NationStates Jolt Archive

This resolution has now been submitted for approval by delegates, we would greatly apreciate it if interested delegates would use this link to vote approve it: http://www.nationstates.net/10061/page=UN_proposal1/match=nomads






This resolution recognises that nations have Nomadic populations who may have been deprived of their basic rights. It also recognises that aspects of a nomadic lifestyle may cause controversy among settled societies
This resolution restores basic rights and access to public services to nomadic communities who have been deprived of them; it will encourage better communication between settled and nomadic communities with the object of creating greater social harmony.This resolution also accepts that with these rights come responsibilities, as is the case for settled communities.

For the purposes of this resolution Nomadism will be defined as any lifestyle or way of living which in an organised and/or traditional manner is not settled in one place, either part or all of the time. Lifestyles which require peripatesis to find resources or to husband animal herds, follow animal migrations or the seasons are also defined as Nomadic.

The World Assembly:

1. Requires that its Member Nations not discriminate against persons on the basis of their following a nomadic lifestyle or those who identify themselves as ethnically nomadic. Member nations must introduce laws to prevent discrimination against Nomads in the provision of goods and services, and private sector employment practices.

2. Requires that its Member Nations not institute policies of forced settlement on communities who live a nomadic lifestyle, though it allows nations to institute programmes of voluntary settlement of nomads where no level of coercion is brought to bear on these communities.

4 (3). Requires that its Member Nations create formal systems of liaison between settled communities and Nomads which will clarify both parties needs and concerns, with the object of fairly and openly resolving disputes between these parties.

5 (4). Requires that its Member Nations appoint Nomadic persons with appropriate expertise within their civil services to advise government departments on how best to tailor government services to the cultural and practical needs of Nomads. Where no such persons currently exist the provisions of clause 4 should suffice.

6 (5). Requires its Member Nations to allow freedom of movement to nomads on terms agreed between nomads, settled communities and their governments, where such freedom does not constitute a material breach of national laws concerning trespass, vandalism or destruction of natural habitat, where these laws are not in material breach of clause 1. of this resolution. Further, Member Nations which are not currently at war with each other or in a state of otherwise hightened antagonism with each other, should cooperate to allow Nomads properly regularised but easily facilitated access across international borders, fairly allowing freedom of movement whilst maintaining border integrity.

You must be referring to people who travel from one place to another. This is a good idea as they deserve the same respect as settled people. Let's see what your first draft looks like please. Thanks!

-- Charlotte

Isn't it rather contradictory to offer nomads the same rights to education & social welfare when you speak out against the government trying to settle them? They're nomads, they're going to wander about aimlessly like nomads do. Why should we offer them the provisions to an education and healthcare?

The government of the Emperor of Urgench thanks the respected delegate for Charlotte Ryberg for the encouragement, we are still formulating our first draft, we thought we might see what other government's positions and advice were before we bored them with a poor resolution but we can provide a skeleton on which to hang the debate if that would be more appropriate?

Isn't it rather contradictory to offer nomads the same rights to education & social welfare when you speak out against the government trying to settle them? They're nomads, they're going to wander about aimlessly like nomads do. Why should we offer them the provisions to an education and healthcare?


The government of the emperor of Urgench feels that like the citizens of our own great nation all nomads may be encouraged to become successfull and productive members of society if they are offered the same rights and services as settled persons. At the very least one's lifestyle should not disbar one from basic civil and personal rights, nomads are people too after all.

yours sincerely,

The government of Jujuburghia would support this proposal. In relation to the framework under which this might be considered, could the right to nomadic life be a cultural tradition specific to certain ethnic groups? And therefore, might ot fit in a resolution on ethnic minorities.

There is a potential problem in that such a resolution might be seen as a way fo diluting border control, by forcing member governments to allow nomadic peoples to cross nations borders and coordinate services to these peoples.

The government of Jujuburghia would support this proposal. In relation to the framework under which this might be considered, could the right to nomadic life be a cultural tradition specific to certain ethnic groups? And therefore, might ot fit in a resolution on ethnic minorities.

There is a potential problem in that such a resolution might be seen as a way fo diluting border control, by forcing member governments to allow nomadic peoples to cross nations borders and coordinate services to these peoples.


The government of the emperor of Urgench thinks that the ambassador for Jujuburghia makes an excellent point about issues of border control, we are considering including a provision which would mandate for nations to create an Ombudsman/court of arbitration which would deal with this problem. we would welcome advice on how this might be done.

yours e.t.c. ,

This depends. If nomads had rights, wouldn't they be able to acess all countries without complaint or resistance?

Questions:
1. What nation would give them the health care, if it was a nation at all.
1b. If the WA gave them the healthcare, who would pay for it if the WA cant tax members, or nonmembers?
2. Would the healthcare be satisfactory if it was paid for cheaply?
2b. If the healthcare was non-satisfactory, who would take the blame?
3. To not discriminate might violate Freedom of Speech to all member nations. By doing this, what would the public who hates nomads think?
4. What if settled persons dont want to make deals with nomads?
5. Who would pay for the social security and education if not the WA and possibly not the governments of individual nations?
6. You said nomads interaction with their 'governments'. Who's governments?
7. How would the nomads travel into Territory non-WA?
8. Where would the nomads go while traveling through nations of people who do not want to necessarily be around nomads?
8b. If a special route had to be set up before the 'commute', what if the general public didn't want nomads traveling through their land?
9. Who would celebrate the history of nomads besides nomads, and if the WA were to set this up, why would they set up the history if no one would celebrate it?

Just some constructive criticsm

This depends. If nomads had rights, wouldn't they be able to acess all countries without complaint or resistance?

Questions:
1. What nation would give them the health care, if it was a nation at all.
1b. If the WA gave them the healthcare, who would pay for it if the WA cant tax members, or nonmembers?
2. Would the healthcare be satisfactory if it was paid for cheaply?
2b. If the healthcare was non-satisfactory, who would take the blame?
3. To not discriminate might violate Freedom of Speech to all member nations. By doing this, what would the public who hates nomads think?
4. What if settled persons dont want to make deals with nomads?
5. Who would pay for the social security and education if not the WA and possibly not the governments of individual nations?
6. You said nomads interaction with their 'governments'. Who's governments?
7. How would the nomads travel into Territory non-WA?
8. Where would the nomads go while traveling through nations of people who do not want to necessarily be around nomads?
8b. If a special route had to be set up before the 'commute', what if the general public didn't want nomads traveling through their land?
9. Who would celebrate the history of nomads besides nomads, and if the WA were to set this up, why would they set up the history if no one would celebrate it?

Just some constructive criticsm


The government of the emperor of urgench welcomes the input of the ambassador for East Ying, it raises a point we would be glad to clarify our position on, namely that of international nomadism. We feel that in most cases nations would be perfectly intitled to treat nomads who have crossed into their territory in the same way as they would treat visiting settled persons from other nations. Visa and immigration laws should apply to nomads in exactly the same way as to settled persons. This resolution would make no special provision for nomads to have a "right to roam" over international boundaries only within the country of their current citizenship.
Strictly speaking all the provisions in this resolution would do is allow these rights to nomads within their nation of current citizenship, and since most nomads have fairly defined and discreet areas of migration this would be reasonable in most cases. This resolution would not seek to give nomads rights which settled persons do not have and would only be seeking to insure that nomads and settled persons have equal rights in accordance with the level of civil and "human" rights as currently provided within individual member states of the w.a.
Under these circumstances there would be no need for any supra-national W.A organisations for the management of nomadic issues.

We must stress that nomads are exactly the same in every respect (in our view at least ) to the settled populations of member states, they simply do not choose to live in houses in one place all the time, they are as deserving of what ever levels of provision national governments offer their settled communities. In most cases nomads see themselves as citizens of the nations within which they migrate, those that do cross national borders will very often see themselves as citizens of a particular nation or at least can be asked to do so if they are assured of respectfull treatment by a particular nation.

Your points 8 and 8b would be obviated by the fact that nations would not be able to discriminate in deed against nomads in the way you describe. The freedom of speech issue you mention in your point numbered 3. could be obviated by the inclusion of a specification that freedom of speech not be infringed excepting where nations have laws on hate speech.

Your last point about nomad history and culture is troubling because it seems to suggest that only settled history is worthy of celebration, we are trying to suggest that both are equally deserving of national celebration since in most cases they form a subtle and complex interplay of stories and influences which are often ignored in the attempt to write history only from the perspective of house dwellers.

Yours e.t.c. ,

In no way did i mean to suggest that only settled history should be celebrated. I just meant that the WA didn't set up our history to be settled, and it shouldnt set up yours. You already have rights to celebrate already, as no one is stopping you, so go ahead and celebrate for all I care. I just asked these questions just to get you thinking, but in no way did I mean to offend you.
Hence "Just Constructive Criticsm". I did not write "Offensive criticsm."

In no way did i mean to suggest that only settled history should be celebrated. I just meant that the WA didn't set up our history to be settled, and it shouldnt set up yours. You already have rights to celebrate already, as no one is stopping you, so go ahead and celebrate for all I care. I just asked these questions just to get you thinking, but in no way did I mean to offend you.
Hence "Just Constructive Criticsm". I did not write "Offensive criticsm."

The government of the emperor of Urgench was not offended, merely troubled, we would have made it abundantly clear if we were offended. We were happy you gave us the oportunity to discuss these issues and will likely be so in future if you wish to continue to contribute to this debate. It was merely the logic of your point which suggested that conclusion.
Again though we are not suggesting the w.a. set up anything, we are only suggesting that member nations treat all their citizens and their cultures equally that is all.
We were extremely interested by your points and have shown how things you have suggested might be included in the resolution.

Is it possible you were looking for some kind of "General" style debate on this issue? We are very concerned not to have to be didactic or combative with anyone in the formation of this statute.

yours with the greatest of regard,

The government of the emperor of Urgench feels that like the citizens of our own great nation all nomads may be encouraged to become successfull and productive members of society if they are offered the same rights and services as settled persons. At the very least one's lifestyle should not disbar one from basic civil and personal rights, nomads are people too after all.

yours sincerely,

There is something very wrong with this statement. I'd like to ask what rights the government of Urgench denies their nomadic peoples that they offer to settled persons?

The fact that you are suggesting nomadic peoples are not currently "productive members of society" is rather prejudiced. Many nomadic or pastoralist peoples provide needed services and support for the rest of society- either as itinerant herders, foragers, or farmers.

They also have rich traditions of art, storytelling, and literature. In Snefaldia, our nomadic peoples are considered full citizens with the same rights as everyone else, and we don't view our education systems as superior to their traditional method.

There is no difference between a family of four living in the highrises of Sargedain and a family of pastoralist herders on the plains of Dayan. We see no need to force them to settle.

If anything, this resolution should be framed as a larger-view equal rights bill requiring the extensions of the aforementioned services to all citizens and naturalized residents of a country- focusing on nomads is short-sighted and unfair; especially when their way of life is suggested as being "flawed"

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

As a nation with a longstanding nomadic history and tradition (and active practice in at least one of our regions), we agree that nomadic peoples are worthy of protection. However, we agree with our Snefaldian colleagues that it might be better to focus on legislation that would protect the rights you mention for everyone, perhaps with a clause specifically including nomadic populations, but not focusing only on them. Such an effort, we think, would have more chance of success.

As a side thought, if legislation is to be drafted focusing only on nomadic populations, we'd like to see stronger language that makes it clear that the government must offer these rights and services to nomadic groups, but that those groups are not required, and shall not be forced, to avail themselves of those services. For example, some clans within our Argali region (especially those who travel in the area around urban centers) do avail themselves of government services. Other clans, however, particularly in the Drenel, Akan and Khazaran territories, not only do not want those services, but have made it very clear (sometimes at gunpoint) that they want as little interaction with our government as possible.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

There is something very wrong with this statement. I'd like to ask what rights the government of Urgench denies their nomadic peoples that they offer to settled persons?

The fact that you are suggesting nomadic peoples are not currently "productive members of society" is rather prejudiced. Many nomadic or pastoralist peoples provide needed services and support for the rest of society- either as itinerant herders, foragers, or farmers.

They also have rich traditions of art, storytelling, and literature. In Snefaldia, our nomadic peoples are considered full citizens with the same rights as everyone else, and we don't view our education systems as superior to their traditional method.

There is no difference between a family of four living in the highrises of Sargedain and a family of pastoralist herders on the plains of Dayan. We see no need to force them to settle.

If anything, this resolution should be framed as a larger-view equal rights bill requiring the extensions of the aforementioned services to all citizens and naturalized residents of a country- focusing on nomads is short-sighted and unfair; especially when their way of life is suggested as being "flawed"

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens


The government of the emperor of Urgench is anxious to point out that we are doing exactly what the respected ambassador for Snefaldia is suggesting, our resolution expressly requires that governments do not force nomadic populations to settle or adopt settled norms or ways of life, our resolution expressly requires that governments do celebrate and protect nomadfic ways of life and cultures as equal to settled lifestyles our resolution expressly requires that governments do extend all services available to settled communities to their nomad communities, we can only presume that the respected ambassador read comments made at the begginig of this thread and did not read on to our actual resolution.

The comments you were offended by were made in response to another nation's contention that their own nomad populations were somehow inferior and that they were un-heplable. We were pointing out that any citizen be they nomad or settled can be helped by their governments to live as they please and be successfull members of society. we are only trying to help our nomadic brothers and sisters in other nations who do not enjoy the same rights as in your and our nations.

We are extremely sorry that the draft of our resolution was not at the very top of this thread and you read things therefore out of context we will seek to rectify that situation so that we do not cause any other nations to be similarly misled.

Our nation is 96.4 % nomadic in ethnicity around two thirds of that number continue to live either a semi or fully nomadic lifestyle, we are proud beyond words of our nomadic culture and none of our nomadic peoples are denied access to any government services or civil rights had we not made the mistake of not putting the draft at the top of this thread we are sure the respected ambassador would have seen this, we can only apologise abjectly for any confusion we have caused.

The draft has now been moved to the top of the thread, we are sorry for any confusion we may have caused by not having had this be the case from the start of this debate.


yours in embarrassment ,

As a nation with a longstanding nomadic history and tradition (and active practice in at least one of our regions), we agree that nomadic peoples are worthy of protection. However, we agree with our Snefaldian colleagues that it might be better to focus on legislation that would protect the rights you mention for everyone, perhaps with a clause specifically including nomadic populations, but not focusing only on them. Such an effort, we think, would have more chance of success.

As a side thought, if legislation is to be drafted focusing only on nomadic populations, we'd like to see stronger language that makes it clear that the government must offer these rights and services to nomadic groups, but that those groups are not required, and shall not be forced, to avail themselves of those services. For example, some clans within our Argali region (especially those who travel in the area around urban centers) do avail themselves of government services. Other clans, however, particularly in the Drenel, Akan and Khazaran territories, not only do not want those services, but have made it very clear (sometimes at gunpoint) that they want as little interaction with our government as possible.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the respected ambasador for the Altan Steppes for their advice, we will include a clause which will allow nomadic persons the right to refuse services , but we are concerned that in some countries the level of mistrust between nomads and settled people is so great that it may lead to the nomad communities denying there children education out of fear that they may be indoctrinated into a settled way of life. However we will try to make absolutely sure that the resolution will have governments properly tailor these services to the needs and traditions of nomads with their cooperation and consent and involvement at the highest levels of decision making. We are also thinking of expounding the provision on the government-nomad liaison in order to help nations unfamiliar with their own nomadic peoples traditions and to help dispel mutualy held myths and misunderstandings

In the case of nomadic peoples who do not wish to have anything to do with the their governments well that is a thornier question, we have clans like this too who abhor the other clans who have changed some aspects of their lifestyles or who have not changed their lifestyles at all but who do choose to have some contact with their government . But we are not going to have this rsolution ask anyone to change their lifestyles as we do not in our own nation, all it should or could ask is that if nomadic communities do not want contact with their governments that in return for complete respect for this position they respect certain very basic conditions on trans-national migration for instance, does that seem fair?

As to your question about a wider statute on rights, were you suggesting a sort of W.A. bill of rights? or an equal rights statute covering evrything from sexuality and religion to equal rights in employment for men and women? ( oh that's just made us think of a particular provision we should add to our bill about nomadic rights in the work place) unfortunately such a statute, of either kind would be quite beyond our competence and we would rather focus on the rights of Nomadism to try and be sure that we can make as good a job possible of of it by keeping it focused.

again we thank our friend the ambassador for the Altan steppes and hope they will further advise us should they wish to do so,

yours e.t.c. ,

The representative from GreatTree would like to bring attention to several issues within the proposal.

First of all, I would ask for clarification regarding the level of equality being sought. In my country, most goods and services are provided via the free market, and things such as health care and "social welfare" are not a service the government performs. Being that this is the case, does this proposal suggest that the governments of WA member states must force private companies to cater their policies to the nomadic people? For example, should a private company require a consumer to have a place of residence, would my government require that company to adjust the requirement?

Secondly, provision eight is very troubling. While it is a positive thing to encourage people to treat different cultures with respect, this is not a job for government. For the government of GreatTree, racial, cultural, and religious tolerance is something learned from the family and community, not forced upon them by government organizations. Being frank, it would be unjust of a government to take the tax money of individuals and put it towards the advancement of a particular sect. Unless this provision is removed, I do not see GreatTree supporting this resolution.


The representative from GreatTree thanks the government of Urgench for the proposal, and looks forward to a response to our concerns.

The representative from GreatTree would like to bring attention to several issues within the proposal.

First of all, I would ask for clarification regarding the level of equality being sought. In my country, most goods and services are provided via the free market, and things such as health care and "social welfare" are not a service the government performs. Being that this is the case, does this proposal suggest that the governments of WA member states must force private companies to cater their policies to the nomadic people? For example, should a private company require a consumer to have a place of residence, would my government require that company to adjust the requirement?

Secondly, provision eight is very troubling. While it is a positive thing to encourage people to treat different cultures with respect, this is not a job for government. For the government of GreatTree, racial, cultural, and religious tolerance is something learned from the family and community, not forced upon them by government organizations. Being frank, it would be unjust of a government to take the tax money of individuals and put it towards the advancement of a particular sect. Unless this provision is removed, I do not see GreatTree supporting this resolution.


The representative from GreatTree thanks the government of Urgench for the proposal, and looks forward to a response to our concerns.


The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the honoured ambassador for GreatTree for their input. We are glad to be able to discuss the issues you have raised. As to the first issue, so far we have not included a clause specifying that governments make laws to prevent discrimination by private enterprise in goods and services against nomadic people, so strictly speaking if your nation's health provision is provided in this manner then this resolution currently does not apply to it. However if this private health care exists in any nation on a statutory basis, where governments have legislated for such provision they would have to do so with regard to not discriminating against nomads. We may however include a clause which will require businesses not to discriminate on the basis of a person's nomadism.

As to your final point, we feel that in many nations mutual mistrust and often hatred and bigotry have led nomads to be extremely marginalised and even persecuted, so much so that the creation of institutions for their material protection is vital and the creation of systems that will prevent their way of life from being treated as backward and second class is highly necessary, in these situation governments need to take the leed to signal to their peoples how this situation should not continue. We are not suggesting to nations who's system implies very light government in general that these projects should necessarily continue beyond the point where such issues may have been resolved, so if these governments do implement these policies and have success with them they will be able to scale back commitment in the future in accordance with their overall government commitment in general.

Sometimes a nation's government must do what society will not or what private enterprise has not, especially when their is a pressing moral need for such action, infact one may describe government as being that which fills the gap between society and business.

We hope we have answered your questions, please let us know if you need further ilucidation of any point.

yours e.t.c. ,

Would governments still be allowed to make the provision of the same public services to nomads as to settled folk dependant on those nomads paying taxes comparable to those paid by the settled folk?

Would governments still be allowed to make the provision of the same public services to nomads as to settled folk dependant on those nomads paying taxes comparable to those paid by the settled folk?

the government of the emperor of Urgench is delighted to address this question. Absolutely yes nomads should pay taxes at the same rates as their settled neighbours ( that is if they do not already ) we are in favour of proper equality in this regard, we hope that this answers your question esteemed ambassador for Bears Armed?

yours e.t.c.

The government of the emperor of Urgench is Particularly interesred any advice members may have on how to promote better relations and understanding between settled and nomadic communities.

yours e.t.c.,

further to the request of the honoured delegate for Charlotte Ryberg here is a first draft, we will include revisions and additions in italics;

A Resolution On The Rights Of Nomads,

category- Human Rights

strength- as yet undecided, we would like advice on what this might be

This resolution recognises that nations have Nomadic populations who's lifestyle may cause them to be deprived of their basic rights. It also recognises that aspects of a nomadic lifestyle may cause offence or controversy among settled societies. This resolution will seek to restore basic rights and access to public services to nomadic communities who have been deprived of them, in doing so it will seek to encourage better communication between settled and nomadic communities with the object of creating greater social cohesion and general harmonies within nations with nomadic communities.

For the purposes of this resolution Nomadism will be defined as, any lifestyle or way of living which in an organised and/or traditional manner is not settled in one place either part of the time or all of the time.

This resolution will require that w.a. states ;

1. Not discriminate against persons on the basis of their following a nomadic lifestyle or against those who identify themselves as ethnically nomadic

2. Not institute policies of forced settlement on groups or communities who live a nomadic lifestyle, though it allows nations to institute programmes of voluntary settlement of nomads where no level of coercion is brought to bare in the communities in object.

3. Provide access to healthcare at levels already available to settled persons within member nations.

4. Provide access to education at levels already available to settled persons within member nations.

5. Provide access to social welfare provision at levels available to settled persons within member nations.

6. Provide access to all other government services and programmes as above.

7. Create systems of liaison between settled and nomadic communities which will make clear both parties needs and concerns, with the object of fairly and transparently resolving issues or conflicts which may exist between these parties ( this provision we would really appreciate some help with )

8. Shall treat with dignity and respect persons and communities who live a nomadic lifestyle, and at all times treat them and their needs and desires as equal with those of settled persons and communities.

9. Create institutions that will deal with the interaction of nomads with their governments. Governments should at all points during the creation of these institutions be especially carefull to include nomads and their representatives in the decision making processes involved, and be carefull to make all of these institutions sensitive to the cultural and social specifications of the nomads they are meant to serve, this principal should be observed with regard to the services outlined in all clauses of this resolution

10. Create organisations which will promote inter-communal understanding and that will record and celebrate the history and culture of nomadic persons.

11. Should allow freedom of movement to nomads on mutually agreed terms between nomads, settled communities and their governments, where such freedom does not constitute a material breach of national laws concerning trespass, vandalism or destruction of natural habitat, where these laws are not in material breach of clause 1. of this resolution

12. Should introduce legislation to prohibit any discrimination against nomadic persons in the provision of goods and services by businesses, similar legislation should prohibit such discrimination in the work place and in hiring practices.

The coda is as yet unfinished and we suspect that this resolution will under go very great revision and reformation based on the advice and input we receive from other nations. Please let us know what we might include, exclude or change,

yours e.t.c ,

I think that all people should have these basic right. Don't forget the most basic one of all - the right to live on the land. The biggest problem that nomads face is that people want to own land. All it seems to take is a gun, some fencing and a scrap of official-looking paper. Perhaps land can be legislated on so that people don't own it forever. They pay a third of there income to live on land - and that could include nomadictravel on some time-share basis.
Also, we need to have a phrase like "rights and respnsibilities" rather than just rights or some people might get the wrong idea and it would be all "Take! Take! Take!"
Regards,
Collectivity

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the highly esteemed ambassador for Collectivity for their highly constructive contribution. We absolutely agree that these rights and others do apply to everyone, unfortunately the other rights we refer to are so numerous and so complex as to be currently quite beyond our competence, we would however gladly lend our assistance to any nation which would like to undertake the effort of producing an actual universal personal rights statute.

As for your other point about land ownership, well that really is a vipers nest of competing agendas and political view points, we hoped that clauses 7. 9. and 11. might go some way toward solving some of these problems, we will see if we can come up with a stiffening of such communal land ownership and/or use rights but we have to steer away from the fine line that devides such rights from a more idealogical conception of collectivisation as proposed by communism. If you could suggest any wording that might avoid too much controversy we would be very gratefull.

Your last point is extremely prescient we will think about a change to the name of the statute to avoid any misconceptions that may arise.

Once again our thanks, yours e.t.c. ,

I like the draft that has been presented, and, as a country with a nomadic population, I completely agree with it. However, I should bring to the Representative of Connectivity's attention that not all countries have a split population. Some, as has been stated earlier in the thread, have completely settled populations, while others (such as Damanucus) have a completely nomadic population. This resolution only brings into consideration countries which have a split population, and granting them equal rights. If this can be rewritten to allow for fully nomadic populations, then I'll give my vote for it.

Horgen Dush
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Regional Representative, The Galapagos Islands

I like the draft that has been presented, and, as a country with a nomadic population, I completely agree with it. However, I should bring to the Representative of Connectivity's attention that not all countries have a split population. Some, as has been stated earlier in the thread, have completely settled populations, while others (such as Damanucus) have a completely nomadic population. This resolution only brings into consideration countries which have a split population, and granting them equal rights. If this can be rewritten to allow for fully nomadic populations, then I'll give my vote for it.

Horgen Dush
Representative, Nomadic Peoples of Damanucus
Regional Representative, The Galapagos Islands

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the ambassador for the nomadic peoples of Damanucus for their contribution, and would like to point out that the respected ambassador for Connectivity cannot rewrite this resolution but that we can since it is proposed by us, we would like to know what you would like us to change in order to make it compatible with completely nomadic nations? surely these sorts of issues of inequality or discrimination would not exist in such nations and these rights would already be respected would they not? Are you perhaps refering to international issues effecting such nations and their neighbours?

yours e.t.c. ,

I thank the the government of the emperor of Urgench for going on with proposals to make a better society. Our support will be given to this excellent proposal. Hopefully it will get enough support and it will be a approved WA resolution soon.

Maybe there can be one addition. I would like to see that neighbouring nations work together to soften the border for nomadic people.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands

I thank the the government of the emperor of Urgench for going on with proposals to make a better society. Our support will be given to this excellent proposal. Hopefully it will get enough support and it will be a approved WA resolution soon.

Maybe there can be one addition. I would like to see that neighbouring nations work together to soften the border for nomadic people.

Greetings,
Cocoamok
WA delegate for Intelligentsia Islands


The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks our friend and colleague, the respected delegate for the Intelligentsia Islands for their support and their wise council, we will attempt to formulate a clause which will try to balance freedom of movement for nomads and the border security of nations, if you could think of a possible wording we would apreciate reading it.

it could read; " ( Requires that ) Nations, not currently at war with each other or in a state of otherwise hightened antagonism with each other, cooperate with each other to allow Nomads properly regularised but easily facilitated and simplified access across international borders, to allow greater freedom of movement for Nomads and to maintain national border integrity. "

Would this do?

yours sincerely,

The government of the emperor of Urgench has changed the name of this thread because we feel we have probably consulted enough on this resolution. The draft is now presented to the w.a. for a pre-submittance debate in which we would greatly apreciate that any nation who might wish to assist us in getting delegate approvals might let us know, regular debate and advice will of course be welcome also.

yours e.t.c.,

This resolution recognises that nations have Nomadic populations who's lifestyle may cause them to be deprived of their basic rights. It also recognises that aspects of a nomadic lifestyle may cause offence or controversy among settled societies. This resolution will seek to restore basic rights and access to public services to nomadic communities who have been deprived of them, in doing so it will seek to encourage better communication between settled and nomadic communities with the object of creating greater social cohesion and general harmonies within nations with nomadic communities.

Okay, first off I see the wording as being a problem- I don't want to hear about what the resolution will do, I want to know what it does. These sentiments, while rather nice for a preamble, would be much better when boiled down and inserted as points in the active text itself.

For the purposes of this resolution Nomadism will be defined as, any lifestyle or way of living which in an organised and/or traditional manner is not settled in one place either part of the time or all of the time.

First off, this definition is confusing. It doesn't distinguish between pastoral, perpatetic, and hunter-gatherer nomads, and is rather simplistic. There are many divisions within nomadism, and the practice of transhumance is very similar to nomadic behavior.
This resolution will require that w.a. states ;

1. Not discriminate against persons on the basis of their following a nomadic lifestyle or against those who identify themselves as ethnically nomadic

2. Not institute policies of forced settlement on groups or communities who live a nomadic lifestyle, though it allows nations to institute programmes of voluntary settlement of nomads where no level of coercion is brought to bare in the communities in object.

Reword this to a different voice. It helps when you say things like "PROHIBITING discrimination on the basis of nomadic lifestyle..." etc. Cut some words and make it more readable.

3. Provide access to healthcare at levels already available to settled persons within member nations.

4. Provide access to education at levels already available to settled persons within member nations.

5. Provide access to social welfare provision at levels available to settled persons within member nations.

6. Provide access to all other government services and programmes as above.

Sections 3 through 5 could simply be written as "REQUIRING equal access to government and community services available to settled persons be given to nomadic peoples.

7. Create systems of liaison between settled and nomadic communities which will make clear both parties needs and concerns, with the object of fairly and transparently resolving issues or conflicts which may exist between these parties.

The words "Bureau of Indian Affairs" keep running through my head and I can't figure out why.

8. Shall treat with dignity and respect persons and communities who live a nomadic lifestyle, and at all times treat them and their needs and desires as equal with those of settled persons and communities.

9. Create institutions that will deal with the interaction of nomads with their governments. Governments should at all points during the creation of these institutions be especially carefull to include nomads and their representatives in the decision making processes involved, and be carefull to make all of these institutions sensitive to the cultural and social specifications of the nomads they are meant to serve, this principal should be observed with regard to the services outlined in all clauses of this resolution

10. Create organisations which will promote inter-communal understanding and that will record and celebrate the history and culture of nomadic persons.

Again, these points could simply be written in a single sentence.

11. Should allow freedom of movement to nomads on mutually agreed terms between nomads, settled communities and their governments, where such freedom does not constitute a material breach of national laws concerning trespass, vandalism or destruction of natural habitat, where these laws are not in material breach of clause 1. of this resolution.

12. Should introduce legislation to prohibit any discrimination against nomadic persons in the provision of goods and services by businesses, similar legislation should prohibit such discrimination in the work place and in hiring practices.The coda is as yet unfinished and we suspect that this resolution will under go very great revision and reformation based on the advice and input we receive from other nations. Please let us know what we might include, exclude or change.

13. Not currently at war with each other or in a state of otherwise hightened antagonism with each other, should cooperate with each other to allow Nomads properly regularised but easily facilitated and simplified access across international borders, to allow greater freedom of movement for Nomads and to maintain national border integrity.

All clauses of this resolution are to be implemented immediately where it's implementation does not constitute a material breach of it's own statutory obligations.


Summary:

I didn't understand half of the clauses because they were so wordy I fell asleep halfway through reading them, bonked my head on my desk and now have a purplish bump in the middle of my forehead. Whoever came up with the phrase "Keep it simple, stupid" should be given a medal.

I strongly suggest going through this and reducing the wordcount by a gigantic amount. You state things several different ways, in several different clauses, where a single compound sentence would add greatly to readability and bring you further away from the dreaded character limit.

I suggest taking a look at the most recent resolutions, and the more recent UN legislation, to get a better idea for proper form and ease of comprehension.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks our friend and colleague, the respected delegate for the Intelligentsia Islands for their support and their wise council, we will attempt to formulate a clause which will try to balance freedom of movement for nomads and the border security of nations, if you could think of a possible wording we would apreciate reading it.

it could read; " ( Requires that ) Nations, not currently at war with each other or in a state of otherwise hightened antagonism with each other, cooperate with each other to allow Nomads properly regularised but easily facilitated and simplified access across international borders, to allow greater freedom of movement for Nomads and to maintain national border integrity. "

Would this do?

yours sincerely,

Certainly this will do! We thank the government of the emperor of Urgench for their warm words. If all governments would speak so well and were so active in achieving a better society, our society would be much better for all the citizens. We have no better wording for it.
Although during debates in our co-ordination group a new idea flashed our minds: If the government of nations engaged in war between each other, worried of the nomads would stop their war, it would be great for all citizens in these nations.
But we thought this would be considered to be too much utopian.

We hope soon this proposal will be in its final phase and will approved by lots of WA delegates. And than, after much debate, hopefully the WA will get an new resolution which will improve the future of all WA nations and will inspire more nations to become partners.

Yours in friendship,
Cocoamok
for Intelligentsia Islands

On Behalf of the King of the Benovelent Kingdom of Pasier Rise,
Lord Aslan, King of Pasier Rise.
To the honorable delegates of the Empire of Urgench,

This resolution needs a lot more tweaking. One thing that needs to be covered is immigration laws. Nomads do not exactly recognise borders, only the grazing grounds. This will actually be more of a problem, as the rights given to each citizen is different in each country. Imagine the mass exodus of roaming nomads to a country who provided better rights to its citizen. This countries will then actually have to increase spending in order to support this influx in citizen. We need to see every important question regarding this resolution covered before we provide our support. As of now, Pasier Rise will not express support or opposition to this resolution until much of its issue has been covered.

Yours Truly
Ahmad Firdaus
Prime Minister
The Benovelent Kingdom of Pasier Rise

Okay, first off I see the wording as being a problem- I don't want to hear about what the resolution will do, I want to know what it does. These sentiments, while rather nice for a preamble, would be much better when boiled down and inserted as points in the active text itself.



First off, this definition is confusing. It doesn't distinguish between pastoral, perpatetic, and hunter-gatherer nomads, and is rather simplistic. There are many divisions within nomadism, and the practice of transhumance is very similar to nomadic behavior.


Reword this to a different voice. It helps when you say things like "PROHIBITING discrimination on the basis of nomadic lifestyle..." etc. Cut some words and make it more readable.



Sections 3 through 5 could simply be written as "REQUIRING equal access to government and community services available to settled persons be given to nomadic peoples.



The words "Bureau of Indian Affairs" keep running through my head and I can't figure out why.



Again, these points could simply be written in a single sentence.




Summary:

I didn't understand half of the clauses because they were so wordy I fell asleep halfway through reading them, bonked my head on my desk and now have a purplish bump in the middle of my forehead. Whoever came up with the phrase "Keep it simple, stupid" should be given a medal.

I strongly suggest going through this and reducing the wordcount by a gigantic amount. You state things several different ways, in several different clauses, where a single compound sentence would add greatly to readability and bring you further away from the dreaded character limit.

I suggest taking a look at the most recent resolutions, and the more recent UN legislation, to get a better idea for proper form and ease of comprehension.

Nemo Taranton
Ambassador Plenipotens

Firstly the government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the respected ambassador for their input, however we will have to point out that most of it is sarcasm and infantile point scoring and treat it accordingly . Very rarely is our nation truelly emotionally discomforted by another ambassador's words, but we find ourselves at a loss as to where to even begin to express how intellectually lacking the arguments of the respected ambassador for Snefaldia are and can only presume that they are being deliberatetly obtuse in order to further some undisclosed agenda . We are so dismayed at the respected ambassador's lack of insight and basic literary abilities that it is hard to know where to even begin to refute their baseless and foolish critique of our work, we suggest that they read a few more books and then write another critique. Resolutions in our opinions should not be written with some lowest common denominator in mind nor should the poor practices of other nation's in their drafting of resolution's be copied endlessly to satisfy some kind of moribund tradition in praxis. They should be written to be exact and legal in all respects.

Some of your points should be addressed to avoid future confusion,

The introductory passages are necessary to explain the purpose of the resolution it is short and does exactly what the respected ambassador suggests, whether they understand this or not.

This resolution is supposed to cover all forms of nomadism that is why the definition is so broad (transhumance is a form of nomadism), your logic of ever narrowing of the definition of nomadism would have meant that this resolution would have ended up naming every person it is meant to help by name! this is idiocy.

All of the other clauses specifically deal with a particular and discreet issue in as much detail as possible in order that these requirements will not be circumvented. They employ proper english to properly and exactly achieve this. Perhaps the respected ambassador should invest in a dictionary or go and take a refresher course in basic composition and then complain of our usage.

All the clauses of this resolution are required by the sentence which precedes them which says "this resolution requires that W.A nations;" it would be utterly inane to repeat this in bold type over and over in each single clause, thereby insulting the intelligence of the reader and treating them as though they were a child.

Your comments about a " bureau of indian affairs " is, we presume, a real world reference, one which would imply a complete and totall failure to have read any of this resolution at all. We specifically enjoined nations to fully include nomads in all decision making processes at all levels and to respect their life ways and to make certain that they are not marginalised in any way.

Considering your first contribution to this debate implied that you hadn't even seen the resolution and had formed an opinion about it on the basis of comments made in response to another ambassador, comments you failed to comprehend in any case, it's seems fair to say that your contribution here is as fatuous and lacking in perception. Please do not patronise us with recommendations to read a codex we already seem to have a better comprehension of than yourself and do not ask us to copy the worst of it's mistakes and bad habits.

yours in frustration with ignorance,

Certainly this will do! We thank the government of the emperor of Urgench for their warm words. If all governments would speak so well and were so active in achieving a better society, our society would be much better for all the citizens. We have no better wording for it.
Although during debates in our co-ordination group a new idea flashed our minds: If the government of nations engaged in war between each other, worried of the nomads would stop their war, it would be great for all citizens in these nations.
But we thought this would be considered to be too much utopian.

We hope soon this proposal will be in its final phase and will approved by lots of WA delegates. And than, after much debate, hopefully the WA will get an new resolution which will improve the future of all WA nations and will inspire more nations to become partners.



Yours in friendship,
Cocoamok
for Intelligentsia Islands


The government of the emperor of Urgench cannot thank the wise and esteemed ambassador for Weird Anarchists for their constructive and helpfull contribution to this debate enough , we are heartened that our very humble attempts at legislation have continued to garner your support. Were there more nations like yours in this organisation it might succeed in really bringing peace and prosperity to all it's nation's citizens.
We admit to not really being able to write a clause which might further your hope that nomads might be the agents of peace between waring nations, but we greatly admire the sentiment behind such a suggestion.

yours in friendship,

Firstly the government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the respected ambassador for their input, however we will have to point out that most of it is sarcasm and infantile point scoring and treat it accordingly . Very rarely is our nation truelly emotionally discomforted by another ambassador's words, but we find ourselves at a loss as to where to even begin to express how intellectually lacking the arguments of the respected ambassador for Snefaldia are and can only presume that they are being deliberatetly obtuse in order to further some undisclosed agenda . We are so dismayed at the respected ambassador's lack of insight and basic literary abilities that it is hard to know where to even begin to refute their baseless and foolish critique of our work, we suggest that they read a few more books and then write another critique. Resolutions in our opinions should not be written with some lowest common denominator in mind nor should the poor practices of other nation's in their drafting of resolution's be copied endlessly to satisfy some kind of moribund tradition in praxis. They should be written to be exact and legal in all respects.

Resolutions should not be written by whatever standards exist in "your mind," they should be written in a form that mirrors the accepted style of all other legislation passed by the World Assembly and previous United Nations. It is ridiculous to simply dismiss my critiques as illogical, when you yourself have no experience with the debates on readability or style that characterized much of the old General Assembly.


Some of your points should be addressed to avoid future confusion,

The introductory passages are necessary to explain the purpose of the resolution it is short and does exactly what the respected ambassador suggests, whether they understand this or not.

This resolution is supposed to cover all forms of nomadism that is why the definition is so broad (transhumance is a form of nomadism), your logic of ever narrowing of the definition of nomadism would have meant that this resolution would have ended up naming every person it is meant to help by name! this is idiocy.

The definition should then at least define the varied subtypes of nomadism and thus be a complete and true omnibus resolution. To do otherwise would invite unscrupulous nations to label groups practicing transhumance as not truly nomadic, and thus exempt them from the protections suggested in this bill.

This is not idiocy, this is advice given from common sense experience with many of the insane governments that have graced this Assembly with their presence.

All of the other clauses specifically deal with a particular and discreet issue in as much detail as possible in order that these requirements will not be circumvented. They employ proper english to properly and exactly achieve this. Perhaps the respected ambassador should invest in a dictionary or go and take a refresher course in basic composition and then complain of our usage.

Perhaps the ambassador should remove the stick from his ass and remember that the collective IQ of the World Assembly is many points below both mine and his own, and if they can barely be expected to finish reading the Nuclear Arms Possession Act without misconstruing it's intent subjecting them to overly verbose passages is simply asking for trouble.

It is perfectly and completely within the rights of the member states to critique the application of language in a resolution, especially when the language employed makes it harder to read and is a departure from the accepted style of legislation.

All the clauses of this resolution are required by the sentence which precedes them which says "this resolution requires that W.A nations;" it would be utterly inane to repeat this in bold type over and over in each single clause, thereby insulting the intelligence of the reader and treating them as though they were a child.

And again, I say that this can entirely be avoided by creating a simple, bulleted list or by reducing the number of clauses by half, or even two-thirds; and again I say that you completely overestimate the intelligence of the average member-government.

Your comments about a " bureau of indian affairs " is, we presume, a real world reference, one which would imply a complete and totall failure to have read any of this resolution at all. We specifically enjoined nations to fully include nomads in all decision making processes at all levels and to respect their life ways and to make certain that they are not marginalised in any way.

Again, I have no idea why those words popped into my head. They must mean something, though, or else I wouldn't have thought of them.

OOC: hint, hint.

Considering your first contribution to this debate implied that you hadn't even seen the resolution and had formed an opinion about it on the basis of comments made in response to another ambassador, comments you failed to comprehend in any case, it's seems fair to say that your contribution here is as fatuous and lacking in perception. Please do not patronise us with recommendations to read a codex we already seem to have a better comprehension of than yourself and do not ask us to copy the worst of it's mistakes and bad habits.

And considering that I have now taken the time and effort to try and critique your current draft with and eye toward improvement, it's abundantly clear that you have absolutely no interest in the opinions of other, long-standing members of this Assembly; preferring to jump to conclusions, ignore advice, and continue plodding along ignoring the advice given to you, advice that will be supported by other long-standing members.

You are certainly entitled to crusade for your view of how resolutions should be written, but you are proceeding headlong into a very large and very painful hornets nest that I don't think will leave you feeling fresh and rosy.

yours in frustration with ignorance,

Cute, and entirely unnecessary. If you think you'll be recieving anymore constructive criticism, you're sorely mistaken.

N.T.
etc.

The government of the emperor of Urgench imagines that the respected ambassador wishes us to be cowed by references to past and passed resolutions, and the advice of long standing members , as they put it, in to agreeing to their every quibble. Charming though such a notion may be to the respected ambassador such a propect fills us with dread, it reeks of an old boy's club mentality which will suffocate improvement and innovation in the formulation of good statutes within this organisation.
The respected ambassador need only look through the large number of appalling proposed resolutions in this forum, all of which mindlessly ape the errors and pointless traditions of previous resolutions to see the effect of his logic.
Is it more important for resolutions to follow form than to be legally binding and internally consistant in their reasoning and to be comprehensive in their scope?

We have been open to advice at all points in this process and we should point out that we nver questioned your "right" to critique our resolution only your skill in doing so ,but we apologise sincerely if our ardor for this cause has made us impatient with those who's contribution seems to constitute an attack on our entire endeavour. We do not have the assistance of a large and well organised region or powerfull and experienced allies in our work and we find our resources very stretched by what we see as a morally imperative task. You can understand our predicament we are sure?

If it suits your concept of a "correctly" written resolution we will change the structure of ours after the ugly and un-legal fashion you are so enamoured of.
We will also expound the definition to completely irradicate your fears of contravention.

However we do not feel that it is verbose and will not be removing what are all very important clauses with seperate and important purposes, unless and untill accurate and legally binding alternatives can be suggested.

It may be conventional to the respected ambassador for Snefaldia to attack the work of others and to denigrate it without suggesting actual improvements, it may also be habitual for them to instill respect through intimidation and throwing their weight around, but as with the anachronistic conventions they cling to in drafting practice it may not be either right or productive.

To coin a phrase, the person who said " you get more with sugar than with blows" should be awarded a medal.

yours e.t.c.

The government of the emperor of Urgench imagines that the respected ambassador wishes us to be cowed by references to past and passed resolutions, and the advice of long standing members , as they put it, in to agreeing to their every quibble. Charming though such a notion may be to the respected ambassador such a propect fills us with dread, it reeks of an old boy's club mentality which will suffocate improvement and innovation in the formulation of good statutes within this organisation.

This is absolutely not my intent and most should be able to see that. I have not been overly critical or unfair, and I don't think it's unreasonable to request that you follow the accepted standards of the World Assembly in your formatting and construction of resolutions! Certainly, if you were to read the records of the many repeal debates you would find copious calls for clear and simple language!

Your allegations of an "Old Boy's Club" are not new, relevant, or in the least bit correct. I don't have enough fingers to count the numerous "accusations" of this kind. Every one of them is unfounded, and most are levelled at the most prolific legislators and debaters in this Assembly.

The respected ambassador need only look through the large number of appalling proposed resolutions in this forum, all of which mindlessly ape the errors and pointless traditions of previous resolutions to see the effect of his logic.

I challenge you to name these resolutions, and if you do I will provide you with records of repeal attempts succesful and unsuccessful, as well as debates calling for greater consistency in grammar, structure, and readability. It's not mindless aping, it's called "being consistent."

Is it more important for resolutions to follow form than to be legally binding and internally consistant in their reasoning and to be comprehensive in their scope?

This is a very big strawman. Changing the voice and sentence structure of your resolution has no bearing on it's legality. I have not argued otherwise.

We have been open to advice at all points in this process and we should point out that we nver questioned your "right" to critique our resolution only your skill in doing so ,but we apologise sincerely if our ardor for this cause has made us impatient with those who's contribution seems to constitute an attack on our entire endeavour. We do not have the assistance of a large and well organised region or powerfull and experienced allies in our work and we find our resources very stretched by what we see as a morally imperative task. You can understand our predicament we are sure?

If you cared enough to read my criticisms closely, you would realize that none of them are at all critical of the substance or goal of your work. Each one, without exception, is a request to make the resolution better and thus more likely to pass by the rabble of ignorant members in this body.

If it suits your concept of a "correctly" written resolution we will change the structure of ours after the ugly and un-legal fashion you are so enamoured of.
We will also expound the definition to completely irradicate your fears of contravention.

Again, your strawman has no bearing on the discussion.

It may be conventional to the respected ambassador for Snefaldia to attack the work of others and to denigrate it without suggesting actual improvements, it may also be habitual for them to instill respect through intimidation and throwing their weight around, but as with the anachronistic conventions they cling to in drafting practice it may not be either right or productive.

To coin a phrase, the person who said " you get more with sugar than with blows" should be awarded a medal.

yours e.t.c.

Again, each suggestion I made has been aimed at increasing the readability and reducing the unnecessary verbiage in your text, which will only harm it if it ever comes to vote. Your refusal to even acknowledge that you might be in the wrong and your construction of false arguments in that capacity speaks more about you than anything else.

To quote the famed Snefaldian ambassador Taijål: "Many bison have seen the sunrise."

It loses something in the translation.

N.T.
etc.

This is absolutely not my intent and most should be able to see that. I have not been overly critical or unfair, and I don't think it's unreasonable to request that you follow the accepted standards of the World Assembly in your formatting and construction of resolutions! Certainly, if you were to read the records of the many repeal debates you would find copious calls for clear and simple language!

Your allegations of an "Old Boy's Club" are not new, relevant, or in the least bit correct. I don't have enough fingers to count the numerous "accusations" of this kind. Every one of them is unfounded, and most are levelled at the most prolific legislators and debaters in this Assembly.



I challenge you to name these resolutions, and if you do I will provide you with records of repeal attempts succesful and unsuccessful, as well as debates calling for greater consistency in grammar, structure, and readability. It's not mindless aping, it's called "being consistent."



This is a very big strawman. Changing the voice and sentence structure of your resolution has no bearing on it's legality. I have not argued otherwise.



If you cared enough to read my criticisms closely, you would realize that none of them are at all critical of the substance or goal of your work. Each one, without exception, is a request to make the resolution better and thus more likely to pass by the rabble of ignorant members in this body.



Again, your strawman has no bearing on the discussion.



Again, each suggestion I made has been aimed at increasing the readability and reducing the unnecessary verbiage in your text, which will only harm it if it ever comes to vote. Your refusal to even acknowledge that you might be in the wrong and your construction of false arguments in that capacity speaks more about you than anything else.

To quote the famed Snefaldian ambassador Taijål: "Many bison have seen the sunrise."

It loses something in the translation.

N.T.
etc.


The government of the emperor of Urgench can only accept the criticism of the respected ambassador for Snefaldia since it seems that if we dissagree we will be accused of falsifying positions we actually hold sincerely, and of not accepting "constructive" criticism when we have manifestly done so elsewhere in this thread and through out this process. We will not try to gainsay so powerfull and so established a voice, who's vested interest in the current status quo of this organisation is so great.

We accept that the esteemed ambassador is infinitely more experienced than us, we accept that they are undoubtedly right in nearly everything they say, we accept that we may have been too zealous in our own defence, we accept that our desire to write good legislation has interfered with the possibility of it's being understood by the simplest of minds. We accept that the respected ambassador's only motive was to assist us and not to enforce a mode they are comfortable with on us.

We have no desire to be right if in being so we loose the ability to actually achieve our stated aim. It is with heavy heart that we will return to redraw this resolution and write it for so low a standard of comprehesion in the name of "being consistent" with the respected ambassador's grim " accepted standards of the world assembly " , it will be a completely stultifying experience. Perhaps we will copy the style of the ban on light bulbs currently being debated or of it's intellectual twin the resolution on global education standards. Both have the merit of being consistent with the respected ambassador's much beloved standards, if not with sense, logic or sanity.

We apologise to the highly respected delegate for our foolishness, and we thank them for their sage if depressing advice, be assured we have despaired of introducing any improvement whatsoever into the process of drafting statutes completely.

Yours in dejection,

The government of Canarama will not support this resolution as it unfairly places pressure on public welfare systems funded by the tax payers of a nation. nations with better systems will natrully draw in more Nomads and this will un-undoubtedly drag down some nations who get swamped with Nomads seeking government assistance without paying into that nations tax system.

Minister of Immigration and citizenship
Nation of Canarama
Mark Hopkins

The government of Canarama will not support this resolution as it unfairly places pressure on public welfare systems funded by the tax payers of a nation. nations with better systems will natrully draw in more Nomads and this will un-undoubtedly drag down some nations who get swamped with Nomads seeking government assistance without paying into that nations tax system.

Minister of Immigration and citizenship
Nation of Canarama
Mark Hopkins

The government of the emperor of Urgench is pleased your nation has such concern for life and for equality of persons desperately in need of it. Your presumption that all Nomads are welfare spongers is offensive and illogical, most will be tax payers already, the notion of non-discrimination at the heart of this proposal will mean any nomads currently not taxed by their governments will be equally subject to taxation. Why would Nomads be more likely to seek such government assistance than settled persons? Besides this resolution will not effect how member nations treat non resident foreign nationals . Do nation's with good welfare systems have problems with being " swamped" by settled individuals? Besides the resolution provides for the proper ordering of immigration of Nomads into nations. Nations would likely be able to better control who enters their borders after the passage of this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

We have no desire to be right if in being so we loose the ability to actually achieve our stated aim. It is with heavy heart that we will return to redraw this resolution and write it for so low a standard of comprehesion in the name of "being consistent" with the respected ambassador's grim " accepted standards of the world assembly " , it will be a completely stultifying experience. Perhaps we will copy the style of the ban on light bulbs currently being debated or of it's intellectual twin the resolution on global education standards. Both have the merit of being consistent with the respected ambassador's much beloved standards, if not with sense, logic or sanity.

Yours in dejection,

I do not appreciate the prose used to write my proposal being called nonsensical, illogical, and insane. It is written in such a way that it goals and purposes are stated clearly. Nonetheless, I wish you the best of luck in drafting and passing your resolution on the rights of nomads.

Respectfully yours,
Dan Pochettes
WA Ambassador for the nation of Epigeal

I do not appreciate the prose used to write my proposal being called nonsensical, illogical, and insane. It is written in such a way that it goals and purposes are stated clearly. Nonetheless, I wish you the best of luck in drafting and passing your resolution on the rights of nomads.

Respectfully yours,
Dan Pochettes
WA Ambassador for the nation of Epigeal

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the respected ambassador for Epigeal for their wishes, of course we were not quetioning the compositional nature of your resolution which has the imprematur
of the "accepted standards of the World Assembly" to lend it credibility at least in the eyes of the respected Snefaldian embassy. Indeed it is the aim of your resolution and it's logic which we question. However it would be churlish of us to expound on this matter.

Urgench wishes you luck with your work also.

yours e.t.c.

As may now be seen the Government of the emperor of Urgench has implemented the changes to the structure of our resolution that the respected ambassador for Snefaldia so "constructively" suggested we make. We are now hopefull of it's being better understood by all.

yours e.t.c. ,

1) The "reate" in clause 7 I'm sure you meant as "create."
2) "Careful" is spelled with only one "l."
3) "It's" means "it is"; "its" is the possessive form. Use that instead.
4) "Mandates," "obliges," "obligates," "compels," "enjoins," even "forces": just some synonyms of "requires," to use at your discretion. (You may also consider saying "The World Assembly: [requires]" instead of "this resolution.")
5) We're targeting "Member Nations" here, not all Nations. It might be a good idea to specify.
6) Drop the attitude. You'll end up with a much better draft that way.

The goverment of the emperor of Urgench thanks the respected ambassador for SchutteGod for their help, it's extremely usefull to have good proof reading assistance. We will correct our spelling and grammar mistakes.
As for using all the synonyms for "requires" we feel that since they all mean the same thing but with slightly different conotations "requires" will be perfectly adequate. It is only form that demands we include the "requires" in the first place, it is an ugly "standard practice" we have been directed to include. Using such synonyms would imply that this mode is capable of a flexibility quite beyond it.
We will gladly change the "this resolution requires" and the "nations" in accordance with your advice, thank you for pointing out those mistakes.

As for our attitude, well that is a somewhat different matter, it depends on how other nations choose to behave towards us. If we have been unduly defensive of our work then we sincerely apologise.

yours e.t.c. ,

For what it's belatedly worth, I think the Snefaldian delegation was dead wrong about the format. It was perfectly clear what was going on. Then again, I'm used to reading His Nibs' proposals, and they were pretty wordy too. Frankly, if the ambassador wanted to have a go at people over proposal structure, the ones who post something that looks like the opening paragraph of an essay would be much more deserving targets.

O.O.C. I have to go away for ten days so if anyone has more advice or questions i'll get Mongkha right on them as soon as i get back, sorry if it's annoying that you might not have any responses for a while but... :$

O.O.C. I'm able to contribute and respond to what ever people have to say for the next wee while so i guess this is a bump. Please feel free to Question or advise Khan Mongkha about his government's proposal.

I will accept. Give them the rights of freeman. if it fails then it will harm everyones else.

As may be seen, the government of the emperor of Urgench has completely re-drafted our resolution. Here is a link back to the begining of this thread so those in a hurry can see the changes we have made

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560450


We have done this on the excellent advice of the highly respected ambassador for Snefaldia. We fear we may have been terribly mistaken in our interpretation of the honoured ambassadors motives for contributing to this debate. Consequently we may have very gravely insulted the wise and respected ambassador, for which they will have our complete apology. Our only defence can be that we connected the tone of the honoured ambassador's initial comments with the terse nature of their latter interventions and believed that they did not wish us to succeed in our work for reasons of their own. We accept that this was a complete misaprehension and we thank them for their extremely helpfull advice, which we have tried to implement as far as our limited abilities have allowed.

We sincerely hope that relations between Snefaldia and Urgench may be improved in future.

We would also greatly apreciate any advice any nations may have on how to improve our resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

My suggestion to make it sound better, something along the lines of:

The World Assembly,

DEFINES:
- Nomads as a person who either follows a nomadic lifestyle or identify themselves as ethnically Nomadic;
- A Nomadic Lifestyle as a way of living in which an organised and/or traditional manner is not settled in one place, either part or all of the time. Such lifestyles may include but are not limited to: seasonal migration and temporary settlement;

1. MANDATES that Member Nations must not:
a) Discriminate against anyone who either follows a nomadic lifestyle or identify themselves as ethnically Nomadic;
b) Institute policies of forced settlement against Nomadic communities.

2. MANDATES that Member Nations must:
a) Enact appropriate laws to ban discrimination against Nomads, covering factors including but not limited to: provision of goods and services, and employment;
b) Provide access for Nomads to all civic and education services that are already granted to settled persons
c) Create formal and systems of liaison/mediation between settled communities and Nomads which will clarify both parties needs and concerns, with the objective to fairly and openly resolving disputes between these parties.
d) Grant freedom of movement to Nomads on terms agreed between Nomads, settled communities and their governments, where such freedom does not constitute a material breach of national laws concerning trespass, vandalism or destruction of natural habitat, and where these laws are not in material breach of Section 1.

3. EMPHASIZES that Member Nations may:
b) Invite Nomads to voluntarily settle at a specific place whereas no level of coercion is brought to bare on these communities.

4. RECOMMENDS that Member Nations should:
- Appoint Nomads if possible with appropriate expertise within their civil services to advise government departments on how best to tailor services to the cultural and practical needs of Nomads.

5. URGES Member Nations that are either not currently at war with each other, or in a state of otherwise heightened antagonism with each other, should cooperate to allow Nomads properly regularised but easily facilitated access across international borders, fairly allowing freedom of movement whilst maintaining border integrity.

My suggestion to make it sound better, something along the lines of:
I disagree. It reads perfectly clearly as it is. Not everything has to be in the "VERBS" format, it's just a convenient way of getting people to avoid writing essays instead of resolutions.

Some minor nit-picking that doesn't materially affect the resolution:

[...]This resolution restores basic rights and access to public services to nomadic communities who have been deprived of them, it will encourage better communication between settled and nomadic communities with the object of creating greater social harmony.
The underlined "it" should really be an "and", or alternatively the comma before it should be a semicolon. Otherwise you have a run-on sentence, which I see too often in amateur fiction to want to see in resolutions!

For the purposes of this resolution Nomadism will be defined as[,] any lifestyle [...]
The bracketed comma is superfluous.

2. Requires that its Member Nations not institute policies of forced settlement on communities who live a nomadic lifestyle, though it allows nations to institute programmes of voluntary settlement of nomads where no level of coercion is brought to bare on these communities.
"Brought to bear," I think.

6. [...] Further, Member Nations which are not currently at war with each other [...]
You need the underlined comma this time, otherwise it's talking about "Member Nations beyond those already mentioned."

All clauses of this resolution are to be implemented immediately where it's implementation does not constitute a material breach of it's own statutory obligations.
I'm not a fan of this sort of clause, and this is an odd variation on the theme. WA resolutions generally are deemed to go into effect immediately except where they refer to phased introduction of something, so it isn't really necessary in my opinion.

We thank the honoured and respected delegate for the mind of Charlotte Ryberg for their advice we will consider changing certain aspects of our resolution's structure and wording in light of it.
However we do not think will we re-write the proposal along the lines of, "Mandates, Urges, Recomends," e.t.c. since these words have specific meanings which carry different conotations to "Requires" which is really all the resolution need do since it is a list of rights.
"Mandate " in particular is a word which has a range of specific legal meanings, it's liberal use as a synonym for " Requires" in many resolutions past and passed by the w.a. is extremely diluterious to the efficacy of the canon.

Once again our thanks, sincerely,

We are tremendously indebted to the emminent and esteemed representative for the Gobbannean WA mission for their excellent advice, we will implement it as soon as we can.

yours,

In reading the proposal and the author's responses so far I am concerned about the author's lack of concern for the devastating impact this would have on the economy and prosperity of nations. This seems to be written from the perspective of protecting and providing for nomads, with much less emphasis put on security, economic, and social concerns of the nations affected by the nomads. Nomads, if allowed to cross in a nation's territory, should have the same rights and privileges as any other "guest" or "visitor" that enters the nation legally, because that is what they are; not temporary or part time citizens as this proposal seeks to essentially make them. They should not have every right and privelege as citizens, because they are not citizens and do not share the same responsibilty and pride for a nation's well-being. They should not be granted any special positions in a nation's government, be given special priveleges, or have influence over the workings of a government that they do not belong to or have been elected to. Nomads can appoint representatives to serve as liasons with governments without having them be apart of the government.

A few questions:

-Who determines how long a nomad may remain in one place and still be classified as a "nomad" and not an illegal alien?

-Do a nation's custom and/or immigration laws still apply to nomads? Can a nation that has strict immigration laws or laws against allowing entry of nomads still refuse nomads if this were passed?

-Can they be refused entry either as a whole group or individuals because they are sick, diseased, or have criminal backgrounds?

-If nomads are allowed to join the a nation's work force, as this legislation proposes, then they are expected to provided all necessary forms of documentation and pay all applicable income taxes right?

-Will nomads be allowed to vote in a nation's elections?

-Will nomads be allowed to run for and hold public office?

(the previous two are both rights of citizens in many nations)

I think a more balanced emphasis on a nation's sovereignty as it relates to nomads would benefit this legislation.

The only problem with me is Tax. If they don't pay any taxes then why should they be allowed Health Care etc. which is payed for by taxpayers. If a law was passed ensuring that Nomadic Peoples would pay taxes then I'd vote for it.

In reading the proposal and the author's responses so far I am concerned about the author's lack of concern for the devastating impact this would have on the economy and prosperity of nations. This seems to be written from the perspective of protecting and providing for nomads, with much less emphasis put on security, economic, and social concerns of the nations affected by the nomads. Nomads, if allowed to cross in a nation's territory, should have the same rights and privileges as any other "guest" or "visitor" that enters the nation legally, because that is what they are; not temporary or part time citizens as this proposal seeks to essentially make them. They should not have every right and privelege as citizens, because they are not citizens and do not share the same responsibilty and pride for a nation's well-being. They should not be granted any special positions in a nation's government, be given special priveleges, or have influence over the workings of a government that they do not belong to or have been elected to. Nomads can appoint representatives to serve as liasons with governments without having them be apart of the government.

A few questions:

-Who determines how long a nomad may remain in one place and still be classified as a "nomad" and not an illegal alien?

-Do a nation's custom and/or immigration laws still apply to nomads? Can a nation that has strict immigration laws or laws against allowing entry of nomads still refuse nomads if this were passed?

-Can they be refused entry either as a whole group or individuals because they are sick, diseased, or have criminal backgrounds?

-If nomads are allowed to join the a nation's work force, as this legislation proposes, then they are expected to provided all necessary forms of documentation and pay all applicable income taxes right?

-Will nomads be allowed to vote in a nation's elections?

-Will nomads be allowed to run for and hold public office?

(the previous two are both rights of citizens in many nations)

I think a more balanced emphasis on a nation's sovereignty as it relates to nomads would benefit this legislation.


The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the respected representative for their contribution.
Firstly we should point out that this resolution will probably only have a small effect on economy at first and that in the long term the effect will be very positive indeed.
Next we should point out that absolutely no clause of this resolution gives nomads any sort of special or preferential status in citizenship. This would be entirely contrary to it's very first clause, Non-discrimination is the polar opposite of "favouritism" of the kind suggested by the honoured ambassador.
As for your assertion that Nomads are not citizens because they do not care about the nations they are from, and are not deserving of basic human rights simply because they do not live in one place all the time, well frankly we see that as bigotted and ignorant in the extreme and it rather suggests that the honoured ambassador's government has had very little, if any, actual contact with nomads and is therefore spouting what amounts to racist propaganda.

Nomads are humans/sentients, just like settled persons, something as trivial as where one lives should hardly count against a person's right to receive equal treatment by their government.

We must it seems explain to the honoured representative the difference between a civil-servant and a member of government. "Government" strictly speaking is the executive or decision making branch- ministers, prime-ministers, presidents, ruling kings, dictators e.t.c. a "civil-service" is merely the professional body of persons who carry out the orders of their government.
In our resolution we are only suggesting that properly qualified civil-servants of nomadic extraction should be placed in charge of doing their governments orders in regard to setting up ministries which will deal with nomads. This is in order that where mistrust or ill feeling exists between nomads and their governments this might be somewhat eased by knowing that someone with good knowledge of their customs is tailoring services to them in the way that services are tailored to settled persons.

We will now answer your questions-

1. Nomads should be treated exactly as settled persons are if they enter another nation, legally or illegally, that is the nature of non-discrimination intrinsic to this resolution. Properly "regularised" access of nomads to cross borders means access on the same terms as settled persons. This resolution will mean better border security for member nations.

2.the answer to this question is contained in the answer to question one.

3.The answer to this question is contained in the answer to question one

4.If it is not already the case (and it is in most others we are familiar with) that nomads are allowed to work in your nation then yes they will be if this resolution is passed. And yes under exactly the same rules as settled persons. Nomads will absolutely have to provide correct documentation to work and will of course Pay Their Taxes if they do not already do so ,should this resolution be passed. Non-discrimination is the opposite of favouritism.

5. Yes. Where this is not already the case.

6. Yes. Where this is not already the case.

This resolution does in fact take the responsibilities of nomads to the nations they are citizens of just as seriously as their rights. Even though this is still a draft and it will become even clearer in it's final form, we feel that this is already pretty clear.
We suggest that the honoured ambassador for Oxymorontopia re-read this resolution carefully and this time not interpret it with their predjudices, this will make the actual intent of the statute much more apparent.

Yours e.t.c. ,

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

We would like to pose a question to the honorable Khan Mongkha regarding this proposal. It refers in great length to affairs between "nomadic" and "settled" communities, but does not mention whether these communities are part of a single State, comprise two separate ones, or are some combination of the above. It is unclear to us whether this resolution affects internal policy or foreign relations.

We raise this question because a large portion of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii is nomadic. Many of our clans are currently living in other States but have not reached a formal agreement with those States' governments regarding what lands within those states are considered "Kawaiian". We would greatly support a resolution that would affirm our peoples' right to their Church's Law and customs even though circumstances force them to exist on other States' lands.

....Firstly we should point out that this resolution will probably only have a small effect on economy at first and that in the long term the effect will be very positive indeed.

What could you possibly be basing this assertion on!? And how could you with such certainly proclaim this to be true in all of the diverse collection of nations that make up the WA membership??

A lot of confusion about this proposal seems to come from the fact that it is not clearly discussed whether this proposal is talking about intra or international nomads. If it pertains to both then in its current form it does a poor job. Many of my issues with this proposal are because of this confusion.

Next we should point out that absolutely no clause of this resolution gives nomads any sort of special or preferential status in citizenship. This would be entirely contrary to it's very first clause, Non-discrimination is the polar opposite of "favouritism" of the kind suggested by the honoured ambassador.

Once again, this depends on whether you are referring to indigenous nomads or nomads from another country.

As for your assertion that Nomads are not citizens because they do not care about the nations they are from, and are not deserving of basic human rights simply because they do not live in one place all the time, well frankly we see that as bigotted and ignorant in the extreme and it rather suggests that the honoured ambassador's government has had very little if any actual contact with nomads and would therefore be spouting what ammounts to racist propaganda.Nomads are humans, just like settled persons, something as trivial as where one lives should hardly count against a person's right to receive equal treatment by their government.

Thanks for completely misquoting and misinterpreting what I wrote. I was referring to nomads that travel to a foreign nation not ones that are native to a nation and simply move around--yet again, needs clarification in this proposal. Not granting citizenship and all of its rights and privileges to visitors is not bigotted and ignorant as you claim, but instead practical and realistic. Why should foreign nomads be allowed to vote in nation's elections? This is just one of the rights of citizens that should not be passed to foreign visitors.

On a side note I always find it amusing when people who advocate border security and strict immigration standards are called biggots and ignorant because they care about protecting their borders and their citizens.

We must it seems explain to the honoured representative the difference between a civil-servant and a member of government. "Government" strictly speaking is the executive or decision making branch- ministers, prime-ministers, presidents, ruling kings, dictators e.t.c. a "civil-service" is merely the professional body of persons who carry out the orders of their government. In our resolution we are only suggesting that properly qualified civil-servants of nomadic extraction should be placed in charge of doing their governments orders in regard to setting up ministries which will deal with nomads. This is in order that where mistrust or ill feeling exists between nomads and their governments this might be somewhat eased by knowing that someone with good knowledge of their customs is tailoring services to them in the way that services are tailored to settled persons.

That's one definition of "government", but definitely not the only one. Sorry, but this qualifies as special privileges. In representative democracies, dictatorships, or monarchies this would actually give nomads an advantage over common citizens--special representation. If nomad equality is the goal then they should be expected to use the same forms of citizen representation as other citizens; not by having special positions in a nation's government. If a nation chooses to have a civil position to liason with nomads then that should be the choice of the nation and not a mandatory order from an international body. A special position would only seem valid if every other citizen group in a nation (minorities, elderly, parents, fireman, garbagemen, grocers, etc, etc, etc) had a special "civil" representative to properly convey their needs and concerns to the "government". Short of this nomads would be getting preferential treatment.

We suggest that the honoured ambassador for Oxymorontopia re-read this resolution carefully and this time not interpret it with their predjudices, this will make the actual intent of the statute much more apparent.

Nice...I'll not do you the same dishonor in subtley attempting to disguise my disdain in a eloquently worded piece of prose. I did read through the aforementioned "proposal" careful and was not at all impressed. It is vague, very unclear as to which parts pertain to intra or international nomadism, too biased toward nomads rights over national sovereignty/citizen rights, excessively costly to foreign nations, and frankly unnecessary.

Toodles..

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

We would like to pose a question to the honorable Khan Mongkha regarding this proposal. It refers in great length to affairs between "nomadic" and "settled" communities, but does not mention whether these communities are part of a single State, comprise two separate ones, or are some combination of the above. It is unclear to us whether this resolution affects internal policy or foreign relations.

We raise this question because a large portion of the Diaspora Church of the Eternal Kawaii is nomadic. Many of our clans are currently living in other States but have not reached a formal agreement with those States' governments regarding what lands within those states are considered "Kawaiian". We would greatly support a resolution that would affirm our peoples' right to their Church's Law and customs even though circumstances force them to exist on other States' lands.


This is an extremely interesting point and the government of the emperor of Urgench is pleased the most highly respected ambassador for Eternal Kawaii has raised it.
We will try to make it clearer in the text of the resolution that it's effect is primarily an internal social one for members. We had envisioned this resolution as having a primary effect on the relationship between member governments and their own citizens.

The effect of our resolution on the situation you discribe for us is that your nation would still be able to extend it's citizenship to whom ever wished to avail of it, be they Kawaiian or not, Nomadic or not. Perhaps the biggest change would be that no member nation could mistreat or discriminate against Kawaiian Nomads within their borders simply because they were nomadic.
The resolution would not change whether or not your citizens were mistreated or marginalised for being Kawaiian however, the protection of this resolution in the situation you describe is of your citizen's nomadism not their nationality. Nor for that matter can this resolution protect your citizens religious practice should they find themselves in a foreign nation within the w.a.

To be clear, Kawaiians in another w.a. nation are not protected, persons who are ethnically Kawaiian in the same situation are not protected , people who practice a religion which is Kawaiian in the same circumstances are not protected.
However Nomads of any nationality or specific ethnic extraction or religious practice are protected by virtue of being nomadic and in spite of other considerations.

We hope that has clarified the position, if you feel you would like to suggest a way in which the resolution could be clearer on this or could address your concerns without being bogged down in questions of nationality we would be extremely glad to consider them.

Once again we thank the highly esteemed ambassador for the Eternal Kawaii for their extremely pertinent input, we hope they will not hesitate to question or advise us further.

Yours sincerely,

What could you possibly be basing this assertion on!? And how could you with such certainly proclaim this to be true in all of the diverse collection of nations that make up the WA membership??

A lot of confusion about this proposal seems to come from the fact that it is not clearly discussed whether this proposal is talking about intra or international nomads. If it pertains to both then in its current form it does a poor job. Many of my issues with this proposal are because of this confusion.



Once again, this depends on whether you are referring to indigenous nomads or nomads from another country.



Thanks for completely misquoting and misinterpreting what I wrote. I was referring to nomads that travel to a foreign nation not ones that are native to a nation and simply move around--yet again, needs clarification in this proposal. Not granting citizenship and all of its rights and privileges to visitors is not bigotted and ignorant as you claim, but instead practical and realistic. Why should foreign nomads be allowed to vote in nation's elections? This is just one of the rights of citizens that should not be passed to foreign visitors.

On a side note I always find it amusing when people who advocate border security and strict immigration standards are called biggots and ignorant because they care about protecting their borders and their citizens.



That's one definition of "government", but definitely not the only one. Sorry, but this qualifies as special privileges. In representative democracies, dictatorships, or monarchies this would actually give nomads an advantage over common citizens--special representation. If nomad equality is the goal then they should be expected to use the same forms of citizen representation as other citizens; not by having special positions in a nation's government. If a nation chooses to have a civil position to liason with nomads then that should be the choice of the nation and not a mandatory order from an international body. A special position would only seem valid if every other citizen group in a nation (minorities, elderly, parents, fireman, garbagemen, grocers, etc, etc, etc) had a special "civil" representative to properly convey their needs and concerns to the "government". Short of this nomads would be getting preferential treatment.



Nice...I'll not do you the same dishonor in subtley attempting to disguise my disdain in a eloquently worded piece of prose. I did read through the aforementioned "proposal" careful and was not at all impressed. It is vague, very unclear as to which parts pertain to intra or international nomadism, too biased toward nomads rights over national sovereignty/citizen rights, excessively costly to foreign nations, and frankly unnecessary.

Toodles..


We are endeavouring to work on making the intent of this proposed resolution as clear as possible and will continue to do so.

However we should point out that a lot of the respected ambassador for Oxymorontopia's confusion seems to arise from their inability to understand simple legal terms such as "government", "citizen", and perhaps even "Nomad" itself. Concepts of nationality seem also to allude the respected ambassador which may also be contributing to their confusion.

To clarify this resolution does not give priviledges to nomads not enjoyed by settled persons. You have not actually shown that this resolution gives back rights to nomads that settled persons do not enjoy.

We should point out that this resolution is intended to safeguard rights for all nomads regardless of where they roam. It does not specify that non nationals of any kind should be treated in any other way than member nations are used to do, only that they do not single out nomads for better or worse treatment than settled persons.

Where are they enormous capitol spending provisions you speak of please point them out?

Where does this resolution specify that members are required to extend citizenship rights to non nationals nomadic or otherwise?

May we remind the respected ambassador that this is a statute concerning the rights of nomads and will therefore seem to be biased towards nomads in it's provisions, but that is axiomatic to a statute of rights . If the respected ambassador wants rights for nations or rights for governments we suggest they go and right a resolution containing such things.

The section we are quoting below from the our recent answer to the respected ambassador for Eternal Kawaii may go some way towards clarifying the effect of this resolution in the area the esteemed ambassador seems most interested in:

"To be clear, Kawaiians in another w.a. nation are not protected, persons who are ethnically Kawaiian in the same situation are not protected , people who practice a religion which is Kawaiian in the same circumstances are not protected.
However Nomads of any nationality or specific ethnic extraction or religious practice are protected by virtue of being nomadic and in spite of other considerations.


Whatever dishonour the respected ambassador feels we may have done them is purely imagined on their part in our opinion. What they read as disdain for them was in fact our horror at their characterisation of Nomads as "sick, diseased [and having] criminal backrounds". We suggest that the honoured ambassador might spend their time more cost effectively if they no longer contribute to what they discribe as an "unnecessary" endeavour, but we apreciate them wasting their time in any case.

Yours sincerely,

The Resolution is now Submitted for approval, delegates wishing to approve it should do so, with our thanks, with this link; http://www.nationstates.net/10061/page=UN_proposal1/match=nomads

OMG Your resolution just got a quorum!

The government of the emperor of Urgench is exceedingly pleased that Delegates feel our resolution has merit and we thank all of them sincerely for their votes. We would like to thank all those who have contributed to the drafting process especially The Gobbannean W.A. mission, Snefaldia, Weird Anarchists, SchutteGod, The Altan Steppes, and Charlotte Ryberg. May the Hordes of these nations ride swiftly across the plain for all time.

yours sincerely,

We are gonna vote FOR!

The government of the emperor of Urgench thanks the highly esteemed ambassador for the Mind of Charlotte Ryberg for their pledge of support.

yours sincerely,

O.O.C. I'm really sorry there are vestigial formatting tags and a missing clause in the resolution, I've been in and out of hospital over the last few weeks and been feeling a bit out of it, especially so it seems in the hours after i submitted the proposal for this. I didn't notice the problems untill a day or so ago and by then many many approvals had been given by delegates so considering that the mistakes don't change the lawfullness of the resolution and clause 3 was deleted because it was not usefull i thought i should go ahead with the resolution as it appears. I really do apologise and hope you all can take the resolution on it's merits inspite of the mistakes.

Nothing wrong with missing clause 3. We will still vote for and we have done so because the rights of nomads is a major step towards improving human rights. Others should do so to show that the WA is still committed to human rights despite the recent and ongoing slump.