NationStates Jolt Archive

In the event of a cleansing of the lawbooks, we are getting on the bandwagon of taking the gems of the old UN and replacing them in the WA, with slight tweaks. Given that there are several proposals seeking to define sentience/sapience, it makes sense to take Universal Bill of Rights (originally proposed by the now-nonexistent free porcupines) and rework it for the new era.

I have made minor textual changes to the text, mostly in regards to use of "UN." Let us discuss.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by:

Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,

The World Assembly shall endorse a Universal Bill of Rights:

Article 1 -- All sapient beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All sapient beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All sapient beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All sapient beings have the right to equal treatment under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All sapient beings shall not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No sapient beings shall be subjected to arrest or exile without explanation as to the cause.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A sapient being's family members shall not be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any nations or persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable under international law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override any existing bills of rights in World Assembly member nations. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are hereby protected. Any nation may enact rights that supersede those enumerated here, but shall not expect them to be guarded under the auspices of this resolution.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Free porcupines

Description: Recalling the many egregious infringements of human rights,

Recognizing the need to protect basic human rights,

Deploring any acts by government at the sake of human rights,

Determined to put an end to the violation of human rights,


The United Nations shall endorse what will be called the Universal Bill of Rights, the articles of which are as follows:

Article 1 -- All human beings have the right to choose worship any faith, and to change their religious beliefs at any time without punishment on the part of the state.

Article 2 -- All human beings have the right to express themselves through speech and through the media without any interference.

Article 3 -- All human beings have the right to peacefully assemble.

Article 4 -- All human beings have the right to be treated equally under the law of any member nation.

Article 5 -- All human beings must not be subjected to torture or to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment.

Article 6 -- No human beings will be subjected to arrest or exile without an explicit list of their offenses.

Article 7 -- Any arrested person must be assumed innocent until proven guilty.

Article 8 -- A human beings family members cannot be held accountable for the crimes of their relative.

Article 9 -- Any persons who violate any of these articles shall be held accountable by the law.

Article 10 -- The Universal Bill of Rights does not override the existing Bill of Rights of United Nations members. If any of these stated rights do not exist in a member nation, they are herby protected. If any nation has rights that go beyond these universal rights, the Universal Bill of Rights will not remove those rights.

Votes For: 11,169
Votes Against: 3,649

Implemented: Fri Aug 8 2003
.

...only human rights?:(

...which is why this is a discussion thread intended to make changes. IF anyone has a definition of sapience that they think will work, I change put it in and change all the references to "human" to "sapient."

what you think about this def.


A definition of sentience is needed in the new world order as a basis for other resoulutions not yet ratified.
So...

We propose to ESTABLISH that the DEFINITION of Sentience be:

A being must be self-aware, able to examine one's own traits, feelings, and behaviours.

A being must be intelligent, able to learn, reason, and understand information shown to him.

A being does not necesarily have to be living to be sentient.

"Sapience" is the more accurate term to use. This organization has already debated to nauseating lengths about it in the past, suffice to search for the relevant debates.

I'm leaning toward "sapience being defined as not only individual or collevtice self-awareness, but an ability to make rational and clear judgments." I can't quite recall the definition I supported a few months ago, but it's similar.

Harlaman Shandreð
Ambassador Plenipotens

I am in favour of Blog Waters' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13577265&postcount=9) adaption of the definition in the old For the Expansion of Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551796) resolution - it seems to work exceedingly well without getting bogged down in minutiae over how to define sentience. To quote it;
Recognizing that the nations of the World Assembly are composed of a wide variety of citizens from various origins; and

Whereas the World Assembly cannot predict the variety of citizenry that will inhabit future generations; and

Recognizing the need to equally apply the laws of this organization;

Therefore, citizenship will be extended to any self-aware individual that is intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access; and

All proposals passed by this organization shall apply equally to all citizens.


The only potential problem I can see is that it doesn't extend citizenship to the mentally incapable; but individual nations can presumably do that themselves if they want to.

[EDIT] "The ability to make rational and clear judgements" would exclude my flatmate, so I would also wholeheartedly support Snefaldia's proposed definition.

Personally, I think the bill is fine. I would change a couple things, but only out of obnoxious preference that does not deserve further discussion. Go right ahead. I'd approve.

I am in favour of Blog Waters' (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13577265&postcount=9) adaption of the definition in the old For the Expansion of Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=551796) resolution - it seems to work exceedingly well without getting bogged down in minutiae over how to define sentience. To quote it;


The only potential problem I can see is that it doesn't extend citizenship to the mentally incapable; but individual nations can presumably do that themselves if they want to.

[EDIT] "The ability to make rational and clear judgements" would exclude my flatmate, so I would also wholeheartedly support Snefaldia's proposed definition.

I concur with your analysis. To make "sapience" dependent on govenrment involvement is rather silly, though. His definition is rather vague, actually. I'll insert my definition and let the masses have at it.

H.S.
etc.

Well, it does say capable ... when given adequate access, so they don't have to want to, or even be allowed to; they just have to be able to. I like it as a minimum standard.

I see your point; how does "The ability to make rational and clear judgements when given the choice" sound?

I think the question of opportunity to do so is only a problem with the Expansion of Rights definition, which defines sentience/sapience/not being my flatmatence by ability to participate in government. I think that your prior idea works fine as it is; "Sapience being defined as not only individual or collevtice self-awareness, but an ability to make rational and clear judgments."

I'll put it in, then.

This bill goes a lot further than my proposal. Any way to change the references to "human rights" into sentient rights? Or is this only for protecting the rights of sapiens?

If this bill includes all sentient beings then mine probably won't be needed since this one also covers equality under the law and things like the right to life, liberty, etc.

Would resolution essentially outlaw slavery? I've read it and can't really decide.

If not could an article be added to address this issue?

Otherwise, we are completely behind this resolution.

The only part which looks like it might outlaw slavery is #4, by mandating equality. If you want to outlaw slavery, it would probably be better to write up your own resolution on it.

Actually, I'm not opposed to adding a new clause:

Article X: No sapient being shall be considered the property or belonging of another, whether by choice or by force.

USofA: The term "sapient" is one that encompasses beings like Humans. It refers primarily to the ability to make cognitive judgements and is often called "wisdom." All sapient beings are sentient, but not all sentient beings are sapient.

Actually, I'm not opposed to adding a new clause:



USofA: The term "sapient" is one that encompasses beings like Humans. It refers primarily to the ability to make cognitive judgements and is often called "wisdom." All sapient beings are sentient, but not all sentient beings are sapient.

Thanks for the clarification. Looks like we are doing two different things. LOL
Looks like a need for that Res to define sentiency that the other guy is working on. Then mine which looks like it has 89 endorsements. But it does not go into specifics. It just says that all sentients must be treated equally.

So,

If I understand this correctly, Article 10 would guarantee the rights of citizens, even in nations that don't cover them already.

So, hypothetically, if a ruthless dictatorship is currently in the World Assembly and this passes, does that result in their laws outlawing freedom of speech and freedom of the press become null and void?

We support the resolution wholeheartedly, but we were just curious as to the effect it would have on dictatorships.

~ Christopher Windcharmer

I would caution us against the term "rational" as a criterion for sapience. For example, one might consider the belief in a supernatural being, with no supporting evidence, to be irrational. Further, rational judgment may itself be judged by many divergent criteria. For example, Divine Command (a judgment is sound if and only if it is commensurate with the Word of God), Natural Law (...it is commensurate with established precedence), Utilitarianism (...if it results in the greatest happiness), Categorical Imperative (...it is commensurate with the judgment of others), Logic Only (...it can be proven as such, and regardless of consequences), etc.

Another interesting aspect is that certain other species, e.g. bonobo, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, elephant, and perhaps some cetaceans also appear to qualify. Is this the intent? If so, it should probably be made more explicit. If not, then perhaps another criterion should be selected. Please note that I have no objection to extending the franchise to other species, I just think that it should be more clearly stated as such.

Representation could be interesting...

Two things:

First, His Nibs has already said he doesn't like this definition of sapience exactly because it excludes the mentally ill, and they're some of the people most in need of having their rights supported. If you rephrase it as being about "an average member of the race" or some such, and allow for exceptional individuals of races not covered, you'll probably get it past him.

Second, I really can't see the point in passing this. Like the original UBR, it's perilously close to being a chocolate tea-pot. It's immensely wide-ranging, and either closes down huge swathes of potential human rights legislation or is completely useless. Does Article 1 ban theocracies, for instance; if being a member of a certain religion is a requirement for government jobs and one of them converts to another religion, is the government allowed to fire them at this point? Does Article 2 really allow you to publish anything you like (including pornography, for example)? Do all these warm and fuzzy rights actually do anything without doing everything?

Personally, I'd rather hit each right individually and nail it down properly, with all the let-outs we think are needed. Otherwise six months from now we're going to find ourselves repealing this just so that we can ban slavery properly, say.

--
Cerys Coch, Permanent Undersecretary

We are in agreement with Undersecretary Coch. We'd prefer full resolutions on torture, freedom of expression, religious freedom, and so on, than a well-intentioned but essentially powerless statement. We are also concerned at the bias in the proposal towards civil and political rights, to the exclusion of equally fundamental economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to live in a clean environment.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of Confusion & Uncertainty
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Replace the word sapience with "individuals" or "citizens." Then support this proposal:

Application of Law to All

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Blog Waters

Description: Recognizing that the nations of the World Assembly are composed of a wide variety of citizens from various origins; and

Whereas the World Assembly cannot predict the variety of citizenry that will inhabit future generations; and

Therefore, citizenship will be extended to any self-aware individual that is intellectually capable of independently participating in government when given adequate access; and

All proposals passed by this organization shall apply equally to all citizens.

Approvals: 0

Status: Lacking Support (requires 104 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Tue Apr 8 2008

Given the new opposition to blockers (which I wholeheartedly support) and the developing opinion, I see no reason to continue with this. Done and done, a mod may lock this at their leisure.