NationStates Jolt Archive

I believe my version is the much better version that people will find it easy to vote on. It is on the third page of the list of proposals, and the author of it should be "Narogam" not "Douria". At least take a look at it, even if you have looked at Douria's repeal. I believe you will find it makes a better argument.

Most Supreme Ruler of Narogam

It is good form to post your proposal

Description: UN Resolution #6: End slavery (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: Although the country of Narogam agrees that enslavement of another human being is wrong, this resolution not only fails to define what is and is not slavery, but has also attached riders to itself. It is not the UN's right to change another country's culture and way of doing business by attaching such riders as:

Rider #1: Giving people the ability to leave his/her job, given two weeks' notice
Rider #2: The right to travel freely throughout their country.

Rider #1 is just another attempt to control business in a foreign country when business should be the concern only of the country and those directly involved. How a country runs its businesses, and under what laws business shall be run, is the sole responsibility and right of the country itself, not the UN. This rider also does not define what is meant by a job, or whether it is a government related job or a civilian job. This rider gives an individual who has received training for a government/military related job the ability to decide not to deliver on the individuals obligation to its country after government funds have been spent on his training. In essence, the individual robs the government of the taxpayers' money. Therefore, I propose that the definition is unclear.

Rider #2 is not only unrelated and therefore irrelevant in context with the topic and main purpose of said resolution, but also implies that a person is able to walk right into a government restricted area, therefore compromising the security of the nation as a whole, as spies/terrorists would therefore have the same right to do so. It also compromises a nation’s security by implying that any person that is a prisoner for any reason can travel anywhere in the country without having to pay for his/her crimes in prison, where he/she should be serving his/her sentence.

This resolution is also focusing on emotional appeal rather than justice and equality. It is using the stereotype that all slavery includes torture, chains, and whips. Though I agree that such methods are barbaric, I disagree with the resolution using the emotions, rather than logic and reasoning, of human beings. It is not the business of the UN to make others feel a specific way about another's situation. Doing so, in effect, limits that person's right to express themselves in any way they choose, including the right to choose sides in the issue of slavery.

I also propose that the definition of slavery is completely unclear, and based upon the most brutal forms only, instead of considering all types. This is a stereotype that is common. The definition of slavery in this resolution is the result of the author's own biased opinion and misguided views. The author of this resolution does not say what is slavery and what is not slavery, thus countries are at the mercy of the UN, as the UN can change its definition of slavery at any given time. It could be argued that this resolution implies that civilian jobs are in effect a form of slavery that must be abolished. Also, the proposed riders are so vague as to create a state of near-anarchy within the country, as security is compromised, therefore it does not benefit the people of a nation; rather, it leaves those people worse off than before, leaving them to the mercy of convicts and criminals.

All in all, as the purpose of this resolution is unclear and motivated from personal bias, I move to repeal this resolution.

Why use a page when three lines suffice?

Douria's proposal is clear enough in pointing out that UNR #6 fails to achieve it's intended purpuse and that it touches unrelated issues. Narogam's proposal is clear too, yet we prefer the more economic option.

Further, Logopia will never support a repeal that attacks the author of the original resolution. Pointing out the shortcommings of a resolution is fine. Accusing authors of being biased or misguided is something we do not want to see in the books.



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

Narogam's proposal, regardless of what one thinks about its arguments, is actually illegal -- although it might not actually have been removed from the list yet by any of the Mods -- under the rule against 'branding'...

Good catch, St. Edmund. Our eyes blurred and we were on the verge of just labeling it an essay.

Both versions need a lot of work, frankly. We highly preferred Quod's version and we're sorry to see it abandoned.

~Cdr. Chiang

Repeals are only getting rid of existing laws, yes? So why have multiple paragraphs in the repeal? Cant we argue the benefits or whatever in a forum and have the multiple paragraphs in there?

Unless its ok to post several repeals on the same subject at the same time? Does it make it more likely to be repealed?

Again, sorry if this sounds like a stupid question. Just trying to understand how to act in a "UN-propper" way.

I talked to him about getting him to work with me for it, but he is busy. I went forward with my own in the mean time, I will repeal it or see it repealed, if this had a better chance of success I'd go with it. It doesn't. Mine may not pass due to lack of votes, but this is illegal due to mentioning a nation in the text.

this is illegal due to mentioning a nation in the text.
It's been taken down for the Branding violation, but that doesn't mean the discussion needs to stop.

I'm of the opinion that length (or brevity) does not equate with "good". If it takes you up to the character limit to say what needs to be said, then a longer proposal / repeal is better. If you can say it in 2 lines, that's fine too.

Perhaps all you folks trying to repeal "Ban Slavery" can gather together and hammer out a version that addresses the best of all of them.

We find ourselves once again agreeing with the honoured Kennyite delegation, which is still an alarming situation to find ourself in. The arguments of both these repeals contain vast swathes of opinion which we do not share, and thus cannot support, unlike that which the Ambassador of the Quintessence of Dust presented us with. We are reminded somewhat forcibly of statements at the bar which begin "I'm not racist, but..."

Well, my plan was just to get it repealed, so a BETTER end slavery resolution could be passed. I hate vague half-done attempts.
And what is branding? I thought I was actually being fairly nice. ;)

branding is including your nation name (or the name of the region that you reside in), as Douria mentioned.