NationStates Jolt Archive

I am here to encourage ou to sign your name to a proposal that would repeal the "Rights of minorities and Women"' Act.

The Original text of the act follows below.

Rights of Minorities and Women

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Strong


Proposed by: Amsterdam junior

Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal. The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal. These are inalienable rights of all UN nation citizens.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

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

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

Votes For: 12,055
Votes Against: 6,998

Following are some objections to the Above Act.

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

Argument: My complaint has to deal with articles II, III AND IV of this resolution.

In regards to the second Article of this resolution, that males and females should be treated as equals although correct on the surface does not define what equality entails. Article 2 can easily be construed as that Men and Women should have the ability to have the same Jobs, however equality does not mean sameness, and as such should leave open the possibiliy of Gender prescribed roles due to man and womans natural differences and varrying gifts, such as generally speaking a Womans superiority in the art of Nurtureing.

In regards to Article III, not only is this offensive to many religions to imply that they are no more true or false then another religion even if they have opposite teachings, it is illogical for example if one religion said it was right to kill and another wrong how can they both be right? The third article of this ammendment is just an attempt to impose reletivism on the masses and stifle to search for absolute truth.

Finally in regards to artivle IV, love can be expressed in a variance of ways. Love can be expreced between friends, and even as love of one human to another respecting our mutual humanity, thus article IV should not be passed until we know percisely what it entails.

Thank you for reading.

Sincerely

The Kingdom of Flavinia.

Should this be revised, the Dominion of Dagnus Reardinius advises the following changes.


Description: The UN should recognize that all people are created equal.
It would be politically correct to declare that all people are equal. The implication of the existence of a God or other creationist theory would then be avoided.

The matter of race, sex, religion or sexual preference should not make anyone less equal.
There is no such thing as "less equal." Also, remove "The matter of."

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.
Replace "better than" with "superior to." This lends it a more professional face.

ARTICLE II- Males and Females should be treated as equals. Whether it be in the workplace or at home.
Replace "should be" with "are to be." Also, that is a comma before "whether," not a period. Actually, it is probably best that that "sentence" is stricken from your draft and replaced with "...as equals in all places and at all times." And why are "Males and Females" capitalized?

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.
Replace with "No single religion..." or simply replace the whole sentence with "No single belief, such as a religion, is...." Try not to use the word better; it's such a bland, tasteless, and vague word--and more right?

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.
Do not make it specifically a homosexual/bisexual thing. It is better to put "A citizen has the right to express his or her love for any other human." Perhaps at the end of that sentence, you may add, "in any way deemed appropriate by the government to which that citizen belongs."


Sincerely,
The Dominion

In regards to the second Article of this resolution, that males and females should be treated as equals although correct on the surface does not define what equality entails. Article 2 can easily be construed as that Men and Women should have the ability to have the same Jobs, however equality does not mean sameness, and as such should leave open the possibiliy of Gender prescribed roles due to man and womans natural differences and varrying gifts, such as generally speaking a Womans superiority in the art of Nurtureing.Key word which undermines all of that is "generally." Generally women might be considered "better" at nuturing young, but that doesn't mean that's the case in all cases. Irrespective of gender, one should have the right to do something some might not think initially suitable for their gender.

Secondly, not all nations are human. I'm sure there are species or cultures out there where the responsibilities of the genders (as you appear to perceive them) are divided differently to how you have done.In regards to Article III, not only is this offensive to many religions to imply that they are no more true or false then another religion even if they have opposite teachings, it is illogical for example if one religion said it was right to kill and another wrong how can they both be right? The third article of this ammendment is just an attempt to impose reletivism on the masses and stifle to search for absolute truth.For a start, isn't religion on some level fundamentally illogical anyway? They require faith more than logic, that's what a religion is. And yeah, religions can disagree, they have done so for ages. Doesn't mean one is right and the other is wrong, that's your perspective/bias giving them those titles.Finally in regards to artivle IV, love can be expressed in a variance of ways. Love can be expreced between friends, and even as love of one human to another respecting our mutual humanity, thus article IV should not be passed until we know percisely what it entails.So Love means different things; how does that affect this resolution and how does it undermine the resolution? I can't see how it does.

Key word which undermines all of that is "generally." Generally women might be considered "better" at nuturing young, but that doesn't mean that's the case in all cases. Irrespective of gender, one should have the right to do something some might not think initially suitable for their gender.

Secondly, not all nations are human. I'm sure there are species or cultures out there where the responsibilities of the genders (as you appear to perceive them) are divided differently to how you have done.

I speak up to provide a case example: Guardians are only partially human, and due to their genetically engineered and artificially created nature, about 97% of Guardians are male, and child-raising is considered to be done by society as a whole, through the extensive use of computers, primarily.

So Love means different things; how does that affect this resolution and how does it undermine the resolution? I can't see how it does.
I must agree that this complaint seems unnecessary. Based on the original wording, it still holds true.

This repeal is illegal; it introduces new legislation. Some of the Dagnus Reardinian delegates' suggestions might make it workable, but as it is the text is illegal.

I would like to point out to the delegate from Allech-Atreus that the legislation displayed is the original resolution that the author of this repeal would like to have nullified. The actual repeal is displayed below that and labeled as such. I know it appears a tad bit confusing, but if you look closely, you'll see that they're within legal bounds, just not necessarily the bounds of clarity.

As far as the repeal itself, it seems as though you're saying it should be repealed because it can be misinterpreted and misused. Well, I hate to burst idealist bubbles, but any piece of legislation can be abused through open interpretation. Very few things are lawyer proof, and nothing is idiot proof. As the saying goes, make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot. There really isn't a way to prevent abuses of the system and misinterpretation of legislation from happening. As much as I admire your efforts to the contrary, I feel obligated to inform you that it simply cannot be done. Besides, very few people would see such legislative weaknesses as good enough reason to repeal such emotional legislation as this. I am one of those people.

I only have a problem with article III of the original resolution. Which states, "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.".

I don't see what job the government has in this matter, seeing as how it is purely opinion based. And it is as if the law has stepped in and said, "No, our opinion is right, and your's is wrong!". Which is contradictory to the bill.

Telling people that X belief is always equal to Z belief is an opinion, and thus, according to this bill, is equal to the opinion that X belief is better than Z belief, and vice versa. It makes absolutely no sense.

I think that Article III violates article II of the universal bill of rights. And the laws of logic.

I only have a problem with article III of the original resolution. Which states, "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.".

I don't see what job the government has in this matter, seeing as how it is purely opinion based.
Precisely. This requires governments not to have an opinion on religion.

It would be politically correct to declare that all people are equal.
It would, however, be wrong. The whole point of the "created equal" phrase is that people start from a roughly equal baseline. What they then make of themselves ensures that they don't stay identical.

Perhaps at the end of that sentence, you may add, "in any way deemed appropriate by the government to which that citizen belongs."
Not without defeating the entire bloody point of the resolution. So no.

It would be politically correct to declare that all people are equal.

I just received this message from my brother, the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, with the request that I read it here. So here goes, "Fuck political correctness." Please bear in mind that those are his words, not mine.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I would like to point out to the delegate from Allech-Atreus that the legislation displayed is the original resolution that the author of this repeal would like to have nullified. The actual repeal is displayed below that and labeled as such. I know it appears a tad bit confusing, but if you look closely, you'll see that they're within legal bounds, just not necessarily the bounds of clarity.




Ah, pardon me. I read right past the text and assumed it was just a rationale.

I just received this message from my brother, the Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites, with the request that I read it here. So here goes, "Fuck political correctness." Please bear in mind that those are his words, not mine.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

And yet you chose to express your brother's words here? In any case, Mr. Fibble, political correctness is no doubt needed in a political institution?

The Dominion

political correctness is no doubt needed in a political institution?

Nope. Equality, tolerance, fair treatment, non-bias, that's whats needed in a political institution. Political correctness is a set of unneccessary rules designed to make sure no poor, innocent minority gets offended by something.

Political Correctness has nothing to do with rights or equality, it's the creation of whiny guilty white people, and a few whiny "minority" people.

Nope. Equality, tolerance, fair treatment, non-bias, that's whats needed in a political institution. Political correctness is a set of unneccessary rules designed to make sure no poor, innocent minority gets offended by something.

Political Correctness has nothing to do with rights or equality, it's the creation of whiny guilty white people, and a few whiny "minority" people.And as you so adequately demonstrate, we obviously have no need for diplomacy. Or accuracy.

And as you so adequately demonstrate, we obviously have no need for diplomacy. Or accuracy.

I don't think that Flibble guy could've been more accurate.

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

Ah. But you'll note that my response was not directed at the honorable Representative Flibble.


Leetha Talone,
UN Ambassador

Well with the recomended changes I will heartedly support the repeal of that particualar resolution. Nations are best able to deal with discrimination and race/minority issues on their own.

Oh, not another Nat Sov freak.

That argument is just a lot of bloody hot air that essentially means, "I don't want to play nice with everyone so I'll kick another restriction to my bad behavior by saying nations are best qualified to judge such matters." Horsefeathers.

In point of fact, nations are NEITHER the best judge, nor the worst judge.

One day none of us will ever have to be consumed with the need to protect vital "national" interests and only have to worry about vital world interests. Until then we will have NatSov elements that declare no matter what they bloody do, the world has no right to say they are wrong.

You can take this bloody repeal and stick it in a drawer, me ould son. I won't support it.

Oh, not another Nat Sov freak.

*Bob whaps the Schwarzchildian rep with his 23 pound trout.*

That's for referring to us NatSovs as "freaks."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*Bob whaps the Schwarzchildian rep with his 23 pound trout.*

That's for referring to us NatSovs as "freaks."

Bob Flibble
UN RepresentativeWould trout-wielding freaks work for y'all? ;) And y'all better watch out if'n that animal proposal passes. Oh wait. Trout aren't included. hehehe

I believe that this act should not be repealed, just maybe amended somewhat. Some of the wording is clearly in need of work. However, equal rights is one of the most important principles in civilization, and I believe that it is needed. I would also avoid putting in any sentences like "in any way deemed appropriate by the government to which that citizen belongs." This rather defeats the purpose of a UN resolution, does it not?

I only have a problem with article III of the original resolution. Which states, "Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.".

I don't see what job the government has in this matter, seeing as how it is purely opinion based.
The point of this is that it requires the government not to favour one religion over another. Again, this section needs rewording.

I think economic equality is a far more important human right than gender, be it as important as it is. In need, freedom is latent. Furthermore my country recognizes that minority cliques seek to make themselves look oppressed in order to further their own power. Property-cliques seek to concentrate the means of production into their own minority groups, this is because they lack common support for their upper class group due to their minority status, and their seek to control the means of production (media, news, companies etc) to make up their lost ground.

I would prefer any repeal of this resolution to be swiftly replaced with a proposal that looks to economic equity in areas of housing, employment, opportunity and general and much more. Again, In need, freedom is latent.

I believe that this act should not be repealed, just maybe amended somewhat.
Amendments are illegal, Toastatia. In order to put forth more concise legislation, the current legislation must first be repealed. The rules concerning proposals, resolutions, and the way in which they must and may be treated can be found in a helpful faq located in the stickies at the top of the forum.

While the wording and grammar of this resolution may be a bit unpolished, its meaning and implications ring true to all that the Principality of New Avarin believes in.

We wholeheartedly disapprove of this movement for repeal. Further, I have not heard any convincing arguements to a new resolution to replace this one to make me consider lending our support to repealing this one.

Would trout-wielding freaks work for y'all? ;) And y'all better watch out if'n that animal proposal passes. Oh wait. Trout aren't included. hehehe

Wouldn't matter anyway, eventually I'm going to eat that trout, whacking people with it is just to tenderize the meat.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*Bob whaps the Schwarzchildian rep with his 23 pound trout.*

That's for referring to us NatSovs as "freaks."

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

*begins chanting "DEFENESTRATE!"*

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Also holding a large ocean-faring animal

This repeal is illegal; it introduces new legislation.

true and also you will get people labeling you as a sexist for trying to repeal this rez.

I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment.

*begins chanting "DEFENESTRATE!"*

Respectfully,
Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Ambassador
Also holding a large ocean-faring animal

*Looks at Dr. Hodz*

Finished?

Essential human rights, including that of minorities and women are the world's business. I am not going sit and let you, Flibble and others ABUSE the concept of National Sovereignty. The UN forum is frequently a gathering place for sophomoric persons who have no interest in anybody but themselves.

The two of you boys can go back to pre-school and relearn how to work and play nice with others, as far as I am concerned.

National sovereignty, while an essential element to nations' development has proven in this forum over a long period of time, to be the consistent excuse used to argue the repeal of more socially liberal legislation. If you have no interest in international affairs, and cooperative efforts within that field I would suggest you resign, take your ball and go home.

*Glares at Flibble*

You and your bloody fish are going to get roasted if you touch my person again.

Essential human rights, including that of minorities and women are the world's business. I am not going sit and let you, Flibble and others ABUSE the concept of National Sovereignty. The UN forum is frequently a gathering place for sophomoric persons who have no interest in anybody but themselves.Blah, blah, blah. Are you naturally this pompous, or do you have to work at it?

The two of you boys can go back to pre-school and relearn how to work and play nice with others, as far as I am concerned.This coming from the guy who's calling people names. Pot, meet kettle.

National sovereignty, while an essential element to nations' development has proven in this forum over a long period of time, to be the consistent excuse used to argue the repeal of more socially liberal legislation. No, it's used against unneeded legislation. And as everything in Rights of Minorities and Women is covered under other resolutions (and has been since before it passed) it's redundant and therefore unneeded.

If you have no interest in international affairs, and cooperative efforts within that field I would suggest you resign, take your ball and go home.Well, excuse me for not being a liberal.

*Glares at Flibble*

You and your bloody fish are going to get roasted if you touch my person again.Don't insult us NatSovs again, and you need not fear my fish.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*snipped hissy fit*

Sounds like somebody got spit out by the Sarlacc this morning...

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

*Looks at Dr. Hodz*

Finished?
No. I've only just begun/


Essential human rights, including that of minorities and women are the world's business. I am not going sit and let you, Flibble and others ABUSE the concept of National Sovereignty.
Oh dear. Get out of the hole you're digging yourself into.

And I'm perfectly clear as to what NatSov is, and I fully believe that Mr. Flibble does also, perhaps more so than I.

The UN forum is frequently a gathering place for sophomoric persons who have no interest in anybody but themselves.
I can scarcely imagine a UN without insane, selfish psychos trying to twist the UN to their will. So, uh, get used to it.

The two of you boys can go back to pre-school and relearn how to work and play nice with others, as far as I am concerned.
Believe me, I could be a WHOLE lot meaner. But I don't, because that would hardly get me anywhere.

And furthermore, speak for yourself. *sticks tongue out*

National sovereignty, while an essential element to nations' development has proven in this forum over a long period of time, to be the consistent excuse used to argue the repeal of more socially liberal legislation.
So? We can use whatever reason to defend our opinion. And I don't care if you think that that reasoning is poor, because your opinion, frankly, doesn't matter.

If you have no interest in international affairs, and cooperative efforts within that field I would suggest you resign, take your ball and go home.
A world without competition is scarcely a world at all.


*Glares at Flibble*

You and your bloody fish are going to get roasted if you touch my person again.

*defenestrates Schwarzchild*

I'd like to see you roast Mr. Flibble whilst hanging from a window frame.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Generally awesome guy

Essential human rights, including that of minorities and women are the world's business.Is this where I point out that Rights of Minorities and Women is self contradictory and thus utterly and completely useless? Not to mention that it probably should have been deleted before it even got to the floor?

*defenestrates Schwarzchild*

I'd like to see you roast Mr. Flibble whilst hanging from a window frame.

~Dr. Jules Hodz
Generally awesome guy

*Takes out a baseball bat and breaks Hodz' kneecap*

I can handle my end, me ould son. Never touch me again.

~S

You're all right, I'm wrong...how dare I have a different opinion than any of you experts.

*Bob whaps the Schwarzchildian rep with his 23 pound trout.*

That's for referring to us NatSovs as "freaks."You don't think employing large fish as a weapon of choice is just a little bit freaky?:confused: Besides, everyone knows frying pans are better.

Anyhow, you'll always find Natsov (freakish or otherwise) as an easy to use pre-prepared cop-out... I meant argument ;) - it only matters if more than 50% of voting nations feel the same. Doubt it's going to happen in this case.

*Takes out a baseball bat and breaks Hodz' kneecap*

I can handle my end, me ould son. Never touch me again.

~S

I'm glad I'm wearing kneepads.

You're all right, I'm wrong...how dare I have a different opinion than any of you experts.

Ah. A glimmer of hope.

But seriously, Hack makes a good point.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

Is this where I point out that Rights of Minorities and Women is self contradictory and thus utterly and completely useless? Not to mention that it probably should have been deleted before it even got to the floor?

Sure, but the title's just so damned nice. :rolleyes:

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

I think economic equality is a far more important human right than gender, be it as important as it is. In need, freedom is latent. Furthermore my country recognizes that minority cliques seek to make themselves look oppressed in order to further their own power. Property-cliques seek to concentrate the means of production into their own minority groups, this is because they lack common support for their upper class group due to their minority status, and their seek to control the means of production (media, news, companies etc) to make up their lost ground.

I would prefer any repeal of this resolution to be swiftly replaced with a proposal that looks to economic equity in areas of housing, employment, opportunity and general and much more. Again, In need, freedom is latent.

While I would agree with Andara Prime as to the need for a resolution in realation to economic equality. I feel that it is hightly unlikely to be passed by the UN.

There are to be realistic far to many capitalist countries who would love nothing more than to shoot down any such proposal. Further we believe that it is best for individual nations and regions to legislate on that matter.

And as for those who said I was a "NatSov Freak". Zyrwick's position both in our People's Communist Party, and our ambassorial staff is that National Sovergnty is preferable to foreigners meddling in our business. We don't tell the others how to live and we expect the same from them. In short the philosophy of our nation in reguard to the UN is that there are those things that the UN must regulate, those would be called international issues, and those things that are best left to Nations, national sub-divisions (like The Democratic Republic of Zyrwick's Autonomous Regions) and individual persons.

*ducks as tenderized trout flys by*

Well if this proposal if going to be repealed because it's self-contradictory is a better one is going to be written?

The idea of Rights of Minorities of women isn't bad, its just not written well.



The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

I'm glad I'm wearing kneepads.



Ah. A glimmer of hope.

But seriously, Hack makes a good point.

~Dr. Jules Hodz


He's right, the thing is utter tripe. But 15k votes were cast in favour of codswallop at the time.

Votes have consequences, and by a margin of 5 to 1 nations, in a depressing, zombie-like fashion walked in and voted for utterly useless crap. I'm sick of wiping their arses. That's not my job.

I think they should be bloody stuck with it. It does nothing in terms of operative legislation. It has a nice title, and it "feels good," that's it.

~S

I'm sick of wiping their arses. That's not my job.
Nope. It's mine. Thanks for reminding me of the oh-so-pleasant realities of the position.

I'm glad I'm wearing kneepads.
* /me takes this out of context for blackmail purposes sometime in the future *

Nope. It's mine. Thanks for reminding me of the oh-so-pleasant realities of the position.

But you do an excellent job.

* /me takes this out of context for blackmail purposes sometime in the future *

* /me becomes nervous *

* /me takes this out of context for blackmail purposes sometime in the future *
Ooo, good idea.

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

Nope. It's mine. Thanks for reminding me of the oh-so-pleasant realities of the position.

Anytime Fris, you do a good job of it, but it has to be depressing at the same time.


* /me takes this out of context for blackmail purposes sometime in the future *

Heh heh heh. Kneepads...<thinks for a moment> Nah, it couldn't be.

~S

Is this where I point out that Rights of Minorities and Women is self contradictory and thus utterly and completely useless? Not to mention that it probably should have been deleted before it even got to the floor?

No, that should have been where you demonstrated that. I'm inclined to disagree. Given that Sir Geoffrey and Bob are currently indulging in Gnomish courtship rituals and everyone else seems to be even more insane, could we do something radical and actually start a debate?

*ducks as tenderized trout flys by*

Well if this proposal if going to be repealed because it's self-contradictory is a better one is going to be written?

The idea of Rights of Minorities of women isn't bad, its just not written well.



The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

I certainly hope not. Minority issues are best left with the Nations. Zyrwick is a prime example of how minorities are protected, the main national minority groups in Zyrwick have each an Autonomous region. And I frankly am glad that they do.

During the previous Tsarist regime that ruled our nation My people the Armenani were severely repressed by the Slavic Tsars. Under the new Dictatorship of the Proletariat in our nation; our culture, and language are preserved and we have all the benefits of being a member of a stronger whole. Further this is also the case for many many many other minority groups in Zyrwick. Also women have equality with men in regard to pay and educational opportunities.

It is the position of Zyrwick's People's Communist Party that on matters of political equality on the international level that it is the responsibility of nations to rectify any political inequalities. Preferably by forming People's Communist Parties and having Proletarian Revolutions.

In short, the treatment of minority groups are National not international matters.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador.

In short, the treatment of minority groups are National not international matters.
But what about nations which choose to oppress their minority populations rather than follow the enlightened example of Zyrwick's People's Communist Party?

I can see no reason not to use the power of the United Nations to advance rights, civil liberties and political freedom.

Having said that, "Rights of Minorities and Women" is crap and should be repealed.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

But what about nations which choose to oppress their minority populations rather than follow the enlightened example of Zyrwick's People's Communist Party?

I can see no reason not to use the power of the United Nations to advance rights, civil liberties and political freedom.

Having said that, "Rights of Minorities and Women" is crap and should be repealed.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

Then thats their problem. If the oppression is bad enough the minority groups will rise up in rebellion as the Armanani, Georgi, Kyerguz, and Litvot peoples did in Zyrwick under the Tsarist regime.

It was only after the union of these minorities with the Slavic Majority under the banner of the People's Communist Party of Zyrwick that liberation was possible.

It is not business of the UN to meddle in the internal affairs of nations, only the nations can decide the best way to deal with minority issues, and for that reason the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick supports this repeal.

Even if we do hope that other nations follow our example. We know that that is not possible in all situations due to other factors.

Antranig Zylovnov
Zyrwickian Deputy UN Ambassador.

It is not business of the UN to meddle in the internal affairs of nations, only the nations can decide the best way to deal with minority issues, and for that reason the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick supports this repeal.No, it's the business of the UN to do whatever its members say it can do. You are just once voice in a myriad opinions. The only thing YOU get an absolute say over, and are not subject to the majority, is the right to leave the UN, and the right to join.

Not that you should be complaining (or that your support means anything), you are not even in the UN. <shrugs>

Then thats their problem. If the oppression is bad enough the minority groups will rise up in rebellion as the Armanani, Georgi, Kyerguz, and Litvot peoples did in Zyrwick under the Tsarist regime.

and the majority is just going to sit back and do nothing? if they are being oppressed they are probably already outnumbered. Not every nation has multiple ethnic minorities.



It is not business of the UN to meddle in the internal affairs of nations, only the nations can decide the best way to deal with minority issues, and for that reason the Democratic Republic of Zyrwick supports this repeal.

Like the honorable delegate from Hirota has said before me, the business of the UN is whatever its members say it can do (ooc: without breaking the game rules anyway...). I suport this repeal, simply because it isn't written well and should be replaced with a stronger, better written proposal.


The Blue Eyed Man
UN Ambassador
The United States of Cookesland

Actually Hirota, Zyrwick like many nations does indeed have a UN mission which is in the UN. Granted that "nation" is an office in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs building....but it exists none the less.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyrwickian UN Ambassador,
Grand Poobah of Zyrwickian UN Mission.

It is not business of the UN to meddle in the internal affairs of nations,
It is exactly the business of the UN to do that.

David Watts
Ambassador
The Dominion of New Leicestershire

It is exactly the business of the UN to do that.

Only if we let it.

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

never mind

Only if we let it.

Ailyn Vel
New Vandalian Ambassador to the UN

Hear Hear Madame Ambassador!

Ive oft heard that the UN's business is to do those things which its membership decides by majority vote to do. Therefore it is only prudent for those of us who subscribe to the belief that bad national sovereignty is better than decent UN meddling to try and prevent the UN from meddling at every turn.

Alexei Gramiko
Zerwickian UN Ambassador.

Sounds like you and I are going to get along quite well, Gramiko. ;)

Actually I believe we might, but then again we might not. I am quite commited to Communism. And while I would love to see a Communist World, I understand that not every country is sufficently developed to enjoy the benifits of Proletarian Revolution.

That said, It is not for international bodies outside of say Comintern, or the national communist parties to work to make that happen. Just as I would dispise having capitalism forced on me, I am sure no one would appreciate Zyrwickian Communism forced on them.

May I ask the honourable Ambassador Gramiko why his country is even in the United Nations? Surely the perfect solution to all your objections would be to withdraw.

Ambassador Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
PDSRA

Actually I believe we might, but then again we might not. I am quite commited to Communism. And while I would love to see a Communist World, I understand that not every country is sufficently developed to enjoy the benifits of Proletarian Revolution.

That said, It is not for international bodies outside of say Comintern, or the national communist parties to work to make that happen. Just as I would dispise having capitalism forced on me, I am sure no one would appreciate Zyrwickian Communism forced on them.

You keep your nose out of our business; we'll keep our nose out of yours. That's the way we look at it.

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

<falls to the floor in gales of helpless laughter>

Gromiko has a girlfriend. How's it goin' Ellelt?

~S

You keep your nose out of our business; we'll keep our nose out of yours. That's the way we look at it.
Then why exactly are you here, poking your nose into everyone else's business? It's this kind of inconsistent drivel that gives the entire concept of National Sovereignty a bad name.

Then why exactly are you here, poking your nose into everyone else's business? It's this kind of inconsistent drivel that gives the entire concept of National Sovereignty a bad name.

So if I think that you should stay out of my personal life, but we should probably have some set of conventions for conducting business with each other when it's convenient, that's inconsistent drivel?

I do so often miss such interesting memos.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

So if I think that you should stay out of my personal life, but we should probably have some set of conventions for conducting business with each other when it's convenient, that's inconsistent drivel?
If that had been what she said, she'd have had a point. But it wasn't. You drew the sensible parallel. She made the drivelling idiot's case. There is a big difference between the two, part of which is the sheer damage that drivelling idiots do to even the most righteous cause.

"National sovereignty" is neither here nor there. You are still required to protect the rights of minorities and women under other UN resolutions, even if this is repealed. The only thing in the original that is not also covered by other resolutions is possibly Article IV, the right to express love for the same gender.

The operative resolution here is #99: Discrimination Accord, the only real obstacle one nation would have to absolute freedom to discriminate. You wanna repeal it? Go ahead and try; the Federal Republic will not support you.

Nor will it support this repeal.

George Brown
Director of Communications

<falls to the floor in gales of helpless laughter>

Gromiko has a girlfriend. How's it goin' Ellelt?

~S

OCC:
Actually its going quite well. I would have liked to go back to Ellelt. But alas I forgot the password while I was away on Party business. Oh well Im hoping to build a new nation even better than the USSE anyway and a fresh start sometimes is good.

Its too bad that the ACS fell apart after I had to take an extended break. But maybe that will turn out to be a good thing, we had too many who were interested in that raiding, invading stuff...which for me is not nearly as interesting as debating issues.

Good to see your still terrorizing the UN Swartzchild.

IC:

Well thats if she wants to be, but I was hoping to meet a nice girl at the Party Congress this year.

Alexei Gramiko
Zyerwickian UN Ambassador.

If that had been what she said, she'd have had a point. But it wasn't. You drew the sensible parallel. She made the drivelling idiot's case. There is a big difference between the two, part of which is the sheer damage that drivelling idiots do to even the most righteous cause.


"Drivelling idiot"..."drivelling idiot"... :rolleyes:

When you're done frothing at the mouth like a rabid puppy, maybe you'll have something sensible and contructive to say?

Sure, I doubt it, but I can hope, can't I?

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

P.S. Besides, I'm pretty sure I haven't used the phrase "national sovereignty" once.

Well thats if she wants to be, but I was hoping to meet a nice girl at the Party Congress this year.

Oh, and don't go getting any ideas, Gramiko.

So if I think that you should stay out of my personal life, but we should probably have some set of conventions for conducting business with each other when it's convenient, that's inconsistent drivel?If that had been what she said, she'd have had a point. But it wasn't. You drew the sensible parallel. She made the drivelling idiot's case. There is a big difference between the two, part of which is the sheer damage that drivelling idiots do to even the most righteous cause.I'm happy to see that even though he's been out of the game a little while Mr. Dioce can still make even the most eloquent of anti-sovereigntists to squirm. I'd sure like to show my appreciation with a few friendly drinks at the Bar, and maybe cap it off by tying him up in my office upstairs and whipping him senseless.

A shame he's already married.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

Oh, and don't go getting any ideas, Gramiko.


Madame Ambassador that is why I said it was up to you. I myself prefer Zyrwickian women. I was dating one prior to being appointed the UN Ambassador. And man, what a woman. She was beautiful, strong, and could drink me under the table. And her welding wasnt bad either. And I would require a woman who decided to take up residence with me to be able to turn balogna into a gormet meal as that is currently the only meat in the shops...but Gosplan is working on that. The Civil War messed up our agricultural output.

P.S. Besides, I'm pretty sure I haven't used the phrase "national sovereignty" once.

Well, you have now.:p

Bob Flibble
NSO Mafia Don

The Allied States of Probstopia would first like to say that we are fully aware that discrimination on the basis of race, creed, gender, and sexual preference is very real. Secondly, we do not wish endorse said discrimination in any way.

However, we must say that we would support the repeal of this resolution due to the grounds of vagueness of the language used.

As it stands, the resolution's articles are in conflict with one another.

ARTICLE I- No one race or culture is better than another.

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

ARTICLE III- Not a single religion or belief is better or more right than another.

ARTICLE IV- One should have the right to express their love for a member of the same sex.

It is Article 3 that seems to be the most problematic when applied along with the others.

What if one's religious belief requires one to treat another race as inferiors or superiors? What if males and females do not want to be treated as equals in their own home? There are numerous religions that prescribe an inequality of gender. What about religions that believe in sacrificing other sentient beings in order to send them to "heaven"? That could certainly be seen as an expression of love. By saying that one has the right to express love to another without qualification allows for too many loopholes to be allowed.

There are many other ways this resolution is contradictory, but we must keep in mind that this august body has many other issues to address and we will not take the time to enumerate all of our reservations. We also must keep in mind that lunchtime approaches and our peanut butter and jelly sandwich is calling our name.

Though the ideals behind the resolution are commendable in our opinion, the language and broad scope of the resolution makes us unable to support it in it's current form.

Diego Rivera
NSUN Representative from Probstopia