NationStates Jolt Archive

Abolition of Forced Labour

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Iron Felix

Description: Deploring the practice of forced labour, including bonded labour, debt-servitude and other forms of unfree labour, and

Believing that all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer,

The United Nations

1. Abolishes the practice of forced labour in all UN member nations;

2. Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

3. Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts;
b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed persons who refuse work that is offered to them and that they are capable of performing;

4. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;
b. Persons who are sentenced to such labour as a punishment for crimes;
c. Prisoners of War, and civilians interned during wartime, as allowed under international law;

5. Declares that no person may be committed to a contract against his or her will, except as clause #4 allows. Additionally, in the case of minors who are legally old enough to work the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself;

6. Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by his or her own consent has the right to leave that employer's service. Persons willing to remain in such service are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;

7. Declares that all persons have the right to leave their jobs at any time unless required, by a stated condition of employment or a contract freely entered into, to give specific and reasonable prior notice of abandoning the position. Failure to provide such notice may release the employer from any contractual or similar obligations;

8. Declares that the specified duration of a contract of employment may only be extended or shortened by the freely given consent of both parties, or by an order from a relevant court;

9. Declares that all persons have the right to be free from violence, threats of violence, enforced indebtedness, and other forms of undue coercion by their employers;

10. Prohibits all other forms of labour which would meet the definition of forced labour as stated in this resolution.

I am pleased to announce that this proposal, which was started so long ago by New Leicestershire, has now reached quorum and will be the next Resolution at vote. Thank you to everyone who contributed and/or assisted, in particular the delegations from Quintessence of Dust, Ausserland, St Edmund, Zarquon Froods, Rubina, Gobbannium and Omigodtheykilledkenny(who will likely abstain but who gave valuable advice nonetheless).

The original drafting thread may be viewed here: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=529375

I am certain that a spirited debate awaits us.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Unable to find anything at all to object to in this proposal, the nation of Ardchoille eagerly awaits the submissions of more ... er ... sensitive delegates, while happily anticipating their speedy demolition by the proposal's sponsors.

We would point out, however, that we do not consider "Communist nonsense!" or any variant thereon to be worth our time, or anybody else's, either.

My government particularly applauds the uncompromising language of Clause 1. "Abolishes" is a fine and powerful word, no shilly-shallying about it at all. Just what we would expect from Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky (though the actual content we find rather surprising, given his history. One assumes a Road to Damascus moment).

*nudged by associate*

Oh, yes. That's a FOR.

-- William Edward Kelly, ArdchoilleaNS.

We applaud Comrade Delegate Dzerzhinsky's (names with zeds in them send shivers down our spine) fine work on this resolution (and New Leicestershire beforehand), and look forward not only to casting a resounding FOR on the matter, but also to seeing the lovable Jones walking the aisles of this hall.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I rise today to express our support for this well written and thorough legislation. We feel as though our colleague from Iron Felix has met the balance of enforcing human rights and allowing national sovereignty that all UN Resolutions should strive for. You can count on our support when the vote opens up.

Nigel S Youlkin
UN Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

We feel it necessary to join in the preliminary rounds of convivial back-slapping to express our support for the proposal, and appreciation of the work that has been put into it. We shall, needless to say, be voting FOR.

We have one small question: what is Comrade Representative Felix's position on the provision of snacks to Mr Jones in the General Assembly?

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

We rise to applaud the esteemed chairman for a well-written proposal. Our nation is inclined to vote in favor of it, however, we would like a clarification on one particular point, namely clause 5:

5. Declares that no person may be committed to a contract against his or her will, except as clause #4 allows. Additionally, in the case of minors who are legally old enough to work the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself;

How does this clause operate in the case of minor children employed by their parents? We raise this question because most Kawaiian businesses are family-run affairs, and it is customary for all members of the family, including minor children, to help out as their capabilities permit.

We note that other clauses in this proposal could be intepreted as prohibiting the disciplining of employed minors by their employer-parents. Surely this is not the intent of the proposal?

<snip>...but also to seeing the lovable Jones walking the aisles of this hall.
I look forward to that too. Unfortunately, he is currently running loose (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=637&view=findpost&p=7178438) in Gruenberg (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=637&view=findpost&p=7180468) and needs to be extracted, somehow. We're working on it.

We have one small question: what is Comrade Representative Felix's position on the provision of snacks to Mr Jones in the General Assembly?
Mister Jones is a working dog and requires a very specialized diet. I'm afraid I must ask you to refrain from feeding him "snacks".

How does this clause operate in the case of minor children employed by their parents?
First, you can ignore the first sentence of that clause as it pertains to contracts. I'm certain that the children in question are not required to sign contracts as they are working either in the home or on a small family farm or somesuch. Further, it is to be assumed that the work is entered into willingly, is it not? What child would not eagerly assist in operating the family business?

The second sentence (the one we are concerned with here) states that "the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself". May. Your government can determine whether or not it is appropriate to require the child's consent in such situations. I'm certain that your government would take into consideration the child's age and the type of work involved when making such determinations.

We note that other clauses in this proposal could be intepreted as prohibiting the disciplining of employed minors by their employer-parents. Surely this is not the intent of the proposal?
I don't think most (if any) courts would consider parents "employers", in the situations you have mentioned. Since the matter of children working in family businesses, doing chores around the farm and soforth is not mentioned in the Resolution, it would default to existing UN and national laws to make a determination. Keep in mind though that parents cannot contract their children out to other, outside parties, without their consent. They also must be "legally old enough to work" under UN and/or national law.

I hope my answers have been helpful.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Upon helpful clarification of the concerns raised by the representative of the Eternal Kawaii, the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden have no objections to this fine piece of legislation and will thus vote FOR the resolution, and hope for its success.

Thank you.

Cpl. Maria Ramona Stanziola
Security Officer at the Permanent Royal Mission of the United Kingdom of Brutland and Norden to the United Nations and a writer of long sentences and titles

The Republic of Nedim Mahic is pleased to note that it will be casting a resounding FOR vote on this fine piece of legislation.

We are pleased to vote FOR this fine resolution which upholds basic human rights.

Twafflonia is proud to support this proposal.

Needless to say can't have good results if one rushes or being forced

United Socialist States of Psitrias fully supports this

at least spell labor right and then maybe i would vote for this

OOC: *beats Sudden Impulse about the head and shoulders with a sack full of "u"s*

The legation from Sudden Impulse could use an introductory course on the many varied (and all "correct") languages and dialects spoken in these halls, as well as the importance of deciding their vote on critical, rather than trivial, concerns.

--L.T.

The Platypus people wish to congratulate Iron Felix on a well drafted resolution. I would be voting for; however, there is one clause which i feel i need to clarify first before i vote.
Clause 2 "Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required ... to perform work against their will". While abolishing this is a good idea idealistically, i worry that it will create a situation in which an employee is legally able to refuse to do work for which he/she is being paid and employed to do on the grounds that they do not feel like it, thus severely weakening UN member nations' economies and making businesses unable to function.
Was this an intended consequence or do other clauses mean that this result will not happen?

at least spell labor right and then maybe i would vote for this
"Qui? Qui a vegretto fucheca. Crascalanzardeco al a 'U'? Forse sul tu anosgresece giustal nostra lettri, que noi oatellece."

"At least the resolution's author is perseverant enough to have the effort to press another key, while the nitpicker can't seem to be bothered to press something called the SHIFT key."

M.R.S.

Humanity has proven itself unworthy of freedom. It is the job of the government to take any measure necessary to ensure order. If that order is obtained through the enslavement of the people, then slavery is necessary.

at least spell labor right and then maybe i would vote for this

Off Topic: "Labour" and "Labor" are both correct, it just depends on which dialect of the English language you are accustomed to.

On Topic: The Nomadic Peoples of Unlucke fully support this resolution as there is nothing we can find wrong with it.

The Sovreign Dominator Applauds the work of Iron Felix with this proposal!

Not only does it mean that no person within my nation can force another to work, it also means my corrupt legal system can have anyone charged with a false crime, meaning I, the Sovreign Dominator still can force people to work!! Not to mention force the citizens of other nations!

A brilliant resolution, that should still keep the Sovreign Dominator's gulags full.

I, The Sovreign Dominator of Kalashnivoka, have Spoken!!

I am afraid that the Most Serene Republic of Jensens must decline to support this proposal as it currently stands.

3. Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts;
b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed persons who refuse work that is offered to them and that they are capable of performing;

Ther verbiage in paragph 3, sub-section B implies that I could just be allowed to kick back and wait until someone finally offers me the job I deserve: CEO of a billion dollar corporation, paying me $3,000,000 a year with a $2,000,000 bonus and a G5 jet just for me to take wherever I want, whenever I want. Right?

Cuz otherwise, why would I accept a piddly $50,000 job pushing papers around a desk when I can just keep surfing the internet, collecting my unemployment benefits?

Likewise, if a high school drop-out is offered a $7.00/hour fast food job for which he is qualified, we do not believe it is coercion to request that the individual become self-sufficient, pay their dues, work their way up, further themselves of their own accord rather than continuing to expect his fellow citizens to continue footing his porn-surfing, cheese doodle, six pack of beer habit.

The people of Jensens are proud and do not subsist on hand-outs unless absolutely necessary. The unfortunate definition of "coercion" in this proposal, unfortunately, countermands some of the basic principles of our nation.

Therefore, we respectfully vote AGAINST this proposal.

First, you can ignore the first sentence of that clause as it pertains to contracts. I'm certain that the children in question are not required to sign contracts as they are working either in the home or on a small family farm or somesuch. Further, it is to be assumed that the work is entered into willingly, is it not? What child would not eagerly assist in operating the family business?

The second sentence (the one we are concerned with here) states that "the consent of a parent or other legal guardian may be required as well as the consent of the child itself". May. Your government can determine whether or not it is appropriate to require the child's consent in such situations. I'm certain that your government would take into consideration the child's age and the type of work involved when making such determinations.


New Sequoyah was prepared to ask that question as well; but we are satisfied with your response. New Sequoyah sees no further objections, and has voted in FAVOR.

Lieut. Gen. John Brown Gordon, Ret.
UN Ambassador from New Sequoyah

The Sovreign Dominator Applauds the work of Iron Felix with this proposal!

Not only does it mean that no person within my nation can force another to work, it also means my corrupt legal system can have anyone charged with a false crime, meaning I, the Sovreign Dominator still can force people to work!! Not to mention force the citizens of other nations!

A brilliant resolution, that should still keep the Sovreign Dominator's gulags full.

I, The Sovreign Dominator of Kalashnivoka, have Spoken!!Chiang smiles at the cute little Napoleonic dictator.

Not only does it mean that no person within my nation can force another to work, it also means my corrupt legal system can have anyone charged with a false crime, meaning I, the Sovreign Dominator still can force people to work!!Wow, fantastic find! A shame about all those pesky due-process and fair-trial provisions in UN law, huh?

Not to mention force the citizens of other nations!Just you try us, little one.

Likewise, if a high school drop-out is offered a $7.00/hour fast food job for which he is qualified, we do not believe it is coercion to request that the individual become self-sufficient, pay their dues, work their way up, further themselves of their own accord ...Funny, that's exactly what this resolution states, or rather, what it allows. Read it again.

Chiang smiles at the cute little Napoleonic dictator.

Wow, fantastic find! A shame about all those pesky due-process and fair-trial provisions in UN law, huh?

Just you try us, little one.

Funny, that's exactly what this resolution states, or rather, what it allows. Read it again.

I'd like to lodge a formal complaint that Cmdr Chiang always says exactly what I was going to say two seconds before I rise to say it!!

I'd also like to announce to the GA that I have on my desk here a thesaurus and a dictionary should any one need to look up a word or two.






Nigel Youlkin

at least spell labor right and then maybe i would vote for this
This was originally written by New Leicestershire, which is a former British colony. As has already been pointed out to you, both spellings are correct.

i worry that it will create a situation in which an employee is legally able to refuse to do work for which he/she is being paid and employed to do on the grounds that they do not feel like it,
Which creates a situation in which said employee can be fired.

Not to mention force the citizens of other nations!
Be sure to report back here and let us know how that turns out.

I am afraid that the Most Serene Republic of Jensens must decline to support this proposal as it currently stands.



Ther verbiage in paragph 3, sub-section B implies that I could just be allowed to kick back and wait until someone finally offers me the job I deserve: CEO of a billion dollar corporation, paying me $3,000,000 a year with a $2,000,000 bonus and a G5 jet just for me to take wherever I want, whenever I want. Right?

Cuz otherwise, why would I accept a piddly $50,000 job pushing papers around a desk when I can just keep surfing the internet, collecting my unemployment benefits?

Likewise, if a high school drop-out is offered a $7.00/hour fast food job for which he is qualified, we do not believe it is coercion to request that the individual become self-sufficient, pay their dues, work their way up, further themselves of their own accord rather than continuing to expect his fellow citizens to continue footing his porn-surfing, cheese doodle, six pack of beer habit.

The people of Jensens are proud and do not subsist on hand-outs unless absolutely necessary. The unfortunate definition of "coercion" in this proposal, unfortunately, countermands some of the basic principles of our nation.

Therefore, we respectfully vote AGAINST this proposal.
Advice:

1. Read the text.
2. Take time to understand what you have read.
3. Then post.

By using this technique, you will enjoy much more success in UN debates.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Humanity has proven itself unworthy of freedom. It is the job of the government to take any measure necessary to ensure order. If that order is obtained through the enslavement of the people, then slavery is necessary.

If you think slavery is necessary, perhaps someone should enslave your delegation and the leaders of your government. Somehow, I doubt you'd be so enthusiastic about it at that point. But if you'd like to find out, we can put you to work making license plates and furniture in an Altanari prison. Call it the "I'm A Barbarian Who Thinks Slavery Is Cool" experience. We won't even charge you much for it.

I, the Sovreign Dominator still can force people to work!! Not to mention force the citizens of other nations!!

Making any such attempt with Altanari citizens would result in your "Sovreign Dominator" and other national leaders getting to experience life in a gulag firsthand. In other words, don't try it.

Altanar is fully in favor of this resolution.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

If you think slavery is necessary, perhaps someone should enslave your delegation and the leaders of your government. Somehow, I doubt you'd be so enthusiastic about it at that point. But if you'd like to find out, we can put you to work making license plates and furniture in an Altanari prison. Call it the "I'm A Barbarian Who Thinks Slavery Is Cool" experience. We won't even charge you much for it.[/i]

The leaders of Unchaos, as well as its citizens, would willingly submit to the subjugation of another nation as long as it contributed to a grander worldwide order. Any nation that can enforce such order is to be respected and revered.
Unchaos believes that a uniform government that rules over all is the best route to world peace and would happily contribute in anyway to see this happen.
We are against any law that broadens the freedoms of the people as it makes people unruly and hard to manage. The less freedom, the more safety, the more guarantee of the survival of the species.

Ther verbiage in paragph 3, sub-section B implies that I could just be allowed to kick back and wait until someone finally offers me the job I deserve: CEO of a billion dollar corporation, paying me $3,000,000 a year with a $2,000,000 bonus and a G5 jet just for me to take wherever I want, whenever I want. Right?

Wrong. The lines to which you refer actually say the opposite: a government can withdraw unemployment benefits from an unemployed worker who is refusing to seek or accept work, and this is not considered forced labour for the purposes of this resolution (and therefore not protected by the resolution).

The Platypus people wish to congratulate Iron Felix on a well drafted resolution. I would be voting for; however, there is one clause which i feel i need to clarify first before i vote.
Clause 2 "Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required ... to perform work against their will". While abolishing this is a good idea idealistically, i worry that it will create a situation in which an employee is legally able to refuse to do work for which he/she is being paid and employed to do on the grounds that they do not feel like it, thus severely weakening UN member nations' economies and making businesses unable to function.
Was this an intended consequence or do other clauses mean that this result will not happen?

Just because someone is not forced to work against their will does not automatically mean that they will receive any compensation for not working. In other words, you're free to quit a job, but this resolution does not require that you still be paid or otherwise compensated if you so fail to meet the expectations of your employer.

Chiarizio does not wish to allow any colour of legality to attach to forcing the labour of Prisoners of War.
Nor do we want to allow any doubt that it should be illegal for a belligerent country to concentrate those of its inhabitants whose ancestry immigrated from an enemy country, and then force labour from them.

We object so strongly to clause 4c that we intend to vote against the entire resolution, even though we wish the rest of the resolution were adopted.

:eek:

We lodged the following statement in our Region's Civil Headquarters:

The most recent proposed U.N. resolution, "Abolish Forced Labour", is almost all good. But it contains what Chiarizio regards as a "poison pill":

"4. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled
"from
"c. Prisoners of War, and civilians interned during
"wartime, as allowed under international law; "

In Chiarizio's interpretation current international law prohibits compelling the labour of prisoners of war etc. anyway. But we do not want to vote for a proposal which allows that such things might become legal.

For instance, sometimes when two countries are at war, one of them will gather up all of its inhabitants who immigrated from the other, or whose ancestors did so, into various "concentrated" localities. We think it should remain illegal to compel the labour of such persons, even in wartime. (Actually we think it should be illegal to concentrate them; but failing that it should still be illegal to force labour from them.)

We do not want to make it any easier on anyone who wishes to interpret or change international law to allow such abuses.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are requesting our Regional Delegate to vote Against this resolution. If someone re-proposes it without clause 4c we will be in favor of it.

Soozieburg's position is FOR the resolution. Since this game refuses for any country to go to war because the moderation biggies blatanly refuse to reprogram the mainframe the stipulation over the use of forced labor of prisoners of war or interned civilians is moot.

Clairbont objects to this bill on a number of grounds.

First, Chiarizio is correct in objecting to 4.c. Clairbont cannot accept a bill with this obvious travesty of an exception. I disagree with Soozieberg on the grounds that this bill must be complete so that if ever there were a time when war was a viable option, all current bills and regulations must remain intact.

However, deeper than the issue in 4.c., I believe there is a flaw with the grammar in clause two which, when properly exploited, undermines the meaning of a bill as a whole.

2. Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

The part in bold is what I object to. This phrase can be interpreted to say:

"Forced labor is a situation where a person is required to enter a job except in the case of freely agreed contracts or to perform work against their will."

I think that this clause should be rewritten to prohibit the exploitation of this loophole.

Furthermore, what protection does this resolution give a business which performs duties for a customer with the expected result of the customer giving something in return without a contract specifically binding the customer to pay, only to have the customer fail to do so. If the customer is unable to provide the business with what it expected in return, is the only option for the business to take the customer to the courts? In which case, does the business not only have to incur legal fees (if applicable) and possibly absorb the loss?

One example would be a restaurant that provides food to a customer. If the customer does not pay, what can the restaurant do to ensure that it can collect its money if it cannot force (to use a cliché) the person to wash dishes?

I disagree with the notion that a court can force a citizen to work for any company against his/her will; the court, being a government institution, should only be given the right to order a citizen to perform community service.

I also would like clarification on this point:

3. b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed persons who refuse work that is offered to them and that they are capable of performing;

Are the countries responsible for filling out the specifics of this clause, such as the amount of time between unemployment and withdrawal, and various regulatory means?

I would like to break from all of this to make a more general point: I don't believe that this resolution is appropriate for the United Nations to decide on. Forced labor, while bad, should be something decided at a country level. If the United Nations does not allow forced labor, why not check for it at the time of registration? You do not need a law prohibiting forced labor so much as a definition. I know that this is the ultimate goal of these proceedings, but I don't think that the correct course of action is being taken.

I urge my regional delegate, Fudgetopia, to reject this resolution. The wording can be flexed and the resolution as a whole and it needs a bit more polish; I don't believe it is ready to be pressed in stone. As well, please reconsider this resolution existing at all in the form of prohibition instead of definition.

Thank you,

Clairbont

In Chiarizio's interpretation current international law prohibits compelling the labour of prisoners of war etc. anyway.Nope (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32), and nope (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385124&postcount=112).

You will note, however, that international law currently in effect, while not forbidding warring nations to compel labor from captured soldiers or civilians, requires all captives and captive populations to be treated humanely at all times, which we assume would include situations of forced labor.

We would advise you in the future not to attempt the "interpretation" of international law that you obviously haven't read.

~Cdr. Chiang

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Holy Empire of Imota

Office of the Ambassador to the United Nations

The administration of Her Imperial Majesty Lania I commends Iron Felix on a well written resolution. We feel that our initial concerns (regarding prisoners of war, compulsory military service, penal labor, and children in family businesses) have been addressed to our satisfaction.

The Holy Empire of Imota is proud to vote IN FAVOR of the resolution.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations

Soozieburg's position is FOR the resolution. Since this game refuses for any country to go to war because the moderation biggies blatanly refuse to reprogram the mainframe the stipulation over the use of forced labor of prisoners of war or interned civilians is moot.

Countries in NS war all the time. They RP it out in the II forum, no change to the programming of the game is needed.


Might want to check it out before you blatantly make a fool out of yourself.

Countries in NS war all the time. They RP it out in the II forum, no change to the programming of the game is needed.

But how many countries in NS respect UN resolutions or follow them? Most of the people in II aren't in the UN, and the people in the II Forum disregard the NSUN as a worthless body anyway. There may be a few nations who do RP in some off-site forum and do follow UN resolutions to the letter though, but I bet they are very rare.

And since a person can argue that RP is NOT gameplay and since RP doesn't affect your nation (so it can be seen as dumb), Soozieburg has a point.

The Great Region of the Genesis Federation commends you on a very well put together resolution. You have our vote.


I am afraid that the Most Serene Republic of Jensens must decline to support this proposal as it currently stands.



Ther verbiage in paragph 3, sub-section B implies that I could just be allowed to kick back and wait until someone finally offers me the job I deserve: CEO of a billion dollar corporation, paying me $3,000,000 a year with a $2,000,000 bonus and a G5 jet just for me to take wherever I want, whenever I want. Right?

Cuz otherwise, why would I accept a piddly $50,000 job pushing papers around a desk when I can just keep surfing the internet, collecting my unemployment benefits?

Likewise, if a high school drop-out is offered a $7.00/hour fast food job for which he is qualified, we do not believe it is coercion to request that the individual become self-sufficient, pay their dues, work their way up, further themselves of their own accord rather than continuing to expect his fellow citizens to continue footing his porn-surfing, cheese doodle, six pack of beer habit.

The people of Jensens are proud and do not subsist on hand-outs unless absolutely necessary. The unfortunate definition of "coercion" in this proposal, unfortunately, countermands some of the basic principles of our nation.

Therefore, we respectfully vote AGAINST this proposal.

I too saw this as a loop hole that some might use, but there will always be those who who chose not to work for lower wages than they might be able to get otherwise. One can't remove this clause without first changing unemployment benefit regulations and that is not within the scope of this resolution. This clause is an intricate and necessary part of the resolution. Without it it would go against already established laws. If one deems it necessary to lay down stricter welfare laws I believe that should be put into a different and new proposal.

One again I will say, well done on a very fair, clear cut and reasonable resolution!

Egy Nemzet
UN delegate of The Genesis Federation

OOC: If I have to war in II for whatever reason I will and I will as I've sworn abide by the rules of the UN. I understand that my opponents don't have to and the rule of the UN say they don't. So if I take prisoners of war I'm bound to treat them kindly through the roleplay, not because the II care about the UN but because my country is in the UN.

I call upon all U.N. members to vote AGAINST the current proposal. While much of the proposal is valiant and good intentioned it fails to protect one very important group of people. The current proposal neither protects POW's from being forced into labor or interned citizens. With this proposal there is a possibility that COMPLETELY INNOCENT citizens can be forced into slave labor. We must vote this proposal down.

It is not sufficient to allow the brave soldiers of any country or the wrongly accused of any country to be forced into a form of slave labor. We must demand better for ALL.

Countries in NS war all the time. They RP it out in the II forum, no change to the programming of the game is needed.


Might want to check it out before you blatantly make a fool out of yourself.

LOL coming from a from a strong raiding region I have to say...Yup Yup to that one! ;)

I call upon all U.N. members to vote AGAINST the current proposal. While much of the proposal is valiant and good intentioned it fails to protect one very important group of people. The current proposal neither protects POW's from being forced into labor or interned citizens. With this proposal there is a possibility that COMPLETELY INNOCENT citizens can be forced into slave labor. We must vote this proposal down.

It is not sufficient to allow the brave soldiers of any country or the wrongly accused of any country to be forced into a form of slave labor. We must demand better for ALL.

Nigel pops an anti-anger pill and then stands up.

It doesn't protect them from being forced into labor because there are two other perfectly good resolutions doing that right now. OMGTKK mentioned them earlier.

OOC: If I have to war in II for whatever reason I will and I will as I've sworn abide by the rules of the UN. I understand that my opponents don't have to and the rule of the UN say they don't. So if I take prisoners of war I'm bound to treat them kindly through the roleplay, not because the II care about the UN but because my country is in the UN.

OOC: And so would I in case I get in a war too. What I was more referring to is the whole "multiverse" thing in which different views are right. II is right, NS Rpers are right, gameplay advocates are right, etc.

IC: "Can we have one of those anti-anger pills? We're planning on submitting resolutions to the floor, and we're going to need them to get through the debate."
---Dr. Bob.

We here in Sanguinex fully support this resolution and its intentions, though we cannot help but wonder if it could not have been incorporated into the recently passed 'Abolition of Slavery' resolution as both resolutions do cover very similar areas.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UN

OOC: After seeing the last poll option I couldn't help voting for everything, including the one about the 'u's despite my being British:D

I have serious issues with the question of "entitlement to binding independent arbitration" on #6. How will the entitlement be enforced? Seems to me like it might potentially enslave certain employers to government whim, once the employee in question decides "I wanna stick around but I want a 'fair' contract."

Now granted, if the employer was the one who came up this "heriditarily binding contract," he deserves what he gets and its not concern of mine. But if he too was handed the business hereditarily, that's a problem... the arbitrator gets utterly arbitrary authority over the life of a person who did nothing wrong.

Also, what does the prohibition on "enforced indebtedness" entail exactly? The wonderful Googre tool is unable to define the term for me.

---Prince Rahl

But how many countries in NS respect UN resolutions or follow them? Most of the people in II aren't in the UN, and the people in the II Forum disregard the NSUN as a worthless body anyway. There may be a few nations who do RP in some off-site forum and do follow UN resolutions to the letter though, but I bet they are very rare.There's a remedy for that. If II nations attack you, belong to the UN and yet refuse to abide by its mandates, simply ignore them. That's effectively how UN resolutions are enforced. When there aren't any dodgeballs or automated defenestrators handy, that is.

LOL coming from a from a strong raiding region I have to say...Yup Yup to that one! ;)Yeah. He wasn't talking about raiders. And you're in the wrong place to be flogging for them anyway. Take it elsewhere.

OK, sorry for continuing the threadjack. I'm done now.

Since this game refuses for any country to go to war because the moderation biggies blatanly refuse to reprogram the mainframe...

...

Yeah. Those of us who volunteer to maintain order have viciously prevented the coders from adding war to the game. That's a great reason to take a position on a proposal.

Way to take cluelessness to a whole new level. I thought I'd seen it all.

There's a remedy for that. If II nations attack you, belong to the UN and yet refuse to abide by its mandates, simply ignore them. That's effectively how UN resolutions are enforced. When there aren't any dodgeballs or automated defenestrators handy, that is.

Yeah. He wasn't talking about raiders. And you're in the wrong place to be flogging for them anyway. Take it elsewhere.

OK, sorry for continuing the threadjack. I'm done now.

Sorry about that one! Being both the delegate, stand-in founder and part of the military of my region I have of a bit of a identity crisis at times. Please accept my appologies.

And again let me state for the record I feel this is a very well worded and laid out resolution.

Egy Nemzet

TGF UN Delegate and Stand -in founder

OCC: Our Founder's house burnt down 2 days after Christmas. He lost everything including his computer so I am also filling in for him til he gets back up and on line.

As delegate of Mashusa, the people of my nation have asked me to inform you they believe this resolution doesn't go far enough. Wage slavery need also be outlawed (that is, the financial coercian mentioned as acceptable in resolution need be removed) before we can vote for. Mashusa's position is hereby AGAINST

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

We forwarded the esteemed Chairman's response to our Prophet for his decision upon whether any changes to our labor codes this proposal would cause would conflict with the Law of the Cute One:

I don't think most (if any) courts would consider parents "employers", in the situations you have mentioned. Since the matter of children working in family businesses, doing chores around the farm and soforth is not mentioned in the Resolution, it would default to existing UN and national laws to make a determination. Keep in mind though that parents cannot contract their children out to other, outside parties, without their consent. They also must be "legally old enough to work" under UN and/or national law.

I'm glad to report that he has said our Law is silent on this matter. Therefore as there is no obvious conflict, he has instructed me to vote "yes" on the proposal. Again, we commend the esteemed Chairman on a well-written resolution, and wish it speedy passage.

We here in Sanguinex fully support this resolution and its intentions, though we cannot help but wonder if it could not have been incorporated into the recently passed 'Abolition of Slavery' resolution as both resolutions do cover very similar areas.

Sebastian Rath
Sanguinoi Ambassador to the UNYou're quite correct that this resolution and the recently passed "Abolition of Slavery" cover similar areas. And in fact they could've been combined into one, however, the two were done separately in order to more throughly cover the topic(s) and remain within the character limit for proposals.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

...

Yeah. Those of us who volunteer to maintain order have viciously prevented the coders from adding war to the game. That's a great reason to take a position on a proposal.

Way to take cluelessness to a whole new level. I thought I'd seen it all.OOC: Another year, another level to the depth of stupidity around here.:rolleyes:

OCC: Our Founder's house burnt down 2 days after Christmas. He lost everything including his computer so I am also filling in for him til he gets back up and on line.OOC: For both your sakes I hope his nation isn't in the UN.

OOC: For both your sakes I hope his nation isn't in the UN.

It ain't, I just checked.

Continuing on.

I would like to congratulate Felix on getting this to vote. Should be a slam dunk, so I won't bother addressing the dumbass arguments going on.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to make a call.

Deputy Ambassador Willing lowered his voice but unfortunately still spoke into his microphone, "Hello? Ghostbusters? Yeah he's here now. I don't care, just make sure he stays dead this time!" George looked up to see everyone staring at him.

"Err... Rise to vote sir! FOR!"

Chiarizio does not wish to allow any colour of legality to attach to forcing the labour of Prisoners of War.

The current proposal neither protects POW's from being forced into labor or interned citizens.
I know it's already been pointed out to you that existing NSUN law does not forbid the use of POW labor, but it's worth noting that RL law allows it as well.
Section III. Labour of Prisoners of War

Art 49. The Detaining Power may utilize the labour of prisoners of war who are physically fit, taking into account their age, sex, rank and physical aptitude, and with a view particularly to maintaining them in a good state of physical and mental health.

Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war shall only be required to do supervisory work. Those not so required may ask for other suitable work which shall, so far as possible, be found for them.

If officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, it shall be found for them, so far as possible, but they may in no circumstances be compelled to work.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument

Also, in the case of civilian internees:

Article 40.

Protected persons may be compelled to work only to the same extent as nationals of the Party to the conflict in whose territory they are.

If protected persons are of enemy nationality, they may only be compelled to do work which is normally necessary to ensure the feeding, sheltering, clothing, transport and health of human beings and which is not directly related to the conduct of military operations.

In the cases mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs, protected persons compelled to work shall have the benefit of the same working conditions and of the same safeguards as national workers in particular as regards wages, hours of labour, clothing and equipment, previous training and compensation for occupational accidents and diseases.

If the above provisions are infringed, protected persons shall be allowed to exercise their right of complaint in accordance with Article 30.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument

2. Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

The part in bold is what I object to. This phrase can be interpreted to say:

"Forced labor is a situation where a person is required to enter a job except in the case of freely agreed contracts or to perform work against their will."
Well no, it can't. At least not in the English language as it was taught to me.

Furthermore, what protection does this resolution give a business which performs duties for a customer with the expected result of the customer giving something in return without a contract specifically binding the customer to pay, only to have the customer fail to do so. If the customer is unable to provide the business with what it expected in return, is the only option for the business to take the customer to the courts?<snip the rest>
This doesn't deal with the relationship between businesses and their customers at all. Why would you bring something like this into the debate? We're talking about forced labor here.

I also would like clarification on this point:

3. b. the withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed persons who refuse work that is offered to them and that they are capable of performing;

It is an exclusion to the definition of 'coercion'. The withdrawal of state-paid allowances from unemployed persons who refuse work that is offered to them and that they are capable of performing is not considered coercion for the purpose of this resolution.

I have serious issues with the question of "entitlement to binding independent arbitration" on #6. How will the entitlement be enforced?
That is for national governments to decide. Note that the full quote should read: "entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration".

Seems to me like it might potentially enslave certain employers to government whim, once the employee in question decides "I wanna stick around but I want a 'fair' contract."
I'm sorry you have so little faith in your government's ability to handle this responsibility.

Hopefully my Vice-Delegate, Mister Jones, will be here tomorrow to address any further questions you might have.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I have basically disregarded every thought for and/or against...

my only thought to offer... name one civilization NOT born on the broken backs of another...

I don't say it should be a given right.. but it should not be abolished altogether...

*Prime Minister Viridio stumbles into his office, having just come back from the 4-day celebration party on the defeat of the previous resolution. Not sure why he has come back here rather than going home, he collapses into his chair and notices some paper on his desk. He tries to read it.*

Urrr...um...abolishun...labower...forced...SHOUNDS GOOD TA MEE!

--------------------
Official Press Release
--------------------

The Federation of Eaglus gives much applause to a finely written resolution, and is happy to vote FOR.

The Prime Minister regrets not being able to deliver the news himself and gives his best wishes to Iron Felix.

Helen
Undersecretary to Prime Minister Viridio
The Federation of Eaglus
Founder of the Hegemony of Music

Also, what does the prohibition on "enforced indebtedness" entail exactly? The wonderful Googre tool is unable to define the term for me.

---Prince Rahl

OOC: This was meant to cover situations such as those arising if the only place where people could shop was the 'company store', either because that was the only one within reasonable travelling distance or because they were paid in company-issued tokens that were only valid there, and prices in that store were set at levels that made buying the necessities of life without going deeper & deeper in debt to the company impossible... and those debts then made it legally impossible for those people to stop working for those companies. That happened in RL, in some cultures, so I think that it could plausibly happen -- if not barred by a resolution -- in NS too...
With this clause placed into binding UN law, companies operating within UN member-nations would then have to either keep the prices in 'company stores' more reasonable, allow their employees to shop elsewhere too, or allow people who were still in debt to them to leave their employ (although of course those people might still be legally required to pay off the remaining debts from their earnings elsewhere, as & when they could do so).


"You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older, and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go:
I owe my soul to the company store."

(from 'Sixteen Tons', by Tennessee Ernie Ford.)

We would advise you in the future not to attempt the "interpretation" of international law that you obviously haven't read.Chiarizio reserves the right to enforce our interpretation by military means.

Nope (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7029659&postcount=32), and nope (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9385124&postcount=112).

You will note, however, that international law currently in effect, while not forbidding warring nations to compel labor from captured soldiers or civilians, requires all captives and captive populations to be treated humanely at all times, which we assume would include situations of forced labor.If no existing resolution prohibits belligerent parties from forcing the labour of PoWs or of concentration-camp internees, then this one should.

OOC: This was meant to cover situations such as those arising if the only place where people could shop was the 'company store', either because that was the only one within reasonable travelling distance or because they were paid in company-issued tokens that were only valid there, and prices in that store were set at levels that made buying the necessities of life without going deeper & deeper in debt to the company impossible... and those debts then made it legally impossible for those people to stop working for those companies. That happened in RL, in some cultures, so I think that it could plausibly happen -- if not barred by a resolution -- in NS too...
With this clause placed into binding UN law, companies operating within UN member-nations would then have to either keep the prices in 'company stores' more reasonable, allow their employees to shop elsewhere too, or allow people who were still in debt to them to leave their employ (although of course those people might still be legally required to pay off the remaining debts from their earnings elsewhere, as & when they could do so).


"You load sixteen tons, and what do you get?
Another day older, and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me, 'cause I can't go:
I owe my soul to the company store."

(from 'Sixteen Tons', by Tennessee Ernie Ford.)

One of those options (for getting rid of enforced indebtedness) doesn't actually violate my nation's constitution or what there is of one, although the rest do :D. So that will not be too much of an issue.

So now that that's settled, if anyone would like to address my main objection (I'll reprint), I'll listen:
I have serious issues with the question of "entitlement to binding independent arbitration" on #6. How will the entitlement be enforced? Seems to me like it might potentially enslave certain employers to government whim, once the employee in question decides "I wanna stick around but I want a 'fair' contract."

Now granted, if the employer was the one who came up this "heriditarily binding contract," he deserves what he gets and its not concern of mine. But if he too was handed the business hereditarily, that's a problem... the arbitrator gets utterly arbitrary authority over the life of a person who did nothing wrong.

Chiarizio reserves the right to enforce our interpretation by military means.
Ah, good. I'm sure that will work out well for you.

If no existing resolution prohibits belligerent parties from forcing the labour of PoWs or of concentration-camp internees, then this one should.
Explain, in 1000 words or less, why the use of POW and civilian detainee labor should be banned in NationStates. Be sure to address the fact that the use of such labor and the treatment of those involved would be well regulated by existing UN legislation. Then go on to explain why, since it is explicitly allowed in RL by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, it should be banned here.

Ah, good. I'm sure that will work out well for you.


Explain, in 1000 words or less, why the use of POW and civilian detainee labor should be banned in NationStates. Be sure to address the fact that the use of such labor and the treatment of those involved would be well regulated by existing UN legislation. Then go on to explain why, since it is explicitly allowed in RL by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, it should be banned here.

How about one word?

"Forced"

How about one word?

"Forced"
OK, but why is it wrong? Keep in mind that they can't be mistreated, they can't be forced to perform dangerous tasks, in the case of civilian non-combatants they must be paid. In most instances, the type of labor performed would be everyday tasks such as cooking, cleaning and maintenance/construction type tasks performed in or around the camp itself. Why is that unreasonable?

I think that's okay and actually humane. If the labor wasn't forced then there would be peer pressure within the prison population not to work for 'the man'. Anyone who did want to work to
1) pass the time and 2) get a little mental or physical exercise

would be pressured into not doing it. By making it compulsory, it removes the peer pressure.

It's not like work is torture (unless you count my job).

OK, but why is it wrong? Keep in mind that they can't be mistreated, they can't be forced to perform dangerous tasks, in the case of civilian non-combatants they must be paid. In most instances, the type of labor performed would be everyday tasks such as cooking, cleaning and maintenance/construction type tasks performed in or around the camp itself. Why is that unreasonable?

Because a person in a POW camp may be forced to help the industry of the Enemy Nation, may even be forced to create guns that will later be used to go and capture or kill more of his comrades.

Sure, he'll be treated humanely, meaning that the POW won't be forced to check if an area has landmines or such, but he could still be compelled to aid the enemy, and that may be wrong.

(RL international law state that POW labor may be allowed, but NOT for militaristic purposes...so there should be a resolution that allows for that, stating that POWs can work on roads, but not on guns. And of course, be compensated for their labor too.)

This is a nice, tightly worded resolution and at the moment we will be voting in favour of it. However the issue of forced POW labour is a stumbling block and one that concerns us.

*OOC: RL International Law makes it clear what sort of work POWs could be expected to perform. It also ensures that POWs are paid for this work. Something this resolution does not mirror. But that’s beside the point, let’s stick with NSUN. *

At the moment there is nothing we can find that protects POW’s from being forced to work in almost any capacity the detaining nation feels appropriate that does not put the POW in danger etc.., but would include, for example working in factories producing armaments to be used against their own nations.

It seems to us, however that this is something that should be clarified in a POW specific resolution and not necessarily in this resolution. The danger, as we see it is that without existing protections existing elsewhere this resolution could be argued to imply that POWs can be coerced into almost any form of labour that does not contravene either the, ‘Wolfish Convention on POW’ or, with less relevance, ‘Civilian Rights Post War’.

The resolution, as it stands, however has done well not to begin moving into areas of POW rights. The blame lies at the lack of specific legislation elsewhere covering forced labour and POWs. Unless, of course the UN has previously debated this point and decided that POWs can be expected to work in any capacity that is not dangerous, humiliating etc..,

Unless other issues occur to us we will be voting in favour of this resolution. Thank you.

*OOC: On another interesting aside, the issue of the superfluous U. Australians tend to include the U in labour, as do most English and often get quite upset when it is left out, screaming, ‘Americanization!’ till they get hoarse. But, and this is the interesting bit, the Australian Labor Party doesn’t include the U because when they formed they wanted to more closely reflect the Labor ideals of the USA. So there you go, wasn’t that interesting? Snore…zzzz *

...there should be a resolution that allows for that, stating that POWs can work on roads, but not on guns. And of course, be compensated for their labor too.

At the moment there is nothing we can find that protects POW’s from being forced to work in almost any capacity the detaining nation feels appropriate that does not put the POW in danger etc.., but would include, for example working in factories producing armaments to be used against their own nations.

It seems to us, however that this is something that should be clarified in a POW specific resolution and not necessarily in this resolution. The danger, as we see it is that without existing protections existing elsewhere this resolution could be argued to imply that POWs can be coerced into almost any form of labour that does not contravene either the, ‘Wolfish Convention on POW’ or, with less relevance, ‘Civilian Rights Post War’.

The resolution, as it stands, however has done well not to begin moving into areas of POW rights. The blame lies at the lack of specific legislation elsewhere covering forced labour and POWs. Unless, of course the UN has previously debated this point and decided that POWs can be expected to work in any capacity that is not dangerous, humiliating etc..,
You've both raised an interesting point and that's something to think about for future legislation. The author of such legislation would either have to repeal/replace both Wolfish and Civilian Rights (which I wouldn't support, or advise doing), or be very careful not to duplicate or contradict either of them. It would require careful wording, but it could be done.

"Wouldn't be too hard.

One thing I would like to have Iron Felix address though:

Defines "forced labour" as a situation in which persons are required to enter jobs by any means other than freely agreed contracts or to perform work against their will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to themselves or their families, including violence or detention;

A regionfriend of mine has said that he will oppose this proposal because it basically states that you'll need to write up a contract before you can begin to work, which would be hard to do for people who just want to work with an employer and get paid, get taxed, and then leave.

I tried to argue against it, stating that it might be seen as an 'implied contract', but basically, he's going to be opposed to it for a very, very long time. Btw, I'm FOR it, but my voice is quite febble.

I merely ask for a clarifying opinon on if my regionfriend is right that if this resolution is passed, a contract is needed for anyone to work in most anything, even for industries like lemonade stands run by 12-year olds...Full-time, part-time, casual or volunteer work for charities...doesn't matter, they need a contract. We would be okay with such a proposal...but, er, maybe not the rest of my region."
---Dr. Bob

At the moment there is nothing we can find that protects POW’s from being forced to work in almost any capacity the detaining nation feels appropriate that does not put the POW in danger etc.., but would include, for example working in factories producing armaments to be used against their own nations.Because having your enemy build your armaments is a great decision. ;) Other than that, we agree that the matter is best handled separately.

A regionfriend of mine has said that he will oppose this proposal because it basically states that you'll need to write up a contract before you can begin to work, Your regionfriend is making a basic error in his analysis. Contracts do not need to be written in order to be valid. All that is required for a valid express contract is the offer, acceptance and consideration.

For example, two persons have a conversation. One says, "I will pay you twenty twiddles a month at the end of the month for hauling away my household garbage every day." The other says, "I accept. Let's shake." Hands are shaken. An enforceable contract now exists and work can begin immediately.

--L.T.

A regionfriend of mine has said that he will oppose this proposal because it basically states that you'll need to write up a contract before you can begin to work, which would be hard to do for people who just want to work with an employer and get paid, get taxed, and then leave.
---Dr. Bob

I didn’t read this to mean necessarily a, ‘written contract’ but any form of contractual agreement. Presumably this could even include a verbal contract or any sort of agreement to work under certain conditions.

Most 12 year old lemonade sellers in our nation work for themselves, often using ingredients and materials sequestered from their parent’s kitchen. They haven’t even unionised yet, which is disturbing considering, at this point in time they make up the overwhelming majority of our private industry.

A regionfriend of mine has said that he will oppose this proposal because it basically states that you'll need to write up a contract before you can begin to work
He's wrong, but tell him to go ahead and oppose it anyway. Better yet, tell him to come here and oppose it. Bring him to me!

First, the definition does not state that the contract must be a written one, only that it must be "freely agreed". Believe it or not there are ancient-tech nations in the UN that do not have writing.

Second, that "or" is there for a reason. Working without a contract freely agreed to is only one of the things that can cause a situation to meet the definition of forced labour. You could have a contract that you agreed to, but then be forced to perform work against your will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to yourself or your family, including violence or detention and it would qualify as forced labour. Conversely, working without a contract does not automatically make a situation forced labour.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I have some concerns with the strength and potency of article four:

4. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;

This implies that the government has the right to institute laws enforcing its citizens to work within federally regulated work hours or conditions that potential violate your code of ethics, however the government ought to pass laws prohibiting this within its private sector. Thus, theoretically, as in the example of military personnel, a minor could be made obligated to fulfill federal law by working 12 hours a day for the government. Because the "government" is the employee, they are not obligated to provide their citizens with the same respect that this legislation expects of the private sector.

b. Persons who are sentenced to such labour as a punishment for crimes;
c. Prisoners of War, and civilians interned during wartime, as allowed under international law;

I didn’t read this to mean necessarily a, ‘written contract’ but any form of contractual agreement. Presumably this could even include a verbal contract or any sort of agreement to work under certain conditions.

Most 12 year old lemonade sellers in our nation work for themselves, often using ingredients and materials sequestered from their parent’s kitchen. They haven’t even unionised yet, which is disturbing considering, at this point in time they make up the overwhelming majority of our private industry.

With similar numbers of lemonade workers in our nation, we wish that child entrepreneurs be exempt from the conditions of this law as to not halt young innovation.

Second, that "or" is there for a reason. Working without a contract freely agreed to is only one of the things that can cause a situation to meet the definition of forced labour. You could have a contract that you agreed to, but then be forced to perform work against your will, under coercion or threat of extreme hardship to yourself or your family, including violence or detention and it would qualify as forced labour. Conversely, working without a contract does not automatically make a situation forced labour.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Delegate, Antarctic Oasis
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

(Emphasis mine.) This needs to be explicitly addressed in your statement. How do you expect memberstates to acknowledge regulated, non-contracted employment in terms of your legislation? Non-contracted employment could be easily condemned within a nation attempting to abide by your code of conduct as illicit activity, and this could have the potential to wreak economic havoc. You need to clearly define all your terms.

With similar numbers of lemonade workers in our nation, we wish that child entrepreneurs be exempt from the conditions of this law as to not halt young innovation.

Our laws already ban child labour but we have long turned something of a blind eye to the flagrant disregard our lemonade sellers show for our laws. We are, in effect, hamstrung because, being so young we are unable to prosecute them as adults and our short lived police crackdown on lemonade stands, including confiscation of ingredients and materials didn’t go down too well with the general public.

We don’t believe, however that this resolution would have any impact on the freedom of our 12 year old lemonade sellers since it really only seems to apply to individuals working for somebody. Once again the 12 year old lemonade sellers slip through the net of justice.

Our laws already ban child labour but we have long turned something of a blind eye to the flagrant disregard our lemonade sellers show for our laws. We are, in effect, hamstrung because, being so young we are unable to prosecute them as adults and our short lived police crackdown on lemonade stands, including confiscation of ingredients and materials didn’t go down too well with the general public.

We don’t believe, however that this resolution would have any impact on the freedom of our 12 year old lemonade sellers since it really only seems to apply to individuals working for somebody. Once again the 12 year old lemonade sellers slip through the net of justice.

However, if your 12 year old lemonade sellers are working independently, should you not applaud them for practicing economic skills that could prove valuable to your nation's economy when they do become legally responsible adults?

(Emphasis mine.) This needs to be explicitly addressed in your statement. How do you expect memberstates to acknowledge regulated, non-contracted employment in terms of your legislation? Non-contracted employment could be easily condemned within a nation attempting to abide by your code of conduct as illicit activity, and this could have the potential to wreak economic havoc. You need to clearly define all your terms.

I’m not sure where you are going with this. All employment, unless you happen to be in one of the exemptions, has to be under some form of contract or agreement. Even if that agreement were a simple, ‘hey you wanna mow my lawn for $10?’ – ‘hell yeah, where’s the mower?’.

I think, but I could be wrong, that you are stuck on the industrial relations understanding of contract as a specific type of employment arrangement. But the resolution doesn’t mean it that way and I don’t think it could be easily mistaken to mean it that way.

On an aside, I have been reminded by our Minister for Youth that our government fully supports the great strides being made by our young lemonade sellers and we commend them for the valuable role they play in maintaining our private sector industries. I apologise for giving the wrong impression.

6. Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by his or her own consent has the right to leave that employer's service.We have cast our vote against this until we get some idea of how this will effect arranged marriages when the wives are told they must marry a man or else!... is he considered their employer or what? If he is then they can leave him with a bunch of babies and nobody to care for them. The same could work for men who are married by arrangement and forced to work to support the women or else be cast from their natural family for not following family laws on marriage.


Otherwise we find nothing wrong with this proposal and would support it but for our concerns on the issue of arrange marriages vrs forced labo(u)r.

Even the concern some have voiced on military having to work long hours without rest.... Our military reguires that all soldiers be given at least three hours rest every thirty hours during hostile actions against our nation... if the threat allows it.... and longer when we are at peace.... and there are no threats...


Common sense says you don't sleep while the enemy knock on your doors if you ever want to wake up again.


Sir: Juddas B VanTiller,
Minister of Something or Other
Cavirrian Council on Marriage

[QUOTE=Cavirra;13348237]We have cast our vote against this until we get some idea of how this will effect arranged marriages when the wives are told they must marry a man or else!... is he considered their employer or what? If he is then they can leave him with a bunch of babies and nobody to care for them. The same could work for men who are married by arrangement and forced to work to support the women or else be cast from their natural family for not following family laws on marriage./QUOTE]

The UN has already condemned forced marriage, though not in any enforceable way I don’t think. In the second case people in all cultures often have to work when they would rather not to keep food on the table or their family happy etc, such is life.

This isn’t really the same as actually being forced to work. I don’t think this resolution attacks your nations marital customs. Your owns laws and customs, presumably determine the individual’s rights within marriage. I don’t think it likely that it could be argued that being a wife is the same as being employed either, but I imagine it must feel like it sometimes.

On the other hand, if it were customary in your nation for a husband to have his wife working for him on his farm or so forth, and he was forcing her to work against her will and this was something your nation is happy with, then perhaps you would have a problem.

We of Ice Forge are proudly supporting this resoloution. We have noted the objections that many have brought up concerning POW treatment, which leaves us somewhat confused. These are, after all, prisoners of war. The fact that they wern't just shot on capture or used as cannon fodder should be enough for them, no? I'll agree, forcing them to hurt their own country is probably not humane (not to mention that any smart soldier wouldn't trust a gun made by a captured enemy to not explode in their hands), but really, other things make sense. Have them do road work if you like, or cooking for the other POWs or hell, even the dishes.

But i'm rambling, which i apologize for. Suffice it to say, the Kingdom of Ice Forge vote firmly FOR this proposal, extra Us and all.

~Lord Sadrin Darkfire
UN delegate of Ice Forge, Member of the Warlock's Council of Ice Forge

Clause 6 contradicts clause 3a. How do you respond before I cast my vote?

Explain, in 1000 words or less, why the use of POW and civilian detainee labor should be banned in NationStates. Be sure to address the fact that the use of such labor and the treatment of those involved would be well regulated by existing UN legislation. Then go on to explain why, since it is explicitly allowed in RL by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, it should be banned here.

First we wish to state something that will help interpret what follows: What should be banned in RL should also be banned in NS.

PoWs should not be forced to work on behalf of the belligerent nation which captured them. Any work they are required to perform should be provably, completely unconnected with their enemy's war-effort.

We do not understand why civilians can be detained at all. Certainly if they are detained they should not be required to work on behalf of the detaining nation. Exceptions should be punishment for crimes for which they've had a fair trial and been convicted; and such trials and punishments should be by the nation in whose territory the crime takes place. If an occupying power claims that they have conquered territory, they must treat its civilian inhabitants as their own citizens.

No amount of UN regulation of such forced labour can count as "well-regulated" if it allows it at all. The only regulation that we could consider "well-regulated" would be complete prohibition.

Clause 6 contradicts clause 3a. How do you respond before I cast my vote?
No it doesn't. How do you respond before I put you on ignore?

For the record, the Federal Republic cannot in good conscious oppose this measure. It's a fine proposal, and sews up the loose ends regarding de facto forms of slavery that the main anti-slavery resolution couldn't sort. We applaud Mr. Dzerzhinsky and the New Leicestershire contingent for their worthy efforts. And we must say, all the abstentions and yes votes for human-rights conventions in these halls really are getting bothersome. Is there no other opportunity to be evil anymore? When will there be a human-rights resolution we could actually vote against? We can't take it! The shakes, the sweats, the nightmares! All we see are dolphins, Rubinan dolphins, cute and cuddly and beloved of children everywhere, swimming through our dreams! Oh God, make it stop! Make it stop!!

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Deputy Ambassador to the United Nations

No amount of UN regulation of such forced labour can count as "well-regulated" if it allows it at all. The only regulation that we could consider "well-regulated" would be complete prohibition.Look, if this is such an issue for you, introduce your own proposal to ban forced labor by POWs and civilians in war. This resolution hardly prevents you from doing so. Otherwise, just give it rest, will you?

I have serious issues with the question of "entitlement to binding independent arbitration" on #6. How will the entitlement be enforced? Seems to me like it might potentially enslave certain employers to government whim, once the employee in question decides "I wanna stick around but I want a 'fair' contract."

Now granted, if the employer was the one who came up this "heriditarily binding contract," he deserves what he gets and its not concern of mine. But if he too was handed the business hereditarily, that's a problem... the arbitrator gets utterly arbitrary authority over the life of a person who did nothing wrong.


---Prince Rahl
This is the third time I've brought this up. If none of the supporters of the resolution can defend this argument, rationality dictates a vote against the resolution... and possible *cough* lowering of health levels *cough* of the cowards in charge of it.

No amount of UN regulation of such forced labour can count as "well-regulated" if it allows it at all. The only regulation that we could consider "well-regulated" would be complete prohibition.

Look, if this is such an issue for you, introduce your own proposal to ban forced labor by POWs and civilians in war. This resolution hardly prevents you from doing so. Otherwise, just give it rest, will you?
It's worth adding that even if I were inclined to regulate POW and civilian detainee labor, this Resolution would hardly have been the proper venue for doing so. For one thing, properly addressing those subjects would have required a level of detail which would have pushed this over the character limit. For another, even if I had managed to shoehorn those things in there, it would have made this a Resolution about POWS and civilian detainees, rather than a general "outlaw forced labour" Resolution. As OMGTKK pointed out, that is a job for another resolution. This Resolution does not prevent such legislation from being passed, just be careful not to walk all over Wolfish and Civilian Rights Post War.

This is the third time I've brought this up. If none of the supporters of the resolution can defend this argument, rationality dictates a vote against the resolution... and possible *cough* lowering of health levels *cough* of the cowards in charge of it.
And this is the second time I've had to answer you. Pay attention.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13345795&postcount=52

I have serious issues with the question of "entitlement to binding independent arbitration" on #6. How will the entitlement be enforced?
That is for national governments to decide. Note that the full quote should read: "entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration".
Seems to me like it might potentially enslave certain employers to government whim, once the employee in question decides "I wanna stick around but I want a 'fair' contract."
I'm sorry you have so little faith in your government's ability to handle this responsibility.

The newly appointed Ambassador of Zarquon Froods enters the room and proceeds to his desk. He is flanked by the ever present Joebot™ (http://a74.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/48/l_d5ce643dc79f7dcfee1a2d3231487251.jpg). The reach the desk and take their seats.....out of the GA and come back to remove the desk as well. The doors at the entrance had swung shut momentarily before they opened again revealing a hovering semi-circular disk with a desk and chairs fastened firmly to it. The half sphere was black with a neon blue light ring around the top. The bottom third of the disk was flat, so that it may land easily without wobbling, there was also a hidden door on the side of it as well.

The disk moved slowly to the center of the assembly, Ambassador Norton's cape flowing freely in the wind. Once there, he addressed the body.

Good day to all. My nation has sent me to this sanctuary of belligerent rogues for one purpose, and one purpose only. To see that our will is heard.

Felix, I am very excited for you on your first proposal to make quorum since you became delegate for the Oasis. Look at this smile, it doesn't come out all the time you know. *his lips barely moved.*

We have been anticipating this one for some time now. Therefore, the Empire votes FOR.

The disk slowly hovered back to its resting place where the old desk use to be. As Norton went to step out of it, he forgot where the hidden door was hidden and fell over the side flat on his face.

*snip* Rationality dictates a vote against the resolution... and possible *cough* lowering of health levels *cough* of the cowards in charge of it.

We have nukes, penguins, snowballs, robots, maniacal dictators, a mutual defense pact, and if I'm not mistaken a frickin' death star.

Bring it.

We have cast our vote against this until we get some idea of how this will effect arranged marriages when the wives are told they must marry a man or else!... is he considered their employer or what? If he is then they can leave him with a bunch of babies and nobody to care for them. The same could work for men who are married by arrangement and forced to work to support the women or else be cast from their natural family for not following family laws on marriage.


Sir: Juddas B VanTiller,
Minister of Something or Other
Cavirrian Council on Marriage[The UN has one resolution that deals with marriage, the "Marriage Protection Act" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11973206&postcount=183). Even if/when this passes, this won't affect marriage at all, heck the word "marriage" isn't even in the resolution.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

We have nukes, penguins, snowballs, robots, maniacal dictators, a mutual defense pact, and if I'm not mistaken a frickin' death star.

Bring it.Not so much the Death Star anymore, but Yelda's technological advances and space-faring capabilities far exceed that of Cluichstan. Thank God for that alliance with Felix.

We have cast our vote against this until we get some idea of how this will effect arranged marriages when the wives are told they must marry a man or else!
We would like to thank the Cavirran delegation for this ringing endorsement of the proposal, for truly it would have been incomplete without some similar incomprehensible objection.

I have some concerns with the strength and potency of article four:

4. Accepts that nations may allow work to be compelled from
a. Persons performing either military service or alternative national service, as required by law;

This implies that the government has the right to institute laws enforcing its citizens to work within federally regulated work hours or conditions that potential violate your code of ethics, however the government ought to pass laws prohibiting this within its private sector.
We must say that we can see no logical connection between the clause quoted and the honoured ambassador's conclusion. Perhaps if the ambassador were to supply the missing steps in his working...?

Felix Dzerzhinsky and his Vice Delegate Mister Jones (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=7161165) enter the General Assembly and approach the podium. Felix speaks.

"Good evening, fellow representatives. I'm sure you are all thrilled and relieved to see that Mister Jones has been rescued from his ordeal in Gruenberg. At this time he would like to say a few words to the assembly. Mister Jones."

Felix steps aside and motions for Jones to approach the microphone. The "dog" snarls, glares at the assembly, and speaks:

"PIG RAPING!...

...*howl*...SHITSWALLOWINGRECTUMMUNCHER...*roar*.....GRARGGARLLL.....

...*shriek*...

...FILTHGARGLINGCADAVERHUMP....*howl*....

...*roar...BUTTSLURPERCONDOMLICKER....CARNAGE!...*roar*..."

This is allowed to continue for approximately two minutes. Finally, Felix pats Jones on the back, feeds him a baby seal carcass, and says:

"Good boy! Very well spoken. He is such a smart boy, yes he is!"

"I have taught Jonesey a new trick. Watch this!"

Felix turns to Jones while pointing at Prince Rahl of Objective Values and says, :

"Take it outside boy! Go! Go get it!"

Jones charges at Prince Rahl, grabs him by the seat of the pants, and drags him out into the parking lot. He then trots back down the main aisle of the General Assembly, his head held high and obviously proud of his accomplishment.

"Good Boy!"

Felix pats Jones on the head. The "dog" turns to face the General Assembly, panting, drooling and grinning. He barks once, then grins and pants some more, apparently looking for approval from the crowd.

There is thunderous applause from the Gobbannaen delegation, many of whom are trying to hide the deer carcass prominently labelled "Query re: balanced diet".

As Judge Norton was pulling himself up off the floor, he saw Mister Jones dragging Prince Rahl by the seat of his pants out of the assembly. Rising to his feet, he applauded as Jones returned satisfied with what he had done.

That....er, "dog" is the best thing to come out of Yelda since Chairman Diřgę's Kenvaldgefþsìorrui Fried Guineas (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=637&view=findpost&p=7178438).

Don't mess with the Antarctic! You don't want to know what Joebot™ can do.

A relatively young woman, perhaps in her mid-twenties, clad in a kimono of golds and earth tones rises and bows politely to those already discussing inside the chambers.

"Konichi wa mina-sama. Atashi no name wa Kakita Nuiari desu, haijimemashite."
A translator echoes with her "Greetings honored delegates. My name is Kakita Nuiari, it is an honor to meet you." She smiles slightly and takes a small breath before bowing again then continuing. Now speaking in the common language, she dismisses her translator with a small wave of her hand - he bows and leaves her in polite isolation.

"Honored delegates, the people of Matsu Yoshino - a country which has only relatively recently joined the UN - oppose this motion most adamantly. While our nation does not subsist on what we call slavery and therefore is not in violation of UN regulations at this time, it could be called forced labor by people not familiar with our culture. With all respect due to Dzerzhinsky-sama and those member nations who have voiced their opinion amiably towards this folly, this is not an issue for the UN to decide but for each culture to decide for themselves. This one may have an incorrect interpretation of UN Resolution 49, Article 3 which dictates that UN member nations have the duty to refrain from unwanted intervention in the social and religious affairs of other nations. Forced labor is a relative definition and by such default an opinionated one, therefore such resolutions are not for the betterment of our collective existence but one faction imposing their will on others through the corruptible political power presented by the UN. The hinin and heimin who have tended and supported our country since its inception have been cared for and are capable of things that many in more widely held positions of 'unforced labor' cannot. Members from such castes have been known to elevate their status, though those who attempt change through insurrection have been - understandably - crushed. Those who have served well in this life will be reincarnated and rewarded for their life long efforts. This matter is also inherent in our basis of law, and as such there will be no cause for our way of life to change. This however does not affect the principle that there are those who would neglect their duty as given by the cited UN resolution to cease the meddling of other nations in interior political affairs. This one would also remind Dzerzhinsky-sama that with situations we believe to be the intended target of the current proposal, laws change. Any country capable of falling within these bounds will most likely have the capability to draw up laws before this resolution is passed forcing contracts to be signed by law. While this then falls open to exception by Article 5 of the current proposition, the true loophole exists in Article 4. Create crimes for the labor force to be found guilty, then subject them to a punishment of the life they knew before this pointless litigation came about. These are the opinions of this representative, that the proposition is without power and that it only serves to insult the opposing minority should this be mistakenly passed. Arigato gozaimashite"

She bows deeply and takes a few steps back to allow comments to be made upon her address. Should none be made, she will return to her seat.

Official Business, Ministry of Foreign Affairs
To: Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations
From: Weinna Gellendell, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Re: #003: Withdraw Vote

There has been a change in policy. After considering the arguments of Matsu Yoshino and other states, Her Imperial Majesty has decided (and PM Baguirre and I have agreed) to withdraw support for the resolution until we hear back from our regional delegate. Please withdraw our previous FOR vote immediately.

The Parliament is still out on the issue, but we hope to hear from them shortly. Hope you're well.

-Weinna

P.S. I've attached some photos of Prince Zaviel. Isn't he a cutie? He's just learned how to walk, and the Secret Service detail has its hands full with him:D.

Attachments: Zaviel001.jpg, Zaviel002.jpg

May I respectfully remind Madame Minister that all mail labeled "Official Business" is to be for "Official Business" ONLY? Thank you.

Errick Taugen, Central Electronic Mail Center Staffer

We are appalled at the direction this vote is taking.
Man is unable to control his baser impulses. It is up to a higher power, the power of an Earth authority, to control man, to keep man from acting upon his savage needs.
By banning slavery, you remove one of the key tools nations need to keep their populations firmly under control.
There is no safety in freedom. An uncontrolled life, a person not kept in check, is a liability.
Please reconsider your stances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UN Debaters
Clause 6 contradicts clause 3a. How do you respond before I cast my vote?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn't. How do you respond before I put you on ignore?


Oh so mature.

clause 6: "Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by his or her own consent has the right to leave that employer's service."

clause 3a: "Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts"

The whole point of this resolution is: "all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer"

There are some who enter multigenerational loan programs and also into multi-generational payment schemes and these are all acceptable contracts which are enforceable yet this law, should it pass allows some to break their legally enforced contracts. Employers who decide to threaten legal action can not be expected to be criminalized because they remind their employees of their contractual obligations yet this threat is rendered moot because the threat carries no more legal weight.

So it is contradictory for the person wishing to leave because he can not break a contract and it is contradictory for the employer because he can not even use threats of breach of contract even if allowed to use threats because the employee can leave regardless of the contract. So this is doubly contradictory even by using loopholes to support one side or its opposite.

My vote is still not decided yet.

[/quote]QUOTE=Iron Felix;13349960]And this is the second time I've had to answer you. Pay attention.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13345795&postcount=52[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by You
I have serious issues with the question of "entitlement to binding independent arbitration" on #6. How will the entitlement be enforced?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
That is for national governments to decide. Note that the full quote should read: "entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration".
Quote:
Originally Posted by You
Seems to me like it might potentially enslave certain employers to government whim, once the employee in question decides "I wanna stick around but I want a 'fair' contract."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
I'm sorry you have so little faith in your government's ability to handle this responsibility.[/quote]
The problem with that, is that according to what I've read on the UN, IT IS NOT for national governments to decide when the wording makes explicitly clear that hereditary employers will be forced into "binding independent arbitration," if the hereditary worker wishes to stay on. Your ad hominems are pointless, because this situation does not exist in my nation, I simply don't want to be a party to an act that causes the logical consequence of the work in question (your failure to address the words instead of the ad hominem confirms that you haven't found an error in my logic) to happen somewhere else. Rights do not recognize national boundaries.

Therefore my vote is against the resolution.

Oh and dourian embassy, I didn't say anything about the type of conflict the tools you mention apply to, that only lowers the health levels of those at the bottom, I said those in charge were in question :D

The Federation pf Arctic Countries sees this as an extension of the "Ban Slavery Resolution"

therefore we will Vote AGAINST as these two resolutions are to us the same

If you wish to debate this issue please just pm us in game.

First we wish to state something that will help interpret what follows: What should be banned in RL should also be banned in NS.

PoWs should not be forced to work on behalf of the belligerent nation which captured them. Any work they are required to perform should be provably, completely unconnected with their enemy's war-effort.

We do not understand why civilians can be detained at all. Certainly if they are detained they should not be required to work on behalf of the detaining nation. Exceptions should be punishment for crimes for which they've had a fair trial and been convicted; and such trials and punishments should be by the nation in whose territory the crime takes place. If an occupying power claims that they have conquered territory, they must treat its civilian inhabitants as their own citizens.

And in RL, as has already been explained, both POWs and civilian internees can be required to work for their captors within certain legally-defined limits.
Civilian internees are not, as a general rule, people rounded up within occupied territories. It is normal procedure, in RL, for warring nations to intern any enemy nationals who are present within those nations' own territories at the outbreak of hostilities... and also those who fall into their hands later on through other means, such as the crews of captured merchant ships.

We are appalled at the direction this vote is taking.
Man is unable to control his baser impulses. It is up to a higher power, the power of an Earth authority, to control man, to keep man from acting upon his savage needs.
By banning slavery, you remove one of the key tools nations need to keep their populations firmly under control.
There is no safety in freedom. An uncontrolled life, a person not kept in check, is a liability.
Please reconsider your stances.

Slavery has already been banned.

clause 6: "Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by his or her own consent has the right to leave that employer's service."

clause 3a: "Notes that for the purpose of this resolution the term 'coercion' shall be defined as excluding
a. the use of legal systems to enforce contracts"

The whole point of this resolution is: "all persons have the right to leave their employment at any time and to be free from threats, violence or coercion from their employer"

There are some who enter multigenerational loan programs and also into multi-generational payment schemes and these are all acceptable contracts which are enforceable yet this law, should it pass allows some to break their legally enforced contracts. Employers who decide to threaten legal action can not be expected to be criminalized because they remind their employees of their contractual obligations yet this threat is rendered moot because the threat carries no more legal weight.

So it is contradictory for the person wishing to leave because he can not break a contract and it is contradictory for the employer because he can not even use threats of breach of contract even if allowed to use threats because the employee can leave regardless of the contract. So this is doubly contradictory even by using loopholes to support one side or its opposite.

Clause #3.a only says that enforcing legal contracts does not count as coercion under this proposal's terms and is therefore not automatically banned: It does not say that ALL types of contract must still be considered legally binding and MUST be enforced. Clause #6 clarifies this point, in one respect, by explaining that hereditary arrangements are no longer legal... which means that they can no longer be enforceable. There isn't a clash.

A relatively young woman, perhaps in her mid-twenties, clad in a kimono of golds and earth tones rises and bows politely to those already discussing inside the chambers.

"Konichi wa mina-sama. Atashi no name wa Kakita Nuiari desu, haijimemashite."
A translator echoes with her "Greetings honored delegates. My name is Kakita Nuiari, it is an honor to meet you." She smiles slightly and takes a small breath before bowing again then continuing. Now speaking in the common language, she dismisses her translator with a small wave of her hand - he bows and leaves her in polite isolation.

"Honored delegates, the people of Matsu Yoshino - a country which has only relatively recently joined the UN - oppose this motion most adamantly. While our nation does not subsist on what we call slavery and therefore is not in violation of UN regulations at this time, it could be called forced labor by people not familiar with our culture. With all respect due to Dzerzhinsky-sama and those member nations who have voiced their opinion amiably towards this folly, this is not an issue for the UN to decide but for each culture to decide for themselves. This one may have an incorrect interpretation of UN Resolution 49, Article 3 which dictates that UN member nations have the duty to refrain from unwanted intervention in the social and religious affairs of other nations. Forced labor is a relative definition and by such default an opinionated one, therefore such resolutions are not for the betterment of our collective existence but one faction imposing their will on others through the corruptible political power presented by the UN. The hinin and heimin who have tended and supported our country since its inception have been cared for and are capable of things that many in more widely held positions of 'unforced labor' cannot. Members from such castes have been known to elevate their status, though those who attempt change through insurrection have been - understandably - crushed. Those who have served well in this life will be reincarnated and rewarded for their life long efforts. This matter is also inherent in our basis of law, and as such there will be no cause for our way of life to change. This however does not affect the principle that there are those who would neglect their duty as given by the cited UN resolution to cease the meddling of other nations in interior political affairs. This one would also remind Dzerzhinsky-sama that with situations we believe to be the intended target of the current proposal, laws change. Any country capable of falling within these bounds will most likely have the capability to draw up laws before this resolution is passed forcing contracts to be signed by law. While this then falls open to exception by Article 5 of the current proposition, the true loophole exists in Article 4. Create crimes for the labor force to be found guilty, then subject them to a punishment of the life they knew before this pointless litigation came about. These are the opinions of this representative, that the proposition is without power and that it only serves to insult the opposing minority should this be mistakenly passed. Arigato gozaimashite"

She bows deeply and takes a few steps back to allow comments to be made upon her address. Should none be made, she will return to her seat.

Judge Norton rises to address the Ambassador from Matso Yushino.

I'm sorry. What are you trying to say?

Objective Values

The problem with that, is that according to what I've read on the UN, IT IS NOT for national governments to decide when the wording makes explicitly clear that hereditary employers will be forced into "binding independent arbitration," if the hereditary worker wishes to stay on. Your ad hominems are pointless, because this situation does not exist in my nation, I simply don't want to be a party to an act that causes the logical consequence of the work in question (your failure to address the words instead of the ad hominem confirms that you haven't found an error in my logic) to happen somewhere else. Rights do not recognize national boundaries.

Therefore my vote is against the resolution.

You like ad hominems don't you? The clause states that contracts must only be drawn up if said persons have been forced into any hereditary arrangements. Ergo, if they were not then contracts need not be drawn up.

And just because these situations don't exist within your borders doesn't mean they don't exist in other nations. Ergo, it must be included.

Judge Norton rises to address the Ambassador from Matso Yushino.

I'm sorry. What are you trying to say?

Kakita Nuiari takes a step forward and offers a small bow to the Judge.

"This one apologizes for not appropriately concluding her views. We believe that this resolution has inherent loopholes which make it worthless as international legislation. Its sole retaining value is that of a symbol, except it is a symbol of defiance against the cited article in resolution 49. It then has no value or grounds for approval as it accomplishes no positive, least of all its intended goal, and should not be passed."

Judge Norton presses a button on his console that raises the disk he and Joebot rode in on, the Lay-Z Delegation 9000 and hovers to the center of the room.

I fail to see how this is a breech of Article 3 of R49. Forced labor is along the lines of slavery, which this body has abolished. The only difference is that forced labor is a state in which individuals are held to a job and made to work in harsh environs, are paid to do so, but have no legal means to evacuate said job.

This resolution seeks to rectify that by providing that no person may be held to their job against their will, or be bound to any contract against their will. This is a step towards individual freedoms and an expansion on the Abolition of Slavery resolution that was unable to include this specific form of work due to it needing a seperate resolution of its own right.

I'm sorry. What are you trying to say?



You like ad hominems don't you? The clause states that contracts must only be drawn up if said persons have been forced into any hereditary arrangements. Ergo, if they were not then contracts need not be drawn up.

And just because these situations don't exist within your borders doesn't mean they don't exist in other nations. Ergo, it must be included.

Ignoratio-bleeping-elenchi.

My stance is NOT contradicted by the fact the employees in question have been forced into hereditary arrangements. My stance has to do with the fact that THIS RESOLUTION, allows those who have been forced into hereditary arrangements, to force their hereditary employers, who did nothing wrong, into a "contract" from "binding indepent arbitration," as punishment for the sins of ancestors.

And I ADDRESSED, if you look at the context of the statement of the lack of said situation within my borders, the fact that it does in others, which is why, I REFUSE TO BE A PARTY TO ENSLAVING PEOPLE JUST FOR INHERITING A BUSINESS.

Ignoratio-bleeping-elenchi.

My stance is NOT contradicted by the fact the employees in question have been forced into hereditary arrangements. My stance has to do with the fact that THIS RESOLUTION, allows those who have been forced into hereditary arrangements, to force their hereditary employers, who did nothing wrong, into a "contract" from "binding indepent arbitration," as punishment for the sins of ancestors.

And I ADDRESSED, if you look at the context of the statement of the lack of said situation within my borders, the fact that it does in others, which is why, I REFUSE TO BE A PARTY TO ENSLAVING PEOPLE JUST FOR INHERITING A BUSINESS.

What the fuck are you waffling on about?

What the fuck are you waffling on about?

Please let us all in on it when you figure it out.

Clause #3.a only says that enforcing legal contracts does not count as coercion under this proposal's terms and is therefore not automatically banned: It does not say that ALL types of contract must still be considered legally binding and MUST be enforced. Clause #6 clarifies this point, in one respect, by explaining that hereditary arrangements are no longer legal... which means that they can no longer be enforceable. There isn't a clash.

You are correct if the entire thing gets judged by someone who sees your interpretation of these issues. Other judges may not wish to open the can of worms saying that some contracts are legally binding while others not legally binding at the whim of new legislation. Why sign a contract today when it will be null and void when interested parties legislate that it is no longer binding at x time in the future?

Suppose I sign a contract with you stating that I'll give you cash for your merchandise upon delivery. You deliver to me the merchandise and before I give you any cash a new law is signed that indicates that our contract can only be legal if witnessed by a third nation. And with this hypothetical situation, I refuse to hand you over the cash because I do not want to be doing anything illegal as there was no third nation witnessing our contract.


Due to time constraints, I have been instructed to vote against with the possibility of changing the vote should I be convinced to do so with an appropriate argument.

Judge Norton presses a button on his console that raises the disk he and Joebot rode in on, the Lay-Z Delegation 9000 and hovers to the center of the room.

I fail to see how this is a breech of Article 3 of R49. Forced labor is along the lines of slavery, which this body has abolished. The only difference is that forced labor is a state in which individuals are held to a job and made to work in harsh environs, are paid to do so, but have no legal means to evacuate said job.

This resolution seeks to rectify that by providing that no person may be held to their job against their will, or be bound to any contract against their will. This is a step towards individual freedoms and an expansion on the Abolition of Slavery resolution that was unable to include this specific form of work due to it needing a seperate resolution of its own right.

Nuiari nods politely to the Judge and calmly responds but refuses to tilt her head up, merely speaking to the place on eye level where he would be.

"With respect Norton-sama, the breech of Resolution 49, Article 3 is not directly explicit within the proposal. As I explained, there are numerous ways to circumvent the issue provided by Dzerzhinsky-sama and its other supporters. Without any merit to the legislation, it is then a symbolic writ of law, one which then would exert hypothetical law on the minority who opposed it. This is the inherent violation of R49.3 in the view of the delegation from Matsu Yoshino. This proposition would be an ineffective and unnecessary resolution, a purposeless law. Without purpose, it is not a law but merely bureaucracy the intended violators would spend a brief moment sidestepping. Then, not a law but still impugning upon the rights outlined by R49.3, the failure comes into existance. The people under our emperor, Matsu Yoshino, have been divided into castes by our Celestial Order, and what we would call acceptable practice a gaijin," her lips twist slightly with distaste at the word, "might find differently. It is in line with the current proposal, however that others would suppress our rights where R49 clearly states they should not is... distressing."

Ignoratio-bleeping-elenchi.

My stance is NOT contradicted by the fact the employees in question have been forced into hereditary arrangements. My stance has to do with the fact that THIS RESOLUTION, allows those who have been forced into hereditary arrangements, to force their hereditary employers, who did nothing wrong, into a "contract" from "binding indepent arbitration," as punishment for the sins of ancestors.

And I ADDRESSED, if you look at the context of the statement of the lack of said situation within my borders, the fact that it does in others, which is why, I REFUSE TO BE A PARTY TO ENSLAVING PEOPLE JUST FOR INHERITING A BUSINESS.

Klaatu barada nikto--

I disagree, if one has been forced into an arrangement their rights have been violated as free citizens.

Enslaving people? What in the hell are you rambling about, we're not talking about enslaving. Now what?

We're a little late to the game, but we will happily support this measure.

Harmalan Shandreth
Ambassador Plenipotens

Klaatu barada nikto--

I disagree, if one has been forced into an arrangement their rights have been violated as free citizens.

Enslaving people? What in the hell are you rambling about, we're not talking about enslaving. Now what?

If you read the original post in question in this discussion, you'd know what I was talking about. Your disagreement is again an ignoratio elenchi.

I'll go back to the beginning and explain my objection to this legislation, siince so many people are committing so many ignoratio elenchi's that they must need a refresher.

My objection is solely in article 6

6. Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by his or her own consent has the right to leave that employer's service. Persons willing to remain in such service are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration;

I present the following situation, as to how this could lead to violating rights by creating a situation in which labor-of an employer-is forced.

Party A is 30 years old, owns a farm. His uncle dies, leaves the farm in his will to Party A, and so now Party A has two farms. Great, right? but wait! he gets a call from the police. The UN has just passed the Abolition of Forced Labor resolution, and so the government has to make some changes. Party A's original farm is unaffected, but apparently his uncle forced someon (Party B) to be employed by hereditary arrangement. Party B decides he wants to stay on at the farm even though he is now free, so Party A thinks "what's the problem?" The police inform him "We are sorry, but the UN said Party B is entitled to binding independent arbitration for a "fair contract." "Arbitration? But I don't consent!" shouts party A. Doesn't matter. That's what arbitration means. Party A is now the arbitrator's slave. Whatever the arbitrator says goes. And the UN is the body that empowered the arbitrator to enslave him.

--Prince Rahl.

Party A is 30 years old, owns a farm. His uncle dies, leaves the farm in his will to Party A, and so now Party A has two farms. Great, right? but wait! he gets a call from the police. The UN has just passed the Abolition of Forced Labor resolution, and so the government has to make some changes. Party A's original farm is unaffected, but apparently his uncle forced someon (Party B) to be employed by hereditary arrangement. Party B decides he wants to stay on at the farm even though he is now free, so Party A thinks "what's the problem?" The police inform him "We are sorry, but the UN said Party B is entitled to binding independent arbitration for a "fair contract." "Arbitration? But I don't consent!" shouts party A. Doesn't matter. That's what arbitration means. Party A is now the arbitrator's slave. Whatever the arbitrator says goes.

Well then, life sucks for Party A at that point, doesn't it?

We'd rather see the worker in question have the chance to get a fair contract than worry about someone whose relative or ancestor forced someone into service via "hereditary arrangement", indentured servitude, or the like.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Well then, life sucks for Party A at that point, doesn't it?

We'd rather see the worker in question have the chance to get a fair contract than worry about someone whose relative or ancestor forced someone into service via "hereditary arrangement", indentured servitude, or the like.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador
So you will enslave a man just because of his ancestor's actions? How is that different from enslaving someone just because his ancestor came from Africa?

Yes, that's right, enslave. And just because the UN says it doesn't make it fair.

On the charge of voluntary accomplice in enslavement of Party A and others like him, for future records, all who vote for this resolution are guilty.

Rights are not taken away just because your ancestor was a problem. Your rights are yours alone, only your own actions can properly remove them from you.

--Prince Rahl

Party A is 30 years old, owns a farm. His uncle dies, leaves the farm in his will to Party A, and so now Party A has two farms. Great, right? but wait! he gets a call from the police. The UN has just passed the Abolition of Forced Labor resolution, and so the government has to make some changes. Party A's original farm is unaffected, but apparently his uncle forced someon (Party B) to be employed by hereditary arrangement. Party B decides he wants to stay on at the farm even though he is now free, so Party A thinks "what's the problem?" The police inform him "We are sorry, but the UN said Party B is entitled to binding independent arbitration for a "fair contract." "Arbitration? But I don't consent!" shouts party A. Doesn't matter. That's what arbitration means. Party A is now the arbitrator's slave. Whatever the arbitrator says goes. And the UN is the body that empowered the arbitrator to enslave him.
The situation is no different to that of any person attempting to reach agreement with a potential employer concerning their contract of employment, save only that an independent party must also be convinced of the fairness of the contract. Party A is in no sense the arbitrator's slave; we think the word 'arbitration' does not mean what you believe it means, Your Highness.

The situation is no different to that of any person attempting to reach agreement with a potential employer concerning their contract of employment, save only that an independent party must also be convinced of the fairness of the contract. Party A is in no sense the arbitrator's slave; we think the word 'arbitration' does not mean what you believe it means, Your Highness.

The word "binding" puts the lie to your statement. So does the word "entitlement." That which you are entitled to, is that which you get regardless of the consent of others involved.

Arbitration is a procedure in which the parties to a dispute are bound to the decision of the arbitral tribunal, according to a well known encyclopedia (OOC: look it up on wikipedia). Traditionally its validity is established by prior consent, but this resolution gets rid of all that with language like "entitlement" and only referencing the employee's will, not the employer's. So yes it is very different from other situations. The act's wording provides no rule whereby the employer can escape this slavery it created.

And even if all you say were the case which you have yet to demonstrate, a government sticking a third party with no stake into the noses of people's contracts is a violation of the rights of the prior two parties.

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

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of Objective Values, we fail to see how someone is "enslaved" for being forced to free a serf he may have inherited. It is, after all, that person's choice to inherit the serf. In doing so, they assume the responsibility for that serf. And, if this resolution passes, that responsibility will include entering into binding arbitration to ensure the now-freed serf is given his proper due.

The esteemed representative's argument is based on a false premise. Denial of another person's rights cannot be assumed to be a right in itself.

The word "binding" puts the lie to your statement. So does the word "entitlement."

And the word "fair" in the actual proposal puts the lie to your suggestion that Article 6 entitles hereditary employees to enslave their employers. "Fair" is, of course, open to interpretation by member governments, but I would argue that a fair contract would allow the employer to discontinue the employer-employee relationship under some circumstance. But if a government interprets "fair" in a way that differs from your interpretation, there is little that can be done. We do know that the "fair" arbitration cannot result in slavery of any form, as that is banned by this resolution, nor can it violate any other UN resolutions, so I think your fears of this employee-entitled contract resulting in some sort of ironic tyranny are unfounded. While you may have pinpointed a possible loophole for unfairness, it is a minor loophole at worst.

Sincerely,
Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

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

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of Objective Values, we fail to see how someone is "enslaved" for being forced to free a serf he may have inherited. It is, after all, that person's choice to inherit the serf. In doing so, they assume the responsibility for that serf. And, if this resolution passes, that responsibility will include entering into binding arbitration to ensure the now-freed serf is given his proper due.


It was their choice to inherit the farm, maybe (depending on jurisdiction, some inheritances have historically been involuntary). If you reread the scenario, THEY DID NOT KNOW a serf was involved in the farm until it was too late.

You can force them to free a serf, but I will not be involved in voting in to forcing them to give their money to a serf.

It was their choice to inherit the farm, maybe (depending on jurisdiction, some inheritances have historically been involuntary). If you reread the scenario, THEY DID NOT KNOW a serf was involved in the farm until it was too late.

You can force them to free a serf, but I will not be involved in voting in to forcing them to give their money to a serf.

Wait, so what's the problem? I don't see a single clause that requires monetary compensation or any such thing. If they didn't know there was a serf, then there's no harm when the serf is freed. Your party A is then free to offer to the freedman a contract whereby the person stays on to work- only this time, they have to be compensated for work provided.

It seems to me you're supporting slavery.

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

Wait, so what's the problem? I don't see a single clause that requires monetary compensation or any such thing. If they didn't know there was a serf, then there's no harm when the serf is freed. Your party A is then free to offer to the freedman a contract whereby the person stays on to work- only this time, they have to be compensated for work provided.


READ THE SIXTH CLAUSE

It says, 6. Declares that any person who is currently bound to an employer because of any hereditary arrangement rather than by his or her own consent has the right to leave that employer's service. Persons willing to remain in such service are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration

ENTITLED TO A CONTRACT UNDER BINDING INDEPENDENT ARBITRATION. Pay attention. Not entitled to ask for one and hope one is offered. Entitled to HAVE ONE, regardless of whether the employer wants to hire him. Regardless of the rights of the employer, regardless of whether the employer even had anything to do with the arrangement in question, the former serf gets a special arbitration so he can enslave someone.

<snip>
Party B decides he wants to stay on at the farm even though he is now free, so Party A thinks "what's the problem?" The police inform him "We are sorry, but the UN said Party B is entitled to binding independent arbitration for a "fair contract." "Arbitration? But I don't consent!" shouts party A. Doesn't matter. That's what arbitration means. Party A is now the arbitrator's slave. Whatever the arbitrator says goes. And the UN is the body that empowered the arbitrator to enslave him.

--Prince Rahl.

I will address you for the last time because I think the others have said enough to argue against you. When one is entitled to something, it does not necessitate that are required to take that course of action. What if Party B does not want to pursue a contract by means of arbitration? He is by no means required to do so. Quite honestly, if he was being treated well enough he should have no reason to do so.

If you say these arguments are "ignoratio elenchi" one more time, I'm going to have Joebot throw you out the window.

Good day.

[QUOTE=Cavirra;13348237]On the other hand, if it were customary in your nation for a husband to have his wife working for him on his farm or so forth, and he was forcing her to work against her will and this was something your nation is happy with, then perhaps you would have a problem.
The order of family law states that women serve to keep the house and tend the fields of the family. Men serve to provide for them all and protect them all... here each must do their part for the family to survive thus one wife who refuses to follow here course and do her duties fails the family and is dealt with. Just as a man who fails to support his wives and children is dealt with here so are the women married to him. Marriage is arranged between family when a child becomes five and start their education courses and by age ten can be married but the marriage is not consumated until they become citizens at age twelve. To become citizens one must complete basic education courses from age five to ten then two years national service. Males enter military and females arrange to marry enter medical service where they learn to care for the family medical needs. Any who for reasons can't meet requirements for military service or other service we find what they might be able to do and train them to do it. We have come to understand that men alone can not maintain security in our borders thus have move in the past decade to bring more women into certain skills to assist them and also to move those males not able to serve in the military into skills once only for females. So changes are going on but as in many places slowly due to the mental minds of some of the famly elders who rule each single family and they in turn form our laws for all to follow.

We have taken a new look at this and will support it as we see no problem with it and our current marriage arrangements between citizens brought on by their family...

Sir Replundent AdiSeeal,
Minsiter of Marriage First Seat,
Elder House of Deuncoor

I will address you for the last time because I think the others have said enough to argue against you. When one is entitled to something, it does not necessitate that are required to take that course of action. What if Party B does not want to pursue a contract by means of arbitration? He is by no means required to do so. Quite honestly, if he was being treated well enough he should have no reason to do so.
.

My argument wasn't about party B being enslaved, it was about Party A being enslaved. When Party B is entitled to something of Party A's, Party A is bound to the course contingent on Party B's wish. E.g. Party B chooses whether to enslave party A.

So yes, another ignoratio elenchi of a different sort.

READ THE SIXTH CLAUSE

It says,

ENTITLED TO A CONTRACT UNDER BINDING INDEPENDENT ARBITRATION. Pay attention. Not entitled to ask for one and hope one is offered. Entitled to HAVE ONE, regardless of whether the employer wants to hire him. Regardless of the rights of the employer, regardless of whether the employer even had anything to do with the arrangement in question, the former serf gets a special arbitration so he can enslave someone.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of Objective Values, we note that the clause he quotes states, "entitled to have a fair contract drawn up". "Fair", to have any meaning at all here, must mean that both the rights of the freed serf and his would-be employer are protected. There is thus no basis for the esteemed representative's objection.

<snip>


Forgive me madame if I misinterpret. You are opposed to this because it goes againt the will of the minority which you view to be violation of R49.3? If this is the case, every resolution that does not meet the criteria of every nation is in violation of it. You can't have a unanimous vote, at least it's never happened. There are 20,000 nations in the UN, all of them can't be pleased.

With all due respect to the esteemed representative of Objective Values, we note that the clause he quotes states, "entitled to have a fair contract drawn up". "Fair", to have any meaning at all here, must mean that both the rights of the freed serf and his would-be employer are protected. There is thus no basis for the esteemed representative's objection.

We were just about to reply and mention the term fair as entered but it has already been said. So we feel to be fair the contract must incude the desires of both the once slave and his future possible employer.

The only point in this not clear is just who this contract will be made with in a case where the owner is no longer able to grant such contracts for reasons:

1) Lost the titles to the property* (*lands farmed or has factory on it or the factory itself not the slaves)
2) Sold the titles to the property*
3) Can't afford to hire but a few workers and has them

OOC: Also the term entiled don't mean you get it now... or ever get it... As I'm entitled to Social Security when I reach a certain age but..... will I get it then... and if so will I get all of what they say I'm entitled to when/IF do get it....!?!?

READ THE SIXTH CLAUSE

I DID ARGGHHHHHH

ENTITLED TO A CONTRACT UNDER BINDING INDEPENDENT ARBITRATION. Pay attention.

Attention? Being paid.

Not entitled to ask for one and hope one is offered. Entitled to HAVE ONE, regardless of whether the employer wants to hire him. Regardless of the rights of the employer, regardless of whether the employer even had anything to do with the arrangement in question, the former serf gets a special arbitration so he can enslave someone.

Oooh, you were so close. But if you read the whole fucking sentence you'd have caught the most important part! Behold:

Persons willing to remain in such service are entitled to have a fair contract drawn up under binding independent arbitration

I've bolded the important part for your reading convenience. It doesn't say that people are automatically entitled to a contract- it states that a freedman wishing to remain employed is entitled to an arbitrated contract of employment.

Do you understand now? Or do I need to phrase it a different way? Here- "a freed slave wishing to stay employed by his former master is entitled to an employment contract that is arbitrated by a third party."

Hell, I'll say it a third way- "a person (who until now was a slave) may seek employment with his former master (who until recently owned him), but is entitled (has the right to) a contract established by a third party arbiter.


Is that enough? Do you see where you are wrong?

Harmalan Shandreth
etc

The United States votes "FOR", and if my nostrils don't lie I detect the scent of defenstration on the air of the GA.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

a contract established by a third party arbiter.
Is that enough? Do you see where you are wrong?

Harmalan Shandreth
etcWe see no problem with this as this doesn't clearly say who the third part is. Here it would be a person of some legal standing knowing the applied laws to contacts between individuals or groups.. Thus the results would be fair for both should a contract both could agree to is compiled. There is nothing here says what offers I as a former owner of an individual may offer them in line of work under contact or the terms I'm willing to hire them under,,

All it says is we have to sit down with a third party and put them on the talble.. if the former slave doesn't like the meal served then the third party can do nothing under this and the former slave moves on refusing the offer.. as made...

This in no way says I have to make a former slave my house keeper or my lawyer if I only need a person to shovel manure in the barns.

A former slave under this just has the same chance of getting a job with an employer as anyone free might had gotten... and like them must meet the requirements to get the job wanted and wait in line if others are applying.. As here there may be many former slaves wanting the job but one still has the right to pick the best qualified for the job... say of foreman over just a worker. Other wise this would bring koas to a place with all the former slaves wanting to run things...

Also this part noted earlier: Persons willing to remain in such service are entitled To us means both the freed slave and their future emplorer unless they are no longer Persons.... So if either Person is not willing to carry this to a contract then it's over.

Sir Replundent AdiSeeal,
Minsiter of Marriage First Seat,
Elder House of Deuncoor

That has a certain ring to it, Ambassador Shandreth. Perhaps set to the tune "Danke schoen"....

Leetha Talone,
Ambassador to the UN

I was thinking "Puttin' on the ritz" would have a nicer ring to it.

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

Felix pats Jones on the head. The "dog" turns to face the General Assembly, panting, drooling and grinning. He barks once, then grins and pants some more, apparently looking for approval from the crowd.Aw, such a cute little pup. And so well trained. We suppose as a working dog, we shouldn't offer to pet him.

... this is not an issue for the UN to decide but for each culture to decide for themselves. This one may have an incorrect interpretation of UN Resolution 49, Article 3 which dictates that UN member nations have the duty to refrain from unwanted intervention in the social and religious affairs of other nations. Ambassador Talone turns toward the delegation from Matsu Yoshino.

Honorable Ambassador Kakita,
We fully understand your objection based on the caste system traditional to your nation. We don't however, believe that Resolution 49, article 3 provides the proscription against legislation concerning social structure that you have interpreted it to be.
Article 3 § Every UN Member State has the duty to refrain from unrequested intervention in the internal or external economic, political, religious, and social affairs of any other NationState, subject to the immunities recognized by international law.The obvious intent of said article is to prevent physical intervention in your nation by others. It does not prevent this body from forming standards of civic and political behavior in the form of international legislation to which members are required to conform.

We believe that with certain adjustments, the traditional social structure of Matsu Yoshino will indeed continue.

Doesn't matter. That's what arbitration means. Party A is now the arbitrator's slave. Whatever the arbitrator says goes. And the UN is the body that empowered the arbitrator to enslave him.
You have a very odd definition of slavery.

Hell, I'll say it a third way- "a person (who until now was a slave) may seek employment with his former master (who until recently owned him), but is entitled (has the right to) a contract established by a third party arbiter.That has a certain ring to it, Ambassador Shandreth. Perhaps set to the tune "Danke schoen"....

Leetha Talone,
Ambassador to the UN

one question... just what does "ignoratio elenchi" mean anyway?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/untitled.jpg
Antarctic Oasis Department of UN Affairs
"We will bury you!"

As secretary of UN affairs for the Antarctic Oasis region, it is our duty to inform you that Iron Felix, the duly chosen delegate, acting with full authority of the region and its founder, has voted FOR his own proposal to ban forced labor. Having assumed office just a couple weeks ago, Felix kicked off the year by supporting three resolutions from region members (Free Expression Act and Repeal "'RBH' Replacement" being the others) -- making ours the only region to legislate in these halls so far in 2008! It really does speak well for our (extremely humble) conceit as one of the most powerful regions in the entire NS world. Sure, others boast about their huge endorsement counts, but that counts for naught when we're the ones who control your stats! After all, we decide what becomes international law, at least a third of the time. We are the ultimate puppetmasters here, and we don't even need your passwords to do it! Eat your heart out, HotRodia.VICTORY IS MINE!!

one question... just what does "ignoratio elenchi" mean anyway?


(OOC: Essentially an irrelevant conclusion.)

I was thinking "Puttin' on the ritz" would have a nicer ring to it.
But only if done with top hat and tails.

We are the ultimate puppetmasters here, and we don't even need your passwords to do it! Hoo boy! :eek: ;)

I am indeed happy to say that I DO NOT support this filthy piece of legislation. People in my country are not supposed to be free in where they want to work. If they had that freedom then my guess is they wouldn't work at all. Please do not let Iron Felix's resolution come to pass it will be a disaster for all our economies and the unemployment will sky rocket causing more money spent by the government. That is all.


All hail the Mighty Crash Mclarsen!!!!

Give your trust to the Oasis, we've already taken everything else.:eek:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Holy Empire of Imota
Office of the Ambassador to the United Nations

The administration of Her Imperial Majesty Lania I has decided, with the consultation of our regional delegate, to vote FOR the resolution.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations

The world has been built using forced labor and RedIron will continue to hold on to this Tradition. The people are sheep and we are to be their shepards, for they are nothing without us.

My argument wasn't about party B being enslaved, it was about Party A being enslaved. When Party B is entitled to something of Party A's, Party A is bound to the course contingent on Party B's wish. E.g. Party B chooses whether to enslave party A.

So yes, another ignoratio elenchi of a different sort.
1. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. Several others have made valiant attempts to reason with you in my absence and have apparently failed. If I'm understanding you correctly your definition of slavery is patently absurd, thus rendering your entire argument meaningless. I'd say it requires no further attention from me or anybody else.

2. You are either spectacularly dense, or trolling, or both. Either way, I've just spent the last 10 minutes wading through all of this unbelievable junk you've posted. I want those 10 minutes back because time is precious and I realize now that I wasted them.

3. Fix your quote tags. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13351762&postcount=98)

Forgive me madame if I misinterpret. You are opposed to this because it goes againt the will of the minority which you view to be violation of R49.3? If this is the case, every resolution that does not meet the criteria of every nation is in violation of it. You can't have a unanimous vote, at least it's never happened. There are 20,000 nations in the UN, all of them can't be pleased.

She smiles politely and shakes her head.

"There is nothing to forgive Norton-sama, such things happen when different cultures collide. Perhaps my method of speech and thought patterns are as strange to you as your ways are gaijin to me. The violation of R49.3 originates because this proposal will not create law nor will it 'improve' the 'quality of life' among member nations, as I originally pointed out. This proposition is easily circumvented and will only create surpressive bureaucracy. Such is within the power of the UN, but to infringe upon the rights of nations without effect or demonstratable result means that it is a purposeless law, not a law then, and removes the mitigating factor of R49.3."

I was thinking "Puttin' on the ritz" would have a nicer ring to it.

Harmalan Shandreth
etc.

A very popular tune in Cobdenia. Can't beat good old fashioned family racism...

Sir Cyril etc.

The Pookerians proudly vote in FAVOR of this Resolution. We feel that it will be a solid step in the right direction for our new country.

Respectfully yours,

Manuel 'Pookaireus' Chrysoloras

'Our Voice Is Still For War'

Please do not let Iron Felix's resolution come to pass it will be a disaster for all our economies and the unemployment will sky rocket causing more money spent by the government. That is all.

Care to explain, perchance, exactly how this legislation will cause the sky-is-falling cataclysm you predict? I don't recall our economy in Altanar collapsing after "Abolition of Slavery" passed, and I don't see how it will do so once "Abolition of Forced Labour" passes.

Even if your economic survival is predicated upon things like slavery or forced labor, perhaps you should find a less barbaric and more humane way of propping up your economy. Altanar has never practiced any form of slavery or forced labor (mostly because our citizens killed anyone who tried to impose it). Our economy is working just fine. There are better ways.

All hail the Mighty Crash Mclarsen!!!!

No.

Ikir Askanabath, Ambassador

Agregorn is against slavery, within our own borders. We do not feel that it is the right or duty of other nations to challenge the labor (labour) policy of other nations. We will vote against this decision, though if ratified it will have no effect on our nation. For the sake of allowing other nations to enlighten themselves while still remaining in league with other nations thus prospering by peaceful trade, we urge the UN to dismiss this bill. Happy workers make great things while unhappy workers make little things and dead workers make nothing. Let us allow commerce to dictate the necessity of forced labor, not law and bureaucrats.

Agregorn is against slavery, within our own borders. We do not feel that it is the right or duty of other nations to challenge the labor (labour) policy of other nations. We will vote against this decision, though if ratified it will have no effect on our nation. For the sake of allowing other nations to enlighten themselves while still remaining in league with other nations thus prospering by peaceful trade, we urge the UN to dismiss this bill. Happy workers make great things while unhappy workers make little things and dead workers make nothing. Let us allow commerce to dictate the necessity of forced labor, not law and bureaucrats.

I rise to remind my colleague from Agregron that if the nations he speaks about are in the UN there is already binding legislation forbidding slavery. If they have a problem with that I'm sure there are several ways we can enlighten them as to where the door is.

Nigel S Youlkin
United States of Philimbesi
United Nations Ambassador At Large

I am indeed happy to say that I DO NOT support this filthy piece of legislation. People in my country are not supposed to be free in where they want to work. If they had that freedom then my guess is they wouldn't work at all. Please do not let Iron Felix's resolution come to pass it will be a disaster for all our economies and the unemployment will sky rocket causing more money spent by the government. That is all.


All hail the Mighty Crash Mclarsen!!!!


Filthy piece of legislation? Joebot, throw the beligerent monkey out the window!

Joebot™ (http://a74.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/48/l_d5ce643dc79f7dcfee1a2d3231487251.jpg) rises from his seat, and moves over to where Mclarsen is sitting. He then picks the Ambassador up from his seat by his clothes, and moves to the now open window where Judge Norton is standing.

He calls himself, "Crash Mclarsen." Let's make an honest man out of him.

The judge motioned to Joebot who then threw Mclarsen out the window where he crashed into the Vastivia Memorial Reflecting Pool below.

"Justice is served." The judge commented as he and Joebot made their way back to their seats.

Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of Blue Booted Bobbies, I once more yield the floor to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

(“What is this crap father? I am not going to read this piece of shit on the floor of the general assembly!”)

(“You can and you will. We own you! So read it or I’m going to tan you hide when we get home.”)

Delegates and Representatives of the United Nations: We are not amused. We find this another example of blatant interference in the rights of sovereign nations and we are not amused by it. On behalf of the glorious region of Gatesville we call on all nations to oppose this resolution. Finally I would like to say …

(“I fully support the resolution proposed by Felix Dzerzhinsky and … crap you turned off the damn mike. I hate you daddy! Hate you! Hate you!”)

You're too late your Majesty.

The resolution Abolition of Forced Labour was passed 6,395 votes to 2,167, and implemented in all UN member nations.

Outstanding job Felix.

Alright! Some worthy legislation has been passed, now to the Strangers' Bar!

(my own) drinks are on me!

Ambassador Biddulph Strathfield
Twafflonia

And thus ends the repeal/replace process of UNR #6, "End slavery". I am thrilled (and a little surprised) that the whole thing went so smoothly.

Once again, I'd like to thank Quintessence of Dust, Ausserland, St Edmund, Zarquon Froods, Rubina, Gobbannium, Omigodtheykilledkenny and anyone else who in whatever way contributed to the passage of this Resolution. Additionally, thank you to everyone who helped out by defending it here in the debate thread.

Why did the forum not let me rebut the non-points the last few hours? buggy as usual...


well, too late now, I just hope Party A doesn't exist.

I hereby forbid the arbitration agencies of Objective Values to participate in the foreign enforcement of clause # 6 wheresoever it is interpreted as what it is without the consent of the "Party A" that may be involved. Other than that, the act fortunately doesn't affect anything around here :D\\

--prince rahl

The United States votes "FOR", and if my nostrils don't lie I detect the scent of defenstration on the air of the GA.

Richard York
UN Ambassador

No, I think that you're just smelling all the bullshit Objective Values was spouting.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Joebot had snuck up behind Prince Rahl while he was going on and on about Party A and the arbitration agencies in his nation. When Joebot tapped the Prince on the shoulder, the man had the nerve to look surprised. His expression quickly changed to terror when Joebot hurled him out the window. Judge Norton looked on with a pleased expression on his face.

"I think Party A just forfitted their entitlement to a fair contract."

Joebot had snuck up behind Prince Rahl while he was going on and on about Party A and the arbitration agencies in his nation. When Joebot tapped the Prince on the shoulder, the man had the nerve to look surprised. His expression quickly changed to terror when Joebot hurled him out the window. Judge Norton looked on with a pleased expression on his face.

"I think Party A just forfitted their entitlement to a fair contract."

Nigel smiled and clapped politely. I don't envy him... that fountain is COLD He thought.

Congratulations to all nations who stood for ending slavery and forced labor worldwide. The United States of Philimbesi is pleased to say it stands behind you all.

Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large

Prince Rahl lands in a raspberry bush outside the window, and wonders why on earth he turned his back on an open secondhander. He checks to make sure his sword and all his knives are still where they should be, then notices a bit of glass in his arm. He picks it out, wraps it up, and hails his helicopter to fly him home so he can find a useful representative to pay to deal with these apelike people, as it is not as worth his time as he'd originally thought

We are mildly disappointed in having lost this vote but we enjoy the practice of democracy and respect such results.

We are disappointed in not having our concerns addressed by the majority when we were asking for clarification, I guess since the majority has had such a lead they do not need to explain themselves to the undecided electorate (my position was still flexible). We can say that we will apply the law in its full definition, loopholes and all. Long live contradictory legislation that passes through by giving both sides of a debate their victory.

We are very disappointed in having any delegate wish to ignore us because we sought to understand an issue. The arrogance of the winner should not neglect the electorate at large; after all, that it where the winner's support comes from. Our delegation is to be treated the respect that this assembly deserves, as we are one of its members.

We are quite happy to see this passed. Conrgatulations to everyone involved in the creation, and especially to Comrade Felix. A bag of pork haunches in awaiting for Mr. Jones in your office.

Harmalan Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

Kakita Nuiari bows politely to Felix in cession of the point, however she gives Harmalan Shandrð a look which is the synthesis of utter horror and complete disgust at the mention of dead animal flesh in such a fashion. She excuses herself and reappears minutes later looking slightly paler but more at ease.

Kakita Nuiari bows politely to Felix in cession of the point, however she gives Harmalan Shandrð a look which is the synthesis of utter horror and complete disgust at the mention of dead animal flesh in such a fashion. She excuses herself and reappears minutes later looking slightly paler but more at ease.

Laughing heartily, the old ambassador calls out.

"Taihen ne? Watashi, butaniku zenzen tabenai!"

<snip>


Joebot looked eagerly towards the judge. He had a look of mischief on his iron face. He slowly started creeping towards the UN Debaters delegation, but the judge spoke up.

"No, Joebot don't defenstrate them. You've done enough today.






I wanna do it this time!!!!"

Judge Norton grabbed the control lever for the Lay-Z Delegation 9000™ and it took off into the air towards the UN Debaters delegation, grabbing the Ambassador and slinging him out the window as he flew by. Joebot put his arms in the air to give a ruling that it was indeed a goooooooooooaaaaaaaalllllllllll. And the Judge went parading around the room before slamming into one of the walls.

aww man, why do the stiff dudes get all the fun? or better yet, why can't I think of throwing people out of windows before someone else actually does it?

Joebot looked eagerly towards the judge. He had a look of mischief on his iron face. He slowly started creeping towards the UN Debaters delegation, but the judge spoke up.

"No, Joebot don't defenstrate them. You've done enough today.

I wanna do it this time!!!!"

Judge Norton grabbed the control lever for the Lay-Z Delegation 9000™ and it took off into the air towards the UN Debaters delegation, grabbing the Ambassador and slinging him out the window as he flew by. Joebot put his arms in the air to give a ruling that it was indeed a goooooooooooaaaaaaaalllllllllll. And the Judge went parading around the room before slamming into one of the walls.

Oh and that's so mature, is that even legal?

If yes, how much to buy my own window throwing machine? I have a few targets in mind....

If no, then I protest quite heavily at the mistreatment I have received and demand extra security for my delegation at the UN's expense of course.

I shall peruse the laws to see how well delegates should be treated.

"As much as we like this proposal, we are forced to change our vote to AGAINST because of our nation's long-standing tradition of condemning the barbaric practice of defenstrating fellow delegates.

Oh, I'm just kidding. Throwing people out windows is a fun thing to do. We did that during our last revolution...altough we ensured that we had soft beds so that nobody would actually get hurt when thrown, you know."
---Dr. Bob

"As much as we like this proposal, we are forced to change our vote to AGAINST because of our nation's long-standing tradition of condemning the barbaric practice of defenstrating fellow delegates.

Oh, I'm just kidding. Throwing people out windows is a fun thing to do. We did that during our last revolution...altough we ensured that we had soft beds so that nobody would actually get hurt when thrown, you know."
---Dr. Bob


OOC: I threw Prince Rahl into the Vistivia Memorial Reflecting Pool, and somehow he ended up in a bush. Typically everyone ends up in the pool two stories down. Except of course when there was a manure truck waiting.

Couldn't resist this time. Felix put a lot of work into this proposal and has been trying to get it to vote for months. Felt like it was my civic duty, I did.

IC: If throwing people out of windows wasn't legal, do you think that I, the Grand High Judge of the Superior Court of Zarquon Froods would engage in such an act?

Have the UN pay for extra security? The UN is as broke as a wino on Monday morning.

Oh and that's so mature, is that even legal?

If yes, how much to buy my own window throwing machine? I have a few targets in mind....

If no, then I protest quite heavily at the mistreatment I have received and demand extra security for my delegation at the UN's expense of course.

I shall peruse the laws to see how well delegates should be treated.Leetha reached underneath the desk and pulled out what appeared to be an AR15.

Turning toward the UN Debaters delegation, she pointed the weapon at the mouthiest of the delegation and pulled the trigger.

A large stream of water hit the targeted delegate with satisfying strength.

Welcome to the UN.

If no, then I protest quite heavily at the mistreatment I have received and demand extra security for my delegation at the UN's expense of course. If you want extra security, you're going to be paying for it. We don't have the money to hire extra personnel for your personal protection.

William Smithers
Senior VP
UN Building Management

We don't even have the money to pay for personnel at all, much less EXTRA security. Besides, they'd be stuck with nerf guns and water guns.

Not bad.

For a zombified commie.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Zombie communists. Is there a greater evil?

If no, then I protest quite heavily at the mistreatment I have received and demand extra security for my delegation at the UN's expense of course.



Quit whining, try getting jumped by a Velocaraptor. Then you can ask for more security. You wont get it but you can ask.

rotflol

enough, enough!!! I'm running out of oxygen! (as the delegate continues laughing at the comedy unfolding in front of his eyes)

poor stiff fella who got thrown out... still stiff though, must not have fell in the pool this time.... shall someone try again? AIM FOR THE POOL!

Zombie communists. Is there a greater evil?

Commified zombies.

Zombie communists. Is there a greater evil?

OOC: Room Temperature beer ... :D

The Federation of Arctic Countries has noticed no change from these new laws as the Abolishment of slavery was enough.

Also I have a number of sporks and
if that bot comes near me I'll stick a spork in it.

The Federation of Arctic Countries has noticed no change from these new laws as the Abolishment of slavery was enough.

Also I have a number of sporks and
if that bot comes near me I'll stick a spork in it.


I wouldn't do that if I were you. Joebot has a self-destruct mechanism built into his exterior to prevent anyone from finding the laws (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=710) within his circuits. You can think about it all you want, but just don't do it.

ok I'm armed with a ukulele and I'm ready to use it the next time anyone throws one of my delegates out the window or squirts any of them.

YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR ME PLAY.

OOC: Room Temperature beer ... :D

How else will you enjoy a fine stout? Chilling your beer? Ignoramuses, Ach! Don't you want to enjoy the flavor of your beer? Of course room temperature beer, some are even warmed up! Now don't get me going on the proper etiquette of drinking proper beer! I'll have to buy you a round of beers just so you can see the differences.

ok I'm armed with a ukulele and I'm ready to use it the next time anyone throws one of my delegates out the window or squirts any of them.

YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR ME PLAY.
... but surely the best way to hear a uke being played is when it is rapidly fading, as the player is thrown from great height? Plus the nice little musical crunch at the bottom.

~ Hari Desana
(usually quite mild, but definitely an opponent of bad instruments)

ok I'm armed with a ukulele and I'm ready to use it the next time anyone throws one of my delegates out the window or squirts any of them.

YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR ME PLAY.
We regret to inform other delegates that we have been given very firm instructions not to take advantage of our tone-deafness at this point.

ok I'm armed with a ukulele and I'm ready to use it the next time anyone throws one of my delegates out the window or squirts any of them.

YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR ME PLAY.

The Kawaiian Nuncia sighed, "But I like ukulele music."

The Kawaiian Nuncia sighed, "But I like ukulele music."

Then you'd hate my playing even more, as I have no talent with that instrument. We've also hacked the PA system so that if one of our delegates changes altitude at a rapid rate without being in an elevator zone the speakers will spout out some of my attempts at opera singing in the shower. Not a pleasant sound if you believe my dozen or so ex-partners. In one recording you can hear my pets howling and yowling for me to stop singing (or so the animal psychologist interpreted).

So for the sanity of your minds, you will not throw me (or any other of my delegates) out of any windows or squirt me. We will be treated with the appropriate level of decency in regards to our delegate status.

Then you'd hate my playing even more, as I have no talent with that instrument. We've also hacked the PA system

So, you're the one who hacked us. Thank you for confessing. Just so you know, we've undone your handiwork. Now, if the Maintence of Order Department Squad would be so kind as to escort you from the building.
*The members of the Maintence of Order Department Squad proceed to pick up the ambassador from UN Debaters and hurl him out the window.*

Charles Gates
Vice President, IT Department
UN Building Management

So, you're the one who hacked us. Thank you for confessing. Just so you know, we've undone your handiwork. Now, if the Maintence of Order Department Squad would be so kind as to escort you from the building.
*The members of the Maintence of Order Department Squad proceed to pick up the ambassador from UN Debaters and hurl him out the window.*

Charles Gates
Vice President, IT Department
UN Building Management

For the next 24 hours, excruciating noise was coming out of the speakers which some recognized as attempts to play the ukulele and what seemed to be the sounds of yowling cats being tortured was someone's attempt at opera singing. The gnomes scrambled to find each hidden speaker and disconnect them. When it was all over, the delegates of the UN Debaters came back in and sat down at their usual spot. "What? escorted out? No we were invited by another delegation to a restaurant after a nice dive into the local pool. Since they have no authority to 'escort' anyone out we are back in here as usual. Of course, if these delegates had the 'authority' to kick anyone out for improper behavior then they would have 'escorted' others out before reaching us as we are only responding to the whims of others. If they can get away with such things, then so can we!" With that the delegates looked through their notes to respond and discuss the newest issues at hand.

OOC: Quit godmodding.

Okay. We're done here.