NationStates Jolt Archive

[OOC housekeeping note: Would the mods mind stickying this thread, and locking this one (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542690)? Thanks.]

Ladies and gentlemen of the United Nations, it gives me great pleasure to announce that our proposal, Fairness and Equality Act, has acquired the necessary number of delegate signatures, and will advance to vote in the coming hours. I'd like to take this time to thank all of you who have already voiced support for this measure, and especially Iron Felix and Rubina, who helped campaign to bring it to quorum. We really are heartened at the support of fellow delegations, and hope for a positive outcome as we proceed to debate this issue--

What's that? You guys actually want to see the proposal? Well OK, but I know most of you won't bother reading it. :p

Fairness and Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod (www.nationstates.net/schuttegod)

Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states;

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.Voting on this measure will end on Wednesday. In the meantime, we'd be honored to answer any questions, or address any concerns member delegations might have on this resolution.

[Looks upward.]

You know, Kenny, I've been working very hard on this for the past few days, and I was just wondering if I could, you know, sit down?

[Kenny eases strings.]

[Schutte ambassador sits.]

Thanks bud. 'Ppreciate it. Now, let the brawl begin!

Shemp #3
Ambassador to the United Nations

To answer your first question, no, I can't spell. Obviously, the next-to-last poll option is supposed to read "Kill all whiteys" ... unless, you know, there's some guy named Al Whiteys you guys particularly abhor. Mods, spell check? Thanks. *blush*

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.

Can you explain the meaning of this in simpler terms please? Aprat from not understanding this part I like the proposal.

Can you explain the meaning of this in simpler terms please? Aprat from not understanding this part I like the proposal.

It states that there is nothing prohibiting member nations from enacting stronger national legislation against discrimination. To wit; that you can meet or exceed the requirements of the bill.

You have the support of Snefaldia.

You have Evoinia and PAU's firm support.

What did I do to you?!

OOC: Ok that was funny in my head. But seriously:

IC: I'm a fan of anything the Kennyites come up with, especially their hookers.

Oh right the resolution... this is actually pretty strong, and I like it. Covers what it needs to, fills in the gaps of R99, pretty much as solid as we could hope for.

This of course means it'll get voted down by a huge majority.

La Rinnosso Unnona di Norden e Marchòbrutellia votocho SÌ te hoci resoluzione.

Maddalena Pedrana
Deputy Nord-Brutlandese Ambassador to the United Nations

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

What sort of impact will this have on public agencies? Specially what sort of impact will this have on rail lines? Specifically national rail companies that are, by law, required to hire citizens before non-citizens?

Howie T. Katzman

This resolution bans "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination, so it naturally follows that exemptions are made for those restrictions that are fair and reasonable. Not being personally familiar with the employment policies of national rail lines, particularly those in Mikitivity, I could not with good authority say whether the restrictions you describe are either.

This resolution bans "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination, so it naturally follows that exemptions are made for those restrictions that are fair and reasonable. Not being personally familiar with the employment policies of national rail lines, particularly those in Mikitivity, I could not with good authority say whether the restrictions you describe are either.

The Mikitivity Bahn is a government owned and operated rail line, so when hiring people to work at any level of the rail line, MB is restricted to only hiring citizens, people who were currently employed in the service of another private or public rail system that is purchased and operated by MB, or people with citizenship of a nation in which MB operates regular lines.

An example of the second condition would be when MB purchases either a short-line railroad or another national rail company. Basically MB does not fire rail workers just because their company was purchased by MB.

An example of the third condition would how MB employs people in the various Schnauzerlands to service and operate its international trains. However, MB wouldn't (just for example) hire somebody from the Most Glorious Hack, as MB has no operations in the Hack.

I'm a fan of anything the Kennyites come up with, especially their hookers.[Glaring incredulously at Deputy Amb. Willing.]

How ... dare you accuse us of having any part in this ... this ... revoltingly fluffy ... thing! And calling us "hookers"? What do you take us for? Karmicarians?! Outrageous! It's time we learned you a thing or two about the nuances of diplomacy, Ambassador! Girls, seize him!

[The Kennyite vixens advance on the Dourian envoy.]

As you will discover, Mr. Willing, my officers are strippers, not hookers, and rightly talented ones at that! What a pity you may not return to attest to their greatness! ... Although, can you honestly think of a better way to go?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Although, can you honestly think of a better way to go?

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

Death by Snu-Snu?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Death by Snu-Snu?

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

Now THERE is an interesting UN resolution idea ... "Is Death by Snu-Snu" Cruel and Inhumane, or is this a humane form of capital punishment?

Isn't this illegal? I mean we already have a resolution on this type of issue. #99 (Discrimination Accord)

Alright, I may not be a member of the UN but I was kicked out because I was "cheating" Here is what I say, I say that we make this effective in the UN nations. It should work that there should be no racial or religious judgements in NS. It may only be a game but it should have some limits, should it not? I say that we make this thing work and I am going to go tell someone that I know to vote for this and make it work. I am not a delegate, but I have one so I will also make them vote FOR as well, you will see me voted as a for on there, I am going to go right now, keep up the good proposals.

Isn't this illegal? I mean we already have a resolution on this type of issue. #99 (Discrimination Accord)But not on this type of discrimination specifically. As the resolution notes, UNR#99 addresses government-source discrimination, whereas this one is inclusive of public discrimination of private sources. In a similar vein, we have a number of different resolutions concerning weapons of various types.

We support this resolution whole-heartedly and urge all nations to vote "for." Unfortunately, pressing business in the national capital forces us to return post haste and we will likely not be available for any further comment.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

ooc: Spawn camping skillz ftw! Or dumb luck. :D

Putzi will be giving this resolution a very tentitive FOR vote, it seems rather strange to us that after so much drivel a completely not objectionable resolution comes along, a pleasant but infrequent occurance.

However, can we confirm exactly what:

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination"

means - i.e. is reasonable but unfair discrimination exempt? And likewise fair but unreasonable discrimination? Are these even possible...? Or is only fair AND reasonable discrimination allowed?

e.g. not letting blind people operate air traffic control systems

Is this discrimination reasonable in that they can't see the radar screen and so can't do the job, but unfair to the blind person anyway in that if they had someone else employed to tell them what was happening on the screen they could do the job...but this second person would be an unreasonable expense which non-blind operators did not enjoy?

Also my interpretation is that 'positive discrimination' is unfair (and unreasonable if necessary) and so is also prohibited by the legislation?

Putzi

For!

The Government and Peoples of Ingorland have voted against this resolution, because it does not provide for discrimination against people, who have no religious beliefs and may be discriminated against, by people with religious beliefs.

This resolution simple promotes religious belief and discriminates against people who have no religious beliefs. People who have no religious beliefs have a right not to be discriminated against and have the same human rights as everybody else.

So the government and peoples of Ingorland have voted Against the Fairness and Equality Act.


William Pitt.
Minister for Regional and UN Affairs.
The Grand Duchy of Ingorland.

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3513/sandymariamartinezskadeen4.jpg

The Ariddian Isles fully support this well-constructed proposal, and commend its authors for their efforts.


Sandy Martinez,
Legal adviser,
Ariddian Isles delegation

The Government and Peoples of Ingorland have voted against this resolution, because it does not provide for discrimination against people, who have no religious beliefs and may be discriminated against, by people with religious beliefs.

This resolution simple promotes religious belief and discriminates against people who have no religious beliefs. People who have no religious beliefs have a right not to be discriminated against and have the same human rights as everybody else.You don't think atheists and nonreligious people are adequately covered under "belief system"?

We support this resolution. Nothing more needs be said.

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9291/marcelalinkova2kh4kg7.png

Oh, here we go again...

Fairness and Equality Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: SchutteGod


Description: The United Nations,

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;


Then again, it doesn't seem too bad.

RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

I am a minority myself.

REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

I see what you mean: discrimination being made illegal within the civil service only.

SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

I might want resolution 99 repealed soon.

NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

Hereby enacts the following:

The good bits begins here:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

This is why Charlotte Ryberg dropped the Red Cross for the Red Crystal last year so all religions could trust us properly.

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states;

So it says, no member nations will discriminate against my civilians because we're non-religious.

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.

Sorry, but can you clarify what it really means, SchutteGod? Thank you.

In the mean time, Charlotte Ryberg puts in their provisional approval pending finalization by Ryberg herself.

Danicarinakatarínamília M. L.
Employment Minister

But not on this type of discrimination specifically. As the resolution notes, UNR#99 addresses government-source discrimination, whereas this one is inclusive of public discrimination of private sources. In a similar vein, we have a number of different resolutions concerning weapons of various types.

We support this resolution whole-heartedly and urge all nations to vote "for." Unfortunately, pressing business in the national capital forces us to return post haste and we will likely not be available for any further comment.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

ooc: Spawn camping skillz ftw! Or dumb luck. :D

Ambassador Talone has really highlighted what in the opinion of my government should be one of the focal points of the discussion on this resolution: should private sector firms be held accountable to the same standards as the public sector?

The other issue I've raised, really boils down to asking if this resolution will prevent governments from giving preferential treatment to its own citizens.

I'd urge all nations to seriously consider both of these two issues and then share their government's stance on where the line between public and private sector behavior lies and the general role of the public sector.

At this point, Mikitivity has not cast its vote.

Howie T. Katzman

However, can we confirm exactly what:

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination"

means - i.e. is reasonable but unfair discrimination exempt? And likewise fair but unreasonable discrimination? Are these even possible...? Or is only fair AND reasonable discrimination allowed?

e.g. not letting blind people operate air traffic control systems



This is our question too. To give another example, would affirmative action programs that women or minorities be legal if they were intended to remedy past discrimination against those groups - or would that be considered "unfair and unreasonable" to other groups?

Kamikayzia - will hold off on voting for now pending further clarification.

I don't see any exceptions in the proposed resolution for religious groups that would object to employing someone who doesn't share their belief system. Shouldn't the UN support freedom of conscience and religion? I'm no bigot, but forcing people who have religious convictions about something such as say, homosexuality, to not be able to act according to their consciences is wrong, and not the answer. So I'm not going to support this resolution.

Also, wouldn't this invite a TON of litigation by people claiming that they have been discriminated against? What constitutes "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination as opposed to discrimination deemed "fair and reasonable"? Would countries still have the right to exclude women or gays from their militaries if they so choose? Would churches who believe that homosexuality is sin be inviting a lawsuit if they refused to hire a gay man as a pastor? I think they would be, under this resolution.

Sorry, but can you clarify what it really means, SchutteGod? Thank you.Luckily this was already asked and answered on the first page:

It states that there is nothing prohibiting member nations from enacting stronger national legislation against discrimination. To wit; that you can meet or exceed the requirements of the bill.

You have the support of Snefaldia.Thanks, Snefaldia!

Ambassador Talone has really highlighted what in the opinion of my government should be one of the focal points of the discussion on this resolution: should private sector firms be held accountable to the same standards as the public sector?

The other issue I've raised, really boils down to asking if this resolution will prevent governments from giving preferential treatment to its own citizens.Alright, I'm really not following you. I asked if your hiring practices giving citizens preferential treatment was "fair and reasonable," which is the standard set by this resolution. You did not answer. I don't understand why the standards should be set differently for public and private employers, either. You say you don't hire Hackians to work the rails because your rail lines don't go to the Most Glorious Hack. Why not? Why shouldn't a Hackian with the proper documentation be given equal consideration for any job -- public or private -- as a Miervatian? Until you answer this question, I cannot with good confidence tell you whether such a practice would be allowed under this mandate.

This is our question too. To give another example, would affirmative action programs that women or minorities be legal if they were intended to remedy past discrimination against those groups - or would that be considered "unfair and unreasonable" to other groups?If you're referring to affirmative action, there really is little in this bill prevent such a practice, so long as it's applied fairly and reasonably in hiring, contracting and admissions policies.

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9291/marcelalinkova2kh4kg7.png

Danicarinakatarínamília M. L. gives the green light.

The Principality of Euripidesia stands in firm opposition to the Fairness and Equality act on the grounds of its potential for abuse. The use of the phrase "unfair and unreasonable" presumes a certain degree of culture alignment between nations. But this is not the case. The U.N is host to a wide variety of nations, all of which have different conceptions of fairness and reason. SchutteGod, nor any nation for that matter, can be expected to comprehend life as a member of another nation.

Also, by attempting to eradicate discrimination within the private sector severely restricts the freedom of private enterprises and limits their ability to compete effectively. In order for competition to exist, there must be a level of discrimination. Under this resolution, would an athletic team be required to have both men and women on its roster? Would a fitness club be required to hire a certain number of obese individuals, since the resolution forbids discrimination based on physical condition? And to what degree would the individual freedom to discriminate be infringed upon?

Which brings me to another point, that of who exactly would determine whether a hiring choice made by a private firm was motivated by discriminatory feelings outlawed by this resolution, or by valid determination of merit. Cases like these would overflow the legal system, causing all manner of difficulties with getting more important cases to judges in a timely fashion.

This resolution is a hastily thought out, harmful piece of legislation. It aims to sacrifice liberty, and legislate the everyday life of the individual. Discrimination has been made into an ugly word by those who say they seek "civil rights," but what it really means is choice. Choice to run your business as you like. Choice to run your organization as you like. Choice to run your life as you like. If you wish for the U.N to take these choices away from you, by all means vote for this resolution.

But if there are still those out there who cherish freedom, who hold it close to their hearts, keeping it safe as a most treasured possession, if there are still men in the world who wish for the right to make their own destiny, then I know I shall not be alone in voting against this miscarriage of justice.

-Alfred St. Michael, Viscount of Hallowton and U.N representative of the Principality of Euripidesia.

Have you no concern that approving ever increasingly restrictive resolutions will cause more states to withdraw from and operate outside the UN. There they may pursue their objectionable practices more vigorously that they would have had they felt more comfortable and remained within a more tolerant and accommodating body?

Alright, I'm really not following you. I asked if your hiring practices giving citizens preferential treatment was "fair and reasonable," which is the standard set by this resolution. You did not answer. I don't understand why the standards should be set differently for public and private employers, either. You say you don't hire Hackians to work the rails because your rail lines don't go to the Most Glorious Hack. Why not? Why shouldn't a Hackian with the proper documentation be given equal consideration for any job -- public or private -- as a Miervatian? Until you answer this question, I cannot with good confidence tell you whether such a practice would be allowed under this mandate.


Fair and reasonable is really a matter of opinion, and not something easily agreed to by all. As the sponsor of this resolution, I was hoping that your government's opinion on what is and is not, would help me recommend if this resolution will really result in unfair changes to our business practices.

The reason a public agency would purposefully give preference towards hiring its own citizens, is they are the ones paying for the positions in the first place. Why should Mikitivity Bahn hire citizens from the Most Glorious Hack, if there are Miervatians or Schnauzervolk who need jobs too?

In some countries, veterans are actually given easier access to public sector jobs. This of course is academic in most Mikitivity cantons, since the majority of the cantons have universal conscription (which means most everybody is given this same preferential treatment). However, this does really go back to the affirmative action question. Does giving preference to certain individuals (perhaps because they are citizens, from under represented groups, or even former public employees) result in discrimination against others?

Howie T. Katzman

"This is a simple one, so let's keep it simple. Yes. Wholeheartedly, yes."

-Frank Kava, D-Jersey

Fair and reasonable is really a matter of opinion, and not something easily agreed to by all. As the sponsor of this resolution, I was hoping that your government's opinion on what is and is not, would help me recommend if this resolution will really result in unfair changes to our business practices.

The reason a public agency would purposefully give preference towards hiring its own citizens, is they are the ones paying for the positions in the first place. Why should Mikitivity Bahn hire citizens from the Most Glorious Hack, if there are Miervatians or Schnauzervolk who need jobs too?

I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure there's any way to get around it. Clearly, when you attempt to limit discrimination on unfair grounds- skin color, descent, etc. there is a risk that side-effects may result. But I'm not sure the example you've provided is that much of a problem- simply hire the Hackian contingent on citizenship and tax them like holy hell.

In some countries, veterans are actually given easier access to public sector jobs. This of course is academic in most Mikitivity cantons, since the majority of the cantons have universal conscription (which means most everybody is given this same preferential treatment). However, this does really go back to the affirmative action question. Does giving preference to certain individuals (perhaps because they are citizens, from under represented groups, or even former public employees) result in discrimination against others?

Howie T. Katzman

Preference to under-represented groups is disrcimination in my mind. But then again, over-representation of groups is also disrcimination, because it restricts others from gaining meaningful employment, so there's a double-edged sword paradigm.

And of course, with the inclusion of the "fair and reasonable" part, there's a good bit of leeway in deciding those matters. Giving veterans easier access to jobs isn't unfair- it might be inconvenient for someone, but who ever said that life would be fair and easy?

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador etc.

You don't think atheists and nonreligious people are adequately covered under "belief system"?

AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background;


The Government and peoples of Ingorland cannot support this resolution whilst the Affirming statement includes the word Religious but not Non-Religious. It makes the resolution appear to support discrimination against religious background, more important than discrimination against non-religious background, as if discrimination doesn't occur against people who don't believe in religion.

So the government and peoples of Ingorland continue to vote Against the Fairness and Equality Act.


William Pitt.
Minister for Regional and UN Affairs.
The Grand Duchy of Ingorland.

If you're referring to affirmative action, there really is little in this bill prevent such a practice, so long as it's applied fairly and reasonably in hiring, contracting and admissions policies.

I am not convinced by this. "Affirmative action" is just a euphemism for positive discrimination, which means one group is discriminated against in relation to another for the purposes of social engineering towards a better form of society as perceived by the engineers/illuminati/burocrats/left wing intelligensia/technocrats/whoever.

Therefore this is still discrimination. Discrimination is by definition unfair as one group is treated differently to another. The only way round this is perverse - a social engineer must tell themselves, for example, that black people are intrinsically inferior to white people, and then it is fair and reasonable to discriminate between them!!

Your resolution has the unintended effect of allowing nations to justify any kind of discrimination they like by 'thinking' it is fair and reasonable discrimination.

e.g. Racists think it is fair and reasonable to be rascist!!

This needs sorting out - as it stands it just doesn't work.

Putzi

The Mikitivity Bahn is a government owned and operated rail line <snip>
Then it is a government agency and is thus covered by UNR #99 "Discrimination Accord".

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

What if the religion or belief system calls for the discrimination or worse of a group of people?

The sovereign nation of VirginiaCooper does not appreciate the United Nations' attempts to trample upon what is clearly an issue that should be decided not on the international level, but rather on the national one. We in VirginiaCooper firmly believe that the populous needs - nay, deserves - a government that knows how to take care of them and has nothing but their best interest in mind. To this end, the government of VirginiaCooper reserves the right - the sovereign right of all individual nation-states, not to be augmented by any international bodies - to legislate or practice laws that keep our people safe from Muslims, Christians, Jews, Seventh Day Adventists, blacks, whites, reds, yellows, browns, immigrants, emigrants, ex-pats, re-pats, post-pats, pre-pats and any other undesireables that the government of VirginiaCooper - the only legal body that VirginiaCooper's citizens view as just and deserving of power - decides would bring harm to our great nation.

Fair and reasonable is really a matter of opinion, and not something easily agreed to by all.On the contrary, I think people know very well what "unfair and unreasonable" means, and in the inverse, fair and reasonable. These things do not need definition; they are open to (reasonable) interpretation by member states. Gray areas would obviously be the province of member governments to decipher.

As the sponsor of this resolution, I was hoping that your government's opinion on what is and is not, would help me recommend if this resolution will really result in unfair changes to our business practices.If it's your opinion that words like "fair" and "reasonable" are not easily understood, and hence up to interpretation, then why should my opinion count more than yours? In my opinion, the scenario you are describing is one of those "gray areas" up to interpretation by member governments. With the limited space granted us to legislate, however, we can't possibly account for every single contingency that may arise in the implementation phase. Some things just have to be left up to reasonable nations to interpret.

However...

The reason a public agency would purposefully give preference towards hiring its own citizens, is they are the ones paying for the positions in the first place. Why should Mikitivity Bahn hire citizens from the Most Glorious Hack, if there are Miervatians or Schnauzervolk who need jobs too?This is sounding suspiciously xenophobic. Besides, don't legal residents usually pay taxes too? In my experience, anyone who gets a paycheck is taxed.

In some countries, veterans are actually given easier access to public sector jobs. This of course is academic in most Mikitivity cantons, since the majority of the cantons have universal conscription (which means most everybody is given this same preferential treatment). However, this does really go back to the affirmative action question. Does giving preference to certain individuals (perhaps because they are citizens, from under represented groups, or even former public employees) result in discrimination against others?It only matters if it's "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination. Giving veterans a leg up is not, to my mind, unfair or unreasonable.

*snip*Then vote against.

Then it is a government agency and is thus covered by UNR #99 "Discrimination Accord".For reference, the only rights protected under Discrimination Accord are:

1. The right to protection under law, especially protection from harassment and violence,

2. The right to participate in government,

3. The right to fair judicial proceedings and law enforcement application especially as guaranteed by international law,

4. Any social dividends paid out to or provided for persons or groups deemed by member national or international government to be in social need (unemployment benefits, health care, etc.), including, but not limited to, those social dividends secured by international law,

5. Any other rights granted citizens of a member government by requirement of international law;No mention of employment at all.

What if the religion or belief system calls for the discrimination or worse of a group of people?Your own personal religion or belief system have nothing to do with how the government implements this law. If a government is theocratic, and believes certain groups of people must be subjugated, it nonetheless must halt all unfair and unreasonable discrimination within its jurisdiction.

To this end, the government of VirginiaCooper reserves the right - the sovereign right of all individual nation-states, not to be augmented by any international bodiesYou better resign then. "Augmenting" national legislation is precisely what UN resolutions are designed for; and compliance, may I remind you, is mandatory.

Your own personal religion or belief system have nothing to do with how the government implements this law. If a government is theocratic, and believes certain groups of people must be subjugated, it nonetheless must halt all unfair and unreasonable discrimination within its jurisdiction.

Further explain, please.

The way I see it, a bill of this nature simply deals with discrimination of NATIONS or MEMBERS OF DIFFERENT NATIONS. If it deals with different classes within nations, then your answer should be different.

*snip*


That is a serious misquote.

Putzi

No mention of employment at all.
I think it's safe to say that he can continue his current hiring practices under this resolution using the "unfair and unreasonable" proviso.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to ask the Representative from Mikitivity a couple of questions about these hypothetical Hackians. Would they be Hackian citizens living in the Confederated City States, or are they Mikitivitan citizens of Hackian origin?

If they are Mikitivitan citizens of Hackian origin then what difference would it make? A citizen is a citizen and I can't see why you would discriminate against them because of their place of birth. If they are Hackian citizens living legally in Mikitivity then you could, I guess, exclude them under the "unfair and unreasonable" proviso, but why should you?

The purpose of a railway is to provide efficient transport, not to provide jobs for natives simply because they are natives. I can assure you that in Yelda, these Hackians would be hired if they were the most qualified applicants for the job and they were in the country legally. In Yelda, the trains run on time. We believe it's no coincidence. We would consider an efficient and dependable railway partially staffed by foreign-born employees preferable to an inefficient one staffed 100% by native Yeldans.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Quote: Originally Posted by SchutteGod
"Your own personal religion or belief system have nothing to do with how the government implements this law. If a government is theocratic, and believes certain groups of people must be subjugated, it nonetheless must halt all unfair and unreasonable discrimination within its jurisdiction."


So essentially, this resolution calls an end to all theocratic governments?

*clipped for brevity*

Exactly my feelings. Nepotism rarely results in a well-oiled machine; the defining features of successful states is meritocracy- if the best and brightest want to work in your country, you damn well let them because it's good for you. Ensuring that your system is closed to or gives preferences based on arbitrary or non-essential characteristics is rather silly.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador etc.

We would consider an efficient and dependable railway partially staffed by foreign-born employees preferable to an inefficient one staffed 100% by native Yeldans.
So what do below average intelligence Yeldans born into poverty do for a living? They seem screwed under your system solely for having the hand dealt them by life. Can a nations society not be more sophisticated and less capricious than this, even if the universe is a big cold indifferent place?

In Putzi we prefer those unlucky few born poor and incurably stupid to have something to do, even though we could import some clever foreigners at very attractive rates to do it better.

Putzi

So what do below average intelligence Yeldans born into poverty do for a living? They seem screwed under your system solely for having the hand dealt them by life. Can a nations society not be more sophisticated and less capricious than this, even if the universe is a big cold indifferent place?

In Putzi we prefer those unlucky few born poor and incurably stupid to have something to do, even though we could import some clever foreigners at very attractive rates to do it better.

Putzi

"Below average intelligence?" Seriously? Dumb people shouldn't get perks. Smart people should. Would you rather we have a switch operator who doesn't know the difference between right and left, or one who completely understands the physics behind a steam engine?

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

I'd call that your choice Putzi, no one is going to wrench your arm to convince you on this,

For the benefit of others however, lets see what can be done about that last tear jerking statement.

Clarify a few things for me. Does your government make no allowances for those who are unemployable? Does your government make any sort of effort to educate those who are poor and have "below average intelligence" as you so eloquently put it? Oh, and after education, is the rail service the only industry in your nation? It seems to me, you're finding fault in this resolution where there is none. The faults, it seems, lie in your nation. If the only stop-gap solutions you have enacted fall in conflict with this resolution, I'd advise you to think up some new ones.

Fair and Reasonable are absolutely required language here. If we had absolutes we'd have affirmative action with this resolution. The language of (un)fair and (un)reasonable allow for leeway in the enforcement, but still set a standard to meet.

You can take issue with the words all day. Without them, this resolution would be far to strong. With weaker language, the resolution would be far to weak.

Swallow your medicine and improve human rights for all nations. That's all I'm asking here.

So what do below average intelligence Yeldans born into poverty do for a living?
They work, at whatever job they are qualified for. How did you take what I said and extrapolate it to mean that below average intelligence Yeldans born into poverty are unemployable? Further, if they are so far below average intelligence as to be unable to work we have a well-funded social safety net to take care of them.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

How did you take what I said and extrapolate it to mean that below average intelligence Yeldans born into poverty are unemployable?

I think I have an answer to that. Grasping at straws.
I mean the delegate is clearly misinterpeting the legislation and simply grasping at any possible weak link to have it defeated.

Again, Evoinia supports.

Clarify a few things for me. Does your government make no allowances for those who are unemployable?
We don't have welfare, i.e. money/food/house for nothing, we think it degrades society and creates a sink-estate dwelling underclass trapped in perpetual squalour (OOC: as happens in the real world). Handing out things to people who could sweep the streets or lick stamps or something for a living destroys their dignity and weakens them. If from their perspective they contribute something to society, even if it a very small contribution, that is far better than sitting in a bedsit and watching daytime TV, both for them and for society.

If the state takes away or weakens a persons obligations to society at large with welfare then they become animals and behave like animals.

Does your government make any sort of effort to educate those who are poor and have "below average intelligence" as you so eloquently put it?
As I said in the post above, I am talking about the incurably stupid - i.e. the few who education does not work on, no matter how hard you try. Putzi has a huge education budget (27% of total according to XML feed thingy) and we are very strongly in favour of giving as much of it to everyone as they can take!

Oh, and after education, is the rail service the only industry in your nation?
My points were entirely general and applied to all industries/forms of employment, I did think of spelling this out to avoid confusion.

You can take issue with the words all day.
But that is all a resolution is, words, and not very many of them at that.

My concerns were only raised to try and make the resolution more effective, to give less wriggle room for those who practise discrimination and who from my understanding of it could exploit a loophole to continue doing it.

How else can you improve something if you don't test it and try and find flaws in it? I'm sorry if I appear to be grasping at straws or trying to misinterpret things but my only goal is to work against discrimination. The wording of the resolution genuinely appeared to me to be seriously flawed, with respect to what is fair and reasonable discrimination...

Putzi

Oh, I welcome the attempts to "better" the legislation, however, I believe you are incorrect.

That said, it's best if I point this out as soon as possible. This legislation defines the middle ground. If your nation has it's own problems, it's not going to be fixed or hurt by this resolution. This resolution protects human rights in as strong a way as it possibly can(and still pass).

You want it to be stronger? This is a good piece of legislation. Maybe some of the nations want it stronger, but I'd bet if he did make it stronger, more of the nations would want it weaker. Lets just agree that convincing you isn't a priority.

The "below average citizen" debate is entirely off topic and has no bearing on the merits of this resolution. I would suggest you not waste the time of this body with such trivial examples.

Ausserland has voted FOR the resolution.

While we may not be entirely happy with it, we believe it's basically sound, will do no harm, and may have positive effects. The "unfair and unreasonable" language may bee seen as a loophole, but we can see no way it could be realistically eliminated. Employers can still "discriminate" as long as there is a sound reason for doing so. This is as it must be. We can't force employers to hire the mentally disadvantaged to teach nuclear physics. And we certainly wouldn't make anyone hire a Kennyite for a position requiring a security clearance.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

The "below average citizen" debate is entirely off topic and has no bearing on the merits of this resolution. I would suggest you not waste the time of this body with such trivial examples.
A trivial example is better than this sort of irrelevance:

The purpose of a railway is to provide efficient transport, not to provide jobs for natives simply because they are natives. I can assure you that in Yelda, these Hackians would be hired if they were the most qualified applicants for the job and they were in the country legally. In Yelda, the trains run on time. We believe it's no coincidence. We would consider an efficient and dependable railway partially staffed by foreign-born employees preferable to an inefficient one staffed 100% by native Yeldans.

Which anyway lead to the said debate. You are the pot calling the kettle...

Putzi

Lets cover something here.

The purpose of a railway is to provide efficient transport, not to provide jobs for natives simply because they are natives. I can assure you that in Yelda, these Hackians would be hired if they were the most qualified applicants for the job and they were in the country legally. In Yelda, the trains run on time. We believe it's no coincidence. We would consider an efficient and dependable railway partially staffed by foreign-born employees preferable to an inefficient one staffed 100% by native Yeldans.

Not that I'm particularly bothered by the fact that you just confused me with Mr. Felix.

I would still, however like to point out that I'm you know... not.

It is things like this that made me decide to stay out of the UN. My country has total freedom, and a rule like this would put me back a huge step. I am sorry, but my country needs it's freedom, and not being able to turn down a girl because she can't work as well in a very physical job just doesn't work for me. My country will continue to be free, and progress economically. If that means people can't ride government support and live in poverty, at least they do it freely! There are no laws preventing a poor person from progressing up the economic ladder, the only thing preventing them is their own inability to work hard for their goals.

A trivial example is better than this sort of irrelevance:

Which anyway lead to the said debate. You are the pot calling the kettle...

Putzi
*sprays Putzi with Troll-B-Gone™*

Go away.

Lets cover something here.



Not that I'm particularly bothered by the fact that you just confused me with Mr. Felix.

I would still, however like to point out that I'm you know... not.
Not sure what you're talking about but the discussion of the Mikitivity Bahn and Yeldan social services is getting waay off topic. Let's get back to discussing the Resolution at vote.

*sprays Putzi with Troll-B-Gone™*

Go away.

Praise be. Just in case, could you spray that around the post abit more...
It might ensure the end of this sidetracking trolldom.

Then it is a government agency and is thus covered by UNR #99 "Discrimination Accord".

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

The question still bears answering relative to this particular resolution -- for the reason that THIS is the item currently at vote, not the other resolution. Many of us will likely base our decision based on this resolution, not the others as the other resolution could easily be repealed.

Is it discriminatory for a government to only hire its own citizens? There are obviously numerous examples and reasons why governments would do this ... but the real question is "is this discriminatory".

Howie T. Katzman

My nation is most definitely FOR this proposal.

If it's your opinion that words like "fair" and "reasonable" are not easily understood, and hence up to interpretation, then why should my opinion count more than yours? In my opinion, the scenario you are describing is one of those "gray areas" up to interpretation by member governments. With the limited space granted us to legislate, however, we can't possibly account for every single contingency that may arise in the implementation phase. Some things just have to be left up to reasonable nations to interpret.

However...

This is sounding suspiciously xenophobic. Besides, don't legal residents usually pay taxes too? In my experience, anyone who gets a paycheck is taxed.


Two quick points:

1) the reason a resolution sponsor's opinion matters more than mine, is it helps other governments better gauge the intent of the resolution and thus how they might actually best implement the resolution in good faith. Between you and me, I'd prefer not to just make an assumption of what your government's intent is, when I have a bit of your time right now.

2) xenophobia has nothing to do with it. Taxation is not universally a function of a paycheck. Many nations use property or sales taxes to fund government programs. Yet others issue bonds or stocks and operate more like corporations. Your assumption that anyone who gets a paycheck is taxed is really unique to nations that rely upon income taxes -- and it is an unfair assumption on your part.

The reason the cantons in Mikitivity restrict public service positions to citizens is that one of the functions of these jobs is to bolster the local economy by keeping money spent local. Let's just pretend that immigrant workers started becoming a significant labor force within Mikitivity (which this is highly regulated). These immigrants would spend some of their money within Mikitivity, but would also send large portions of their money abroad. The end result would be a loss of capital.

Now let's pretend that there was a highly skilled immigrant that wanted to work within a public agency ... the applicant could apply for citizenship. The reason this is beneficial to the government, is citizenship is also a form of commitment to a community. While some money will still be sent to the new citizens previous home, he or she would be expected to also come to the aid of his or her new home. New employs, even those with very specialized and coveted skill sets, need to be trained. Training is a long-term investment ... and somebody who has gone to the trouble of gaining citizenship has made a similar investment in a community and thus is much more likely to stick around.

OK, I understand this might not be clear to many ... so let me take this away from "citizenship" and instead talk about this concept of "investment" from a much more personal POV ... that of a company and employee. New employees must be trained in the business practices of their new companies. The training these employees get will makes these individuals much more valuable, so as a company invests more in an employee, they often will pay them more in order to retain their services and benefit from their early training investments. While there are many more different corporate approaches aimed at employee retention as there are ways to fund government (income taxes, bonds, property taxes, sales taxes, use fees, etc.), one of the cheapest and most tired corporate practices is simple loyalty to the company -- something most employers look for when hiring somebody (how long will this person stay here).

A country need not be capitalist to value loyalty ... in fact, controlled economies are just as likely to require that public servants be citizens. While it is true that some nations don't care, the issue at hand is that this resolution potentially could have a negative impact on those that do. Now is that fair? This is the real question.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: I will point out that as a public sector engineer and manager, that I'm not legally allowed to hire people who aren't citizens or legal residents. Here again, is this discrimination against people who do not have a visa??? Legally no ... but in practice this *is* a restriction that is applied to people based on a combination of two things: (1) their national origin, and (2) the fact that they've not yet gotten sponsorship. The natural citizen didn't have to spend years to get the visa, the other did.

I've had several (I'm new to management, so I've only had the chance to hire 3 people thus far) non-legal resident engineers apply to work for me and the State of California who were qualified engineers ... but legally I was forced to tell them that they needed to get a green card first.

The reason public jobs require legal residency is two-fold: (1) the public sector obviously needs to reinforce all public laws (otherwise they would be meaningless), and (2) the public sector is just as interested in employee retention as the private sector. Finally, public sector jobs are *also* used to stimulate local economies. The example many Americans might best understand is how the placement of domestic military bases is distributed throughout the US based not just on strategic objectives, but also economic / political ones. Bases / camps / stations aren't closed based just on their location, but also on the lack of negative impacts to local communities.

See, I think I know where some of the comments like Mikitivity are comming from... They are applying this resolution to the public sector when it is intended for the private sector.

UNR # 99 addresses what your speaking of Mikitivity, as the Delegate from Iron Felix has stated. What your doing is sidetracking this entire discussion.

Now to speak on somethings you've said:

1) the reason a resolution sponsor's opinion matters more than mine, is it helps other governments better gauge the intent of the resolution and thus how they might actually best implement the resolution in good faith. Between you and me, I'd prefer not to just make an assumption of what your government's intent is, when I have a bit of your time right now.


That doesn't really answer the main point of which the SchutteGodian Delegate was speaking towards. From what I see, he was meaning to question the basis of how you could concider such a blatant statement as "fair and reasonable" open to such wide misunderstandings. The Central point then being that if even that is open for debate than why would any oppinion of his truly have weight with you, as you could just as easily 'interpet' (or rather misconstrue) it in another way.

And then the rest of this rant is moot, as it is established that this is about the private and not public sector (that being covered under UNR 99)

This discussion seems to be muddying the difference between citizenship and nationality. Those terms are not synonymous. The resolution says nothing about citizenship.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

See, I think I know where some of the comments like Mikitivity are comming from... They are applying this resolution to the public sector when it is intended for the private sector.

UNR # 99 addresses what your speaking of Mikitivity, as the Delegate from Iron Felix has stated. What your doing is sidetracking this entire discussion.

And then the rest of this rant is moot, as it is established that this is about the private and not public sector (that being covered under UNR 99)

Actually this resolution impacts both the private and public sectors, or are you suggesting that should the other resolution be repealed, that the private sector would then be held to a higher standard of conduct than the public sector?

Ironically that sounds like a form of discrimination, and ultimately how we address this issue should really be identical for either case (which is what my government felt the point of this resolution is ... namely to fix an oversight in the previous resolution).

This discussion seems to be muddying the difference between citizenship and nationality. Those terms are not synonymous. The resolution says nothing about citizenship.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Danke. This point is well taken and can really help address my government's earlier question.

Would it be correct (in the context of just this resolution) to say that a public or private organization *may* base its hiring decisions on citizenship, but not on national origin? If this is not a fair statement, I would appreciate somebody coming up with something along these lines.

Howie T. Katzman

The question still bears answering relative to this particular resolution -- for the reason that THIS is the item currently at vote, not the other resolution. Many of us will likely base our decision based on this resolution, not the others as the other resolution could easily be repealed.
http://209.85.48.12/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Yes, yes. I understand that THIS is the item currently at vote. I also, strangely enough, understand that resolutions can be repealed. Thank you anyway for being kind enough to explain it. Sorry to have brought it up.

Is it discriminatory for a government to only hire its own citizens? There are obviously numerous examples and reasons why governments would do this ... but the real question is "is this discriminatory".

Howie T. Katzman
Since we're talking here about a government railroad I am certain that it would fall under "fair and reasonable", though misguided. I think you can keep your Mikitivitans only hiring practices for your railroad.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

After reviewing the debate to this point, we are convinced that there is no logical reason to oppose this legislation. We are pleased to cast our vote in favor on behalf of Altanar.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

http://209.85.48.12/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Yes, yes. I understand that THIS is the item currently at vote. I also, strangely enough, understand that resolutions can be repealed. Thank you anyway for being kind enough to explain it. Sorry to have brought it up.

Then I trust that you will stop protesting when people ask relevant questions that will help us decide if we should be voting for or against the current resolution?

If it were not for the recent comment brought up by Ausserland, I'd have to say that comments such as yours were not only not helpful in addressing my questions, but came across as sarcastic and rude. This tone is further reinforced by your next quote in which you impose your own value system by calling Mikitivity's national policies misguided.


Since we're talking here about a government railroad I am certain that it would fall under "fair and reasonable", though misguided. I think you can keep your Mikitivitans only hiring practices for your railroad.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

In addition to being insulted by your statement, there are numerous good reasons why many nations require legal residents or citizens for public sector jobs, and if you are seriously interested in debating them, then I'd be more than happy to point to some of my earlier response to other ambassadors. If instead you wish merely to attack those who might seek to discuss various issues concerning discrimination, then frankly you will find that my government will waste no more time with you.

[OOC: I'm not remotely angry at Yelda, but Katzman is now cold towards Felix. Just figured I'd add that since many of you don't really know me from Katzman. As for my debating here, the resolution discussion was really too "Yeah me too!" so I figured I'd toss out a few things to see if people wanted to really talk about the issue. I actually do like the resolution and Katzman very very likely will abstain, like he does on 90% of everything.]

You have none of Ancient Borea's.

Our laws have been passed through generations, and our moral and social boundries remain unwritten but strong. This is the effect of decades of peaceful, loving guidance, and yet our people maintain the moral and otherwise socially important values that years ago they did.

You have no right to pose such bills on us, though we are like-minded that general discrimination is an evil act. I encourage other delegates to give the same nay.

Mikitivity won't hire my workers because he hates libertines :(

Then I trust that you will stop protesting when people ask relevant questions that will help us decide if we should be voting for or against the current resolution?

If it were not for the recent comment brought up by Ausserland, I'd have to say that comments such as yours were not only not helpful in addressing my questions, but came across as sarcastic and rude. This tone is further reinforced by your next quote in which you impose your own value system by calling Mikitivity's national policies misguided.



In addition to being insulted by your statement, there are numerous good reasons why many nations require legal residents or citizens for public sector jobs, and if you are seriously interested in debating them, then I'd be more than happy to point to some of my earlier response to other ambassadors. If instead you wish merely to attack those who might seek to discuss various issues concerning discrimination, then frankly you will find that my government will waste no more time with you.
Allow me to try this one last time. I will ask you a simple question. It is this: Does your government, or more specifically your courts, consider the hiring practices of the Mikitivity Bahn to be unfair and unreasonable?

I shall await your response.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

[OOC: I'm not remotely angry at Yelda, but Katzman is now cold towards Felix.
OOC: Not mad at you either Mik. Felix is just being Felix.

surely the resolution should read there will be no discrimination on the basis of race etc. to give governments opt outs by suggesting that there is a basis for reasonable or fair discrimination is daft.
It is a symptom of the wolly minded thinking of most UN resolutions a resolution should not have opt out clauses it should have teeth, and not be afraid to use them.

You have no right to pose such bills on us, though we are like-minded that general discrimination is an evil act. I encourage other delegates to give the same nay.

The right to make your nation subject to such legislation (or whatever else the UN chooses to pass, for that matter) happened by default once your leaders decided to join the UN. That's kind of what we do here, after all.

I'm also confused...if you're in agreement that discrimination is wrong, then why, exactly, are you opposed to this resolution?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

We, the gov. of the Armed Republic of Cinistra have already voted in this matter. We voted AGAINST. Why?
Well, we find this resolution to be of zero importance because it is a completely useless tool in giving people any rights. However, it is a tool for governments wanting to impose their values and moral upon other states. Cinistra is a independent and free country and will not bow to the will of an "elite" of moralists! We will explain our view:
1) What is meant by "unfair" and "unreasonable"? These value biased words will differ from the perspective of the viewer, and have no universal meaning. If they had, there would be no "unfair" or "unreasonable" treatment, because we ALL would know what is "unfair" and "unreasonable" and what is not. Moral and values are the product of cultural evolution, that is something that life has thought us, and not something that can be debated as true or untrue in theoretical academical terms. If such a solution was found by a majority, it still had to either convince or force the minority to follow. Would that not be an "unfair" or "unreasonable" treatment of that minority's rights?
2). Consequently, because of the intrinsic nihilistic properties of the resolution it will simply implode.
3). Also, the resolution is NEGATIVE. With this we mean it tries to impose a moralistic world view in telling countries what they CAN NOT do. We really can not see how someones rights can be guaranteed with this resolution. If our country does not implement our legal system, what can the UN do about it? Impose sanctions upon us? Well, that would certainly unmask the UN as a instrument in compelling a free country. Voting FOR this resolution will simply give the bureaucrats of the UN power on behalf on the free governments, are thereby restricting everybody's freedom. Cinistra will NOT give in for pressure of this kind.
4). We do, however support POSITIVE resolutions. With this we mean to grant rights that are easily measured, and so can be universal. One example of this would be to grant children right to education. This can easily be measured. When a person reaches the age X it will be granted that right until he/she reaches the age Y. Then this right cease. The UN may easily investigate if this right is implemented in a member state. Another positive resolution is to urge the member states to combat certain diseases e.g. malaria. This can also be easily measured by the UN. A third example is by setting environmental standards, like ensuring peoples right to clean drinking water. This can also be measured. When a body of water contains certain bacterias or toxins below a certain limit it is within that resolution.
So to conclude: YES to positive, universal resolutions. NAY to relativistic, non-universal resolutions.
BE A FREE COUNTRY. VOTE AGAINST.

Although we recognize the good intentions of this resolution and we do agree that stronger anti-discrimination policies should be put into place, We the People of The Hermetic Serpent are voting AGAINST this resolution. We are voting this way on the following grounds.

1. This resolution fails to define many of the words contained therein. (ie lack of definition in "unfair" and "unreasonable".)

2. This resolution inadvertently has a negative effect on civil liberties as a whole as it limits the rights of free speech and freedom of religion by placing an "axe" over the head of individuals, certain religious groups and not for profit organizations, which keeps them in fear of retributions from people merely trying to cause problems.

3. This Resolution prohibits the use of economic and psychological data in order to determine employment suitability and eligibility for private and public programs including the use of Credit (ie a record of a persons Economic and Finicial history) to determine the eligibility for a houses, and other goods which might be out of their price range. This resolution will also allow criminals, thieves, mentally and physically handicapped people to be employed by banks, government agencies, high risk jobs (in the case of physically and mentally handicapped individuals) as well as prohibiting private social clubs the right to determine qualifying qualities for membership to what would otherwise be an exclusive club.

4. This Resolution could be construed as creating an "Open Border" policy and cause nations to house illegal immigrants in fear of retribution from the UN.

In short this Resolution falls short of its aim in creating Social Equality by such an extent as to limit that which it was meant to protect. It takes into too much account for the individual and not the whole of a nation or region. As we all know that what choices affect a nation also affect the Region.

This serves as merely a fluffy bunny love fest resolution which accomplishs little and what it does accomplish is anti-thetical to that which it was trying to accomplish. Unless of course it was merely to make us FEEL like we have made a differnce and make us FEEL all warm and fuzzy inside.

We out right VOTE AGAINST this resolution and will Support any and all repels which come to vote.

Thank you.

for point 1}we all do know what is right and wrong because it is a universal, recording the law is only to remind us of what we already know.

for point 2}that's true if your point 1 is true, but as you can see with my alternative viewpoint... your point 1 is an unproven assumption (so is mine, I admit, but it has the same believability as yours)

for point 3}although I admire your resolve in resisting control from the UN, just what did you think you were getting into? You agree that sometimes you get your way and sometimes you dont. Its the nature of being in a large community where everyone is treated with an equal voice. Respect it, please, we do want your voice of reason to grace our halls. We do not want tantrums which I hope you and I never do in some moment of weakness.

for point 4}if you tilt the resolution to the side, you can see that it can be taken as a positive resolution and that you can vote yes to it.

We graciously respect the verbal battle of our colleague Cinistra.

This is the resolution at vote right now until Wednesday. No question about that. I analysed it, and proven that I have given the green light.

I'm relieved that there is less trouble in our nation and less pressure on the Yes side (led by Danicarinakatarínamília M. L.), unlike the last resolution. In that resolution we debated until the very day before the last, before finally saying yes. It was good in the end, though. Let's hope this will be so, too.

From a delegate, one of those with small regions,

Charlotte Ryberg
The Mind Herself

*Prime Minister Viridio sighs. After a gruesome day of legal battling with the special interest groups of the Legion of Better Toast, he collapsed in his chair only to find that he had to deal with a U.N. resolution.*

Well...This is a very well written proposal, I give kudos to...who is it? Schutte...anyway, I like it. So, I say YES! But I'm not going to officially release it - I'm just too dang...tired...zzzzz...

Alright, my friend Cinistra a couple replies above may have already mentioned what I am about to say, but I will reiterate it for the 2800 people who have voted for this measure, as it is clearly not worthy, with all due respect to the proposers.

Here are some various reasons:

1. AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background

- How would one determine purposeful targeting, and whether it be based on gender, sexual orientation, or religious background?
What is abuse and discrimination defined as under international law?


2. RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

- What kind of anti-discrimination measures and protections? More specifics needed. Also, minority groups and women are only USUALLY the ones discriminated --- there are times when the majority gets discriminated against (i.e. colleges, jobs, etc.) due to the fact that they aren't "special". Also there must be measures so that special treatment of these discriminated groups does not go overboard.



3. REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

- This cannot be enacted internationally --- impossible to enforce; only can exhort a country to do such measures, but there is no way to make members do such. Also, this policy is too microscopic in view --- a nation determines how it attacks discrimination, not the UN. Therefore, this should be on a national scale, not an international scale.


4. SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

- This legislation is still ineffective and too broad and general to be successful in action.


5. NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

- What is this phrase supposed to MEAN? And past legislation which should be repealed does not mean that this should pass now. You cannot base a vote based on what was voted before; that is NOT a good enough reason.


Hereby enacts the following:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

- 1. These are nations.
2. Just try to enforce that in a true nation.
3. Why is United Nations concerned about HOW this is done --- the vote should be on whether or not discrimination be attacked by UN Members, not what discrimination is and how to attack it. That is decided be EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER NATION.


2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states;

- Cannot tell a country what laws to make, only what general action to take. In one country it could be a civil offense, and in another it could be a criminal, and another both. It is presumptuous to assume that a majority of the UN is right in creating specific laws for its fellow members when those laws may be considered too be too severe or not severe enough by the citizens of the member nation.

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.

-But they cannot be any weaker? No, that most definitely construes that the UN has right to make moral laws. And that is incorrect.


This has clearly shown to be a biased, vague, general, and skewed moral judgement that is to be forced upon all nations that make up the UN simply because all that members are thinking is "Discrimination is bad". Well sure it is. But you MUST read the proposal and find the flaws that will make this legislation a useless piece of magical thinking that would force countries to take stronger action than is necessary for a simple thing. This is intolerable, and I vote AGAINST.

:sniper:

The Constitutional Monarchy of North Am is bothered by the emphasis on women and minorities in this piece of legislation. It's highly short-sighted for a law with such long-term and wide-spread consequences. This would allow for "reverse discrimination" against men and majority ethnicities not specifically covered under this legislation. It could create an affirmative action society on a global scale. Women and minorities deserve to be protected equally, so let's keep the wording equal. EVERYONE should be protected by the law equally. Favoring specific groups in a piece of legislation aiming at equality is thoroughly misguided, in our opinion.

We, the gov. of the Armed Republic of Cinistra have already voted in this matter. We voted AGAINST. Why?
Well, we find this resolution to be of zero importance because it is a completely useless tool in giving people any rights. However, it is a tool for governments wanting to impose their values and moral upon other states. Cinistra is a independent and free country and will not bow to the will of an "elite" of moralists! We will explain our view:
1) What is meant by "unfair" and "unreasonable"? These value biased words will differ from the perspective of the viewer, and have no universal meaning. If they had, there would be no "unfair" or "unreasonable" treatment, because we ALL would know what is "unfair" and "unreasonable" and what is not. Moral and values are the product of cultural evolution, that is something that life has thought us, and not something that can be debated as true or untrue in theoretical academical terms. If such a solution was found by a majority, it still had to either convince or force the minority to follow. Would that not be an "unfair" or "unreasonable" treatment of that minority's rights?
2). Consequently, because of the intrinsic nihilistic properties of the resolution it will simply implode.
3). Also, the resolution is NEGATIVE. With this we mean it tries to impose a moralistic world view in telling countries what they CAN NOT do. We really can not see how someones rights can be guaranteed with this resolution. If our country does not implement our legal system, what can the UN do about it? Impose sanctions upon us? Well, that would certainly unmask the UN as a instrument in compelling a free country. Voting FOR this resolution will simply give the bureaucrats of the UN power on behalf on the free governments, are thereby restricting everybody's freedom. Cinistra will NOT give in for pressure of this kind.
4). We do, however support POSITIVE resolutions. With this we mean to grant rights that are easily measured, and so can be universal. One example of this would be to grant children right to education. This can easily be measured. When a person reaches the age X it will be granted that right until he/she reaches the age Y. Then this right cease. The UN may easily investigate if this right is implemented in a member state. Another positive resolution is to urge the member states to combat certain diseases e.g. malaria. This can also be easily measured by the UN. A third example is by setting environmental standards, like ensuring peoples right to clean drinking water. This can also be measured. When a body of water contains certain bacterias or toxins below a certain limit it is within that resolution.
So to conclude: YES to positive, universal resolutions. NAY to relativistic, non-universal resolutions.
BE A FREE COUNTRY. VOTE AGAINST.

for point 1}we all do know what is right and wrong because it is a universal, recording the law is only to remind us of what we already know.

for point 2}that's true if your point 1 is true, but as you can see with my alternative viewpoint... your point 1 is an unproven assumption (so is mine, I admit, but it has the same believability as yours)

for point 3}although I admire your resolve in resisting control from the UN, just what did you think you were getting into? You agree that sometimes you get your way and sometimes you dont. Its the nature of being in a large community where everyone is treated with an equal voice. Respect it, please, we do want your voice of reason to grace our halls. We do not want tantrums which I hope you and I never do in some moment of weakness.

for point 4}if you tilt the resolution to the side, you can see that it can be taken as a positive resolution and that you can vote yes to it.

We graciously respect the verbal battle of our colleague Cinistra.

In response to ShogunKhan:

This is meant to be a positive resolution. The Allied States of Wingapo Allanque recognizes this fact.
However, Cinistra is correct.
And he did not tantrum I'm afraid--- no throwing mud at him for expressing his side.

But this legislation is unrealistically specific in measures, yet much to general and broad on when to implement the measures it suggests.

The UN is not here to suffer through the representation of a piece of law that does not do what intended.

All that is needed is a simple, concise statement that makes the members enact laws that attempt to remove discrimination from their countries. It does not matter how weak or how subtle it seems; it does matter how effective it actually is, and that there simply be steps taken to ensure that the rights of citizens are not being taken away. The specific actions are UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY --- that is all that Wingapo Allanque and Cinistra is saying, and we, along with many others (about 800) implore that the legislation is scrutinized before voted upon. Laws are based on the Written Words and how they are interpreted, not on how each country wants them to be interpreted as; otherwise there will be no action at all.

The right to make your nation subject to such legislation (or whatever else the UN chooses to pass, for that matter) happened by default once your leaders decided to join the UN. That's kind of what we do here, after all.

I'm also confused...if you're in agreement that discrimination is wrong, then why, exactly, are you opposed to this resolution?

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

And for my third, and last point.
This is something that needs to be finalized.
The UN was created, Ambassador, as a means to
determine what the EFFECT of actions a country does should be, not the actual actions, for the last time. This is why legislation that specifies certain action is illegal in this group. To get rid of discrimination is a worthy cause, I agree. What we all are trying to say, though we may not be as "wizened" as you Ambassadors, is that we vote on what the effect of actions (laws a country makes) based off of a cause (in this case discrimination) be. The members of UN have no right to determine what actions each nation takes to strive to reach this effect, this goal. Everyone has a different method of doing things. If Wingapo Allanque got rid of discrimination by massacring the majority, so be it. (I believe then there would be a law made that goes against genocide, so that cannot be done, but that goes against the point.)
If other UN measures allow an action to be taken to reach a goal, a country should be allowed to do it, and not be restricted to the narrow view of a few countries' proposal on how to reach it. This is what frustrates us --- the United Nations are here to reach a goal for each country, not to tell each other how to run our countries in order to reach it. Wingapo Allanque respects the wisdom of Ambassador Ikir Askanabath, but requests the rethinking of his words.

Allow me to try this one last time. I will ask you a simple question. It is this: Does your government, or more specifically your courts, consider the hiring practices of the Mikitivity Bahn to be unfair and unreasonable?

I shall await your response.


Ah, the practice has yet to be tried in any of the cantons, so ultimately this is the question. However, going with your point, the fact that the courts haven't even had to address this, probably means that this is not considered unfair and unreasonable in Mikitivity ... which would suggest we are likely already in compliance. Thank you.



OOC: Not mad at you either Mik. Felix is just being Felix.

OOC: I would have bet some of the finest chesses of Yelda on that. ;) I just figured I was the unknown here, since I've been largely absent.

On another note, some of this debate could be turned into a great "issue" for the game, playing up on private sector hiring practices.

Mikitivity won't hire my workers because he hates libertines :(

Actually it is in part related to the the dreadlocks ... too many Hackers were getting their dreads trapped in the closing train doors and then having their heads ripped off when the trains rushed off to the next station (there is a schedule to be kept). The law suits were just killing the rail lines and people started called Mikitivity Bahn the "Blutbahn", so they decided the easiest way to keep costs down was to just limit employment to citizens, who are taught from early childhood that when the door alarms sound at each station to stand the hell back!

It was either that or installing razor blades on the door edges on the MB U-Bahn and S-Bahn service. And obviously that would only have resulted in short haired Hackers, something that the world is no doubt not ready for yet.

:D I think this Fairness and Equality Act is great! I was sorry to see the other equal rights voted out, and I am fully behind this one getting back in and changing this things for us all:D

why can't one discriminate another religion or belief system? I can understand not judging someone on physical appearances, but I think ones religion or belief system tells a lot about who that person is.

Ah, the practice has yet to be tried in any of the cantons, so ultimately this is the question. However, going with your point, the fact that the courts haven't even had to address this, probably means that this is not considered unfair and unreasonable in Mikitivity ... which would suggest we are likely already in compliance. Thank you.
That is the way I would look at it. If the applicants are not citizens of Mikitivity then the Mikitivity Bahn would be well within its rights not to hire them. It wouldn't be discrimination as defined by this Act, but rather a simple citizenship requirement.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

why can't one discriminate another religion or belief system? I can understand not judging someone on physical appearances, but I think ones religion or belief system tells a lot about who that person is.

Yes, those who follow our way are brave, those who do not, are fearful. Fearful people make terrible decisions about life. When fearful people are in charge, we must placate them before they lead us all to destruction. Then we gently point them the way to bravery and honor, it is an ongoing struggle, but that is what we enjoy: struggle and then inevitable victory! Hooah!

As a conservative, I feel offended that the poll assumes that the Republicans are the only ones capable of evil.

Everyone is capable of Evil... The Republicans just seem to be especially good at it these days. Doesn't this resolution limit the freedoms of individual businesses? Articles 2 and 3 are fine, but Article 1... I say the business owners have the natural right to deny any person service for any reason. I can't agree to this, because of that. It defeats the rights of the individual businessmen.

Chelseia wählt FÜR diesen Vorschlag

Richard York
UN Ambassador

As a conservative, I feel offended that the poll assumes that the Republicans are the only ones capable of evil.Uh, it's a line from "The Simpsons." It was either that or "Welcome to Dick Cheney's America!" *says Principal Skinner as he loots the prep academy for essential school supplies*.

But you MUST read the proposal and find the flaws...

According to people like Iron Felix and Evoinia doing this makes you a troll just like me...apparently if you don't think the sun shines out of the footer of this resolution exactly as it is then you're just making trouble.

I have heard nothing from the FOR crowd that removes my or anyone elses concerns about whether or not "unfair and unreasonable" is a gaping loophole through which discriminators can drive the four horses of the apocalypse.

Is there not a danger here that if the UN, or a UN committee that could be set up by the resolution, does not define exactly and explicitly what forms of discrimination are allowed (if any), that each nation will declare its own existing prejudices to be "fair and reasonable" and therefore legal? So the resolution would not achieve anything as worded?

Putzi

This disallows discrimination based upon physical or mental disability. This is absurd. Saying that there is no distinction between a fully functional human being and a person who is mentally incapable of rational self-determination is, in point of fact, incredibly stupid. Therefore, all nations should vote against this resolution.

this resolution lacks a definition of what "unreasonable" is. it should state that any act of discrimination that is not of a parody nature or "just in fun" for both discriminator and discriminate. the way this bill is, it can be taken as outlawing racist jokes, even against your own race thereby increasing tensions (it is my opinion that lighthearted jokes of this nature bring people closer together). it can also be taken as linching, beating, humiliating, ect. are not "unreasonable" to the person administering the abuse.

in short:"unreasonable" is open to too much interpretation and makes the bill effectively useless.

i shall vote against not because of disapproval of the intention, but so that we don't have to both remove the bill AND propose a new one

This disallows discrimination based upon physical or mental disability. This is absurd. Saying that there is no distinction between a fully functional human being and a person who is mentally incapable of rational self-determination is, in point of fact, incredibly stupid.

Only if those who are mentally incapable of rational self-determination are members of the "general public" (whoever they are...) according to the resolution wording.

So if a nation were to institutionalise or lock-up all such people they would not be part of the "general public" and that nation would be free to treat them differently.

This is worrying to me. Suppose nation X (or company X if nation X is bound by resolution 99 already) currently locks up all people with green coloured skin and so discriminates against them - they cannot be part of the "general public" since nation X does not allow them to be. Therefore nation X can continue to discriminate against them under this resolution!

For this reason using the "general public" in the enacting section of the resolution is very murky wording, "all people" (as used in the affirming bit at the start of the resolution) would be far better.

If you are forced into a concentration camp you are not part of the "general public" anymore and so not protected...isn't discrimination all about dehumanising the victims - i.e. erasing them from normal society in a nation - and consequently away from the protections provided by this resolution?

Putzi

While being generally in agreement with the principals, I suspect that this motion might cast the net a bit too wide.

First off, it seems to me that it stops us from discrimanating against groups that might need discrimenating against -- for example, bigots (since bigotry is arguably a "belief system"); indeed, this law is asking us to discriminate against people who break it, which under some circumstances might well be "unfair and unreasonable". It seems possible the law will make itself illegal if it is passed...

Secondly, and perhaps as a newbie to the UN High Borders is being a bit thick here: who is to decide what is "unfair and unreasonable"? If the answer is "well, high borders has to pass a law enacting the motion, so, you do" -- then I might as well vote yes to everything, because we can define it any way we damn well choose?

Uh, it's a line from "The Simpsons." It was either that or "Welcome to Dick Cheney's America!" *says Principal Skinner as he loots the prep academy for essential school supplies*.

Either way, I feel that this resolution feeds into the 'affirmative action' mentality and should be voted down. No offense, but affirmative action was all fine and good when it was needed but the playing field has been leveled and it's time for people to make it on their own.

You were respectful towards me in your remarks, so I'll return the favor.

The UN was created, Ambassador, as a means to determine what the EFFECT of actions a country does should be, not the actual actions, for the last time.

There are several different schools of thought on "why" the UN was created, and none of them, frankly, seem to agree. So I don't tend to worry about "why" the UN was created, but instead choose to focus on what the UN does, and what it will accomplish, with each resolution at hand. In this case, our government feels that what this resolution will accomplish far outweighs any concerns with what actions it may require.

The members of UN have no right to determine what actions each nation takes to strive to reach this effect, this goal. Everyone has a different method of doing things.

Yes, every nation has its own way of doing things. But by joining the UN, one has chosen to join an international body that passes legislation which all its members agree to abide by. By that act of joining such a body, isn't it fair to say that a nation has given the UN the right to determine what actions a nation takes to achieve goals that the UN membership deems to have international significance? One would hope that nations joining the UN were aware that they were in fact conceding such a right, because as close as I can tell, if there's a reason "why" the UN was created, that would be it.

This is what frustrates us --- the United Nations are here to reach a goal for each country, not to tell each other how to run our countries in order to reach it.

I understand your point, but with respect, if the UN limited itself to setting goals and never telling its member states how they should reach those goals, all the UN would ever do is issue out lofty platitudes with no teeth to them. At some point, you have to set out a mechanism for achieving the desired goals if you're ever to accomplish anything. This may not always result in the desired outcome for some states, but I really do think it's better than the alternative - which is accomplishing nothing.

On a different note, many delegations seem to be objecting to the phrase "Unfair and unreasonable discrimination" in the legislation. Some argue that represents a loophole. Our delegation admittedly had a concern about that as well, but again, you have to look at the bigger picture and what will be accomplished by this legislation. This legislation spells out that discrimination, violence or intimidation based on a person's characteristics will not be allowed in UN member states. Now, if the legislation had set out to try to define what constitutes "unfair and unreasonable", or alternatively, had just flat-out said that all discrimination was banned, I doubt this resolution would have ever had a chance of passing. Even with what we have now, there are quite a few objections to it. Those objections would have been magnified greatly without the phrase. Does it offer a loophole? We don't think it's much of one, even if it is one. We feel that most member states can be trusted to be reasonable in this matter, and those that won't probably would try really hard to find a way around this anyway.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

All this does is make it OK for minorities to discriminate against the larger majority and not the other way around. Since when did any unprovoked violence not get taken care of fairly in this day and age? If this passes, it damn well better be repealed soon after.

Actually this resolution impacts both the private and public sectors, or are you suggesting that should the other resolution be repealed, that the private sector would then be held to a higher standard of conduct than the public sector?

Ironically that sounds like a form of discrimination, and ultimately how we address this issue should really be identical for either case (which is what my government felt the point of this resolution is ... namely to fix an oversight in the previous resolution).

Ok, I am going to hold back my laughter as I speak towards this one...
This legislation was focused on the private sector specifically as the public is covered by UNR # 99. Any problems related to public sector are under that piece of legislation, not this one (if this one covered that it would be in conflict with UNR 99 and deemed invalid, we've went through this several times)

Now, your bumbling questions towards the entire point of the resolution will be delt with:
"are you suggesting that should the other resolution be repealed, that the private sector would then be held to a higher standard of conduct than the public sector?"
Clearly not. If UNR 99 were to be replaced it would likely be improved upon rather than reduced, but this current legislation isn't UNR 99 nor does it replace it in anyway. It replaces the former act which focuses on the Rights of Women and Minorities in the Private Sector.

"which is what my government felt the point of this resolution is ... namely to fix an oversight in the previous resolution"
Clearly again, we are fixing a large number of errors in the previous resolution... But, UNR 99 has not been repealed and deals with most of your gripes, making your sidetracking moot.

All this does is make it OK for minorities to discriminate against the larger majority and not the other way around.
The honoured delegate is clearly reading a different proposal to that which is in front of us. Whilst it is usually minorities that are in need of legal protection, there is nothing in the text which requires that the discrimination take place against a minority.

Since when did any unprovoked violence not get taken care of fairly in this day and age?
From our observations of some other nations, many of which are pleased to regard themselves as civilised, the answer would appear to be "quite frequently."

(OOC: and you don't want people to start on the real world lists. Really, you don't.)

Alright, my friend Cinistra a couple replies above may have already mentioned what I am about to say, but I will reiterate it for the 2800 people who have voted for this measure, as it is clearly not worthy, with all due respect to the proposers.

Here are some various reasons:

1. AFFIRMING the right of all people not to be targeted for abuse or discrimination based upon their gender, sexual orientation, or religious or cultural background

- How would one determine purposeful targeting, and whether it be based on gender, sexual orientation, or religious background?
What is abuse and discrimination defined as under international law?
This is preamble. It states general principles towards which the operational clauses are intended to create or direct law, but it introduces no legislation of itself. Therefore it is not necessary for the terms to be rigorously defined, since it is general agreement of purpose that is sought. In other words, one does not need to determine purposeful targeting in individual cases, only agree that it is undesirable in this context.

2. RECOGNIZING the need for effective international anti-discrimination measures and additional protections for women and members of minority groups;

- What kind of anti-discrimination measures and protections? More specifics needed. Also, minority groups and women are only USUALLY the ones discriminated --- there are times when the majority gets discriminated against (i.e. colleges, jobs, etc.) due to the fact that they aren't "special". Also there must be measures so that special treatment of these discriminated groups does not go overboard.
Again, this is preamble. The measures themselves follow, rendering this entire line of argument moot.

3. REGRETTING that Resolution #99: Discrimination Accord, while outlawing discriminatory practices by nations, may be interpreted as a prohibition of discrimination by governments only, while excluding discrimination by private groups, individuals and employers;

- This cannot be enacted internationally --- impossible to enforce; only can exhort a country to do such measures, but there is no way to make members do such. Also, this policy is too microscopic in view --- a nation determines how it attacks discrimination, not the UN. Therefore, this should be on a national scale, not an international scale.
Once again, this is preamble. The use of the present continuous tense -- implying an existing state of (in this case) thought -- is rather a big hint as to this state of affairs. No legislation is created by this clause, rendering its enforcement trivial.

4. SEEKING to address the failures of past legislation in the area of human rights, much of which has been repealed on the grounds of ineffectiveness;

- This legislation is still ineffective and too broad and general to be successful in action.
Again, this is preamble and thus creates no law, merely describing more of the intent of the operational clauses to follow.

5. NOTING past affirmations of national prerogative on marriage and criminal-sentencing laws, somewhat limiting the scope of this remit;

- What is this phrase supposed to MEAN? And past legislation which should be repealed does not mean that this should pass now. You cannot base a vote based on what was voted before; that is NOT a good enough reason.
On the contrary, ignoring preceding legislation will likely result in the production of a proposal which is illegal, and will therefore not even come to vote. This simply advises readers of the reasons why the operational clauses will not address marriage and sentencing, while amusing those of us who see natural links between the two subjects when thus juxtaposed.

Hereby enacts the following:
Which is of itself a big hint that the preceding clauses were not actively law-making in nature.

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

- 1. These are nations.
We are uncertain what the honoured delegate's point is.

2. Just try to enforce that in a true nation.
We assure the ambassador that the gnomes are very effective in enforcing UN resolutions, and strongly resent the implication that many of those gathered here represent false nations.

(OOC: or in other words, if your point is that real-world nations aren't going to enforce this, it's irrelevant. Also proof by assertion, but that's also irrelevant so let's stop now.)

3. Why is United Nations concerned about HOW this is done --- the vote should be on whether or not discrimination be attacked by UN Members, not what discrimination is and how to attack it. That is decided be EACH INDIVIDUAL MEMBER NATION.
We believe your previous shadowboxing with the preamble to this proposal more than adequately destroys your own argument here.

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states;

- Cannot tell a country what laws to make, only what general action to take. In one country it could be a civil offense, and in another it could be a criminal, and another both. It is presumptuous to assume that a majority of the UN is right in creating specific laws for its fellow members when those laws may be considered too be too severe or not severe enough by the citizens of the member nation.
Not only can the UN tell member nations what laws to make, it has done so regularly in the past. In point of fact, the UN's only mechanism for ensure that something is done is law, and almost every UN resolution either explicitly or implicitly causes changes to national laws. The moment you join the UN, your laws are required to conform to all extant UN resolutions. We fear that this particular flag of national sovereignty is particularly tattered.

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.

-But they cannot be any weaker? No, that most definitely construes that the UN has right to make moral laws. And that is incorrect.
If the honoured ambassador truly believes that, we can only recommend that his nation leaves the UN post haste. The UN has made a number of moral laws, which member nations must comply with. If the ambassador does not wish to be dictated to in such a fashion, his only reasonable option is to depart.

This has clearly shown to be a biased, vague, general, and skewed moral judgement that is to be forced upon all nations that make up the UN simply because all that members are thinking is "Discrimination is bad". Well sure it is. But you MUST read the proposal and find the flaws that will make this legislation a useless piece of magical thinking that would force countries to take stronger action than is necessary for a simple thing. This is intolerable, and I vote AGAINST.
We regret to say that the ambassador's analysis is so badly flawed that no reasonable conclusions can be drawn from it, either for or against the proposal.

:sniper:
This does not make the argument any more convincing. Rather the reverse, in fact.

This disallows discrimination based upon physical or mental disability. This is absurd. Saying that there is no distinction between a fully functional human being and a person who is mentally incapable of rational self-determination is, in point of fact, incredibly stupid. Therefore, all nations should vote against this resolution.
Incorrect. This disallows unfair and unreasonable discrimination based upon physical or mental disability. It is the ambassador of Valinor Ascendant who is being absurd. Where the physical or mental ability of an individual is a reasonable factor in coming to a decision regarding that individual, the resolution does not prohibit consideration of the same any more than (say) it would be illegal for a woman to be denied access to prostate cancer screening services.

Ok, I am going to hold back my laughter as I speak towards this one...

Apparently you also held back your common sense too, because your reply not only failed to address any of my comments (which others managed to do), but you also didn't make any sense.

[OOC: You don't want people to in character flame you, then don't flame others. The bottom line is if a "character" acts like an ass, which your character is doing, he/she opens himself up to the same treatment.]

Not only can the UN tell member nations what laws to make, it has done so regularly in the past. In point of fact, the UN's only mechanism for ensure that something is done is law, and almost every UN resolution either explicitly or implicitly causes changes to national laws. The moment you join the UN, your laws are required to conform to all extant UN resolutions. We fear that this particular flag of national sovereignty is particularly tattered.


OOC: First, I trimmed out the rest of your post, as there are elements of it I agreed with, and others I didn't. But I wanted to focus on this ... how you and many others play the game is really none of my business, but there are also many players that believe that UN resolutions are "recommendations" based in international law. We tend to believe that the UN resolutions to not explicitly change domestic laws, but instead *slowly* change domestic support for similar causes.

While this approach is neither supported nor disputed by the NationStates game mechanics, I wasn't sure if your ambassador was attempting to just speak his opinion on this matter or if you as a player honestly feel the handful of us that take a different interpretation of the game mechanics to heart are "wrong" somehow.

Basically I'd not knowing really where you stand as a player, I just wanted to say that as a player, I do not mind it when other players roleplay that their nations believe the UN sends in lawyers that rewrite their laws, but I do actually strongly object to the idea that anybody other than me really has any creative license over how I should RP. The way I see it ... the strength of this game isn't button clicking, but in having the freedom to think about how *different* societies approach the same problems.

With this in mind, I've actually really appreciated the diversity of opinions on how the UN works and how UN resolutions are implemented to be one of the better parts of the game. Watching other players come up with their own interpretations of resolutions is fun. The creativity employed by many is inspiring at times. :)

Just wasn't sure where you were coming from, but I wanted to offer a different opinion -- one I hope is not viewed as an idea I was to force on others, but rather explain how I play my own nation.

Oh, and I totally think you nailed it that many of this resolutions numbered clauses really were part of the preamble. But it also is easy to mistake numbered clauses for operative clauses, since that is the usual style of writing many of us use.

Cheers! :)

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;

2. Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any person on previously stated grounds shall be a civil and criminal offense in all member states;

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.

There has been growing discussion on this resolution on the subject of what is unfair and unreasonable, a point I raised, but now feel has been politely and adequately addressed. So I'd like to focus on another question ... "what is the scope of this resolution?"

Really the resolution itself is fairly short and direct, but my government's opinion is that the intent is really to prevent discrimination on public services. I've highlighted this in the first operative clause. With that in mind, this resolution does not really tell private businesses who they should interact with private businesses. I would even argue that this resolution does not tell public businesses who they should interact with private businesses.

For example, let us imagine that a nation has a public phone service. Here the national phone service should be provided to all on an equal basis (the costs of course can still be based on the level of service provided ... i.e. not flat "postage" rates). The government phone company shouldn't say, "It is the government policy to prohibit phone service to Violent Gun Fanatics and other lunatic groups."

However, where this is less clear is for a private company that provides a non-essential service to the public. Let's say the Violent Gun Fanatics run a newspaper and declare that they will not provide their newspaper to any churches because they don't believe in organized religion. Is that discrimination? I think most of us would say yes. Is this prohibited by this resolution? I think there might be some differences of opinion here ... and I'd like to open the floor to any civil points of view on this question.

Apparently you also held back your common sense too, because your reply not only failed to address any of my comments (which others managed to do), but you also didn't make any sense.

[OOC: You don't want people to in character flame you, then don't flame others. The bottom line is if a "character" acts like an ass, which your character is doing, he/she opens himself up to the same treatment.]

Your points were answered long ago just by the statement of the fact that this resolution does not cover the same area of subject as UNR # 99. Nearly everything you've said is based on the assumption that this resolution is targeted at the public service as well as private. Which this resolution cannot be or it would conflict directly with UNR # 99. Many of us have said this to you, several times, yet you fail to grasp that. So if anyone has taken a leave of anything, dear sir, it would be you.

OOC: He's an ass and he expects the same treatment.

OOC: He's an ass and he expects the same treatment.

[OMC]
Our rules are flexible enough to recognize role-playing attitudes, but some of our players are not. You need to tone it down, because we're really not interested in IC flamewars. Thanks.
[/Official Moderator Comment]

Your points were answered long ago just by the statement of the fact that this resolution does not cover the same area of subject as UNR # 99. Nearly everything you've said is based on the assumption that this resolution is targeted at the public service as well as private. Which this resolution cannot be or it would conflict directly with UNR # 99. Many of us have said this to you, several times, yet you fail to grasp that. So if anyone has taken a leave of anything, dear sir, it would be you.

OOC: He's an ass and he expects the same treatment.

IC:
In my post before you replied, I copied in red the relevant text that clearly explains why this resolution targets public and private sector activities. Since you clearly have not read the resolution, I'll repeat it for you once more:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states ...

Cable companies, hotels, private airlines, public airlines, utilities, libraries, hospitals, schools, etc. all provide something to the general public. No distinction is made in the operative clause that the public sector is excluded from this clause. This resolution impacts both the public and private sector, despite what its preamble has mistakenly lead you to believe.

You really need to get off your high horse and actually read things before you continue to accuse people of things you've clearly not done yourself, because frankly in my opinion you do not really know what you are talking about.

OOC:
In real life, the idea of an arrogant, abrasive, diplomat is far less common than more political, polite, diplomatic ones. I would like to challenge many of you by suggesting that it is far more interesting to attempt diplomacy first instead of just making up stupid things in order to pick fights. The resolution debates rarely have a large impact on the final vote, because many players don't come by here.

How many of you really think we'll attract more players here when we have a bunch of make believe jerks yelling at each other?

I don't.

The United Socialist States of The Noble Star, while acknowledging the importance and significance of this resolution, does raise the same concern as other sovereign states i.e. the definition of "unfair and unreasonable."

As the United Socialist States fear that this clause is wholly open to the interpretation of each member states, how do we, then, ensure that a modicum of universally accepted standard of treatment be observed? After all, a Noble Starian might well be discriminated in, say, Mikitivity simply because he/she is a Noble Starian. If, that is, the government of Mikitivity chooses to do so on the grounds that by their own national standards, such treatments are both fair and reasonable.

Be that as it may, the United Socialist States supports this resolution while at the same time urging other member states to consider a further resolution defining "discriminatory acts" and "unfair and unreasonable discrimination."

Altonfyr Claddana
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to the United Nations
The United Socialist States of The Noble Star

:mad: Now at first this sounds like perfectly good Act to pass, I mean why vote against it, right? Well let me tell you why. Now is a generally good idea, I mean equality is great....to a point. I mean think about it, this would mean that if a gay guy came up and wanted to be hired as a waitress, the employer would be forced to hire him! The employers would have no choice on who they hire or what kinda people they want to surround there-self with and have working for them! I think that the government of a nation should let private groups, business', and organizations have their own say on who they hire or don't hire or who they love or despise. To do other wise would be imposing on there rights. They may not be allowed to attack or other wise harm them in any physical way
(or anything that would normally be unlawful ) just because they don't like what they are or are part of, but they should have control over who they hire or let into their organizations. The government should not let any one break the law in anyway toward a fellow citizen for any reason be it for dislike of a certain group or any other reason, but at the same time the government of a nation should not tell it's citizens what to think and how to feel! Also there's the violent groups like muslims, who's "religion" involves killing people or other wise braking the law.:mp5: These religious groups that "believe in" breaking the law can not be allowed! As long as a group or religion's practice's/beliefs involve breaking a nation's laws, they should have the right to make it illegal or belong to such religions/groups! Other wise they get special powers to make exceptions to use their "religion"/"beliefs" to brake laws and harm other citizens. Then the citizens wouldn't be secure within their own nation and there could even be small wars and conflicts within a nation because "it's their beliefs that certain people (such as "infidels") must die" or must pay! So no, I strongly believe we can not let this come pass. Now I know that it's entirely possible that the person who wrote this just completely didn't think about those angles and affects, but as is, this can not be allowed to pass. Perhaps an Act that would still leave rights to the people and business' and the right of member nations of the UN to not have a religion that brakes their laws in anyway but also keeps in check rasism and such would be a good idea. But please as it is, do not vote for it! Thank you - The Concerned Nation of Gervia

The United Socialist States of The Noble Star, while acknowledging the importance and significance of this resolution, does raise the same concern as other sovereign states i.e. the definition of "unfair and unreasonable."

As the United Socialist States fear that this clause is wholly open to the interpretation of each member states, how do we, then, ensure that a modicum of universally accepted standard of treatment be observed? After all, a Noble Starian might well be discriminated in, say, Mikitivity simply because he/she is a Noble Starian. If, that is, the government of Mikitivity chooses to do so on the grounds that by their own national standards, such treatments are both fair and reasonable.

Be that as it may, the United Socialist States supports this resolution while at the same time urging other member states to consider a further resolution defining "discriminatory acts" and "unfair and unreasonable discrimination."

Altonfyr Claddana
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to the United Nations
The United Socialist States of The Noble Star

I believe Ambassador Claddana has clearly stated why this resolution does not currently infringe upon individual governments: the ultimate decision still lies with domestic interpretations of unfair and unreasonable. This is a point my government actually likes.

And I'd like to reaffirm that in the hypothetical case presented by Ambassador Claddana, a valid point I think we should consider has been added to our discussions. In most nations, if one person were to claim they were discriminated against, we'd ultimately turn to our own domestic legal systems before asking outsiders to make a judgment if a real case of discrimination occurred. But should there be cases in which other legal systems should have some say?

With that question in mind, I'd suggest that if there is an interest in having another resolution define unfair and unreasonable types of discrimination (I feel the basic idea of discrimination is probably dealt with in adequate detail in this and other existing tenants of international law), that it would be best to limit the scope of that other resolution to something that has a more international focus and justification.

Howie T. Katzman

I mean think about it, this would mean that if a gay guy came up and wanted to be hired as a waitress, the employer would be forced to hire him! The employers would have no choice on who they hire or what kinda people they want to surround there-self with and have working for them! I think that the government of a nation should let private groups, business', and organizations have their own say on who they hire or don't hire or who they love or despise.

Welcome to the UN forum, and please continue to feel free to speak your nation's opinons on these matters. :)

Based on my interpretation of the resolution, it would not impact either the public or private sectors hiring laws, but just on how they serve the public.

Using your waitress example, which is a good one ... let's say that your business was ethnic and wanted its waitresses to also be ethnic (condition A). Now let's say that this same business only wanted to serve people of that ethnicity (condition B).

The resolution only deals with serving the public, so condition A is fine. Your Thuvian Fondue Hut (a popular dish in Mikitivity) could hire large chested blonde women to serve cheese and beer to people and still be legal.

However, if the Thuvian Fondue Hut refused service to Hackers, on the grounds that their dreadlocks kept getting in other customers fondue orders (condition B), that *might* be considered unfair by your government. Ultimately, there are two decisions:

1. Is a public or private service being provided. If it is not a public service, then this resolution's scope is limited, so there is no problem.

2. Was the action unfair or unreasonable (per clause 1)? This decision is left up to domestic courts.

If the action was violent, then actual criminal charges should also apply (clause 2).

The final clause just says that nations can go even further if they want.

Well first I'd like to thank you for the rolling out the welcome mat:) And second, I wasn't necessarily talking about this act changing who business' hire, but who they DON'T hire. Like in the real life in U.S California, if a gay came and wanted to be hired, the employer would HAVE to hire the gay or be shut down for discrimination against gays! I'm very concerned about this, I do not want this to happen in my nation. It's bad enough that it has to happen in real life, I'd like to correct mistakes made and not repeat them.

Based on my interpretation of the resolution, it would not impact either the public or private sectors hiring laws
Um...it doesn't? Just because it would allow your government to hire citizens only for a Government Owned Railroad does not mean it can be interpreted as "not impacting public or private sectors hiring laws".

Two things must be considered here:

1. The Resolution at vote does not mention citizenship at all.
2. The hiring of citizens only for a government owned railroad could easily be considered "fair and reasonable".

How do you then take those facts and extend them to the hiring practices of a restuarant in Gervia?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

First things first...
"Hey you abstainers!!!!! Keep out of my Liquor Cabinet! If you're going to abstain, get you own! I only open the tap for those willing to cast a vote.:p:D

Now on to other matters.....

"Even though human rights proposals give me a rash, I will be voting for this one, as I really don't want a fluffy to write one more intrusive."

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Well first I'd like to thank you for the rolling out the welcome mat:) And second, I wasn't necessarily talking about this act changing who business' hire, but who they DON'T hire. Like in the real life in U.S California, if a gay came and wanted to be hired, the employer would HAVE to hire the gay or be shut down for discrimination against gays! I'm very concerned about this, I do not want this to happen in my nation. It's bad enough that it has to happen in real life, I'd like to correct mistakes made and not repeat them.

I believe my colleague the Excellency Ambassador of Gervia misunderstood the point of the resolution.

In his example, he cites that if a person of certain sexual preference applies for a job, he/she would have to be accepted, otherwise the proprietor of the establishment where the individual in question applies could be charged with discrimination. I don't believe this is the case.

See, the meat of the matter lies in the phrase "fair and reasonable." If the applicant is rejected, regardless of his/her qualifications, simply because of their sexual preference, that would constitute "unfair and unreasonable" discrimination. Our national law has ensured that all citizens of the United Socialist States will be protected from such practices. However, if that person was rejected because of his qualifications, regardless of his or her sexual preference, then I suppose there is no case of discrimination.

The potential pitfall, and thus the need for another resolution to augment this one, is that "fair and reasonable" is really subjective i.e. dependent on local sentiments, culture and beliefs. It also depends on the ideology of the establishment. As such, the United Socialist States believe that the protection extended by this resolution to the citizens of member states is inadequate at best. As it is, the resolution still allows widespread discriminatory practices in individual countries under the excuse that under the local culture, such practices are accepted as the norm, and thus "fair and reasonable."

Altonfyr Claddana
Ambassador Plenipotentiary to the United Nations
The United Socialist States of The Noble Star

Based on my interpretation of the resolution, it would not impact either the public or private sectors hiring laws, but just on how they serve the public.

The resolution only deals with serving the public, ...Just out of curiosity, you did catch the part of Clause 1 dealing with employment, yes?

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states, including discrimination based on a person's gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical/mental disability or condition, age, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or gender orientation;


I agree with all of these provisions save for the "age" clause. Does this mean that if a 30 year old gets hired over an 18 year old--both having the same attributes/qualifications-- because he's older is considered discrimination? An older person almost always has more wisdom and experience than a younger person. Just because a 12 year old kid can be a super genius, smarter than most adults, doesn't make him socially and emotionally adept in everyday life.

Archduke Mattamo will withhold his vote until this is made clear.

There has not been an instance in my life that I was pleased in discriminatory actions against others, but this bill if focused on all the wrong places. It says that any discriminatory act against another race, sex, etc. is basically a hate crime and is to be punished that way. As much as I hate racism, I am against this bill. Its not to WHOM the misdead is against its that fact that there WAS a misdead. Racism is only part of a larger whole, a single category. Therefore, this "Fairness and Equality" shouldn't be based on race, but any form of harrasment or offense against any person or persons.

You state that you can not discriminate when hiring people.

Based on education among others. I don't want a high-school drop out flying my airplane. Nor do I want someone who is retarded.

I would like to see you add a measure to stop this from happening, It is a shame but unless this is addressed I can't vote pro. For the publics safety I say no.

The rest of the bill is good though. It is a shame.

Um, I don't think the bill says anything about qualifications, intelligence or education level; it only specifies discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation and all that good stuff. Read the proposal again, particularly the fine print in Clause 1.

After careful deliberation, the democratically elected government of Pandapajamastan will be casting a vote FOR this resolution.

Senator Luri Zanth
UN Representative 1

This is a Utopian proposal, with no basis in reality. The only thing that this will do is fill up the courts with ill concieved cases. And fill the pockets of the lawyers involved. Get the Government out of our lives and we would not need to whine about Fairness and Equality.

This is a Utopian proposal, with no basis in reality. The only thing that this will do is fill up the courts with ill concieved cases. And fill the pockets of the lawyers involved. Get the Government out of our lives and we would not need to whine about Fairness and Equality.

The UN is not government getting into your life, it is several governments who agree upon processes that they will all implement. It is a legislative entity, not a government. Don't mix domestic issues with international ones....

Of course if what I say dont make sense, me still recuperating from drinking binge over in another thread and my head is pounding right now...

OOC: First, I trimmed out the rest of your post, as there are elements of it I agreed with, and others I didn't. But I wanted to focus on this ... how you and many others play the game is really none of my business, but there are also many players that believe that UN resolutions are "recommendations" based in international law. We tend to believe that the UN resolutions to not explicitly change domestic laws, but instead *slowly* change domestic support for similar causes.

While this approach is neither supported nor disputed by the NationStates game mechanics, I wasn't sure if your ambassador was attempting to just speak his opinion on this matter or if you as a player honestly feel the handful of us that take a different interpretation of the game mechanics to heart are "wrong" somehow.
(OOC throughout, naturally)

To be perfectly honest, I had never noticed your different interpretation. It never even occurred to me that a different interpretation was possible, given the direct effects that UN resolutions have on national stats.

The real trouble with this approach is that I can't square it with the whole business of compliance being mandatory. Well, actually I can't square any approach with what little I know of the game mechanics, but all my practical experience suggests that all the fine words in the world make absolutely no difference without the backing of some form of authority. If UN resolutions don't translate straight into national law in some way (frequently optional, given the amount of URGING that gets done these days), and there is no supra-national court to appeal to (which enough people have been very firm about in the nearly-a-year I've been around to convince me of), then exactly nothing is going to change.

There are also one or two resolutions which have words to the effect of "nations shall make laws that..." This one, for example, is pretty definite that breaking it is to be a civil and criminal offense, which implies national legal backup.

Basically I'd not knowing really where you stand as a player, I just wanted to say that as a player, I do not mind it when other players roleplay that their nations believe the UN sends in lawyers that rewrite their laws, but I do actually strongly object to the idea that anybody other than me really has any creative license over how I should RP. The way I see it ... the strength of this game isn't button clicking, but in having the freedom to think about how *different* societies approach the same problems.
That isn't quite what I believe either. I take more of the approach of how the EU is *supposed* to work -- nations are supposed to alter their national laws to bring them in line with UN resolutions. Just how that alteration happens is entirely the business of each nation individually, as long as the Gnome on the Clapham Omnibus would agree that they were complying with the letter of the resolution. Yet another reason for over-detailed resolutions being a bad thing!

Prince Rhodri is a bit stodgier than that, and a lot less imaginative when it comes to getting around disagreeable resolutions. I can see this causing me problems in the near future, since there are some things on the horizon that the Gobbannaeg just flat-out aren't going to accept.

With this in mind, I've actually really appreciated the diversity of opinions on how the UN works and how UN resolutions are implemented to be one of the better parts of the game. Watching other players come up with their own interpretations of resolutions is fun. The creativity employed by many is inspiring at times. :)
No argument from me here!

Just wasn't sure where you were coming from, but I wanted to offer a different opinion -- one I hope is not viewed as an idea I was to force on others, but rather explain how I play my own nation.
It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work for me.

There has not been an instance in my life that I was pleased in discriminatory actions against others, but this bill if focused on all the wrong places. It says that any discriminatory act against another race, sex, etc. is basically a hate crime and is to be punished that way. [snip] Therefore, this "Fairness and Equality" shouldn't be based on race, but any form of harrasment or offense against any person or persons.
We think the ambassador to have missed the "etc" in his own analysis.

Bills like these create tyrranny by majority. If a majority of nations support a bill, it will be forced on people who want to run their nations in different ways. The United Nations have greatly overstepped their authority. The Allied States of Anti-Power vote Against this resolution.

One thing I need to note since I am expecting the UN gnomes to pay a visit:

Why is discrimination both a civil and criminal case? Does that mean that not only can the racist pay $50,000,000 for offending someone, but also have to spend years in prison as well? That just sounds...uh...bad. Double jepodary and all.

Luckily for the racist (and unluckily for all freedom-loving people everywhere), since all the racist has to do is provide a REASON for their racism: "I hate so-and-so due to socio-economic conditions that compel me to believe in this way, or I have been vicitimized for far too long, needing to empower myself, or, let be perfectly honest, I alway wanted to redirect my internal hatred onto the outside world and that guy standing right over there looks like a nice target"...the racist can go scot-free without any problems.

Just out of curiosity, you did catch the part of Clause 1 dealing with employment, yes?

That was my original objection when I was talking about hiring for the public sector, which is just as impacted by this resolution ... perhaps you remember that.

But then I reread your clause 1 after your objections to my questions ... closer analysis of the text suggest that the resolution scope is really limited to activities (the exact word used was "services") that are geared towards the general public.

The resolution could have been better worded. Sorry, but its meaning is at times really muddy ... which is why I've never felt inclined to move my "neutral" position towards one of support. If anything, the attitude with which many proponents attack others has really soured my government's neutral position.

OOC: Sorry kids, when diplomats continue to attack the middle ground, they'll find they have fewer and fewer members of the middle wishing to associate with them.

Um...it doesn't? Just because it would allow your government to hire citizens only for a Government Owned Railroad does not mean it can be interpreted as "not impacting public or private sectors hiring laws".

Two things must be considered here:

1. The Resolution at vote does not mention citizenship at all.
2. The hiring of citizens only for a government owned railroad could easily be considered "fair and reasonable".

How do you then take those facts and extend them to the hiring practices of a restuarant in Gervia?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Simple, I'm not talking about citizenship at all in my reply to Gervia. Please reread my reply and acknowledge that as far as my government is concerned, citizenship as a condition for consideration of employment is legal as far as this resolution is concerned.

Instead, the text of this resolution's first clause really is focused on listing a few services, such as housing, that are provided to the general public, should be made available to all.

The real issue is, this resolution could have been better worded. As it stands, it is confusing. First, a number of nations are under the assumption that this resolution only applies to the private sector (when in fact, there is nothing in any of the operative clauses that single out the private sector, while there are elements that specifically focus on the public sector):

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states,...

The way I (and no doubt other governments might) view the above text is to translate to read:

*Noun*
Discrimination in:

*Object*
- employment,
- housing,
- education, or
- services,

*Adjective (technically a noun modifier)*
provided to the general public

*Verb*
should be prohibited

*Adverb*
all member states

In this case the adjective modifies discrimination.

The above may not be the intent of the resolution, but this is what is ultimately going to passed along to the law makers of all the nations that got tired of visiting the UN debates due to fear of having cranky ambassadors who attack any position that does not agree with them yell at them.

Here I'll point to my own government's position, which was neutral ... but is quickly starting to loose patience with this group.

OOC: Seriously, look at the UN resolution debates in many off-site forums. They are often much more civil, and people are more receptive to ideas that aren't their own. :( I've not once TOLD people how to vote here, nor attacked their positions, but have from my first post defended my questions and impressions ... and in the case of citizenship even adapted. Earlier I said, that I understand some player's characters are assholes ... but I honestly don't even like interacting with fictional assholes, and will probably stop interacting with those nations entirely.

Unfair and unreasonable discriminationWe did not read in the proposal anything to say what this is. Would it be considered reasonable and unfair to keep a person out of a job position because they are not citizens of our nation? As we see this opens the door to non citizens crying discrimination when they have every chance to follow our laws to become a citizen yet refuse to do this. As citizens people get certain things over non citizens because of who they are.. We don't see our nation as a welfare state providing free work, health care, and other things to those who don't live here and work to pay for them in their taxes.

You may call it discrimination when we boot a person back to where they came from when they don't have funds to support themselves and start to burden our society. We call it common sense and self survival..

Unprovoked violence against or intimidation of any personAnyone who is here in our nation is protected by our laws as well as must follow them. Regardless of their citizenship here or in another nation.. So part two means nothing to us.. and probably means nothing to many nations if they have laws in place on assault or abuse or whatever.. as most do not carry clauses to exclude certain groups of people thus they cover all groups.

3. Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse already enacted by member states.And since this one says nothing realy about nations making any laws if they have non then they don't have to make them by this and can go on doing as they are. This is a lot of fluffy talk to start with and does little more than some of the other efforts to stop discrimination.



So we say no to this one.

Instead, the text of this resolution's first clause really is focused on listing a few services, such as housing, that are provided to the general public, should be made available to all.

I don't believe that is what it is suggesting at all. What the clause states, in perfectly clear terms, is that unfair discrimination shall be prohibited, not that those services should be "made available to all." We may be using different definitions of the word discrimination, but I doubt we are.

The real issue is, this resolution could have been better worded. As it stands, it is confusing. First, a number of nations are under the assumption that this resolution only applies to the private sector (when in fact, there is nothing in any of the operative clauses that single out the private sector, while there are elements that specifically focus on the public sector):

Absolutely not. The only people who have misread this resolution or been confused by the wording are those who haven't spent enough time reading it. You state yourself that "there are elements that specifically focus on the public sector." This is in no way "focusing on the private sector." Did you intend to contradict yourself? It certainly goes to reason that if those representatives that believe this focuses only on the private sector didn't read enough into the text to see that this is not the case.

The way I (and no doubt other governments might) view the above text is to translate to read:

*Noun*
Discrimination in:

*Object*
- employment,
- housing,
- education, or
- services,

*Adjective (technically a noun modifier)*
provided to the general public

*Verb*
should be prohibited

*Adverb*
all member states

In this case the adjective modifies discrimination.

Your analysis is mistaken. Let's look again at the text:

Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states,...

Discrimination in the areas of: "employment housing, education," and the provision of "services provided to the general public." I take this to mean services such as post, food service, notaries public, education, etcetera. "Services" and "public" does not automatically mean "the public sector." The government may provide services such as post, banking, and other such services. Discrimination in all such services it prohibited. Your reading is unnecessarily narrow.

The above may not be the intent of the resolution, but this is what is ultimately going to passed along to the law makers of all the nations that got tired of visiting the UN debates due to fear of having cranky ambassadors who attack any position that does not agree with them yell at them.

I do not take kindly to ambassadors suggesting that they are the only enlightened providers of reasoned debate in these halls. It is certainly disingenuous, and says more to the character of the ambassador than his government's position.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

OOC: Seriously, look at the UN resolution debates in many off-site forums. They are often much more civil, and people are more receptive to ideas that aren't their own. :( I've not once TOLD people how to vote here, nor attacked their positions, but have from my first post defended my questions and impressions ... and in the case of citizenship even adapted. Earlier I said, that I understand some player's characters are assholes ... but I honestly don't even like interacting with fictional assholes, and will probably stop interacting with those nations entirely.

OOC: I point you to the forums of the some of the feeders and gatesville, which have an alarming tendency to be filled not with reasoned debate but knee-jerk radicalism and ridiculous pedantry based on ill-founded dogmatic nonsense. This is certainly not the case on all sites, but there are precious few bastions of reasoned debate on the off-site forums.

Don't forget that some of us enjoy roleplaying, too. Not everything has to work according to someone's arbitrarily prescribed concepts about how a "good ambassador" should act. It's just a game. :)

I do not take kindly to ambassadors suggesting that they are the only enlightened providers of reasoned debate in these halls. It is certainly disingenuous, and says more to the character of the ambassador than his government's position.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens


And yet, this is exactly what you just did!

I have not once TOLD you how you should interpret the resolution, but have stated time and again, what my analysis provides. Read my post again ... as I clearly state in reply to Iron Felix, "The way I (and no doubt other governments might) view the above text is to translate to read:" This is in direct response to somebody ASKING me how I view the text. This is not me telling YOU how to read it, but how I do.

Again, my reading is taken from a direct sentence diagram of the first clause. There is still NOTHING in this resolution's actual operative clauses that mention the private sector, but it does talk about services provided to the public. Proponents for this resolution have suggested (on record) that only the private sector is impacted.

The bottomline is that this resolution and its debate have a number of issues which my government is uncomfortable with.

The first problem is routed in the belief some have that its text does not impact the public sector. There is no differentiation on *who* it impacts, suggesting it targets both. One proponent (I forget the name) rudely insisted that this resolution only applied to the private sector and accused me of sidetracking the debate by bringing up the public sector. I've previously previously pointed out how it impacts services provided to the public. Other proponents seemed content to not jump down that ambassador's interpretation, but instead have focused on alienating those who were undecided or opposed.

My second problem with supporting this idea isn't the text itself, but rather the debate. It has been brought up by many others: unfair and unreasonable are pretty vague. Personally, I (and hence my government) like that. It passes the decision making to national governments (yeah sovereignty), but what bothers me is how proponents aren't selling this as a merit of the text. It is unclear to me if they really see this as a selling point or weakness, and my government would like to know where proponents sit on the sovereignty related aspects of this resolution.

Third, I've yet to see any significant debate as to the international significance / standing of this resolution. At best, this seems like another attempt for the social / political opinions of some to stand upon others. While there are, in my government's opinion, situations where international consensus on an issue like this is important, the preamble did not stand out to me as selling this idea as important enough for the UN.


Mikitivity is voting against this resolution.


OOC: I point you to the forums of the some of the feeders and gatesville, which have an alarming tendency to be filled not with reasoned debate but knee-jerk radicalism and ridiculous pedantry based on ill-founded dogmatic nonsense. This is certainly not the case on all sites, but there are precious few bastions of reasoned debate on the off-site forums.


OOC:
I've found plenty of places of reasoned debate on the off-site forums, included the feeder forums (North Pacific in particular comes to mind as a very friendly region). Generally I've found in places where RP is less prevalent, that people are actually less likely to take offense to the ideas promoted by others. Even when somebody of a different political opinion has come by ... for example, the Texas region is conservative ... I'm actually not really, but when I've posted my opinions there, I've always been treated politely. In that particular forum, the players focus on the ideas, not the individuals -- the result is a debate that tends to be more along the lies of "I don't like" or "I think" instead of "You moron, you can't read to save your life, you are so wrong, so let me tell you how you need to think next".

The resolution could have been better worded. Sorry, but its meaning is at times really muddy ...You know what? You're absolutely right. The language really is fuzzy and ambiguous. Suppose it had been worded in ... this-wise?:

1. Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment, housing, education or access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states,...That way, the intent of the text would have been clear on its very face. And member nations would know unmistakably that:

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment ... shall be prohibited by all member states."

and...

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in ... housing ... shall be prohibited by all member states."

and...

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in ... education ... shall be prohibited by all member states."

and...

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in ... access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states."

So much for that. Maybe next time kids.






OH WAIT.

Sorry, but we really don't see any ambiguity here at all. "[P]rovided to the general public" is clearly an adjectival phrase which modifies the noun "services".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

You know what? You're absolutely right. The language really is fuzzy and ambiguous. Suppose it had been worded in ... this-wise?:

That way, the intent of the text would have been clear on its very face. And member nations would know unmistakably that:

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in employment ... shall be prohibited by all member states."

and...

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in ... housing ... shall be prohibited by all member states."

and...

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in ... education ... shall be prohibited by all member states."

and...

"Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in ... access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states."

So much for that. Maybe next time kids.






OH WAIT.

Your example interpretation really helps illustrate part of the problem my government has with this resolution. You made a choice to only attach "public" to the last of the four items, whereas I attached the condition to each item.

If your interpretation is the "only true" way to read the resolution, why are all instances of employment, housing, and education "protected" from discrimination, but only services available to the public "protected" from discrimination?

Why the distinction? Can a university practice discrimination if it is a private university?

I suspect this was never the intent of the resolution, but based on one way of looking at things, that is what is being suggested. Normally access to a university would fall under "education" and thus be protected, but based on your interpretation of the fourth criterion private services aren't protected? Does one criterion override the other? This point remains confusing, and is exactly why I stated the adjective applies to all four items: education, housing, employment, and access to services.

My government sees a list of four things:

- education
- housing
- employment
- access to services

all of which are protected and all of which are limited to something provided to the public. When the item does not concern the public, it is not a focus of this resolution. This isn't to say that this resolution doesn't impact the private sector. It just is limited to impact public services offered to the private sector (and education, housing, and employment are just three named services in a long list of services).

It is a matter of record in this debate that my government's initial focus was EXACTLY on the nature of how this resolution would impact the public sector. Specifically if you will spend the time to go back, you'll see that I asked how this resolution would impact public owned rail lines (as an example).

Sorry, but we really don't see any ambiguity here at all. "[P]rovided to the general public" is clearly an adjectival phrase which modifies the noun "services".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Why would this adjective, public, be applied to only one of four objects in the sentence???

Because that's how grammar works?

Wall of text containing, as far as I can tell, a grammar lecture.
A beaten, bloody and soaked Felix enters the General Assembly.

I have heard enough of this! I have been nearly eaten by a monkey and am in no mood for condescending lectures from amateur grammarians! Perhaps your lessons will be appreciated by the fish!

Felix seizes Howie T. Katzman and throws him out the window. He lands, with a tremendous splash, squarely in the middle of the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool.

I will not condone or support any legislation with same sex orientation.:upyours:

Some godmode not worth reading.

And then Felix awakens from a dream, realizing that once again he has dreamed he threw somebody out of a window, and yet it did not happen. Somehow he senses that sadly his dream will never come true.

OOC: You want to toss characters out a window, do it on your own characters. I'll respond to your godmoding with some of my own.

Because that's how grammar works?

"- We will judge you on scale from one to ten, one being the highest
+ No, ten's the highest.
- Why is ten the highest?
+ Cause it's the hightes!?"

:headbang: :)

OOC: You want to toss characters out a window, do it on your own characters. I'll respond to your godmoding with some of my own.
OOC: Mik, you need to lighten up. Felix throwing someone out a window is the UN forum equivalent of a pie in the face. Nobody has ever been killed by it. In fact, I only recall one person being injured and that was because Aki set fire to him before throwing him out. I then RPed putting the fire out.

I honestly don't know what you're trying to accomplish in this thread. Your posts are increasingly sounding like lectures. It's as if you have decided, in your benevolence, to come down off of the mountain and atempt to enlighten all of us troglodytes. I mean, has it ever occurred to you that you sometimes come across like a teacher addressing a group of particularly dim-witted students?

And yet, this is exactly what you just did!

Ambassador Katzman, this is the first time I have ever met you in my life. I'll tell you that when someone condescends to me, I feel the need to let them know their fault. Forgive me for that.

I have not once TOLD you how you should interpret the resolution, but have stated time and again, what my analysis provides. Read my post again ... as I clearly state in reply to Iron Felix, "The way I (and no doubt other governments might) view the above text is to translate to read:" This is in direct response to somebody ASKING me how I view the text. This is not me telling YOU how to read it, but how I do.

What is the point of simply making continued statements about the meaning of something if you don't expect challenge or debate? It strikes me as silly to not be debating about things in the General Assembly. I have listened to your interpretation of the text, considered it flawed, and endeavored to show you how I think it is such. What is reprehensible about that? You are providing your analysis, and I am providing a critique of that analysis.

Again, my reading is taken from a direct sentence diagram of the first clause. There is still NOTHING in this resolution's actual operative clauses that mention the private sector, but it does talk about services provided to the public. Proponents for this resolution have suggested (on record) that only the private sector is impacted.

And I have critiqued your diagram of the sentence as flawed! A good debater doesn't simply ignore challenges that are inconveneient, he answers them! You have now stated that various proponents and opponents have said this and that about the resolution, and though you have been directly challenged on these assertions you resort instead to complaints of the insincerity or poor character of the ambassadors here.


The first problem is routed in the belief some have that its text does not impact the public sector. There is no differentiation on *who* it impacts, suggesting it targets both. One proponent (I forget the name) rudely insisted that this resolution only applied to the private sector and accused me of sidetracking the debate by bringing up the public sector. I've previously previously pointed out how it impacts services provided to the public. Other proponents seemed content to not jump down that ambassador's interpretation, but instead have focused on alienating those who were undecided or opposed.

Again, this is a falsehood. The resolution makes no distinction between who provides services or theother things mentioned, making a distinction between public and private irrelevant. I will also point out, again, that "services provided to the public" doesn't mean "public sector." It means exactly what it says- services provided to the public. I'm not addressing that ambassador's points because they are unimportant- I consider yours more worthy of attention.

My second problem with supporting this idea isn't the text itself, but rather the debate. It has been brought up by many others: unfair and unreasonable are pretty vague. Personally, I (and hence my government) like that. It passes the decision making to national governments (yeah sovereignty), but what bothers me is how proponents aren't selling this as a merit of the text. It is unclear to me if they really see this as a selling point or weakness, and my government would like to know where proponents sit on the sovereignty related aspects of this resolution.

Unfair and unreasonable were left intentionally vague to prevent strict constructionist readings of the text! Flexible definitions provide the best way to address unforseen issues- laying down a strict code or what unfair or unreasonable means restricts the applicability of the text.

As for the sovereignty part, I can't address that. I'm not seeing this as a pro-sovereignty" text, but perhaps I'm not reading it in the same way as you are.

Third, I've yet to see any significant debate as to the international significance / standing of this resolution. At best, this seems like another attempt for the social / political opinions of some to stand upon others. While there are, in my government's opinion, situations where international consensus on an issue like this is important, the preamble did not stand out to me as selling this idea as important enough for the UN.

I simply disagree, that's all there is to it. This is definitely an issue for the UN.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

OOC:
I've found plenty of places of reasoned debate on the off-site forums, included the feeder forums (North Pacific in particular comes to mind as a very friendly region). Generally I've found in places where RP is less prevalent, that people are actually less likely to take offense to the ideas promoted by others. Even when somebody of a different political opinion has come by ... for example, the Texas region is conservative ... I'm actually not really, but when I've posted my opinions there, I've always been treated politely. In that particular forum, the players focus on the ideas, not the individuals -- the result is a debate that tends to be more along the lies of "I don't like" or "I think" instead of "You moron, you can't read to save your life, you are so wrong, so let me tell you how you need to think next".

OOC: I did, in fact, say that there are some boards which are very enlightened. But there are many which are simply shouting matches or ridiculous behavior.

But you missed my point- there are different styles. It's just a game. Enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it anymore, don't play.

Both a civil and a criminal offense? What? Why?

Can (should?) the UN be dictating the specifics of both civil and criminal law to this extent? Why would discrimination be a dual offense, and not just one? Seems inefficient. Also doesn't take into account systems with different interpretations/administrations of law and judgment; it assumes all legal systems are split between civil and criminal courts, although their may be more divisions with more specificity, or there may only be the single court. If that clause just said "discrimination is hereby criminalized" it would be a better blanket, and less messy.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

If I understand this crimianal would be when they toss someone out a window because they have green eyes, blue hair, and grey skin, and are a neomorph... The act of throwing them out to the fish is criminal then the lawsuit that follows from the fish that had their waters poluted by this is civil... Thus two separate actions having nothing to do with discrimination but other actions.. thus in no way we feel is related to the issue of discrimination as the guy got tossed got justice if the person who tossed them out window went to prison and then the fish got justice if somebody paid to clean up their waters and compensate them for any damages done.

Thus the fellow still got tossed out a window and it may happen again and legal actions will be taken as long as their are laws in place to cover it. Legal action not related to discrimination or dealing with it is not nor should be messed with here in this.. as they are separate matters for nations to decide what they should be and act accordingly to deal with. Just as they should act accordingly to deal with out and out discrimination.. You shoot somebody it murder it doesn't matter why they did it or who did it who got shot,, murder is a crime, hang the SOB that murders...

We understand that the clock is running out for a vote and time is of the essence so, the people of Magsemdom give their approval to this resolution. We would, however, like to see an amendment of sorts made to better define unfair and unreasonable discrimination. Overall this resolution was great and was certainly needed.
Charollete Truce,
Magsemdom Ambassador to the UN

For the NO party, there's always an option to repeal.

For the YES party, I'm very confident that it will work.

Charlotte Ryberg gives balanced views, but on balance, we stay with YES for your information.

Both a civil and a criminal offense? What? Why?

Can (should?) the UN be dictating the specifics of both civil and criminal law to this extent? Why would discrimination be a dual offense, and not just one? Seems inefficient. Also doesn't take into account systems with different interpretations/administrations of law and judgment; it assumes all legal systems are split between civil and criminal courts, although their may be more divisions with more specificity, or there may only be the single court. If that clause just said "discrimination is hereby criminalized" it would be a better blanket, and less messy.You know, you can only be held accountable for an offense in civil court if someone decides to sue you over it. This merely protects the victims' right to sue.

We understand that the clock is running out for a vote and time is of the essence so, the people of Magsemdom give their approval to this resolution. We would, however, like to see an amendment of sorts made to better define unfair and unreasonable discrimination. Overall this resolution was great and was certainly needed.Thank you for your support, but it's a bit late. You can't amend a passed resolution. Most reasonable people can agree on what discriminatory practices are "unfair and unreasonable"; it's not like the words have an ambiguous or cryptic meaning or anything.

Unfair. It's too loose of a word. We're gonna need to make a revision of this...

Ladies and Gentlemen of this esteemed council,

Whereas I agree that this measure is put to vote for good reasons, the downsides of such a measure are too much for us to pass.

How can we tell a religion that it cannot discriminate against homosexuals, when homosexuality might be against it's laws? How do we tell a religion that men and women are equals, if one of it's main tenants are that women are better than men?

In government practices, it is good that we choose not to discriminate for these reasons.

Private practices, on the other hand, should be allowed to make up it's own rules in such matters, and let the market decide.

If we don't like the business ethics of a company, don't buy their products. They'll either go out of business, or change their ways.

Let the market decide. Keep our beliefs out of non governmental bodies.

Thank you,

Ikho Ralbach
First amongst equals, Atheioscopy

The way I (and no doubt other governments might) view the above text is to translate to read:

*Noun*
Discrimination in:

*Object*
- employment,
- housing,
- education, or
- services,
At this point we must stop you and observe that you have inserted a comma where none previously existed. Had that comma been present in the original text, your argument would be water-tight. Since it is not, your interpretation becomes supposition that we find highly implausible, not to say a little desperate.

Is wrong, you put there the MENTAL condition, but in fact you MUST to forbid to a crazy men to work in a explosives factory... its so huge that loose the point.

If the mental condition were not in the proposal I vote yes, but I cant for that, will be NOT.

At this point we must stop you and observe that you have inserted a comma where none previously existed. Had that comma been present in the original text, your argument would be water-tight. Since it is not, your interpretation becomes supposition that we find highly implausible, not to say a little desperate.

My point then is unclear ... I hope this hypothetical example better illustrates the problem with the text of the resolution:

A muslim child applies to enroll at a private catholic school that has room for only 4 more students. The catholic school denies the child, claiming that the private school is only for catholic children.

The muslim child sues the school saying this is clearly discrimination according to this resolution. The case goes to the court system. Before the courts rule on "unfair and unreasonable", let's see if the child's claim has legal grounding under this resolution to appear before the court:

Q: Since this is about "education", but also about "access to a service that is NOT
provided to the public", does the first clause apply?


A-1: If the intent of education in clause 1 includes both public and private, then this would say that churches aren't allowed to set up schools with closed (non-public) enrollment.

A-2: If the intent of education is limited to only services that are open to the general public, then the school would be legal to turn away the child.


Why would both private and public education be protected from discrimination, but the clause "access to services provided to the general public" be limited to just public services?

This is like saying, "Religious based schools can't discriminate in favor of their religions, but golf clubs with private memberships (one of many examples of services not offered to the general public) are allowed to discriminate?"

Why would both private and public education be protected from discrimination, but the clause "access to services provided to the general public" be limited to just public services?For the last time, this is not about "public services"; if a private company provides services to the general public, they cannot discriminate either. This is not intended to force (for example) private men's clubs to admit women, but it does apply if, say, a business owner told potential customers, "We don't serve your kind here." Even if he is a private business owner, if he provides a service to the general public, he cannot discriminate that way.

As for schools, discrimination in education is outlawed outright; it does not specify public vs. private schools, so I don't know why you'd ask. I doubt a private women's school would have to admit men, because fair and reasonable discrimination is still allowed.

Most reasonable people can agree on what discriminatory practices are "unfair and unreasonable"; it's not like the words have an ambiguous or cryptic meaning or anything.

...

You're making the assumption that reasonable people will always be the ones making policy decisions, which is extremelly dangerous. Furthermore, you're assuming a large degree of congruency between public-opinion and the opinion of policymakers, which is extremely rare. Also, there are few words that are more ambiguous, and I weep for you if you cannot see that.

What you're saying isn't really that "reasonable" people can agree on what constitutes "unfair and unreasonable," but that the type of human you personally consider reasonable can make the distinction. You're an irredeemable fool if you think that everyone agrees on what is fair or reasonable. And what of those who are disagree with what you consider fair and reasonable? Are they allowed to influence policy in the future, or will you exclude them on the basis of their failure to listen to the logic you deem worthy of attention? And what will be done with these dissenters? Will it just be the exclusion or would you like gulags with that?

The perverted reason which props up this bill is the type used by Robespierre, Hitler, Bush, Muslim and Christian fundamentalists alike, and thousands of other men who will burn in the fires of history's rebuke. Nations, DO NOT allow the U.N to dictate what is moral to you. DO NOT submit YOUR autonomy, YOUR reason, AND YOUR good sense in the name of a misconstrued and half-assed attempt at social justice. And lastly, DO NOT allow another to define justice, for when that power is sacrificed, all others soon follow.


Euripidesia cries NO, NO to this sick mockery of justice, and NO to this resolution. All nations who treasure their freedom will do likewise.

For the last time, this is not about "public services"; if a private company provides services to the general public, they cannot discriminate either. This is not intended to force (for example) private men's clubs to admit women, but it does apply if, say, a business owner told potential customers, "We don't serve your kind here." Even if he is a private business owner, if he provides a service to the general public, he cannot discriminate that way.

If men's clubs are allowed, why not men's restaurants? By extension, why not white resteraunts? It seems like all a business owner must do to duck this resolution completely is openly declare the basis on which he discriminates, so as not to be accused of serving the "general public." Another reason why this bill is faulty and must not be passed.


As for schools, discrimination in education is outlawed outright; it does not specify public vs. private schools, so I don't know why you'd ask. I doubt a private women's school would have to admit men, because fair and reasonable discrimination is still allowed.

Tell me, exactly how is preventing someone's education simply because they have a penis fair and reasonable? This is just proof that the phrase "unfair and unreasonable" is so laughably ill-defined as to allow for any number of dissonant interpretations, were the resolution intended to be formative to honest debate. However, it seems it is the unfortunate and most misled hope of the proponents of this particular mockery of justice that judgment of what constitutes "unfair and unreasonable" is to be done by an elite group of policymakers, completely removing from meaningful participation the vast majority of people, from whose consent, it appears I need to remind some select individuals, any reasonable government derives its legitimacy.

Euripidesia stands in staunch opposition to this assault on liberty. If freedom has not perished from this earth, we know we shall not stand alone.

For the last time, this is not about "public services";

No problem -- I will not dispute your interpretation of your resolution. But I'd like it to go on record that my interpretation is vastly different and consider "services provided to the general public" to mean public services:

Unfair and unreasonable discrimination in ... access to services provided to the general public shall be prohibited by all member states...

While we in HawaiianFreedom admire the efforts on behalf of SchutteG-d to propose a resolution that tries desperately to prevent discrimination, we feel its wording is not descriptive enough to actually be effective. "Unfair and unreasonable discrimination" is too subjective as written and needs a more specific definition so as to be an accepted interpretation by everyone. "Unprovoked violence or intimidation ... on previously stated grounds" I seriously doubt that previously stated grounds is specific enough to be a direct pointer to the first enactment. It could very well be referring to previous resolutions because of its broad diction. The third enactment says that additional or stronger protections against discrimination shall not be denied. If a nation thought that allowing the consumption of lollipops was enough of a protection, it would have covered all 3 enactments and ditch the rest of the resolution.

In conclusion, we find this resolution is far too ineffective to be passed, which if let through as is would prevent better legislation from being given the opportunity to close these huge loopholes.

Therefore we in HawaiianFreedom are voting against this legislation.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

If men's clubs are allowed, why not men's restaurants? By extension, why not white resteraunts?Oh, I don't know... perhaps because restaurants provide a service to the general public, and private clubs do not?

It seems like all a business owner must do to duck this resolution completely is openly declare the basis on which he discriminates, so as not to be accused of serving the "general public." Another reason why this bill is faulty and must not be passed.Nope. Sorry. We're not bound to break our backs legislating for unreasonable people. Moderator caselaw clearly states that resolutions must only be written in a way to apply to reasonable interpretation of the text. Anything beyond that is only a demonstration of the interpreting nation's depravity, not the legislator's failure to foresee ridiculous applications of international law.

Euripidesia stands in staunch opposition to this assault on liberty. If freedom has not perished from this earth, we know we shall not stand alone.Yeah, spare me the melodrama, buddy. You're no Patrick Henry.

A-1: If the intent of education in clause 1 includes both public and private, then this would say that churches aren't allowed to set up schools with closed (non-public) enrollment.

A-2: If the intent of education is limited to only services that are open to the general public, then the school would be legal to turn away the child.Why do this with churches as an example of who gives the education? What about those that do the Home School? What if I decide my children should be schooled by you with your children? As most Home Schooling covers subjects given in public school as well as subjects covered in church schools regarding the religion. Thus can I cry foul if you refuse to Home School my children with yours? As it would be discrimination to exclude my children because you are not the parents of them. So is it reasonable to assume you have to eductate my children with yours in a Home School setting?

We understand that the clock is running out for a vote and time is of the essence so, the people of Magsemdom give their approval to this resolution. We would, however, like to see an amendment of sorts made to better define unfair and unreasonable discrimination. Overall this resolution was great and was certainly needed.
Charollete Truce,
Magsemdom Ambassador to the UN



You can't amend so in order to add such one would have to repeal this and rewrite a new one then get it passed. I suggest if you want it corrected vote against it and let the writer resubmit it with those corrections you seek in it. Rather than see this one go into effect with no clear definition of that seciton that is poorly explained.

Why do this with churches as an example of who gives the education? What about those that do the Home School? What if I decide my children should be schooled by you with your children? As most Home Schooling covers subjects given in public school as well as subjects covered in church schools regarding the religion. Thus can I cry foul if you refuse to Home School my children with yours? As it would be discrimination to exclude my children because you are not the parents of them. So is it reasonable to assume you have to eductate my children with yours in a Home School setting?No, the first thing that should have clued you in was that only "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" are prohibited. Refusing to teach other people's children in a home school setting is both fair and reasonable.

homeschooling vs private schooling vs public schooling....

any of them can work if done so with wisdom, any of them can fail as corruption and unreasonable people control them.

This law should not fall because some are trying to mix administrative practices of one type with another. Each situation should be judged by the reasonableness of that particular setting. One can not codify every possible situation, we must use the lens of intent of this law to see how to apply it on unusual circumstances.

We don't believe that this should justify the negation of this law because one unusual circumstance that may or may not occur and that it is not covered explicitly in the law.

We Ceasar, The Emperor of ShogunKhan have spoken. Now, do pay attention.

Hooah!

*the good but slightly unwholesome Senator looks up from his wild Turkey induced nap. His eyes are bloodshot*

"With all the bickering, semantic defining and other sheer Jusuit sophisitry going on I cannot take it anymore!"

With that statement Sen. Sulla gets up from his desk, and runs towards a window!
"Hasta la vista, Baby! See you in the Funny papers!", he yells as he throws himself out the window and does a triple Lindy with a double sommersault into the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Quick!!! To Sulla's liquor cabinet as he is distracted away from it!!!

Quick!!! To Sulla's liquor cabinet as he is distracted away from it!!!

*Shandreth gasps in horror, raising his hands to ward off evil*

"No! No! Don't be fooled! The Senator's eye is always on his booze! He will slay ye!"

Felix, wandering aimlessly about the General Assembly carrying a bottle of vodka, 27 vodka martinis in carryout cups and a roll of bandages, had just about given up on finding any olives for his quest (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=678&view=findpost&p=7140725).

Just then, he sees the good but slightly unwholesome Senator Sulla perform a self-defenestration, leaving his liquor cabinet unattended. Felix quickly assesses the situation and takes action.

" There will be olives there! I am certain of it."

Seeing that Sulla's staff is distracted by the Senator's dive through the window, Felix opens the cabinet and begins rummaging around through its contents. He finds bottles of Wild Turkey, bottles of club soda, bottles of gin, bottles of tonic water, bottles of vodka (verry good! Felix is impressed), bottles of brandy, mason jars containing a clear liquid of some sort, several firearms and bottles of various and sundry other liquors...but no olives.

He looks some more and finally finds what he is looking for. Behind some boxes of .45 ACP ammunition there sits a jar of olives. Felix grabs the jar, giggles like a schoolgirl, and rushes out of the General Assembly. He leaves his bottle of vodka, 27 vodka martinis in carryout cups and the roll of bandages sitting on Senator Sulla's desk.

*The short man sighs and finishes his mimosa*

Welcome nanny state, I guess. Whatever happened to freedom?

No, the first thing that should have clued you in was that only "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" are prohibited. Refusing to teach other people's children in a home school setting is both fair and reasonable.
Why is it fair for that? And not all are as reasonable as you might be. I fully understand what you might mean but there are those that don't and thus LAWSUITS come up and some poor group ends up broke trying to keep from paying some outrageous legal fees to clear their names for doing what is FAIR and REASONABLE. You didn't catch the part of lawsuit in the earlier comments. As it cost to go to court and clear ones name, a lot more in some cases for some companies than just money. This opens a door for LAWSUITS based on I think it reasponable that you teach my kids in your home school.. beacuse my kids need an eduction just as yours does and you are providing the one best suited for them. Look at some of the problems now with folks wanting to be able to get funds to select where they send their kids to school because public schools are not up to par.



OOC: Congrats on this being passed... as I agree with it in real but role have to play my part and not.

lawsuits? why not try duels? much more efficient.

With that statement Sen. Sulla gets up from his desk, and runs towards a window!
"Hasta la vista, Baby! See you in the Funny papers!", he yells as he throws himself out the window and does a triple Lindy with a double sommersault into the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool.Isn't today the day they drain the pool to clean it. And I'll have some of that Palentine Rum..

*The short man sighs and finishes his mimosa*

Welcome nanny state, I guess. Whatever happened to freedom?

It came with responsibility. Unfortunately they seem to have become separated during the party, and now it wants a lift home.