed in the Illegal/funny Resolutions thread.

Well, we can scratch it, now. The proposal's been removed.

Good. I want Quod's replacement to succeed.

Super piece of legislation on the whole.


4. Prohibits member nations from returning persons to countries still practicing slavery, where there is probable cause to believe such persons will be returned to a condition of slavery or punished for attempting to escape from such conditions;

5. Permits member nations to require such persons to leave their territory for other nations willing to accept them;


I have an issue here:

Consider a non-UN country X that uses convicted murderers as slaves in prisons. Suppose one such slave escapes to the Bundesrepublik of Putzi...we don't want a convicted murderer from country X thank you very much. No other country, (or rather no suitable country that doesn't welcome murderers as heroes etc.) can be expected to always accept such a criminal under clause 5. and return is not possible to originator country X because of clause 4.

The only way round this in Putzi will be to make it a crime punishable by death to have committed a serious crime in another country and escaped from Justice and Fair Recompense* in that country, (as decided on the spur of the moment at the point of apprehension by our border guards with pistols).

Surely there must be another way? And what about UN nations not prepared to shoot criminal illegal immigrants like we are? How will they deal with criminal ex-slaves when all the suitable and willing taker-nations are either full or don't exist?

Legislation can bring committees into existance but can it create or assume the existance of hypothetical murderer-ex-slave-welcoming nations of unlimited capacity??

Putzi

*That's Justice and Fair Recompense as in the real thing (or rather the UN average), not the probably very suspect "justice" meted out in unsavory rogue nations...

Ok, the proposal has been filed (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=slavery). However, I will not be able to send lots of telegrams today: the really big push will be tomorrow, but I'm hoping that will still be ok. In the meantime, please do approve it!

Do not send telegrams to any other delegates, please. Thanks for the offers of help, but I'm going to try on my own; and I need to make sure delegates don't get spammed.

Putzi: In your hypotethical example, there are always hypotethical nations willing to accept any sort of refugee.

Like us.

Our criminal system has a great way of reforming criminals that we would really like to test out and change and tinker. So if you find any hypotethical illegal criminals, just hypotethically send them over to SilentScope003.

And in case we do reach our quotas for refugees, you can always post a message informing the International Community about refugees, and see if any non-UN nation who do not practice slavery would be willing to take those criminals for you.

Dr. Bob,
UN Ambassador to SilentScope003

Please don't start this again. There's a separate thread about sapient rights.

There may be a separate thread, yes, however these two seem intertwined to me. The definition of a slave is intimately intertwined with the definition of what IS or IS NOT a slave and what CAN and CANNOT be a slave. It is the difference between a horse and a human forced to do the same work. Everyone looks and sees that the horse is an animal of burden, born and bred to do this work. Everyone looks and sees the man in chains, bound to this work by unjust cruelty. However, if the horse were capable of speech and reasoning, what would they say then?

It is my opinion that both problems can be covered with one solution, with perhaps a few minor changes in wording and the addition of a few lines. Hopefully, I am not the only one who sees the necessity for this.

- Queen Vaela Dorn

I used 'person' precisely to avoid excluding non-humans. So far as I am concerned, then, this resolution protects non-human persons. That is all I will say on this subject.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Everyone looks and sees that the horse is an animal of burden, born and bred to do this work.

We would like to inform this delegate that we believe all animals has rights and therefore cannot be enslaved. That include horses as well.

Anyway, the UN proposal that is being drafted is likely needed because a similar attempt to get this pass the UN was vetoed by a huge majority. It is too much a tricky issue, and in the end, it is better to get it addressed in a seperate issue. Plus, the seperate resolution, if passed, will grant not only protection from slavery but also other protections as well (right not to be murdered, right to freedom of speech, right to leave one nation, etc).

Signed,
Dr. Bob

UN Delegate to SilentScope003

I'm not satisfied by your answer which treats crime as hypothtical but slavery as real for your own convenience, but I support the legislation anyway since I can't change it and otherwise it seems an improvement on the waffle just repealed.


So if you find any hypotethical illegal criminals, just hypotethically send them over to SilentScope003.

Thank you for your generous offer SilentScope003, but Putzi prefers to liquidate serious criminals of our own, and wouldn't want to treat alien criminals, slave or not, any differently. And we feel that 'reforming' them would not satisfy the demands of the victims and their surviving relatives in most cases.


you can always post a message informing the International Community about refugees, and see if any non-UN nation who do not practice slavery would be willing to take those criminals for you.

Like who? What if no-one offers? Limbo results for them.

Putzi

...which would be the case anyway, Quinestein. The only change this proposal would enact is that you can't send them back to their original country. If you devoted just a nanosecond to actually thinking about it, you'd realize that 'limbo' was a likely outcome anyway. It's not my problem to fix.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Thank you for your generous offer SilentScope003, but Putzi prefers to liquidate serious criminals of our own, and wouldn't want to treat alien criminals, slave or not, any differently. And we feel that 'reforming' them would not satisfy the demands of the victims and their surviving relatives in most cases.

Then what's the problem? You got the right to shoot any illegal aliens. Use it. The surviving relatives will thank you for cleaning the gene pool. Limbo is solved. :D

Does this address the issues of one's children who work at home on chores? Some do this to prepare the children for responsibility and a good work ethic. But the children do not necessarily get a wage and in some law books they are seen as property of their parents!?

I dont like the idea of an embargo, because it punish people and not only the guys who have slaves.

Why not declare that Slavery is a crime against mankind, and create a second proposal after to define what are the measures that all states can take against this type off criminal (like confiscation of funds , arrest them if they come into a UN land etc...)

Minor error in the text, though it's too late to do anything about it:

7. Requires member nations to take criminalise and take reasonable action to prevent reprisals against freed slaves;Read it through again this morning, and it's excellent. You can expect the Kennyite UN staff to be very supportive of this when it comes to vote.

I'd suggest a new thread, however, if and when that happens. This one's kinda stale.

It seems that Queen Victoria is simply not amused. If this goes through on the first pass it is very possible that we might be debating this on the floor of the UN on, of all days, Boxing Day, and her majesty is not amused at all of such a thing. Moreover, I'm pretty sure that the general population in Gatesville will not be amused either, although I trust that the Kennite deligation could volunteer to be shot at in the gatesville forums. ;)

Still on behalf of Blue Booted Bobbies I would like to wish you luck, Merry Christmas, Happy Boxing Day, and Nifty New Year.

http://www.dumpr.net/static/7a/aecf7d77fd50f5bd_s.jpg

I used 'person' precisely to avoid excluding non-humans. So far as I am concerned, then, this resolution protects non-human persons. That is all I will say on this subject.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

This again begs the question of what and who is legally defined as a person. However... Perhaps we were a bit hasty in our earlier judgements. The delegate from SilentScope003 does have a point which we will concede. It is still the opinion of myself and of my councelors that the wording should implicitly give coverage to non-humans, but whether the proposal does or does not, in the end it will have our full support either way.

We would also like to point out to "Doctor Bob" that there is a rather large gap between animal rights and "human" rights. My people were treated under the former for a rather large span of years, and now that we fall under the latter... To coin a phrase, it is as different as apples and the apple tree. One will keep you for a day, the other can keep you for a lifetime.

-Queen Vaela Dorn

We would also like to point out to "Doctor Bob" that there is a rather large gap between animal rights and "human" rights. My people were treated under the former for a rather large span of years, and now that we fall under the latter... To coin a phrase, it is as different as apples and the apple tree. One will keep you for a day, the other can keep you for a lifetime.

We sorry for the misclarification. What we meant to say is that we grant animals the same rights we give humans. The right to vote, the freedom of self-expression, etc. We aren't trying to make a distinction between 'animal' rights and 'human' rights, they both have the same rights.

Dr. Bob.

Does this address the issues of one's children who work at home on chores? Some do this to prepare the children for responsibility and a good work ethic. But the children do not necessarily get a wage and in some law books they are seen as property of their parents!?
Well, following this proposal those law books will be invalid; the children will simply be, as in any normal and functional legal system, wards of their parents, who are entitled to exercise certain legal responsibilities on their behalf. There is a stark distinction, which this proposal does not obscure.
I dont like the idea of an embargo, because it punish people and not only the guys who have slaves.

Why not declare that Slavery is a crime against mankind, and create a second proposal after to define what are the measures that all states can take against this type off criminal (like confiscation of funds , arrest them if they come into a UN land etc...)
Because previous UN attempts at this have failed, and until we sort out the mechanics of The Pretenama Panel, are likely to continue to do so. Furthermore, I disagree that this embargo will have the effect you claim because it will necessarily create an economic incentive for emancipation. They can't sell their goods while they're produced by slave labour. They can sell them once they're produced by free labour. And unlike an embargo on free labour goods, it won't reduce workers' wages because slaves earn no wages to start with!
Minor error in the text, though it's too late to do anything about it:
Bollocks and fuck with knobs on top. That was stupid. I made that change relatively late on. I think the meaning is still clear enough that it has effect: it's simply an extra 'take' and I can't see how that would allow nations not to criminalise such actions. Under the circumstances, I think I'm just going to have to let it ride. Thanks for pointing it out, though.
This again begs the question of what and who is legally defined as a person. However... Perhaps we were a bit hasty in our earlier judgements. The delegate from SilentScope003 does have a point which we will concede. It is still the opinion of myself and of my councelors that the wording should implicitly give coverage to non-humans, but whether the proposal does or does not, in the end it will have our full support either way.
Thank you. And I hope that now we can move on: for what it's worth, we agree with the UN defining 'person' elsewhere so as to include non-humans, but we're simply not going to take on such a topic in this proposal (precisely because it deserves one of its own).

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

OOC:
I'd suggest a new thread, however, if and when that happens. This one's kinda stale.
I agree and will start one.

I can't believe this has already made quorum - I can only have sent ~170 telegrams! I'm going to do the whole 'thanks for all the memories' wrap in the new thread, if the proposal passes; but right now, I'd like to thank Iron Felix and Rubina for grabbing the names of the approvers of the repeal, which has obviously proved an extremely efficient way of soliciting support for the replacement.