NationStates Jolt Archive

This has been discussed for some time, and we may we well try to get it under way.

The intention of this is to follow up the repeal with a comprehensive replacement: the draft of that can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12579951&postcount=24). I would rather comments on that replacement proposal were kept to that thread, to avoid confusion and clutter.

The original resolution (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=5):
- does not actually prohibit slavery. By this I mean that while it does outlaw selling persons, it does not outlaw owning them: it would be the equivalent of gun control or drug prohibition laws that outlawed supply but not possession. Under the terms of #6, you can legally own slaves and are under no obligation to free those acquired before the ban;
- does legislate on some irrelevant issues: leaving work on two weeks' notice and free travel are nice, but largely unrelated to the actual issue of slavery.

Therefore, we believe that striking it out and then comprehensively replacing it is the only means by which slavery can be fully eliminated. A tentative repeal draft:

The United Nations,

Remaining fully opposed to slavery,

Hence disgusted that existing law on the subject, UN Resolution #6 "End Slavery", fails to live up its title and does not in fact end slavery,

Concerned that Resolution #6 makes no provision for:
- the prohibition of ownership of persons,
- the freeing of those previously enslaved,
- legal protection, economic aid and social rehabilitation for freed slaves,
- the prohibition of forced labour,
- the suppression of the slave trade,

Concluding that Resolution #6 is a woefully inadequate document that, given its prevention of any more meaningful legislation on the subject, is actively damaging to the international antislavery cause,

Stressing the importance of passing comprehensive antislavery resolutions immediately following passage of this repeal, which will:
- replace the prohibition of the sale of persons,
- fully address the above unaddressed issues,
- promote international cooperation to end the slave trade,

Repeals Resolution #6.

Comments - other than 'good' or 'I agree' - are invited.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

This individual concurs.


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

This one seems solid enough to actually pass. Don't see any problems as is, and it will receive my vote of approval when submitted. As a side note, I'm glad someone finally came up with legitimate repeal arguments for this one instead of the usual nonsensical rhetoric.

This proposal has the full support of the Zionic Republic. If there's one thing we can't stand, it's incompetent writing. (Well, at least I can't stand it. Must come with being a Professor of Literature.....)

-- Academe Irina Thais, Naestorian Ambassador to the United Nations

I see no glaring problems with this draft repeal and offer my delegation's unqualified support.

One thing you might consider doing is changing "does in fact not end slavery" in the second clause to "does not in fact end slavery".

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Fantastic. Although I would point out that, unless we repeal this proposal, we cannot actuall ban slavery.

For example "Noting that the existance of UNR #6 actually prevents the banning of slavery". Or somesuch. I'd also refer to it as UNR #6 through as much of the proposal as possible. People don't mind repealing #6, but they might be reprehensive about getting rid of "End Slavery" based solely on it's title.

For example "Noting that the existance of UNR #6 actually prevents the banning of slavery".
I'd be more inclined to add something in like that if I weren't slightly nervous it'd be illegal, in that it's bordering on invoking the proposal rules. As it stands, the repeal does mention 'its prevention of any more meaningful legislation on the subject', and I'm going to hope that's forceful enough.
Or somesuch. I'd also refer to it as UNR #6 through as much of the proposal as possible. People don't mind repealing #6, but they might be reprehensive about getting rid of "End Slavery" based solely on it's title.
That is actually not a bad idea.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison to the Select Committee on International Relations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust
Acting Chair, The Green Think Tank (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Green_Think_Tank)

OOC: Just as a bit of advice, you may want to trim your sig a little; it's about 12 lines on my monitor.

Concerned that Resolution #6 makes no provision for:
- the prohibition of ownership of persons,
- the freeing of those previously enslaved,
- legal protection, economic aid and social rehabilitation for freed slaves,
- the prohibition of forced labour,
- the suppression of the slave trade,

...Stressing the importance of passing a comprehensive antislavery resolution immediately following passage of this repeal, which will...fully address the above unaddressed issues,

My suggestion is that you use the term 'slave labour' (or 'slave labor and indenture') in place of 'forced labor,' since the umbrella term forced labor includes penal labor, which is allowed in your replacement.

Concluding that Resolution #6 is a woefully inadequate document that, given its prevention of any more meaningful legislation on the subject, is actively damaging to the international antislavery cause,

I would also suggest changing 'meaningful' to 'meaningful and functional'; I thank that would better describe what you are trying to do.

Overall, it's very well written; I like the format also.

You don't want to entirley repal forced labour.

You want to ban it except as a punishment for a crime. As it is practice in many nations to make someone do hard labour as punishment for a crime they've commited.

You don't want to entirley repal forced labour.

You want to ban it except as a punishment for a crime. As it is practice in many nations to make someone do hard labour as punishment for a crime they've commited.

I'm sorry, are you telling me what I want to do?

I'm going to reserve judgment on a replacement. What I see now and have seen is that #6 is completely unadequate as a means of outlawing slavery (not forced labor which is an entirely different concept), and therefore deserves to be repealed.

We shall make no mention of forced labor, other than to state that it is not the subject of discussion here, and should not figure into the debate on the repeal.

We therefore offer our support to the Quodite delegation, with best wishes.

Most courteously,

We are in full agreivement that UNR #6 should be unpeeled and replaced. I am just betrayed that it will be hard to get through

Mrs Malaprop

This has been submitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=slavery); links to the replacements can be found in the OP.

Could've done without the emotional language ("disgusted") in the preamble, but otherwise this is good. New Vandalia will support it.

Ailyn Vel (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/images/Ailyn.jpg)
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Logopia Is completely in favor of the proposed repeal.

On a side note,we would like to state that the provision of UNR #6 regarding two weeks notice has been a serious annoyance to the Logopian parliament. We believe the UN has no business micromanaging such an Issue, and we also believe many nations share similar views. Would this be a valid point to consider in the repeal? Either way, the proposal has the full support of the Logopian Government.

Iris Fairchild
Ambassador to the UN

Three things.

First, resolution #6 (the one we're looking to repeal) guarantees people "The right to travel freely throughout their country." This guarantee does not allow for exceptions, which is problematic in the event of a national emergency such as a disease epidemic. It forces a member nation to choose between violating UN rules and risking a pandemic. Resolution #6 must be repealed either in part or in whole.

Second, the proposed draft does not currently define slavery. This is problematic, as it makes the resolution ambiguous, as in point 3 for future legislation: "Condemns slavery in all its forms." Any nation (some more than others) will have its share of citizens who go to work only because they must earn money to put bread on the table. Does this qualify as de facto slavery? What if a nation experiences an economic recession? At what point do low wages and lack of job security cease to be mere harsh realities and finally constitute wage slavery?

Finally, the stated goal of the proposed resolution is to help ensure "the most basic principles of individual liberty". Unless a nation is already wealthy, this requires a lot of work and careful planning of details. I would suggest that this resolution be accompanied by an optional treaty available to UN members and non-members alike. This treaty would be a promise by those states who sign it: a promise to phase out slavery within their borders, and a promise to work with and assist any neighbor state looking to improve the treatment of and economic opportunity for its lower class[es]. There's little sense condemning slavery if it results in Jim Crow.

First, resolution #6 (the one we're looking to repeal) guarantees people "The right to travel freely throughout their country." This guarantee does not allow for exceptions, which is problematic in the event of a national emergency such as a disease epidemic. It forces a member nation to choose between violating UN rules and risking a pandemic. Resolution #6 must be repealed either in part or in whole.
In whole. There is no means for repealing a resolution in part, or amending it as the procedure is also called. There are good (game mechanical) reasons for this, but the result is that complete repeals are the only change mechanism available to us.

The ambassador does raise an interesting point in that this right to travel freely is not addressed in either of the replacement proposals, we think. As the ambassador suggests, it may deserve more detailed consideration all its own.

Second, the proposed draft does not currently define slavery.
May we suggest raising this matter and the subsequent one in the thread on the proposed draft, where they are more likely to be answered? The author has, after all, requested that this thread be dedicated to the repeal, and it is only polite to honour that request.

I'd very much prefer to keep discussion of the proposed replacement to its thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524314), though I accept there will be some inevitable spillover. For the time being, I will simply restate what has already been said: a repeal is a total effort. Unfortunately, the entire resolution has to be struck out.

This has been resubmitted (http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=slavery); links to the replacements can be found in the OP.

W00T! I've been trying to find a way to repeal that one for ages. Good Job, QuoD!

Ok. So, sorry about all the waiting around, but I am going to try to do this again now. My final two essays of the year need to be in by December 10th and I am planning to get and get rat-arsed on the 11th as a consequence, meaning - hangover dependent - I will be free from the 12th or 13th onwards. While that's verging into holiday time, that's not a problem for me...and if I wait till after the holidays I will be busy all over again.

To reiterate, the plan is:
- submit Repeal "End Slavery"
- try to get it to quorum while raising awareness (particularly in feeders; 3-endorsement brats can be safely ignored) that it is an attempt to replace the ban
- if the repeal passes, submit the replacement.

I will let NL do his own thing regarding the Unfree Labour replacement (although I will gladly help him if he does submit it).

So, bearing in mind the general timeline (hopefully the week 12th, 13th, 14th for submitting; hopefully five days later for submitting the replacement; debating etc. through that) if you can help, please do so. I don't see much pointing amending the drafts further, but comments welcome; any offers of TG assistance would be greatly appreciated, as would help from anyone who will be able to in a friendly manner explain to confused large regions what is going on.

The replacement is here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524314).

We are still very much on-board with this project and continue to offer our assistance with campaigning. As we are no longer UN members, our part of the replacement effort will most likely be handled by a certain Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky...

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

By now the world should know the Dourian position on this issue. Lord knows I've telegrammed enough of it.

I'm ready and willing, just tell me what ya need me to do.

OOC: I will be submitting this on Thursday 13th, hopefully. If that strikes anyone as a particularly bad day, or if everyone is unable to help then, then I'll probably have to relocate it to the following Monday (17th). However, that would mean that should it pass, it'll be pretty close to Christmas Day when it's time to submit the replacement, meaning it could be murderously difficult to get enough delegates to approve it, so clearly, the 13th is preferable.

I think the repeal is going to be the slog, so any offers of TGing gratefully accepted. I'll use this thread to keep a track of who's doing what: I'll start off by doing the first 100 pages of delegates (obviously, I'll do a lot more, but I want to see who's going to do what first). Also, if anyone has contacts in the feeders, now would be a good time to raise their attention - you have my permission to repost my repeal and the replacement proposal - but please don't piss them off! If they get catty about the idea of a repeal/replace, just walk away.

I will provide a form telegram if required; however, I'm crap at writing them, so you might be better on your own. The main things are:
- call the delegate by their name (not "dear delegate")
- be concise
- include a link to the repeal (hopefully http://nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=slavery)
- MENTION THE REPLACEMENT
- be polite
- ignore trolly responses
- answer genuine questions or direct them to me
- don't TG delegates more than once, or those who say not to in their RMB

Finally, if anyone sees any illegal proposals that are repeals of #6, please do report them! Clearly, don't waste the mods' time on pedantry or annoyingly legal proposals, however; if there's something ahead of mine in the list, we'll just have to wait.

Offers of telegram help
Quod - 1-120
OMGTKK - 121-240
Felix - 241-360
Ruby - 361-480
Gobbannium - 481-600
Douria - 601-end

I'll be happy to help; I'll take pages 101-300. If you need a form TG, I can help there, too.

I'd advise against directly linking to the replacement, however. Links in TGs, obviously, aren't clickable, so too many of them in a TG will sour the effect. Just bump the replacement topic(s) and encourage delegates to visit the UN Forum for more details on replacement legislation.

I'll do 301-500, more if necessary.

I'll cheerfully do 501-end.

Ok, thank you all very much. Advice noted about the telegram. I will actually be sending fewer TGs than any one of you like this, about which I feel a bit bad given it's my proposal, so if you want to slide 100 or so over to me, do say.

I got here late so I get the easy part. Pages after 600 I'll do.

Edit: In case it wasn't apparent, I'm up for more pages as well.

Amazingly I'm free on Thursday night, so if you want to shove some pages my way I won't say no.

Maybe you could add 'human trafficking' and 'forced prostitution' to the definition of slavery?
Other than that, it looks good. :D

I suppose I should also bump the "Abolition of Forced Labour" thread.

OOC-->
What exactly is going on Thursday? 600 pages of what? I missed something, and i cant seem to find it in the posts...

We're going to take 600 knights' pages and t... oh that's after.

Quod's "Repeal 'End Slavery'" is going to be posted and the list of delegates is/has been divvyed for a telegram campaign. There's still a need for post-campaign finger masseurs. :)

Ok, thank you Douria and Gobbannium; I have rearranged the schedule to include both of you (the others please check, as the numbers are changed a bit).

This has been submitted (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=slavery).

And I forgot to say: don't bother TGing anyone who's been inactive for a long time, longer than say a week.

I've finished my section; I'll be online tomorrow, so if anyone wants to hand over some of theirs, I can cover.

32 approvals so far, which given it's been up maybe 8 hours is pretty good going.

Ok by natural laws of nature, not everything is created equal. Everyone has different gifts and abilities. With that being said some will use those gifts and abilities to gain money and power. Nothing wrong with that. For those who are ecconomically challenge and their gifts and talents are few: slavery is a good way that they will be taken care of.

For that I will not vote to change resolution #6.

For those who are ecconomically challenged and their gifts and talents are few: slavery is a good way that they will be taken care of.

For that I will not vote to change resolution #6.

So what is wrong with them applying for a job?

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Approved, I can help with telegram runs if any more help is needed

Ok by natural [sic] laws of nature, not everything is created equal. Everyone has different gifts and abilities. With that being said some will use those gifts and abilities to gain money and power. Nothing wrong with that. For those who are ecconomically [sic] challenge [sic] and their gifts and talents are few: slavery is a good way that they will be taken care of.
You're confusing equivalence and equality, that is, people can be equal without being the same. A popular political slogan in Quintessence of Dust is: 'All different, all equal'. It's perfectly possible to respect a relative disparity of outcome based on equality of opportunity, while recognising that there are, depending on which formulation you prefer, certain inalienable privileges or certain impermissible transgressions.

I also take slight issue with your use of the word 'created', but I will accept that if you believe human status to be supernaturally determined, there'll be little my arguments will be able to do to convince you.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

So what is wrong with them applying for a job?

What jobs are you thinking of? Slavery is a job. They work. They work not for money that is so often a bane in society. Are not food, clothing, and roof over their head payment? Or are you talking about some form of intrinsic value that the government puts a value on i.e. paper money.
Jobs can be lost. Jobs can be lost. A person who is a slave can not loose their job. It stables the economy more effectively than any welfare system.

What jobs are you thinking of? Slavery is a job. They work. They work not for money that is so often a bane in society. Are not food, clothing, and roof over their head payment? Or are you talking about some form of intrinsic value that the government puts a value on i.e. paper money.
Jobs can be lost. Jobs can be lost. A person who is a slave can not loose their job. It stables the economy more effectively than any welfare system.


Slavery is not a job, it's a life. They can't choose quit their job if they aren't allowed to...these people have little to no rights concerning about what they do for work, if they do they have nothing protecting them for the wrath of their "owners". It denies people fundamental human rights, which is why I'm afraid i cannot agee with you.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

It denies people fundamental human rights, which is why I'm afraid i cannot agee with you.
Richard York
UN Ambassador

You are right it is not a job but a way of life. I retract my statement above. You do bring a good discussion in light. I have it quoted above. Who decides fundamental human rights? You? Me? A group of people? A nation? The world? Are their basic rights that one needs to live? Good question... No. No one has basic human rights. If you are talking about evolution side of things you do not have basic human rights. For it is the fit that makes the decisions then. If you are talking about a religious side then there was something/someone that gave you rights. You are still subject to that diety.

See slavery is a moral problem. How come it comes up in the UN day after day? Can you stop slavery through legislations. No. You need to stop it through indoctrination. Who's morals are we going to indoctrination our children in our nations.

To this nation’s fear it will be the one who can speak the best, write the best, and who is most popular. You can not argue moral. That is why I will vote no on this.

I am all for this proposal. But I can't see it passing. It's not that it isn't good, it's just that we've had a million proposals just like this one, and either they never passed or when they got their they were shot down. I like the idea of not calling the resolution we are trying to repeal a ban on slavery, because over half the people that vote against proposals like this are thinking "ZOMG they want to make slavery legal!" while another group realizes how useless resolution 6 is, and want to keep slavery legal. Maybe we should try campaigning it somehow. Just a thought.

Forward Unto Dawn

Guys, girls, did anyone actually READ THE RESOLUTION WE'RE GOING TO BE REPEALING???

If you did, you might have noticed a little provision that says something like:
"- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people." Don't swallow everything you hear. It's helpful to KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. When the Author of this repeal told you that the resolution didn't outlaw buying or selling people, DID ANYONE ACTUALLY CHECK TO SEE IF HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH OR IF HE WAS MAYBE MISTAKEN?

When the author told you that Resolution 6 didn't allow people to quit their jobs, meaning freeing themselves, did you read Resolution 6 to find out? I didn't think so, because if you did you might have noticed that it gives people:
"- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice."

But because some people are undoubtedly lazy and don't want to READ THE DOCUMENT, I'll just post it here so maybe you'll consider it if it's smacking you in the face:

"The scourge of slavery yet remains in these progressive times. People are bought and sold like cattle, unable to determine their destiny. Their families are split apart; they are allowed no possessions of their own. They are beaten, chained, and tortured.

Therefore, I propose that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.
- The right to own possessions.
- The right to travel freely throughout their country.
- The right to bodily safety from one's employer.
- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people."

I totally agree that this resolution isn't adequate, but you all seem to want to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Next time, learn to think for yourselves.

P.S. This post is addressed to everyone who "forgot" to read Resolution 6, not to the players who refuse to play in a state of ignorance.

The majority of the million proposals "like this one" weren't as well written, nor were they linked with a prepared replacement, as this one is.
Maybe we should try campaigning it somehow.That's exactly what's happening. :)

At this stage of the process, only 115 delegate approvals are needed. The proposal currently has 58 on the first day on the submission list. That's a very good result, so we can be optimistic about its chances for making quorum.

If it does reach quorum and goes to vote, it will certainly need as much help as supporters can give it. Once at vote, you can help by recommending your region mates and regional delegate vote "for" it.

Rubina

Sorry, I wasn't aware it was being campaigned. (thats what I get for skipping to the last page) I guess I'm too late to help with this one, but if there is anything I can do please notify me.

Foward Unto Dawn

Well my section is done, and given that after 1 day we're at 77 approvals, I'd say we didn't just get it to quorum, we "super-got it to quorum".

Watch not a single new approval show up now that I said that.

Guys, girls, did anyone actually READ THE RESOLUTION WE'RE GOING TO BE REPEALING???

If you did, you might have noticed a little provision that says something like:
"- The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people." Don't swallow everything you hear. It's helpful to KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. When the Author of this repeal told you that the resolution didn't outlaw buying or selling people, DID ANYONE ACTUALLY CHECK TO SEE IF HE WAS TELLING THE TRUTH OR IF HE WAS MAYBE MISTAKEN?

When the author told you that Resolution 6 didn't allow people to quit their jobs, meaning freeing themselves, did you read Resolution 6 to find out? I didn't think so, because if you did you might have noticed that it gives people:
"- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice."

But because some people are undoubtedly lazy and don't want to READ THE DOCUMENT, ...I did. This is what it actually says:

The United Nations,

Remaining fully opposed to slavery,

Hence disgusted that existing law on the subject, UN Resolution #6 "End Slavery", fails to live up its title and does not in fact end slavery,

Concerned that Resolution #6 makes no provision for:
- the prohibition of ownership of persons,
- the freeing of those previously enslaved,
- legal protection, economic aid and social rehabilitation for freed slaves,
- the prohibition of forced labour,
- the suppression of the slave trade,

Concluding that Resolution #6 is a woefully inadequate document that, given its prevention of any more meaningful legislation on the subject, is actively damaging to the international antislavery cause,

Stressing the importance of passing comprehensive antislavery resolutions immediately following passage of this repeal, which will:
- replace the prohibition of the sale of persons,
- fully address the above unaddressed issues,
- promote international cooperation to end the slave trade,

Repeals Resolution #6.Not a single claim therein that people can be purchased, or that they aren't allowed to quit their jobs. You must have "forgotten" to read it.

OOC: I replied much more politely by TG; had I known you'd thrown a tizzy here, I wouldn't have bothered.

1. Resolution #6 bans buying and selling. It does not ban owning. A good example is Prohibition in the USA, which also banned selling without banning owning, and hence existing stocks of alcohol were immune. The point being, someone who is already a slave prior to the resolution's passing could still be kept as one; they simply could not be sold to another person. Consider, the sentence 'you are not allowed to sell your bike' does not prohibit from continuing to ride your bike.

2. Slavery is not a job. It is a legal position. A slave might be employed in a specific job or job-like role, and then perhaps Resolution #6 would cover them, but it clearly does not say 'everyone is allowed to change their status of legal personhood after two weeks' notice'.

Anyway, quorum reached! Thank you to everyone who TGed for it. I will be online tomorrow, but not first thing in the morning; I am happy for this thread to used as the at-vote discussion.

I think we have a winner here. It's reached quorum. Well Done!

If it does reach quorum and goes to vote, it will certainly need as much help as supporters can give it. Once at vote, you can help by recommending your region mates and regional delegate vote "for" it.
The complete 2 other nations in my region, of which none is a UN member?:rolleyes:
So, there's no chance of me be(com)ing a delegate, or even voting for another. However, I always turn to the forum to gain background information if a resolution is up for approval in the GA. Congratulations on reaching quorum, my nation will approve in the GA. :cool:

We must look on history on the cruel past of slavery. I strongly agree with the idea to take a step towards anti-slavery.

We kicked Quorum's ass.

Well, considering that the repeal is now up for vote, it looks like I'll have to make a decision. While the original is very nice to have, it does appear to have a lot of problems. Since there is already a fully drafted replacement, and you lot look like you know how to pull of a determined telegram campaign, I will probably be casting Dasri's first UN vote FOR this repeal.

~ Hari Desana

shouldn't a new anti-slave law be passed before an old one is removed?

OOC: It's really difficult to do that before getting rid of the old one, for legality reasons. You're not allowed to either simply restate existing resolutions, or contradict them. Any replacement would have some combination of the above in it and as such would probably be deleted by the mods before it got to the vote.

Congratulations on calling the resolution to vote. I look forward to supporting it, and urging all of the nations in my region to do so as well.

OOC: first post here, guys. Hey to all.

Though it is not clear, "End Slavery" should not be repealed untill a suitable replacement is already ratified.

This legislation repeals it without any further thing to come. Once it is repealed, slavery will be allowed...what?...until another resolution comes...this resolution should have had the changes in it. I cannot vote for something in hopes that something else is coming.

Though it is not clear, "End Slavery" should not be repealed untill a suitable replacement is already ratified.

This legislation repeals it without any further thing to come. Once it is repealed, slavery will be allowed...what?...until another resolution comes...this resolution should have had the changes in it. I cannot vote for something in hopes that something else is coming.
A replacement cannot be submitted until the original resolution is repealed. Those are the rules. Luckily, a replacement has been drafted and can be viewed in this thread:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524314

There is also a proposal to ban the practice of forced labor, which can be seen here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529375

I can assure you that both of these will be submitted and passed.

Could a mod please sticky and rename this thread? Quod has indicated that he intends it to be used as the at-vote discussion.

Do we have an official Sticky topic for the resolution now at vote?

Though it is not clear, "End Slavery" should not be repealed untill a suitable replacement is already ratified.

This legislation repeals it without any further thing to come. .. this resolution should have had the changes in it. I cannot vote for something in hopes that something else is coming..As Dasri's ambassador has already pointed out, the rules of the UN require the repeal to come first and then the replacement legislation. There can only be one resolution per topic, thus "End Slavery" must be repealed first.

In addition, a repeal must contain no, nada, zip, zero additional legislation. So, no the repeal could not contain any changes to the existing law or any attempt to establish a new ban on slavery.

And yes, there is something coming after. This replacement (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524314) is scheduled to be filed immediately after the repeal of "End Slavery."

ooc: Do we have an official Sticky topic for the resolution now at vote?That's what Felix was requesting; this thread will be the official stickied thread when the mods get to it.

--L.T.

Edit: Ah, I see Iron Felix has been here. I'm leaving this though. Perhaps if it's repeated often enough and in enough ways, some delegates will begin to understand.

Just to reiterate: I wholeheartedly wish we could simply pass an amendment, or pass a 'covering' law first; I've only resorted to a repeal because of procedural necessity.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

To be honest, we'd like it too, but... it would be far to complicated to encode.

Indeed this is a significant issue concerning all those within the UN. However, though the South Africanus Doscus is not part of the UN and future plans to be part are not yet organised, we definitely promote thise because, as oppressive as our nation may be, we DO NOT like the idea of having slavery permitted, or as stated, allowing the purchase of slaves and, we give this a thumbs up.
Indentured labourers, however, are another case.

We support The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust in his political fight to repeal the resolution #6.

We hope in future to have a better document about slavery.

Reading literally resolution #6 we note it:

Don't ban forced labor:

- The right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice.

This means for two week I'm allowed to force peoples without any pay to work for me... this is slavery for us.

This right also stops any national program of reabilitation of criminals, for example we mean works of pubblic utility insteed of jail.

We note we need a more specific law about forced work.

- The right to own possessions.

Too generic it needs more specification about what a "possession" is, for example this allow to owning people too ?

- The right to travel freely throughout their country.

Noble purpose, but it contains nothing about the right for nation to suspend this right for criminals to allow place them in jail or in a structure of reabilitation !!!
It contains nothing about soldiers and compulsory military service, literally for the resolution number 6 this is condition of slavery !

The resolution #6 contains nothing about the "possession" of peoples, it cares only about SOME effects of slavery but don't defines and don't care of the slavery itself-

So we hope the next resolution about this important theme will be better than this.

Kind Regards
Gloria di Proton, UN Delegate of The Federation of Lucanian Shires.

We support The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust in his political fight to repeal the resolution #6.

We hope in future to have a better document about slavery.

...

Kind Regards
Gloria di Proton, UN Delegate of The Federation of Lucanian Shires.

Lucanian,

There is another thread on the forum with the draft of the resolution that will replace Resolution No. 6, and you can discuss specific issues about that resolution <a href="http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524314">Here</a>

Having read through the original document, the wording of the language is not consistant with the goal of the proposal. Resolution 6, end slavery, does nothing to end slavery. It is completely unable to respond to the issues it was meant to aid, so the Commonwealth of Ki Baratan votes in favour of repeal.

~Jermaine Schuck

I think repealing the act and then replacing it later with a better resolution is a mistake. I think that if people are concerned that the initial resolution was not strong enough, then they should initiate a new resolution so as to amend the first.

If we repeal this one without anything in place, then governments will have a short time spand to allow slavery once again within their realms. I agree the first resolution was not adequate...but lets make it better...not do away with it in the HOPES that a new one would be in place soon.

A new one will be in place soon. If you bothered reading any of this thread before posting to it, you'd also discover that amendments are illegal, that moderators have ruled we have to repeal this outright before we can replace it -- and that you're hardly the first to raise this issue.

To be honest, we'd like it too, but... it would be far to complicated to encode.

OOC: Well, just a thought, not wanting to give mods more work, but couldn't you work this around existing rules? Simply skip the repeal process for a replacement that both makes new legislation and repeals the old legislation, and if it passes, a mod removes the old law.

Probably shouldn't post here, but it's topical.

OOC:a mod removes the old law.

OOC: Once a proposal hits the floor the mods can't touch it, let alone a resolution that's already passed. The only ones who could would be the admins and the only time they've ever done it was during the move to Jolt when the site was down anyway.

<I can see why you humans think that slavery is bad, but 011011010111010110001's economy needs human slave labor to keep going. If the no-slavery bill is passed, our economy would collapse.

Especially since we don't have thumbs ourselves.>

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

After careful consideration, we rise in support of this repeal. Our nation abhors the concept of slavery as the institutionalization of human bondage. That said, we note that compulsary labor is a common and accepted form of redress from people convicted of violations of our nation's Law. We note that proposed statues outlawing slavery and forced labor are being worked on and will be submitted as replacements. So long as these replacements do not prohibit our nation from enforcing its Law, we will accept them as a substitute for the currently flawed legislation.

Hog Mountain will expend it's resources to support this repeal. But if a substitute proposal does include a government funded entitlement mandate to economic rehabilitation of freed slaves outside the bounds of it's normal entitlement provisions, Hog Mountain will expend the same resources to support the discarding of such a proposal.

i don't think Resolution #6 should be repealed. i believe it should just be amended. add in the provisions and such that are necessary. unless someone plans to make a new proposal immediately after reinstating abolition of slavery in the proper terms, i'm against repealing Resolution #6.

As a socialist nation, The USSN is an absolute supporter of abolition and strongly believes Resolution #6 should be replaced by a superior resolution that ends slavery as well as the slave trade.But we think that forced labor for criminals and treasionists should still be legal.

i don't think Resolution #6 should be repealed. i believe it should just be amended. add in the provisions and such that are necessary. unless someone plans to make a new proposal immediately after reinstating abolition of slavery in the proper terms, i'm against repealing Resolution #6.

Pay (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13295890&postcount=64) attention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12552845&postcount=1).

Seriously, this is standard stuff people.

They're unamendable. You can't amend them. They don't get to be amended. It would be nice but no amendments. It's not amendable.

We no be able to amend. We sad.

As for the replacement, well, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12552845&postcount=1) seems pretty solid.

Man I love my job.

For the record, I have voted in favor of the repeal.

me too

The United Socialist States of American Nationals gives its full support.

Amendments are illegal blah blah blah. Seriously, thanks for answering their questions, but I'm not sure there's much point anymore: it's clearly not getting through.

Other points:
<I can see why you humans think that slavery is bad, but 011011010111010110001's economy needs human slave labor to keep going. If the no-slavery bill is passed, our economy would collapse.

Especially since we don't have thumbs ourselves.>
The idea that slave labour is inherently more profitable is a long-debunked fallacy, and generally stems from an excessively short-term view. Slaves have no incentive to work well, or responsibly, or productively; wage labourers in a somewhat stratified job market have every incentive to do so they can win promotions, earn bonuses, and gain enough capital to become financially independent (or simply to provide for their dependents). If you can work up no interest in matters of political freedoms, then at least in the interests of economic prosperity a switch away from a slave economy would be advisable.
...we note that compulsary labor is a common and accepted form of redress from people convicted of violations of our nation's Law. We note that proposed statues outlawing slavery and forced labor are being worked on and will be submitted as replacements. So long as these replacements do not prohibit our nation from enforcing its Law, we will accept them as a substitute for the currently flawed legislation.As a socialist nation, The USSN is an absolute supporter of abolition and strongly believes Resolution #6 should be replaced by a superior resolution that ends slavery as well as the slave trade.But we think that forced labor for criminals and treasionists should still be legal.
Because of the Fair Sentencing Act, forced labour actually can't be banned anyway, but neither my replacement nor the New Leicestershire "Abolition of Forced Labour" would do so.
Hog Mountain will expend it's resources to support this repeal. But if a substitute proposal does include a government funded entitlement mandate to economic rehabilitation of freed slaves outside the bounds of it's normal entitlement provisions, Hog Mountain will expend the same resources to support the discarding of such a proposal.
It doesn't.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Yaybor supports this repeal. There are some concerns about the interval between this repeal and getting the replacement into law, but I agree that #6 is badly flawed.

Narik Chilk, UN rep of Yaybor

Amendments are illegal blah blah blah. Seriously, thanks for answering their questions, but I'm not sure there's much point anymore: it's clearly not getting through.

Other points:

The idea that slave labour is inherently more profitable is a long-debunked fallacy, and generally stems from an excessively short-term view. Slaves have no incentive to work well, or responsibly, or productively; wage labourers in a somewhat stratified job market have every incentive to do so they can win promotions, earn bonuses, and gain enough capital to become financially independent (or simply to provide for their dependents). If you can work up no interest in matters of political freedoms, then at least in the interests of economic prosperity a switch away from a slave economy would be advisable.

Because of the Fair Sentencing Act, forced labour actually can't be banned anyway, but neither my replacement nor the New Leicestershire "Abolition of Forced Labour" would do so.

It doesn't.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Originally Posted by Hog Mountain
Hog Mountain will expend it's resources to support this repeal. But if a substitute proposal does include a government funded entitlement mandate to economic rehabilitation of freed slaves outside the bounds of it's normal entitlement provisions, Hog Mountain will expend the same resources to support the discarding of such a proposal.

It doesn't.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
well... until then...

<I can see why you humans think that slavery is bad, but 011011010111010110001's economy needs human slave labor to keep going. If the no-slavery bill is passed, our economy would collapse.

Especially since we don't have thumbs ourselves.>

The replacement defines slavery as someone owning someone else. Just have it in the law book that Computers don't own Humans. Pass a law stating that Bots are the only ones allowed to actually rule over the Humans, but the Humans are free to choose which Bot they want to work for.

Just grant your humans a little freedom. They'll be happy for it. Pay them a livable wage, let them live about more. Not only will it help employee morale, but it will ensure that you remain in compliance.

But if not, you can always try Servant Corps. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=521964) The Corporation provide cheap labor, but it is considered "servants", not slaves because the Servants volunatrily enter into such contracts and get paid for the work. They are not owned, and will be able to leave the place of employment once their contract is up. They are a proud member of the Theebs Accords, which banned slavery in many non-UN nations.

Dr. Bob.

Krankor only keeps a few middle-aged Japanese rocket scientists as slaves, keeping them sedate and placid by feeding them a steady diet of cigarettes and hentai comics. We really see no need for the original "End Slavery" resolution.

Pay (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13295890&postcount=64) attention (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12552845&postcount=1).

Seriously, this is standard stuff people.

They're unamendable. You can't amend them. They don't get to be amended. It would be nice but no amendments. It's not amendable.

We no be able to amend. We sad.

As for the replacement, well, this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12552845&postcount=1) seems pretty solid.

Man I love my job.The replacement seems solid but is there any UN resolution that defines what a "person" is? Definitions of who or what qualifies as a human person have shifted throughout history

Slavery is an international scourge that Altanar is opposed to, and as a result, we support this repeal of the ineffective legislation currently in force, and look forward to voting on its more comprehensive replacement.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

As a proponent of a free nation, we're against slavery in any form within our borders. All peoples should live free to work, and having slavery stifles the expanse of new ideas, independent thought, and capital growth. However, those nations that seek to employ and enslave their population should be allowed to do so, as it is their virtue to their own ability to be competitive.

As stated above, slavery has been shown to be less profitable than the free market. Employees making a fair wage based on the profitability of their employer will work smarter and harder. As a result, they will be not only more profitable, but more innovative. Slaves offer nothing to the table of productivity save a will to work hard enough not to be beaten or die, which can only motivate the individual enough to slowly work, lest an unprofitable revolt happen. The same applies to wages for paid employees, as if they are trapped in a system, they will strike.

The equalizer in this case is a universal commodity (money), and wage with profit determines workability and the necessity for any industry. Let the nations that continue to be slavers do so, and let them be annexed by the industrial and commercial powerhouses that free nations will rise as a result. The free market will speak for itself.

This is not an issue for the UN, and may only serve to alienate those that would otherwise be a part. International cooperation is more the goal than a world-police or imposing on the sovereignty of a nation to rule how to do business.

You know, you have a point: having to abide by international law is far more alienating than being annexed.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

The Confederacy of Tokonaga Empire is against Slavery and that note this Repeal has my vote to end slavery.

We need to make this a safe world for people of all races, religions, men, women. No one should have to bow down to someone else jsut because someone is too lazy to do a little work themselves. Slavery is unjustified. It doesn't make any sense to me. I think that racism will follow it right out the door of our world.

*The congragation that typically enters the General Assembly as the representatives from Zarquon froods is short one. Sintar Maxem, the personal aide of Zarquon, is busy elsewhere running for UN Delegate (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=678&st=45). Instead the group consisted of Zarquon and Joebot™. Both were rather disappointed to see that the majority of all present were soundly asleep or doing mundane tasks to stray from boredom.*

"Dear me, I'm gone for less than a month and this place up and dies. Oh well, another useless resolution is about to come off the books. Zarquon Froods, vote FOR."

*Zarquon goes back to his desk, wipes off the dust takes his chair and waits.*

Everybody are equal, some are just less equal than others. If people want to make money out of selling themselves, they should be able to do so, because otherwise you are taking their rights away. No matter if the person wants it or not, people should be able to sell other people, because of a matter of satisfaction for the higher level people. Somebody has to be sacrificed for the society's wellbeeing.

Also, by abolishing selling slaves, people can just give them away and then receive money for something else, on the paper that is.

Everybody are equal, some are just less equal than others.
Fatuous tripe; that it is someone one's ironic fatuous tripe makes quoting it sincerely even less impressive.
If people want to make money out of selling themselves, they should be able to do so, because otherwise you are taking their rights away. No matter if the person wants it or not, people should be able to sell other people, because of a matter of satisfaction for the higher level people.
I dispute the idea that someone should be permitted to sell themselves into slavery. By doing so, they are violating the fundamentals of the social contract by performing an action that denies an essential right of personhood. It doesn't matter that they happen to be that person! It's the equivalent of justifying Jewish anti-semitism or female misogyny: being a part of the denigrated class does not give a right of denigration.
Also, by abolishing selling slaves, people can just give them away and then receive money for something else, on the paper that is.
I agree, and hence Resolution #6's prohibition, which focuses on 'selling', is insufficient.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

I dispute the idea that someone should be permitted to sell themselves into slavery. By doing so, they are violating the fundamentals of the social contract by performing an action that denies an essential right of personhood.

What about freedom? What about the ability to actually, I don't know, choose? Take that away, and well...you take away what is meant to be a person, the ability to make a desicion without being forced. If a person want to actually do something that is harmful for him, and he is not compelled to make that choice and if he is informed of the dangers and pitfalls, then he should be allowed to do it. Othewrise...

Person: I want to kill myself.
Government: NO! You are denying an essential right of personhood, and you are condoning murder.
Person: But I wanna die!
Government: I'm sorry but violating the social contract is immoral. You are sentenced to the death penatly.

Note that Servant Corps DO NOT condone slavery and none of their servants actually do sell away their freedom. As soon as their contract for work is fufilled, they can do whatever they want. But I do fear this distinction between slavery and servantdom might be confused, and people might choose not to hire us because they believe the servants are selling their freedom, so I make this statement.

CEO of Servant Corps

What about freedom?
What about it? Positive freedom isn't exactly a startling new innovation in political philosophy: it stretches back centuries to Quodite Enlightenment figures such as Jean-Jacques Mousseau and Immanuel Kunt (though I should note that I myself am not a Kuntian). You wouldn't, I take it, sanction an absolute freedom to choose because that would be to allow the freedom to choose to murder, to rape, to steal, to listen to hip-hop.

These things cannot be allowed in civil society.

So, we accept restrictions on freedom to choose in certain conditions, where a gross violation of, depending on where you lie on the libertarian/communitarian axis, another individual's freedom or the aggregate good of society.

My point being that freedom to choose only extends so far. Your example is false, though not because of your noxiously stupid introduction of the 'death penalty for attempted suicide' red herring. The issue is not self-harm, but rather, that to enter into a slave contract in particular is to endorse slave contracts in general; and further, that you are corrupting the pool in which everyone works (for the same reason, some Quodites would oppose people being allowed to work for less than the minimum wage). Although we think it's predicated on a flawed economic assumption, the mistaken desirability of a slave would induce employers to favour people who were willing to volunteer into slavery, to a point where one had to in order to secure a job.

Hence we oppose the freedom to choose to become a slave: we are no advocates of absolute freedom.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

I don't feel that Resolution #6 needs to be repealed in order to add the further rights to individual freedom that you are seeking to secure. It does not prohibit continued UN legislation on the matter of slavery, and it does ensure many basic rights that individuals have against government oppression.

This repeal is unnecessary and dangerous.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

I don't feel that Resolution #6 needs to be repealed in order to add the further rights to individual freedom that you are seeking to secure. It does not prohibit continued UN legislation on the matter of slavery, and it does ensure many basic rights that individuals have against government oppression.

This repeal is unnecessary and dangerous.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

With respect, we disagree. With a resolution already lodged that addresses the matter of slavery, any further legislation trying to address the same issue would run the risk of duplication. Furthermore, the original legislation is simply not as effective as the proposed replacement. And since there is a proposed replacement, the basic rights you are concerned about will not be lost. There is a need for this repeal, and it poses no significant danger in light of plans to replace the original.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I don't feel that Resolution #6 needs to be repealed in order to add the further rights to individual freedom that you are seeking to secure.Unfortunately, the mods weighed in (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12554107&postcount=3) first, and against you.

It does not prohibit continued UN legislation on the matter of slavery, ...It doesn't prohibit slavery either. So what's the point of keeping it, when there's a far better one waiting to be submitted?

This repeal is unnecessary and dangerous.No, a defenestration is unnecessary and dangerous. A kick to the nuts is unnecessary and dangerous. An invasion by Kennyites is unnecessary and dangerous. A housekeeping motion on the floor of the UN can hardly be described as either - unless of course an adverse vote on said motion results in previously stated actions.

It's your call.

~Cdr. Chiang
Blah blah &c.

What about it? Positive freedom isn't exactly a startling new innovation in political philosophy: it stretches back centuries to Quodite Enlightenment figures such as Jean-Jacques Mousseau and Immanuel Kunt (though I should note that I myself am not a Kuntian). You wouldn't, I take it, sanction an absolute freedom to choose because that would be to allow the freedom to choose to murder, to rape, to steal, to listen to hip-hop.

These things cannot be allowed in civil society.

"But the person isn't calling for the right to murder, he's calling for the right to be murdered. He's not calling for the right to enslave, he's calling for the right to be enslaved. You're taking that away from him, and basically limiting him.

We cannot have a nanny state telling us that certain stuff are harmful and prohibiting us from doing it. We need to have choices in life, otherwise we lose what it is to be human. We would just be drones, following the wishes of the 'social contract'.

Humans are the ones who make the 'social contract', and if they wish to change it, they should."

The issue is not self-harm, but rather, that to enter into a slave contract in particular is to endorse slave contracts in general; and further, that you are corrupting the pool in which everyone works (for the same reason, some Quodites would oppose people being allowed to work for less than the minimum wage). Although we think it's predicated on a flawed economic assumption, the mistaken desirability of a slave would induce employers to favour people who were willing to volunteer into slavery, to a point where one had to in order to secure a job.

"Just because you don't like people becoming slaves doesn't mean you should go and prohibit people from becoming slaves too. People have different values and beliefs.

We aren't endorsing slave contracts in the same way we aren't endorsing killing yourself. We can condemn self-harm as a dangerous action, but we can still allow people to do it.

'Corrupting the pool in which everyone works' sound too much like a red-herring, if someone wants to be enslaved, they should have that choice. It's like complaining that since someone else is not following your ideology and wants to actually place themselves a slave, they are infringing on your 'rights', and that they must be prohibiting. You don't like being enslaved, then say so loud and proud and be protected. But if you want to be enslaved, why not?

Businesses actually may not really want to desire a slave, because slaves are hard to pay upkeep, and a person who's actually offering to become a slave could be seen as a bit unstable. But if a person wants to be slave, he should be allowed to do such a thing, because by taking away such rights, we humans end up being forced to follow the 'social contract' rather than actually deciding for ourselves what we want to do.
***
One thing I leave you with, some time ago, a huge military coaltion was formed to stop slavery in a nationstate. Joethesandwich was being invaded, and there would have been a massacre. However, a quick communication turns out that Joethesandwich actually had slaves be the 'leaders' of society, honored and loved by everyone. The slaves give up their freedoms in order to serve their religion, and everyone, EVERYONE loves them. I wouldn't even dare call it slavery, I'd call it more like becoming a priest.

Luckily, thanks to us (Servant Corps), we managed to convince JTS to abandon the use of slaves, and get them to switch over to using "servants" instead. But the point being is this: Had we not intervened, an entire nation would be nuked, because of some people who actually want to give themselves up to become enslaved.

This is an example showcasing that slavery is a far more complex issue than what you claim it to be.

Servant Corps

(OOC: Disclaimer---I don't actually believe in the things I type up. ;))

Unfortunately, the mods weighed in (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12554107&postcount=3) first, and against you.


OOC: The mod weigh-in to which you are referring did not appear to bear the weight of an official mod ruling; apologies for not realizing it was such. "I believe they are similar enough that #6 must be repealed first" sounds more personal than official to me. Whether it is official or not, I would offer the counter argument that there can be multiple resolutions on the same topic, so long as they don't directly overlap (or are mods not allowed to change their minds once a ruling is made, regardless of player concerns?). Or is there an official OOC rule against having multiple resolutions concerning a similar topic? Apologies if I am being too curious. This just seems a little strange to me; I'm not familiar with the implicit out-of-character workings here. I mean, nothing in the text of UNR #6 prohibits continued resolution, so why should that be mentioned in the repeal? The repeal must be dealt with as a stand-alone resolution. If an upcoming resolution has overlap with UNR #6 that prevents its legality, then the answer is to remove the redundant sections rather than to claim that UNR #6 prohibits any other resolution on slavery. After all, hasn't there been follow-up legislation on slavery, such as UNR #68?

What's wrong with some of you? The Emperor has already cast his vote in support of the repeal!?! The argument is over, you must vote yes for the repeal. Afterwards, choices will be allowed!!!

*stands, burps, and immediatly sits back down and continues drinking.*

*stands, burps, and immediatly sits back down and continues drinking.*

Buy that man another bottle of whatever he's drinking! and one for me too! Hooah!

On behalf of the Blue Footed Booby, The Queen Victorian Community of Blue Booted Bobbies, would like to rise, proclaim our support of this repeal and say something on the subject of slavery from her magesty. Unfortunately we find ourseives to come up with anything particularly witty on this subject and her magesty is simply not amused at the whole UN to begin with.

(I so do hope your really not serious about this whole replacement thing. I mean the United Nations enforcing a moral standard upon whole nations. Her Majesty is clearly not amused by such a thing, and would be most opposed to it. Let us now abolish the true slavery of the moral minority in the United Nations once and for all. May the repeal live. May the replacement die!)

I hadn't realized your inane blatherings were simply an extended advert for your hopelessly facile company. Have fun, but maybe next buy some advertising space in a more relevant domain.

Briefly, you have not addressed the substance of my argument, which is that if people consent to becoming slaves a situation sets in where others do so against their actual wishes. You have not delineated a choice that is coerced by circumstances, and an absolute free choice. Given the example of wage labour - a 'race to the bottom' that necessitates a minimum wage standard - this can clearly be seen to have occurred in practice. That is why no one should be permitted to consent to becoming a slave, a situation your whining about doing what one wants in no way remedies.

Anyone with a real objection?

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

OOC: The mod weigh-in to which you are referring did not appear to bear the weight of an official mod ruling; apologies for not realizing it was such. "I believe they are similar enough that #6 must be repealed first" sounds more personal than official to me.I suppose had Quod wanted moderator remarks to be upgraded to an "official" ruling, get his proposal deleted and accrue a warning, he'd have done his best to defy Fris's "personal" remarks. Keep in mind that Fris is the one who cleared Sexual Privacy Act for vote, despite the existence at the time of Sexual Freedom. That he refused to say the same in this situation speaks volumes.

Whether it is official or not, I would offer the counter argument that there can be multiple resolutions on the same topic, so long as they don't directly overlap (or are mods not allowed to change their minds once a ruling is made, regardless of player concerns?). Or is there an official OOC rule against having multiple resolutions concerning a similar topic? Apologies if I am being too curious. This just seems a little strange to me; I'm not familiar with the implicit out-of-character workings here. I mean, nothing in the text of UNR #6 prohibits continued resolution, so why should that be mentioned in the repeal?The rules expressly forbid duplication resolutions. Leeway in the past has been granted for proposals that had a broader, or more specific, scope than a previous resolution, however; the business of overlapping existing mandates is very tricky, and authors do well to heed moderator warnings about duplication or contradiction violations. In this case the consensus was that End slavery had to repealed and replaced outright, not just worked around.

The repeal must be dealt with as a stand-alone resolution. If an upcoming resolution has overlap with UNR #6 that prevents its legality, then the answer is to remove the redundant sections rather than to claim that UNR #6 prohibits any other resolution on slavery. After all, hasn't there been follow-up legislation on slavery, such as UNR #68?Ban Trafficking in Persons specifically forbade, or at least tried to forbid, the trafficking of sex slaves. UNR #68, however, preceded current rules for contradiction and duplication, so even if it did run afoul of UNR #6 (and did not contain formatting violations) it's unclear as to whether it would have been allowed to come to vote.

Leaving all that aside, however, calling for replacement in a repeal is a common argument to support it. Case in point, UN Biological Weapons Ban vs. UN Bio Agent Convention. The repeal of #113 insisted the existing resolution was incomplete and needed to be replaced, and the replacement was introduced shortly after the repeal was made final. The case is not much different here. Why are you so bent on saving UNR #6? It's a worthless resolution that doesn't even begin to address the problem of slavery, the slave trade, freeing existing slaves, etc., etc., and besides, all it does is "propose" the listed rights; it does nothing to assure these rights are made law in all member states. UNR #6 is dead weight, and deserves a proper burial even without a sound replacement. This time, however, a sound replacement is ready for submission when this thing's stricken out, so why not vote to clear the way for its advancement to the floor?

OOC: The mod weigh-in to which you are referring did not appear to bear the weight of an official mod rulingOkay, just to kill this line of discussion.

I am officially qualifying Fris' previous comment as a full Moderator Ruling. UNR#6 needs to be Repealed first.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

OOC: I've been over this before. You know though, it's not so much the fact that people are wrong, or misread the rules, or decided their opinions were rules. It's not so much the fact that 20 people waltz in here and say "Ammend(sic) it!" "Keep it and pass a better one!" or "WTF, R6 does a great jeorb(sic{I'm looking at you coach}), why repeal it?" and honestly believe they're right.

It's the fact that if they read the god damned thread they'd know they were wrong.

Fortunately this repeal is pretty much a given at this point, so I don't care to much.

Yes but you do have to admire the little ones, most of the boobies of the UN don't even come to the forum - heck most don't even bother to read the resolution up for vote, they just see the title and vote accordingly. The fact that such little ones would come here in the first place is something that must be treasured, preferably in some dusty vault far away from public view.

OOC: I think the point of the ruling was that we move on; as the thread-starter, I'd like to request that we now do so.

If the resolution offered an alternative, or was an act of legislation meant to override and replace the previous anti-slavery resolution, it would have received our vote in favor of the resolution (if a better alternative than the prior resolution). But as a resolution that solely would have struck down the prior resolution, our nation voted against.

BUZZ!!! Wrong!

Repeals cannot introduce new legislation. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465)

Thanks for playing.

The Ambassador to the Fenian Provinces would do good to note this legislature (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524314) that is currently being considered for vote. Also, as the Ambassador from OMGTKK pointed out, repeals cannot introduce new legislature, they may only repeal past resolutions.

The resolution Repeal "End slavery" was passed 7,324 votes to 2,027.
Congratulations Quod! On with the replacements.

Congratulations indeed. Good job.

How nice to repeal yet more waffle, another wing of the gargantuan UN Printed Legislation Repository building can be pulled down (the asbestos you see...) and rebuilt, or converted into rented storage units until the coming of the replacement waffle which hopefully won't be any bigger when printed or the UN will have to start on building a conservatory straight away.

The ban on slavery is dead - long live the (new) ban on slavery! Our profuse apologies to all the victims of slavery in the gap between waffles.

Putzi

Mmmmmm, waffles. *drool*

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA