NationStates Jolt Archive

Protection of Orphans Act

A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice


Strength: Mild


Proposed by: Iron Felix

Description: The General Assembly of the United Nations;

Recognizing that orphans and homeless children are some of the most vulnerable of all persons in any society and are often ignored or abused;

Recognizing that violence, drugs, war, famine, social chaos, disease and prejudice in many nations have resulted in an unprecedented number of children who are abandoned as orphans or who have become homeless;

Recognizing that the rights of orphans and homeless children are often ignored;

Deploring the terrible conditions that these children suffer in;

Alarmed that these children are exposed to the possibility of being raped, murdered or sold into prostitution and noting that some of these children are extremely young;

Finding this situation to be unacceptable, enacts the following:

1. Member nations are encouraged in the strongest possible terms to fund the construction and staffing of orphanages and shelters for homeless children as the situation in their nation merits.

2. Member nations are further strongly encouraged to establish appropriate child welfare agencies to oversee the well-being of these children and to manage the distribution of aid. Additionally, these agencies are strongly urged to share information to facilitate intranational and international adoptions.

3. The United Nations Child Placement Authority is hereby established to do the following:
(i) Compile a database of all known homeless or orphaned children currently residing in UN nations who are awaiting placement in adoptive homes. The governments of UN member nations shall submit bi-annually a report detailing the number of homeless or orphaned children living within their nation who are awaiting placement in adoptive homes, either within, or outside their nation. The report shall include the child's age, sex, name (if known), pertinent medical information as allowed by UN law and any other details considered relevent to the child's case.
(ii) Act as a clearinghouse for coordinating the efforts of accredited adoption agencies and child-advocacy groups in UN nations and to assist in the effort to place these children in permanent, stable homes.

4. Member nations are reminded that many homeless children, particularly runaways, may be reluctant to accept aid and assistance from government agencies or recognized charities due to fears that they will be forced into an unacceptable situation, e.g., returned to an abusive home. Therefore, it is suggested that aid and assistance be provided in a no-threat environment with assured confidentiality for all clients, but with the goal of eventually placing these children in an officially recognized shelter, orphanage or foster home, or if possible, returning them to their parents or an acceptable guardian.

This should go to vote tonight or tomorrow, depending upon it remaining at quorum through the next update.

This is a fairly straightforward and easy to understand text. I have no intention of responding to idiocy of any kind, nor am I likely to respond to persons who have obviously not taken the time to read the text. Fair warning.

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

OOC: Huzzah! Finally something at vote!

IC: Well, it does appear to be very straightforward. Notwithstanding any flaws that might emerge as a result of discussion here, the Dasri will be voting FOR.

~ Hari Desana

Silver Star is concerned by the lack of mandates in this resolution. While we applaud the intent and are happy to see the UN legislate on this subject, we believe that a stronger resolution is required as the only thing this resolution does is establish the UN CPA, which is ineffective while the other points of the resolution are only encouragements. If a nation has no social welfare, for example, it would be extremely difficult to document and help orphans. The sheer amount of orphans created through disease, violanece, and warfare is far too high for a single body without any real power to help.

A weak resolution is worse than none at all, for to replace it one needs both a repeal and a new resolution.

MULTI VOTE POLLS ROCK!


*Voted all 4 options*

HIM of Rastaniskya is outraged by this proposal! To deprive the state of the potential for exploitation of orphans is an abomination. The Empire will vote against it with extreme prejudice. Orphaned children make prime slaves in state service and should be employed as such. Also HIM would like to encourage people to support the current UN proposal for the re legalization of slavery.

Look, your disgusting nation is in violation of a current resolution abolishing slavery, and your proposal to legalize the barbaric practice is also in contravention of UN rules. Until your government takes pains to reverse these disturbing actions on the part of your political leaders, this delegation will entertain no further comments from the Holy Empire of Rastaniskya.

Sammy Faisano
Adviser to the Mission

I Personally Believe that ALL Children Should Have Parents, Mandatory. Those People Out There Should Feel.
"Any Fool Knows A Dog Needs A Home, A Shelter From Pigs on the Wing."
-Pigs On the Wing, Animals, Pink Floyd

Despite the national crisis that has been due to erupt in Zarquon Froods for the last month which has yet to formally happen, but has otherwise kept all of the officials thuroughly tied up over arguing weather this crisis will or will not arise. The government has this to say.

We shall be voting FOR this resolution. We may be vocal, we may not be. But be warned that we have implanted various liasons around the various questionable delegations and we are prepared to handle any nay sayers that may arise. TEA anyone?

This sounds alright.
I will be voting in favor of this.

against. the proposal does nothing. Also, decapodian parents die after sex as we are not human. so technically we are all orphans (or have zero.... not sure which) and so compliance is impossible, and your database is big brother to us.

against. the proposal does nothing. Also, decapodian parents die after sex as we are not human. so technically we are all orphans (or have zero.... not sure which) and so compliance is impossible, and your database is big brother to us.
So... it does nothing, yet also requires you to register every single person? Strange definition of 'nothing' you have there in Decapod Ten.
~ Hari Desana

As it is, this resolution will be rather ineffective. In addition to that Terra Scientia has only recently gained independence through a war that has left many orphans, will find it impossible to comply without any economic support from the UN. In the future Terra Scientia would like to see a stronger resolution, but for the moment we will reluctantly be voting AGAINST.

As it is, this resolution will be rather ineffective.
So it doesn't do anything...

In addition to that Terra Scientia has only recently gained independence through a war that has left many orphans, will find it impossible to comply without any economic support from the UN.
...but it's impossible to comply with...

In the future Terra Scientia would like to see a stronger resolution, but for the moment we will reluctantly be voting AGAINST.
...so you want a stronger Resolution that would be even harder to comply with?

I see.

HIM of Rastaniskya is outraged by this proposal! To deprive the state of the potential for exploitation of orphans is an abomination. The Empire will vote against it with extreme prejudice.

Orphans are valued human resourses in the nation of Drygon. We, as well, shall vote against this resolution.
Military service in Drygon is not optional, and all orphans who live to see military service shall become enlisted.
We shall not stand for registering many of our military force with other nations. The potential of spies for other nations to collect intelligence on those orphans who may one day become high ranking military officers through this orphan registry is insane.

- Prime Minister Mystic

Drygon not only has voted AGAINST this Resoution, it does so with the promise of proposing an immediate repeal of this resolution should it be passed.

- Ambassador Arsene

While applauding the spirit of the intention, we do not believe that the proposed measures would be effective. The creation of the database and coordinating authority will incur considerable cost and introduce an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Moreover, without adequate safeguards, which we do not believe the United Nations has the present capability to ensure, there are grave risks that the information on children in the database may be used in ways other than those suggested by the proposer.

For these reasons, we urge delegates to vote Against the motion.

Banach the Beneficent,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
The Most Serene Republic of Topologia.

I can only agree with what has been said about the lack of consequence of this resolution. That's why Gallantaria will vote AGAINST this proposition.

I want to add that we do protect orphans in Gallantaria, but the last thing we need is an UN supervisory of our policies.

I applaud the basic intention of this resolution, but it does not justify an increase of UN bureaucracy.

This resolution encourages assistance in finding orphans new homes for sure, yet this database is registering every orphan with profile characteristics.

This is like an International Pedophilic catalogue. No way we will ever support legislation like this. Our children our too important to be exposed to this filth.

What makes a guardian "acceptable" under this resolution? If we have runaways and we try to return them to their parents or put them with an "acceptable guardian," first consider why they likely ran away in the first place. It's very likely living conditions didn't meet what they needed, the adults they lived with were abusive or overly restrictive, or their basic needs for survival weren't being met. Will we be returning these orphans to such parents? In poor nations, there is no way that an acceptable guardian will be found for every orphan from their home nation. So, these children will have to be absorbed amongst all the other UN nations. (This will be true for every UN nation with a surplus of "acceptable guardians") Can these currently economically and socially stable nations (I know we're assuming these guardians come from such nations) handle the influx without destroying that stability?

This resolution like many others needs more work and should absolutely lose the international database clause. Big brother and prurient interests in orphans are against the political and social freedoms and protections of our nation.

Therefore for all the reasons mentioned, we are voting AGAINST this resolution.


HawaiianFreedom - Delegate to the HawaiianFreedom nation

UIOT's position hasn't changed since November with your "Think of the children act". We vote and recommend Nay.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13239845#post13239845

This doesn't do anything...beneficial! You can not legislate compassion.

We am not going to create a new agency, department, database and housing for such a non-issue.

If this passes you next attempt at legislation should be "Feel good about yourself act." And then you can create an entire bureaucratic system to ensure people feel good. And if they don't we can house them and treat them and keep track of them and fund them for travel to places where they might feel better...

Basically the same legislation here, regardless of parental situation.

UOIT, Director of Nonsensical Affairs (DNA)

Look, your disgusting nation is in violation of a current resolution abolishing slavery, and your proposal to legalize the barbaric practice is also in contravention of UN rules. Until your government takes pains to reverse these disturbing actions on the part of your political leaders, this delegation will entertain no further comments from the Holy Empire of Rastaniskya.

Sammy Faisano
Adviser to the Mission

I do believe that the right honourable statesman for Rastaniskya is right.
Us small almost radical nations have been looked down upon by you and your liberal cronies for far too long!
Bring back slavery!
Bring back chimney sweeps!

The UN has been a stain upon the nations who don't have liberal views. The rights and lefts off the government are united under one thing - abolishing the UN.

That said. If this resolution passes I shall resign. The UN snoops too much. Too much indeed. Good day to you sir.

Owain Glyndwr II KG, KP, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS, MBE, OBE, KBE, KCB, VC, KT, GC, OM, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE, GCVO, GBE, CH, KCSI, KCMG, KCIE, KCVO, CB, CSI, CMG, CIE, CVO, LVO, ISO, MVO, IOM, CGC, RRC, MC, AFC, ARRC, DFC, DSC, OBI, DCM, CGM, GM, IDSM, DSM, MM, DFM, AFM, SGM, IOM, CPM, QGM, BEM, QPM, QFSM, CPM, MSM, ERD, VD, TD, ED, RD, VRD, AE, ADC, QHP, QHS, QHDS, QHNS, QHC, S, SL, QC, JP, DL, DPhil, PhD, DLitt, MD, EngD, DD, LLD, MA, MSc, MSci, MRes, MEng, MSocSc, LLM, MMath, MAcc, MFin, MBA, MEd, BA, BSc, LLB, BEng, PGD, PGDCC, (EsqStJ), (Cantab) etc etc etc
King, Lord, Duke, Count, Viscount, Prince, Earl, Emperor, Marquess, Crown Prince, Prince Regent, Sultan, Maharajah, Ceaser, Archon, Consul, Dictator, Doge, Duce, Fuhrer, Imperator, Lord Protector, President, Prime Minister, Caliph, Khan, Pharaoh, Rex, Czar, Baron, Baronet, Admiral of the fleet, Marshall of the air-force, Field Marshall... etc etc etc of Upper Wales.

The resolution at vote was written with good intentions. However good intentions alone are not enough to create a strong resolution. with a little more thought and less "encouragement" this could be a good law.

And in the case of Rastaniskya, why join an organization that is against your views?

To the ruler of UpperWales, not every nation in the UN is run by liberal idealists. take mine, for example. The UN is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is supposed to take a more centralized viewpoint; enacting laws that are compromises by both sides. The members who actually want to do something other than complain could actually try to write some better resolutions.


His majesty the tuner of B4gp1p3s

OOC: Guys, stop feeding the trolls who are advocating slavery. They're just looking for attention. If they really wanted to have slavery, they'd quit the UN.

Silver Star urges all nations to vote against this measure as its lack of mandates actively hurts the cause the resolution supports in spirit.

I have voted against this resolution because:

The role of government is not to baby its citizens, or take care of them from birth to death. Therefore, the role of government in this orphanages issue is to encourage private sector parties, charities, corporations, etc to fund and maintain these orphanages, and not to spend tax payers' money on funding this project, or any ones similar.

Put the kids to work, they fit better into pipes and can clean them better than some silly machine, or they can boost the economy by joining the work force they can give the old folks some competion as greeters at the megamart. or help stregthen your military by enlisting them, there that is the best of both ideas a government agency to watch over the poor orpahns and who makes a better father than a drill sargent.

Dragononium is voting against this proposal

The Nomadic Peoples of Carrionbone initially were in support of this Act, however it does go against our own views.

We raise our children communally therefore by definition our children are not orphaned or you can take the converse view that they all are in some sense.

Also as one of our most honorable members has pointed out this "Big Brother" style of Database may be a gateway for harm of our most precious resource- the children.

We do believe that some legislation for the protection of Orphans is indeed needed - as has been shown by the views of our honorable colleagues from Rastaniskya and UpperWales have shown through their views and desire to exploit this resource. We do not feel that this Act in it's current form will do the job and still uphold our human rights - in particular the right to privacy of the child.

Minister Dalben Soonbegone of Carrionbone.

Us small almost radical nations have been looked down upon by you and your liberal cronies for far too long!

A disturbance in the assembly turns out to be the entire Gobbanaen delegation in helpless hysterics at the mere thought of the Kennyites being described as "liberal". Eventually Prince Rhodri manages to draw enough breath to speak.

"Madame Commander, please accept our >snerk< apologies at the small stain upon your nation's >snicker< honour. All we ask is >choke< five seconds warning to clear the gangway."

--snip--
Nurse!

Fellow delegates, I must profess bewilderment and chagrin. It seems I have been labouring under the illusion that sanity is a prerequisite for any individual appointed to represent a nation in this august body. HawaiianFreedom has rather emphatically put the lie to my naive presumption.

The role of government is not to baby its citizens, or take care of them from birth to death. Therefore, the role of government in this orphanages issue is to encourage private sector parties, charities, corporations, etc to fund and maintain these orphanages, and not to spend tax payers' money on funding this project, or any ones similar.
A rather sweeping and, if we are honest, profoundly stupid assumption. Take a look at the nations represented in the UN, and at the resolutions passed, and you will soon see the errors inherent in your statements of 'fact'.

The resolution is sensible and appropriate. We are in favour.

Benedictions,

This is an interesting idea and well thought out. However, the Holy Empire of Marcusism must be opposed. While language does not specifically require governments to act according to the resolution, it is implied. Additionally, it gives the UN authority to give aid at their own discretion without the consent of the government of the country they’re intervening in. VOTE NO to protect our sovereignty.

I'll be reposting this periodically throughout the "debate" for those who may have missed it.

This is a fairly straightforward and easy to understand text. I have no intention of responding to idiocy of any kind, nor am I likely to respond to persons who have obviously not taken the time to read the text. Fair warning.

Bah, its the kind of fluffy resolution that i'd expect from a former commie delegate:p. However its mild in strength, and is a good idea, so the Palentine shall be voting for. Besides, like Felix, I've also a soft spot for orphans.:D

excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
New and improved with 50% more unwholesomeness!

So it doesn't do anything...
...but it's impossible to comply with...
...so you want a stronger Resolution that would be even harder to comply with?
I see.

yes. yes i do wish a stronger resolution. that, in decapod ten's individual situation, it is impossible to comply still does not negate the fact that this resolution does no positive good. What's a registration of "age, sex, name (if known), pertinent medical information" good for? Why didnt you include mandating a system of orphanages/foster-homes/millitary academies/work camps/whatever? surely youre RL experience (i think you were one of the people with RL experience with orphans) should tell you that a database is not going to solve the problem. why not ban the exploitation of orphans? why not mandate no threat position?

the problem with saying 'encourage' is that nations are free to completely ignore it. it looks great to sign on to, yeah, who doesnt want to protect orphans? yet it doesnt mean anything to sign. bahrain signed CEDAW, but put reservations to everything (http://www.womengateway.com/enwg/Laws+and+Legislations/Laws+and+Legislations.htm), and so its the same as not signing. what good is that? what good is this proposal?

sorry for the hasty and unkempt nature of this reply, but im doing it in 3 minutes so i can go see bill clinton.

The UN is not liberal, nor is it conservative. It is supposed to take a more centralized viewpoint; enacting laws that are compromises by both sides.
Liberal:
having political or social views favoring reform and progress
# tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
# a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties

What we can do ourselves.

The Rogue Nation of Svobodna fully supports this resolution! Not only will the children benefit from increased quality of life, but the economies of the countries will improve as a result of a new source of educated and skillful workers that might have become criminals or politicians. The effect of this resolution will hardly be felt in Svobodna, since orphans are already placed under the gentle guidance of the state, and brought up with the values that enable them to be model citizens. Nevertheless, Svobodna is willing to assist any neighboring nation either financially or with the appropriate advisors, should the neighbors of Svobodna be unable to cope with the burden of enacting this new resolution. Of course, we would expect such nations to agree to model their orphanages after Svobodna's in a way that would instill values in the minds of the children, values we consider vital for any model citizen - honesty, hard work, honor, and a strong desire to bring economic and social justice to all.

The Republic of The State of New York is in favor of this resolution. We believe that it is the job to protect its most vulnerable citizens.

Thanmos, after reading all other comments and weighing the pro's and con's has decided to support the resolution. I realize that the resolution has some weaknesses regarding implimentation but this also means that nations who are strongly opposed can ignore it without serious repercutions. Meanwhile nations who are dedicated to the welfare of their most vulnerable citizens can do something positive with this database. Personnally, I don't want my orphans sent to some of these countries to be exploited. Thanmos will be watching the database and its use very carefully and if we find any abuses then we will start seriously looking at other options.

3. The United Nations Child Placement Authority is hereby established to do the following:
(i) Compile a database of all known homeless or orphaned children currently residing in UN nations who are awaiting placement in adoptive homes. The governments of UN member nations shall submit bi-annually a report detailing the number of homeless or orphaned children living within their nation who are awaiting placement in adoptive homes, either within, or outside their nation. The report shall include the child's age, sex, name (if known), pertinent medical information as allowed by UN law and any other details considered relevent to the child's case.
(ii) Act as a clearinghouse for coordinating the efforts of accredited adoption agencies and child-advocacy groups in UN nations and to assist in the effort to place these children in permanent, stable homes.


While as I have stated we of Carrionbone raise our children communally as such the term orphan is unknown within our boarders. However we do understand the need for such a resolution.

Though in our opinion this act only goes part way towards this issue. We understand the concept of the compiled database however are opposed to due to our feelings that it would be an invasion to the child's privacy. Though our main issue is with point ii above.

We feel that as there is no international standard for the accreditation of the adoption agencies that this act would need to be redrafted with this inclusion to truly address the issue and be of benefit to the children.

Minister Dalben Soonbegone of Carrionbone


(OOC: as someone who went through the "system" I applaud this act however the country I am RPing would truly see it differently)

The Republic is more than willing to comply with the given articles should they be allowed to pass. However, for want of stronger legislation that will force uncooperative member states to, ah, cooperate, the Congress shall be voting against. If it passes, well and good. If it fails, hopefully a better replacement can be found.

~Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

i dont need anything to bring up my tax rates... im against it....

:sniper: it down

The Miraade of Catawaba, Jedith Errant stood from behind Ambassador Seigfried. He took a moment to straighten the belted scarlet tunic of the Catawaban Marine's dress uniform. He resisted lowering a hand to smooth out his kilt-like Taung kama as looked over the gathered ambassadors. "Honored delegates, I have come to you today to speak on a subject most dear to me. I was taken from my mother by an oppressive government before I was a year old and placed in an orphanage. I grew up in environment best described as a tenement."

"Catawaba overthrew that government that separated me and my mother and supported the squalor they called an orphanage. And as we work to establish our government, it is always near to my heart to ensure that our orphans are protected and nurtured. It is our hope that every orphan will find a loving home with family that supports and helps them grow. If they can not be placed in a home, our government will still do its damnedest to raise them to the standard we expect of good citizens.”

He took a deep breath and let it out in a sigh. “Considering my past and the standards of care so enacted by my government, I would hope that the United Nations could support the same vitally high standards for those most vulnerable in society. Unfortunately, that has not occurred.”

He paused for a moment to look directly into the eyes of the ambassadors. “However, this resolution is a step in the right direction. A first step, I hope, to stronger universal standards of care for our orphans. That is my hope, but that is not what is at issue.”

He stabbed a finger down on the Catawaban copy of the resolution. “I have heard quite a lot of inarticulate, ignorant, and outrageous blathering in the statements of dissent to this resolution. I will not begin to address the outright criminal statements that complain that this resolution would infringe on their rights to use children as an unwilling or duped work force.”

“To Prime Minister of Drygon, Catawaba has a compulsory military service as well. However, I see know need to worry about that as potential security risk. The database will include the name, age, sex, and pertinent medical information. Name, age, and sex are considerably easy information to obtain. Pertinent medical information? Please, Prime Minister, there significantly less secure places in which those are stored, than the United Nations.”

He glanced over at HawaiianFreedom, delegate from HawaiianFreedom. Errant thought the name a bit ridiculous like if he called himself ‘Catawaba.’ “Ambassador, I’m quite sure that the United Nations would not be constructing an open-access database that just anyone could peruse. This database is under the control of the United Nations Child Placement Authority. The UNCPA will be using that database to coordinate with accredited adoption agencies and child-advocacy groups with in your nation. If there is a weak link that pedophiles will be exploiting it will be within UN nations that do not adequately police and regulate their adoption agency and child-advocates.’

He turned to the delegate from Fortitudine Vincimus. “Catawaba believe in self-sufficiency. We pride ourselves on succeeding or failing on our own merits and actions. As such we have little support for welfare measures within our country or here at the United Nations. However, orphans, children, are not self-sufficient and do not have the full capability to support themselves. The language of the resolution encourages you to act. It does not mandate you to act. You have leeway in what you can decided to do. If it is your people’s will to have private organizations care for your nations orphans, then encouragement in this resolution still stands. It encourages you to care for your least fortunate and least able. How exactly you go about it is up to your people.”

He glanced down at his black kama trying not to frown at his exposed knees. He looked back up at the delegates. “I have heard from several delegations stating that they could not support this resolution, even though they supported the spirit, because it might go against their traditional communal rearing of children. The native population of our land the Taung, our brother Catawabans, and also half of my heritage believe the same. Taung do not have orphans. Even with the good health and availability of both parents, the entire hamlet acts as parents. They raise other children as their own as they expect other parents to do with theirs. Every Taung woman is a mother, and every Taung male is a father when there is a child present. Had I not been placed in an orphanage and my mother still arrested, neighbors would have adopted me. I would not want for anything for that hamlet would have been my family.”

“In the same means that this resolution would only encourage you to take some action in the protection of your orphans, it would not bar you from raising those orphans in a communal sense. Those children would not be orphans in any sense but literal and legal. If that is the same, why can a member of the community adopt them? If all that would prevent that child from being raised in the community that loves them is one guardian stepping to the fore to claim that child legally….what impact does that have? Should that not be the highest form of honor and duty that a member of the community could perform for that child?”

He placed his right hand over this heart. “Chairman Dezerzhinsky, from the deepest, most sincere part of my heart, I applaud you in your crusade to bring this resolution to vote. You are truly a man without equals. I and all of Catawaba support this resolution to the fullest measure that is possible.”

Desakar, although understanding the importance of protecting those who have lost their families due to war or other disaster, must vote against this resolution. We would love to set up a similar system, however, it is against our beliefs to corral runaways and throw them back in homes. While we have no problem... keeping an eye on them... so to speak, we would never question their right to protest their families treatment, nor their right to attempt a life on their own. So long as they aren't hurting anybody Desakar sees no need for the resolution.

Soozieburg is having heartburn over the Child Placement Authority. Notwithstanding of the burden of the semi-annual report but does this mean that if we are not able to find an adoptive home for our orphans we would be eventually forced to relinquish one of our citizens to a foreign power?

I am going to take a firm stand against this, why should my nation pay good money and resources that will not profit us, i'm not trying to build a better world here ppl, because i already know thats never going to happen. So why strive for something that will never come to be, my country will not stand for this resolution.

Falthen The Great Ruler of Falthenia

this is all complete stupidity. they are orphans, they are poor. if you vote against, you should be ashamed of yourself.

:mad:The Forbidden Badlands High Council Voting Institution:mad:

The Republic of R0ckin0ut is in full support of protecting the most vulnerable, especially oprhans, HOWEVER creating a mandatory database does have room for loopholes. Perhaps if the database was more voluntary for the person(s) affected -- if the individual(s) is considered too young perhaps a certain age when one can take legal action to remove one's entry from such a database. This may give more security so that such information cannot be misused in anyway.

The Republic of R0ckin0ut feels undecided but leaning towards voting against the resolution due to the fact that a database of this scale could be used in malicious ways -- an invasion of privacy for one thing!

this is all complete stupidity. they are orphans, they are poor. if you vote against, you should be ashamed of yourself.

:mad:The Forbidden Badlands High Council Voting Institution:mad:
OoC: I cannot help but wonder if The Forbidden Badlands has even bothered to read some of the arguments put forth against this resolution, or if it is just one of too many knee-jerk UN voters who see a resolution with a lovey-dovey title and automatically press "Vote For" without even hearing out the opposing side.

I know which I'm betting on.

We do have some problems with the proposal (the whole database does freak me out and reminds me of some "Father Knows Best" states). However, if this proposal fails, we will seriously consider leaving the NSUN (as in, having SilentScope003 stop following NSUN law, SilentScope003 is not in the NSUN due to it violating the UN Charter, but we do follow their laws anyway).

Yes, you heard me right. These same voters rejected a resolution that protected the right of free speech, because they thought it was 'too weak'. They complain about this proposal being 'too weak' as well. Well why didn't you help out Iron Felix before? Why aren't you assisting Iron Felix in drafting a new resolution? Why aren't you doing a thing? You didn't do a thing to create a new UN resolution that would promote free speech and stopping political censorship, so why do I expect you to start lifting a finger to save dying orphans?

If this proposal fails, well we're going to likely guess that no other delegate is going to lift a finger to save those orphans. Congrats everyone, congrats for sticking to 'principles' by deciding that the best thing to do is talk, talk, talk. Iron Felix may be a Capitalist Scum, but at least he follow some morals.

At least those who argue the resolution is too strong actually reveals their biases. But those who say the resolution is too weak...I am seriously disappointed. This resolution does not block any stronger resolution on the protection of orphans, at all.

Listen. Every second we debate this topic, one orphan dies in the NSUN world. Let us actually try to solve this issue instead of turning NSUN into an debate/ego contest where you go and promote whatever you like rather than think of helping the very people you are supposed to rule. If the very voters of the NSUN can't even do that, then the NSUN truly does not deserve respect. Shame on you, world leaders. Shame on you.
---Dr. Bob

Silver Star urges all nations to vote against this measure as its lack of mandates actively hurts the cause the resolution supports in spirit.I don't know. Is there some sort of all-purpose form response we can draft for morons who gripe about "lack of mandates" in one breath, and bitch about their "national sovereignty" (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Wysterian_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5441&view=findpost&p=5087304) in the next? ~Cdr. Chiang

At least those who argue the resolution is too strong actually reveals their biases. But those who say the resolution is too weak...I am seriously disappointed. This resolution does not block any stronger resolution on the protection of orphans, at all.
It does. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465)
Amendments

You can't amend proposals. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Proposal, you have to Repeal it first.

* House of Cards

"RECALLING Resolution #3, #4, #34, #36, #67, and #457..."

This is becoming problematic. If those Resolutions are repealed, you've gutted the base of your own Resolution. Also, we start to run into issues for new proposals.

A Proposal must be able to stand on its own even if all referenced Resolutions were struck from existance; however, you may assign duties to an existing committee. Should the Resolution that creates the committe be Repealed, the committee will continue to exist, but in a reduced capacity. If your Proposal "builds on" an existing Resolution, you're ammending that resolution. Excessive back referencing is not acceptable either. Create a new Proposal, don't just parrot existing ones. (see: Duplication)
Supposing this resolution takes effect, if we wish to change the laws regarding orphans, such as, say, changing "encourages" to "demands" or some such, this resolution would have to be repealed before we could even begin a vote on its replacement. More paperwork, more debate, more "talk, talk, talk" as you so sneeringly phrased it.

Listen. Every second we debate this topic, one orphan dies in the NSUN world. Let us actually try to solve this issue instead of turning NSUN into an debate/ego contest where you go and promote whatever you like rather than think of helping the very people you are supposed to rule. If the very voters of the NSUN can't even do that, then the NSUN truly does not deserve respect. Shame on you, world leaders. Shame on you.
After a private conference, Congressman Kezek jokingly suggested to me that we should begin taking a tally of all the nations who have adopted the "guilt trip" tactic to give themselves a sense of moral superiority over dissenters. I am beginning to wonder if we should, if only so those nations receive the ridicule they so rightly deserve at a later time.

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

It does.

Recalling the greatness of the current resolution and <blah blah blah>,

Stating its commitments to protecting orphans all over the world <blah blah blah>,

Understanding that more action needs to be done to save orphans,

1. GRANTS the United Nations Child Placement Authority the authority to seize orphans and place them in new families.

<blah blah blah ensuring that the orphans are given to the care of good adoption agencies who won't send them off to some sort of sweatshop>

There. This resolution does not build on the previous resolution, all it really does is grant the UNCPA the power to seize orphans and place them in new families, expanding their power. It is not built on the other resolution at all (if the other resolution is repealed, UNCPA will still exist), therefore, there is no HoC violation.

After a private conference, Congressman Kezek jokingly suggested to me that we should begin taking a tally of all the nations who have adopted the "guilt trip" tactic to give themselves a sense of moral superiority over dissenters. I am beginning to wonder if we should, if only so those nations receive the ridicule they so rightly deserve at a later time.

Never mind, of course, that it's true. People are dying. And, alas, Congressman Kezek is standing in the way of actually doing stuff. Plus, what if the stat. for the amount of orphans dying goes down from 1/second to 0.5/second thanks to the effectiveness of the UN gnomes running the UNCPA? That 0.5 orphan I saved is rather important, no?
---Dr. Bob

So it doesn't do anything...

It introduces measures that will be practically ineffective, yes.

...but it's impossible to comply with...

Because even though the measures will be ineffective, one still has to comply with the measures.

...so you want a stronger Resolution that would be even harder to comply with?

In the future, when Terra Scientia would be able to comply, yes. We would gladly welcome a resolution that introduces measures that will have a real benefit, rather than introducing a lot of work that will have very little benefit.

I see.

Evidently not. Perhaps now that I've repeated myself you'll understand.

There. This resolution does not build on the previous resolution, all it really does is grant the UNCPA the power to seize orphans and place them in new families, expanding their power. It is not built on the other resolution, and therefore, does not have a HoC violation.
Then all it becomes is a matter of redundancy. There no longer exists a reason to pass this resolution if the delegation could instead be passing your example. I dislike the "band-aid" analogy, but for want of a better metaphor, that's all this resolution is, a band-aid. It would be to everyone's benefit to quickly abandon this proposal and instead seek out a more effective one.

Never mind, of course, that it's true. People are dying. And, alas, Congressman Kezek is standing in the way of actually doing stuff.
---Dr. Bob
The problem being that it is not true, as the persons most concerned with the well-being of the orphans are the ones who realize this solution does nothing for them. Meanwhile, the bleeding hearts misconstrue that a sloppy, ineffectual resolution is preferable to "actually doing stuff."

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

This resolution does address a serious issue, and the concern of the young homeless as well the orphans of the world should be close to everyone's hearts. But, this issue has no place in government resolution. A government, as far as our nation is concerned, is in place to protect individuals from harming one another and protecting its citizens from foreign enemies. To establish buildings and programs to help the homeless or orphans is a private sector issue. That is why we will be voting against it.

First off, I want to say that I fully support this resolution. Furthermore, all of you who are opposed to this resolution because you want to exploit orphans ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

Now, there's one other statement I have to reply to.
against. the proposal does nothing. Also, decapodian parents die after sex as we are not human. so technically we are all orphans (or have zero.... not sure which) and so compliance is impossible, and your database is big brother to us.

Several years ago, there was an ambassador in this very chamber named DemonLordEnigma. Every time a resolution came up that she didn't like, she'd have some crazy reason why it didn't apply to her (and they weren't even good reasons like the Kennyites' Creative Solutions Agency have). Your statement is eerily reminiscent of her.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

"Never mind, of course, that it's true. People are dying. And, alas, Congressman Kezek is standing in the way of actually doing stuff. Plus, what if the stat. for the amount of orphans dying goes down from 1/second to 0.5/second thanks to the effectiveness of the UN gnomes running the UNCPA? That 0.5 orphan I saved is rather important, no?
---Dr. Bob"

I cannot agree on this one. If a nation is in favor of protecting orphans, there is no UN legislation forbidding it.

So why are you waiting for this resolution to pass to do what you already think is right?

Gallantaria opposes this resolution because it limits national sovereignity without need. Those nations who want to exploit orphans will continue doing so even after this resolution will be passed. The only thing that will change is that it will be documented. I cannot see any progress except expanding bureaucracy...

We support this measure in the strongest terms. I will reiterate what I have already convayed to my reigeonal representative. There is nothing in this resolution which should be offensive or burdensom to any reasonable and civilized nation. The people of the world have a moral duty to protect the innocent and helpless. I pray that every nation will see the light and support this particular resolution.

Wellfare?

God damn communists!

There is no social wellfare in Cawales and we strongly vote against this Act. We see this Act a waste of government money.

We have a good solution to the problem of these homeless children. Draft them into the army.

We know there are some leaders with similliar interests to us and we urge them to speak against this deplorable act! We can't let these Marxists do all the talking!

Dictated but not signed.

Ronald Roberts
Premier of Cawales.

We have a good solution to the problem of these homeless children. Draft them into the army.

OOC: Although an already-passed resolution (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030111&postcount=52) places considerable limits on this practice...

While recognizing the honorable intentions of this resolution, The Angelic Domain of Aquaya has voted against.

The resolution does very little to protect orphans, besides setting up an official body to create a database of homeless children and orphans. Useful as such a database may be, it is a waste of time, resources and money unless laws are passed requiring member nations to protect children through the funding and staffing of orphanages and formation of welfare agencies.
This resolution is little more than an organized collection of suggestions and reminders, and does little to nothing to protect the disadvantaged children in UN member nations.

We strongly urge you to vote Against.

Communists. I agree with Cawales. Welfare is a big waste of money. The parents should be responsible for their own youngins not other people. Why should a hard working individual be forced to be responsible for other people's children? Because we're members of society? Society should be based upon mutualism and voluntarism NOT coercion. Privatize Charity!

I don't know. Is there some sort of all-purpose form response we can draft for morons who gripe about "lack of mandates" in one breath, and bitch about their "national sovereignty" (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Wysterian_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5441&view=findpost&p=5087304) in the next? ~Cdr. Chiang


Firstly: Using info from a forum doesn't prove anything because I could roleplay this nation any way I want on the NS forums regaqrdless of what I do on the Wysterian forums.

Secondly: SSHQ believes in "economy first, civil rights second." If something screws with my trade, I'm against it, because that's how I roleplay SSHQ (in Wysteria). I just claimed NatSov there since you don't want to literally announce to the world ICly "our economy before anything else." In addition, I also had strong reservations regarding the lack of ability to tarrif or block trade under the resolution.

If something is pro-civil rights without screwing with the economy, I'll usually vote for it, but this resolution does not help at all and actually hinders as it requires an appeal before stronger resolutions are written.

Finally: Please refrain from personal attacks, because I get really bearish when I haven't had breakfast yet.

Communists. I agree with Cawales. Welfare is a big waste of money. The parents should be responsible for their own youngins not other people. Why should a hard working individual be forced to be responsible for other people's children? Because we're members of society? Society should be based upon mutualism and voluntarism NOT coercion. Privatize Charity!


Well, I do oppose this proposition as well, but don't you think it would be quite difficult, not to say impossible, for the parents of orphans to look after their children?

Think about it for a minute... especially why the orphans are called "orphans"...

After a short debate between the counsel and the representatives, the Supreme Minister of Stately Affairs has decided to make a direct decision on this matter:

''I do not believe that focusing on the orphans is an international matter. Orphans make up only a small section of this national machine. I do not believe we should force everybody on the UN's line of thinking to provide aid and shelter to the few poor souls that have been cut of from there parental guidance. Although it is certainly imperative to help the orphans, focusing on orphans only would be a costly not to mention unnecessarily complicated crusade.''
~Supreme Minister of Stately Affairs,
E. ''Greed'' Inflation

For once I have had to take great pause in the consideration of where I shall place my vote. On the one hand I do fundamentally disapprove of the orphan and homeless child census. It is nearly impossible to get an accurate count of a nation's children with homes and parents, especially if one takes into account those living within their borders illegally. Conducting a census is no cheap nor easy task, and doing so with such an increased regularity on such an inconstant and potentially transient subject is not likely to yield any viable information. That is, at least considering the children without home. I believe those within orphanages and the foster care system are already awaiting placement, often with availability to parents from foreign nations.

Corrupt Bankers sees no need for this resolution and therefor votes Against. This having been said, should this resolution pass, we would be more than happy to offer asylum to the unwanted youths of any of our colleague nations. The youth of Corrupt Bankers is looked after with great vigilance, as are all of its citizens.

Now if you will excuse me, I intend to draft a resolution of my own to augment this measure so the UN's children will not be left out in the cold in case of a repeal, or the failure of this resolution.

-The High Chairman's Office

<(OOC: It's good to finally have something to debate about)>

While I agree that children orphaned by war or poverty, deserve aid from UN nations, we must observe the fact that many of our brother nations have private reasons to reject the idea.

In light of this we should pass that, in the case of an orphan rich society, all member nations must hand over a minimal sum to assist in bettering the lives of such children. Although there are some nations who feel the salvation of orphaned children unnecessary, they should still recognize that it is invaluable to many others, and should therefor do their part to assist if only in a small way.

It should not be mandatory for all members to shave the orphan rate but as a whole we should do our part.

The Dominion of Auslieferung will accept this proposition, but wishes it's comrades to be reminded of the unity that the United Nations represents.

"all member nations must hand over a minimal sum"

The UN is forbidden from taxing its members for any reason.

The UN is forbidden from taxing its members for any reason.

Nope. It's forbidden from taxing its CITIZENS for any reason. UN Countries can be taxed, as well as any corporation operating within the UN, but it is rather unpopular, and there has been no tax...yet. And in fact, he's not even suggesting a tax, it's just a simple minimal sum to fund a program. A Fee, not a Tax.
---Dr. Bob

*Please note this message is displayed in Dundonian AND English as is standard procedure for External Communcation, according to rule 65775/d of the Constitution of our Country*

From the Office of the President


The Republic of Dundonian hereby backs the motion at hand as we fell this is a sensible move to safeguard the lives of our Children.

Fae the Hoose o thu Presiden o Dundonian, Ken,

Oor puzishun iz tha wi bulevein tha princpuls o tha moshun, Ken. Wull back ye a tha wiy!

Jimmy Pehnbovril, President

After taking a several hours' long session of debate, involving much exchanging of insults and even the waving of a revolver, the Congress has reached a decision.

SilentScope Embassy, among others, will be pleased to note that Unkerlantum has reversed its decision. Although this resolution is a shoddy piece of literature that fails to actually resolve anything, a review of the UN's history has led us to believe that a more effective replacement would be long in coming, if at all. The passing of this resolution is a betrayal to all less fortunate persons residing in states whose governments have no desire to help them, but it is an unfortunate necessity.

Our only real regret is that we are now throwing in our lot with the arrogant, holier-than-thou, "you should be ashamed" faction. Excuse me while I brush my teeth; I've a bad taste in my mouth.

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

After taking a several hours' long session of debate, involving much exchanging of insults and even the waving of a revolver...

I was wondering where Pointy Blatherstock had vanished to. The Cobdenian Government unreservedly apologises for that...

Hirota formally votes FOR this proposal.

Fenmouth respectfully votes nay on this do nothing, feel-good fluff resolution.

We already run a very well-organized and widely praised Waisenkinder System, BTW!

:sniper:

The Sultanate of Dunyastan has promptly decided to vote AGAINST this ridiculously short-sighted and naive resolution. Our reasons are outlined below:

- We uphold the rights of nations and peoples to determine what is appropriate and what is not in their own societies.
- We do not condone that the greater powers in the UN seek to control these poor children.
- We, in Dunyastan, have outlawed adoption as illegal. While an orphan may be taken care of by his or her relatives, or by assigned legal guardian(s), a child can only inherit from his or her biological parents and relations, and the child cannot be adopted as the child of anyone but his or her own biological parents, even if they are dead, he or she is still their child in all forms and respects. Since this UN resolution so unreasonably, short-sightedly, and pre-assumingly imposes adoption on us, we cannot, and will not, endorse it.
- We, as a developing nation, do not have the economic resources to fund the construction of mass orphanages, and furthermore, to support this in other nations as well.
- We do not consider orphanages as the proper way to raise children.
- We, in Dunyastan, are proud of our tight-knit family structure, the close bonds of blood-relations, and the support of the community, and we believe that an orphan child can be reared with absolutely no problems in our existing societal structure.

:jabaca will certanley be voteing for this act.

A disgusting encouragement of theft. against.

3(ii) A database would be costly and prying. Information including name, age, and sex is unnecessary.
4
Member nations are reminded that many homeless children...may be reluctant to accept aid and assistance from government agencies or recognized charities due to fears that they will be forced into an unacceptable situation, e.g., returned to an abusive home...suggested aid and assistance be provided in a no-threat environment with the goal of...returning [orphans] to their parents or an acceptable guardian. The statement flat out contradicts itself. And there is nothing to prevent a return/placement to an abusive home as the resolution does not require/enforce any screening of prospective adoptive parents.

Against.

Whilst Dukeburyshire has a State Orphanage System sponsored by the wealthiest state subjects, we applaude the idea to protect children born outside the beautiful paradise of Dukeburyshire.

Vote: For.

We hope that at some stage a UN orphanage shall be established to protect children in a neutral location.

The Sultanate of Dunyastan has promptly decided to vote AGAINST this ridiculously short-sighted and naive resolution. Our reasons are outlined below:

- We uphold the rights of nations and peoples to determine what is appropriate and what is not in their own societies.
- We do not condone that the greater powers in the UN seek to control these poor children.
- We, in Dunyastan, have outlawed adoption as illegal. While an orphan may be taken care of by his or her relatives, or by assigned legal guardian(s), a child can only inherit from his or her biological parents and relations, and the child cannot be adopted as the child of anyone but his or her own biological parents, even if they are dead, he or she is still their child in all forms and respects. Since this UN resolution so unreasonably, short-sightedly, and pre-assumingly imposes adoption on us, we cannot, and will not, endorse it.
- We, as a developing nation, do not have the economic resources to fund the construction of mass orphanages, and furthermore, to support this in other nations as well.
- We do not consider orphanages as the proper way to raise children.
- We, in Dunyastan, are proud of our tight-knit family structure, the close bonds of blood-relations, and the support of the community, and we believe that an orphan child can be reared with absolutely no problems in our existing societal structure.
I realize I come off as rude for asking this, but really I am only curious: if a child's entire biological family is dead, how is said child raised in your nation?

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

I realize I come off as rude for asking this, but really I am only curious: if a child's entire biological family is dead, how is said child raised in your nation?

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

Sounds to me like they'd be out on the street.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

A disgusting encouragement of theft. against.

Please explain rather than drive by posting! Any clueless screwhead can throw monkeycrap about.:headbang: Unless the way reading comprehension has been taught(and changed) since I attended school, I fail to see any thievery envolved. For crying out loud, most nations already do something like this already.

Well spank me and call me Belinda! Felix old boy, I think you're being accused of becoming a Fagan.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla
New and improved with 50% more unwholesomeness, and 25% more unpleasentness

I realize I come off as rude for asking this, but really I am only curious: if a child's entire biological family is dead, how is said child raised in your nation?

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

No, you don't come off as rude. We do not treat people who enquire about our ways as rude :)

First of all, it should be noted that it is impossible for a child's entire biological family to be dead. As long as there are humans, someone will be related to that child. However, if we cannot satisfactorily determine a suitable guardian for the child (this may happen if the closest relations are all dead, or not suitable to take care of the child), then they are placed under the guardianship of a willing local family, and the surrounding community pitches in to help the child, to welcome them, to make them feel at home, and to give joy to their innocent being.

We believe our system to be far superior to stuffing these children in orphanages. No matter how advanced the care system of an orphanage, we do not believe that it is an appropriate environment for the rearing of a child. We believe that a child requires close, personal, and loving care, in a one-on-one basis.

We see orphanages as similar to "elderly homes" and we look down on other societies as cruel who implement these measures.

We would like to thank you for taking in interest in our cultural heritage and our society. We would like to extend to you a token of appreciation and an invitation to visit our beautiful nation. Thank you!

No, you don't come off as rude. We do not treat people who enquire about our ways as rude :)

First of all, it should be noted that it is impossible for a child's entire biological family to be dead. As long as there are humans, someone will be related to that child. However, if we cannot satisfactorily determine a suitable guardian for the child (this may happen if the closest relations are all dead, or not suitable to take care of the child), then they are placed under the guardianship of a willing local family, and the surrounding community pitches in to help the child, to welcome them, to make them feel at home, and to give joy to their innocent being.

We believe our system to be far superior to stuffing these children in orphanages. No matter how advanced the care system of an orphanage, we do not believe that it is an appropriate environment for the rearing of a child. We believe that a child requires close, personal, and loving care, in a one-on-one basis.

We see orphanages as similar to "elderly homes" and we look down on other societies as cruel who implement these measures.

We would like to thank you for taking in interest in our cultural heritage and our society. We would like to extend to you a token of appreciation and an invitation to visit our beautiful nation. Thank you!
Your system is interesting. I, personally, agree with your dislike of orphanages, actually. However, I am confused as to where you keep your children while an appropriate family is being found. Are they held in a home, in which case it would be no different than an orphanage? Or are they left alone until a suitable placement is located?

And I believe I shall take you up on that invitation, if I ever manage to free myself from all this bureaucratic paperwork. I'm very fond of international travel.

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

First of all, it should be noted that it is impossible for a child's entire biological family to be dead. As long as there are humans, someone will be related to that child. However, if we cannot satisfactorily determine a suitable guardian for the child (this may happen if the closest relations are all dead, or not suitable to take care of the child), then they are placed under the guardianship of a willing local family, and the surrounding community pitches in to help the child, to welcome them, to make them feel at home, and to give joy to their innocent being.

We believe our system to be far superior to stuffing these children in orphanages. No matter how advanced the care system of an orphanage, we do not believe that it is an appropriate environment for the rearing of a child. We believe that a child requires close, personal, and loving care, in a one-on-one basis.

We see orphanages as similar to "elderly homes" and we look down on other societies as cruel who implement these measures.

We would like to thank you for taking in interest in our cultural heritage and our society. We would like to extend to you a token of appreciation and an invitation to visit our beautiful nation. Thank you!

I do not see how this is much different from the standard orphanage. In both cases the child will only receive minimal care. An orphanage seems more suited to handle such a child, because orphanages are build solely to help otherwise homeless children.

It seems preferable than placing the child under care of a community that has it's own troubles aside to deal with. In your system the child is merely a drain on the communities resources.

Why entrust a child to a community, that is not capable of properly supporting him? I don't see how you can just toss a child's future into the hands of an unprepared neighborhood, when the alternative (the orphanage) is so much more equipped to handle it.

I thought we weren't supposed to propose mandates that just "encourage" things...?

It seems preferable than placing the child under care of a community that has it's own troubles aside to deal with. In your system the child is merely a drain on the communities resources.

Why entrust a child to a community, that is not capable of properly supporting him? I don't see how you can just toss a child's future into the hands of an unprepared neighborhood, when the alternative (the orphanage) is so much more equipped to handle it.

A child is almost always "a drain on the community's resources" because unless they're working on behalf of the family in a child labor situation, it will always cost more to take care of them than will be gained back from their work/chores.

A community is much more adaptable and many families are able to take care of themselves even as they grow very large, perhaps irresponsibly large. Orphanages are very damaging to a child psychologically. The absence of a stable home with a set of loving parents is simply an indisputably negative impact on the child's development.

This resolution will not alleviate the causes of orphaned children, only deal with the results in a subpar fashion. And it's so loosely worded that even strong supporters of adoption have to admit it really mandates no serious action on the part of member nations. This is a clear-cut AGAINST vote for everyone involved.

I thought we weren't supposed to propose mandates that just "encourage" things...?

It doesn't just 'encourage' things. It creates a database that can catalouge all orphans and help people find a new home for the orphans in question.

But, in fact, I think you are allowed to pass stuff that only 'encourages' people to change. That is what Ban Necropihli does anyway (the reason being that if it actually mandates a ban, zombies will object). That what "Mild" strength resolutions allow for: encouraging.

---Dr. Bob

Firstly, I would like to offer sincere thanks to those who have supported the Resolution and/or attempted to defend it against the ..."arguments" of the majority of detractors.

Secondly, I would like to thank those few in the opposition who have voiced coherent arguments against the Resolution. For the most part this has been from governments who feel that the wording of the Resolution is too weak. I disagree with you on that and I wouldn't change the wording to make the Resolution stronger even if I could. However it is a philosophical disagreement over just how much the UN is capable of doing in this area and while I might disagree with you profoundly, I respect your position.

Thirdly, to the vast majority of the opposition I say "piss off" and offer this re-posting of my earlier statement for your convenience:

This is a fairly straightforward and easy to understand text. I have no intention of responding to idiocy of any kind, nor am I likely to respond to persons who have obviously not taken the time to read the text. Fair warning.

Considering the deplorable state of this debate, I am considering having my Vice-Delegate, Mister Jones (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=746), come here and read some selections of poetry he has written. We have made substantial improvements to his speaking abilities and have taught him some jokes, which I'm sure you will all enjoy.

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

IC:
A message is passed around the UN board, as Horgen Dush scrabbles through his series of papers and books:
"You must excuse Horgen for the moment; he has decided to abstain due to uncertainty of the range of effect the Child Protection Act (UNR#25) has, specifically whether it includes orphans."

Horgen Dush
UN Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus

The new Commonwealth of Saint Eluned associates itself with statements affirming the intent of the resolution but rejecting it on its feasibility. A resolution on orphans ought clearly specify the estimated cost of this clearing house, and the proposer ought to illustrate how other measures, such as UN dispensed aid to poorer countries, or technical advisories, would not better help member states with orphan care.

This clearing house also implies the possible cross-border transfer of orphans. Saint Eluned finds this highly undesirable. Safeguards need to be in place to ensure that this cross-border transfer is not only not a vehicle for the exploitation of the vulnerable. Secondly, the very idea of transplanting orphans into a foreign culture and its psychological and social impact needs to be closely examined. We fear that abuse might result in an international Stolen Generation-type project, a civilising social-engineering mission in which savage orphans from developing states are taken forcefully to 'civilised' developed states.

.

This clearing house also implies the possible cross-border transfer of orphans. Saint Eluned finds this highly undesirable. Safeguards need to be in place to ensure that this cross-border transfer is not only not a vehicle for the exploitation of the vulnerable. Secondly, the very idea of transplanting orphans into a foreign culture and its psychological and social impact needs to be closely examined. We fear that abuse might result in an international Stolen Generation-type project, a civilising social-engineering mission in which savage orphans from developing states are taken forcefully to 'civilised' developed states.

Then what to do if said developing nation is not able be it financially or lack of proper facilities?

A strong FOR by the way

Richard York
UN Ambassador

Then what to do if said developing nation is not able be it financially or lack of proper facilities?


Sorry, there was a typo in our statement. If said developing nation is not able to implement orphan care, then the UN should consider facilitating the transfer of expertise and resources to such states to enable to improvement of orphan-care facilities. This allows less room for abuse, and takes into consideration socio-cultural peculiarities.

Another practical weakness of this resolution (it is not an Act, as in an Act of Parliament) is that its enforcement requires the assent of all member states. It would be better framed as an addition to the Declaration on the Rights of the Child. The UN is not an international government.

We cannot help but notice that the states most likely to accede to such a convention would be those least likely to mistreat oprhans.

The point is, we are yet to be convinced that the resolution proposes the most effective way of dealing with the issue.

First, let it be known that I am not currently for or against this resolution. While the protection of human rights and dignity is a concern to both me and the nation I hereby represent, it has come to my attention that the resolution at hand may limit the sovereignty of those who the act regulates.
First, let us assume a completely neutral position, a step behind the veil of ignorance, if you will. From our veil of ignorance (John Rawls: philosophy on Justice) we must determine whether or not it is just to track these orphans, place them in orphanages, and assign them to foster families. If we look as these orphans as sovereign individuals rather than dependent children then it would seem as if this act would be seem unjustified. After all, there is yet to be a comprehensive age limit set on the resolution.
Pragmatically, we see that children are in need of good orphanage homes. Many children are young and cannot fend for themselves. Many, if here now and able to vote, would pass this resolution. These people need good health-care and a stable environment to grow up under. Confirming the observations of the bill, something must be done to help these people.
The problem area, however, arises in the mandatory tracking and confinement of these orphans. Some may wish to go untracked and find their own way in the world. Some may be fully grown individuals, some with jobs and maybe even families, who do not wish to take part in this service; imagine an 18 year old orphan who has already established a living and would rather not be a part of this act. Going back to our veil of ignorance, we must first come to a conclusion on whether the tracking and confining of a sovereign individual is justified before we can debate the merits of this act.
The problem, if their is indeed one, with this bill is not the wording of the the bill, but rather the implication and the affects it would have on individual sovereignty if it were passed in its current form. If there is any changes to be made, I would suggest taking these aforesaid reasons into account. There should be a definite age limit and the option to not go to a care provider.
This is my first post and I am unaware to the proceedings of this forum. I hope my arguments will be acceptable for debate, but if I have breached any hidden lines, please alert me for future reference.
Sincerely,
Tani, ambassador for Shangri La-La-La

I voted against because in my opinion it's the responsibility of the individual region to determine how to deal with their orphans. It's a little presumptuous of us to assume that every region/nation is exactly the same, now isn't it? When we get to the point where one organization dictates the social welfare responsibilities of every other nation... that seems more like dictatorship under the guise of humanitarianism.

In addition, this reminds me of how the US government dictates that hospitals must care for people in a life or death situation, but does not provide any funds to do so, thereby directly causing dozens of American hospitals to go bankrupt every year. The least this proposal could do is provide funding for the agencies and/or services it suggests (demands) all nations provide.

Firstly, I would like to offer sincere thanks to those who have supported the Resolution and/or attempted to defend it against the ..."arguments" of the majority of detractors.

Secondly, I would like to thank those few in the opposition who have voiced coherent arguments against the Resolution. For the most part this has been from governments who feel that the wording of the Resolution is too weak. I disagree with you on that and I wouldn't change the wording to make the Resolution stronger even if I could. However it is a philosophical disagreement over just how much the UN is capable of doing in this area and while I might disagree with you profoundly, I respect your position.

Thirdly, to the vast majority of the opposition I say "piss off" and offer this re-posting of my earlier statement for your convenience:



Considering the deplorable state of this debate, I am considering having my Vice-Delegate, Mister Jones (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=746), come here and read some selections of poetry he has written. We have made substantial improvements to his speaking abilities and have taught him some jokes, which I'm sure you will all enjoy.

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


Rusty Felix,
"Piss off" to you! :upyours: There have been several valid points raised against this thing which don't encourage it to make it stronger. If you're just looking for self-validation of your little crusade, fine; can't you go someplace else for that? Your refusal to engage honest debate on the subject reveals your utter closed-mindedness.

Crazy nut-jobs aside, anyone with any moral sense would understand the intent behind your "resolution" but, as pointed out, intentions don't build bridges (or orphanages in this case).

Humanist Objectivism opposes this "resolution" for several fundamental reasons:

1) As an "encouragement" for nations to take action on certain subjects, it provides no substantial directive standard to which nations must adhere regarding the treatment of orphans. Further, should you change the language to dictate a standard, you'd better have a damn good method of compliance which all nations could follow. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. This was the intention behind the statement "it does nothing."

2) Where this resolution is directive requires submission of orphan lists and mandated adoption practices. This requires a governmental structure which may not already be in place or is not sizeable enough to carry out the task as directed. And that's the problem that your governments who wish to comply run into. If a government does not wish to comply, it simply needs to abolish all adoption agencies; that way, no children are awaiting placement and the government need generate no list.

In other words, the more a government honestly attempts to help it's orphaned population, the more of a bureaucratic weight this resolution becomes. Out of self-preservation, governments are encouraged not to follow it! This was the intention behind the statement "it is impossible to comply with."

3) To what end is all of this collected information on a nation's citizens being used? I could almost understand a requirement to submit a list of adoption/placement agencies to ensure they are providing adequate services, but this submission of data on individuals for no clear purpose crosses way over the line of violating this privacy of an individual to an organization which is external to the sovereignty of the state. Besides, why are you asking the UN to do something (compile lists of names) that an individual state can do and act on for its own purposes?

So, if you want to continue your little crusade, I suggest you redraft your this piece of trash so that it actually encourages governments to comply while maintaining state sovereignty and does not violate the rights and private information of its citizens.

Umm, yeah, so I'm voting AGAINST. And every one of my citizens is behind me on this one (including the orphans who have been given an opportunity to succeed in life on their own merits).

<(OOC: C'mon we've heard enough about the problems in THE REAL WORLD that's why we make new ones here.)>

I agree that this resolution seems a little one sided, but as a whole we must recognize that this IS a problem. Some of us might shrug it off, and discount it as a priority, but for the most part, something has to be done.

Even if orphans are important to a society, the government of said society should try to bring aid to other communities that DO have a problem. The UN was established to promote unity. This resolution, along with the folks who reject it because it wouldn't profit them, is undermining the purpose of our glorious system.

These ravings aside The Dominion of Auslieferung likes the bill, and will be ACCEPTING.

Ambassador Mordecai Toge

All my orphans are in the army. Nuff said. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I say f**K em. If they are left out on the street, it's not the governments problem

I agree that this resolution seems a little one sided, but as a whole we must recognize that this IS a problem. Some of us might shrug it off, and discount it as a priority, but for the most part, something has to be done.

Even if orphans are important to a society, the government of said society should try to bring aid to other communities that DO have a problem. The UN was established to promote unity. This resolution, along with the folks who reject it because it wouldn't profit them, is undermining the purpose of our glorious system.
Ambassador Mordecai Toge

It's not the problem that I take issue with, its the solutions perscribed in the bill. An index of orphans is just a single step away from an index of citizens, and those of us here who are trying to limit our governments control over the lives of our peope see this as another un-necessary social control. Also the UNCPA taking children from over-taxed and overworked governments makes me nervous as well.

Nobody here in my opinion is saying that orphans and street dwellers are not a problem and a priority, but instead I would prefer to see this bill resubmitted in such a way it gives the nation itself options on how to control the issue.
Leaving in the option to index, or alternatively create a mandated UNCPA Children and Families Center in the major cities.
Though I am personally of the opinion that these are things better reserved for the private sector and charities. Sollomanna's Goodwill Childrens Effort (a not for profit orginization) has been taking care of that population of street dwellers (of all ages) and helping them become more productive, and placing them in protective orginization based foster homes with more standards than any government could hope to accomplish.

be warned for all those that vote for or abstain from voting the all powerful Big Brother of the Flaming homeless who are in sense all orphans and homeless The Big Brother has 20 million Citizens and has no problem in fact he knows where you all live and is :headbang: in frustration that he has sent :mp5: to you all

My Condolences





-Big Brother of The Flaming homeless:D

The Nation of Poddlewinkers supports the bill's concept and intent but would like to offer a friendly amendment.

The Nation of Benevolent and Fun! Fun! Fun! Poddlewinkers believes that the bill should include a way to distinguish true orphans so that nobody is put up for adoption who has parents. Many homeless children are homeless with their parents. Some runaways would prefer that an agency or govt group intervene and help their parents be better parents rather than give up on their parents. Finally, there should be a mechanism for judicial oversight and free representation of a parent when a nation seeks to terminate the parent's parental rights to allow adoption to take place. Termination of parental rights should only be allowed upon neutral, objective criteria and a showing that the child has no parent who can care for the child with assistance.

:upyours:
OOC: You know, I wish the powers that be at Jolt would eliminate this fucking stupid smiley. If you want to say "fuck you, Felix", just have the balls to come right out and say "fuck you, Felix". It's easy. Here, let me demonstrate.

Fuck you, Humanist Objectivism.

See, that wasn't hard.

There have been several valid points raised against this thing which don't encourage it to make it stronger.
Back IC: There have been none, otherwise I would have addressed them.


If you're just looking for self-validation of your little crusade, fine; can't you go someplace else for that?
The General Assembly is probably the last place on Earth (or any other planet) that I would go looking for validation. If you knew anything about me you would know that.

Your refusal to engage honest debate on the subject reveals your utter closed-mindedness.
I stated in my opening comments that I would not respond to idiocy and that I would likely not respond to those who had obviously not read the text. Why I am responding to you now is beyond me. I blame boredom.

Crazy nut-jobs aside, anyone with any moral sense would understand the intent behind your "resolution" but, as pointed out, intentions don't build bridges (or orphanages in this case).
And just what is that intent? (And why the sneer quotes around "resolution". Jackass.)

Humanist Objectivism opposes this "resolution" for several fundamental reasons:

1) As an "encouragement" for nations to take action on certain subjects, it provides no substantial directive standard to which nations must adhere regarding the treatment of orphans.
Have you, by any chance, looked through the list of passed Resolutions and noted how many of them have "encourages", "strongly encourages" and similar language in their active clauses? It isn't exactly a new practice that I just recently invented. The "mild" resolution strength exists for a reason. Sometimes (like in this instance) the situations in UN nations vary to such an extent that it would be impossible to mandate specific details.

We have a thing called "Reasonable Nation Theory", which predicts that the majority of nations will react to UN legislation in a reasonable manner. Hence the use of "as the situation in their nation merits" and "appropriate". Member governments have some leeway here to implement the Resolution in a way that fits their unique national situations, but they are expected to do so in a reasonable manner.

Further, should you change the language to dictate a standard, you'd better have a damn good method of compliance which all nations could follow. Otherwise, you're wasting your time. This was the intention behind the statement "it does nothing."
I wouldn't dream of dictating such a standard. If I had wanted to do so I would have DONE IT WHILE I WAS WRITING THE DAMNED THING.

2) Where this resolution is directive requires submission of orphan lists and mandated adoption practices.
Where does it mandate adoption practices? The adoption practices in your nation would be left up to your government.

This requires a governmental structure which may not already be in place or is not sizeable enough to carry out the task as directed.
Then they will put it in place and compile the list to the best of their ability. Note that the database is of "all known homeless or orphaned children". It is to be expected that not all orphans and homeless children will be accounted for. Even "first world" governments in the mythical land of RL cannot compile a 100% accurate list of all homeless in their territory.

And that's the problem that your governments who wish to comply run into. If a government does not wish to comply, it simply needs to abolish all adoption agencies; that way, no children are awaiting placement and the government need generate no list.
True, some nations will do that. Those same governments would have refused to comply anyway though. Remember: Reasonable Nation Theory. I don't give a flying fuck about the idiots who come in here and post sniper smilies, claim to use orphans as fertilizer or godmod some absurd reason for why they don't have any orphans.

In other words, the more a government honestly attempts to help it's orphaned population, the more of a bureaucratic weight this resolution becomes. Out of self-preservation, governments are encouraged not to follow it! This was the intention behind the statement "it is impossible to comply with."
Self-preservation? So you're saying that submitting a report detailing the number of homeless or orphaned children can bring about the downfall of a nation?

3) To what end is all of this collected information on a nation's citizens being used? I could almost understand a requirement to submit a list of adoption/placement agencies to ensure they are providing adequate services, but this submission of data on individuals for no clear purpose crosses way over the line of violating this privacy of an individual to an organization which is external to the sovereignty of the state. Besides, why are you asking the UN to do something (compile lists of names) that an individual state can do and act on for its own purposes?
It can be used at a later date in a resolution dealing solely with international adoptions. A future resolution author might find it useful to have the UNCPA and the database already in place. The duties of the UNCPA can be expanded upon much as we have successfully done with UNFTC. (To create an army of ninja orphans to subjugate the UN and bring about my plans for world conquest, for instance.)

So, if you want to continue your little crusade,
Oh it's BIG crusade, trust me.

I suggest you redraft your this piece of trash
I've got a better idea, smartass. Why don't you repeal it and replace it with one of your own, demonstrating your immense legislative prowess.

so that it actually encourages governments to comply while maintaining state sovereignty and does not violate the rights and private information of its citizens.
But that's exactly what it already does.

Umm, yeah, so I'm voting AGAINST. And every one of my citizens is behind me on this one (including the orphans who have been given an opportunity to succeed in life on their own merits).
All 257 million of your citizens? That very impressive. Are you sure there are no dissenters, not even one?

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

be warned for all those that vote for or abstain from voting the all powerful Big Brother of the Flaming homeless who are in sense all orphans and homeless The Big Brother has 20 million Citizens and has no problem in fact he knows where you all live and is :headbang: in frustration that he has sent :mp5: to you all

Ooo, 20 million Citizens. I'm sure our 8.969 billion citizens are just quaking in their shoes.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Please explain rather than drive by posting! Any clueless screwhead can throw monkeycrap about.:headbang: Unless the way reading comprehension has been taught(and changed) since I attended school, I fail to see any thievery envolved. For crying out loud, most nations already do something like this already.
]
Tell me how those favoring this resolution intend to fund it without theft (taxes)?

Tell me how those favoring this resolution intend to fund it without theft (taxes)?

Private Donations. The UN is quite effective at raising money.

In fact, as a goodwill gesture on behalf of all the UN members who has voted for this resolution, I will donate $10,000,000 on behalf of the SilentScope Embassy to the Database. Good luck Database! Help those orphans.
----Dr. Bob

Alpha Miraade Errant nodded to Dr. Bob from the SSE. "If funding is such a sticking point that some people want to use it to try and kill the resolution, I'm with the Doc here. I'll put in a million of my own money, right now if necessary. Further than that, I'll put forth a bill into our legislature, the Representation, to enact a large tax deduction for any donation to a fund in support of the creation and maintence of this database."

Funding wouldn't be an issue if the UN Funding Act had passed.:(

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

After much internal deliberation, the Commonwealth of Kertania has decided to cast a vote FOR the resolution at hand.

The people of the Commonweath hold the opinion that, although this resolution has many weaknesses, it is a step in the right direction for protecting the right of children around the world.

Charles Quinn
Chairman, Parlimentary Committee on International Affairs
and Ambassador to the UN
Commonwealth of Kertania

HIM applaudes all nations opposing this blasphemous proposal and promises a tribute of 10,000,000 golden crowns for anyone who votes against the proposal. We also shall immediately propose a repeal of this resolution should it be passed.

Tell me how those favoring this resolution intend to fund it without theft (taxes)?
The supposition that taxation is theft is contentious, to say the least, and not widely accepted outside of the loopier fringes of the right-libertarian sects. I fail to see how membership of the United Nations or any comparable organisation is tenable with such a standpoint, unless your nation is blessed with individuals prepared to dispense remarkable largesse in the direction of your national endeavours. Unlikely, I submit.

Benedictions,

The world has no right to tell me what we do with children in my nation. I believe we do a good job protecting our orphans, but it's none of the UN's business. I vote against... and I suggest you all do to, unless you want to incur the wrath of Thunderbolt.

I as UN Delegate for ConservativeRepublicans,strongly vote against this abhorrent policy that completely undermines our jurisdications/power to our peoples.Our peoples voted us in office we deliver to them what they want,not the UN.
It is an infringment,completely,of our Goverment's power/morale-to be forced to do something for our children.We know our children best and we don't need silly little UN resolutions to dictate what our Government should and/or should not decide.I must say to those who voted FOR this,the Governments of these states must be weak and powerless.
Also,protection means-more money more fiscal resources being channelled,and I dont think my Government is in the fiscal position to do such.I urge all my conservative friends to vote alongside me in this resolution.Let's stop it before we make the UN a world Government of its own.Scary,indeed.
Regards
Norman Wolfowitz
Prime Minister/Finance Sec.
TheElitists
Ambassordor for the UN,
ConservativeRepublicans

I rise to support this measure as it closely mirrors what we do in the sad case of orphaned children now. As with the majority of resolutions debated in these halls there are some shortcomings with this, however we feel as though it is a step in the right direction.

FOR

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP UN Ambassador

Jazvad Island is ashamed and embarrased at the treatment of orphans in our home country. As Plotadonia's UN Delegate, we will vote for this measure in protest of their treatment in the motherland.

Ali Al Kheifa
Colonial Regent
UN Reperesentative
Head Cleric

http://home.austin.rr.com/johnnytexas/nationstates/texas.jpg
Texas Department of UN Affairs
"Howdy!" yet again from the rockin', sockin', boot-knockin' region of Texas! This is to inform you that our UN Delegate, NewTexas, has voted FOR this resolution, in accordance with the wishes of the majority.

That's all for now, but stay tuned for more exciting updates from the Texas Department of UN Affairs!No TV and No Beer
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs

Howdy!" yet again from the rockin', sockin', boot-knockin' region of Texas! This is to inform you that our UN Delegate, NewTexas, has voted FOR this resolution, in accordance with the wishes of the majority.


OOC: Being Texican born, I'd really hope that a region so proud of its stubborn independence could find a less sheep-like reason to vote for any measure than voting with the majority. In what I believe is the true spirit of Texas, I vote with my conscience and what is in the best interests of my country.

The world has no right to tell me what we do with children in my nation. I believe we do a good job protecting our orphans, but it's none of the UN's business. I vote against... and I suggest you all do to, unless you want to incur the wrath of Thunderbolt.

Hayden Seigfried raised an eyebrow. "Yes...I'm sure your wrath is very intimidating in your home country. However in the halls of the United Nations...or anywhere else for that matter...it has no real effect. As for your complaint that the United Nations has no ability to affect your national soveriegnty, I'm afraid it does. As for what it tells you to do with your children...."

Seigfried held up the new resolution, "I suggest you read it carefully and research the definition of 'encourages.' You may borrow my copy of the resolution if you have lost yours."

OC:
I just wanted to point out that I hope that the poll attached to this thread will exceed 200 votes. :) 193 (the current total) is huge for a thread topic.

OOC: Being Texican born, I'd really hope that a region so proud of its stubborn independence could find a less sheep-like reason to vote for any measure than voting with the majority. In what I believe is the true spirit of Texas, I vote with my conscience and what is in the best interests of my country.


OOC: Actually the Texas region *used* to hold off-site elections, and very well may still hold the elections. As a Delegate, I took the message to be a statement representing just what you said, a collection of the "votes of conscience and best interest" of the countries within the region. Historically the Texas players have been very fun to interact with ... and incredibly straightforward to boot!

Owain Glyndwr of the mighty Upper Wales says one thing:
Interfering bastards!

Upper Wales has resigned from the UN due to the passing of the Orphans Act 2008.

Owain Glyndwr II KG, KP, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS, MBE, OBE, KBE, KCB, VC, KT, GC, OM, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE, GCVO, GBE, CH, KCSI, KCMG, KCIE, KCVO, CB, CSI, CMG, CIE, CVO, LVO, ISO, MVO, IOM, CGC, RRC, MC, AFC, ARRC, DFC, DSC, OBI, DCM, CGM, GM, IDSM, DSM, MM, DFM, AFM, SGM, IOM, CPM, QGM, BEM, QPM, QFSM, CPM, MSM, ERD, VD, TD, ED, RD, VRD, AE, ADC, QHP, QHS, QHDS, QHNS, QHC, S, SL, QC, JP, DL, DPhil, PhD, DLitt, MD, EngD, DD, LLD, MA, MSc, MSci, MRes, MEng, MSocSc, LLM, MMath, MAcc, MFin, MBA, MEd, BA, BSc, LLB, BEng, PGD, PGDCC, (EsqStJ), (Cantab) etc etc etc
King, Lord, Duke, Count, Viscount, Prince, Earl, Emperor, Marquess, Crown Prince, Prince Regent, Sultan, Maharajah, Ceaser, Archon, Consul, Dictator, Doge, Duce, Fuhrer, Imperator, Lord Protector, President, Prime Minister, Caliph, Khan, Pharaoh, Rex, Czar, Baron, Baronet, Admiral of the fleet, Marshall of the air-force, Field Marshall... etc etc etc of the 95th Rifles of Upper Wales.

Owain Glyndwr of the mighty Upper Wales says one thing:
Interfering bastards!

Upper Wales has resigned from the UN due to the passing of the Orphans Act 2008.

Owain Glyndwr II KG, KP, GCB, GCH, PC, FRS, MBE, OBE, KBE, KCB, VC, KT, GC, OM, GCSI, GCMG, GCIE, GCVO, GBE, CH, KCSI, KCMG, KCIE, KCVO, CB, CSI, CMG, CIE, CVO, LVO, ISO, MVO, IOM, CGC, RRC, MC, AFC, ARRC, DFC, DSC, OBI, DCM, CGM, GM, IDSM, DSM, MM, DFM, AFM, SGM, IOM, CPM, QGM, BEM, QPM, QFSM, CPM, MSM, ERD, VD, TD, ED, RD, VRD, AE, ADC, QHP, QHS, QHDS, QHNS, QHC, S, SL, QC, JP, DL, DPhil, PhD, DLitt, MD, EngD, DD, LLD, MA, MSc, MSci, MRes, MEng, MSocSc, LLM, MMath, MAcc, MFin, MBA, MEd, BA, BSc, LLB, BEng, PGD, PGDCC, (EsqStJ), (Cantab) etc etc etc
King, Lord, Duke, Count, Viscount, Prince, Earl, Emperor, Marquess, Crown Prince, Prince Regent, Sultan, Maharajah, Ceaser, Archon, Consul, Dictator, Doge, Duce, Fuhrer, Imperator, Lord Protector, President, Prime Minister, Caliph, Khan, Pharaoh, Rex, Czar, Baron, Baronet, Admiral of the fleet, Marshall of the air-force, Field Marshall... etc etc etc of the 95th Rifles of Upper Wales.

Is that a record?

There are loads more out there....

OOC: Actually the Texas region *used* to hold off-site elections, and very well may still hold the elections. As a Delegate, I took the message to be a statement representing just what you said, a collection of the "votes of conscience and best interest" of the countries within the region. Historically the Texas players have been very fun to interact with ... and incredibly straightforward to boot!Mikitivity is correct. What we meant to say was, "in accordance with the majority of voters in the region." Texas is a democracy, and the delegate always votes as the region instructs him. The results of the poll on this vote are located here (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Texas/index.php?showtopic=4449).

Thank you for taking interest in the political affairs of the Texas region.No TV and No Beer
Texas Secretary of UN Affairs

OOC:

Well, my friends, I beg your forgiveness that I thought less of Texans in their devotion to free will and independence. I suppose it's a sad commentary on my prolonged absence from the Lone Star State. Barely a year spent in the best land in the Union...alas, I live on uglier parts of the country.

althought this resolution sounds like a good idea i must vote against it based on the fact that I believe that it will do more harm than good and heres why;

1. in order to support a plan of this size a massive ammount of money will be needed to support and fund databases and orphanages.
2. the money needed for this will most assuradly come in the form of taxes.
3. increased taxes will harm everyone in the nation so while this resolution it supposed to help people out, it will in fact hurt many more.
4. the increased taxes might indeed cause more families to put children up for adoption.

it is for these reasons that I must vote against this resolution.

Jedith Errant, Alpha Miraade of Catawaba, glanced over at the ambassador from the Union of Cats. He then looked back at his own ambassador, Hayden Seigfried. "They're joking, aren't they?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden answered solemnly.

"So have they been listening at all to our or the SSE Confederacy's offer to help fund the database?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden shook his head.

"And they if had been listening and are choosing to ignore us, they've got no charity or generousity at all?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden shrugged.

"So...was your time off due to your plane crash long enough to allow you to cope with this?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden sighed. Errant snorted in amusement and turned back to the closing comments on the resolution.

OC:
I just wanted to point out that I hope that the poll attached to this thread will exceed 200 votes. :) 193 (the current total) is huge for a thread topic.

OOC: Not when you take into account that it's a multi-choice poll.

There are 202 voters and 251 votes. Not everyone voted more than once.

Jedith Errant, Alpha Miraade of Catawaba, glanced over at the ambassador from the Union of Cats. He then looked back at his own ambassador, Hayden Seigfried. "They're joking, aren't they?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden answered solemnly.

"So have they been listening at all to our or the SSE Confederacy's offer to help fund the database?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden shook his head.

"And they if had been listening and are choosing to ignore us, they've got no charity or generousity at all?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden shrugged.

"So...was your time off due to your plane crash long enough to allow you to cope with this?"

"Apparently not, sir." Hayden sighed. Errant snorted in amusement and turned back to the closing comments on the resolution.

well i would certainly like to see how you would all be able to fund every nations programs. the fact remains that somewhere taxpayers suffer.... end of story. it just isnt realistic. funding should go to educating the citizens, creating orphanages doesnt solve the problem of children becoming homeless, it gives parents a better reason to dump unwanted children.

Funding wouldn't be an issue if the UN Funding Act had passed.:(

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

It is indeed sad that money is going to red tape and bereucracy.This UN resolution simply isnt worth.
:mad:
My Government's surpluses is vast,and is indeed sad we must contribute a somewhat substantial amount to this undeserving cause.We're a superpower economy,by the way.

Call my Government stingy for all I care but we should be more concerned with education.


Jack Straw
Minister,
For External Affairs(UN)
The Elitists
Delegate
ConservativeRepublicans

Excuse me, but are you required to spend anything under this proposal?

My Government's surpluses is vast,and is indeed sad we must contribute a somewhat substantial amount to this undeserving cause.We're a superpower economy,by the way.

*SNIP*

Jack Straw
Minister,
For External Affairs(UN)

Errant blinked and looked over at Minister Straw. "Um...maybe our definitions of 'Conservatism' vary by culture...but I always reckoned that the purpose of conservatism was smaller government. Hence if there were a surplus in tax revenues, a conservative would lower taxes and return that money to the people."

The Miraade waved a hand towards the Kennyite ambassador. "As was pointed out, there is not an enforced burden or obligation to fund anything in this proposal. That is why concerned nations such as the SSE and Catawaba are willing to show we care about everyone else's orphans even they don't."

well i would certainly like to see how you would all be able to fund every nations programs. the fact remains that somewhere taxpayers suffer.... end of story. it just isnt realistic. funding should go to educating the citizens, creating orphanages doesnt solve the problem of children becoming homeless, it gives parents a better reason to dump unwanted children.

Errant failed to stop himself from rolling his eyes. "First, while I don't know by what means the SSE is going to allocate their promised donation, my government intends to encourage private donations from Catawaban citizens. I've put my money where my mouth is. We'll give a considerable tax deduction for donations to this worthy cause. In that way, taxpapers don't suffer. They don't pay anymore, and they get a lovely warm, fuzzy feeling from doing good." The last bit of his statement slipped into sarcasm.

Errant cleared his throat to bring himself back to seriousness. "Second, I'm not funding your nation's program. The resolution encourages you to create and manage your own system. From the sound of things, you choose not to for odd reasoning. If you really worry about irresponsible parents relieving themselves of kids and it worries you so, you could always pass some sort of law making such actions illegal, create a social program to encourage responsible parenting, or just rouse vigilante mob violence to lynch poor parents. It's your choice what you want to do. The bill doesn't mandate you do anything about your own social systems, just provides the database as tool for responsible, caring nations."

i agree on the education part which is why i suggested it..... however the database seems like a waste of time. why does the U.N. need to have a list of the homeless orphans in my nation. If they are planning to create some sort of system where people can adopt children from other countries, i just dont see that working. because that would require the government rounding up the orphans. I have a better strategy. make the database but make it so that there are offices where the orphans can voluntarily sign up to be adopted. it saves alot of money and still gives the orphans a chance to live better lives, and choose willingly.

Excuse me, but are you required to spend anything under this proposal?Presumably the database would cost money, as would hunting down orphans, no?

It doesn't require nations to fund the database; it only mandates they submit a bi-annual report on homeless or orphaned children in their nation.

It doesn't require nations to fund the database; it only mandates they submit a bi-annual report on homeless or orphaned children in their nation.

You would probably have to pay someone (or several someones) to compile said report.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

What I was responding to is this:

My Government's surpluses is vast,and is indeed sad we must contribute a somewhat substantial amount to this undeserving cause.Does compiling a report every other year equal a "substantial amount" or even a "somewhat substantial amount"?

What I was responding to is this:

Does compiling a report every other year equal a "substantial amount" or even a "somewhat substantial amount"?

it does because not all orphans live in shelters, therefore it would require the creation of an entire new agency to track down and document all orphans. and just because you have to submit a report each year the documentation doesnt take a day. it would take a year-round effort to make sure each one is documented... smells like socialism to me.