NationStates Jolt Archive

Good evening UN Delegates, the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg plans to co-author a repeal against The IRCO. If it passes, UN Resolution #29: The IRCO (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Los chingados for the promotion of relief aid and congratulate Intelligenstan on the new resolution against Drugs trafficking.

The fundamental problem however, is that it is not irrespective of religion. A good international humanitarian crisis response and relief organization should be irrespective of religion, even by their name.

I will now actually make RL references here, because the International Red Cross allowed the Red Crystal as an official aid symbol, a more religiously neutral symbol compared to the other two official ones, the Christian Cross and the Islamic Crescent.

Back into the NS world, it should also cover neutral nations too, and sadly the resolution doesn't. Good relief agencies should operate irrespective of location: another fundamental error. The last problem is that all races do not appear to be covered by the resolution, which may be used as an excuse by the aid workers to deny aid to particular races.

So the government wishes to come up with a resolution which goes like this:


The United Nations,

AGREEING with the original intent of the resolution, to provide urgent aid and relief to victims of major disasters, but;

CONCERNED that Resolution 29 bears two fundamental flaws in respect to religion and UN membership, and;

NOTING that the International Red Cross Organization is biased towards a specific religion, which may offend or worry UN Nations that do not follow that religion;

NOTING that the definition ‘humanitarian aid’ may be interpreted as aid or relief to a particular species, which may be interpreted as a reason to deny aid or relief to other races, and;

NOTING that all persons of all nations should be entitled to receive basic humanitarian aid and relief, irrespective of the country’s membership status.

REPEALS UN Resolution 29, "The IRCO".

ADVOCATES for a new resolution which restores the fundamental purpose, provided that the organisation is unbiased towards any religion in any way, and all persons are entitled to receive humanitarian aid irrespective of race and the country’s membership status.

(Not final)

I need to check whether Christianity can be mentioned, or if I should stick with the phrase ‘a particular religion’.

To sum up, I plan to repeal this resolution, because the IRCO is biased to a particular religion, all nations should be able to receive international aid whether they’re UN members or not, and it’s not just humans that are entitled to aid, but all races including hobbits and civilian dragons. However, there is a need to create a replacement soon after Resolution 29 is repealed.

Good evening UN Delegates, the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg plans to co-author a repeal against The IRCO. If it passes, UN Resolution #29: The IRCO (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.First off, the text of the resolution this repeal is targetingThe IRCO


A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Los chingados

Description: This legislation would hereby implement the International Red Cross Organization, an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule.

It functions as a non-profit organization and is run purely on donations and grants to prevent the corruption of government from interfering with its main goal to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid to those in need.

They would be the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens.

May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.

Firstly, I'd like to thank Los chingados for the promotion of relief aid and congratulate Intelligenstan on the new resolution against Drugs trafficking.You'd actually congratulate them on that POS? But then again, my government actually trusts me to make my own decisions on resolutions.

The fundamental problem however, is that it is not irrespective of religion. A good international humanitarian crisis response and relief organization should be irrespective of religion, even by their name.Uh what? Have you actually read the resolution you want to repeal? There's not one word in the resolution about religion.

I will now actually make RL references here, because the International Red Cross allowed the Red Crystal as an official aid symbol, a more religiously neutral symbol compared to the other two official ones, the Christian Cross and the Islamic Crescent.So what? The IRCO resolution doesn't say a word about any symbols.

Back into the NS world, it should also cover neutral nations too, and sadly the resolution doesn't. Good relief agencies should operate irrespective of location: another fundamental error. The last problem is that all races do not appear to be covered by the resolution, which may be used as an excuse by the aid workers to deny aid to particular races.Again I ask you, have you actually read the resolution? Take a good look at The IRCO's last line.
May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.It looks to me like it covers everybody.

So the government wishes to come up with a resolution which goes like this:
The United Nations,

AGREEING with the original intent of the resolution, to provide urgent aid and relief to victims of major disasters, but;

CONCERNED that Resolution 29 bears two fundamental flaws in respect to religion and UN membership, and;

NOTING that the International Red Cross Organization is biased towards a specific religion, which may offend or worry UN Nations that do not follow that religion;

NOTING that the definition ‘humanitarian aid’ may be interpreted as aid or relief to a particular species, which may be interpreted as a reason to deny aid or relief to other races, and;

NOTING that all persons of all nations should be entitled to receive basic humanitarian aid and relief, irrespective of the country’s membership status.

REPEALS UN Resolution 29, "The IRCO".

ADVOCATES for a new resolution which restores the fundamental purpose, provided that the organisation is unbiased towards any religion in any way, and all persons are entitled to receive humanitarian aid irrespective of race and the country’s membership status.

(Not final)


I need to check whether Christianity can be mentioned, or if I should stick with the phrase ‘a particular religion’.

To sum up, I plan to repeal this resolution, because the IRCO is biased to a particular religion,I'd love to know where you're getting this whole bias deal.
all nations should be able to receive international aid whether they’re UN members or not,Actually, I have a feeling that should a non-member nation ask for aid, they'd get it.

and it’s not just humans that are entitled to aid, but all races including hobbits and civilian dragons.And if you read the resolution, you'll note that it never limits itself to just aiding humans.

However, there is a need to create a replacement soon after Resolution 29 is repealed.

I'm still waiting for you to give a good reason for a repeal.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

OOC: Who's got that IRCO puppet, and where are they when you need them?

[null and void]Instead of a repeal, Ms. Ryberg cannot this just be implemented within the organization itself? (If there is a Comittiee of the UN which runs it.)

OOC: In Iran there is another, under-used symbol as well as the 'unoffical' Red Star of David.

IC: However, if this were to be repealed we would support the abolishment of all religious symbolism replaced with a neutral, single symbol of peace and international healing.[/null and void]

After reading the post of the Honorable Bob Flibble, we have... changed our mind. Thanks for the enlightening Mr. Fibble

Instead of a repeal, Ms. Ryberg cannot this just be implemented within the organization itself? (If there is a Comittiee of the UN which runs it.)

OOC: In Iran there is another, under-used symbol as well as the 'unoffical' Red Star of David.

IC: However, if this were to be repealed we would support the abolishment of all religious symbolism replaced with a neutral, single symbol of peace and international healing.

Could the sword be considered symbol for peace?

OOC-->remember, this is coming from a warrior's culture.

If you check out this link (http://z3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=26), Charlotte Ryberg, you'll find a detailed discussion by Mikitivity of all the things the IRCO can now do, as defined by NS UN resolutions. Those, obviously, are the only things the UN has actually done.

NOTE: This bit that follows is about RPs. It didn't happen if you RP that it didn't happen. But if you want to run a long RP, you'd have to take it to the RP forums. (RP= roleplay.)

If I recall correctly, someone RPd a major discussion soon after the real life Red Cross adopted the Red Crystal and the interested NS nations agreed to adopt it too.

That's not in the UN resolution, of course, but if the UN sets up a committee, and the gnomes staff it, anyone could reasonably assume it continues to do things ...

I'm leaving it at that, because we're running into that fourth wall. The UN forum is for discussion and debate on proposals, and you can RP your characters doing that with other nations' reps. (That's why some players were complaining about your posts in the trafficking debate, Charlotte Ryberg -- a UN rep would be more likely to summarise the nation's reaction, or just read out a couple of paragraphs of a newspaper report.)

EDIT: The link is to an offsite forum. Offsite forums don't have an official existence. The things that do exist are the resolutions, and that link takes you to them all in one place. Damn it, I hope this is making sense.

EDIT 2: FYI, here's (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=376887) a link to an RP thread that's been used fairly recently, and here's (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=385898) an original IRCO one.

(OOC comment...)

Uh what? Have you actually read the resolution you want to repeal? There's not one word in the resolution about religion.

So what? The IRCO resolution doesn't say a word about any symbols.
Apart from its reference to the 'Cross', which is usually taken (at least in RL) as a primarily Christian symbol, in both its title and its text...

Again I ask you, have you actually read the resolution? Take a good look at The IRCO's last line.
It looks to me like it covers everybody.

Perhaps she thinks that the term "all the citizens in the free world" could arguably exclude non-citizens, and all of the people in non-"free" nations?

And if you read the resolution, you'll note that it never limits itself to just aiding humans.
Maybe she was looking at the word "humanitarian"? Perhaps we need an alternative term that more obviously refers to all sapient beings?

I'm still waiting for you to give a good reason for a repeal.
This resolution wouldn't be a high priority on my "Get rid of it" list...

OOC: Who's got that IRCO puppet, and where are they when you need them?
Mikitivity? If so, then he's rather busy in RL these days...
Edit:... although I see that he has just posted in a couple of threads here...

(OOC comment...)Why'd you reply OOC to my IC comments?

Apart from its reference to the 'Cross', which is usually taken (at least in RL) as a primarily Christian symbol, in both its title and its text...It's also used to denote hospitals, ambulances, and other medically related stuff. The fact remains that the resolution never mentions religion once.

Perhaps she thinks that the term "all the citizens in the free world" could arguably exclude non-citizens, and all of the people in non-"free" nations? But the first line in the resolution says "all the nations under UN rule."

Maybe she was looking at the word "humanitarian"? Perhaps we need an alternative term that more obviously refers to all sapient beings?And while we're at it, lets get the Human Rights category renamed.:rolleyes:

This resolution wouldn't be a high priority on my "Get rid of it" list...It's not even on mine.

Mikitivity? If so, then he's rather busy in RL these days...
Edit:... although I see that he has just posted in a couple of threads here...
That's who I was thinking, hopefully he'll see this thread.

Simpler question here: can Charlotte Ryberg adopt the red crystal and abolish the use of the red cross in my country?

(OOC comment)

Why'd you reply OOC to my IC comments?
St Edmundan Antarctic has left the UN (although I haven't yet got around to posting on the matter), and I haven't replaced it there with another member of the Godwinnian Commonwealth, so this group of nations no longer has anybody there to communicate IC... So, as I felt like replying to your points, OOC seemed the only way in which I could do so.

It's also used to denote hospitals, ambulances, and other medically related stuff.... in countries with predominantly-Christian heritages, yes, but I defy you to find any Islamic (for example) country -- at least in RL -- where such usage is also standard.

But the first line in the resolution says "all the nations under UN rule."
I would argue that the nations within the UN aren't actually "under UN rule", rather than just members of an alliance. Admittedly they have to follow the UN's (limted number of) rules, but to me "under _ rule" implies a much greater level of control over not only the governments' legislative functions but their executive ones as well.

And while we're at it, lets get the Human Rights category renamed.:rolleyes:
I have raised that point on at least one occasion in the past, during a 'Sapient Rights' discussion...

Simpler question here: can Charlotte Ryberg adopt the red crystal and abolish the use of the red cross in my country?

Why the hell is it even a problem? The name of the organization is the IRCO, the resolution makes no mention of any emblems or symbols, and there is no bias or prejudice at all.

OOC:

A quick perusal of the RL information shows that there are three accepted emblems for the Red Cross- the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and the Red Crystal, for use in "western," Islamic, and other countries respectively. The Red Cross symbol was adopted in the 1860s as the reverse colors of Switzerland, the Crescent in the 1880s as the reverse colors of the Ottoman flag, and the Crystal in 2005 as a compromise with the Israeli arms of the Red Cross.

There are no RL prohibitions on the use of any of the emblems. Under the Geneva Convention, all nations are to respect the symbols, even if they use one over the other.

This is a non-issue in terms of NationStates, as the IRCO has no religious, ethnic, or social connotations outside what the resolution states.

(OOC comment)
St Edmundan Antarctic has left the UN (although I haven't yet got around to posting on the matter), and I haven't replaced it there with another member of the Godwinnian Commonwealth, so this group of nations no longer has anybody there to communicate IC... So, as I felt like replying to your points, OOC seemed the only way in which I could do so.

Will you quit with the puppetwank shit, Ed? Please?

... in countries with predominantly-Christian heritages, yes, but I defy you to find any Islamic (for example) country -- at least in RL -- where such usage is also standard.

The Red Crescent has been used in Muslim countries since the Russo-Turkish war. The Geneva Convention holds that the emblems can be used at the discretion of the home country, but that all members of the Red Cross must respect each symbol.

I would argue that the nations within the UN aren't actually "under UN rule", rather than just members of an alliance. Admittedly they have to follow the UN's (limted number of) rules, but to me "under _ rule" implies a much greater level of control over not only the governments' legislative functions but their executive ones as well.

What the hell does this have to do with the IRCO? Or anything, for that matter?

I have raised that point on at least one occasion in the past, during a 'Sapient Rights' discussion...

Not this bullshit again. If you want to have an argument about semantics and the rectification of names, take it someplace where that discussion will be productive. We've been over this issue before, and we don't need it brought back up. Stop posting just to be contrary.

Not this bullshit again. If you want to have an argument about semantics and the rectification of names, take it someplace where that discussion will be productive. We've been over this issue before, and we don't need it brought back up. Stop posting just to be contrary.

And there's my reason for using the eyeroll smilie when I made the comment about changing the category.

ok, ok, forget the sword as a religious symbol for international aid, how 'bout a red scalpel?

(OOC comment)

Will you quit with the puppetwank shit, Ed? Please?
And just how does using one, single nation to post in a particular thread constitute "puppetwank"? Or are you suggesting that nations currently outside of the UN shouldn't be allowed to post in this part of the forum at all?

What the hell does this have to do with the IRCO? Or anything, for that matter?It has to do with a point raised by Flibbleites, no?

Why the hell is it even a problem? The name of the organization is the IRCO, the resolution makes no mention of any emblems or symbols, and there is no bias or prejudice at all.

OOC:

A quick perusal of the RL information shows that there are three accepted emblems for the Red Cross- the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, and the Red Crystal, for use in "western," Islamic, and other countries respectively. The Red Cross symbol was adopted in the 1860s as the reverse colors of Switzerland, the Crescent in the 1880s as the reverse colors of the Ottoman flag, and the Crystal in 2005 as a compromise with the Israeli arms of the Red Cross.

There are no RL prohibitions on the use of any of the emblems. Under the Geneva Convention, all nations are to respect the symbols, even if they use one over the other.

This is a non-issue in terms of NationStates, as the IRCO has no religious, ethnic, or social connotations outside what the resolution states.

OOC:
Just to add to this. The RL International Committee of the Red Cross was not only founded by a Swiss humanitarian Henry Dunant, and hence the inversion of the Swiss Cross ... but the "story" behind the Swiss flag / cross itself is *not* religious in nature. Historically (in the 12th century) Switzerland was one of the poorer nations in Europe, having little fertile land and an over abundance of water (read hazards), thus Swiss mercenaries fought for other nations to send wages back home. These Swiss soldiers supposedly sewed a very white cross, so if they were killed in battle, they could be better identified has having been from Switzerland's Schwyz canton. At least this is the story that was told to me by the Swiss when I traveled there a few years ago. :)

You ought to think long and hard before you repeal this one. You didn't. Can't support this.

The original doesn't actually have the problems you listed, so it's not even a matter of improvement, it's a matter of throwing this out and finding something else.

(OOC comment)

OOC:
Just to add to this. The RL International Committee of the Red Cross was not only founded by a Swiss humanitarian Henry Dunant, and hence the inversion of the Swiss Cross ... but the "story" behind the Swiss flag / cross itself is *not* religious in nature. Historically (in the 12th century) Switzerland was one of the poorer nations in Europe, having little fertile land and an over abundance of water (read hazards), thus Swiss mercenaries fought for other nations to send wages back home. These Swiss soldiers supposedly sewed a very white cross, so if they were killed in battle, they could be better identified has having been from Switzerland's Schwyz canton. At least this is the story that was told to me by the Swiss when I traveled there a few years ago. :)

Regardless of why the Cross was adopted as the RL organisation's emblem, the fact remains that members of various non-Christian groups in RL saw that detail as privileging a Christian emblem and objected: That's why the Red Crescent, Red Lion (or whatever the Iranian symbol is actually called), red 'Mogen David' and Red Crystal were subsequently adopted as allowed alternatives both in the name and as the emblem.
Don't you think it possible that similar objections might therefore be raised (as, indeed, Christine Ryberg seems to be raising them) in an IC context in NS?
If it's agreed that the raising of such objections and desire for alternative names & symbols could occur in NS, the question then is whether whether Resolution #29 would allow the adoption of those alternatives or whether (as Christine Ryberg asserts) a repeal-&-replace would be necessary in order to permit this...

Here's the actual text of Resolution #29 _

The IRCO
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Los chingados

Description: This legislation would hereby implement the International Red Cross Organization, an organization whose sole duty is to provide support for all the nations under UN rule.

It functions as a non-profit organization and is run purely on donations and grants to prevent the corruption of government from interfering with its main goal to provide food, shelter, and humanitarian aid to those in need.

They would be the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens.

May it be so that the interests of all the citizens in the free world be protected by such a humanitarian group such as the IRCO.

Votes For: 11835

Votes Against: 1600

Implemented: Mon Sep 1 2003

It looks to me as though the name is unchangeable, because that's actually specified in the text and no provision is made there for changes, but (to my surprise, as I though I remembered reading otherwise...) there's actually nothing specified about symbols so that people can use crosses, crescents, crystals, stars,swords or whatever else they want... Of course, some governments might find the name's apparent pro-Christian bias objectionable enough in itself...

Okay everyone, the discussion's over; Charlotte will keep the resolution alive, adopt the red crystal and abolish the use of the red cross in my country with immediate effect. The plain red crystal, to be precise.

Regardless of why the Cross was adopted as the RL organisation's emblem, the fact remains that members of various non-Christian groups in RL saw that detail as privileging a Christian emblem and objected: That's why the Red Crescent, Red Lion (or whatever the Iranian symbol is actually called), red 'Mogen David' and Red Crystal were subsequently adopted as allowed alternatives both in the name and as the emblem.
Don't you think it possible that similar objections might therefore be raised (as, indeed, Christine Ryberg seems to be raising them) in an IC context in NS?

If it's agreed that the raising of such objections and desire for alternative names & symbols could occur in NS, the question then is whether whether Resolution #29 would allow the adoption of those alternatives or whether (as Christine Ryberg asserts) a repeal-&-replace would be necessary in order to permit this...

But there's not textual basis for her claims. The use of an emblem is entirely up to the individual nation- we may associate the IRCO with a red cross on a white background, but that's entirely up to us.

To wit, there is no NS justification for using religious symbology as grounds for a repeal. That's all there is to it. There is not a single mention in the resolution text of what symbol to use for the IRCO- and if the red cross symbol shows up on NSwiki or the now-defunct United Nations Organizations forums, it is entirely roleplayed and thus metagaming.

It looks to me as though the name is unchangeable, because that's actually specified in the text and no provision is made there for changes, but (to my surprise, as I though I remembered reading otherwise...) there's actually nothing specified about symbols so that people can use crosses, crescents, crystals, stars,swords or whatever else they want... Of course, some governments might find the name's apparent pro-Christian bias objectionable enough in itself...

It's funny, because there's no actual RL organization called the "International Red Cross." Doesn't exist. Furthermore, since this is NS and not RL, there is no reason to believe that the name "Red Cross" presents a Christian bias, as there is no history of Christianity within the NSUN.

The entire point is moot. Nations are free to use whatever symbol they like to represent the IRCO in their nation. It will not impact gameplay. It will not impact the UN. If you like, you can have a purple bannana slug riding a border collie. It doesn't matter.

That's that.

(OOC comment)



Regardless of why the Cross was adopted as the RL organisation's emblem, the fact remains that members of various non-Christian groups in RL saw that detail as privileging a Christian emblem and objected: That's why the Red Crescent, Red Lion (or whatever the Iranian symbol is actually called), red 'Mogen David' and Red Crystal were subsequently adopted as allowed alternatives both in the name and as the emblem.
Don't you think it possible that similar objections might therefore be raised (as, indeed, Christine Ryberg seems to be raising them) in an IC context in NS?


It looks to me as though the name is unchangeable, because that's actually specified in the text and no provision is made there for changes, but (to my surprise, as I though I remembered reading otherwise...) there's actually nothing specified about symbols so that people can use crosses, crescents, crystals, stars,swords or whatever else they want... Of course, some governments might find the name's apparent pro-Christian bias objectionable enough in itself...

First, your logic is inescapable. ;) I agree with your point completely, both that despite the origin, the use of a "Red Cross" today might be offensive to some.

That said, I'm not about to have my RP nation really feel any sympathy for political correctness on this scale. To give you some insight into Mikitivity's internal politics ...

"Mister Mayor. I was reading Ambassador Katzman's updates on the UN. It appears that the international community is once again more interested in gay rights and debating if we should be allowed to use the word 'Crystal' instead of 'Cross'. This seems to be a weekly theme with the international community. I really feel sorry for Katzman. Why did you assign him to such a touchy feelie assignment where little ever gets done?"

"Simple, I caught him screwing my daughter, so I did the best thing you can do to a politician ... I sent his political career into a slow dive far far away from here with the very thing we Miervatians despise ... well meaning, dirt poor, argumentative, hippies. I'll be surprised if he doesn't one day return from the UN a vegetarian!"

It's funny, because there's no actual RL organization called the "International Red Cross." Doesn't exist.

True, but I think most of us are working on the assumption that the resolution author from way back then didn't know that the real English name is International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It is a common enough mistake that even Wikipedia talks about this. :)

I don't support the repeal, but at the same time, if it were repealed and there were a better replacement resolution, I'd certainly support it. In other words, I'm not completely fixed in my opposition to a repeal here. There has been enough said, that I could change my mind <-- which should mean something, I'm like a stubborn old goat.