NationStates Jolt Archive

Repeal "Fair trial"
(http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=trial)
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #21 (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=20)
Proposed by: Jey (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=display_nation/nation=jey)

Description: UN Resolution #21: Fair trial (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=20) (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

APPLAUDING the attempts of Resolution #21: "Fair trial" to bring about fair rights of the accused within the various judicial systems of member nations;

HOWEVER CONSIDERING Resolution #21's complete lack of any details concerning the concept of a fair trial, including relevant definitions and ingredients that traditionally constitute a fair trial, usually including: juror and/or judge impartiality, competency and neutrality, right to fair representation, right against intimidation, and right to counsel;

REGRETTING that without these understood characteristics of a fair trial in the text of the resolution, the term becomes ambiguous, defeating the overall purpose Resolution #21;

REPEALS Resolution #21: "Fair trial".

Approvals: 174

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

Original Resolution:

Fair trial (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=20)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: The outer hebrides

Description: We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.

Votes For: 10,713
Votes Against: 3,069

Implemented: Sun Jul 13 2003

For the topic concerning the legality of this repeal, see here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550149).

We shall start the ball rolling by making the obvious assertion that Resolution 47, "Definition of Fair Trial", answers the concerns addressed of the repeal argument in toto. While it is not presented in a manner amenable to modern sensibilities, we believe that Resolution 21 in conjunction with Resolution 47 is entirely adequate to its purported task.

A statute entitled "Fair Trial" was passed on Sunday, July 13, 2003. However, this statute is vague. All it does it suggest that a 'fair trial' be given, but it never states exactly what a fair trial is.

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:
1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:
1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.
2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.
3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.
4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.

As such: all litigants, plaintiffs, prosecutors, and varying degrees of defendants will benefit and allow for a clearer interpretation of United Nations law so that due process shall be upheld, making the legal system fairer for all people.

"...Oh.

Well, that would explain why all our bank robbers are currently stuck in prison and can't go to trial due to the fact that we don't have a court system specifically devoted to trying bank robbers. And why robbers get paid multi-million-dollar defense lawyers from the state while our public defenders get a salary of $5/week. And why all our defendants are allowed to make vieled threats about the "kneecaps naturally breaking" to the witnesses...

And why all our 'secret trials' over suspected terroristic capitalist elements in our Hidden Anti-Terrorist Unit is brodcasted over on "SilentScope Court TV". (Gee. Our trials are free and fair, but why in the world do we need to have to broadcast it throughout the known world?)

Trust me, I've been trying to figure out why all this stuff was being done for a couple of weeks now. We've been establishing a Justice Reform Committee to figure out why our justice system is such a mess. We never suspected a UN resolution would be responsible for it. For a minute there, we actually thought we might be responsible...glad to see that was proven wrong.

Well: "juror and/or judge impartiality, competency and neutrality, right to fair representation, right against intimidation, and right to counsel" does not seem to be...er...protected as well. Of course, reasonable nation theory states that they can never really be protected against unreasonable nations, but at least we got to try. And I may be a stickler but, what's this 'jury' the entire definition talks about? All we had is just one Judge. I suppose you could count the media circus that is outside each courthouse as a 'jury', but we never gave them any power to decide anyway, they are a media circus after all.

And, wait, what the? You mean that if the defendant is found not guilty in a civil lawsuit, he gets money too? Oh dear, oh dear. I mean, I don't think the gnomes ever cared, since the defendant just counter-sued anyway, but still, I don't see that as useful. Both parties may in fact be wrong, and therefore, do not deserve any sort of reward at all.

Anyway, it does seem to push 'western'-style justice systems on nations that don't exactly think of it as 'fair', and it actually sounds quite weak when you tear it apart, but I am going to go AGAINST the repeal...only because I think any replacement will only defend those exact same 'problems' that I dislike, so I don't see the reason why we need to do something like this."
---Dr. Bob

Anyway, it does seem to push 'western'-style justice systems on nations that don't exactly think of it as 'fair', and it actually sounds quite weak when you tear it apart, but I am going to go AGAINST the repeal...only because I think any replacement will only defend those exact same 'problems' that I dislike, so I don't see the reason why we need to do something like this."

Deputy Presiding Representative Aceon stepped up to the podium. His dreary eyes told the tale of hours, possibly days, of toiling research and interpretation:

"I think, this could be a difficult debate. Admittedly, we were wholly unaware of the existence of Resolution 47 when this proposal was submitted. But, given our current political positions and the wording of the repeal, we are quite certain that our repeal maintains the merits that have previously been witnessed in legislation from the Jevian United Nations Representatives. Let us first address the points from the honorable Dr. Bob: there is no replacement. None have been proposed by any member of the 15-person Representative body, and none are in planning. It is our belief that the imposition and standardization of judicial systems across a thousands-nation body is wholly irresponsible and inconsiderate of the cultural differences within the United Nations.

We appreciate the clause found in Resolution 180 Fair Sentencing Act:

"1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;"

While admittedly highly vague, we think this is perhaps the extent to which the United Nations can justifiably standardize the judicial systems of its members. Any further attempts would likely interfere with our stances on national sovereignty.

We think that you should reconsider your position on this resolution, given that our stances appear to be in unison.

With that, I'll take a nap."

I do support the repeal, but at least it actually makes a madate, albeit a hollow one, unlike "Rights of minorities and women" which was a mere series of meaningless proclamations whith no means of enforcing them.

The resolution "Fair trial" was intensely ambiguous, and as pointed out, did not defined the term "fair trial" nor stated the scope for its implementation. While I do not feel it is within UN jurisdiction to enforce laws upon its member nations while they attend to their internal affairs, it can certainly suggest means by which to uphold the norms of modern justice.

The Amendment suggested is quite accurate and without loopholes to a large degree. However in Clause 1, sub-clause 5 of the definition of a fair criminal trial, it states that it "Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed" which I do not believe is either mandatory or beneficial to justice in general. Also, when SilentScope speaks against Clause 2, sub-clause 2, I feel it is necessary to award some compensation to innocents in a legal process, due to obvious defamation and stress. Otherwise, there would be little or no incentive to pursue justice.

Therefore, I support both the repeal and the suggested amendment.

Taking in consideration the text of the resolution to be repealed, Youteria has studied the effect of this U.N. mandate in it´s current legal system; should it pass or not. The study of the weaknesses of the first resolution has made us wonder if it will have any consequences; seeing that its content is pretty much inadequate for an entity as serious as the United Nations. After hearing the comments of my counterparts in this forum, and after a long discussion with Youteria´s top international law advisers, our great country has decided to vote for this resolution, since we believe that what it repeals is contained in other U.N legislations. May God save Youteria.

Julia Cicina, Ministry of Justice and Cult

You must be some kind of lawyer dude!. A book would tell you all of that wouldn't it!
"...Oh.

Well, that would explain why all our bank robbers are currently stuck in prison and can't go to trial due to the fact that we don't have a court system specifically devoted to trying bank robbers. And why robbers get paid multi-million-dollar defense lawyers from the state while our public defenders get a salary of $5/week. And why all our defendants are allowed to make vieled threats about the "kneecaps naturally breaking" to the witnesses...

And why all our 'secret trials' over suspected terroristic capitalist elements in our Hidden Anti-Terrorist Unit is brodcasted over on "SilentScope Court TV". (Gee. Our trials are free and fair, but why in the world do we need to have to broadcast it throughout the known world?)

Trust me, I've been trying to figure out why all this stuff was being done for a couple of weeks now. We've been establishing a Justice Reform Committee to figure out why our justice system is such a mess. We never suspected a UN resolution would be responsible for it. For a minute there, we actually thought we might be responsible...glad to see that was proven wrong.

Well: "juror and/or judge impartiality, competency and neutrality, right to fair representation, right against intimidation, and right to counsel" does not seem to be...er...protected as well. Of course, reasonable nation theory states that they can never really be protected against unreasonable nations, but at least we got to try. And I may be a stickler but, what's this 'jury' the entire definition talks about? All we had is just one Judge. I suppose you could count the media circus that is outside each courthouse as a 'jury', but we never gave them any power to decide anyway, they are a media circus after all.

And, wait, what the? You mean that if the defendant is found not guilty in a civil lawsuit, he gets money too? Oh dear, oh dear. I mean, I don't think the gnomes ever cared, since the defendant just counter-sued anyway, but still, I don't see that as useful. Both parties may in fact be wrong, and therefore, do not deserve any sort of reward at all.

Anyway, it does seem to push 'western'-style justice systems on nations that don't exactly think of it as 'fair', and it actually sounds quite weak when you tear it apart, but I am going to go AGAINST the repeal...only because I think any replacement will only defend those exact same 'problems' that I dislike, so I don't see the reason why we need to do something like this."
---Dr. Bob

Let us first address the points from the honorable Dr. Bob: there is no replacement.

Then you just got our FOR vote. Congrats.

The Amendment suggested is quite accurate and without loopholes to a large degree.

The amendment I quoted was the "Definition of Fair Trial" resolution. If you are for the amendment being mandatory, you must be AGAINST the repeal, since the repeal would basically render Definition of Fair Trial meaingless. However, if you want to allow for the amendment to be basically providing good advice, then yeah, sure.
---Dr. Bob

I've got a question,areal world question..Bare with me: i f an 18 year old guy kills someone, should he have the same simpathy from the judge/jury, and basically every official affected in the court as a 45 year old would have for committing the same crime? Yes/ or no?:confused:

I've got a question,areal world question..Bare with me: i f an 18 year old guy kills someone, should he have the same simpathy from the judge/jury, and basically every official affected in the court as a 45 year old would have for committing the same crime? Yes/ or no?:confused:

Take your question to General, this is a UN Debate about the current resolution At Vote.

Regrettably the Federal Republic has voted against this motion. It's certainly nothing against the author, nor is it in any way an endorsement of the innate flaws of the original document. It is more an expression of our sober acknowledgment of the tenuous and complicated legal relationship shared by resolutions #22, #47, and #180 (Fair Sentencing Act). This repeal effectively, if unintentionally, nullifies #47 and consequently strengthens #180 in a way it definitely should not be strengthened. We (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=789&view=findpost&p=7266379) therefore (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Wysterian_Forum/index.php?showtopic=5547&view=findpost&p=5090605) oppose (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/Texas/index.php?showtopic=4497&view=findpost&p=11133650).

Jimmy Baca
Adviser to the Mission

I started off mildly in favor of this repeal. However, having considered some of the arguments concerning the relationship between Resolutions 21, 47 and 180 (and the implications of repealing 21) I have decided to abstain. I will await further discussions both here and in my Region before making a final decision.

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

Resolution 21 serves a perfectly valid purpose - it enshrines in UN law the principle that all nations should give their citizens a fair trial.

How would you improve on this situation? Surely the only alternative would be to pass a weighty resolution that notes down in detail every rule that must be followed in order to make a trial "fair." This would have no regard for individual legal systems within member states and would just create a huge level of bureaucracy that, whilst benefiting the mandarins on the NSUN gravy train, would have a negative impact on the lives of ordinary citizens in UN nations.

For these reasons the Federation of Minor Tribes implores delegates to resist this resolution.

The administration of Her Imperial Majesty Lania I has always supported the right to a fair trial, and feels that the argument presented in this repeal is largely discredited by Resolution 47, which defines a fair trial.

The Holy Empire of Imota provisionally votes AGAINST, pending discussion with region mates and our delegate.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm am fully against the removal of the fair trial resolution.

The right to a fair trial is one of the utmost importance to the civil liberties of our people and I will not allow the rights of citizens to be infringed upon when I have a say against it.

We are a world benchmark for our civil liberties and one of the main ways we were able to get there was through the allowing of every person the right to a fair trial.

Also it has been mentioned that there is already an amendment that defines a fair trial and I find that definition to be acceptable. If we are to repeal this resolution there will be nothing that says any country has to have a fair trial, so more and more people will be able to be oppressed by their respective governments.

It is our belief that the imposition and standardization of judicial systems across a thousands-nation body is wholly irresponsible and inconsiderate of the cultural differences within the United Nations.

Needless to say our opinion differs; there are standards to which we believe member nations should be held, and this is most emphatically one of them. Granted there are elements in the definition of Fair Trial that Dr Bob so thoughtfully reproduced for this discussion that we would not have included ourself, or would have altered to more generic forms, but we do not see anything to match the outrages perpetrated in some other resolutions. But that is a matter of differing national philosophy, and to an extent intractible to debate.

We appreciate the clause found in Resolution 180 Fair Sentencing Act:

"1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just;"

While admittedly highly vague, we think this is perhaps the extent to which the United Nations can justifiably standardize the judicial systems of its members. Any further attempts would likely interfere with our stances on national sovereignty.
Since this is a request, with all the legal force of wet lettuce, we consider it wholly unacceptable as the UN's stance on the subject.


Having been a good boy and addressed the salient points of the honoured ambassador's defence, we feel it permissible to indulge ourself in a little light amusement.

Well, that would explain why all our bank robbers are currently stuck in prison and can't go to trial due to the fact that we don't have a court system specifically devoted to trying bank robbers.
We are frankly in awe of this amazing redefinition of "speedy and efficient" as "slothful and inefficient." We are also curious as to why the nation of SilentScope would want a court system specifically devoted to trying bank robbers.

And why robbers get paid multi-million-dollar defense lawyers from the state while our public defenders get a salary of $5/week.
Again, we can but marvel at the generous definition the nation makes of the word "functional" as it applies to the defense counsel of bank robbers compared with other criminals. Is there something we should know about bank robbery as a popular national sport?

And why all our defendants are allowed to make vieled threats about the "kneecaps naturally breaking" to the witnesses...
The implied success of such a strategy speaks ill of the jury observing such questioning of witnesses. We recommend remedial education.

And why all our 'secret trials' over suspected terroristic capitalist elements in our Hidden Anti-Terrorist Unit is brodcasted over on "SilentScope Court TV". (Gee. Our trials are free and fair, but why in the world do we need to have to broadcast it throughout the known world?)
May we suggest that the honoured ambassador address that question to the proprietors of "SilentScope Court TV". We certainly intend to tune in during lulls in the rugby season; proceedings sound quite entertaining, if the good doctor is to be believed.

Trust me, I've been trying to figure out why all this stuff was being done for a couple of weeks now. We've been establishing a Justice Reform Committee to figure out why our justice system is such a mess. We never suspected a UN resolution would be responsible for it. For a minute there, we actually thought we might be responsible...glad to see that was proven wrong.
We can but imagine the ambassador's relief at having 'proved' that something else wasn't his responsibilty.

And, wait, what the? You mean that if the defendant is found not guilty in a civil lawsuit, he gets money too?
Should a preponderence of evidence exist. We note the unstated implication that the defendant was guilty all along, and that having his (potentially very expensive) time wasted in court appearances was his own fault. But then, the court is under no obligation to award compensation, it is merely limited in cases where it is legitimate for it to do so.

Since this is a request, with all the legal force of wet lettuce, we consider it wholly unacceptable as the UN's stance on the subject.

While I would prefer this debate to be more a conversation on the legitimacy of the resolution At Vote and not be a general discussion about the appropriateness of [forcing/granting/establishing] rights of a fair trial, I think I should provide a quick counterpoint:

What exactly would you want the United Nations to do in terms of fair trials? To me, the concept of "fairness" is the aspect of this resolution which should be universal in nature across the United Nations, and not specifically "trials." As someone commented earlier in this thread, the resolution promotes, in my opinion, modern Westernized judicial systems. Do you feel that the right to have a fair trial is too invaluable to acknowledge the vast differences in the judiciaries of the members of the United Nations?

What exactly would you want the United Nations to do in terms of fair trials? To me, the concept of "fairness" is the aspect of this resolution which should be universal in nature across the United Nations, and not specifically "trials." As someone commented earlier in this thread, the resolution promotes, in my opinion, modern Westernized judicial systems. Do you feel that the right to have a fair trial is too invaluable to acknowledge the vast differences in the judiciaries of the members of the United Nations?


We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.

so youre trying to encourage fairness....... why are you repealing fair trial? that seems the opposite for some reason..... oh yeah, because it is the diametric opposite. =) the resolution doesnt repeal the definition. IT DOES NOT. youd need another repeal for that. in fact, your proposal only repeals my right to fair judgement. you want to make judicial system fair? do you not think there should be a right to fair judgement? this proposal does nothing to redefine fair trial! IT DOES NOTHING TO DEFINE FAIR TRIAL! IT ONLY REMOVES THE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL! western judiciary systems? where does it define 'trial'? Decapod Ten can measure your weight in comparison to two ducks, and burn you as a witch and declare that fair. except wait! there's a nice definition!!! That's what you say you want to change!!! you say you want repeal because of "Resolution #21's complete lack of any details concerning the concept of a fair trial," except you learned that was not true, it was amended to have those details, when amendments were legal. YOU ARE REPEALING THE WRONG RESOLUTION!!!!! TO DEFINE FAIR TRIAL YOU WILL HAVE TO REPEAL THE DEFINITION!!!! YOUR PROPOSAL ONLY KILLS THE RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL, WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU WANT TO DO!!!!

do you see my logical problem with what youre doing? i just checked, youre not trying to repeal the definition. no such repeal is on list. to define it, you will need to repeal that, otherwise any proposal as such is blatantly illegal. why would you ever repeal the HUMAN RIGHT to a fair trial before the definition????? once this is done, you can only give back the right, not change the definition. you are only killing the right you say you want to protect!!!

snip

We would politely ask the representative from Decapod Ten to control his temper and stop shouting. We would like to do our best to enlighten this representative about the vast socio-cultural differences across the United Nations. The United Nations is an international organization comprising thousands of nations, presumably thousands of different sapient beings, and countless numbers of different cultures and moral principles.

To subject each nation to a standardized judicial system is inherently compromising to these cultural differences and not responsible of this body. We do agree in principle to the concept of fair trials, but we are not ready to allow such policies to be implemented for every nation. Sure, in your view of the judiciary, the definition of a fair trial in Resolution 47 is justifiable, but what of the nations that would not normally even practice trials? Do you see the need to force your judicial system on those nations? We don't. We only see the need to maintain a concept of fairness in the United Nations, and allow nations to pursue their own individual forms of judgement.

We also note that you said "this proposal does nothing to redefine fair trial". Well, quite frankly, it is illegal to do so. The Rules of UN Proposals (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/spa/swl/sexbx/sidmkia/p1/showthread.php?t=420465) prohibit repeals from doing anything except repealing the old resolution. We are completely barred from redifining fair trials and we can't do anything else. Instead, we advocate the repeal of this and Resolution 47, and a reevaluation of the apropriateness of Fair Trial Legislation, and hopefully reach a decision which emphasizes the "fairness" aspect of this resolution's admirable intent, and not the homogenization of our various members' judicial systems.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative

The leader of Bagpipes stands and applauds the speaker from Decapod Ten. He then takes his seat and begins whispering what he wants said to his ambassador.
"The Holy Father is quite pleased that more people are speaking sense. Decapod Ten is right. All we are doing is getting rid of the definition. Holy Father James Anderson is against the repealing of this motion, unless the members of the assembly wish to repeal the other connected resolutions as well and create one all-encompassing ammendment."

The Holy Father nods and the ambassador sits down. After some quick thought, the father stands up and allows the world to hear is voice:
"If thae UN dinnae wan teh force members teh folloo rools, wha's thae purrpus o' thae compliance ministry? Can ye answer me tha, Vance?"

All we are doing is getting rid of the definition.

No, we're not. Read Decapod Ten's post again before you start agreeing with it.

Again, we can but marvel at the generous definition the nation makes of the word "functional" as it applies to the defense counsel of bank robbers compared with other criminals. Is there something we should know about bank robbery as a popular national sport.

We apologize for mispeaking. When we said 'public defender', we would mean someone representing the government. The prosecuters. All criminals get the million-dollar lawyers, so to speak.

May we suggest that the honoured ambassador address that question to the proprietors of "SilentScope Court TV". We certainly intend to tune in during lulls in the rugby season; proceedings sound quite entertaining, if the good doctor is to be believed.

Well we can't, you see? We have to allow the media into all our secret tribunals and trials. That what the resolution say.

I don't think you should tune in though. 75% of classifed information is blocked.
****
I suppose that if Jey really wanted to stop westernized trial systems, he would be better off repealing Definition of Fair Trial rather than just repealing 'Fair Trial'. That way, we'll all AGREE that we need fair trials, but let us handle it.

Of course, we are already handling how we comply with the resolution, and those who really hate fair trials will loophole their way around it, so honestly, it's not really needed.

But in the end, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. Dictatorships still exist in the NSUN, and they can still do whatever they want. A dictatorship can have a Free And Fair Trial where a person can be charged of the crime of looking funny...and yes, he would be undeinably guilty of looking funny, trial or trial...but still...I don't know.
---Dr. Bob

I suppose that if Jey really wanted to stop westernized trial systems, he would be better off repealing Definition of Fair Trial rather than just repealing 'Fair Trial'. That way, we'll all AGREE that we need fair trials, but let us handle it.

Are you questioning our motives? What we really want is for the United Nations to promote the concept of fairness in judicial systems, not necessarily trials. We dont "all AGREE that we need...trials".

Of course, we are already handling how we comply with the resolution, and those who really hate fair trials will loophole their way around it, so honestly, it's not really needed.

So we suppose no repeal is "needed," then? Most every resolution has loopholes: if nations can get around them, then no need for repeal.

To subject each nation to a standardized judicial system is inherently compromising to these cultural differences and not responsible of this body. We do agree in principle to the concept of fair trials, but we are not ready to allow such policies to be implemented for every nation. Sure, in your view of the judiciary, the definition of a fair trial in Resolution 47 is justifiable, but what of the nations that would not normally even practice trials? Do you see the need to force your judicial system on those nations? ...

We also note that you said "this proposal does nothing to redefine fair trial". Well, quite frankly, it is illegal to do so. The Rules of UN Proposals (https://server4.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/spa/swl/sexbx/sidmkia/p1/showthread.php?t=420465) prohibit repeals from doing anything except repealing the old resolution. We are completely barred from redifining fair trials and we can't do anything else. Instead, we advocate the repeal of this and Resolution 47, and a reevaluation of the apropriateness of Fair Trial Legislation, and hopefully reach a decision which emphasizes the "fairness" aspect of this resolution's admirable intent, and not the homogenization of our various members' judicial systems.

wow. remind me again what part of this resolution defines trial? what part defines "juror and/or judge impartiality, competency and neutrality, right to fair representation, right against intimidation, and right to counsel?" oh that's right, it isnt the resolution youre trying to repeal! you have said you are pro-fair judgment. what part of this resoulution goes against that???????? is it the part that would be the preamble, or is it the part that guarantees them fair trial? your entire proposal asks for redefinition. WHY THE FUCK DONT YOU REPEAL THE DEFINITION THEN??????? YOU EVEN SAY IN YOUR REBUTTAL, "We do agree in principle to the concept of fair trials, but we are not ready to allow such policies to be implemented for every nation." WHAT PART OF THIS RESOLUTION FORCES SPECIFIC POLICIES ON ANY NATION????? youre repealing the wrong thing! you agree to the right to fair trial do you not? you argue that it needs defining do you not? youre repealing the right to fair trial, and not the definition!!!!!!! this goes against your OWN OBJECTIVES!!!!!! you want to repeal the definition? great. do it. you still have proposed nothing to repeal it! you want to take away my right, i will stand in your way!

We would politely ask the representative from Decapod Ten to control his temper and stop shouting.

I SHALL NOT BE QUIET WHEN YOU REPEAL MY RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL! ARE YOU ATTACKING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHILE YOU ATTACK MY RIGHT TO FAIR JUDGEMENT?!?! I SHALL NOT BE QUIET WHEN YOU OPEN UP PANDORA'S BOX OF DESTROYING MY GOD GIVEN HUMAN RIGHTS! I SHALL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT PULLED BY FASCISTS!!! I WILL ALWAYS STAND UP AND SHOUT IN PROTEST WHEN MY RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK!!!!!

I suppose that if Jey really wanted to stop westernized trial systems, he would be better off repealing Definition of Fair Trial rather than just repealing 'Fair Trial'. That way, we'll all AGREE that we need fair trials, but let us handle it.

so are you in support or opposition of the proposal? if you agree that his objectives, and your nation's objectives arent advanced by this proposal, do you support it?

Ambassador Seifried scowled at the delgate from Decapod Ten. "Sir, contain yourself and your invective, or the sargeant at arms ((READ: MODs)) will be summoned, sir."

He snorted viciously. "This resolution does nothing to effect the rights within your own nation, sir. If you so wish to conduct fair trials within your nation, that is the decision of your government. No fascist shall drag you off into night unless your people allow that to come to pass in your homeland."

Ambassador Siegfried, there are myriad rights that the UN enforces that are not supported by nations around the universe. Conservative elements in my nation would enforce slavery, and unfair trials if they were not mandated by the UN. I see same level of human right in both of these sir, the right to remain free. While your government may be omnipotent sir, mine is not {i maintain as much factual accuracy as i can with the Mud Planet of Decapod Ten as written in the TV show Futurama, and the only reason slavery cannot exist in Decapod Ten is because of the UN} Furthermore, as a sentient being i cannot stand idly by as there is an attack on 'human' rights. we decapodians empathize with all other sentient beings and wish to ensure their 'human' rights. While it is true that Jeyians, for example, might enjoy fair judgment in their own lands, it is impossible to ensure that in other lands without a UN resolution mandating it thus.

also, if the mods have a problem with my capitalization, i will be amazed, and will let them grammatically and punctuationally edit all of my posts. ill reiterate what i said to the last person who complained about my capitalization, im not yelling. im sitting in a room, very quietly typing away watching sportscenter.

Then write a replacement after this repeal passes. I wonder how your nation governed itself while we were repealing/replacing "End slavery"?

That was the period of Season 4, Episode 5, A Taste Of Freedom, where we invaded Earth and enslaved the populace.

As for writing a replacement, to do what? give back the right that was just taken from us? why would we kill that right? because it doesnt have definitions, as the proposal argues? but it does!

(( SPEAKING IN CAPITALIZATIONS SUCH I AM NOW IS CONSIDERED SHOUTING IN CHARACTER AND OUT. I referred to containing yourself in your shouting and your invective in your cursing. It's unnecessary, Decapod. ))

Seigfried shook his head. "The Miraade's government is in no way omnipotent. He rules at the will of the Catawaban people. It is their will that we conduct our trials in a manner in agreement stated definitions of fair trials. It is in accordance of the social contract the Catawaban people made with the Miraade in electing him that he does rule."

He shrugged slightly. "It is a sad measure that I am not familiar with Decapod Ten's particular system of governance, but I assume that you rule at the popular mandate of the Decapod people? If the will of a majority of those people do follow the thinking of your more conservative wings of government, should you not act accordingly? Even if you must leave the United Nations to do so? Is not your first responsibility to your people?"

That was the period of Season 4, Episode 5, A Taste Of Freedom, where we invaded Earth and enslaved the populace.Lucky our nation is still in the year 2008 and that's not gonna happen for another 1,000 years. :p

As for writing a replacement, to do what? give back the right that was just taken from us? why would we kill that right? because it doesnt have definitions, as the proposal argues? but it does!We oppose this repeal as well; we're only pointing out that you do have a contingency in case this is repealed. This will at least give the assembly the opportunity to pass something better. Many of the old-skool resolutions have been long overdue for a rewrite anyway.

He shrugged slightly. "It is a sad measure that I am not familiar with Decapod Ten's particular system of governance, but I assume that you rule at the popular mandate of the Decapod people? If the will of a majority of those people do follow the thinking of your more conservative wings of government, should you not act accordingly? Even if you must leave the United Nations to do so? Is not your first responsibility to your people?"

no, we do not actually rule at the whim of our species, they are insane. furthermore, it is in the interests of all governments to occasionally disobey popular will, as otherwise it is a tyranny of the majority. it is in the interests of the government of Decapod Ten to rule in the interest of all Decapodians whether they like it or not. We are aware of the benefits the universe gains from this body, and know that it is in the interests of Decapod Ten to be a member of this body; weighing the pros against the cons, pros win.

Are you questioning our motives? What we really want is for the United Nations to promote the concept of fairness in judicial systems, not necessarily trials. We dont "all AGREE that we need...trials".

No, we weren't questioning them. Just misunderstanding them. Sorry then. We be better off uniting.

Alright. Fairness in judicial systems sound good. How would you make the judicracy fairer? Possibly by ensuring for the appointment of fair and unbiased jurors and judges...no, scratch that, fair and unbiased 'courts'. I don't want any trace of that dirty 'western'-style court system.

Just wondering how would you expect that to be done? Would you enlist the help of a UN Commitee, for instance?

So we suppose no repeal is "needed," then? Most every resolution has loopholes: if nations can get around them, then no need for repeal.

Not really. Most nations follow Reasonable Nation Theory or are too lazy to find loopholes to begin with. We would repeal a resolution for their sake. And besides, sometimes, you can't loophole around a resolution. No matter what, I still have to televise secret trials. And slavery is, for the most part, abolished in the NSUN, there is no way you can have someone get owned by another person without convoluted thinking that would be better spent elsewhere.
---Dr. Bob

I disagree with repealing this act. Fair trial states exactly what it purposes to do, I think common sense should be take into consideration before repealing an act. Fair trial should be taken directly out of context using the first word "fair"

1. Fair, impartial, disinterested, unprejudiced refer to lack of bias in opinions, judgments, etc. Fair implies the treating of all sides alike, justly and equitably: a fair compromise. Impartial, like fair, implies showing no more favor to one side than another, but suggests particularly a judicial consideration of a case: an impartial judge. Disinterested implies a fairness arising particularly from lack of desire to obtain a selfish advantage. Unprejudiced means not influenced or swayed by bias, or by prejudice caused by irrelevant considerations: an unprejudiced decision. (dictionary.com)

and the 2nd "Trial"

1. Law. a. the examination before a judicial tribunal of the facts put in issue in a cause, often including issues of law as well as those of fact.
b. the determination of a person's guilt or innocence by due process of law (dictionary.com)

To determine what the act means. It covers any sort of prejudice, wether it is directly stated or not.

Thank you,
Frio Peas

WHAT PART OF THIS RESOLUTION FORCES SPECIFIC POLICIES ON ANY NATION?????

Maybe the part that says "all nations...must allow their citizens the right to fair trial" You know, the whole resolution. It enforces the right to fair trial upon every single nation. Sure, that may be perfectly applicable to your nation, but in others there is no need for such standardization.

you agree to the right to fair trial do you not?

In the way that you are interpreting this? No. We have "'fair' trials" in Jey (well, we have to at the moment), but disagree with making it mandatory. That's what this resolution does.

you argue that it needs defining do you not?

Why would we bother with defining something we don't want the UN enforcing?

you still have proposed nothing to repeal it!

Be patient.

I SHALL NOT BE QUIET WHEN YOU REPEAL MY RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL! ARE YOU ATTACKING MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH WHILE YOU ATTACK MY RIGHT TO FAIR JUDGEMENT?!?! I SHALL NOT BE QUIET WHEN YOU OPEN UP PANDORA'S BOX OF DESTROYING MY GOD GIVEN HUMAN RIGHTS! I SHALL NOT GO QUIETLY INTO THE NIGHT PULLED BY FASCISTS!!! I WILL ALWAYS STAND UP AND SHOUT IN PROTEST WHEN MY RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK!!!!!

Again, stop shouting or you will likely very quickly have a warning from a Mod. It is considered highly rude.

(IC for the first time ever)

It enforces the right to fair trial upon every single nation. Sure, that may be perfectly applicable to your nation, but in others there is no need for such standardization.

aH, thERe we Have the fuNDamenTal diFferENce. yOu dont wAnT fair tRIals (trial beING an UndEFined teRM tHat can be AnY tYPe of juDIciAry). i Do.

i tIP my HAt to yOU on how You aRGue this vIEw in The pRoPosaL coMpletEly unDERhandedly aNd poiNt to sOmeThiNg that sEEms oBVious (laCKing neceSsaRy definitions) to hIde yOUr obJEctivEs oF endINg fairNEss in jUDicial prOCesses, iTS a balLSy, sNeaKy, efFecTIve tactic. EXCuse me for INFeriNg frOm your rePeAl's arGUement thAt it NeeDs definitiONS, tHat you wISh to DefiNe thINgs, and NOt simply kIll 'huMAn' righTs.

i BeG alL YOuR parDoNs, but I, AmbAsSaDor rAchEaL fELdbeRG haVE a terrIBle spEECH impediMent cAUSed by Fin RoT, and sO i wisH you shaLL judge me oN mY woRDs and Not the wAY theY are spOkEn. at LEasT i aM nOT my CollEAGue DavID sCHAsmaN, who SPeaKS wiTH a StuttER And boLDing's DisEAse.

Ambassador Racheal Feldberg
NSUN Ambassador
The Mud Planet of Decapod Ten

aH, thERe we Have the fuNDamenTal diFferENce. yOu dont wAnT fair tRIals (trial beING an UndEFined teRM tHat can be AnY tYPe of juDIciAry). i Do.

i tIP my HAt to yOU on how You aRGue this vIEw in The pRoPosaL coMpletEly unDERhandedly aNd poiNt to sOmeThiNg that sEEms oBVious (laCKing neceSsaRy definitions) to hIde yOUr obJEctivEs oF endINg fairNEss in jUDicial prOCesses, iTS a balLSy, sNeaKy, efFecTIve tactic. EXCuse me for INFeriNg frOm your rePeAl's arGUement thAt it NeeDs definitiONS, tHat you wISh to DefiNe thINgs, and NOt simply kIll 'huMAn' righTs.

i BeG alL YOuR parDoNs, but I, AmbAsSaDor rAchEaL fELdbeRG haVE a terrIBle spEECH impediMent cAUSed by Fin RoT, and sO i wisH you shaLL judge me oN mY woRDs and Not the wAY theY are spOkEn. at LEasT i aM nOT my CollEAGue DavID sCHAsmaN, who SPeaKS wiTH a StuttER And boLDing's DisEAse.

Ambassador Racheal Feldberd
NSUN Ambassador
The Mud Planet of Decapod Ten

Welcome to the Ignore Chambers, Ambassador Feldberd. We have never in the history of this nation decided to fully ignore another nation: we find ourselves to be very tolerant and patient with other nations. But your complete disregard and deliberate slander of our nation, our motives, and the common decency expected of United Nations members is egregious. To call us "balsy" and "sneaky" for "underhandedly" repealing this resolution has forced us to never regard your words again. Treat others with respect, and that you shall receive.

Commenting on your only substantive claims: Your complete incapability of believing that anything other than trials as a judicial system is inherently unfair is completely laughable to us. We have never supposed that our judicial system is the ideal situation and the only fair approach to criminal offenses, and in our opinion neither should you. We strongly advise you to open your eyes to the differences of this body: there can be (though this resolution prevents it) many different, equally fair, equally ethical, approaches to a judicial system. To ignore this is disrespectful of cultural differences.

It is understandable that you have interpreted the calls for a definition in the way that you have. Though, if you look at what this repeal directly calls for, the definitions argued for in this repeal and Resolution 47 are not the same. In this sense, it makes our calls for a definition valid.

Further, you mustn't confuse our arguments in the repeal with what we would like to see as the final result in the Fair Trial debate. Had we argued our opinion, which amounts nearly totally to a national sovereignty dispute, it would be illegal. Arguing simply "national sovereignty" in a repeal is not allowed, and if you would like to verify that see the link to UN Proposals that we have already provided to you. This ideological dilemma has faced repealers quite often, though we think it is necessary. Though, you must understand that it is not to be interpreted as "underhanded" or insincere in any way. If a legitimate argument can be made for a repeal, regardless of the author's beliefs on the resolution/issue in terms of national sovereignty, then it is a legitimate argument. Sure, the author may desire to have the issue removed for national sovereignty's sake, but how would one do that legally? As we said, this is the dilemma repealers face quite often, and we would know: we've passed plenty of them.

With that, we will retire. Should you want to continue this debate gracefully, perhaps we will reciprocate.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative

We apologize for mispeaking. When we said 'public defender', we would mean someone representing the government. The prosecuters. All criminals get the million-dollar lawyers, so to speak.
Once again, we stand agog at the munificent definition of "functional" that the nation of SilentScope espouses. Also at the obtuseness which fails to address the fundamental issue that all this sarcasm has been aimed at, to whit the fact that the far more reasonably recompensed public defenders available to those without means to secure a lawyer more directly here in Gobbannium are entirely legitimate within the framework of the definitions.

Well we can't, you see? We have to allow the media into all our secret tribunals and trials. That what the resolution say.
To which we can only say, "Good." Secret trials are an abominable step towards tyranny, and we heartily commend any stand against them.

We apologise for not noticing this earlier, and thus double-posting.

While I would prefer this debate to be more a conversation on the legitimacy of the resolution At Vote and not be a general discussion about the appropriateness of [forcing/granting/establishing] rights of a fair trial, I think I should provide a quick counterpoint:
Briefly, we must disagree; how important one regards the fairness of trials has considerable bearing on whether one regards a request to that end, presumably with a pretty please and possibly even a cherry on the top, to be sufficient.

What exactly would you want the United Nations to do in terms of fair trials? To me, the concept of "fairness" is the aspect of this resolution which should be universal in nature across the United Nations, and not specifically "trials." As someone commented earlier in this thread, the resolution promotes, in my opinion, modern Westernized judicial systems. Do you feel that the right to have a fair trial is too invaluable to acknowledge the vast differences in the judiciaries of the members of the United Nations?
Within limits, yes, we do believe that. We allowed earlier that there are elements of the definitions of Fair Trials that we would have constructed differently had we been the drafter. The deficiencies in question aren't deal-breakers to us, though, so we feel comfortable in our opposition to this repeal.

Were it the case that Ambassador Aceon was embarking upon a programme to rennovate the UN's entire approach to judicial fairness, then we might (given a suitable outline for its replacement) consider supporting a repeal effort. However, as is entirely reasonable, the honoured ambassador has given no hint that such a plan is in motion. If it were, we would in all honesty suggest starting with the far more problematic Fair Sentencing Act.

In the earlier discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550149) of this repeal, the author claimed to have "forgotten about: the existence of Resolution #47: Definition of 'Fair Trial'". I find it very hard (if not impossible) to believe that the Jevian government could have forgotten about the very existence of UNR #47 while writing a repeal of UNR #21. 21 and 47 are like Siamese twins, you can't think of one without thinking of the other.

I'm not sure what the Jevians are up to here, but they've been in the UN long enough that they would have to be aware of the relationship between UNRs 21 and 47. The notion that they could have "forgotten" one while repealing the other is absurd.

Further, a successful repeal of UNR #21 will almost certainly be followed by a repeal of UNR #47. Those two events will place UNR #180, "Fair Sentencing Act" in a precarious position and make its repeal more likely. My government was involved in an earlier, misguided attempt to repeal FSA and it is a battle (and debate) I would just as soon not revisit.

I have cast Antarctic Oasis' 20 votes AGAINST this repeal and would urge all nations to do the same.

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

In the earlier discussion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=550149) of this repeal...

An OOC post being referenced to in an IC context? Thanks for that.

(I'll assume your positions are also held OOC, though this needs to be said either way-) I don't appreciate being called a liar when I was just trying to be honest about the repeal. If you read the rest of the OOC topic you posted, perhaps you'll find that I heavily considered withdrawing this repeal but ultimately decided on keeping it because the arguments still had merit. It flatters me that I'm considered incapable of forgetting something, but it is disgusting to me that you would find me having an ulterior motive. If I'm such an influential UN member as to be incapable of mistakes, then surely my positions and general leanings are known too? What makes you think a National Sovereigntist like me would try to repeal the Fair Sentencing Act? Couldn't a UN member who couldn't possibly forget about a resolution's legal dilemma come up with a better excuse than "oh, I forgot about it"? Look at my activity: my last resolution was #213 in June of last year. I pass resolutions as my most significant contribution to this game. Suffice it to say, it's been a while.

Your own attempt to repeal the FSA you called "misguided." While I wouldn't characterize my repeal of this resolution "misguided" I will be the first to say that not referencing Resolution 47 is an enormous oversight. Nevertheless, I feel the arguments remain justifiable of repeal, and so it's fine in my book.

Let it go.

The Unker-turned-Travdan ambassador scrawled a note and turned to his page. "Here, boy. Hand this to the translator. Be certain he understands, now. He'll no longer be needed to act as mediator for Decapod. Travda no longer recognizes it as a legitimate power. Got it? Good, now off with you.

Where was I? Ah, the resolution. Due to the unfortunate revolution our nation recently underwent, most official records have been lost in the upheaval. But, if memory serves me, while under the Unkerlantum administration we were contacted by a Jeyian-begging your pardon if I that is not the correct term-representative asking for our endorsement of this very repeal. At the time we were happy to oblige; no mention was made of #47's existence.

The Congress is troubled by this negligence on the part of Jey, and sincerely hopes this was not intentional. We would not like to think that a fellow member would purposely abuse our trust by leaving out important details with the goal of manipulating us.

Despite this new enlightenment, for a time we were debating going through with our pledge of support anyhow, if only to spite Decapod. But, as we are now ignoring Decapod, taking action for the sole intention of antagonizing them would defeat that purpose.

And so Travda throws in its two minuscule votes against this repeal."

Vokhuz Kon
Travda UN Chief Delegate

I just have to say that we should leave this resolution in place, until we have a replacment that includes all the rights we want to add. If not then the accussed will lose ALL rights they have while we vote and debate a new resolution if this Resolution(rights of the accussed 21) is repealled

OOC: Jey, you've been playing this game long enough to know that it's considered polite to frame opposition to fellow players' proposals in an IC context.

Yes, I understand that. What I didn't appreciate was specifically using the OOC post I made in the legality thread as part of his argument. Nothing was said IC about the oversight that in that post.

Edit: Time-warp back a page.

An OOC post being referenced to in an IC context? Thanks for that.OOC: Jey, you've been playing this game long enough to know that it's considered polite to frame opposition to fellow players' proposals in an IC context. In fact, you can bet that by posting his opposition ICly, he meant it as a signal that he did not want to turn an argument about a repeal into a personal spat. To try to start one now would be beneath you.

*snip*Speaking as a player, I should point out that flamebaiting like this, even when posting "IC," is a sure way to tempt the moderators. I wouldn't repeat this kind of performance if I were you, unless you really want to be warned or forumbanned.

OOC:

Welcome to the Ignore Chambers, Ambassador Feldberd. We have never in the history of this nation decided to fully ignore another nation: we find ourselves to be very tolerant and patient with other nations. But your complete disregard and deliberate slander of our nation, our motives, and the common decency expected of United Nations members is egregious. To call us "balsy" and "sneaky" for "underhandedly" repealing this resolution has forced us to never regard your words again. Treat others with respect, and that you shall receive.

first off, i deem balsy to be a compliment in the highest, similar to hutzpah (sp?) or moxy (sp?).

Commenting on your only substantive claims: Your complete incapability of believing that anything other than trials as a judicial system is inherently unfair is completely laughable to us. We have never supposed that our judicial system is the ideal situation and the only fair approach to criminal offenses, and in our opinion neither should you. We strongly advise you to open your eyes to the differences of this body: there can be (though this resolution prevents it) many different, equally fair, equally ethical, approaches to a judicial system. To ignore this is disrespectful of cultural differences.

second off, is most of our argument. where in the resolution up for repeal is a definition of trial? trial, by this (are italics considdered hissing or something in roleplaying? because you dont accept capitalization to add emphasis.) resolution can be anything you want it to be. again, i go back to my argument that a fair trial by resolution 21 can be weighing a pair of ducks versus a witch. resolution 21 is as much accepting of national cultural differences as anything!(please tell me youre not against exclaimation points too). yeah, great, try to involve other definitions of trial included, in the definition of trial. which, as you note, is not in resolution 21.

It is understandable that you have interpreted the calls for a definition in the way that you have. Though, if you look at what this repeal directly calls for, the definitions argued for in this repeal and Resolution 47 are not the same. In this sense, it makes our calls for a definition valid.

right. so why arent you editing the definition? instead youre attacking the right.

Further, you mustn't confuse our arguments in the repeal with what we would like to see as the final result in the Fair Trial debate. Had we argued our opinion, which amounts nearly totally to a national sovereignty dispute, it would be illegal. Arguing simply "national sovereignty" in a repeal is not allowed, and if you would like to verify that see the link to UN Proposals that we have already provided to you. This ideological dilemma has faced repealers quite often, though we think it is necessary. Though, you must understand that it is not to be interpreted as "underhanded" or insincere in any way. If a legitimate argument can be made for a repeal, regardless of the author's beliefs on the resolution/issue in terms of national sovereignty, then it is a legitimate argument. Sure, the author may desire to have the issue removed for national sovereignty's sake, but how would one do that legally? As we said, this is the dilemma repealers face quite often, and we would know: we've passed plenty of them.

so....... you argue that calls for a definition are valid..... despite the existing definition. that is the part that is illegitimate to me. either, you dont accept the right to a fair trial (or shall we use the word judgment, arbitration, or examination? i dont care, theyre all synonyms of trial.) or you want it redefined. I believe it to be the latter, and see it as illogical and wrong to be attacking the right, when you should be attacking the definition.

so which is it, do you not want a right to fair trial at all, or do you want a redefinition of fair trial?

if it is the latter, why are you attacking the right to fair trial?

I suggest that, instead of repealing resolution #27 "Fair Trial," we amend said resolution with a definition of a fair trail.

I suggest that, instead of repealing resolution #27 "Fair Trial," we amend said resolution with a definition of a fair trail.

actually were-exiles, that was already done in resolution #47.

Temper, temper.

Kenny was exactly right. I framed my comments in a IC manner so as to avoid an OOC spat with you over the repeal. I would have thought you would have seen that and responded in kind. Apparently not, so here we go.


An OOC post being referenced to in an IC context? Thanks for that.
You're welcome.

(I'll assume your positions are also held OOC, though this needs to be said either way-)
You shouldn't assume such things.

OOC, I would favor a repeal of 21, 47 and FSA and a replacement that guaranteed fair trials, proportionate sentencing and the right of nations to use the death penalty if they choose to do so.

IC as Yelda, I would favor a repeal of 21, 47 and FSA and a replacement that guaranteed fair trials, proportionate sentencing and banned the death penalty outright.

IC as Felix, I would favor the repeal of 21 and 47 and FSA left in place. Felix would understand though that repealing 21 and 47 would undermine several of the justifications for FSA and make it more likely to be repealed.


I don't appreciate being called a liar when I was just trying to be honest about the repeal.
*shrugs* It just seemed fishy to me (as Felix). I (OOC) have no idea if you're being honest or not and don't care. You've been playing this game for about as long as I have though and most of your activity has been in the UN. I just thought it odd that you would forget about the existence of 47 while writing a repeal of 21.


If you read the rest of the OOC topic you posted, perhaps you'll find that I heavily considered withdrawing this repeal but ultimately decided on keeping it because the arguments still had merit.

Theatrics? A smoke screen to cover the "accidental" inclusion of arguments that conveniently ignored the existence of Definition of 'Fair Trial'? I dunno. Don't care either. Misleading arguments get used in repeals sometimes. Hell, people have accused me of it in practically every repeal I've written.

It flatters me that I'm considered incapable of forgetting something, but it is disgusting to me that you would find me having an ulterior motive.
Oh don't be disgusted. I've accused others of much worse.

If I'm such an influential UN member as to be incapable of mistakes, then surely my positions and general leanings are known too? What makes you think a National Sovereigntist like me would try to repeal the Fair Sentencing Act?
Nothing makes me think that. I never said you would want to repeal FSA. I said your repeal of #21 and the likely repeal of #47 would make a repeal of FSA more likely. I haven't accused you of wanting to repeal it yourself, I've said that you're making it more likely that someone else will.

Couldn't a UN member who couldn't possibly forget about a resolution's legal dilemma come up with a better excuse than "oh, I forgot about it"? Look at my activity: my last resolution was #213 in June of last year. I pass resolutions as my most significant contribution to this game. Suffice it to say, it's been a while.
True. Look, I'm willing to admit that you might have forgot about 47. I forget about resolutions (and their exact wording) and have to go back and reread them. There's a lot of resolutions to remember now. Not like when we started.

I just thought it unlikely that you would write a repeal of "Fair Trial" and then completely forget about "Definition of 'Fair Trial'". The names are kinda similar and they've been around forever.

Your own attempt to repeal the FSA you called "misguided."
Felix called it misguided. I think we were justified. (and it was Imperfectia's repeal, not mine. Ceorana tried it once too.)

While I wouldn't characterize my repeal of this resolution "misguided" I will be the first to say that not referencing Resolution 47 is an enormous oversight.
That's an understatement.
Nevertheless, I feel the arguments remain justifiable of repeal, and so it's fine in my book.
And it'll almost certainly pass.

Let it go.
I never had "it". You're the one that wanted to go OOC.

The discussion about OOC and IC definitions aside...

If the people of the Allied Empire of Jey truly do disagree with making fair trials mandatory, which Mr. Vance Aceon has already admitted to, they really did miss the mark when attempting to repeal resolution #21 - given that #47 is by far the more suitable target. All that this repeal will accomplish, it seems, is the wiping away of another absurd, very poorly written resolution that gained 10,713 more votes than it should have received. And the accepted concept of a 'fair trial' will still stand.

Would Jey risk this public discomfit for the sake of some ulterior motive? I think not. After all, Mr. Vance Aceon hasn't put foward a proposal in many months, as he has said, and my guess is that it certainly wasn't his intention to start off on the wrong foot.

As it stands, I deem this repeal simply a mistake - only useful for the simple fact that it cleans things up a little - which is enough to gain my favour.

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate for The Council of Narnia

I suggest that, instead of repealing resolution #27 "Fair Trial," we amend said resolution with a definition of a fair trail.

Agreed

Agreed

Apparently, you don't listen before you open your mouth. Otherwise you'd know that that has already been done (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13499427&postcount=48). Furthermore, to attempt to do so now would be in violation of the current rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Roshavian Ambassador Jorn Cortez steps up to the podium, and proceeds to make an attempt to shuffle Representitive Flibble away from the podium faster than he's already going. It's obvious that he believes he has something important to say.

*ahem*

Members of the United Nations,

It has come to my attention, and thus the attention of the Holy Empire of Roshavia, that a resolution is in the works that would repeal these archaic laws regarding "Fair Trials" and the "correct" course of action, deemed so by the UN in the past, required to resolve criminal court cases.

As a Roshavian citizen, I must point out the fact that not all member nations of the United Nations necessarily have or even require judicial systems. In fact, Roshavia currently not only lacks a prison system, but also lacks all crime what-so-ever, and as thus has no need for a judicial system. Any issues that require immediate attention are simply turned over to our government to sort out.

Roshavia condemns the need for a judicial system and considers nations plagued with crime and prisons as barbaric, irresponsible lands run by governments that do not understand how to behave towards their own people.

Thus, Roshavia adamantly condones the repeal of mandatory "Free Trial" laws and supports laws governing courts and crime maintain themselves at an individual state level.

And to be frank, resolutions like these are a complete waste of time considering that nations such as mighty Roshavia do exist.

Jorn Cortez, Ambassador to the United Nations, Roshavia

i am reporting the united kingdom for these reasons
1. they are insulting and calling people raiders for no specific reason
2. the regional delegate is becoming an embarrasment for not voting for UN issues
3. nations are focusing to much on someones buisness
4. his majesty in the united kingdom is definetly supposed to be reported
5. the empire of jey is sending me telegrams that are insulting
No offense to jey but i would request that the United kingdom would be deleted.

Kids Woeld, you've come to the wrong place...

1. A Delegate is permitted to rule with as much totatilarianism as he wishes to employ, even if it means he unjustly banjects.
2. Delegates are certainly not required to vote in proposals if they choose not to.
3. Someone's business in a region is usually everyone's business.
4. Why? You haven't given any valid reasons yet...
5. Then forward these insulting messages onto a moderator if you're so concerned about it.

A region deleted??? I'm afraid you've completely misjudged NS's administrative procedures...and I certainly have no idea why you thought the NSUN would be responsible for carrying out any of your requests...

All you'll receive here is an uproar of great laughter from this august body...I suggest you find the back door...

~ CoN Lord Chancellor
~ UN Delegate of The Council of Narnia

i am reporting the united kingdom for these reasons
1. they are insulting and calling people raiders for no specific reason
2. the regional delegate is becoming an embarrasment for not voting for UN issues
3. nations are focusing to much on someones buisness
4. his majesty in the united kingdom is definetly supposed to be reported
5. the empire of jey is sending me telegrams that are insulting
No offense to jey but i would request that the United kingdom would be deleted.
1. What made you think the UN would care about any of that?
2. You're going around recruiting in player-created regions. Of course people in those regions aren't happy with you.
3. What is "Woeld"?

As it stands, I deem this repeal simply a mistake - only useful for the simple fact that it cleans things up a little - which is enough to gain my favour.

We must say, this is disingenuous in the extreme. Whether or not this repeal is simply a mistake -- a mistake, one should note, which stood waiting for this floor vote for some considerable time despite the author's own observations of its inaccuracy -- one thing it most certainly does not do is "clean things up a little." It wipes from the statute books a resolution which ensures that someone accused of a crime has his case examined in a just and even-handed manner. Whether one regards the resolution as flawed or not, it is most assuredly not small.

We must say, this is disingenuous in the extreme.

While I recognize your not entirely unjustified opposition to this repeal, I strongly object to the fact that it “It wipes from the statute books a resolution which ensures that someone accused of a crime has his case examined in a just and even-handed manner.”

If you would brush off the dust from those papers and take a look at Resolution #47 [EDIT: And also #180], you will find that we already have a ‘fair trial’ system in place. I will include it here in case you missed it the first time around:

Thus, it shall be amended that a fair criminal trial shall be defined as one which:
1. Is speedy and efficient.
2. Entitles all defendants to a functional defense.
3. Allows all defendants to confront the witnesses against that defendant.
4. Presumes all defendants to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. Is held in the venue from which the crime was committed.
6. Entitles a defendant to a jury of his or her peers.
7. Is held before an impartial judge whom shall apply the law as it is read.
8. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the crime.
9. Makes the trial open to the public and media.
10. Entitles the defendant the right to wave any of the above rights or clauses without reason.

It shall also be amended that a fair civil trial shall be defined as a trial that:
1. Is held before a judge that benefits from neither party's results at trial.
2. Awards compensation to one party only if a preponderance of evidence exists.
3. Allows all parties in a court superior to (but not equal to) Small Claims Court the right to hire private counsel as representation.
4. That renders verdicts which are proportional to the infraction.

As such: all litigants, plaintiffs, prosecutors, and varying degrees of defendants will benefit and allow for a clearer interpretation of United Nations law so that due process shall be upheld, making the legal system fairer for all people.

Although not entirely comprehensive and a little thread-bare, this resolution is infinitely more effective then this piece of atrocious writing that deserves the clean-up:

“We maitain that all nations, irrespective of their mode of government must, according to the fundamental principles under which the UN was set up, must allow their citizens the right to fair trial, or face eviction from this institution.” (Resolution #21)

As you can see, our current system of ‘fair trial’ will be in no way altered if this repeal passes. Moreover, since #21 does not even bother to define the term ‘fair trail’, this resolution makes no difference whatsoever – whether it is in existence or not.

Therefore I maintain the fact that this repeal will simply be ridding us of another scanty resolution. Nothing more.

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Narnia

ummmm.... tell me again where 47 guarantees us the right to fair trial? cause i missed that part. and without such a part, 47 would exist alone as a definition of fair trial for nothing. i think it should be viewed that 21 and 47 exist together and as one.

ummmm.... tell me again where 47 guarantees us the right to fair trial? cause i missed that part. and without such a part, 47 would exist alone as a definition of fair trial for nothing. i think it should be viewed that 21 and 47 exist together and as one.

The United Nations, reaffirming its intent to ensure for all those accused of criminal acts fair legal proceedings...

1. Requests that member nations ensure their legal processes are fair and just...

These snippets belong to The Fair Sentencing Act - Resolution #180. Though I see the dire need for one solid resolution that pulls all these concepts together, I still maintain that this specific repeal is only good for a clean-up.

...Because "requests" is such a strong mandate. Should you ever be placed in legal jeopardy, may your requests for fair treatment fall on equally disinterested ears as your own.

Perhaps you, yourself, Lord Chancellor, should dust off the law books or perhaps a plain old dictionary before you provide legislative analysis.


Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

We have passed Wysteria's vote AGAINST this repeal. I would also like to note a useful tool (http://www.safalra.com/other/nationstates/un-resolution-search/) that will hopefully allay any future instances of someone noticing an existing topical resolution.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

These snippets belong to The Fair Sentencing Act - Resolution #180. Though I see the dire need for one solid resolution that pulls all these concepts together, I still maintain that this specific repeal is only good for a clean-up.

So thank you, these are good arguments. But as we wierd anarchists are seeing it it strenghtens the fact that we need first the replacement of res #21, 47 and 180, before #21 will be wiped. So we vote against this resolution and are waiting for a better (and needed) resolution. As young as our nation is we will not do more about this.

(And we have no prisons to!) Freedom for all!

(And if our language is not good, we apoligise, but that is because we did not learn this archaic language on school.)

How can you stop fair trials. If someone is arrested for a crime they didn't commit, they might take it out on society:upyours:. If you are going to render it null and void, you must make another section, which states more clearly about fair trials

Ambassador Jorn Cortez stands again to address the Docky delegate.

Yes yes, fair trials are important no doubt, but do they really have a place in a United Nations setting?

Does the great nation of Docky truely believe that all nations across this globe need, or even require, laws mandating court processions?

As the voice of the voice of Roshavia (the higher voice being my boss), I must remind the assembly that an international organization has no right to order specific ways in which court rulings must proceed. If this resolution remains in effect, or if any resolution is passed strengthening the current resolutions already in effect regarding Fair Trials, then the delegates and members of these United Nations have essentially granted the UN a certain power reminiscent of a large Federal Government. In effect, you destroy your own individual government rights. By allowing member nations to proceed with trials and hearings, let alone crime, in a fashion that suits their governing body, not only do these countries retain their individual rights but they are able to proceed with the managing of their countries in a fashion more suitable to them.

Not every country in the world is a Republic or Democracy, and not every country has the same, or even similar, judicial systems. Demanding that court trials be conducted in a particular manner may or may not work with how a country is currently set up. Frankly, it's illogical to even consider demanding that a court system, created by and endorsed by the UN (making it the only legal court system within the UN member nations), be a mandatory part of government.

I, and the Holy Empire of Roshavia, believe it is for these reasons alone that constitute the complete repeal of any international resolutions regarding matters of trials, as we believe the United Nations is making an error in passing such laws. Leave matters of individual government to the individual governments. If a criminal in Yuigusto murders a family of seven, do you believe that the governments in Jormunga and Hruntheria have a right to step in and take command of the court hearing away from the Yuigustonian government?

We here in Roshavia thought that this would be a common sense issue, but as it turns out, common sense is not that common.

Jorn Cortez, Ambassador to the United Nations, Roshavia

In a proper society, a 'fair' trial is one where the lawyers have no power to spindoctor the truth, and court judgement is based purely on facts

Courts would cut back on what forms of mental disorder count as grounds to change the punishment from prison to being sent to a psychiatric hospital,
(last I heard the USA allowed about 30 types of disorder that could get offenders a ticket out of a prison sentence)

And finally, in a very Russian manner, the offenders would be required to spend a term of service in Forced Labour camps as part of their punishment to make them give something back to the society

Yes yes, fair trials are important no doubt, but do they really have a place in a United Nations setting?

I must remind the assembly that an international organization has no right to order specific ways in which court rulings must proceed.Leetha raises an eyebrow.

No right? Which pile of sand has the Roshavian delegation been sticking its head in today? Find the UN document that declares such and we'll bake you a cake.

By allowing member nations to proceed with trials and hearings, let alone crime, in a fashion that suits their governing body, not only do these countries retain their individual rights but they are able to proceed with the managing of their countries in a fashion more suitable to them.

Not every country in the world is a Republic or Democracy, and not every country has the same, or even similar, judicial systems. Demanding that court trials be conducted in a particular manner may or may not work with how a country is currently set up. Perhaps Ambassador Cortez could point out to this assembly where in resolution 21 identical judicial systems are required? And while he is doing so, perhaps he will address the wondrous elements of star chambers, kangaroo courts and how the ability for states to use their judiciary (in whatever form it takes) for oppression doesn't negatively impact human rights.

--L.T.

Senator O. Giloake stands up to speak

We from the Kingdom of Escobosia voted for this resolution. We agree with the maker that it does not state what a fair trial is. When we make our King Escobosa decide the outcome of the trial and we think that is fair, we have our fair trial. We do not think that this is the meaning of Resolution 21. We hope that when this resolution has passed that there will be a new, improved version of Resolution 21 wich states what a fair trial is. Proposal 'Right To Fair Trial' is a good example of it and we will vote for this proposal when it comes to a resolution.

um...... hey jey? you responding to anything anymore?

um...... hey jey? you responding to anything anymore?

Thank you for keeping track of our response timing, but we feel entirely capable of doing that ourselves. Please stop. We'll respond when we deem it necessary (which really shouldn't have been to this question.)

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative

oh, im sorry. i thought the voters were presenting legitimate arguements that were going unanswered. i guess you're just confident that that 2k vote margin will hold and that these voters dont matter.

oh, im sorry. i thought the voters were presenting legitimate arguements that were going unanswered. i guess you're just confident that that 2k vote margin will hold and that these voters dont matter.

Could you please stop "guessing" at what I'm "thinking"? It's presumptuous, obnoxious, and just plain rude. To be honest I'm rather surprised a Mod hasn't commented on your incredibly uncivil nature in this debate and the near-flaming you've exhibited. It's part of the reason I "ignored" you..I'll try that again.

Leetha Talone, I will concede to your point, and make no further objection to this. To continue doing so would be foolish...and I recognize that the issue of fair trial is a terribly mismanaged concept here.

I will also admit that I am altering my region's vote. The proper order of things should be to first establish a firm resolution addressing this particular issue, and then of course resolutions like #21 can be safely repealed. I had not fully realized the consequences.

OOC: I believe I have made history...since when has a politician admitted a mistake?!

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Could you please stop "guessing" at what I'm "thinking"?

(i like your quotation marks around thinking. im not even sure what the hell that means.)

well, with your current lack of meaningful rebuttal, what else are we left to do but guess as to your arguments? ok though, if you do care about the votes, why dont you respond to substantial arguments?

We'll respond when we deem it necessary

do you deem it necessary to spar with me and not to rebutt the numerous arguements against this travesty of a proposal? youve responded twice in the last few hrs, to me only. your last 'substantial' reply was 04-03-2008, 2:22 AMGMT. obviously youve had enough time to respond to the debate, yet you dont. hopefully you can see how im confused why someone who's the champion of the proposal wont debate.

do you deem it necessary to spar with me

You directly asked me a question. So I responded. No one else has since "04-03-2008, 2:22 AMGMT" that I would like to further discussion with. I don't want to continue my OOC spat with Iron Felix because it's not relevant here. And there have been few posts since then, mostly involving debates between two nations. My positions are pretty well known now. But if someone still has a question for me, I'll answer it.

If not, I have some RL affairs to attend to. Is that alright with you, Decapod?

well, with your current lack of meaningful rebuttal, what else are we left to do but guess as to your arguments?

One tip - don't base your argument around guesswork. It'll fail. So if Mr. Vance Aceon chooses not to answer your particular questions, which he is so entitled to do (unless you'd prefer to be named Imperator of the UN, and in that case just say so) - then don't try replying to the silence at all.

ok though, if you do care about the votes, why dont you respond to substantial arguments?

Everyone here knows that an author of a resolution cares about votes...thats easy to guess. You really think there is no other reason for his silence? Perhaps its got something to do with a certain loud senator thats about to receive the stinging end of the admin whip.

hopefully you can see how im confused why someone who's the champion of the proposal wont debate.

Well then I hope I've enlightened you.

NO! NO IT IS NOT OK WITH ME FOR YOU DO BE DOING ANYTHING BUT WAITING FOR MY ARGUMENTS FOR A PROPOSAL FOR A NONEXISTENT BODY

yeah, actually i had posted this earlier, but ill repeat it for you (slightly edited). these are the questions you'd left unanswered.

OOC:

Welcome to the Ignore Chambers, Ambassador Feldberd. We have never in the history of this nation decided to fully ignore another nation: we find ourselves to be very tolerant and patient with other nations. But your complete disregard and deliberate slander of our nation, our motives, and the common decency expected of United Nations members is egregious. To call us "balsy" and "sneaky" for "underhandedly" repealing this resolution has forced us to never regard your words again. Treat others with respect, and that you shall receive.

first off, i deem balsy to be a compliment in the highest, similar to hutzpah (sp?) or moxy (sp?).

Commenting on your only substantive claims: Your complete incapability of believing that anything other than trials as a judicial system is inherently unfair is completely laughable to us. We have never supposed that our judicial system is the ideal situation and the only fair approach to criminal offenses, and in our opinion neither should you. We strongly advise you to open your eyes to the differences of this body: there can be (though this resolution prevents it) many different, equally fair, equally ethical, approaches to a judicial system. To ignore this is disrespectful of cultural differences.


second off, is most of our argument. where in the resolution up for repeal is a definition of trial? trial, by this (are italics considdered hissing or something in roleplaying? because you dont accept capitalization to add emphasis.) resolution can be anything you want it to be. again, i go back to my argument that a fair trial by resolution 21 can be weighing a pair of ducks versus a witch. resolution 21 is as much accepting of national cultural differences as anything!(please tell me youre not against exclaimation points too). yeah, great, try to involve other definitions of trial included, in the definition of trial. which, as you note, is not in resolution 21.

It is understandable that you have interpreted the calls for a definition in the way that you have. Though, if you look at what this repeal directly calls for, the definitions argued for in this repeal and Resolution 47 are not the same. In this sense, it makes our calls for a definition valid.

right. so why arent you editing the definition? instead youre attacking the right.


Further, you mustn't confuse our arguments in the repeal with what we would like to see as the final result in the Fair Trial debate. Had we argued our opinion, which amounts nearly totally to a national sovereignty dispute, it would be illegal. Arguing simply "national sovereignty" in a repeal is not allowed, and if you would like to verify that see the link to UN Proposals that we have already provided to you. This ideological dilemma has faced repealers quite often, though we think it is necessary. Though, you must understand that it is not to be interpreted as "underhanded" or insincere in any way. If a legitimate argument can be made for a repeal, regardless of the author's beliefs on the resolution/issue in terms of national sovereignty, then it is a legitimate argument. Sure, the author may desire to have the issue removed for national sovereignty's sake, but how would one do that legally? As we said, this is the dilemma repealers face quite often, and we would know: we've passed plenty of them.


so....... you argue that calls for a definition are valid..... despite the existing definition. that is the part that is illegitimate to me. either, you dont accept the right to a fair trial (or shall we use the word judgment, arbitration, or examination? i dont care, theyre all synonyms of trial.) or you want it redefined. I believe it to be the latter, and see it as illogical and wrong to be attacking the right, when you should be attacking the definition.

so which is it, do you not want a right to fair trial at all, or do you want a redefinition of fair trial?

if it is the former as i believe you have indicated in other posts, why are you arguing in the proposal for a redefinition. If it is national sovereignty, why not argue that? its at least as legitimate an argument as arguing for a definition (note: not redefinition) for something that already has one.

Enough already. Sheej, people.

*puts down his novel*

Decapod, you posted that two days ago. If Mr. Aceon was interested in formulating an answer he would use the recent transcript...you need not bore us again by repeating your speech.

On another note

All these repeals of early resolutions. Do you think they had as much seriousness as the more current resolutions? Honestly, all the repeals on early resolutions are just an easy way for people to get their name into the books without having to come up with a real, original idea.

Why don't you come up with a "real, original idea," so you don't have to waste our time with your intellectually lazy non-arguments?

Enough already. Sheej, people.

yeah, im trying to stop the petty bickering... but being a gigantic ass i find it difficult.

my original statements were intended to be uber-passionate in an attempt to sway the vote..... which has failed, unless i can come up with 3000 votes in 7 hrs. i also, as a person with a RL voice problem, hate to be judged on the way my words were spoken/written and not the words themselves. which kinda explains the normal absence of grammar and capitalization from my posts.

.................................................................................

*turns to the ambassador who involved himself in the discussion*

hey Narnia, im going to take

You directly asked me a question. So I responded. No one else has since "04-03-2008, 2:22 AMGMT" that I would like to further discussion with... But if someone still has a question for me, I'll answer it.

to mean he missed it, as i asked him a direct question which he did not resond to. im also going to quote him on a couple of issues to you

Could you please stop "guessing" at what I'm "thinking"? It's presumptuous, obnoxious, and just plain rude.

I'm not going to attempt to answer those questions directed at Mr. Aceon...simply because I am not Mr. Aceon...

The repeal has passed and we've all been brought into compliance with it. This discussion really has no need to continue.

We congratulate the fine people of Jey on yet another success before this body. We're not surprised, given we had already "projected" as such before voting ended, but to spare ourselves the humiliation, we declined to publicize it. Even so, we will hold the Jevians responsible for any harm that befalls Fair Sentencing Act as a result of this repeal. This is not over.

Jimmy Baca
Adviser to the Mission

IC:

SUCCESSFUL COUP
Matthew Davidman
Decapod City

-- Conservative elements of the society of the Mud Planet of Decapod Ten staged a coup today in reaction to the recent conservative swing in UN policy. The Opposition Party, led by Ari Zoidfarb, ousted the moderate autocratic leaders, while rioting struck the capital. Reports indicate much of the government to be killed, including Prime Minister Stolowitz and Ambassador Feldberg, along with hundred of others. Conservative leader Zoidfarb gave a speech to all Decapod, "The universe has spoken. The liberal policies of the Stolowitz regime are at an end both at home and abroad. Now is the time for a revolution in our thinking and governance. Now is the time for a renewed Decapod. Now is the time for prosperity and order, no matter the cost."

OOC:

i see no reason not to continue to discuss what we have wrought.

Even so, we will hold the Jevians responsible for any harm that befalls Fair Sentencing Act as a result of this repeal. This is not over.

Though we hardly think it will change the mind of Adviser Baca, we can assure this body that no "harm" to the Fair Sentencing Act will come as a direct result from efforts of this nation.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian United Nations Representative

OOC:

i see no reason not to continue to discuss what we have wrought.

OOC: If this discussion continues for too much longer, it will probably be locked. So, get all your comments on "what we have wrought" in before then.

yeah, you know what you've done, i was still looking for answers to my questions above, before the last post.

yeah, you know what you've done, i was still looking for answers to my questions above, before the last post.
Let it go. The repeal passed. Get over it.