NationStates Jolt Archive

PLEASE REVEIW ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13582454&postcount=6 (found lower in this thread)

VERSION IN OP (Opening Post) NO LONGER CURRENT

Seeking a consensus on a new charter of freedoms, Sir Robert Holst does submit the following for review:

Recognising that conduct of government should not go unrestrained and;

Recognising the potential for the violation of individual liberty and;

Recognising a need for mutually accepted code of rights;

Let it be resolved that the following be enacted as basic freedoms inalienable by unjust means:

1. All citizens and residents of a nation shall be free to privately their practice their faith, and shall not have their assembly for peaceful worship unjustly curtailed

2. All citizens and residents of a nation shall be not be prevented from communicating their opinion by spoken or written word, or by other means of communication.

2a. (i) Excepting where such speech is determined to be libelous by an independent judicial review. (ii) All citizens and residents of a nation shall not have their character unjustly impugned.

2b (i) Excepting where such speech unjustly vilifies another party on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or association. (ii) All citizens and residents of a nation shall not be subject to unjust vilification on basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation or association.

3. Citizens and residents of a nation may peacefully assemble without undue let or hindrance.

4. Citizens and residents of a nation shall be treated fairly and equally under the law.

4a. Citizens and residents of a nation who are disadvantaged by birth, or circumstances (including, but not exclusively: women, racial minorities, the physically or mentally disabled, the elderly) may receive added protection under the law.

5. Citizens and residents of a nation shall not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, nor to the use torture.

6. Citizens and residents shall not be subject to arbitrary arrest, detainment, sentence or discipline.

6a. Citizens and residents shall be informed of the charges against them in a manner which they understand.

6b. Citizens and residents shall be afforded the right to defend charges brought against them before an impartial, independent judiciary.

6c. Citizens and residents shall appear before a judiciary stipulated under Section 6a at the earliest possible convenience.

6d Citizens and residents shall be assumed as innocent, until such time, and unless, the judiciary stipulated under Section 6a determines their guilt.

6e. (i) Section 6a in no way prohibits or limits the use of juries, where a jury of peers is used to determine guilt "judiciary" shall be read as "jury". (ii) Trials by a jury of peers must be supervised by an impartial and independent referee.

7. It shall be a criminal offence to violate this resolution.

7a. A Tribunal for the Adjudication of Freedoms (here after known as "The Tribunal" shall be assembled with the authority to try, convict and sentence those who violate this resolution.

7b. The Tribunal shall operated in accordance with Section 6.

Existing national rights: Where a nation already protects freedoms to a greater extent than under this resolution, such protects may stand.

Conflicting rights: Where the right(s) of one party under this Resolution are in conflict with that of another party, an independent judicial review within the nation shall determine which party's right(s) shall supplant the other.

Supremacy of Resolution: Where this resolution conflicts with existing law, the conflicting law shall be struck null and void.

Not Withstanding Clause: Where a nation is under a temporary state of emergency, it may petition the Tribunal to pass legislation not withstanding rights granted under resolution. Any laws passed under this clause shall be struck null and void upon the end of the state of emergency, at the order of the tribunal or upon the expiration of twenty-eight (28) days.

How would you enforce 7? The WA can't do embargoes or military interventions. And I don't think many nations will be willing to hand over their leaders.

WA Compliance Commission, we have always just assumed compliance, and since the Tribunal would never actual be role-played, I don't see it as an issue.

WA Compliance Commission, we have always just assumed compliance, and since the Tribunal would never actual be role-played, I don't see it as an issue.Which makes clause 7 utterly superfluous. Furthermore, this is probably way over the character limit, beyond any other possible issues.

Which makes clause 7 utterly superfluous. Furthermore, this is probably way over the character limit, beyond any other possible issues.
I've just checked: 3'720 characters including Clause #7, but only 3'407 characters -- and, thus, within the limit -- without that section.

Alternative Submission:

Recognising that the conduct of government should not go unrestrained and;

Recognising the potential for the violation of individual liberty and;

Recognising a need for a mutually accepted code of rights;

Let it be resolved that the following be enacted as basic freedoms inalienable by unjust means:

1. All citizens and residents of a nation shall be free to privately their practice their faith, and shall not have their assembly for peaceful worship unjustly curtailed

2. All citizens and residents of a nation shall be not be prevented from communicating their opinion by spoken or written word, or by other means of communication.

2a. (i) Excepting where such speech is determined to be libelous by an independent judicial review. (ii) All citizens and residents of a nation shall not have their character unjustly impugned.

2b (i) Excepting where such speech unjustly vilifies another party on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation or association. (ii) All citizens and residents of a nation shall not be subject to unjust vilification on basis of their race, gender, sexual orientation or association.

3. Citizens and residents of a nation may peacefully assemble without undue let or hindrance.

4. Citizens and residents of a nation shall be treated fairly and equally under the law.

4a. Citizens and residents of a nation who are disadvantaged by birth, or circumstances (including, but not exclusively: women, racial minorities, the physically or mentally disabled, the elderly) may receive added protection under the law.

5. Citizens and residents of a nation shall not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment, nor to the use torture.

6. Citizens and residents shall not be subject to arbitrary arrest, detainment, sentence or discipline.

6a. Citizens and residents shall be informed of the charges against them in a manner which they understand.

6b. Citizens and residents shall be afforded the right to defend charges brought against them before an impartial, independent judiciary.

6c. Citizens and residents shall appear before a judiciary stipulated under Section 6a at the earliest possible convenience.

6d Citizens and residents shall be assumed as innocent, until such time, and unless, the judiciary stipulated under Section 6a determines their guilt.

6e. (i) Section 6a in no way prohibits or limits the use of juries, where a jury of peers is used to determine guilt "judiciary" shall be read as "jury". (ii) Trials by a jury of peers must be supervised by an impartial and independent referee.

Existing national rights: Where a nation already protects freedoms to a greater extent than under this resolution, such protections may stand.

Conflicting rights: Where the right(s) of one party under this Resolution are in conflict with that of another party, an independent judicial review within the nation shall determine which party's right(s) shall supplant the other.

Supremacy of Resolution: Where this resolution conflicts with existing law, the conflicting law shall be struck null and void.

Not Withstanding Clause: Where a nation is under a temporary state of emergency, it may petition the World Assembly to pass legislation not withstanding rights granted under resolution. Any laws passed under this clause shall be struck null and void upon the end of the state of emergency, at the order of the World Assembly or upon the expiration of twenty-eight (28) days.

OOC: as I've said in the similar versions of this that are springing up like mushrooms, I am so very not interested in seeing omnibus human rights proposals. Please don't.

I was going to refute this bit by bit, but it's late etc, etc, so I'm just going to say...

What Gobbannium said cubed

I was going to refute this bit by bit, but it's late etc, etc, so I'm just going to say...

What Gobbannium said cubed

I fail to the rationale in making a post to say you were going to come up with an argument, but didn't.

OOC: as I've said in the similar versions of this that are springing up like mushrooms, I am so very not interested in seeing omnibus human rights proposals. Please don't.

You do not agree with a universal code of freedoms, fine. I may suggest that this group may not be for you, then.

Furthermore, I would very much encourage debate on the content of the proposal, as I feel it represents a workable option.

You do not agree with a universal code of freedoms, fine. I may suggest that this group may not be for you, then.

He's repeating what a bunch of us are repeating. Just because we have a blank slate, there is no particular reason to try to grant EVERY human right in the first Human Rights proposal.

Rather than devote a single line to each right, how about we devote a single resolution to each and actually do the job thoroughly? There's no need for you to be snippy about it.

He's repeating what a bunch of us are repeating. Just because we have a blank slate, there is no particular reason to try to grant EVERY human right in the first Human Rights proposal.

Rather than devote a single line to each right, how about we devote a single resolution to each and actually do the job thoroughly? There's no need for you to be snippy about it.

I think my response was suitable for a largely insubstantive post, and not "snippy".

Further, this proposal hardly covers every human right, but rather those which (in my opinion) are most in need of immediate cover.

I agree that it would wiser to create separate proposals for each major right, such as the right to privacy, the right to fair treatment, various rights regarding the judiciary, etc.

The proposal is too faceted. One may as well throw in regulation regarding education, vehicle emissions, or whatever else comes to mind.


Respectfully,
The Dominion

Please understand, it's not that some of the nations raising concerns are opposed to the concept of Human Rights. It's that they feel torture is not an issue that can be covered in a single sentence (O that it could!) and hence it is better to pass comprehensive, loophole-free legislation on the major issues, individually.

That said, we have approved this proposal as it seems to us the best of the current slew of proposals like this, and hence if the WA is so insistent on passing such a memorandum of understanding, it might as well be a reasonably worded one.

However, your 'Not Withstanding clause' is almost certainly illegal, or at least unworkable, as the World Assembly will have no authority to pass nation-specific legislation.

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

Please understand, it's not that some of the nations raising concerns are opposed to the concept of Human Rights. It's that they feel torture is not an issue that can be covered in a single sentence (O that it could!) and hence it is better to pass comprehensive, loophole-free legislation on the major issues, individually.

That said, we have approved this proposal as it seems to us the best of the current slew of proposals like this, and hence if the WA is so insistent on passing such a memorandum of understanding, it might as well be a reasonably worded one.

However, your 'Not Withstanding clause' is almost certainly illegal, or at least unworkable, as the World Assembly will have no authority to pass nation-specific legislation.

-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Department of Confusion & Uncertainty
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria
The WA would not be passing the legislation, the nation would, the nation would theoretically seek permission to do so first.

"It's not torture, it's interrogation" would be a simple way of messing with this. I'd prefer something that isn't so loopholey.

Why do this all in one proposal? You need to itemize and take the time for EACH right in a proposal of it's own. You need to understand that each of these is an important right, and only by giving each a proposal of it's own, can we ensure fairness and equality for all.

Repeals happen, stuff will be rewritten later, so lets get it right the first time.

My point is the WA cannot pass legislation to authorise specific nations to do x, or to terminate the authorisation; the only way would be to set up a committee that would have authority to do this (which, in the field of Human Rights, is actually not a bad idea).

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

Does the free speach part apply to racial slurs and other offensive speach.

All OOC:

I think my response was suitable for a largely insubstantive post, and not "snippy".
Had you actually read any of the many similar proposals in the works, you'd have seen objections like this: every experience we've had of resolutions doing one-line rights givings in the old UN was bad. Either they are just pretty words (which seems to be what UBR was regarded as), or they had to be repealed if anyone was ever going to do any real work in the area.

To abuse Fris' much-beloved quote, we aren't making brand new mistakes, we're making exactly the same mistakes all over again.

We the People's Republic of Andaras, start by not ascribing to either Universal Charter of Freedoms or any such World Assembly declarations, but we have used their legal devices to unmask and denounce the old bourgeois state. . . . For us, human rights are contradictory to the rights of the proletariat, because we base rights in man as a social product, not man as an abstract with innate rights. "Human rights" do not exist except for the bourgeoisie man, a position that was at the forefront of feudalism, like liberty, equality, and fraternity were advanced for the bourgeoisie of the past. But today, since the appearance of the proletariat as an organized class in the Communist Party, with the experience of triumphant revolutions, with the construction of socialism, new democracy and the dictatorship of the proletariat, it has been proven that human rights serve the oppressor class and the exploiters who run the imperialist and landowner-bureaucratic states. Bourgeois states in general. . . . Our position is very clear. We reject and condemn human rights because they are bourgeois, reactionary, counterrevolutionary rights, and are today a weapon of revisionists and imperialists, principally imperialists.

National Assembly of the PRA Declaration.

[OOC: OK, we get it. You're commies. You've established the framework; now try coming up with actual arguments against the proposals you don't like.]

We note with some disappointment that the author seems to have disregarded all objections to this proposal and bulldozed ahead with their proposal submission. Already it has garnered over half the requisite delegate signatures, with three days yet to go:

Approvals: 56 (Rotovia-, Jake and Elwood Blues, Great New France, Tilgate, Vaantage, Bjarred, Laak, Xenofungus, Henderson-Hasselbach, 46566, Anarchy works, The Digital Network, Dolvaria, South Oceana, Zoingo, Cordova I, Satansylvania, JMDS, Warsaw and Poland, Pagemaster, Norwedenland, Ephidael, Ubustar, William The AWESOME, Sancte Michael, Althzakar, Slices Right, Bats outta Mordor, Embarc, Chazzistan, Eiga-Baka, WZ Forums, Brazykystan, Rantchess, Quintessence of Dust, Alanaria, Balyma, Ventei, ERS Republica Defender, Saudi burmia, The Artic Republics, Waterana, Kouan, Shafft, Graalium, Neo Liverpool, Charlotte Ryberg, Jacko-funland, Bergelland, Kindjal, Cahuilla, Tarmsden, Marion Oaks 2, Tatarica, Chuck Norris Haters, Kleinekatzen)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 48 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Apr 9 2008Even if it weren't for all the faults of the legislation itself, the Federal Republic would oppose this legislation on that point alone. Please don't do this; it's remarkably short-sighted, and does little more than repeat the mistakes of this organization's predecessor.

The Republic of Havensky echoes the sentiments of the honorable gentlemen from the Antarctic Oasis.

We should hope that this resolution would not prevent the expansion and elaboration of the rights mentioned in this resolution.

This disappeared off the proposal list yesterday and was due to expire on Wednesday...