NationStates Jolt Archive

Description:

COMMENDING Resolution #6 for it's intent.

NOTING that while Resolution #6 does attempt to end slavery, it also places other limits on nations.

UNDERSTANDING that Resolution #6 has weak language that causes it to fail in it's intended purpose.

KNOWING that a more effective resolution should immediately be passed.

REPEALS Resolution #6.

Resolution 6 has extremely weak language, It is redundant in regards to UN Resolution 68 with regards to it's last item, and finally, it places restrictions on nations that have nothing to do with slavery.

Given that the intentions for this resolution are good, and recognizing the need for a new resolution to deal with the specific intent, I propose a repeal, and should the repeal pass I will propose a new leaner version of the resolution.

Resolution to be repealed:

Description: 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.

Edit: As the issue we're dealing with is a serious one, I've prepared a replacement resolution should the repeal succeed. Remember that slave trading is covered by UN Resolution 68, so that need not be included, and indeed would make it illegal as it would be redundant. This covers ownership, which would act to emancipate all currently owned slaves.

Description:

DEFINES slavery as the ownership of any individual against that individual's will.

KNOWING that the practice of slavery is abominable.

MANDATES that slavery be banned.

REVOKES any government's tacit approval that furthers slavery.

ENSHRINES the right this resolution grants for all individuals.

I'd like to conclude with acknowledging the help of Quintessence of Dust, whose previous thread helped me get mine off to a good start.

Well, what does "End Slavery" actually do?

It states "that the following human rights be given to every peoples of this great world". Now, "every peoples" is a grammatical error, leading to a fount of interpretative possibilities. While "the right to leave her or his job, given two weeks' notice" clearly grants an individual right -and one which I would find it difficult to oppose-, it could convincingly be argued that the remaining clauses grant rights to "peoples", not "people" - to groups or nationalities, not to individuals.

With that in mind, "the right to own possessions" can be interpreted as a collective right rather than an individual one, while "the right to travel freely throughout their country" could be said to grant a general right to "the people", rescindible in individual cases (to enable the emprisonment of convicted criminals).


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

If that's what it means, that's what it should say.

I agree and support your proposal for a repeal, but I think on an issue such as this that it is important to have a satisfactory replacement law in place as soon as possible. I like the changes you seem to be headed for, though.

- Gordon Tills, ambassador of Roseariea

First, let me be clear in stating that Logopia would like to see UNR #6 repealed. We believe it has numerous flaws and that this body would be better served by a resolution that actually ended slavery. That said we cannot support the proposed repeal nor the reasoning behind it.

The UN can, and rightfully so, override national policy when defending human rights. And while the UN cannot ban an ideology or form of government it can very well limit and restrict it on behalf of said rights.

The right to leave your job with two weeks notice, while a good idea, infringes on the rights of any corporate police states.

Logopia cannot support this line of reasoning

I do not understand what rights of corporate police states you are talking about; but we definitely believe the right of an individual to seek the employment that best fits them should be defended even at the expense of corporate police governments. We do believe that allowing an employee to leave a job only with two weeks notice might be unfair in some circumstances. We too are against the two weeks notice bit in UNR #6, but not for the same reasons you are.

The right to own possessions, is once again a good idea, but infringes on the rights of purely communist countries.

Logopia cannot support this argument either.

Once again, we hold that the right to own possessions is a fundamental human right. We support the UN guaranteeing this individual right, even if it means that "pure" communist governments cannot exist. Furthermore, we have to question if a purely communist state requires that individuals have absolutely no possessions.

Finally the right to travel freely throughout your own country infringes on the rights of ANY country with a prison system. This is the most damning problem I would think. Had he gone into more detail in this line, as to who exactly was allowed to freely travel, I wouldn't even bother with a repeal. He didn't, he said everybody. That won't work.

No, it does not. Saying that an individual has a right, does not mean that this right is untouchable. It is only common sense to know that rights can be legally revoked. Lets take the fourth point of the resolution for example. Does it mean that if one of my employee attacks me I cannot defend myself, because he has the right to bodily safety from one's employer? Absolutely not. I have a right to self defense, and I don't need mathematical precision of language in the resolution to know that. Your argument about the resolution not saying who is allowed free travel is unjustified nitpicking or simply paranoia. There are instances in which airtight precision of language in legislation is not only desirable but required. This is simply not the case here.

As for the repeal itself

NOTING that while Resolution #6 "End Slavery" does indeed end slavery, it also places other severe limits on nations.

UNR #6 does not forbid slavery. Careful reading of the resolution leads to this conclusion. UNR #6 says the author proposes that human beings be given the right to The outlawing of the selling or purchasing of people. Whatever that means.

FURTHER NOTING that each state has a right to limit the movement of citizens who break laws.

Irrelevant, UNR #6 does not prevent this

ALSO NOTING that states should choose the rights of their citizens to a finer point than this resolution allows.

My turn to be nitpicky. States should choose the rights of their citizens to a finer point? What If I want to give them broader rights? I think you mean "should be able to" or "have the right to".

In some respects UNR #6 protects (or rather attempts to protect) individual rights to a point in which Logopia is quite comfortable. In others we do feel that more precision or more room for domestic legislation is required. We, therefore, cannot support this clause in its current form.


KNOWING that a similar, but less limiting resolution should indeed be passed.

Less limiting? To whom? Given your prior arguments, I believe you mean it must give more room for national legislation. As previously noted, we believe that is not necessarily a good idea.

----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

I'm reworked the language a bit. To be truthful, arguments aside, I want to make sure we have a palatable resolution as much as anything. If there is an issue, I'm glad to address it.

Description: 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.
______________

That's the resolution we're looking at today. Now, I think we can all agree that not only is slavery bad, it is indeed inside the scope of the UN to dictate a country's policy for slavery. There should be a resolution banning it. However, this resolution USES the issue of slavery to encourage capitalism, and promote a particular civil right that not all nations have, or should be forced to have. Beyond that, it explicitly bans jailing anyone.

The right to leave your job with two weeks notice, while a good idea, infringes on the rights of any corporate police states.

The right to own possessions, is once again a good idea, but infringes on the rights of purely communist countries.

Finally the right to travel freely throughout your own country infringes on the rights of ANY country with a prison system. This is the most damning problem I would think. Had he gone into more detail in this line, as to who exactly was allowed to freely travel, I wouldn't even bother with a repeal. He didn't, he said everybody. That won't work.

The last two items, are needed, but the first three are not.

Given that the intentions for this resolution are good, and recognizing the need for a new resolution to deal with the specific intent, I propose a repeal, and should the repeal pass I will propose a new leaner version of the resolution.

So lets come up with a repeal draft.

______________

Description:

COMMENDING Resolution #6 "End Slavery" for it's intent.

NOTING that while Resolution #6 "End Slavery" does indeed attempt to end slavery, it also places other limits on nations.

UNDERSTANDING that Resolution #6 "End Slavery" has weak language that causes it to fail in that attempt.

FURTHER NOTING that each state has a right to limit the movement of citizens who break laws.

ALSO NOTING that states should be able to choose the rights of their citizens to a finer point than this resolution allows.

KNOWING that a more effective resolution should indeed be passed.

REPEALS Resolution #6: "End Slavery"

______________

I'm up for suggestions on improvement, I'll give it a few days(more if I generate sufficient interest), then submit this.

Should your effort to repeal "End Slavery" succeed, how would you go about writing an effective alternate? It would certainly be beneficial to see what your alternate proposal is before I render judgment on whether the current resolution should be repealed.

I'm reworked the language a bit. To be truthful, arguments aside, I want to make sure we have a palatable resolution as much as anything. If there is an issue, I'm glad to address it.
Based on some of the comments here and in other debates on this issue think first a strong definition of what slavery needs to be put in place. As find this R6 mixes ideas of free persons taking jobs and signing a contract with those forced to do the job no rights just do it.

Also folks sentenced to prison are not by us slaves but criminals once sentenced in a court or whatever legal process a nation has to deal with crimes. Thus to restrict and comfine them is not inslaving them.

Also prostitutes are not slaves as in many nations they are legal labor force doing what they elect to do under laws set for that profession in that nation where it legal. Those that force others to serve them in a sexual manner become criminals and go back to my first comment on them.

Also those who enter military or other national labor services are not slaves but meeting to us requirements of citizenship in our nation... Thus the rules for them don't come to slavery but a requirement to gain citizenship..... those that keep working in either military or other required service once requirements are meet do it because they choose to be there thus are not slaves. Any worker who takes a job makes an agreement with the employer to work and follow company rules if this includes procedures to leave the company then this can't change that... as the worker is not a slave and is free to do as they please and thus face legal actions if they violate a contract or emplyement with a company.....

Also setting a time for one to leave a job may be nice but added 'only if they have cleared all required tasks to leave said job." This meaning turned in all company property, not taking company/miltary/national/other secrets or equipment with them they have not paid for or earned or been given, they owe the company no fees, fines, dues, or other item, and a host of other issues might come in one just up an leaving even with a notice.

Then one must not just give the blanket right to own things as then you must consider taxing this property and taking care of it.. in the case of animals and about anything.. Also for cars/tanks/planes/boats/ships and guns/cannons/missles/bombs/nukes the rules still need and should be applied to control ownership once a person/group meets national requirements to own such whatever they may be.

On travel freely in ones own country it should be considered that if I don't want you on my land then you stay off it or become a criminal and back to my first comment. Also travel on military bases and private company property or into their structures is criminal and we go back to my first comment. They go to prison not become slaves....

Should your effort to repeal "End Slavery" succeed, how would you go about writing an effective alternate? It would certainly be beneficial to see what your alternate proposal is before I render judgment on whether the current resolution should be repealed.

Simple:

KNOWING that the practice of slavery is abominable.

MANDATES that ownership of individuals or groups be banned.

REVOKES any government's tacit approval that furthers said ownership.

AFFIRMING that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

ENSHRINES the right of all individuals and groups under this resolution.

It may however become more complicated as we go along in the process, unless everyone miraculously agrees with that first draft.

I was kinda hoping to keep the two issues separate until I had to(and keep the competing information in the original post to a minimum). But with a resolution of this importance, I probably can't. I'll edit the original post to include the new draft and I'll work on it concurrently.

Edit: I found a interesting argument I hadn't previously thought of in Cavirra's comment:

Any worker who takes a job makes an agreement with the employer to work and follow company rules if this includes procedures to leave the company then this can't change that...

He's right in noting it'll interfere with private arrangements that have nothing to do with slavery.

The nation called 'Quintessence of Dust' has already drafted a repeal and a suitable replacement for this resolution, a few weeks ago, although I don't know when (or even "if") they now plan on submitting them. You might find the discussions about those proposals useful, if -- as should be possible -- you can find them by searching through the records...

Simple:

KNOWING that the practice of slavery is abominable.

MANDATES that ownership of individuals or groups be banned.

REVOKES any government's tacit approval that furthers said ownership.

AFFIRMING that no one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

ENSHRINES the right of all individuals and groups under this resolution.

It may however become more complicated as we go along in the process, unless everyone miraculously agrees with that first draft.

I was kinda hoping to keep the two issues separate until I had to(and keep the competing information in the original post to a minimum). But with a resolution of this importance, I probably can't. I'll edit the original post to include the new draft and I'll work on it concurrently.



Our nation finds that the alternative proposal is a vast improvement over the original "End Slavery" resolution. Thusly, Knoxvillistan will support the repeal, should it come to a vote, as well as Douria's resolution as stated above.

MANDATES that ownership of individuals or groups be banned..Here you forget that one can own a football team or other sport team and they are groups.. Also a person can own a car racing team and any drivers/individuals. Thus this needs to be cleared up to allow unforced ownership under a legal and binding contract.... As contractual ownership of an individual or group may be seen as not allowed here or open for question as it is worded.

As said if you sign a contract with terms of service clearly written in them then you are 'owned' by the person you sign the contract with and must compy with the contract... as this is not slavery... Slavery if FORCED services, without pay, not freely knowing given services for free or pay...

Also family arranged marriages may or could come into question here under the part government tactics... and this is one of those things some may think is sending women or men into slavery as the spouse of somebody they didn't choose to be with...

This needs to be cleared up to allow unforced ownership under a legal and binding contract....

Yes it does. Give me a bit and I'll work on that clause. Also thanks, didn't think of that.

Repeal with revised language:
Description:

COMMENDING Resolution #6 for it's intent.

NOTING that while Resolution #6 does indeed attempt to end slavery, it also places other limits on nations.

UNDERSTANDING that Resolution #6 has weak language that causes it to fail in that attempt.

ALSO NOTING that states should be able to choose the rights of their citizens to a finer point than Resolution #6 allows.

KNOWING that a more effective resolution should indeed be passed.

REPEALS Resolution #6.

I'd like to rely on UN resolution #68 for any detail on trafficking persons(or the slave trade), I think it may be clumsy but it does the job. That said, the new slavery resolution need only ban owning slaves. Also note I'm trying to stay as terse as possible. No need to get all wordy unless I have to.

So the new Slavery Ban would be:

Description:

DEFINES slavery as the ownership of any individual against that individual's will.

KNOWING that the practice of slavery is abominable.

MANDATES that slavery be banned.

REVOKES any government's tacit approval that furthers slavery.

ENSHRINES the right of all individuals under this resolution.

Here you forget that one can own a football team or other sport team and they are groups.. Also a person can own a car racing team and any drivers/individuals.No you don't own the people in these cases, you own the franchise and the players/drivers work for you.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

No you don't own the people in these cases, you own the franchise and the players/drivers work for you.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
True but in some nations this could be seen as you own the players as well as the team... But the key here that think has come is that FORCED ownership of a person or group.... not CHOICE ownership or contractual service is slavery.. as that was one of the things in not defining slavery left open...
DEFINES slavery as the ownership of any individual against that individual's will. Think this clause cleared that up...

I agree. The original resolution's wording is most pathetic in the part where it talks about "propos that the following human rights [I]be given to every human being" or some such. Slavery is entirely unjust, but it is so for the reason that it violates rights inherent to all human beings: by its nature, it strips one of most or all of his liberty and often of his rights to property and pursuit of happiness; in the worst case, it violates one's right to life itself. None of these rights have been given to this person by a government, whose role is merely to ensure that egregious infringements upon its people's rights do not occur. If Lanteana's government were to entirely collapse today, the people's right to remain alive, free, and in possession of all their things would not go away. Acknowledging, even subconsciously, that government is the source of a person's rights is essentially enslaving oneself to that government: a tyrant may one day take power and, using this logic, simply take back what was given as a gift, or granted as a privilege. I wish to propose that the revised resolution merely acknowledge the presence of natural rights, and state that any member nation which violates these rights will be subject to punishment by some means to be decided later. (I haven't the energy at this time to pursue that matter any further.)

Furthermore, this resolution is entirely lame as it merely proposes that the following human rights, yadda-yadda. This body, though composed of many governments, is still a government itself, is it not? Therefore, it has a duty to carry out its protection of natural rights in as swift a manner as possible when they are being violated, not to dodder around making vacuous statements and positioning ourselves so that we may receive the greatest benefit when action is finally taken.

I agree. The original resolution's wording is most pathetic in the part where it talks about "propos that the following human rights [I]be given to every human being" or some such. Slavery is entirely unjust, but it is so for the reason that it violates rights inherent to all human beings: by its nature, it strips one of most or all of his liberty and often of his rights to property and pursuit of happiness; in the worst case, it violates one's right to life itself. None of these rights have been given to this person by a government, whose role is merely to ensure that egregious infringements upon its people's rights do not occur. If Lanteana's government were to entirely collapse today, the people's right to remain alive, free, and in possession of all their things would not go away. Acknowledging, even subconsciously, that government is the source of a person's rights is essentially enslaving oneself to that government: a tyrant may one day take power and, using this logic, simply take back what was given as a gift, or granted as a privilege. I wish to propose that the revised resolution merely acknowledge the presence of natural rights, and state that any member nation which violates these rights will be subject to punishment by some means to be decided later. (I haven't the energy at this time to pursue that matter any further.)


I would consider any attempt to repeal the proposal purely because of the word "given" to be absurd. Further, I question the concept of "natural rights". One may well argue that human rights derive from a social contract, not from "nature".


Christophe Boco,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
Ariddian Isles

Acknowledging, even subconsciously, that government is the source of a person's rights is essentially enslaving oneself to that government:.Here we feel the term enslaving is not what needs to be used when one becomes a citizen of any nation.. They have a choice and have made it when they become citizens of a given nation. Those that don't want to be citizens of a nation are free to leave it in most cases as those nations that have trouble makers who refuse to follow laws and rules either don't want them or try for crimes against that government or it's citizens thus they become CRIMINALS and not SLAVES..... Thus nobody has rights to own things or do what they want as they all must comply with some laws and rules to do so. Failure to do this again makes them CRIMINALS to do so makes them a willing productive citizen of a nation..

Any right given or earned has a price and those not willing to pay for those rights will loose them fast. Since one person alone is weak then we form groups such as family or one like the UN to provide protection for the individual. If the individual is not willing to protect their rights then they will soon have none and might end up slaves to their own stupidity and weaknesses; thus no group even the UN can't help those who are not willing to help themselves or join in the group.. and follow any given rules thus to some become willing slaves/servants/members to that group or the UN..

The issue of slavery or forced service is wrong but the willing entry into service of one person with another or a group requires all parties in that to be willing to protect those rights or loose them. Thus they must have rules or loose.... as each will do what serves them best and say to heck with the other.. This is not slavery but survival.....

I want you guys to know I sincerely appreciate the serious discussion.

I'm only posting to request any further problems with the resolution(s). If so I can edit further. If not I'll start looking for a good time to put it up for approval(probably during the next lull between voting).

Also, can I get a moderator decision on something:

As far as I see, R6 doesn't actually DO a damn thing about the ownership of slaves. It's trafficking ban is covered by R68 so that's not even in my version. R6 basically just sits there looking pretty(bad). Since we're talking about "slavery" and not say "DVD region controls" I think it would be worth it to get a replacement in place if I CAN before I repeal the original. Then again the original doesn't stop slavery at all so repealing it can't be that bad.

Anyway, the question: Can I try to pass my new slavery ban first, or should I repeal R6 first.

Anyway, the question: Can I try to pass my new slavery ban first, or should I repeal R6 first.

Despite your interpretation that Res #6 is useless, it is nonetheless a resolution to "End slavery". If that's your intent (and it appears to be), you have to repeal first.

OOC:Thanks for the quick reply, I went ahead and submitted this. Is it within the rules for me to campaign for it with delegates? I've never done a proposal before.

ENSHRINES the right of all individuals under this resolution.
We have been trying to fathom the grammar of this sentence, and have signally failed to date. Unless this is merely a piece of self-congratulatory fluff, which is to be avoided in any case, it doesn't appear to do anything, even make a moral statement.

Since "enshrine" means to hold sacred, and the resolution bans slavery, the concept is to make sure it's clear that we don't like slavery(since it's non-binding obviously to non-UN members, I'm making it clear we hold slavery in low regard). Plus I just want it to have a proper ending, but come to think of it, you're probably right.

I think this edit:

ENSHRINES the right this resolution grants for all individuals.

Singular "right" since this only truly guarantees the right to be free from forced ownership.

OOC:Thanks for the quick reply, I went ahead and submitted this. Is it within the rules for me to campaign for it with delegates? I've never done a proposal before.

OOC: Yes. You can send TGs to delegates. Be sure you don't TG any delegate more than once, though, or you'd be spamming.

Perhaps "GUARANTEES" rather than "ENSHRINES"? We cannot help but feel that the verb "enshrine" demands a prepositional phrase indicating what the object is enshrined in. It still also has the feel of a sentiment that should be part of the preamble rather than the active clauses.

I'm not entirely sure that would improve the resolution. It looks like it'll work as-is, enshrining may be a better choice but I don't know for sure.

I don't have to hold it sacred "in" anything I'd say. We're not talking about putting it in anything really. We're talking about holding it sacred.

We disagree as to the nuances of meaning. This will be irksome.

The Holy Empire of Pugliasium would like to know how serfs are classified under the SNUN's current position. After all, the feudal system is a great institution of Puglaisium, it has been that way for more than 2,000 years.

Also, would the new resolution make it be possible to use slavery as a way to pay off debts? It is a good way to do so, and that method has been practiced for thousands of years.

But more importantly, the Holy Empire of Pugliasium really hopes that its use of serfs does not infringe upon the the NSUN and hopes that all other nation's will respect Pugliasium time honoured traditions of birthplace, caste systems, and natural order.

His Emminence, Lord Darius Marcus,
NSUN Ambassador

Lord Marcus can reassure himself that serfdom and similar forms of indenture are not considered slavery by a strict definition. Fortunately there is a separate proposal in the works to remedy the plight of his serfs.

Somewhat annoyed by our inability to put into words our unease over the use of "ENSHRINES", we finally admitted defeat and reached for a dictionary. It seems Emperor Trey has been incorrectly advised; the word in fact means "to enclose in or as a shrine," hence our ill-explained longing for an indirect object.

There are indeed nuances of meaning to it, and I refer to the second meaning which clearly states "To cherish as sacred".

There are indeed nuances of meaning to it, and I refer to the second meaning which clearly states "To cherish as sacred".

OOC, since everyone must be bored by us: interestingly Chambers lists no second meaning, and I have to say I haven't heard it used quite in that sense. Since I assume you're using a reputable dictionary or we wouldn't have started this, I'll bow to your word choice anyway.

OOC: "Reputable" is probably a misnomer (http://www.answers.com/enshrine&r=67)... but I am not entirely talking about of my ass either...

IC:

I have conceded defeat on this issue for now, I have through experience thought of an easier way to contact delegates for approval to quorum, and I shall do so when I run this through again. Give me a week(OOC: or after the next resolution) and I'll make sure this travesty doesn't continue to stand.

OOC: I spent 3 hours contacting people tonight because I thought it expired tomorrow, turns out some other even more poorly worded version expires tomorrow. I don't despair though, I had an idea that just might work next time.

yes. Our Nation has a system whereby teens are often hired as workers for noble families outside of education hours but their wages are sent to the youth house that they are from to go towards costs.

I find your repeal as ineffective as the original propasal. Most importantly, the replacement resolution should be more watertight than ever. Given the Cultural histories of the many various nations participating in the United Nations, it would be difficult to impose and ban if it has preexisted within that culture.

After reading many of these arguments both for and against the wording of UNR#6, One can easily argue that anything that a nation puts forth as "compulsory" falls under this act. As slavery is a compulsory act of forcing someone to do something against their will by another. Does your country make organ donation "compulsory?" Then your nation acts on a form of slavery. Does your nation make voting "compulsory?" Then again, you are exercising a form of slavery. Therefor, the distinction between slavery and compulsory must be addressed in the wording.

After reading many of these arguments both for and against the wording of UNR#6, One can easily argue that anything that a nation puts forth as "compulsory" falls under this act. As slavery is a compulsory act of forcing someone to do something against their will by another. Does your country make organ donation "compulsory?" Then your nation acts on a form of slavery. Does your nation make voting "compulsory?" Then again, you are exercising a form of slavery. Therefor, the distinction between slavery and compulsory must be addressed in the wording.

I really don't see how compulsory organ donation and compulsory voting, both things which Altanar practices, are any kind of an issue here. The repeal and replacement legislation that Douria is promoting are pretty clear in spelling out that they refer to the act of slavery. One could mention something or other about compulsory practices mandated by government, such as voting, national service or the like, in the replacement, but I frankly think that's a bit of a stretch.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

one minor detail cameroi would like to point out, and that we keep being annoyed by seeing self ritious grammer nazis make this error of assumption, to the point of extreme annoyance. the use of the word peoples, used as a singular noun, is NOT a gramatical error, when its use refers to an entire culture, ethnicity or the citizens of a nation. when refering to multiple cultures or ethnicities as peoples, i.e. cultures, ethnicities et c., this IS a proper usage. it is a pluralizing of the use of the phrase "a people" to designate a culture or ethnicity. we keep seeing ignorance of this demonstrated repeatedly and annoyingly.

don't take our word for it. look it up. in something less lame then the revised substandard rightwing assumptions.

=^^=
.../\...

don't take our word for it. look it up. in something less lame then the revised substandard rightwing assumptions.Dictionaries have political leanings?

"- 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."

Hmmm, lets look at something here: Compulsory Military Service.

The Military alone does not allow anyone to "leave his or her job," and it certainly doesn't allow one to do it even "given two weeks notice." Therefor, 'compulsory' aside, any nation with a military is violating this resolution based simply on the ambiguous wording of it. Nor can a military member be given the 'right to bodily safety from ones employer." Not to mention that by making it 'compulsory' and not voluntary, you are employing a base of slaves to form the military body, at least for a limited time. This resolution should simply be written to making the "sale, purchase or trade of human beings illegal."

Sure, one can say this is a stretch, as any ambiguously written agenda can be taken to any extremes. However, what of Corporate Police States that don't allow members of there nation such freedoms based on cultural and governmental laws? These nations are also in violation of the resolution based on it's vague and far reaching conclusions.

This resolution must be immediately repealed, rewritten and limited to it's 'intended' target!

This resolution should simply be written to making the "sale, purchase or trade of human beings illegal."

If I did the mods would remove the replacement resolution, even after I repeal R6. R68 already covers purchase, sale and trade. The only base left to cover is plain ownership. I keep having trouble drilling that into people's heads.

The Military alone does not allow anyone to "leave his or her job," and it certainly doesn't allow one to do it even "given two weeks notice." Therefor, 'compulsory' aside, any nation with a military is violating this resolution based simply on the ambiguous wording of it.Not in the slightest. People can sign away their rights if they so wish. In fact, most people do exact that every time they sign a contract. The military wouldn't blink twice at this law.

i will support this proposal but it will NOT pass in my opinion just like all the other slavery repeals for 3 extremely simple reasons:
1. People dont read they just see the title and think "Fascist, Racist, etc (Take your pick) freak" and dont read the rest or support it.
2. Many fear if a repeal was made no new legislation would be made and slavery is now legal.
3.Some are simply blissfully pleased with a proposal that does a little good to spend the energy to improve it.

These have been the simple killing blows to many many good proposals which i have supported but few others ever do....

Extremation

The Nation of Fail so Hard does not support this resolution. We do not agree with the right for people to travel freely across the country or the right for people to own possesions. When an individual purchases an object in our Country, they are merely holding the product for the state but may use it to their satisfaction, until further notice. Giving people the ability to have personal belongings would undermine our society and ruin our economic standing. The right for people to travel freely is also a problem, unless there are exceptions. Exceptions need to be implemented for criminals or suspects for crimes or any other sort of treasonous actions towards the Law put in place.

Our nation does, however, agree with the right to safety from one's employer and the outlawing of selling or purchasing people.

For the support of Fail so Hard, ammendments to this resolution must be made, such as the circumstantial right for domestic travel freely and the limiting of personal possesions in order to control social order and equality among people.

I believe the honorable delegate from Fail So Hard is looking at the subject of the repeal, rather than the repeal itself.

Also: Reposted the repeal. Time to start getting votes.

Despite our previous disagreements and our initial qualms about the proposal, we can now say that we fully support this repeal effort.

Logopia has asked our regional delegate to approve the proposal, and we sincerely hope other nations will follow suit.


----------------------------------------------------
Iris Fairchild
Logopian Ambassador to The U.N.

The good news is I'm halfway through my list of people to mail. The bad news is that a very wordy version comes up instead of my own when I search for mine.

Yeah, well, unless you want someone else's version of the same repeal to reach quorum before yours (which has happened before), I'd stop telegramming, and submit again when there aren't any competitors in the queue ahead of you.

I also agree and I suppost your proposal for a repeal, however we need at least some servants; compact servants to go into small places we couldn't normally fit in; huge servants in case we haven't a ladder; things like those. Sure we need more human rights, but we need servants. I feel the UN needs to free most servants, but not the ones emperors and empresses need. That'd be heaven.... :p. B-but, we seriously need at least some servants, like I said.

- Keenen Davis
Emperor of the Empire of Consigahria

Compulsory Military Service.!Is not slavery... As any in many nations it is a requirement to gain citizenship. Those who have not desire to serve and defend their nation don't deserve to become a citizen. Also their is a difference between CAN'T do something and DON't WANT TO... If you don't want to do some public service to meet citizenship requirements then you don't become a citizen.. Thus end up in most cases a criminal and then locked up in prison... CRIMINAL and SLAVE are not the same thing... This only protects SLAVES not CRIMINALS or those working to earn citizenship... Also most of time compulsory military service come with a contract and a time and terms or service slavery doesn't have this...
Just as B-but, we seriously need at least some servants, like I said.Concern over servants.. If they sign a contract to work for you then it not slavery... unless they were forced to do it then why a contract....?!

OOC: Not that I'd have minded, but the other repeal is gone now, guess the new resolution caused a clean up.

I'd have to say most of my complaints so far have come from people not reading my proposal. I'm happy so far with how it's going.

I'd have to say most of my complaints so far have come from people not reading my proposal.

Situation normal, then.

OOC: I'll wait until tomorrow to really push for votes, since it'd be on the front page of proposals then, which ought to make it a heck of a lot easier(but still require work of course).

I thought I was the first one to create this repeal. It's on the third page in the list of proposals. Mind taking a look at it? I believe it creates a better argument. :)

Very poor form to advertise your repeal in the thread for someone else's repeal proposal, Narogam. As for the belief that yours is better, I'm not sure we can trust the source.

Douria, we've examined your proposal and though we agree "End slavery" needs repealed and replaced, we find your arguments both lacking and disturbing at the same time, and cannot add our approval.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I think it's time to begin talks on this again. I'd be happy to see this on the proposals list.