NationStates Jolt Archive

This subject was brought up in the discussion of Librustralia's "Freedom of Speech Act". It is a subject which I feel merits its own discussion, which hopefully will lead to UN action on the matter.

A little over a year ago, St Edmund wrote and submitted a proposal called "Rights for Intelligent Beings". It would have extended the rights granted by UN human rights resolutions to intelligent non-human species.

The original discussion can be found in this thread, along with a similar draft by Community Property:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499157

The text of St Edmund's proposal is as follows:
Rights for Intelligent Beings

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

RECOGNISING that it has already passed a number of resolutions that conferred or confirmed ‘Human Rights’ in various respects,

REALISING that it might pass further ‘Human Rights’ resolutions in future, too,

RECOGNISING that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not actually ‘Human’ (if that term is taken to mean just “members of the biological species ‘Homo sapiens’) but who possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for that species,

REALISING that some nations do not regard intelligent non-‘Human’ beings as deserving comparable rights to members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’,

BELIEVING that species should not be considered adequate justification for unfair discrimination between intelligent beings;

1. DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings, of any origin, who possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’”;

2. RECOGNISES that many types of Sapients possess various innate physical and/or psychological differences from the species ‘Homo sapiens’, and that in some cases these would actually make granting those beings exactly the same rights as are specified for the members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’ unfair in itself;

3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all Sapients as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where their types’ innate differences from the species ‘Homo sapiens’ would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair;

4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares any UN-guaranteed ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair for any type of Sapients to grant those Sapients alternative rights, of a more appropriate and fairer nature, to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;

6. ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, ordinary observation, and common sense — any disputes that might arise about whether or not specific types of beings are ‘Sapient’, whether denying specific rights to any specific types of Sapients is justifiable, and whether whatever alternative rights have been suggested instead in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;

7. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to abolish any unfair discrimination between sapient beings on the basis of species that their laws might allow in any matters that are not covered by UN Resolutions;

8. ACCEPTS that, except in any cases where any previous UN Resolutions that are still in force specify otherwise, nations may choose to make the possession of some or all civil rights dependant upon the acceptance of appropriate civic responsibilities.
This is a very good proposal and it covers a subject that I am very interested in seeing addressed by UN law. If the government of St Edmund would like to revive this project then I offer my full support. Otherwise, it is something that I may try to tackle myself.

Discuss!

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

EDIT: Latest draft found here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13333676&postcount=103

Rights for Intelligent Beings

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

NOTING that this organisation has already passed a number of resolutions concerning human rights, and that it is likely to pass other such resolutions in the future,

RECOGNISING that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not actually ‘Human’ (if that term is taken to mean just “members of the biological species ‘Homo sapiens’) but who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence and an ability to make judgments that approach, match or even exceed the average for humans,

REALISING that some nations do not regard intelligent non-human beings as deserving the same rights as members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’,

BELIEVING that species should not be considered an adequate justification for unfair discrimination between intelligent beings;

1. DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings of any origin who, individually or as indicative of a species or genetic group or other catgeory of comparable scope, possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’";

2. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all Sapients as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all rights that are guaranteed or urged for humans by UN resolutions, and to grant them all of the rights that those resolutions grant to Humans, unless they possess innate physical and/or psychological differences from typical members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’ that would actually make doing this unfair in itself;

3. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares any UN-guaranteed rights inappropriate and/or unfair for any type of Sapients to grant those Sapients alternative rights, of a more appropriate and fairer nature, to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;

4. ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, ordinary observation, and common sense — any disputes that might arise about whether or not specific types of beings are ‘Sapient’, whether denying specific rights to any specific types of Sapients is justifiable, and whether the aforementioned alternative rights suggested in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;

5. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to abolish any unfair discrimination between sapient beings on the basis of species that their laws might allow in any matters that are not covered by UN Resolutions;

6. ACKNOWLEDGES that, except where any previous UN Resolutions that are still in force specify otherwise, national governments have the right to make the possession of some or all rights by people within their nations dependant upon the acceptance by those people of appropriate and reasonable responsibilities.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised

We applaud the esteemed representive for bring this proposal to the attention of the General Assembly. We wish to second Chairman Dzerzhinky's proposal to reconsider it and bring it back up for vote.

Our nation is blessed with a species that, while not human, is we believe of profound sapience--our Sanrio kittens. Their behavior, though inscrutible to many, has been our model and guide for centuries, even unto our nation's current distress. Through our Prophet, they have declared that they will not abandon us even as our people scatter to the four winds. Accordingly, accompanying each Kawaiian tribe into exile has been a colony of kittens.

We know, however, that while the Sanrio kitten is revered by our nation, people from other lands may not be as familiar with them. It is a grave concern to us that some folk, for reasons of their own, may seek them harm.

[It is at this point that the Kawaiian Nuncia shoots a pointed glance at Commander Chiang over in the OMGTKK delegation.]

We therefore whole-heartedly endorse this proposal and wish it speedy passage.

We're pretty apathetic - aren't there important things we could be doing, really? - but we would certainly hope any such endeavour would be strictly limited to biological sapients; we could do without the nauseating headache of the toaster rights lobbyists gearing up.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Yes, I have decided to be an asshole about this. From an OOC standpoint, clearly, I hope this idea progresses.

I agree with this resolution totally, and state that it should be extended to non-biological organisms as well, like robots, if they acheive AI status.

One problem: You define the floor of being called an "intelligent being" as having around the same intelligence as a Homo Sapines. What about beings who still deserve rights but do not have the same intelligence of "pure" Humans (say, orcs, for instance)? How can you ensure their rights can be protected?

Our nation has granted citizenship to animals and bacterium, and we do hope that this resolution paves the way for animals and bacterium in other nationstates to be granted equal rights.

One problem: You define the floor of being called an "intelligent being" as having around the same intelligence as a Homo Sapines. What about beings who still deserve rights but do not have the same intelligence of "pure" Humans (say, orcs, for instance)? How can you ensure their rights can be protected?

Our nation has granted citizenship to animals and bacterium, and we do hope that this resolution paves the way for animals and bacterium in other nationstates to be granted equal rights.

(OOC comment)

I set the threshold as "approaching" the level for Homo sapiens because setting some such limit seemed advisable -- to prevent arguments about cats, dogs, toasters, and so on -- and that was the only one I could think of that would be both readily-recognisable and 'legal'. If you can come up with a better definition then I'd be pleased to see it.
I'd say that the intelligence of Orcs is (at least) "approaching" that of Humans, and that they'd therefore qualify for rights.
In practice, under this proposal as under any of the alternatives that I've seen, deciding who was or wasn't on the list would be up to (a) the relevant UN committee, & (b) common sense.

"Sapient rights/Rights for Intelligent Beings"

How can the UN be expected to debate, let alone vote on a proposal which in no way will include UN delegates?

Oh goody! I can bring my nation's foul mouthed aquatic defenders to the debate.:D

IC COMMENT: If you can come up with a better definition then I'd be pleased to see it.

DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings, of any origin, who EITHER possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens”, or is in control of at least one nationstate that belongs to the UN;

Changes in bold. Not really that good of a definition, but it would be nice to have that there, just in caes there is a being who has self-awareness, free will, and have levels of intelligence, but does not have the same IQ as a human.

I know you can make the argument that if a Fish can press the button stating "Join the UN", then it does apporach the average for members of the species 'Homo sapiens', but I rather keep the thing there just to ensure there is no loopholes.

(OOC Comment: If you want, disregard everything I say, due to the fact that my nation is a left-wing nutjob. :D As it stands, it is a good resolution.)

The original text is a little bulky to my eyes, and I think we need a more objective standard in the definition. I took the liberty of changing the draft a bit.

RECOGNISING that it has already passed a number of resolutions that conferred or confirmed ‘Human Rights’ in various respects,

REALISING that it might pass further ‘Human Rights’ resolutions in future, too,

RECOGNISING that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not human, but who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and an ability to make judgments that approach, match or even exceed the average for that species,

REALISING that some nations do not regard intelligent non-human beings as deserving comparable rights to members of the species homo sapiens,

BELIEVING that species is not an adequate justification for unfair discrimination between intelligent beings;

1. DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and an ability to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;

2. RECOGNISES that many types of sapients possess various innate or apparent physical and/or psychological differences from the species homo sapiens,

3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all sapients as legally ‘human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where the aforementioned differences would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair;

4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares said ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair to grant those sapients alternative rights of a more appropriate and fairer nature to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;

6. ESTABLISHES the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, empirical observation, and common sense — any disputes regarding the application of the term 'sapient'; whether denying specific rights to any specific types of sapients is justifiable; and whether the aforementioned alternative rights suggested in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;

7. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to abolish any unfair discrimination between sapient beings on the basis of species in any matters that are not covered by UN Resolutions;

8. ACCEPTS that, except in cases where previous UN Resolutions still in force specify otherwise, nations may choose to make the possession of some or all civil rights dependant upon the acceptance of appropriate civic responsibilities.


I reworded some of the more confusing sentences to make it easier to understand and adjusted some of the syntax... I don't think that making constant references to the species homo sapiens is in the best interest of legislation, a simple comparison for the purposes of definition suffices.

Further, I added to the definition of "sapient" the phrase "and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions," which is more closely linked with the actual meaning of the word sapient- capable of judgement. Comments are appreciated.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador etc.

IC COMMENT: Changes in bold. Not really that good of a definition, but it would be nice to have that there, just in caes there is a being who has self-awareness, free will, and have levels of intelligence, but does not have the same IQ as a human.

I know you can make the argument that if a Fish can press the button stating "Join the UN", then it does apporach the average for members of the species 'Homo sapiens', but I rather keep the thing there just to ensure there is no loopholes.


The word "sapience" is of Latin origin, and refers in English to the capability of an organism to make rational judgements. This most often equated with wisdom, and my edits to the draft reflect this. If a fish joins the UN that says something about the fish's button-pushing abilities. But if that fish proceeds to engage in floor debates in a rational, logical manner and shows good judgement, then the fish has sapience.

Mere sentience and self-awareness requirements would allow wild animals the protection of "human rights." A lion doesn't make complex judgements about which gazelle to eat; it picks the slowest one. The lion doesn't think about the social or ecological ramifications of eating a gazelle (e.g. not sapient), the lion's just hungry.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotensp

DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;
Further, I added to the definition of "sapient" the phrase "and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions," which is more closely linked with the actual meaning of the word sapient- capable of judgement. By anchoring the definition (and I realize it already used that terminology) to individual "beings" and coupling it with the requirement to make the complex judgments referenced, developmentally disabled homo sapiens are not, under this act, worthy of human rights. Nor are those having suffered brain injuries of various sources.

Because of this conundrum, which has plagued this topic from day one, we believe the definition must in some way reference the norm of any particular species that is to be determined as "smart enough" with respect to this act.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

By anchoring the definition (and I realize it already used that terminology) to individual "beings" and coupling it with the requirement to make the complex judgments referenced, developmentally disabled homo sapiens are not, under this act, worthy of human rights. Nor are those having suffered brain injuries of various sources.

Because of this conundrum, which has plagued this topic from day one, we believe the definition must in some way reference the norm of any particular species that is to be determined as "smart enough" with respect to this act.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Ah, thank you. I'm not sure how to fix that, but a sort of Star Trek-esque (very popular show in Taxilha, I'm told) scenario might arise- one sapient being amongst non-sapients. Would a situation like that be grounds to deny rights based on the fact that the larger species isn't sapient?

We could try "DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who, as indicative of a species or genetic group, possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;"

Also, clause 3: "REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all sapients as legally ‘human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where the aforementioned differences would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair without regard to developmental disability or similar deficiency in cognition;"

How does that sound, Ambassador Talone?

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

... scenario might arise- one sapient being amongst non-sapients. Would a situation like that be grounds to deny rights based on the fact that the larger species isn't sapient?
The likelihood of the exceptional scenario makes it more easily handled on a case-by-case basis.

We could try "DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who, as indicative of a species or genetic group, possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;" .
This is better. We believe as the topic is explored additional refinement may be necessary. One suggestion, and merely a grammatical one. The phrasing: ...free will, intelligence, and an ability to make judgments... is more consistent internally.

Also, clause 3: "REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all sapients as legally ‘human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where the aforementioned differences would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair without regard to developmental disability or similar deficiency in cognition;"

How does that sound, Ambassador Talone? .
Convoluted and confusing. It also does not require nations to treat “non-humans” equally with regard to national laws, only those resolutions passed by the UN. This potentially leaves considerable discrimination in place; something that we would be unwilling to do.

--L.T.

ooc: Supper calls; back later.

The likelihood of the exceptional scenario makes it more easily handled on a case-by-case basis.

This is better. We believe as the topic is explored additional refinement may be necessary. One suggestion, and merely a grammatical one. The phrasing: is more consistent internally.

Quite right. I was momentarily sucked into a world of green women and furry creatures. As to the latter, I'll make the suggested change. Thank you.

Convoluted and confusing. It also does not require nations to treat “non-humans” equally with regard to national laws, only those resolutions passed by the UN. This potentially leaves considerable discrimination in place; something that we would be unwilling to do.

Hmm. Let that one fall, then. Let's try something else:

3: "REQUIRES member-nations recognize sapients as legally ‘human’ in regards to ‘Human Rights’ covered by UN resolutions, to grant them the same rights as relevant resolutions grant to humans without regard to developmental disability or similar deficiencies;"

4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares said ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair in regards to Clause 2 to grant those sapients alternative rights of a more appropriate and fairer nature to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;


The wording is divided into two clauses now; with 3 dealing more with disabilities and 4 dealing more with special abilities. There wasn't another way I could think to word it. Thoughts?

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

I'm sorry, I just remembered why I hate this issue so much, and, well, species-wank in general. Are we really expected to give vampires and demons the same protections that we give humans? What about angels? They're unaffected by human violence and oppression, aren't they? What use would have for human rights? Also, intelligent penguins. They might spontaneously combust if you give them too much freedom. And what happens when you spill salt on an Asexual Sapient Slug? I mean, when you consider that their existence is miserable enough without sex, why, oh why is there no freedom-from-sodium accord in the annals of UN law? And now we want the United Nations to be expending its time chronicling similar "Handle with Care" instructions for all of God's (intelligent) creatures?

With this draft in particular, there are several things to consider: first, the author's curious inconsistency on the subject. He wastes no time decrying most Human Rights legislation as an affront to his sovereignty, yet when it comes to species-wank, what national sovereignty? Stop stepping on roaches, kid; they have all the same rights as you ... and so forth. Second, why did Rights of Biological Sapients fail so terribly two years ago (almost to the date), and what can be done to assure that the travesty is not reprised? Thirdly, and speaking specifically of biological sapience, would angels or demons or vampires even qualify as "biological"? Now, do you see why I despise this issue so much? Can you even begin to understand the pangs of guilt ripping my very soul for allowing it to rear its monstrous head in this Assembly once more?

I hate myself.

Or we could all just agree that the scope of any resolution mentioning "humans" or "people" or "persons" or "whatever the hell else you could say" is also inclusive of all races, species, freaking thinking toasters, or hypnotoads. If it's a sentient being, those human rights legislation are meant to protect it. If the measure would HURT the being, we can safely assume it wasn't meant to apply.

Unless you're an idiot.

Also, ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.

http://linked.gbsfm.info/hypnotoad_200.gif

Second, why did Rights of Biological Sapients fail so terribly two years agoThe endless sapient/sentient "debate", as I recall.

I'm sorry, I just remembered why I hate this issue so much, and, well, species-wank in general. Are we really expected to give vampires and demons the same protections that we give humans? What about angels? They're unaffected by human violence and oppression, aren't they? Vampires and demons? Sure, as long as they're not infringing someone else's rights. Pre-murderers aren't denied rights because they might at some point kill someone. As for angels, St. Peter needs kept in line, else he'll only pick those cute, saffrony-colored guardian angels.

With this draft in particular, there are several things to consider: first, the author's curious inconsistency on the subject. He wastes no time decrying most Human Rights legislation as an affront to his sovereignty, yet when it comes to species-wank, what national sovereignty? Stop stepping on roaches, kid; they have all the same rights as you ... and so forth. Second, why did Rights of Biological Sapients fail so terribly two years ago (almost to the date), and what can be done to assure that the travesty is not reprised? Thirdly, and speaking specifically of biological sapience, would angels or demons or vampires even qualify as "biological"?Good points all. I don't despair the topic in whole though.

Now, do you see why I despise this issue so much? Can you even begin to understand the pangs of guilt ripping my very soul for allowing it to rear its monstrous head in this Assembly once more?

I hate myself.Beware. That way lies insanity, early male-pattern baldness and erectile dysfunction.

(OOC comments)

DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings, of any origin, who EITHER possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens”, or is in control of at least one nationstate that belongs to the UN;

Meta-gaming?

The original text is a little bulky to my eyes, and I think we need a more objective standard in the definition. I took the liberty of changing the draft a bit.
1. DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and an ability to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;

*(snip)*
I'd have no major objections to any of your other changes, at first glance, but wouldn't the lower threshold of sapience be even lower according to your re-write of clause #1 than under my original definition? In RL, after all, various species of Apes and Monkeys are arguably capable of making decisions about "complex life or social decisions" but I think that few people would count them as [fully] sapient...

By anchoring the definition (and I realize it already used that terminology) to individual "beings" and coupling it with the requirement to make the complex judgments referenced, developmentally disabled homo sapiens are not, under this act, worthy of human rights. Nor are those having suffered brain injuries of various sources.

Because of this conundrum, which has plagued this topic from day one, we believe the definition must in some way reference the norm of any particular species that is to be determined as "smart enough" with respect to this act.
I agree that that point is worth considering. If memory serves me correctly then an earlier draft did try to tackle the matter, but the clause concerned must have been amongst those subsequently cut due to the contraints of the maximum length allowed (which could also be a problem for some of the re-writes being suggsted in this thread...).

Ah, thank you. I'm not sure how to fix that, but a sort of Star Trek-esque (very popular show in Taxilha, I'm told) scenario might arise- one sapient being amongst non-sapients. Would a situation like that be grounds to deny rights based on the fact that the larger species isn't sapient?

We could try "DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who, as indicative of a species or genetic group, possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;"

Also, clause 3: "REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all sapients as legally ‘human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where the aforementioned differences would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair without regard to developmental disability or similar deficiency in cognition;"
My original intention was that any individuals such as you mention here would be able to claim 'legally sapient' status in their own right even if the bulk of their species failed to qualify for it: Whether my latest draft covered that point clearly enough is, I admit, another matter...

Quite right. I was momentarily sucked into a world of green women and furry creatures.
Sounds like fun... ;)

I'm sorry, I just remembered why I hate this issue so much, and, well, species-wank in general. Are we really expected to give vampires and demons the same protections that we give humans? What about angels? They're unaffected by human violence and oppression, aren't they? What use would have for human rights? Also, intelligent penguins. They might spontaneously combust if you give them too much freedom.
These sorts of points are why my draft included a clause saying that rights didn't have to be granted in any cases where the nature of the beings concerned genuinely made them inappropriate, although suitable substitute rights could be given instead, and also a clause allowing rights to be tied to responsibilities which was -- in fact -- largely intended to cover "evil" beings such as vampires and demons: If the latter beings won't obey a society's rules then they can legitimately be denied some or all of the rights that that society's members possess.

And what happens when you spill salt on an Asexual Sapient Slug? I mean, when you consider that their existence is miserable enough without sex, why, oh why is there no freedom-from-sodium accord in the annals of UN law?
I would hope that most national law-codes already cover the questions of deliberate & negligent poisoning, and this draft does URGE nations to grant sapient non-humans rights under their own laws as well as under those originating from the UN...

With this draft in particular, there are several things to consider: first, the author's curious inconsistency on the subject. He wastes no time decrying most Human Rights legislation as an affront to his sovereignty, yet when it comes to species-wank, what national sovereignty?
Yes, the St Edmundan government believes that the UN has no legitimate right to legislate on most matters that are purely internal to the separate nations, because of the rule against ideological bans, although this government has generally been prepared to make an exception to that policy in the case of the absolutely most fundamental rights such as protection from arbitrary slaughter, and protection from enslavement.
However, this government is bright enough to recognise that the UN has passed resolutions on other 'Human Rights', and is likely to do so again in future...
And this government believes that those rights that are internationally guaranteed should be applied fairly, which means that -- for example, as is relevant in this case -- speciesism shouldn't be allowed to block them.

Stop stepping on roaches, kid; they have all the same rights as you
If they're as sapient as you, then arguably yes: If they were gigantic sapient roaches then you wouldn't want them to tread on you, would you?

Thirdly, and speaking specifically of biological sapience, would angels or demons or vampires even qualify as "biological"?
Probbaly not, but then of course my draft didn't limit itself to "biological sapience"...

Or we could all just agree that the scope of any resolution mentioning "humans" or "people" or "persons" or "whatever the hell else you could say" is also inclusive of all races, species, freaking thinking toasters, or hypnotoads. If it's a sentient being, those human rights legislation are meant to protect it. If the measure would HURT the being, we can safely assume it wasn't meant to apply.
That would be the simplest solution, yes, but if it wasn't actually added to the official rules then some nations would undoubtedly argue that their non-human minorities weren't legally protected...

OOC: Then this is a game mechanics issue. Deal with it as such. Otherwise you're attempting to "amend" any resolution that doesn't specifically mention all races.

OOC: Then this is a game mechanics issue. Deal with it as such. Otherwise you're attempting to "amend" any resolution that doesn't specifically mention all races.

(OOC comment)

Changing the game's mechanics is beyond my power, and so far the Mods have rejected the idea of officially redefining the 'Human Rights' category as 'Sapient Rights'... :(
The wording of the most relevant clause was carefully chosen to avoid illegality under the 'no amendements' rule, by requiring the national governments to pass extra laws rather than by trying to say that the existing resolutions should now be read differently, and has apparently been considered acceptable by those Mods who've read it so far:
3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all Sapients as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where their types’ innate differences from the species ‘Homo sapiens’ would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair;

I'd have no major objections to any of your other changes, at first glance, but wouldn't the lower threshold of sapience be even lower according to your re-write of clause #1 than under my original definition? In RL, after all, various species of Apes and Monkeys are arguably capable of making decisions about "complex life or social decisions" but I think that few people would count them as [fully] sapient...

Well, no. Chimpanzees are sentient, yes, but not sapient because they aren't capable of making complex judgements. An ape might seem capable or very wise by our eyes, but is it capable of complex judgement? My schooling tells me no. The problem I saw with the original definition was the fact that it wasn't defining the word "sapient," it was defining something else and then calling it "sapient." Not only that, but any such questions of threshold could be answered by the committee..

My original intention was that any individuals such as you mention here would be able to claim 'legally sapient' status in their own right even if the bulk of their species failed to qualify for it: Whether my latest draft covered that point clearly enough is, I admit, another matter...


Ah, yes, now I see. With that in mind we could use a slight modification to my wording here- "DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who individually or as indicative of a species or genetic group, possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;"

I apologize for changes I made without prior consent; I was moved by an urgent need to clarify and rewrite. I'm taking pills for it, very serious.

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

Snefaldia: I do think lions can make logical and complex judgements, and may in fact care about social conditions. The problem is, lions may not be able to communicate effectively its insights into laws. Language shouldn't be an excuse to restrict rights, after all. In fact, in our country, we have "appointed Represnatives" who would represent the interests of the animals and bacterium. One Represenative for each species. We feel this system works.

Let us point to one human represnative representing the lion race right now in his debate on the Income Redistrubtion Act:

"We understand full well the cries of people calling for increased government intervention. However, we must also note that the higher taxes within the law will prohibit big business from operating, and thereby stop big business from operating its many humane development projects. Big Business has always helped the lions out, by providing them food and money in order to keep the species alive, as well as help paid for various "fact finding" expeditions to help drive home the point that what's good for Big Business is good for All Animals. Therefore, we are forced to vote AGAINST this proposal to raise taxes needlessly, due to the lions' alliance with major corporations."

We believe, however, that we will take our case of animals being sapient and deserving rights to the Commitee when it gets established. We believe that our case has merit and will be considered throughly before being approved. Until this resolution passes, I'll accept your definition.

Omigodtheykilledkenny:
What about angels? They're unaffected by human violence and oppression, aren't they? What use would have for human rights?

Angels need human rights more than ever. Many of them live in "Father Knows Best" states where they cannot criticize God, or attempt to forment an viable opposition against his rule. I do think they too desire liberty.

And what about the fact of non-human races heading over to other nations within the UN? An angel minding his own business in "MILITANT ATHEISTIC NATION" could get destroyed by atheistic logic and gunpowder. This resolution should criminizle such wholescale genocide, as angels are not protected.

And now we want the United Nations to be expending its time chronicling similar "Handle with Care" instructions for all of God's (intelligent) creatures?

You raise a good point. The UN should be expected to expend its time chronciling simlar "Handle with Care" instructions. After all, a national law prohibiting dropping salt on an Asexual Slug would only apply to that one nation, if the Asexual Slug enters into another nation, there would be no such law, and peopel can feel free to murder said Slug with salt.

I think the Commitee should therefore recommend "rights" to be given to non-Humans as well, and the nation can accept the recommendations or choose not to and provide their own rights.

St. Edmund:
I'd have no major objections to any of your other changes, at first glance, but wouldn't the lower threshold of sapience be even lower according to your re-write of clause #1 than under my original definition? In RL, after all, various species of Apes and Monkeys are arguably capable of making decisions about "complex life or social decisions" but I think that few people would count them as [fully] sapient...

Sapience cannot be considered 'half'. You are either fully sapient or you are not. The definition by Snefaldia ensures this and does not need to get into details about if a species either "approaches" the level of intellect of humans or "not approaches".

Maybe we could give rights to any member of a biological species, at least one specimen of which is capable of meeting the criteria. Thus a mentally handicapped human would still qualify, because other humans do meet the criteria.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Snefaldia: I do think lions can make logical and complex judgements, and may in fact care about social conditions. The problem is, lions may not be able to communicate effectively its insights into laws. Language shouldn't be an excuse to restrict rights, after all. In fact, in our country, we have "appointed Represnatives" who would represent the interests of the animals and bacterium. One Represenative for each species. We feel this system works.

I'm sorry to say that you're incorrect. A lion can't make a logical judgement about which gazelle to kill; the lion knows through instinct what to do. The difference between animals and sapient beings is the difference between reliance on instinct and reliance on judgement. Please don't corrupt the debate.

We believe, however, that we will take our case of animals being sapient and deserving rights to the Commitee when it gets established. We believe that our case has merit and will be considered throughly before being approved. Until this resolution passes, I'll accept your definition.

And the committee will reject the addition of lions based on the fact they don't meet the standard for sapience. There are of course certain animals which display unusual levels of intelligence- chimpanzees, for example, but lions and other animals cannot be considered sapient. Thank you for endorsing my definition, however.

Maybe we could give rights to any member of a biological species, at least one specimen of which is capable of meeting the criteria. Thus a mentally handicapped human would still qualify, because other humans do meet the criteria.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

Very good idea. I'll have to think about the wording of such a clause.

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

do ants have governments? not in the human sense.

if angels exist, you really believe they would come down to our level of intellect and play in our concept of government?

humans interact with ants but do not start living with ants. angels would treat us in the same way as we treat ants.... interaction, yes... but not being a member of our society.

its a nice exercise to bring up lower species to a level of human sentience but it becomes arrogant when somehow we believe that angels come down to our level of intellect because we imagine it. One should stick with believing oneself to be Napoleon, its much more credible.

do ants have governments? not in the human sense.
However there is a whole 'nation' of them (http://www.nationstates.net/lots_of_ants) currently resident in the West Pacific, and in fact their Queen helped to write the recent UN resolution about cross-border air pollution... ;)

However there is a whole 'nation' of them (http://www.nationstates.net/lots_of_ants) currently resident in the West Pacific, and in fact their Queen helped to write the recent UN resolution about cross-border air pollution... ;)

(insert Bart's voice here) "Cooool!"

Maybe we could give rights to any member of a biological species, at least one specimen of which is capable of meeting the criteria. Thus a mentally handicapped human would still qualify, because other humans do meet the criteria.

Good point, I personally don't want to deny rights to disabled humans. But, is it possible to take out the term "biological" though? So that it can cover angels, demons, and robots as well?

its a nice exercise to bring up lower species to a level of human sentience but it becomes arrogant when somehow we believe that angels come down to our level of intellect because we imagine it. One should stick with believing oneself to be Napoleon, its much more credible.

I don't really think there is a hieracy of races, with races being inferior (orcs) and races being superior (angels). I think races are all essentially equal, just like all humans are essentailly equal. I'm speaking of this from a personal standpoint however, not from a national standpoint. I have to talk to my nation about that issue.

Please don't corrupt the debate.

(OOC: Er. Well, you see, before you start worrying about my sanity, I don't actually believe that animals should get citizenship. I only play as an extreme leftist nation who's happen to be insane for fun and pardoy. ICly, I am not corrupting the debate, I just present a different view.

So, um, OOCly, yes, you could say that I might be corrupting the debate, but mostly to add flavor rather than having the world march lockstep.)

Good point, I personally don't want to deny rights to disabled humans. But, is it possible to take out the term "biological" though? So that it can cover angels, demons, and robots as well?

That's for the committee to decide.


(OOC: Er. Well, you see, before you start worrying about my sanity, I don't actually believe that animals should get citizenship. I only play as an extreme leftist nation who's happen to be insane for fun and pardoy. ICly, I am not corrupting the debate, I just present a different view.

So, um, OOCly, yes, you could say that I might be corrupting the debate, but mostly to add flavor rather than having the world march lockstep.)

OOC: Ah, I see, sorry. Helpful hint- if you've got an ambassador, it helps to sign your posts like Quod, Ruby, and I do. That way we know when you're toeing your government line. I gotcha, though.

(OOC comment)

Changing the game's mechanics is beyond my power, and so far the Mods have rejected the idea of officially redefining the 'Human Rights' category as 'Sapient Rights'... :(
The wording of the most relevant clause was carefully chosen to avoid illegality under the 'no amendements' rule, by requiring the national governments to pass extra laws rather than by trying to say that the existing resolutions should now be read differently, and has apparently been considered acceptable by those Mods who've read it so far:

OOC: I think if we examine this closely though, we see that it is indeed akin to a resolution that: DEFINES "Human Rights" as "Sapient Rights". This is as close a meta-gaming violation as I could imagine you going(if it isn't one). If the mods won't change the definition, no amount of legal finagling will fix the problem either. You're still trying to change a game definition with ingame legislation.

If we're looking at this from a role-play perspective, it's like I said above. There is no need to actually define it.

Role-Play it your way.

OOC: I think if we examine this closely though, we see that it is indeed akin to a resolution that: DEFINES "Human Rights" as "Sapient Rights". This is as close a meta-gaming violation as I could imagine you going(if it isn't one). If the mods won't change the definition, no amount of legal finagling will fix the problem either. You're still trying to change a game definition with ingame legislation.

If we're looking at this from a role-play perspective, it's like I said above. There is no need to actually define it.

Role-Play it your way.

OOC: This isn't metagaming. It's saying that all creatures of sapience are to be considered "human" for the purposes of the Human Rights category. I suppose if you were to squint and look at it sideways you might get "redefining a category" out of that, but it's just not there.

RECOGNISING ...

REALISING ...

RECOGNISING ...

REALISING ...The repetitiveness is tiresome. Try some variety with your verbs: acknowledging, regretting, noting, expressing concern, &c.

RECOGNISING that it has already passed a number of resolutions that conferred or confirmed ‘Human Rights’ in various respects,

REALISING that it might pass further ‘Human Rights’ resolutions in future, too,You may not like to hear it, but referring to specific gameplay categories is Metagaming. "Human rights" (smaller case, sans scare quotes) can be acknowledged as a general subject area, but as far as I am aware, Proposal Categories don't exist in UNtopia.

Also, you might want to consider combining the two clauses into one: "Noting that it has already passed a number of resolutions relating to human rights, and that it is likely to pass further such resolutions in the future..."

RECOGNISING that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not human, but who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and an ability to make judgments that approach, match or even exceed the average for that species,Awkward. Change to: "...approach, match or even exceed that of humans."

REALISING that some nations do not regard intelligent non-human beings as deserving comparable rights to members of the species homo sapiens,Equally awkward. Maybe: "Regretting that some nations may refuse to extend basic rights and freedoms to many of their citizens, simply because they are not "human.""

2. RECOGNISES that many types of sapients possess various innate or apparent physical and/or psychological differences from the species homo sapiens,"...that of humans." Also, I highly doubt that "physical" and "psychological" are the only fields by which humans and non-humans may differ.

3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all sapients as legally ‘human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where the aforementioned differences would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair;Extremely awkward. Why can't it be just "Requires member nations to pass laws extending all applicable rights and freedoms required under international law to all sapient beings under their jurisdiction." Move the "inappropriate or unfair" deal to the next clause, since that's what it's addressing anyway.

4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares said ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair to grant those sapients alternative rights of a more appropriate and fairer nature to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;Again, awkward, but this is St Edmundan language we're dealing with, so it's to be expected. I'd make it an "Urges" clause, not a requirement. Something like: "Urges member nations to grant alternative rights to non-human sapients, etc., etc."

6. ESTABLISHES the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, empirical observation, and common sense — any disputes regarding the application of the term 'sapient'; whether denying specific rights to any specific types of sapients is justifiable; and whether the aforementioned alternative rights suggested in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;OK, this is very problematic. One, because compliance is mandatory, so an enforcement mechanism is not needed in resolutions, and two, if a commission is going to be calling all the shots as to which species do or do not qualify as sapient, why define sapience in the first place? I assume the term was defined so member states can enforce the relevant provisions on their own, so why do we need a committee breathing down their necks?

[Edit: OK, I may have misread the clause somewhat, but still, if we're giving member nations the authority to extend rights using specific definitions, why do we need a commission to overrule them?]

8. ACCEPTS that, except in cases where previous UN Resolutions still in force specify otherwise, nations may choose to make the possession of some or all civil rights dependent upon the acceptance of appropriate civic responsibilities.I'm not understanding this. This language was not necessary for any other HR resolution, why is it necessary here? Get rid of it. It doesn't do anything, anyway.

This is an issue that I've spent many a afternoons arguing with people about(*ahem* on YouTube) and one that I feel very passionately about. Here's my view on this...

I think not only should sapient creatures have rights, sentience should be the minimum requirement for entry into the full moral community. All sentient beings have the ability to feel pain and that is all that matters - when a being suffers, there can be no justification for not taking that suffering into consideration.

I'm not saying that animals should have all the same rights as humans like the right to education or the right to drive because that's absurd - although if they have the capibility to since this is NS, fine.
What I'm referring to is the right for all sentient beings to be left alone or to not be treated as property and used for food, entertainment, clothing, research, or bred for companionship. For a clarification of what I mean, watch this video (linkremoved) (warning: GRAPHIC.).

The idea that we should only protect the rights of beings that are like us is inherently speciecist. We should recognize that animals are diverse and protect all sentient species that we share the world with and not treat them as mere resources.

OOC: Oh for craps sake.

I'm all for working some sort of "all species" inclusive term into the game, but do we seriously need to start arguing over animal rights in this thread?

Back to the topic though, I'd be more keen on convincing the mods to actually put this into the game, but that's just me.

Also, since I can't seem to argue this in any sort of in character way, I'll bow out of this conversation. I still see it as a meta-gaming violation, or damn close.

Librustralia, as much as I applaud your ideas, the UN has already passed a resolution condemning "animal cruelty". Perhaps another resolution in the future that could help free animals should be considered, but as you assume animals aren't sapient, and this resolution only defend the rights of sapients, a separate resolution is likely needed, as well as a new topic.

Here's the resolution:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=214

Sincerely,

Dr. Bob, UN Ambassador of SilentScope003

Back to the topic though, I'd be more keen on convincing the mods to actually put this into the game, but that's just me.There are no plans to do this.

Librustralia, as much as I applaud your ideas, the UN has already passed a resolution condemning "animal cruelty". Perhaps another resolution in the future that could help free animals should be considered, but as you assume animals aren't sapient, and this resolution only defend the rights of sapients, a separate resolution is likely needed, as well as a new topic.

Here's the resolution:

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=214

Sincerely,

Dr. Bob, UN Ambassador of SilentScope003

Thanks, Dr. Bob :D

I didn't say animals aren't sapient though. I just said we should include all sentient beings including sapients.
Before we get off-topic though, I do think that this proposal on sapient rights is a move in the right direction. :)

A lion doesn't make complex judgements about which gazelle to eat; it picks the slowest one. How do you come to say a lion makes no complex judgements on which gazelle to eat. Some process is gone through by them to select that slowest one. They look for wounded or old or sick so is this not a complex judgement in selecting which is the slower.

The lion doesn't think about the social or ecological ramifications of eating a gazelle (e.g. not sapient), the lion's just hungry.Because you can't read minds doesn't mean a creature or animal doesn't think. They may be thinking on such a high level that it is over your ability to understand of grasp thus you come to assume they not thinking. This goes not only with lions but any creature... Not all are below so called humans to many humans are the lowest creature they deal with as far a social interactions. However because humans can't understand them they think these groups are below them. The social order of some creatures such as whales is far more complex than that of humans yet to humans whales are dumb animals. Humans might learn something from other creatures like whales and even lions on family issues as well a certain social issues.

We like this and the idea that somebody is trying to let humans know they are not at the top of the food chain.. as here there are many levels of life each by it's ability to establish and a nation that is recognized by the UN and thus they are seated as members already to us makes them intitled to any rights other members might have regardless of what form of life they may be.

Also we ask how do you make humans the median or standard for anything one should want higher standards than those of humans not equal to or almost equal to them..

(OOC comment)

You may not like to hear it, but referring to specific gameplay categories is Metagaming. "Human rights" (smaller case, sans scare quotes) can be acknowledged as a general subject area, but as far as I am aware, Proposal Categories don't exist in UNtopia.
I'd thought that they (or those of them that wouldn't obviously be RL references, anyway) might be in whatever treaty our nations are presumed to have signed when joining the UN, but okay.

Also, you might want to consider combining the two clauses into one: "Noting that it has already passed a number of resolutions relating to human rights, and that it is likely to pass further such resolutions in the future..."
Good idea.

Awkward. Change to: "...approach, match or even exceed that of humans."

Equally awkward. Maybe: "Regretting that some nations may refuse to extend basic rights and freedoms to many of their citizens, simply because they are not "human.""

"...that of humans." Also, I highly doubt that "physical" and "psychological" are the only fields by which humans and non-humans may differ.
I will consider these points.

Extremely awkward. Why can't it be just "Requires member nations to pass laws extending all applicable rights and freedoms required under international law to all sapient beings under their jurisdiction."
Because some of the less 'reasonable' governments around here might try to define that wording as meaning
"Requires member nations to pass laws extending all applicable rights and freedoms required under international law for all sapient beings to all sapient beings under their jurisdiction."
rather than
to pass laws extending all applicable rights and freedoms required under international law for humans to all sapient beings under their jurisdiction."?

re Move the "inappropriate or unfair" deal to the next clause, since that's what it's addressing anyway.

Again, awkward, but this is St Edmundan language we're dealing with, so it's to be expected. I'd make it an "Urges" clause, not a requirement. Something like: "Urges member nations to grant alternative rights to non-human sapients, etc., etc."
I will consider these points.

OK, this is very problematic. One, because compliance is mandatory, so an enforcement mechanism is not needed in resolutions, and two, if a commission is going to be calling all the shots as to which species do or do not qualify as sapient, why define sapience in the first place? I assume the term was defined so member states can enforce the relevant provisions on their own, so why do we need a committee breathing down their necks?

[Edit: OK, I may have misread the clause somewhat, but still, if we're giving member nations the authority to extend rights using specific definitions, why do we need a commission to overrule them?]
Mainly because of the existence of "unreasonable" governments, some of whom might otherwise try to claim definitions of 'sapient' that excluded some appropriate beings within their jurisdictions: The fact that the committee is required to use common sense, as well as its other methods, means that arguing against such claims on the basis of common sense would have a better 'legal' justification.
Also, because there's the question (re-raised by Mikitivity recently) of whether the 'compliance is mandatory' rule has an IC existence as well as an OOC one.

I'm not understanding this. This language was not necessary for any other HR resolution, why is it necessary here? Get rid of it. It doesn't do anything, anyway.
Apart from setting a general principle that I'd like to see applied to HR measures, it's there to cover innately "evil" beings such as some kinds of vampires and demons: If they won't follow the larger society's laws then they can legitimately be denied that society's protection...

(OOC comment)
Apart from setting a general principle that I'd like to see applied to HR measures, it's there to cover innately "evil" beings such as some kinds of vampires and demons: If they won't follow the larger society's laws then they can legitimately be denied that society's protection...

Isn't society the one that needs protection from them? Its like a flock of seagulls deciding to offer me protection from some sick seagull who can't tell that I'm a full grown human and decides to attack me.

Because some of the less 'reasonable' governments around here ...
As we see it this commission will not be from any member nation thus those less 'reasonable' governements will not be on it. As we thought such were some UN ghnome who are always 'resonable' in all matters that why they on all the commissions and committees not member elected or appointed reps... However we agree we don't need more of them running free anywhere.

"Sapient rights/Rights for Intelligent Beings"

How can the UN be expected to debate, let alone vote on a proposal which in no way will include UN delegates?

Bahgum is pleased to note that the debate since the posting of our earlier comment has only proved to underline our point. Bravo.

Because some of the less 'reasonable' governments around here might try to define that wording as meaning
"Requires member nations to pass laws extending all applicable rights and freedoms required under international law for all sapient beings to all sapient beings under their jurisdiction."Except that's clearly not what the language says. You must have missed the point during the discussions on reasonable nations, that unreasonable nations can be ignored when drafting legislation. We don't write resolutions for wankers, or for the wannabe Creative Solutions Agencies of the world; we write them for nations serious about the advancement of international law.

Mainly because of the existence of "unreasonable" governments, some of whom might otherwise try to claim definitions of 'sapient' that excluded some appropriate beings within their jurisdictions: The fact that the committee is required to use common sense, as well as its other methods, means that arguing against such claims on the basis of common sense would have a better 'legal' justification.See above point about unreasonable nations. Also, we have defined sapience for the benefit of member states and told them to extend rights based on the given language, so why do we need a committee to tell them "unless we say otherwise"? If we're just going to give a committee final say, we may as well scrap the definition altogether and let the committee sort it out, and tell nations to do as the committee tells them.

Can you recall any other HR resolution that required a committee to overrule nations on enforcement?

Also, because there's the question (re-raised by Mikitivity recently) of whether the 'compliance is mandatory' rule has an IC existence as well as an OOC one....has nothing to do with the drafting of legislation. UN resolutions are supposed to assume that enforcement and compliance are automatic and mandatory, no matter what players' roleplay patterns are.

Apart from setting a general principle that I'd like to see applied to HR measures, it's there to cover innately "evil" beings such as some kinds of vampires and demons: If they won't follow the larger society's laws then they can legitimately be denied that society's protection...That doesn't change the fact that the clause doesn't do anything. It's a distraction, and not a very well written one. Take it out.


Also, are we going to be limiting this to only biological sapience? Quod did have a point about toaster rights before.

I must strongly disagree with this proposal. Not only does this set a parameter for how all nations are forced to act with other nations, but it also forces unwanted alliances between human and inhuman species. Each nation should be able to make its own choice in how they deal with others. It is not the job of the U.N. to set the foreign affairs of each nation.

This only relates to how you treat sapient species within your own borders. Foreign affairs has nothing to do with it.

What if my nation does not want any other species within the border? Each person within my nation should be allowed to form their own opinion and treat each person how they want them to be treated. The people of each nation should be allowed to have an opinion on other species thus being allowed to carry out whatever policy they feel is right in their own individual experiences. This proposal is too far sweeping, and tells too many people how to think. The way people think of other species is no business of the U.N. Also the idea that teaching anti-racist principles is preposterous. Racism is not solely an issue of the brain, but one of the heart. The U.N. can not and should not control either.

What if my nation does not want any other species within the border? Each person within my nation should be allowed to form their own opinion and treat each person how they want them to be treated. The people of each nation should be allowed to have an opinion on other species thus being allowed to carry out whatever policy they feel is right in their own individual experiences. This proposal is too far sweeping, and tells too many people how to think. The way people think of other species is no business of the U.N.

Hogwash. If that was a legitimate argument, then there'd be no grounds to pass any legislation whatsoever to advance the cause of rights or protections for any sapient creatures at all. If I'm assessing your argument correctly, you believe that nations should be allowed to do anything they want to sapient species within their lands, for whatever reason they can think of, and the UN should just hum cheerfully and ignore it...just because. I'm thinking you're halfheartedly grasping at a straw labeled "natsov" here, but you're really missing the target.

Also the idea that teaching anti-racist principles is preposterous.

You may think so. We don't.

Racism is not solely an issue of the brain, but one of the heart. The U.N. can not and should not control either.

One could argue from this debate so far that the UN is not very successful to begin with at controlling (or even guiding) the brains or hearts of quite a few of its delegates...and neither are the delegates themselves.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

I wouldn't waste my time. This is probably one of those idiots who in one breath say, "The UN has no right to say what goes on in my country!", and in the next, "But this proposal doesn't do anything!"

That being said, specisism can be pretty rampant, and if people really don't want to grant fellow sapinets rights, then it could ruin the chances for this resolution. What people think on this board, after all, is different from what the general population thinks...remember the UN Funding Act, after all.

Dr. Bob
UN Ambassador to SilentScope003

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Emperor of ShogunKhan, Ceasar has an anouncement:

"I am not racist. I am willing to sleep with any human woman who has the body of a vavavoom irrelevant of the color of her skin. So if this is good enough for me, it shall be good enough for everyone else. Racism must never exist, I want the extra women in my bedchambers! We are Emperor Ceasar of the ShogunKhan and we have spoken."

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Emperor has spoken. Compliance is pleasurable.

That's just lovely, but we're not talking about racism, we're talking about speciesism.

Racism=Race=Species.

For example, the Undead is considered both a race and a seperate species.

That depends on who you talk to. In Dasri, for instance, the undead are considered a quaint superstition, or perhaps some strange alien beastie that hasn't been properly studied.


Er.

This should in no way be taken as an invitation to prove otherwise upon my person.

~Hari Desana.

Racism=Race=Species.

For example, the Undead is considered both a race and a seperate species.He was talking about discriminating between humans. Reread the post.

I've gotta agree with the general principle of whats being discussed here and would support this legislation, along with my region.

My only problem would be this: If you did restrict this to only biological sapience, how would we treat non-biological lifeforms which meet every requirement of sapience minus being a biological organism?

I mean, if the toaster is intelligent and aware enough to be running a country, then by Our Lady of Reason, we shall not stop them.

In recent Evoinian Elections for the People's Soviet, this issue was raised when a super-intelligent microwave wished to run for office. He won with a landside and was granted office... and is great to have around if you've brought one of those frozen dinners to work... Mmm Mmm!
- Temporary Delegate Bob of Evoinia.

Well if it looks human enough, the Emperor is ready to try out the women of these new species... more in the bedchamber! Hooah!

elves, androids, we are an open culture.

Admiral of the Red, Nolly has assured me that the Palentine Naval Dolphins are looking forward to this getting to vote. actually what she said was...

"Its about<CENSORED><BLEEP><BLEEPING> Time we got some<BLEEP><DIRTY WORD><IMPOSSIBLE ANATOMICAL ACT><FOUL WORD>recognition!"

I'll have to set up some aquarium tanks so to allow them full access. I just hope there are no young children, pregnent women or those with delecate constitutions on the floor that day.:p
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The NSUN Nunciate of the Eternal Kawaii would be most grateful if you posted the schedule of when the dolphins are expected to speak. We want to give them plenty of room, say, a mile or two?

Considering what happened (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10133864&postcount=396) the last time they spoke on this issue, I think that's a good idea. ~Cdr. Chiang

Are we really expected to give vampires and demons the same protections that we give humans? What about angels? They're unaffected by human violence and oppression, aren't they? What use would have for human rights? Also, intelligent penguins. They might spontaneously combust if you give them too much freedom. And what happens when you spill salt on an Asexual Sapient Slug? I mean, when you consider that their existence is miserable enough without sex, why, oh why is there no freedom-from-sodium accord in the annals of UN law? And now we want the United Nations to be expending its time chronicling similar "Handle with Care" instructions for all of God's (intelligent) creatures?If we read these sections of this proposal we think one can find the answer to your quesiton in them.

3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all sapients as legally ‘human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where the aforementioned differences would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair;As if they under this are sapient then yes they realy are consider equal and get what humans might..

4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares said ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair to grant those sapients alternative rights of a more appropriate and fairer nature to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;This one even to us gives them the right if humans have it to go out and hunt for food even if it happens to be humans. As it would not be an alternative right to use to gather food in order to survive but as with human a surival right so makes it practical and legal for them to gather their food just like humans do. As above they are granted Exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolution grant to 'Humans'.. and that part about inappropiate or unfair can't be applied as humans would cry if they didn't get to eat and not survive long thus other beings face the same if they can't eat...

So diner is at seven we're serving a tastey six year old human over roots and mush, slow roasted over dregwood to give it that smokey flavor many prefer to cover the sour taste of human meat. This is with a grey wine. Please call ahead if you plan to attend so we can prepare a portion for you and a place.

If we read these sections of this proposal we think one can find the answer to your quesiton in them.

As if they under this are sapient then yes they realy are consider equal and get what humans might..

This one even to us gives them the right if humans have it to go out and hunt for food even if it happens to be humans. As it would not be an alternative right to use to gather food in order to survive but as with human a surival right so makes it practical and legal for them to gather their food just like humans do. As above they are granted Exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolution grant to 'Humans'.. and that part about inappropiate or unfair can't be applied as humans would cry if they didn't get to eat and not survive long thus other beings face the same if they can't eat...

So diner is at seven we're serving a tastey six year old human over roots and mush, slow roasted over dregwood to give it that smokey flavor many prefer to cover the sour taste of human meat. This is with a grey wine. Please call ahead if you plan to attend so we can prepare a portion for you and a place.
Wrong. Allowing them to prey on other sapient beings, rather than on non-sapient ones as Human hunters (normally) do, could clearly be defined as "inappropriate".
And this sort of situation is one of the main reasons for the clause saying that rights can legitimately be balanced by responsibilities: If you're a vampire or demon, and you don't want the local humans to be legally free to stake or exorcise you, then you have to obey the local laws against assault & murder... Any beings of types that are fundamentally incapable of obeying such laws would not (at least, as I intended things) be entitled to claim rights under this proposal's terms.

I think what we don't like here is this puts humans on a pedistal and requires others to climb up and knock them off or at least hang up there with them. Humans are not the oldest species in this universe nor the most intelectual in it. Many nations here feel that humans as nothing more than weak minded savages who have a long way to go before they become a civilized society. I would not know how many nations outside the UN have not joined because they see it put humans on this pedistal and know and feel humans don't belong there. Thus they remain outside the UN trying to survive in a human world that is not fully theirs to run.

Humans call it a crime when a wolf kills a sheep to feed it family yet they kill them all the time to feed their family.. Thus humans can hunt and kill off the wolves but when a wolf kills a human protecting it's family then they hunt it down and kill it with no recourse. Who is to say that the wolf is not protected under this as they may be as smart as humans only view life from a different point of view thus follow laws humans don't follow even if they write them up and claim they do. Since humans can't read minds they may not understand an animal and thus consider it stupid and unable to follow laws as they might... However it may be the human violating their laws and just to stupid to see it. Look at the damage the human has done under it's laws to the lands it lives on compared to what the wolves and other animals have done to that land.. Most of the time humans drive them off it to abuse it and when it no longer suitable they move on driving animals on.. So to us making the humans the Gods we must look up to is wrong...

I want to bump this, as people are calling for the rights of intelligent beings. Is this still being handled?

And this sort of situation is one of the main reasons for the clause saying that rights can legitimately be balanced by responsibilities: If you're a vampire or demon, and you don't want the local humans to be legally free to stake or exorcise you, then you have to obey the local laws against assault & murder...

But it's a big loophole. What if this 'responsiblity' clause get applied to humans and you wipe out all human rights resolutions forever? I mean: "If you don't want the local humans to be legally free to execute you, another local human, for speaking out against the government, you must obey their laws and agree with whatever the government says...as that is YOUR responsiblity, so fufil that responsiblity, and then we give rights". What's this talk about responsiblity in this day and age? We should deal with rights, not talk about responsiblites (and thereby allow for a huge legal loophole)?

Altough, in your defense, vampires and demons may very well be mandatorliy drafted into the military or police force, and therefore, would be allowed to do "assault and murder" in service of one country, staying alive in the process.

Dr. Bob.

EDIT:
OOC:
A quick browse through the actual UN debate on the previous resolution leads to this=

the biggest thing that sunk that resolution was people saying "we arent going to give (insert random animal here) rights!" or "Humans are the only ones that exist". maybe just a little piece explaining that this is nationstates, and in its nature, these sapients exist.

[semi-OOC:] How many times must we repeat ourselves? It's a question of perception. Nations and players do not need to recognize such non-human sapience if they don't want to, because this is a, how do you call it? game, and there is no need to patronize and assume the ignorance of those who oppose sapient rights just because they don't play the same way you do.

We kindly petition some of the members of this hall to get a fucking life.

So, if this proposal does get off the ground, two things:
1) Did OMGTKK changed his position within the interveing period? ICly, I'd be very angry, but OOCly, I agree with this old position of OMGTKK.
2) How does the proposal author expect to counter the arguments TLA talked about?

So, if this proposal does get off the ground, two things:
1) Did OMGTKK changed his position within the interveing period? ICly, I'd be very angry, but OOCly, I agree with this old position of OMGTKK.
2) How does the proposal author expect to counter the arguments TLA talked about?What are you talking about? That was a comment about roleplay, not the Federal Republic's position on sapient rights. And besides, I still agree with that statement. It's going to be very difficult persuading players who don't recognize sapients to support this, because they're under no obligation even to acknowledge these creatures exist. We can try to convince them the game might be more fun for them if they actually roleplayed their nations and assumed the existence of such creatures, but given the absurdity of the opposition to the last sapient-rights resolution, I don't think the effort would be worth it. As the Max Barry Day repeal revealed, this game is clogged with players who are completely clueless about roleplay and cannot designate IC from OOC; but alas, we can't act the ridiculous twat like TLA and dictate to other players that these things exist whether you like it or not, so you better vote for this proposal, you stupid pissants!

Something like that.

What are you talking about?

About that OOC comment, it just felt strange considering what you were saying that. But I must have misinterpret it and gotten confused from reading that thread, so uh, sorry for that.

I think if we also pushed that the passing of this would aid in passing legislation, as well as modify all past legislation that uses the term, "persons" to mean every single being regaurdless of race, species etc, we may stand a better chance.

That depends on who you talk to. In Dasri, for instance, the undead are considered a quaint superstition, or perhaps some strange alien beastie that hasn't been properly studied.


Er.

This should in no way be taken as an invitation to prove otherwise upon my person.

~Hari Desana.

Hery some of us here resent being refered to as a myth! Ice Forge and its allies in the Forsaken Imperial Alliance are 90% made up of four different undead species and certainly arnt going to let someone poke us to study us. Also, the official posisition of Ice Forge and by extension the Forsaken Imperial Alliance is in support of this resoloution. One thing I would point out is that certain no humen species have different strains that have varying levels of intelligence. For instance, the demons that we harvest blood from for our demon blood merlot are no where near intelligent, but the demonic people of the free land of homicidal pedestrains (our neighbors) are.

finally, ive seen spaient defined and redefined, but could someone give me a definition of sentient? Because i always thought sentience was the ability to reason and build a society, not to mention make complex decisions and have morals of some form

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep. of Ice Forge, Council Nation of the Forsaken Imperial Alliance, and proud member of the Turned Undead

If you're a vampire or demon, and you don't want the local humans to be legally free to stake or exorcise you, then you have to obey the local laws against assault & murder... Any beings of types that are fundamentally incapable of obeying such laws would not (at least, as I intended things) be entitled to claim rights under this proposal's terms.

but then you get into the alternative. As in, if a demon needs to devour humen flesh to survive, are there not many many cadavers donated to science? could not there be a "feed the demons" foundation to donate bodies too? also, in the case of vamps, in the Forsaken Imperial Alliance nation of Tortara, which has a majority of the population that are vampires, there are ways to deal with the blood thrist. Certain bloods can sate a vampire for long periods with small amounts. Plus, vampires have been hiding in society for ages by only taking as much blood as needed from a "victem", leaving the "victem" alive. To top it all off, i am informed that for many being fed on by a vampire is apparently a pleasureable experiance.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN rep of Ice Forge

I think if we also pushed that the passing of this would aid in passing legislature, as well as modify all past legislature that uses the term, "persons" to mean every single being regaurdless of race, species etc, we may stand a better chance.Not to be a pedantic prick or anything, but the word is "legislation." A legislature is a body that creates legislation.

Damn the fowl and cursed english language for having so many similar words that mean different things.

OOC: Thanks, 'twas a long night and this is making for a long day.

Damn the fowl and cursed english language for having so many similar words that mean different things.

I believe you mean "foul" unless you think the English language is poultry.

Timothy Schmidt
UN Representative (pro tem)

But it's a big loophole. What if this 'responsiblity' clause get applied to humans and you wipe out all human rights resolutions forever? I mean: "If you don't want the local humans to be legally free to execute you, another local human, for speaking out against the government, you must obey their laws and agree with whatever the government says...as that is YOUR responsiblity, so fufil that responsiblity, and then we give rights". What's this talk about responsiblity in this day and age? We should deal with rights, not talk about responsiblites (and thereby allow for a huge legal loophole)?
You err in asserting the "and then". Rights come with responsibilities, neither before nor after them, and that is a truth all too frequently ignore when people attempt to assert their rights to bully a situation to their advantage. The right not to be murdered comes with a concomitent responsibility not to murder, precisely because other people have the same right as you do.

For example, from our own legal code in Gobbannium it is possible to observe that being a vampire is not in fact illegal. Many of the more vociferous objectors to their existence do require to be reminded of this from time to time, and have it demonstrated that a "slay first, ask questions later" policy is not acceptable. That said, a vampire committing common assault or murder to drink an individual's blood is committing a criminal offense, and may be dealt with accordingly.

That said, a vampire committing common assault or murder to drink an individual's blood is committing a criminal offense, and may be dealt with accordingly.

Prehaps, but then how can you expect the vampire to live if he doesn't get blood? If you are going to make it so that the only way for a vampire to live is to do 'criminal offenses', then you aren't really helping the vampire.

The only way I can see in this case if you allow for a 'blood bank' and grant Vampires a "blood" stipent, so that they can drink the blood and stay alive. If there is something in the resolution that compels nationstates to make "special accomodations" for different speices, allowing them to live, while at the same time ensuring they can accept the social responsiblites without being negatively harmed in the process, then we may be okay with it.

Dr. Bob.

Prehaps, but then how can you expect the vampire to live if he doesn't get blood? If you are going to make it so that the only way for a vampire to live is to do 'criminal offenses', then you aren't really helping the vampire.

The only way I can see in this case if you allow for a 'blood bank' and grant Vampires a "blood" stipent, so that they can drink the blood and stay alive. If there is something in the resolution that compels nationstates to make "special accomodations" for different speices, allowing them to live, while at the same time ensuring they can accept the social responsiblites without being negatively harmed in the process, then we may be okay with it.

Dr. Bob.

I just thought id point out that i already put foward this point and adressed it in my last post.

I just thought id point out that i already put foward this point and adressed it in my last post.

Yes, but no nation is actually required to provide such a service to vampires, which is what I am arguing the UN resolution should state.

So, if a nation hates vampires, it can very well let the vampire starve to death.

---Dr. Bob

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #56
BioRights Declaration
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The free carolinas
Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.Since the only mention of HUMAN in this is found in the Category and as it doesn't indicate human clones or genetically engineered humans one can assume it means these have all rights of any naturally born and unmodified persons... no mention of human there either so does this not already make everyone equal as far as rights may go and not just cover humans. If anything the word Human in category should be changed and that believe is not done with a proposal and the term is assumed understood to cover all membership of NS UN as it will be applied to them all.. It like saying 'man'kind and it covers women also as it covers all members regardless of species/race/group... human or...

Also since the terms clones and genetic engineer are not clearly defined one might consider say a vampire a clone or geneticly engineer individual or any other form of life currently existing in member nations. Or they are the natural born and unmodified from which the others came since even that is not defined.


Perhaps 'member rights' not 'human rights' would be better catergory...

The only way I can see in this case if you allow for a 'blood bank' and grant Vampires a "blood" stipentThat's one way. Or, they can find people willing to offer their own blood. It all depends on the type of vampire a given nation has. If the requirements are low, there's no reason a person couldn't offer their own blood.

And if it's a pleasurable experience, it's that much easier to find volunteers.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

That's one way. Or, they can find people willing to offer their own blood. It all depends on the type of vampire a given nation has. If the requirements are low, there's no reason a person couldn't offer their own blood.

We quite concur, and this is indeed the direction in which our own social support structures lean. We particularly reject the discriminatory idea that vampires should receive free hand-outs of food while other species, such as humans, do not.

We quite concur, and this is indeed the direction in which our own social support structures lean. We particularly reject the discriminatory idea that vampires should receive free hand-outs of food while other species, such as humans, do not.

In actuality, many states with progressive social policies do give humans free handouts. Social welfare, it is called. However, you do raise a good point, that being that a free handout to some and not all is unfair. If special accomodations are to be given to some races, there should be policy to include all races.

I have but one question. Why has this not been put to vote yet?

I have but one question. Why has this not been put to vote yet?

First, there is a proposal already at vote. Second, this one is still being editing so it can go to vote.

To be honest, the only person who does edit is St. Edmund...and he is technically not in the UN at all. Nor has he posted in this thread ever since I last bumped it.

--Dr. Bob

First, there is a proposal already at vote. Second, this one is still being editing so it can go to vote.

Thirdly, what is happening is a lot of bickering over minutae and bollocks. If there is no one willing to step up and actually DO something with this, I most certainly shall, and anyone willing is more than welcome to help me. I have no intention of allowing what has been done thus far to go wasted and fall by the wayside. Considering the two other major human rights proposals that will soon be passed (Abolition of Slavery and Abolition of Forced Labor), this proposal is absolutely necessary to aid in the definitions put forth in those aforementioned. Without this declaration that you need not be human to recieve human rights, there are a large number of beings who will continue to be subjugated to tyrany and opression simply because they are not human.

If you are willing to aid me in pushing this through, send me a telegram. If I recieve a decent amount of support, I will start a new thread where we can discuss this rationally and with common sense.

~ Queen Vaela Dorn

"Vulpes Vixenis, common sense is sorely lacking in humanity.

This mindless bickering is useful, as it allows us to work out chinks. UN compliance is mandatory after all, and so, without people discussing and offering suggestions, what if we pass a dumb law? We can't wait until a repeal is made, often times, that never happens. And so we are stuck following the dumb law and making the UN a laughing stock.

Also note that a previous attempt at legalization failed utterly. This bickering is done so that we can avoid such a fate. Also note that you can always assume "person/human/whatever" to apply to everyone.

That being said, I am interested in adopting this proposal (but I am afraid that doing so will make St. Edmund angry) and may help you out in your endevour, but don't be suprised if more debate occurs..."

--Dr. Bob.

(OOC: Also note that many players deny the existence of non-humans themselves. Also note that those said players who don't engage in RP may make up the majority of NS voters.)

"Vulpes Vixenis, common sense is sorely lacking in humanity.

This mindless bickering is useful, as it allows us to work out chinks. UN compliance is mandatory after all, and so, without people discussing and offering suggestions, what if we pass a dumb law? We can't wait until a repeal is made, often times, that never happens. And so we are stuck following the dumb law and making the UN a laughing stock.

Also note that a previous attempt at legalization failed utterly. This bickering is done so that we can avoid such a fate. Also note that you can always assume "person/human/whatever" to apply to everyone.

That being said, I am interested in adopting this proposal (but I am afraid that doing so will make St. Edmund angry) and may help you out in your endevour, but don't be suprised if more debate occurs..."

--Dr. Bob.

(OOC: Also note that many players deny the existence of non-humans themselves. Also note that those said players who don't engage in RP may make up the majority of NS voters.)

(OOC: This is and was duly noted, but thank you for the reminder. This issue, as stated, evokes strong emotion in the leadership and citizenry of my nation, and so my Queen intends to see a resolution passed. It will be interesting to see how many of those non-rp nations vote for it.)

There comes a time when the bickering must end. Every proposal has its flaws. It is impossible to create one that does not. I have read through the "discussion" that has taken place over this issue, and it is my opinion and the opinion of my advisors that the time for action has come.

I was once told, "Change only occurs when those with a vested interest in the issue and the passion to pursue it step forward and take action." I intend on doing just that. To wit, I shall put forth a revision of the original proposal including all of the revisions thus far discussed that seem to meet with public concensus. In light of the possible offense to St Edmund, it shall remain here. It shall be done soonest and hopefully those of us who have a vested interest shall be allowed to act.

It sounds like you intend to take over St Edmund's proposal; you need his permission first. Write your own proposal if you want something passed so badly.

It sounds like you intend to take over St Edmund's proposal; you need his permission first. Write your own proposal if you want something passed so badly.

I do not intend to "take over" his proposal. Indeed not. As previously stated, I intend him no offense. What I do intend, however, is to get the ball rolling on this proposal once more, as it were. I will not submit it to vote nor will I make egregious changes other than those suggested by yourself and others.

If it indeed reaches a point where I must act alone, I shall do as you suggest. I wish first to build upon what has already been done in the hopes that it shall finally bear fruit.

Here is the revised proposal, as initially penned by St Edmund, including many of the suggested, most notably those from Dr. Bob and the representative from OMGTKK. Very little otherwise has been done save for a few corrections in punctuation and spelling.


Rights for Intelligent Beings

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

Acknowledging that it has already passed a number of resolutions that conferred or confirmed Human rights in various respects and realising that it might pass further such resolutions in future,

Recognising that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not actually ‘Human’ but who possess self-awareness, free will, an ability to make judgments about complex life or social decisions, and levels of intelligence that approach, match, or even exceed the average for Humans,

Regretting that some nations may refuse to extend basic rights and freedoms to many of their citizens, simply because they are not 'Human.'

Believing that species should not be considered adequate justification for unfair discrimination between intelligent beings;

Understanding that nations may require acceptance of civil responsibility prior to granting civil rights;

1. DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings, of any origin, who individually or as representative of their race possess self-awareness, free will, an ability to make judgments about complex life or social decisions, and levels of intelligence that approach, match, or even exceed the average for humans”;

2. RECOGNISES that many types of Sapients possess various innate physical, psychological, and/or sociological differences from Humans, and that in some cases these would actually make granting those beings exactly the same rights as are specified for Humans unfair in itself;

3. REQUIRES member nations to pass laws extending all applicable rights and freedoms required under international law to all sapient beings under their jurisdiction;

4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares any UN-guaranteed ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair for any type of Sapients to grant those Sapients alternative rights, of a more appropriate and fairer nature, to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;

6. ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, ordinary observation, and common sense — any disputes that might arise about whether or not specific types of beings are ‘Sapient’, whether denying specific rights to any specific types of Sapients is justifiable, and whether whatever alternative rights have been suggested instead in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;

7. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to abolish any unfair discrimination between sapient beings on the basis of species that their laws might allow in any matters that are not covered by UN Resolutions;

This discussion of vampires brings up an interesting point. Can we give creatures who may or may not exist the same rights as humans? In Yaybor, there is debate about the existence of vampires. My uncle says anyone who believes in them has bats in their belfry. But my sister's friend's hairdresser swears she was attacked by one last month. Of course, they might be more likely to step out of the closet if they knew they wouldn't get staked.

OOC: even players who RP might not have non-human sapients in their nations. They might be hiding, like in Yaybor, or non-existent in nations that insist on "realism".

"Alright, here's a possiblity. Let assume that there are, in fact, no such thing as sapinet creatures other than humans.

That doesn't mean that if we ever DO find any sapinet creatures other than humans, we should grant them rights as well.

So, for all those MT nations that adhere to this myth known as "realism", in case we actually find sapinet creatures, such as aliens, or AI, we should give them rights. Of course, we tie that to responsiblites, so if the aliens are crazy loons who want to kill us all, we are free to respond.

Fair enough?"

Dr. Bob.

This discussion of vampires brings up an interesting point. Can we give creatures who may or may not exist the same rights as humans?
Indeed we can, and arguably must. Even those who have never encountered an intelligence of a species other than their own would be ill-advised to assume that they never will encounter such, for that would be to claim that in all of the cosmos there is and more importantly will be no other intelligent species. As long as we focus upon the relevant qualities of being -- their sapience in terms of this resolution -- then we can characterise matters more than adequately for a proposal of this nature.

I do not intend to "take over" his proposal. Indeed not. As previously stated, I intend him no offense. What I do intend, however, is to get the ball rolling on this proposal once more, as it were. I will not submit it to vote nor will I make egregious changes other than those suggested by yourself and others.

If it indeed reaches a point where I must act alone, I shall do as you suggest. I wish first to build upon what has already been done in the hopes that it shall finally bear fruit.


I frankly find this to be a good idea. While i always enjoy a rousing debate about the minutia of the existance of us non-humans (and who would want to be just human anyway?), the point of this debate is to advance the making of a proposal, something which quite a few of us here seem to have forgotten, even me.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN rep. of Ice Forge

OOC: Also, i want to see how this proposal does in the voting ring.... what with all the non-rpers out there.

"Alright, here's a possiblity. Let assume that there are, in fact, no such thing as sapinet creatures other than humans.

That doesn't mean that if we ever DO find any sapinet creatures other than humans, we should grant them rights as well.

So, for all those MT nations that adhere to this myth known as "realism", in case we actually find sapinet creatures, such as aliens, or AI, we should give them rights. Of course, we tie that to responsiblites, so if the aliens are crazy loons who want to kill us all, we are free to respond.

Fair enough?"

Dr. Bob.

Which is why I continued the inclusion of this clause:

Understanding that nations may require acceptance of civil responsibility prior to granting civil rights;

I agreed with OMGTKK that it seemed inappropriate as an article and thus moved it to the preamble, however it seems necessary. It also allows for civil rights to be revoked from anyone who fails to uphold civic responsibility, human and non-human alike. I do think it should, however, be worded more specifically:

Understanding that nations may require acceptance of suitable civic responsibility as required of any and all human citizens prior to granting civil rights and that nations may revoke civil rights based upon lack, neglect, or refusal of accepting said civic responsibility;

That is simply my opinion. Also, I would like to thank the representative from Ice Forge for understanding my intentions. As I have stated time and time again, this is a matter close to my heart and I would see it dealt with. It has set too long idly in the dust. Now it shall see the light of day, whether for good or ill only time will tell.

~ Queen Vaela Dorn

OK, you are taking this draft. You can't revise another author's draft so heavily without even his knowledge; if he doesn't like what you've done, or doesn't even return, all your efforts are wasted. If you have changes to suggest, suggest them, and wait to see if the author implements them. Otherwise, just write your own proposal.

OOC: I'm back online, and hope to get this proposal [finally] sorted out in the New Year... but my mother's currently in hospital, for observation & rehabilitation after a fall (She has Parkinson's Disease, and has been on the medication for so long that it's losing its effectiveness... :(), and I'm visiting her there on most evenings which cuts into my NS time...

Your grandmoter is more important than imaginary beings. Stay there as long as you can.

OOC: I'm back online, and hope to get this proposal [finally] sorted out in the New Year... but my mother's currently in hospital, for observation & rehabilitation after a fall (She has Parkinson's Disease, and has been on the medication for so long that it's losing its effectiveness... :(), and I'm visiting her there on most evenings which cuts into my NS time...

OOC:Terribly sorry to hear that St. Edmund. I'll be wishing for you that she recovers.

OOC: I'm back online, and hope to get this proposal [finally] sorted out in the New Year... but my mother's currently in hospital, for observation & rehabilitation after a fall (She has Parkinson's Disease, and has been on the medication for so long that it's losing its effectiveness... :(), and I'm visiting her there on most evenings which cuts into my NS time...

OOC: yeah man your mothers way more important. You hold the fort in RL and while your gone the rest of us will keep this debate moving foward. Hope everything works out.

OOC: I'm back online, and hope to get this proposal [finally] sorted out in the New Year... but my mother's currently in hospital, for observation & rehabilitation after a fall (She has Parkinson's Disease, and has been on the medication for so long that it's losing its effectiveness... :(), and I'm visiting her there on most evenings which cuts into my NS time...

OOC: As much as I'd like to see this move forward, real life is more important. We can take care of this later. It's waited this long, it can wait a bit more.

OOC: I'm back online, and hope to get this proposal [finally] sorted out in the New Year... but my mother's currently in hospital, for observation & rehabilitation after a fall (She has Parkinson's Disease, and has been on the medication for so long that it's losing its effectiveness... :(), and I'm visiting her there on most evenings which cuts into my NS time...

OOC: My heart and prayers go out to you. The imaginary people in our heads can wait.

OOC: Mum's still in hospital, but her condition has improved a bit (within the limits that her overall condition imposes) and she should be getting home again later this week. I still don't know how much time I'll be able to spend here during the near future (although I can say that I'll have to be offline all through New Year's Day...) but am going to try to get a revised draft of this proposal written.
What I'm going to do is post a copy of the previous draft in this post (with the main changes in blue, like this), and then re-read the thread so far making changes to this copy and posting (OOC) replies to some of your comments to supplement those replies that I have already made in the preceding pages.
Please don't post any more comments here until I've got up to date...

(Felix, would you please edit a link to this re-draft into the thread's opening post?)

Rights for Intelligent Beings

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

The United Nations,

NOTING that this organisation has already passed a number of resolutions concerning human rights, and that it is likely to pass other such resolutions in the future,

RECOGNISING that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not actually ‘Human’ (if that term is taken to mean just “members of the biological species ‘Homo sapiens’) but who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence and an ability to make judgments that approach, match or even exceed the average for humans,

REALISING that some nations do not regard intelligent non-human beings as deserving the same rights as members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’,

BELIEVING that species should not be considered an adequate justification for unfair discrimination between intelligent beings;

1. DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings of any origin who, individually or as indicative of a species or genetic group or other catgeory of comparable scope, possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’";

2. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all Sapients as legally ‘Human’ for the general purpose of all rights that are guaranteed or urged for humans by UN resolutions, and to grant them all of the rights that those resolutions grant to Humans, unless they possess innate physical and/or psychological differences from typical members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’ that would actually make doing this unfair in itself;

3. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares any UN-guaranteed rights inappropriate and/or unfair for any type of Sapients to grant those Sapients alternative rights, of a more appropriate and fairer nature, to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;

4. ESTABLISHES a committee called the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, ordinary observation, and common sense — any disputes that might arise about whether or not specific types of beings are ‘Sapient’, whether denying specific rights to any specific types of Sapients is justifiable, and whether and whether the aforementioned alternative rights suggested in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;

5. STRONGLY URGES all member-nations to abolish any unfair discrimination between sapient beings on the basis of species that their laws might allow in any matters that are not covered by UN Resolutions;

6. ACKNOWLEDGES that, except where any previous UN Resolutions that are still in force specify otherwise, national governments have the right to make the possession of some or all rights by people within their nations dependant upon the acceptance by those people of appropriate and reasonable responsibilities.


COMMENTS

We're pretty apathetic - aren't there important things we could be doing, really? - but we would certainly hope any such endeavour would be strictly limited to biological sapients; we could do without the nauseating headache of the toaster rights lobbyists gearing up.
I currently plan on having it apply to all sapients, to save us from possibly having to go through further debates about possible separate resolutions to help the non-biological ones, and might even use a nation of non-biological beings to submit it...

By anchoring the definition (and I realize it already used that terminology) to individual "beings" and coupling it with the requirement to make the complex judgments referenced, developmentally disabled homo sapiens are not, under this act, worthy of human rights. Nor are those having suffered brain injuries of various sources.

Because of this conundrum, which has plagued this topic from day one, we believe the definition must in some way reference the norm of any particular species that is to be determined as "smart enough" with respect to this act.
I'm still thinking about this detail.

It also does not require nations to treat “non-humans” equally with regard to national laws, only those resolutions passed by the UN. This potentially leaves considerable discrimination in place; something that we would be unwilling to do.
I currently plan on leaving the relevant clause as a 'STRONGLY URGES' one, thus enforcing a species-neutral application of those other resolutions that the UN has already passed in this field but not intruding any further on national sovereignty in such matters.

Second, why did Rights of Biological Sapients fail so terribly two years agoThe endless sapient/sentient "debate", as I recall.
Which is one of the reasons why the title of this proposal, although admittedly not the text, now uses the term 'Intelligent' instead...

My original intention was that any individuals such as you mention here would be able to claim 'legally sapient' status in their own right even if the bulk of their species failed to qualify for it: Whether my latest draft covered that point clearly enough is, I admit, another matter...
Ah, yes, now I see. With that in mind we could use a slight modification to my wording here- "DEFINES the term ‘sapients’ as meaning “Beings who individually or as indicative of a species or genetic group, possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and are able to make judgments about complex life or social decisions;"
I've added that factor to the definition for now, although I'm not really happy about the wording of the line about "as indicative or a species or a genetic group": A definition applying the rights to any species or genetic group with any members possessing the traits concerned might be better... although, of course, the use of the term 'genetic' wouldn't necessarily be right for non-biological sapients.
Consider this clause as being still definitely unfinished...

Maybe we could give rights to any member of a biological species, at least one specimen of which is capable of meeting the criteria. Thus a mentally handicapped human would still qualify, because other humans do meet the criteria.
Maybe so, I'll think about it.

RECOGNISING ...

REALISING ...

RECOGNISING ...

REALISING ...
The repetitiveness is tiresome. Try some variety with your verbs: acknowledging, regretting, noting, expressing concern, &c.
Maybe I will: There’s still time for more changes before it’s submitted.

RECOGNISING that it has already passed a number of resolutions that conferred or confirmed ‘Human Rights’ in various respects,

REALISING that it might pass further ‘Human Rights’ resolutions in future, too,You may not like to hear it, but referring to specific gameplay categories is Metagaming. "Human rights" (smaller case, sans scare quotes) can be acknowledged as a general subject area, but as far as I am aware, Proposal Categories don't exist in UNtopia.
Also, you might want to consider combining the two clauses into one: "Noting that it has already passed a number of resolutions relating to human rights, and that it is likely to pass further such resolutions in the future..."
I’d been assuming that any categories that could exist IC did exist IC, as part of whatever ‘UN charter’ our nations’ governments are assumed to have signed when we joined, but okay: Changes made.
RECOGNISING that the populations of some of its member-nations include beings who are not human, but who possess self-awareness, free will, intelligence, and an ability to make judgments that approach, match or even exceed the average for that species,
Awkward. Change to: "...approach, match or even exceed that of humans."
REALISING that some nations do not regard intelligent non-human beings as deserving comparable rights to members of the species homo sapiens,
Equally awkward. Maybe: "Regretting that some nations may refuse to extend basic rights and freedoms to many of their citizens, simply because they are not "human.""
This clause has now been re-written, although not with your suggested wording. Do you consider the new version acceptable?
2. RECOGNISES that many types of sapients possess various innate or apparent physical and/or psychological differences from the species homo sapiens,
"...that of humans." Also, I highly doubt that "physical" and "psychological" are the only fields by which humans and non-humans may differ.
First point changed. Any suggestions about other factors to mention in the second point, or do you think that I should just go for “innate differences” without mentioning any possible fields of difference?
3. REQUIRES all member-nations to pass laws recognising all sapients as legally ‘human’ for the general purpose of all ‘Human Rights’ that are covered by UN resolutions, and to grant them exactly the same rights as the relevant Resolutions grant to ‘Humans’ except in those cases where the aforementioned differences would make doing so inappropriate and/or unfair; Extremely awkward. Why can't it be just "Requires member nations to pass laws extending all applicable rights and freedoms required under international law to all sapient beings under their jurisdiction." Move the "inappropriate or unfair" deal to the next clause, since that's what it's addressing anyway.
4. REQUIRES any member-nation that declares said ‘Human Rights’ inappropriate and/or unfair to grant those sapients alternative rights of a more appropriate and fairer nature to as comparable an extent as the nature of those beings makes practical;
Again, awkward, but this is St Edmundan language we're dealing with, so it's to be expected. I'd make it an "Urges" clause, not a requirement. Something like: "Urges member nations to grant alternative rights to non-human sapients, etc., etc."
You want to reduce this clause from ‘Requires’ to ‘Urges’, Rubina wants to strengthen another clause, later on, from ‘Urges’ to ‘Requires’: Somehow I don’t think that pleasing everybody about the strengths of the operative clauses is going to be possible… Which approach I end up favouring will depend partly on which wording I think gives the proposal a better chance of passing and partly on which nation ends up submitting it (and if St Edmund ends up re-joining the UN just for this purpose then, with the National Conservatives having had to accept the Conservative Centrists as coalition partners since last summer, Requires/Requires/Urges seems the likeliest choice...)
6. ESTABLISHES the ‘UN Forum on Intelligent Beings’ (or ‘UNFIB’) to judge — using scientific evidence, empirical observation, and common sense — any disputes regarding the application of the term 'sapient'; whether denying specific rights to any specific types of sapients is justifiable; and whether the aforementioned alternative rights suggested in those cases are adequately appropriate and fair;OK, this is very problematic. One, because compliance is mandatory, so an enforcement mechanism is not needed in resolutions, and two, if a commission is going to be calling all the shots as to which species do or do not qualify as sapient, why define sapience in the first place? I assume the term was defined so member states can enforce the relevant provisions on their own, so why do we need a committee breathing down their necks?

[Edit: OK, I may have misread the clause somewhat, but still, if we're giving member nations the authority to extend rights using specific definitions, why do we need a commission to overrule them?]
Compliance is mandatory but, as you already know, interpretation is less fixed: The committee isn’t there to over-ride any nations that might want to extend more rights, it’s there to over-ride any nations that might want to try using unreasonably limited applications of the term ‘sapient’…
8. ACCEPTS that, except in cases where previous UN Resolutions still in force specify otherwise, nations may choose to make the possession of some or all civil rights dependent upon the acceptance of appropriate civic responsibilities.I'm not understanding this. This language was not necessary for any other HR resolution, why is it necessary here? Get rid of it. It doesn't do anything, anyway.I’ll send you a TG about this point, probably later this week and certainly before actually submitting this draft.

What if this 'responsiblity' clause get applied to humans and you wipe out all human rights resolutions forever? I mean: "If you don't want the local humans to be legally free to execute you, another local human, for speaking out against the government, you must obey their laws and agree with whatever the government says...as that is YOUR responsiblity, so fufil that responsiblity, and then we give rights".
Aha! Somebody has spotted that the clause in question doesn't -- as some other people suggested -- "do nothing"... ;)
Well, for one thing it obviously wouldn't apply to those rights (such as freedom of slavery) that were guaranteed by earlier resolutions that are still in force: What it would do is limit what would effectively be possible in future resolutions, and even then there's its use of the adjective "appropriate" which should keep at least the 'reasonable' nations from over-using that right... and in fact I've just added a requirement that those responsibilities be "reasonable" into that clause, too.

What's this talk about responsiblity in this day and age? We should deal with rights, not talk about responsiblites (and thereby allow for a huge legal loophole)?Both the St Edmundan government (IC) and I myself (OOC) believe that, as Gobbannium has already said in reply to you, rights come with associated responsibilities.

Altough, in your defense, vampires and demons may very well be mandatorliy drafted into the military or police force, and therefore, would be allowed to do "assault and murder" in service of one country, staying alive in the process.As might humans... ;)

but then you get into the alternative. As in, if a demon needs to devour humen flesh to survive, are there not many many cadavers donated to science? could not there be a "feed the demons" foundation to donate bodies too? also, in the case of vamps, in the Forsaken Imperial Alliance nation of Tortara, which has a majority of the population that are vampires, there are ways to deal with the blood thrist. Certain bloods can sate a vampire for long periods with small amounts. Plus, vampires have been hiding in society for ages by only taking as much blood as needed from a "victem", leaving the "victem" alive. To top it all off, i am informed that for many being fed on by a vampire is apparently a pleasureable experiance.
As the current wording only REQUIRES giving non-humans at least the same rights that UN resolutions give to humans, or different-but-comparable rights instead where that would be more appropriate, doesn't it leave you free to allow such things (on a national basis) if you so desire?

Prehaps, but then how can you expect the vampire to live if he doesn't get blood? If you are going to make it so that the only way for a vampire to live is to do 'criminal offenses', then you aren't really helping the vampire.

The only way I can see in this case if you allow for a 'blood bank' and grant Vampires a "blood" stipent, so that they can drink the blood and stay alive. If there is something in the resolution that compels nationstates to make "special accomodations" for different speices, allowing them to live, while at the same time ensuring they can accept the social responsiblites without being negatively harmed in the process, then we may be okay with it.
I really don't want to start trying to handle matters in detail on a species-by-species basis here, there are just too many possibilities that would have to be covered but that various players would deny existed within NS...

I just thought id point out that i already put foward this point and adressed it in my last post.Yes, but no nation is actually required to provide such a service to vampires, which is what I am arguing the UN resolution should state.

So, if a nation hates vampires, it can very well let the vampire starve to death.
It could do that already, without these new rules being in force as a resolution, and if this proposal does pass then at least the vampires would be covered by the already-existing resolution on Emigration Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12412273&postcount=199) if they could find any more hospitable nations willing to accept them.

That's one way. Or, they can find people willing to offer their own blood. It all depends on the type of vampire a given nation has. If the requirements are low, there's no reason a person couldn't offer their own blood.We quite concur, and this is indeed the direction in which our own social support structures lean. We particularly reject the discriminatory idea that vampires should receive free hand-outs of food while other species, such as humans, do not.Agreed.

"Alright, here's a possiblity. Let assume that there are, in fact, no such thing as sapinet creatures other than humans.

That doesn't mean that if we ever DO find any sapinet creatures other than humans, we should (St Edmundan comment: Should there be a "not" here? grant them rights as well.

So, for all those MT nations that adhere to this myth known as "realism", in case we actually find sapinet creatures, such as aliens, or AI, we should give them rights. Of course, we tie that to responsiblites, so if the aliens are crazy loons who want to kill us all, we are free to respond.

Fair enough?"Fair enough.

This discussion of vampires brings up an interesting point. Can we give creatures who may or may not exist the same rights as humans?Indeed we can, and arguably must. Even those who have never encountered an intelligence of a species other than their own would be ill-advised to assume that they never will encounter such, for that would be to claim that in all of the cosmos there is and more importantly will be no other intelligent species. As long as we focus upon the relevant qualities of being -- their sapience in terms of this resolution -- then we can characterise matters more than adequately for a proposal of this nature.Well said!

OOC: Mum's still in hospital, but her condition has improved a bit (within the limits that her overall condition imposes) and she should be getting home again later this week. I still don't know how much time I'll be able to spend here during the near future(although I can say that I'll have to be offline all through New Year's Day...) but am going to try to get a revised draft of this proposal written.
What I'm going to do is post a copy of the previous draft in this post, and then re-read the thread so far making changes to this copy and posting (OOC) replies to some of your comments.
Please don't post any more comments here until I've got up to date...

(Felix, would you please edit a link to this re-draft into the thread's opening post?)

I currently plan on having it apply to all sapients, and might even use a nation of non-biological beings to submit it...

OOC: I'd like to reitterate the importance of this to my nation; however, I also wish to urge you to put this to the side for the moment. Family is a lot more important, especially it being your mother. I don't pray, but I do hope for her swift recovery and well being.

OOC: Also... in doing research for a proposal, I came across Resolution #56: BioRights Declaration. I wonder, does this have any bearing on the current proposal? It can be construed to mean any kind of person, human or otherwise, however it gives no definition of anything it mentions. Just wondering, and giving a heads up.

(OOC comments)

OOC: I'd like to reitterate the importance of this to my nation; however, I also wish to urge you to put this to the side for the moment. Family is a lot more important, especially it being your mother. I don't pray, but I do hope for her swift recovery and well being.
Working on this helps to take my mind off of the problem for a few minutes.
Thank you.

OOC: Also... in doing research for a proposal, I came across Resolution #56: BioRights Declaration. I wonder, does this have any bearing on the current proposal? It can be construed to mean any kind of person, human or otherwise, however it gives no definition of anything it mentions. Just wondering, and giving a heads up.As far as I'm aware, the fact that that proposal gives "cloned and genetically engineered" beings the same rights as "naturally-born" ones is normally taken to mean only "naturally-born" members of the same species. It would give cloned & genetically enginered Humans the same rights that this proposal seeks to do, in any cases where the relevant nations' laws didn't do so, but if a nation denied 'human right' to (for example) "naturally-born" Elves then any cloned or genetically-engineered members of that species would still be out of luck.

Mods: A ruling, please... I don't need to get Resolution #56 repealed before submitting this proposal, do I?

___________________________________________________________

All: I've finished taking your posts from the thread's first four pages into account, and will (hopefully) get around to pages 5-7 before the end of the week. PLEASE, no more posts here until I say that I'm up to date with the existing ones...

Also, are we going to be limiting this to only biological sapience? Quod did have a point about toaster rights before.Never will we allow a computer to run or government and co tr o llllllll whaaaa twe do. @$^#^& error error error delete error..

I know you requested no more, but I figured you'd want the ruling now.

Mods: A ruling, please... I don't need to get Resolution #56 repealed before submitting this proposal, do I?Huh? Whazzat?

Let's see...

Description: The United Nations and its member states shall hereby recognize and henceforth regard the inherent rights of cloned and genetically engineered persons as being the equal of those of naturally born and unmodified persons.At least it's short.

Says "persons", not "humans". Only deals with the "natural" vs. cloned/engineered dynamic. So, it would cover clones (obviously), um... perhaps so-called test-tube babies, entirely novel lifeforms created by humans (but not ones without genetics, ala inorganic beings, it seems), and... er... perhaps cyborgs.

Now, as I understand it, this Proposal is attempting to (in essence) create a definition for "unmodified persons". As long as you do that, BioRights will simply tag along and alter definitions as per its mandate.

In other words, if you completely ignore "cloned and genetically engineered persons", you shouldn't have any issues with duplication or contradiction. Simply ignore BioRights, and let it do its thing on its own.

I know you requested no more, but I figured you'd want the ruling now.

Huh? Whazzat?

Let's see...

At least it's short.

Says "persons", not "humans". Only deals with the "natural" vs. cloned/engineered dynamic. So, it would cover clones (obviously), um... perhaps so-called test-tube babies, entirely novel lifeforms created by humans (but not ones without genetics, ala inorganic beings, it seems), and... er... perhaps cyborgs.

Now, as I understand it, this Proposal is attempting to (in essence) create a definition for "unmodified persons". As long as you do that, BioRights will simply tag along and alter definitions as per its mandate.

In other words, if you completely ignore "cloned and genetically engineered persons", you shouldn't have any issues with duplication or contradiction. Simply ignore BioRights, and let it do its thing on its own.

Thank you. Yes, that's what I'd hoped would be the case.

Edit: Or is it? After all, my current wording refers to "Beings of any origin", which would presumably include beings belonging to the specific categories that BioRights covers as well as "unmodified" ones... Ouch!
Changing that clause to say "Naturally-born beings" instead would solve this problem, but then it would probably leave those sapients that were built or created rather than actually born -- including many AIs and other 'electronic' or 'mechanical' beings, and some beings of supernatural origins (and both of the two non-StEdmundans whom I was considering as possible submitters for this proposal) -- unprotected...

__________________________________________________________________

OKAY, everybody: I've finished reading & replying to all of your comments in this thread so far, and have made as many changes to the latest draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13333676&postcount=103) as I feel like doing for now, so feel free to continue...

sounds like its a great idea as long (I don't know if this was mentioned before, I'm new here) as the rights are equal across the board, because its possible to forget the origional group and take there rights away as you give new ones to the formly oppressed group. If you did this you never get rid of the problem, you just shifted whos on top. Otherwise I fully support this proposal.

Two small things.

First, clause four has a typo: "and whether and whether".

Second, would simply saying "Beings" rather than "Beings of any origin" resolve your uneasiness? Or perhaps "Beings of any nature", to divert from any misapprehension over "origin"?

The problem with the term intelligent is that some might feel it includes intelligent calcium (http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXftaLnjp9Q) (fast forward to 05:20)

Perhaps a good way to resolve the conflict over just what counts as an intelligent being that would be covered in under this reoloution would be the establishment of some form of commitee that reviewed the ones we arnt certain of. After all, if we all come to agree that a race of sentient toasters deserves rights then fine, but if just one person wanted it and it made no sense to the others well....

Of course this may A: not be plauseable, or B: have already been suggested.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep of Ice Forge

Well, it has already been suggested, Ice Forge. And I would happily go and argue before the commitee to defend the right of any senitent creature, toaster or tiger.

HOWEVER, now I am having second thoughts...for one, the compositon of the commitee. If the commitee has only humans or only gnomes, then their desicion of "intelligence" would come from a purely 'gnomic' or 'humanic' view, and therefore, their views may cloud their judgement and make the commitee seem 'biased'.

Another thing is that the Commitee may have never-ending lawsuits. I go and convince the commitee that toasters has rights and then angry people would instead go and state "no, toasters has no rights, we should enslave them".

The Commitee may first side with me, and say toasters has rights. But then, what is it to stop the Anti-Toaster Rights Lobby to go and continue to appeal endlessly, halting the Commitee from working on the case to extend rights to butter knives? Or what is it to have the Anti-Toaster Rights Lobby wait in the shadows, working behind the scenes to reshuffle the Commitee to stuff it with Anti-Toasterits...and then the Commitee, with all new members, would say the toasters has no rights whatsoever and therefore nations can do as they will to toasters.

Then there would another round of politics and backstabbing between Toaster Rights and Anti-Toaster Rights, and finally, the Commitee would be undecided and issue a 'We don't know' statement. The Commitee would become a hotbed of political unrest and chaos, where instead of rights being granted, rights can be taken away. This chaos would overall weaken the UN and making it a laughing stock...

Well, even more of a laughing stock.

The bad news is that there seems to be no solution to the crisis of the Commitee. And I still like the Commitee more than I like anything else. Still...commitees has their faults.

---Dr. Bob.

Remind us not to invent the toaster

my current wording refers to "Beings of any origin", which would presumably include beings belonging to the specific categories that BioRights covers as well as "unmodified" ones... Ouch!"Beings of any origin (except where previously covered)" or the like?

I agree with SilentScope003 commitees will just get bogged down in petty politics to be of any use at all but what about somesort of test. There are issues with this too due too possible language and culture barriers and also what we consider a logical choise a different type of being might not. So the test would be flawed but at least there would be alot less leagal bickering.

Unfortunantly i see a lot of the same problems when it comes to making up a test; namely, who makes the test? That could lead to all sorts of bickering. Not to mention, how does one creature taking a test exemplify an entire race? God knows that my pet Patchwork might be able to pass some test but that certainly doesn't mean other abominations have even that much (limited) intelligence.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Rep of Ice Forge

In the name of democracy, and equal rights, I agree.

Here's a test: if they can comprehend the Wawa and can follow it or deliberately ignore it, then they are sentient.

"A commitee is the worst form of legalisation, except for all the others.

Except, prehaps a definition, but, well, I am uncomforatble with that. 'Reasonable nation' theory doesn't work when people reasonably disagree on the sentience of toasters."---Dr. Bob

A committee would seem an unfortunate but necessary evil, and the lesser of two. Would it not be more wise to have a body governing the application of these laws than to have no form of judgement other than a nation's own "conscience"? If the committee were to include a member, or perhaps two, from each race deemed sentient then it would be fair, we think. Yes, a panel dominated by one race would be biased, and a panel dominated by biological sentient's is likely to be biased against non-biological ones; however, a panel comprised of members from several different sentient, sapient species is much less likely to be biased than governments which refuse to recognize the freedoms rightfully owed to sapient beings due to the lack of higher judgement.

~ Queen Vaela Dorn

A committee would seem an unfortunate but necessary evil, and the lesser of two. Would it not be more wise to have a body governing the application of these laws than to have no form of judgement other than a nation's own "conscience"? If the committee were to include a member, or perhaps two, from each race deemed sentient then it would be fair, we think. Yes, a panel dominated by one race would be biased, and a panel dominated by biological sentient's is likely to be biased against non-biological ones; however, a panel comprised of members from several different sentient, sapient species is much less likely to be biased than governments which refuse to recognize the freedoms rightfully owed to sapient beings due to the lack of higher judgement.

~ Queen Vaela Dorn

This seems like an excellent idea to me. Another thing that this will help avoid is the dominace of any racial prejudices, such as those of Celestials against Infernals and such. The only thing making that difficult we be that at current the only recognized race is humanity; thus the point of this resoloution. Still, once we have more races recognized, i would whole-heartedly support a multi-racial panal as being in the spirit of the UN.

~Sadrin Darkfire, UN Delegate of Ice Forge, High Lord the Academy

Sorry, the committee is staffed by gnomes only. NSUN policy. It sounds like I'm joking, but I'm not. Trying to dictate the makeup of NSUN committees is against the rules.

Sorry, the committee is staffed by gnomes only. NSUN policy. It sounds like I'm joking, but I'm not. Trying to dictate the makeup of NSUN committees is against the rules.

OOC: Grr. Just... grr. *growl growl*

Even if it was legal, a multiracial commiteee has pitfalls too. They may 'exclude' races they don't like, may seek to declare races that are ON the commitee as being 'non-sapient' in order to kick them out, etc.

I actually was thinking of an alternate idea (mandating that all sapient races has the right to rule themselves, and that "non-human sapients" are allowed to form their own national commitee and pass their own laws that pertain to them), but will only wait until later to decide if it is a good idea to pursue.

--Dr. Bob

A consolation as it were, is that the gnomes are said to be objective, eminently intelligent and happy to be there.

OOC: There gotta be limits for the gnomes' "perfectness" though, otherwise the wise thing to do is to make them run all our countries.

Sorry, the committee is staffed by gnomes only. NSUN policy. It sounds like I'm joking, but I'm not. Trying to dictate the makeup of NSUN committees is against the rules.OOC: Grr. Just... grr. *growl growl*A consolation as it were, is that the gnomes are said to be objective, eminently intelligent and happy to be there. The committee's composition, although required to be gnomes, can be specified. For example one could require expertise in xenobiology, psychology, and ethics.

It's dead, Jim.

OOC: There gotta be limits for the gnomes' "perfectness" though, otherwise the wise thing to do is to make them run all our countries.Nah. They don't like you.

It's dead, Jim.

Now open your mouth and lets have a look at that brain. No, no, not that mouth.

Freaky, I was watching that episode just last night...

Sorry, the committee is staffed by gnomes only. NSUN policy. It sounds like I'm joking, but I'm not. Trying to dictate the makeup of NSUN committees is against the rules.

then who makes the chooses the commitees? (sorry for the bad spelling and grammer... Reflux is making me not care as much.)

then who makes the chooses the commitees? (sorry for the bad spelling and grammer... Reflux is making me not care as much.)

Much like the tax system, no one knows.

Creating Stuff

Committees may be created, as long as certain things are kept in mind: nations do not sit on committees, they are staffed by mystical beings that instantly spring into existance and live only to serve on said committee. Committees are also bound by the above MetaGame rules. Also, keep in mind that Committees are additions to Proposals; they shouldn't be all the Proposal does.

As far as anyone knows, it's a mystery. I tend to think they come from a door in a secret basement below the lowest UNOG dungeons (don't bother looking, it's not on any maps) that leads to a mystical dimension that no one else can access.

But that's just me.

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

Well that still doesn't abosolve the problem. Even if a commitee of mysticly perfect gnomes springs into being they will still have differing opinions. The political bickering would still continue even worse then before because they are perfect and they know it so they would never back down.

Well that still doesn't abosolve the problem. Even if a commitee of mysticly perfect gnomes springs into being they will still have differing opinions. The political bickering would still continue even worse then before because they are perfect and they know it so they would never back down.

Perfect beings don't bicker. They're perfect!

R.S.
etc.

Perfect beings don't bicker. They're perfect!

R.S.
etc.

Which is an even greater reason to have this committee in place. They will be able to perfectly determine the sentience/sapience of each and every race put before them with perfect accuracy.

OK, but if they don't have differing opionions then why have a commitee? One could do just as well of a job as multiple gnomes who all will come to the exact same conclusion every time.

i happen to favor this resolution, not least because my laws comply for it

Objective Valuedefines human as the following
Man/human = rational +animal.

Rational = capable of forming and operating upon concepts.

So far we've found no creatures in our territory other than homo sapiens who fit the bill... and keep in mind no amount of science would justify "different" rights under our laws though, there are only two categories in the matter... those who have the right to life and its consequent rights and those who dont :d

I feel this resolution leans a bit in the wrong direction. I think the overall goal of this resolution is animal rights. However, by taking creatures that are debatably sentient you are disagreeing with many, many groups. I find this resolution would be better if it simply defined rights for non-homo sapiens. It would allow greater rights for animals and at the same time remove the chance of jobs being outsourced to chimpanzees.

But I don't wish to sound as though I oppose the ideas of this resolution. If this resolution is put forward, my nation will cast its vote as FOR. However I worry about the reactions of other member nations, and that their personal issues with the intelligence of animals may cause too much resistance.

I feel this resolution leans a bit in the wrong direction. I think the overall goal of this resolution is animal rights. However, by taking creatures that are debatably sentient you are disagreeing with many, many groups. I find this resolution would be better if it simply defined rights for non-homo sapiens. It would allow greater rights for animals and at the same time remove the chance of jobs being outsourced to chimpanzees.
.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with where you think the proposal is directed. Many of the nations in the UN, quite a few of them quite old and respected, have non-human races that inhabit their lands that struggle to gain international recognition. Whether they be undead or a hybrid of man and animal or even something else entirely, these beings deserve the rights that all sentient beings deserve.

~Sadrin Darkfire

(Felix, would you please edit a link to this re-draft into the thread's opening post?)
Sorry, I must have overlooked this the first time. Done.

I'd have to respectfully disagree with where you think the proposal is directed. Many of the nations in the UN, quite a few of them quite old and respected, have non-human races that inhabit their lands that struggle to gain international recognition. Whether they be undead or a hybrid of man and animal or even something else entirely, these beings deserve the rights that all sentient beings deserve.

~Sadrin DarkfireThe key being in your statement that they are UN members and under the UN's own resolutions are equal to any other member.. So if a bull/cat/toad rules a nation of cows/kittens/tadpoles and the UN has taken it in as a member then all have the same rights as any person living in any member nation.. and are under the current UN resolutoins that might give member nations and they citizens anything getting them as all are. So there is already some set rule on who can be members thus we don't need a resolution to say cows are equal as members to humans or vampires or whatever they simply are once they become members and those who don't like this need to change or the UN will fail as folks go toward social separtion based on races or speices differences.

Lady Talkalotta Sayanadda,
Sixth Mistress to Sir Morbidisity,
First Manager of Debatissum

Also we saw in the first post:
1. DEFINES the term ‘Sapients’ as meaning “Beings, of any origin, who possess self-awareness, free will, and levels of intelligence that approach, match or even exceed the average for members of the species ‘Homo sapiens’”;
of the reference to homo sapiens as the race or species to compare all to as being suitable to be respected. We would hope that to find a better race or species to exalt to reach their level.

Mr Cornball Wisearse,
Owner Nothing Nightclub and Cat House,
Commander Cavirrian Royal Toilet Cleaners

The key being in your statement that they are UN members and under the UN's own resolutions are equal to any other member.. So if a bull/cat/toad rules a nation of cows/kittens/tadpoles and the UN has taken it in as a member then all have the same rights as any person living in any member nation.. and are under the current UN resolutoins that might give member nations and they citizens anything getting them as all are. So there is already some set rule on who can be members thus we don't need a resolution to say cows are equal as members to humans or vampires or whatever they simply are once they become members and those who don't like this need to change or the UN will fail as folks go toward social separtion based on races or speices differences.
The keyword in this nearly coherent drivel is 'might'. Member nations can consider non-human sapients to be people inasmuch as they are deemed covered by human rights legislation. Member nations can also not so consider non-human sapients, denying them the protections of UN human rights legislation. It is the nation's choice.

The purpose of this proposal is to remove that choice, preferably with great vigour and forcefulness in our opinion, and ban a particularly odious form of discrimination.

The key being in your statement that they are UN members and under the UN's own resolutions are equal to any other member.. So if a bull/cat/toad rules a nation of cows/kittens/tadpoles and the UN has taken it in as a member then all have the same rights as any person living in any member nation.. and are under the current UN resolutoins that might give member nations and they citizens anything getting them as all are. So there is already some set rule on who can be members thus we don't need a resolution to say cows are equal as members to humans or vampires or whatever they simply are once they become members and those who don't like this need to change or the UN will fail as folks go toward social separtion based on races or speices differences.

Isn't the point of this to ensure that the failing of the UN in this particular manner never happens? I would think that this argument supports this rather than opposses it. Instead of assuming that everyone should know this why not put it in writeing?