NationStates Jolt Archive

On the Rights of Nomads
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Urgench

Description: 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

We have no problem about this proposal but one thing bother's me though " security " wouldn't someone might take advantage let say criminals tagging along or terrorist?

OOC: These things happen; don't fret too much over it. I myself left some stray BB code tags on my first repeal; luckily it just fell short of quorum that time. Oh, and just to make fun of Dashanzi, witness the folly of excess C&P: here (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=223) :p

IC: It's great to be evil again. Against!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

We have no problem about this proposal but one thing bother's me though " security " wouldn't someone might take advantage let say criminals tagging along or terrorist?

I think the phrase "on terms agreed between nomads, settled communities and their governments" gives you the latitude to come to a reasonable arrangement. Clause 6 doesn't give full-blown diplomatic immunity or anything like it, just some right of passage for the nomads themselves; anything else is up to you and them to negotiate.

We will vote for as we see no justification for discrimination against traveling tribes. FOR. Most importantly if that is their culture, forcing them to settle permanently when they don't want to is a breach of human rights.

Senator Sulla was sitting at his desk. The large aquarium brhind him was empty of dolphins. At the front of his desk was a very large empty Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar. Opening a side drawer of his desk the Senator fixed himself a very large and stiff drink of Wild Turkey on the rocks. After taking a drink from the adult beverage, he gives the delegates a very unwholesome looking smile and says,

"The Palentine has officially voted no on the resolution, but without malice, but onn general principle. In the Antarctic Oasis the only nomads that I am aware of are penguins that are bred to explode, mutant polar bears sicced on us by Anarctic rivals, and eunach Yetis carring cigar cutters. However I am also flexible in my principles and morals if the price is right, if you know what I mean.<wink!> Therefore I am offering my vote for sale, fellow inhabitants of the festering snakepit we call the WA General Assembly. The largest bribe will either keepmy vote the way it is, or cause me to change my vote to support. All bribes are non-returnable, and remember... In God we trust, all others must pay cash."

Eh, don't takes bribes when it comes to voting: put it to an open referendum of the people, unless you did already.

Though I have other minor misgivings concerning the resolution, clause 6 is unacceptable. Therefore, I must vote against.

Though I have other minor misgivings concerning the resolution, clause 6 is unacceptable. Therefore, I must vote against.

What minor misgivings do you have respected ambassador? and what about clause six do you find so objectionable?

Senator Sulla was sitting at his desk. The large aquarium brhind him was empty of dolphins. At the front of his desk was a very large empty Fine Yeldan Pickle(TM) jar. Opening a side drawer of his desk the Senator fixed himself a very large and stiff drink of Wild Turkey on the rocks. After taking a drink from the adult beverage, he gives the delegates a very unwholesome looking smile and says,

"The Palentine has officially voted no on the resolution, but without malice, but onn general principle. In the Antarctic Oasis the only nomads that I am aware of are penguins that are bred to explode, mutant polar bears sicced on us by Anarctic rivals, and eunach Yetis carring cigar cutters. However I am also flexible in my principles and morals if the price is right, if you know what I mean.<wink!> Therefore I am offering my vote for sale, fellow inhabitants of the festering snakepit we call the WA General Assembly. The largest bribe will either keepmy vote the way it is, or cause me to change my vote to support. All bribes are non-returnable, and remember... In God we trust, all others must pay cash."


Venerable Senator Sulla we could never bribe you, that would be immoral.
However we should inform you that Princess Ryabat our cultural attache believes you should be awarded our nations highest literary award The Order of The Raven which comes with an pension of 100 million darangs a year. The first payment is being wired to you now. You will of course be required to attend an imperial banquet in your honour at the summer palace in Tabriz where you will be bestowed with Urgenchi citizenship and tax free status within the empire.

yours e.t.c. ,

Eh, don't takes bribes when it comes to voting: put it to an open referendum of the people, unless you did already.


OOC: Not dealt with the good but unwholesome Senator very much have you?:tongue: Soliciting bribes is a standard tactic for the reprobate. His unsavory and unwholesome hobbies don't come cheap.:D

Venerable Senator Sulla we could never bribe you, that would be immoral.

OOC: see above responce.:D Senator Sulla has very flexable principles and morals.;)

Scotchpinestan must strongly OPPOSE this resolution, on two major grounds:

1. Economics: This resolution would constitute a severe drain on WA member economies. These "nomads" do not work; they do not pay taxes; why should they expect to be entitled to the same rights and services that civilized people are entitled to? Forcing nations to provide these rights and services will be prohibitively expensive.

We really don't need a WA resolution at all to give these people rights; all they need to do is try to become halfway productive members of society.


2. Security: Clause 6 will make it impossible for nations to police their borders. A person could approach a border crossing and say "I don't have a permanent address; I'm a nomad" and this resolution would force the border patrol to let the person through.

Furthermore, there's no way that this would be "properly regularised" without conflicting with clause 1, as most (if not all) nations require at least an ID which shows a person's permanent address in order to cross the border. And if you have a permanent address, then you're permanently settled; if you're permenently settled then you're not a nomad.


We urge all of our distinguished and esteemed colleagues to vote AGAINST this resolution.

We have no problem about this proposal but one thing bother's me though " security " wouldn't someone might take advantage let say criminals tagging along or terrorist?


Clause six is intended to solve the problem of Nomads currently crossing borders without proper government oversight or control. The term "regularised" refers to governments applying their normal standards of border control, those which are applied to settled persons who travel. Were this resolution to pass member nations with nomadic communities would have far greater control over their borders as would their neighbours.

yours e.t.c. ,

I demand a poll.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Scotchpinestan must strongly OPPOSE this resolution, on two major grounds:

1. Economics: This resolution would constitute a severe drain on WA member economies. These "nomads" do not work; they do not pay taxes; why should they expect to be entitled to the same rights and services that civilized people are entitled to? Forcing nations to provide these rights and services will be prohibitively expensive.

We really don't need a WA resolution at all to give these people rights; all they need to do is try to become halfway productive members of society.


2. Security: Clause 6 will make it impossible for nations to police their borders. A person could approach a border crossing and say "I don't have a permanent address; I'm a nomad" and this resolution would force the border patrol to let the person through.

Furthermore, there's no way that this would be "properly regularised" without conflicting with clause 1, as most (if not all) nations require at least an ID which shows a person's permanent address in order to cross the border. And if you have a permanent address, then you're permanently settled; if you're permenently settled then you're not a nomad.


We urge all of our distinguished and esteemed colleagues to vote AGAINST this resolution.


We will not spend lots of time in refutting these sorts of views, they are obscene rascist and ethnic prejudice writ large. We are a nation of Nomads and we have a powerfull and vibrant economy and civilisation, and an empire which is one of the greatest of all time.

This resolution requires that your nation treat nomads exactly as you treat your settled citizens, therefore you may tax them, if you do not already do so, as you do your settled population. In fact you may apply all the social responsibilities you apply to your settled citizens if you do not already do so. The point of Non-discrimination is to treat all your citizens in the same way not to give one group special treatment.

As for your point about security please look at our response to the honoured ambassador for Psiatrias.

Yours e.t.c. ,

I demand a poll.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

To what end esteemed ambassador?

OOC: Not dealt with the good but unwholesome Senator very much have you?:tongue: Soliciting bribes is a standard tactic for the reprobate. His unsavory and unwholesome hobbies don't come cheap.:D

.

OOC: see above responce.:D Senator Sulla has very flexable principles and morals.;)

Indeed that is exactly what Princess Ryabat told us, it is what won you the Order of the Raven with it's very generous annuity.

Yours e.t.c.,

To what end esteemed ambassador?We like clicking things.

Venerable Senator Sulla we could never bribe you, that would be immoral.But we could!

**hands Sulla a copy of Joshi Catgirlz Weekly**

There's a year-long subscription in it for you if you vote "against," Senator.

To what end esteemed ambassador?

We like clicking things.
Yes, we like clicking things. And make it a funny one please.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Yes, we like clicking things. And make it a funny one please.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

And a reference to popular culture, please.

On another note, the Council of Desh-Shrik feels that this bill is a very good idea, and will improve the life of nomads. We have voted For this resolution.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
7th of August, 18:31

Felix turns to a nearby aide who is more fluent in English than himself.

I am to give hats to Gypsies?

Yes, we like clicking things. And make it a funny one please.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Oops well we wrote one after the respected ambassador for OmiGodTheyKilledKenny's response and did not see your request for humour, unfortunately we find barbaric forms of comedy mystifying in any event and we suspect that obscure quips about vultures and Tangut merchants would be utterly lost on any one not from Mongolia.

Sorry about the last option saying hat instead of Hate but we are rather in the habit of pressing send before checking what we're sending, we are beating ourselves to discourage such a disgusting practice.

yours e.t.c.,

O.O.C. is it possible for a mod to once again clear up my foolishness and change hat to hate in the poll? I'm such an imbecile.

For.



The governing church, The Church of The Giant Love Penguin, promotes naked frolicking. Who are we to say how long the frolicking should last? Kudos to the Nomadic Peoples for putting frolicking first and governing second.

Felix turns to a nearby aide who is more fluent in English than himself.

I am to give hats to Gypsies?We hat those fucking pikeys! We hat them so much!!! :mad:

An elderly man gets to the podium and begins to speak.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, delegates and representatives, and members of this august body, I rise today to express my opposition to the resolution at hand, ‘on the rights of Nomads.’”

He pulls out a piece of paper and begins to read from it. “The Nifty Republic of Tzorsland is a massive, safe nation, remarkable for its complete absence of social welfare. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, cynical population of 9.265 billion is either ruled by a small, efficient government or a conglomerate of multinational corporations; it's difficult to tell which.”

“Traditionally,” he continues, “the republic has never had a proper and decent response to wandering gypsies in the fields. Our official response towards property rights has been haphazard at best. However, as you can see we have grown to be a rather large nation; a rather large and densely populated nation. While we still believe in some degree of fundamental rights towards freedom of movement, we can and must temper this with the knowledge that at the global level all movement must be balanced. If everyone were to go to the same time of the ship, as it were, the ship would capsize.”

“More importantly, the international nature of this resolution concerns us greatly. It is important to note that not all nations are in the World Assembly. It is important to note that not all nations that border the Nifty Republic are members in the World Assembly. Therefore it is certainly possible that international gypsies will wander into the Nifty Republic from non World Assembly nations but then not allowed to enter or re-enter those non World Assembly nations. This would open the doors to one way immigration into the Nifty Republic and put pressure on our already large population densities.”

“Besides I don’t feel like voting for it today.”

With that he sits down.

This resolution requires that your nation treat nomads exactly as you treat your settled citizens, therefore you may tax them, if you do not already do so, as you do your settled population.

But because these people have no income, there's nothing to tax them on. Do you expect us to provide our services for free? That's exactly what these people want! They make NO meaningful contribution to society (indeed, the issue keeps coming up of this "right to roam" they keep blabbing about), so what makes them deserving of equal rights?

I also ask the distinguished representative of Urguench to go back and re-read my comment about crossing the border without a permanent address. "Normal government control", in our and many other nations' cases, would mean either that nomads would not be crossing the border at any time (conflicting with clause 1), or any one would cross at any time by just claiming to be a nomad.

An elderly man gets to the podium and begins to speak.

“Ladies and Gentlemen, delegates and representatives, and members of this august body, I rise today to express my opposition to the resolution at hand, ‘on the rights of Nomads.’”

He pulls out a piece of paper and begins to read from it. “The Nifty Republic of Tzorsland is a massive, safe nation, remarkable for its complete absence of social welfare. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, cynical population of 9.265 billion is either ruled by a small, efficient government or a conglomerate of multinational corporations; it's difficult to tell which.”

“Traditionally,” he continues, “the republic has never had a proper and decent response to wandering gypsies in the fields. Our official response towards property rights has been haphazard at best. However, as you can see we have grown to be a rather large nation; a rather large and densely populated nation. While we still believe in some degree of fundamental rights towards freedom of movement, we can and must temper this with the knowledge that at the global level all movement must be balanced. If everyone were to go to the same time of the ship, as it were, the ship would capsize.”

“More importantly, the international nature of this resolution concerns us greatly. It is important to note that not all nations are in the World Assembly. It is important to note that not all nations that border the Nifty Republic are members in the World Assembly. Therefore it is certainly possible that international gypsies will wander into the Nifty Republic from non World Assembly nations but then not allowed to enter or re-enter those non World Assembly nations. This would open the doors to one way immigration into the Nifty Republic and put pressure on our already large population densities.”

“Besides I don’t feel like voting for it today.”

With that he sits down.


We thank the respected ambassador for Tzorsland for their response and we would point out that this resolution requires that your nation provide government services only at levels you currently provide to your settled citizens, if that is none or very few then so be it.

As for border control, the resolution requires that you cooperate with other member government only to control nomadic migration across your borders, totally preventing the worst case scenario you fear.

Yours e.t.c. ,

But because these people have no income, there's nothing to tax them on. Do you expect us to provide our services for free? That's exactly what these people want! They make NO meaningful contribution to society (indeed, the issue keeps coming up of this "right to roam" they keep blabbing about), so what makes them deserving of equal rights?

I also ask the distinguished representative of Urguench to go back and re-read my comment about crossing the border without a permanent address. "Normal government control", in our and many other nations' cases, would mean either that nomads would not be crossing the border at any time (conflicting with clause 1), or any one would cross at any time by just claiming to be a nomad.


You would do well to remember what we have told you about our nation being a Nomadic one and moderate your rascism accordingly. Our nation is called Urgench by the way, but your reading skills will probably forever prevent you from getting that right.

Billions of Nomads do contribute to the economies of their nations all over the world. How on earth do you imagine they feed or clothe themselves if they do not. Billions of Nomads pay taxes also.

Ones place of residence does not qualify one to Human Rights, ones humanity is the only prerequisite. If your nation's government believes in concepts of untermensch then perhaps your people should overthrow it.

Your second point is too silly and too illogical to be dealt with.

Thanks for the poll, I do not love nomads, so option two was there. Luckily there was no clause 3, so that nations who held this number sacred knows that that number is safe, but for me I could say there were some things in this proposal which could be improved.

I urge ever nation who want people without a house to have less rights, to vote against this proposal. That is the right those nations have and it is a valid argument.

My nation has vote in favour of this proposal because the nomads will not get more rights than others, but in the cases where they were deprived on such rights equal rights will be given. Also every WA nation can have its own, as strict as they like, system of border checks and guard. If they want to have a steel wall around its nation, it is allowed by this proposal. But if they want to make border crossings somewhat easier it is encouraged. And because there are in some nations tensions between nomads and non-nomads it is good that there will come channels for communication between these groups with equal access from both groups to these channels, so that hopefully some of the tensions will go down.

To summarize equal rights and duties for settled people and nomads inside a nation. What those rights are every nation can decide by its own interest and / or wisdom.

So a good proposal I should say.

Regards

But we could!

**hands Sulla a copy of Joshi Catgirlz Weekly**

There's a year-long subscription in it for you if you vote "against," Senator.

But there's a year-long supply of real catgirls, services paid for by the Altan Steppes Federal Treasury, if you vote for, Senator. Pick your poison.

"While we still believe in some degree of fundamental rights towards freedom of movement, we can and must temper this with the knowledge that at the global level all movement must be balanced. If everyone were to go to the same time of the ship, as it were, the ship would capsize.”

Not everyone would go to the "same side of the ship", as it were, at the same time. The very idea is absurd. Nice alarmist claptrap, though. As for your other points, the Urgenchi already addressed them, so we won't belabor the point.

“Besides I don’t feel like voting for it today.”

It's good to see you have logical reasons for opposing this.

But because these people have no income, there's nothing to tax them on. Do you expect us to provide our services for free? That's exactly what these people want! They make NO meaningful contribution to society (indeed, the issue keeps coming up of this "right to roam" they keep blabbing about), so what makes them deserving of equal rights?

1) It's an exaggeration to say that nomads have no income. Sometimes they do, in fact, have money.

2) Nomads, in my experience, have neither much need nor want for government services, thus making your points not only inaccurate, but idiotic. Most nomads would really prefer that the government left them the hell alone. As for the "no meaningful contribution to society" bit, that comment just shows your incredible ignorance and blind prejudice, making you utterly irrelevant to listen to. I can assure you that my people have contributed a lot to our society, and are justly proud of our nomadic roots. As for your last comment about deserving equal rights, we'd maintain that all people are deserving of equal rights by the simple fact of their humanity and existence. But it's fine if you don't feel that way - not everyone can be as civilized as we nomadic peoples, after all.

In case you can't tell, the Trilateral Federation strongly supports this legislation and thank the Urgenchi for bringing it forward.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador and Argali representative

We cannot thank the noble ambassador for the Altan Steppes enough for their comments, his divine majesty the emperor himself honours them. May the horde of the Altanari ride swift across the plain for all time.

yours sincerely,

The government of Puppetingness applauds the basic concept of this proposed resolution. In particular, clause 1A and 2 are sensible actions that will enhance the rights of nomadic groups and persons within a nation. Unfortunately, many other sections of this resolution lack this degree of effectiveness.

Puppetingness would like to call attention to the definition of nomads in this resolution. This ambassador has received information from several nations that indicate that the most prevalent and most numerous classification of nomadic persons in settled nations is the classification more commonly referred to as migrant workers. These nomadic persons are hardly protected by this resolution. The only possible inclusion of these persons would be a broad interpretation of "peripatesis to find resources" - one that defined temporary jobs as "resources". This exempts a critical class of nomadic persons, especially since this class is easily the most common nomad in settled nations.

This ambassador would like to assure the World Assembly that he feels great sentiment for clause 1B. However, this ambassador would like to reflect on the sentiment of the private sector regarding this clause.

It is the nature of the private sector that some positions require extensive training. This training is expensive to deliver and thus private sector companies are inclined to favor potential employees who can guarantee a long-term commitment to the position. Nomadic persons cannot, by nature, guarantee such a commitment. Thus employers will not receive a full return on their investment in training if they hire nomadic persons for these positions. Under this resolution, such sensible business decisions would be punishable by lawsuit. This would unfairly coerce businesses into investing in employees that are unable to justify that investment.

Moreover, under this resolution, litigious nomadic persons could file lawsuits against businesses if they were ever refused a position. This would force the employer to contest a lawsuit even if the refusal or firing of the nomadic person was based on insufficient qualifications, incompetence, or other traits and activities that should not be encouraged in either the private or public sector. This would force employers to either accept nomadic persons unequivocally to avoid lawsuit or place hiring and firing decisions in the hands of a judge and jury - neither of which will possess the knowledge of business necessary to make the appropriate decision.

As noted before, the government of Puppetingness approves of clause 2 and this ambassador would never support a relocation for any reasons. However, government of Puppetingness notes that in past times, such resettlement programs took place in many nations. The government of Puppetingness has expressed a degree of concern that the current governments of these nations may face prosecution for forced resettlement policies that occurred under governments in the distant past. Of course, Puppetingness is not one of these nations - the government of Puppetingness has never engaged in any such program. However, the entirety of Puppetingness was once possessed by another nation, which engaged in such policies. In the region of The Flying Nation in the Sky, which the nation of Puppetingness calls home, such reorganization of nations have been ongoing for countless years. Many of the members of this region have indicated that deceased nations have engaged in such policies against nomadic persons - and that their descendants are present within the majority, if not all, the nations of this region. Though this has not affected the decisions of the government of Puppetingness regarding this resolution, it still has elicited a degree of concern.

The government of Puppetingness sees value in the actions described in clause 4 and will voluntarily adopt such liaisons. However, this ambassador would like to reflect that Puppetingness has the appropriate bureaucratic aptitude and institutions to implement such liaison. In addition, the various peoples of Puppetingness have societal and cultural traits and practices that make such liaisons effective. The government of Puppetingness notes that not all nations possess these necessary factors.

For this reason, this ambassador feels that the requirement of these liaisons is an inefficient practice in many nations. Some nations have a history of informal agreements between nomadic groups and settlements. In these cases, formal liaisons are unnecessary at best - more likely, these liaisons would convolve the formerly efficient informal practices and inhibit agreement between these settlements.

At worst, these liaisons become dominated by those who favor one side. This is possible due to the nature of bureaucratic institutions in many nations - if they are not well maintained, they can easily stagnate. If these liaisons are not managed properly and become biased, they can use their power to ignore the needs of the party that they do not favor and encroach upon their rights. If these liaisons become dominated by racial interests, they could even work to rob nomadic peoples of their rights to a greater extent than before this resolution.

The government of Puppetingness would like to reflect upon the irony of clause 5. The nature of many bureaucracies in settled nations is such that they are centered in the capitals of these nations - these capitals are frequently located in developed areas a great distance away from typical areas that nomadic persons defined in this resolution temporarily inhabit. This would require the nomadic advisers to temporarily or permanently abandon their lifestyle in order to advise the government.

However, clause 2 of this resolution requires that no government possess programs that coerce nomadic persons to abandon their lifestyle - there is no distinction between temporary and permanent abandonment. Since governments are required to appoint these advisers with appropriate expertise, then they must find willing and capable advisers. If potential appointees that have the appropriate expertise exist but none are willing to advise, then the government is left without appointees, in violation of clause 5, or it must coerce these appointees, in violation of clause 2. Moreover, appointees will lack the required services from this resolution unless they abandon their lifestyle in order to provide advisory services - this could interpreted to constitute coercion.

This ambassador notes that clause 6A is a laudable goal; freedom of movement should be a right enjoyed by all sentient beings (the ambassador would like to note that at this his definition of sentient beings does not include dolphins, non-human primates, or canines). The government of Puppetingness is committed to ensuring this right for its citizens, but would like to reflect that this goal is very difficult to achieve for many nations.

The nation of Puppetingness has worked towards ensuring freedom of movement by allowing free movement within existing government owned public property. However, unlike many nations, the government of Puppetingness owns approximately 31% of the land in Puppetingness. This allows the government to create avenues of land that facilitate freedom of movement without violating private property. Many nations do not possess this degree of public land - in order to fulfill this resolution, they must negotiate with private citizens. Naturally, governments have no control over private citizens, so if citizens enough refuse, the government will be unable to fulfill clause 6A.

Other solutions are possible. If the nomadic persons are possessed of sufficient organization, they could purchase the land that they wish to use for their nomadic lifestyle, but once again, governments cannot rely on such organization. There is one solution that can be assured by the government - in the case of migrant workers, roads that are owned by the private sector and intended for general use could not (and likely would not) discriminate against nomadic workers due to clause 1A. This renders clause 6A impossible to fulfill or extraneous - thus the government of Puppetingness protests the use of the term "required" in this clause, as this a less stringent term would more realistically fulfill the intent of this clause.

For these reasons, this ambassador and the government of Puppetingness have concluded that they must express their opposition to this resolution. The presence of many requirements in this resolution would constitute an unreasonable encroachment to national sovereignty and and would impose unnecessary and inefficient burdens on the governments involved.

This ambassador advises that the proposing nation engage in more rigorous investigation into the adherence of its resolutions to Standard English. This ambassador realizes grammatical and spelling errors are unavoidable and postulates that this ambassador's own statement is not fully adherent to Standard English. However, this resolution exceeds the typical deviation caused by human error. This excess is highlighted in the misspelling of "heightened" and the inappropriate punctuation in clause 6. In addition, the resolution seems to be discriminatory against the numeral "3", excluding it from the numeration of the clauses, presumably in favor of including the numeral "6". It is this ambassador's opinion that the numeral "6" is not a Nomadic numeral and even if it was, its inclusion would not justify the exclusion of the numeral "3". This ambassador would advise that the proposing nation undertake a more thorough effort to rectify irregularities of this sort in the future, if only to gain the approval of the influential English-Major demographic.

In conclusion, this ambassador would like to apologize for his conduct in the thread "Proposal for a resolution on the rights of Nomads". This ambassador began his response at approximately 9:30 NS Time, though frequent adjournments were made to solicit advice from other nations regarding this proposed resolution. At that time, this new topic had not yet been created. This ambassador would be very obliged if a World Assembly moderator would not approve the message posted in the other topic by this ambassador.

Regards - WA Ambassador of the nation of Puppetingness

The Republic of Texas votes NO


Thank you

The Republic of Texas votes NO


Thank you

(Sorry could not resist some RL things)
"Texas, ah yes strong state, doesn't obey the president of the USA (GW). Death penalty for a Mexican who didn't get his rights."

But maybe the Texan Territories doesn't follow the Republic of Texas.
I do not follow GW (who is that?) either. :p

Anyway, like to hear the reason why the Republic of Texas votes NO.

Regards

The Republic of Texas votes NO


Thank you


No thank you, but might we ask why, honoured ambassador for Texan Territories?

After the vote and discussion in our region, I must now cast my vote against.

~Delegate for La Mafia

The United Socialist States of Jackopotamia shall vote nay to this resolution because it fails to demand taxation of nomads. If our governments are to provide protection for the land, property, and lives of these persons, then they should also fall under the jurisdiction of our nation's respective laws and regulations. This resolution is, in fact, putting nomads as a higher priority than the rest of the civilized world where they should have merely equal rights. I also oppose this resolution because it fails to provide a definition for "nomad". If this resolution were to pass, our citizens could claim nomad status for themselves purely to reap political or financial benefits. This resolution clearly needs revising and i would advise my fellow WA nations to follow my lead in opposing it.

Thank you.

Anyway, I did vote for, for the reasons explained on post #5. however I am worried about the current divisions between the yes and no camps as this may divide the WA deeply.

"Texas, ah yes strong state, doesn't obey the president of the USA (GW). Death penalty for a Mexican who didn't get his rights."

But maybe the Texan Territories doesn't follow the Republic of Texas.
I do not follow GW (who is that?) either. :pUhh, George Washington is dead...

After the vote and discussion in our region, I must now cast my vote against.Because nomads don't exist, right? :p

I vote based on how the nations in my region by democracy want me to vote. And on this matter, its as simple as that to me.

Because nomads don't exist, right? :p

The ambassador walks over to the other ambassador's table and puts a note on the table, requesting for a high-five.

On the actual resolution, the High Council of Desh-Shrik feels that this is a good idea, which preserves the culture and way of life of nomads, which is a benefit to all of civilization. It votes For this resolution.

-High Council Member M. Stuart
7th of August, 22:43

The ambassador walks over to the other ambassador's table and puts a note on the table, requesting for a high-five.**Susa gladly high-fives Ambassador Stuart, then kicks him in the nuts**

We fear that our resolution despite it's progressive nature will not be assented to, this is a very great shame. Many millions of peoples lives might be improved by this resolution (despite it's faults) and we think that good and decent nations should vote for it.think you meant to quote Desh-Shrik, not me.]

It has come to our attention that ambassador Sulla while seeking to be bribed has already firmly stated his oposition to this resolution elsewhere. This amounts to a form of extortion, we are therefore cancelling the great national honours we offered him.

yours e.t.c. ,

I wouldn't take it personally; The Palentine is famed for the corruptability of it's UN representative.

I find this resolution to be unreasonable for the Empire of Monte Belle. Monte Belle supports all lifestyles including those of nomadic people. Unfortunately, the resolution at hand would be a determent to public opinion towards nomadic people which is, even in the WA, slightly uneasy.

Our nation does not have the means of supporting all rights demanded from this resolution, nor does it have the consent of the majority of its populous.

Our people would like to respectfully disagree with said resolution and I would like to state that The Empire of Monte Belle officially rejects the current subject.

~Empire of Monte Belle~
~W.A. ambassador~ William Da'rand

But there's a year-long supply of real catgirls, services paid for by the Altan Steppes Federal Treasury, if you vote for, Senator. Pick your poison.Did I mention the subscription to Joshi Catgirlz Weekly comes with a year's supply of Wild Turkey? Have you checked your liquor cabinet lately, Senator? Are you sure you're stocked up for the next few votes? I hear a nasty rumor the WA may consider another funding bill...

Reign em in and put em to work i say,

dam hippies

I find this resolution to be unreasonable for the Empire of Monte Belle. Monte Belle supports all lifestyles including those of nomadic people. Unfortunately, the resolution at hand would be a determent to public opinion towards nomadic people which is, even in the WA, slightly uneasy.

Our nation does not have the means of supporting all rights demanded from this resolution, nor does it have the consent of the majority of its populous.

Our people would like to respectfully disagree with said resolution and I would like to state that The Empire of Monte Belle officially rejects the current subject.

~Empire of Monte Belle~
~W.A. ambassador~ William Da'rand


This resolution makes no demands on your nations resorces especially if your nation already treats nomads with respect.

How does the honoured ambassador imagine this resolution will negatively effect public opinion on nomads in their nation?

Did I mention the subscription to Joshi Catgirlz Weekly comes with a year's supply of Wild Turkey? Have you checked your liquor cabinet lately, Senator? Are you sure you're stocked up for the next few votes? I hear a nasty rumor the WA may consider another funding bill...

Honoured ambassador would you mind not spamming this debate with this nonsense? Ambassador Sulla has made their position on this resolution clear to you already,we supported your puppet's failed resolution, it seems un-gallant to prance on the [edit] ailing body of ours.

OOC: I understand the frustration you must be feeling about your proposal losing at vote. However, as the proud author of seven failed resolutions, I would strongly urge you to lighten up a bit, if for nothing else so you don't come off as a jerk and sore loser. That said, I shall frequent this thread no further.

At the risk of being called racist or stupid, both popular accusations in the last session I attended, I have registered a vote against this resolution. Employers have good reason to discriminate between nomads and settled persons, as nomadic applicants cannot be reasonably expected to remain on the job as long as an equivalent, settled applicant. Further, while I applaud efforts to represent all important groups in a society, I am not prepared to tell other countries how to micromanage their internal and international migration policies, nor do I believe nomads necessarily deserve special consideration and treatment of the kind required by this resolution.

By the way, I don't believe I've introduced myself. My name is Riley Fluffer, proud to be out of the family business for five generations now. I'll be serving as Xanthal's representative in the World Assembly until I'm run over, mauled, or Mister Susa misses his aim and my mortal remains are scattered across the concrete around the reflecting pool. If I'm lucky, I may get reassigned or, god willing, retire, but so far I'm not liking my chances.

At the risk of being called racist or stupid, both popular accusations in the last session I attended, I have registered a vote against this resolution. Employers have good reason to discriminate between nomads and settled persons, as nomadic applicants cannot be reasonably expected to remain on the job as long as an equivalent, settled applicant. Further, while I applaud efforts to represent all important groups in a society, I am not prepared to tell other countries how to micromanage their internal and international migration policies, nor do I believe nomads necessarily deserve special consideration and treatment of the kind required by this resolution.

By the way, I don't believe I've introduced myself. My name is Riley Fluffer, proud to be out of the family business for five generations now. I'll be serving as Xanthal's representative in the World Assembly until I'm run over, mauled, or Mister Susa misses his aim and my mortal remains are scattered across the concrete around the reflecting pool. If I'm lucky, I may get reassigned or, god willing, retire, but so far I'm not liking my chances.

We assure you honoured ambassador that special treament is the last thing this resolution will require nations to give Nomads, non-discrimination only specifies that nomads receive the same treatment as settled people.

We have specifically not micromanaged matters of border security, the resolution calls only for cooperation by friendly nations and the application of the same standards of international border control as is applied to settled persons. Surely that cannot be a bad thing?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Honoured ambassador would you mind not spamming this debate with this nonsense? Ambassador Sulla has made their position on this resolution clear to you already,we supported your puppet's failed resolution, it seems un-gallant to prance on the [edit] ailing body of ours.
I would remind the ambassador from Urgench that offering bribes to the good but slightly unwholesome Senator Sulla is a time-honoured tradition in the World Assembly, as well as in its predecessor organization. It is a practice that is likely to continue despite your protests.

As for myself I am as yet undecided on this resolution therefore I have not offered any bribes to the good Senator.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

I wouldn't take it personally; The Palentine is famed for the corruptability of it's UN representative.

Yeah, if you were to rate WA ambassadors on a scale of 1 to 10, Sulla would be an 11.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

I vote based on how the nations in my region by democracy want me to vote. And on this matter, its as simple as that to me.
And did they have a reason for their vote, or should we just assume that they don't think nomads exist?

Employers have good reason to discriminate between nomads and settled persons, as nomadic applicants cannot be reasonably expected to remain on the job as long as an equivalent, settled applicant.
Interesting point. I'd been taking my cue from the first sentence of Article 1, that it was discrimination "against persons on the basis of their following a nomadic lifestyle or those who identify themselves as ethnically nomadic" that was under discussion, but the proposal could be clearer. By my reading, making a choice based on which of the two will stick around for what you'd reasonably expect the duration of the job to be isn't discrimination on grounds of lifestyle.

In large part this doesn't matter, though. You aren't often going to find nomads applying for non-seasonal work who are as well qualified for those jobs as a settled applicant. Accountants, lawyers, engineers, all these come by their qualifications through sticking in one place long enough to get them. Those few who get qualified then go nomad are going to make better money as contractors anyway. I really don't see this as a major issue.

Further, while I applaud efforts to represent all important groups in a society, I am not prepared to tell other countries how to micromanage their internal and international migration policies, nor do I believe nomads necessarily deserve special consideration and treatment of the kind required by this resolution.
Well there we're going to have to disagree, and I'm going to have to suspect the principles that lead you to that conclusion.

By the way, I don't believe I've introduced myself. My name is Riley Fluffer, proud to be out of the family business for five generations now.
Nice to meet you Mr Fluffer.

::There is a slight disturbance in the Gobbannaen delegation, as of someone desperately suppressing a coughing fit. Or a giggle, it could be either. Cerys has to visibly fight to keep her composure::

Excuse me a second.

::Cerys turns around and belabours a couple of clerks around the head with the (sadly empty) beer bottle she was clonked with earlier. The phrase "hard enough to keep a straight face as it is" drifts over, probably louder than she'd intended::

Sorry about that. Anyway, as I was about to say, welcome to the snake pit. Don't worry about Ambassador Susa; people get tossed out of the window all the time, the only one I can remember actually dying was the one who set himself on fire first. Just remember to wear a jock strap and not to let him near anything explosive and you'll be fine. You might want to keep a few junior functionaries on hand if you ever need to distract Mr Jones, though.

::The kerfuffle in the Gobbannaen ranks abruptly stops. Several secretaries who had never been entirely clear as to why they were expected to attend debates start edging towards the door::

I have no problems with gypsys but I can understand others misgivings about this bill. I am currently undecided on the topic and wanted to ask a question on clause 5, requiring that the government appoint Nomadic peoples within thier civil services and I ask how this is a possible thing to grant. If you appoint a Nomad to a civil service department, that seems to me a permanet posting and if these people chose to be nomadic, would that clause not comprimise their chosen lifestyle?

I would remind the ambassador from Urgench that offering bribes to the good but slightly unwholesome Senator Sulla is a time-honoured tradition in the World Assembly, as well as in its predecessor organization. It is a practice that is likely to continue despite your protests.

As for myself I am as yet undecided on this resolution therefore I have not offered any bribes to the good Senator.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security


We have no objection to the offering of bribes to the good but slightly unwholesome Senator Sulla, we offered him a handsome annuity ourselves, we simply did not realise it was customary to offer bribes where no prospect of changing the Senators mind existed. We know better now.

Persuant to this we should say that if the Senator were amenable we would like to re-offer him our nations Order of The Raven ( with full benefits ) and a life times supply of Oxycontin flavoured Meringues, a specialty of our region and nation. We are also one of our regions largest Condom producers, we have all manner of shape, size, strength, colour, flavour, texture e.t.c. which we will provide inperpetuam to the senator with a bespoke service which will allow him to avail of the use of such items at any time in any place at his convenience.

yours e.t.c. ,

I have no problems with gypsys but I can understand others misgivings about this bill. I am currently undecided on the topic and wanted to ask a question on clause 5, requiring that the government appoint Nomadic peoples within thier civil services and I ask how this is a possible thing to grant. If you appoint a Nomad to a civil service department, that seems to me a permanet posting and if these people chose to be nomadic, would that clause not comprimise their chosen lifestyle?

We thank the honoured ambassador for their question. This resolution also seeks to prevent discrimination against persons who are ethnically nomadic but who may live a settled lifestyle as happens in some countries. These individuals may often already be involved in the institutions of their governments and be able to do the work required of them by this resolution.
Of course many nomads who actively lead a nomadic lifestyle do not migrate over very great distances, these people frequently have jobs in a settled context which does not conflict with their lifestyle these people also might be suitable, that is if they are trained and are willing and are employed or employable as civil servants.

Of course failing all this the provision of clause 4 outlining a liaison system between nomads and their governments can do the job of of the civil servant in question.

We hope this answers your question, and hope that you feel you can vote for this resolution which will be of very great help to many marginalised people, deprived an active and productive role in the life of their nations.

yours e.t.c.,

Senator Sulla, I'm afraid Gobbannium isn't the best place to locate your favorite tipple. Please accept by way of apology a couple of cases of a wine that I think will amuse you:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v80/ci5rod/old_git.jpg

Don't worry about Ambassador Susa; people get tossed out of the window all the time

Ah! That reminds me. *clicks fingers*

*With a loud thud, the room’s front doors fly open. A massive trebuchet wheels in, pushed by several burly men - its earsplitting creaks echoing from one corner of the Assembly to the other.*

*Despite screams, curses and shouts of disapproval, the men, oblivious to the chaos over the deafening screeches, roll the trebuchet right into the seats of several delegations, who scatter hastily as their chairs and desks are tumbled over*

A short, fat little dwarf rushes forwards.

“WHOA WHOA! Steady now, people! That’s it…just stop it there. Thanks.”

“AHEM!”

“Ambassadors of The World Assembly! First, I want to say how damn easy it was to roll this thing right through lobby and into here – where the hell is your security?”

“Second, I want to present to you, the greatest and most advanced trebuchet you will ever find in the NationStates realm! Constructed by the best architects in Narnia! Tailor made for catapulting-those-annoying-people out that particular window! Which delegation wants it? The best offer wins! Oh – but you want to see if it works?!”

“Brynwald quick…lift me up onto the device. Thanks. Good representatives, this is how….”

*The trebuchet’s arm launches, the fat dwarf flies out the window before anyone noticed.*

Silence.

*The Lord Chancellor stands.*

Ah yes. You must forgive me. It’ll be wheeled to one corner. But…its still up for whoever is prepared to put forward the most satisfactory deal. *Casts a glance at Marcus Diegaus*

Now…onto more…interesting matters. *cough*

The Narnian Council sees nothing terribly wrong with the proposal, and we thank the representative of Urgench for bringing forth this matter for our consideration. However, it has long been in our tradition to portion off a large piece of land (including several forests, mountains and cleared areas) for the purpose of confining all nomads/gypsies to this area. They are free to move about as they wish, but may not do so beyond these spacious confines.

We also offer nomads the chance to work for a living, basic food/shelter should they ever require it, and the same human rights that ordinary citizens possess. However, we do not think it wise to allow nomads to move wherever they so wish and thus cause unnecessary disturbance and disputes. Our principle of apportioning land for nomads may run contradictory to clause 2, and will cause problems when addressing clause 6.

In the light of this, and various other matters, our region’s vote has been cast AGAINST this proposal.

And we would be much obliged if anyone would simply make a good offer so we can be rid of this contraption…unless that is…if the winner intends to use this on various representatives in this very meeting. Ah…but not meaning to imply any particular delegation of course.

__________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Dear Gobbannaen WA Mission, I am not obliged to speak on the subject to you or anyone else of internal region matters. So If you would like to continue to attempt to mock me thats fine. But as I said otherwise, I really am not involved in this issue. And with that said I will wait for the results of the vote.

Sayonara

We will vote according to regional consensus, and anyway have no strong opinion on this as Quintessence of Dust has few native nomads (smallpox and alcoholism for the win). However, we feel compelled to join the debate as a voice of moderation, because we think everyone voting against are pitchfork wielding, torch bearing regressives.
At the risk of being called racist or stupid, both popular accusations in the last session I attended, I have registered a vote against this resolution. Employers have good reason to discriminate between nomads and settled persons, as nomadic applicants cannot be reasonably expected to remain on the job as long as an equivalent, settled applicant. Further, while I applaud efforts to represent all important groups in a society, I am not prepared to tell other countries how to micromanage their internal and international migration policies, nor do I believe nomads necessarily deserve special consideration and treatment of the kind required by this resolution.
I'm sure you're neither racist nor stupid, but I do disagree with your logic. Saying nomads 'cannot be reasonably expected to remain on the job [for extended periods]' is a problematic assertion, because the definition employed in the resolution would allow for seasonal nomads to seek seasonal labour (particularly agriculture or climate-dependent construction) in which there is then no grounds for discrimination. Furthermore, individuals might be ethnically nomadic, but have decided to settle for a time on their own. And for short-term jobs, there is absolutely no reason to discriminate. Your position is essentially comparable to justifying discrimination against women - something we're sure you wouldn't sanction - on the grounds they might get pregnant and have to take time off work.
However, it has long been in our tradition to portion off a large piece of land (including several forests, mountains and cleared areas) for the purpose of confining all nomads/gypsies to this area. They are free to move about as they wish, but may not do so beyond these spacious confines.

We also offer nomads the chance to work for a living, basic food/shelter should they ever require it, and the same human rights that ordinary citizens possess. However, we do not think it wise to allow nomads to move wherever they so wish and thus cause unnecessary disturbance and disputes. Our principle of apportioning land for nomads may run contradictory to clause 2, and will cause problems when addressing clause 6.

In the light of this, and various other matters, our region’s vote has been cast AGAINST this proposal.
Quintessence of Dust's most famous industrialist, Henry Quord, marketed his famous mass-produced bicycle with the slogan "you can have any colour, so long as it's black". Pithy, but not terribly appropriate when it comes to civil liberties. Allowing freedom of movement within a constricted space is like allowing free speech so long as no one criticises the government, freedom of religion for all Muslims, or freedom of choice for women who want to keep their fetus. As our great civil rights leader, Rev. Dr. Mar-tin Liu-tha Qing, Jr., once said: "Freedom is one thing - you have it all or you are not free."

We also question why nomads going wherever they wish is so likely to cause 'disturbance and disputes'. Because nomads are biologically disposed to violence, I suppose? What utterly despicable logic.

And on the subject of bribery, we are now proud to unveil our secret project (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7538513.stm), which we hope will rival all others in swaying Senator Sulla back into voting FOR this resolution: a 52 yard Philly cheesesteak (Provo, wit) specially prepared by a team of chefs working round the clock for a week. On confirmation of the vote in favour, Old Frothingsloshe on tap will be provided.

-- Samantha Benson
etc., etc.
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

“Ambassadors of The World Assembly! First, I want to say how damn easy it was to roll this thing right through lobby and into here – where the hell is your security?”

Darvek rises, a bit unsteady on his feet following his time in the Stranger's Bar. "No army!" he calls out to nobody in particular, his words slurring slightly. "Can't have one, the little ones say!"

Silence.

"Three points!"

The Narnian Council sees nothing terribly wrong with the proposal, and we thank the representative of Urgench for bringing forth this matter for our consideration. However, it has long been in our tradition to portion off a large piece of land (including several forests, mountains and cleared areas) for the purpose of confining all nomads/gypsies to this area. They are free to move about as they wish, but may not do so beyond these spacious confines.

We also offer nomads the chance to work for a living, basic food/shelter should they ever require it, and the same human rights that ordinary citizens possess. However, we do not think it wise to allow nomads to move wherever they so wish and thus cause unnecessary disturbance and disputes. Our principle of apportioning land for nomads may run contradictory to clause 2, and will cause problems when addressing clause 6.

In the light of this, and various other matters, our region’s vote has been cast AGAINST this proposal.

"Krioval votes...votes...uh...FOR...this, uh, thing. Mos'ly 'cause those nice people gave me free booze." He sways ominously, and several smaller representatives scurry from beneath his shifting frame. He is suddenly serious, though still quite tipsy. "But we believe in nomads. We really do. They exist. Ha ha. It's a capa...rock throwy thingy."

" Ahhh ...damn those stinking dwarfs ...always looking for trouble .... but it always backfires on them ...hoisted by their petard I dare say ..." muttered Second Ambassador to the WA, Lord Thomas de Alaime to his secretary .

" What ? " snapped Alicia Chou , " you do know that unlike some people I do have reports to do ...".her eyes flashing ..

" Tsk tsk tsk .... no need to be so snappy woman ..." ...Well at least he knew in what mood she was today. He guessed correctly that she was still angry with him, after his attempts to seduce her in the office failed last night. Ambassador Thomas sighed, his job was so boring these days ...only the company of his female secretaries mamaged to keep him happy. But the most recent one proved to have quite a temper ...

He sighed once more . .. and now that bufoon Darvek was getting on his nerves

"Excuse me .." he spoke into his microphone, ... " perhaps we should vote to throw this drunken bufoon gorilla-like massive humoungus fat creature out of this house !!!...he should very much follow the dwarf out of the window !!! .." he thundered.

Alicia's mouth dropped. " Umm ..", she started to say. He glared at her. She instantly fell quiet.

" I say that we that we vote in favor of this resolution and just get it over with. Geez ..just leave the goddamed nomads alone ..i mean what did they do to you ....for heaven's sake . My dear Chancellor of Narnia perhaps you could tell me what the purpose of confining nomads to a specific land will do ? ...please .. doing so will automatically render them as settlers not nomads. Where did all the sense go in this assembly ?? ..perhaps it all flew into the gutters which is exactly where that fool Darvek deserves to be !!! Huh .. " .. there he thought as he sat down ..that should shut them up for a while ... ..

__________________________________________________________________________

Aut inveniam, aut faciam.

is like allowing free speech so long as no one criticises the government

Whoever said TNC upheld the principles of freedom of speech to the degree you do? Last time I was aware, neither Henry Quord or Rev. Dr. Mar-tin Liu-tha Qing, Jr. were the ones ruling our nation. Are we here to discuss the merits of this proposal, or about how each other's traditions must bend to suit this proposal instead?

Nomads certainly aren't 'biologically' more susceptible to causing disputes. But a group of people that shuffle around, whether they be nomads or not - literally standing on the rest of the populace's toes, is more than likely going to cause unrest.

Therefore, they may move across mountains and wade through rivers to their heart's content in their own land (allotted to them), not ours. By the same token, 'settled' peoples may not settle in this portion of land.

If anyone has further questions about our method of minimizing unrest...

*Points to the trebuchet*

Feel free to take a more...aerial...view of the situation. Still up for grabs.

___________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

He sighed once more . .. and now that bufoon Darvek was getting on his nerves

"Excuse me .." he spoke into his microphone, ... " perhaps we should vote to throw this drunken bufoon gorilla-like massive humoungus fat creature out of this house !!!...he should very much follow the dwarf out of the window !!! .." he thundered.

"What?!" The legendary Kriovalian constitution (the resilience, not the document that spells out national governance) kicked in, and Darvek's near-drunkenness was gone. "Fat creature? I was an international wrestling champion, by the Light! There's nothing but muscle here," he concluded, ripping his shirt into tatters. So there was.

" I say that we that we vote in favor of this resolution and just get it over with. Geez ..just leave the goddamed nomads alone ..i mean what did they do to you ....for heaven's sake . My dear Chancellor of Narnia perhaps you could tell me what the purpose of confining nomads to a specific land will do ? ...please .. doing so will automatically render them as settlers not nomads. Where did all the sense go in this assembly ?? ..perhaps it all flew into the gutters which is exactly where that fool Darvek deserves to be !!! Huh .. " .. there he thought as he sat down ..that should shut them up for a while ... ..

"Where did all the sense go?" Darvek laughed deeply, and his ripped torso glinted in the light from a spotlight hastily rigged to showcase the Kriovaller's musculature. "Perhaps it went out the window!" He became thoughtful. "At least you're supporting the resolution. That's a start."

There are not, nor are there ever likely to be, any nomads in or near the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda. Therefore I have arrived at the decision that this is a matter of little importance to the People's Democratic Republic and will therefore abstain.

I have, however, been inspired by one of the poll questions.

As noted in this discussion (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=637), Yelda is currently making the transition from a command economy to a uniquely Yeldan form of "capitalism". It pleases me to announce that we are now offering Fine Yeldan Cowboy Hats™ at rock bottom prices!

I know that many of you cannot wait to acquire one of these fine pieces of headgear! Here's Mister Jones modeling one now!

Mister Jones stalks back and forth, drooling and cursing, a Fine Yeldan Cowboy Hat™ perched rakishly atop his hideous head.

Good boy!

Felix tosses Mister Jones a live baby seal, which Jones catches in mid-air and rips asunder, much to the disgust of the assembled diplomats.

Now then, I have commanded my staff to erect a booth and let Mister Jones try his hand at retail. It never hurts for a person to learn the business from the ground up, even if one is a former Vice-Delegate of Antarctic Oasis. And a "dog".

Mister Jones trots over to the newly erected Fine Yeldan Western Apparel™ booth, stands up and puts his paws on the counter, pants and drools. Snarls a little. Curses. Pants and drools some more.

Look at him! He is ready to do business, yes? Don't be shy now, he won't bite...much. Go on over and purchase a hat from Jonesey!.

Felix smiles expectantly at the assembled diplomats and waits for someone to approach the booth.

"Fat creature? I was an international wrestling champion, by the Light! There's nothing but muscle here," he concluded, ripping his shirt into tatters. So there was.Susa stirred from his half-slumber and turned to view the Kriovalian spectacle. "What? Are we ripping our shirts off now?" he asked as he made to remove his own.

Jimmy quickly stayed his superior's hand. "Cut that out, Mr. Preside-- I mean, Ambassador," he said, "I promised the Urgenchi that you would shut up for the rest of the debate."

"But he's allowed to cause a scene!" Susa protested, pointing out the Kriovalian.

"He's just making a point, Ambassador."

"What point is he making? I bet I look a lot better with my shirt off than that showboat over there!"

"Fine, here's a ruler. Later on, the two of you can whip 'em out and measure them."

"Alright," Susa agreed, accepting the ruler. "But only if he measures himself. I ain't puttin' my hand on another guy's--"

"Oh my God, shut up!!"

"You're the boss," Susa replied sarcastically as he glanced back over at the flexing Darvek. "You know, that dude's pretty ripped," he noted appreciatively.

"Well, he is gay."

The representative of Goulbourne valley a slim ex-serviceman by the name of William Parker, stands, to the general apathy of those present
Firstly, lets us say that we applaud the intent of this resolution and fully support what it intends to do. However, we, the government of Goulbourne Valley must declare against it for the reason of its crippling loopholes. Firstly, we foresee trouble in defining 'nomad' as opposed to vagrant. One is a cultural way of life whilst the other is simply wandering from one location to another. Secondly, the point of identifying themselves as ethnically nomadic moves against our nation's policy of non-discriminatory self-determination. Whilst we assure the honored ambassador of Urgench that we do not think this their intent, this resolution could result in the discrimination of non-ethnic nomads due to the aforementioned definition difficulties. There are other minor issues in our eyes, but we believe that after some revision this resolution will enjoy the full support of the commonwealth of Goulbourne valley. Besides, its an election year and we can't be seen to favor one ethnic group over any other.
Parker sits, again, to the general apathy of the WA

The representative of Goulbourne valley a slim ex-serviceman by the name of William Parker, stands, to the general apathy of those present
Firstly, lets us say that we applaud the intent of this resolution and fully support what it intends to do. However, we, the government of Goulbourne Valley must declare against it for the reason of its crippling loopholes. Firstly, we foresee trouble in defining 'nomad' as opposed to vagrant. One is a cultural way of life whilst the other is simply wandering from one location to another. Secondly, the point of identifying themselves as ethnically nomadic moves against our nation's policy of non-discriminatory self-determination. Whilst we assure the honored ambassador of Urgench that we do not think this their intent, this resolution could result in the discrimination of non-ethnic nomads due to the aforementioned definition difficulties. There are other minor issues in our eyes, but we believe that after some revision this resolution will enjoy the full support of the commonwealth of Goulbourne valley. Besides, its an election year and we can't be seen to favor one ethnic group over any other.
Parker sits, again, to the general apathy of the WA


We apreciate the respected ambassador's in put, we would point out that the definition within the resolution of nomadism stresses that it is "organised and/or traditional" and since vagrancy can hardly really qualify as either of these things we feel the definition will exclude vagrants.

Your second point is more subtle, we iimagined that this resolution would only really apply to nations where nomads had no rights on an ethnically biased basis. Nations which do not apply ethnic differenciation of any kind would really already be in compliance with clause 1 of this resolution and in most cases the rest of the resolution would not be needed to be implemented, however if such a nation still had defacto discrimination against nomads then we would be glad to have the resolution redress the balance on any basis.

We are aware though that this resolution may have certain flaws which may make nations who might otherwise support it vote no instead. We respect your position and thank you again for your contribution.

Yours e.t.c. ,

The United Socialist States of Jackopotamia shall vote nay to this resolution because it fails to demand taxation of nomads. If our governments are to provide protection for the land, property, and lives of these persons, then they should also fall under the jurisdiction of our nation's respective laws and regulations. This resolution is, in fact, putting nomads as a higher priority than the rest of the civilized world where they should have merely equal rights. I also oppose this resolution because it fails to provide a definition for "nomad". If this resolution were to pass, our citizens could claim nomad status for themselves purely to reap political or financial benefits. This resolution clearly needs revising and i would advise my fellow WA nations to follow my lead in opposing it.

Thank you.

Again we should point out that this resolution does in fact require member nations to apply all civil responsibilities to their nomadic citizens, including taxation if such is not already the case.

Again we should point out also that this resolution does not favouritise nomads at the expense of other groups, all it asks is that member nations treat fairly and on equal terms with their settled citizens those of thier citizenry who are nomadic. Non-discrimination is the opposite of favouritism.

We urge nations concerned with the rights of the oppressed and despised to vote for this resolution.

yours e.t.c. ,

We apreciate the respected ambassador's in put, we would point out that the definition within the resolution of nomadism stresses that it is "organised and/or traditional" and since vagrancy can hardly really qualify as either of these things we feel the definition will exclude vagrants.

Your second point is more subtle, we iimagined that this resolution would only really apply to nations where nomads had no rights on an ethnically biased basis. Nations which do not apply ethnic differenciation of any kind would really already be in compliance with clause 1 of this resolution and in most cases the rest of the resolution would not be needed to be implemented, however if such a nation still had defacto discrimination against nomads then we would be glad to have the resolution redress the balance on any basis.

We are aware though that this resolution may have certain flaws which may make nations who might otherwise support it vote no instead. We respect your position and thank you again for your contribution.
Yours e.t.c. ,

In most cases we agree with Mongkha, khan of Kashgar, ambassador to the World assembly for the Empire of Urgench, but in this case we clearly have different views.

As we see in the proposal:
"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."

I do not see any place of ethnically biased basis. The definition in my opinion is clearly for people not being settled, it could be organised, it could be traditional. It is a way of living where people go from one place to another. I do not now clearly what vagrants do, but if this proposal would give such people equal rights as others have, it is fine by me. If they do things against the law (if it is nothing to do where/how they live), the government can stop them.

I know countries where by the law only people who descend from caravan dwellers are allowed to live in a caravan. I am very much against such kind of laws because they give privileges to ethnic groups and I am against all discrimination. All people should be equal for the law.

But I think this proposal gives peoples equal rights, no discrimination on the basis of being settled or not being settled. The same rights, the same duties.

So I think the representative of Goulbourne Valley could agree with this proposal. I agree that as a fair government you cannot favour one ethnic group over any other. In election time that would be worse, but outside elections I also see such as bad.

I still fully support this proposal, but if anyone could prove it favours an ethnic group over another, I will change my vote.

And I hope that Mongkha, khan of Kashgar sees that I am right and he was wrong in this. But if he will convince me I am wrong in this, sadly he will loose my support on this proposal. But in that case I see great opportunities to make together a better proposal over nomadism, if this proposal doesn't get approved by the WA.


Regards

In most cases we agree with Mongkha, khan of Kashgar, ambassador to the World assembly for the Empire of Urgench, but in this case we clearly have different views.

As we see in the proposal:
"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."

I do not see any place of ethnically biased basis. The definition in my opinion is clearly for people not being settled, it could be organised, it could be traditional. It is a way of living where people go from one place to another. I do not now clearly what vagrants do, but if this proposal would give such people equal rights as others have, it is fine by me. If they do things against the law (if it is nothing to do where/how they live), the government can stop them.

I know countries where by the law only people who descend from caravan dwellers are allowed to live in a caravan. I am very much against such kind of laws because they give privileges to ethnic groups and I am against all discrimination. All people should be equal for the law.

But I think this proposal gives peoples equal rights, no discrimination on the basis of being settled or not being settled. The same rights, the same duties.

So I think the representative of Goulbourne Valley could agree with this proposal. I agree that as a fair government you cannot favour one ethnic group over any other. In election time that would be worse, but outside elections I also see such as bad.

I still fully support this proposal, but if anyone could prove it favours an ethnic group over another, I will change my vote.

And I hope that Mongkha, khan of Kashgar sees that I am right and he was wrong in this. But if he will convince me I am wrong in this, sadly he will loose my support on this proposal. But in that case I see great opportunities to make together a better proposal over nomadism, if this proposal doesn't get approved by the WA.


Regards


Please forgive us we did not mean to suggest that this resolution is ethnically biased in an active way. Simply that in nations where people are oppressed because of their nomadic ethnicity it will have an equalising effect on this bias. Effectively ending this bias.

Vagrancy is similar to homelessness, an issue which this resolution does not address. Homelessness is of course a very important issue well worth the attention of this organisation but one we were carefull not to approach with this resolution because it needs a resolution of it's own to deal with it.

yours e.t.c.,

King Harold XVI decides that he needs to “revise and extend” his remarks and so stands up to address the assembly.

“I have to admit, I think the discussion has been exceptionally civil. I had expected this resolution to devolve into the three ringed circus that occurred with the previous resolution but so far this has not happened. This has, perhaps, been one of the reasons for the decline in WATV in the past few days but I digress.”

“Let us then carefully consider this significant human rights resolution. The first question is whether this actually merits the consideration of the World Assembly in the first place, or is this yet another case of micromanaging the internal affairs of member nations in order to give non member nations a significant economical advantage?”

“Is this issue a matter of ‘international’ scope? The last bit in clause six does have an cross national element to it but in general this resolution is not ‘international’ in scope.”

“Is this issue a matter of ‘fundamental human rights’? I do not think so. Yes it is exceptionally not nice for any people to be denied of their traditional centuries old custom and tradition but there is no fundamental right to maintain a culture when circumstances or other conditions might otherwise indicate that elements of the culture can no longer be sustained or permitted. The nomad culture is indeed one such culture but so too is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages, and so forth. This is not to say that these are not, in and of themselves noble things that nations should be encouraged to do, but that does not mean they are in and of themselves fundamental rights that this august body should impose on all its members.”

“Failing these two items, there seems to be a lack of a solid basis for the resolution to begin with. This is an internal issue and should be left as such, not something left to the whim of the World Assembly. The simple fact is that member nations are still a minority of the whole collection of nations. Without knowing the scope of the problem it is almost impossible to say what positive effects this resolution will have, if any.”

“We also have to consider the draconian measures of this resolution. ‘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.’ This is clearly a mater of micromanagement into how member nations are governed. It smacks of quotas.”

“The current vote is 1,299 for and 2,289 against. That is the resolution has the support of only 35% of the vote. Among the major powers against this are Europe, The South Pacific, Capitalist Paradise and The Council of Narnia. None of the other feeders have weighed in on the matter at this time.”

“Therefore my original vote still stands.”

With that he returns to his seat.

“Let us then carefully consider this significant human rights resolution. The first question is whether this actually merits the consideration of the World Assembly in the first place, or is this yet another case of micromanaging the internal affairs of member nations in order to give non member nations a significant economical advantage?”

Are you claiming that this resolution is part of some massive conspiracy to boost the economies of non-member nations? I'd respectfully suggest putting down the pipe, because whatever you're smoking cannot be high-quality stuff.

"Is this issue a matter of ‘international’ scope? The last bit in clause six does have an cross national element to it but in general this resolution is not ‘international’ in scope.”

As nomadism is a phenomenon that transcends international borders, and nomads cross international borders, I can't imagine how it is not, in fact, an international concern.

“Is this issue a matter of ‘fundamental human rights’? I do not think so. Yes it is exceptionally not nice for any people to be denied of their traditional centuries old custom and tradition but there is no fundamental right to maintain a culture when circumstances or other conditions might otherwise indicate that elements of the culture can no longer be sustained or permitted. The nomad culture is indeed one such culture but so too is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages, and so forth. This is not to say that these are not, in and of themselves noble things that nations should be encouraged to do, but that does not mean they are in and of themselves fundamental rights that this august body should impose on all its members.”

Hmm...disrespecting the rights of peoples to maintain their culture and not be interfered with because of some arbitrary determination that their culture is not "viable" is perfectly acceptable to you. Noted. As for "imposing" something on all members, I've already touched on why this is an issue of international scope.

Oh, by the way, I dare you to equate nomads (such as my ancestors and family) to polygamists, cannibals and other such ilk again.

“Failing these two items, there seems to be a lack of a solid basis for the resolution to begin with. This is an internal issue and should be left as such, not something left to the whim of the World Assembly. The simple fact is that member nations are still a minority of the whole collection of nations. Without knowing the scope of the problem it is almost impossible to say what positive effects this resolution will have, if any.”

Again, since nomadism transcends borders, this is not just an "internal" issue. As for non-member states, while we should consider them in our actions, ultimately we should not craft legislation around those who don't bother to participate in this organization, and simply have to accept that we cannot expect to control areas outside our purview.

“We also have to consider the draconian measures of this resolution. ‘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.’ This is clearly a mater of micromanagement into how member nations are governed. It smacks of quotas.”

No, it smacks of making sure that people with appropriate knowledge and expertise on the subject (i.e. nomadism) are appointed to positions where they can advise their governments accordingly. I don't know how your government works, but our government likes to hire people who know what they're talking about on a subject and can guide us accordingly. Apparently, that's not a common practice, especially when it comes to WA ambassadors.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador and Argali representative

“Is this issue a matter of ‘fundamental human rights’? I do not think so. Yes it is exceptionally not nice for any people to be denied of their traditional centuries old custom and tradition but there is no fundamental right to maintain a culture when circumstances or other conditions might otherwise indicate that elements of the culture can no longer be sustained or permitted. The nomad culture is indeed one such culture but so too is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages, and so forth. This is not to say that these are not, in and of themselves noble things that nations should be encouraged to do, but that does not mean they are in and of themselves fundamental rights that this august body should impose on all its members.”


Greetings for King Harold XVI and the other people active in this debate,

King Harold XVI thank you for your opinion. But I strongly agree with your approach on this proposal. But sadly I strongly disagree with your conclusion.
I can tell you that if a nation discriminates against a culture that is doing nothing wrong against the law (except maybe not living in a house build from stone or wood, but living in maybe tents a caravans) than that nation is active on genocide. I surely hope your nation is not active on that.
(I could say that the cultures who still appoint the leaders by birth are not modern, but I let this issue resting.)

I also do not like that you compare nomadic cultures with cultures where there is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages. I see in this a suggestion that you have prejudices against nomads. But hopefully again I am wrong on this.

And it can be that some big regions already voted against this proposal, but still a change can come. And also some big regions can vote for. Only around 4000 votes are in, and I hope this forum will give the information on which the national and regional delegates will vote.

For that matter I am glad with the remarks from the well know Khan who made clear that this is a resolution for equal rights and not a resolution where certain ethnic groups will get better positions than other ethnic groups.

Regards

“Ambassadors of The World Assembly! First, I want to say how damn easy it was to roll this thing right through lobby and into here – where the hell is your security?”

We figured it was going to be used for defenestrative purposes so we weren't worried.

Patrick O'Neil
Head of the Maintence of Order Department
WA Building Management

King Harold XVI decides that he needs to “revise and extend” his remarks and so stands up to address the assembly.

“I have to admit, I think the discussion has been exceptionally civil. I had expected this resolution to devolve into the three ringed circus that occurred with the previous resolution but so far this has not happened. This has, perhaps, been one of the reasons for the decline in WATV in the past few days but I digress.”

“Let us then carefully consider this significant human rights resolution. The first question is whether this actually merits the consideration of the World Assembly in the first place, or is this yet another case of micromanaging the internal affairs of member nations in order to give non member nations a significant economical advantage?”

“Is this issue a matter of ‘international’ scope? The last bit in clause six does have an cross national element to it but in general this resolution is not ‘international’ in scope.”

“Is this issue a matter of ‘fundamental human rights’? I do not think so. Yes it is exceptionally not nice for any people to be denied of their traditional centuries old custom and tradition but there is no fundamental right to maintain a culture when circumstances or other conditions might otherwise indicate that elements of the culture can no longer be sustained or permitted. The nomad culture is indeed one such culture but so too is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages, and so forth. This is not to say that these are not, in and of themselves noble things that nations should be encouraged to do, but that does not mean they are in and of themselves fundamental rights that this august body should impose on all its members.”

“Failing these two items, there seems to be a lack of a solid basis for the resolution to begin with. This is an internal issue and should be left as such, not something left to the whim of the World Assembly. The simple fact is that member nations are still a minority of the whole collection of nations. Without knowing the scope of the problem it is almost impossible to say what positive effects this resolution will have, if any.”

“We also have to consider the draconian measures of this resolution. ‘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.’ This is clearly a mater of micromanagement into how member nations are governed. It smacks of quotas.”

“The current vote is 1,299 for and 2,289 against. That is the resolution has the support of only 35% of the vote. Among the major powers against this are Europe, The South Pacific, Capitalist Paradise and The Council of Narnia. None of the other feeders have weighed in on the matter at this time.”

“Therefore my original vote still stands.”

With that he returns to his seat.


We wonder why you thought it necessary to expound in this way on your opinions after having made your position quite clear already your Majesty.

But since you have it seems important to point out a number of things, firstly this resolution seeks to restore basic civil freedoms and human rights to humans who have been deprived of them by unsympathetic and bigotted governments. It does not make any reference to the outright protection of any particular way of life, only that a human should not be deprived of their rights simply because others dissaprove of their manner of life.

This organisation would doubtless happily assent to a bill restoring rights to women, slaves, disabled persons, political dissidents, religious groups, e.t.c. were they to have been deprived of them, and not because there was anything special about how they lived but simply because they were human.

Where any group of humans is deprived of their rights this organisation has a duty to properly reinstate those rights, otherwise what exactly is the point of allowing a category of statute called "Human Rights" ?

We of course celebrate our own nomadic culture, it is the bedrock of our nation, but we do not expect any other nation to do this. All we expect is that humans should not be deprived of rights over something as comparatively trivial as where they wish to live.

Your Majesty's comments about nomadism being comparable to canibalism or forced marriage are as illogical as they are offensive and the implication that nomadism is a regressive and doomed way of life are incompatible with fact. We are a nation of nomads and semi nomads, we are progressive, economically powerfull, vibrant and politicaly and millitarily powerfull, come visit the legendary palaces of our emperors in Tabriz or Karakorum visit our Imperial Space Organisation, our world famous Imperial Libraries in Ispahan and Nanking we could go on, and then continue in your specious characterisation of nomads.

As for your straw poll of delegates who have voted against our resolution, well that has no point unless you seek to sway impressionable members by waving the ballots of powerfull nations in their face. That would be a dishonourable and deeply ugly thing to do, the kind of thing which would earn you our enmity and our opposition.

You should think about the lives of others your Majesty, think of their suffering, and their oppression before you try to make cheap political points at their expense.


yours e.t.c. ,

“Let us then carefully consider this significant human rights resolution. The first question is whether this actually merits the consideration of the World Assembly in the first place, or is this yet another case of micromanaging the internal affairs of member nations in order to give non member nations a significant economical advantage?”

"We appreciate the King expanding on his views but don't quite understand what your Highness is implying here. This reads as though you are saying that there is an unwritten/unmentioned goal of this assembly to grant non-member nations economic advantages. It is difficult to believe that such would be the case. Even if such were true, we are wondering where the economic advantage part comes into play in this proposal."

““Is this issue a matter of ‘international’ scope? The last bit in clause six does have an cross national element to it but in general this resolution is not ‘international’ in scope.”

"The very fact that national borders will be crossed gives it international scope."

““Is this issue a matter of ‘fundamental human rights’? I do not think so. Yes it is exceptionally not nice for any people to be denied of their traditional centuries old custom and tradition but there is no fundamental right to maintain a culture when circumstances or other conditions might otherwise indicate that elements of the culture can no longer be sustained or permitted. The nomad culture is indeed one such culture but so too is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages, and so forth. This is not to say that these are not, in and of themselves noble things that nations should be encouraged to do, but that does not mean they are in and of themselves fundamental rights that this august body should impose on all its members.”

We are unclear on how it is that certain groups of people, who violate no law, should not be granted the same fundamental rights as anyone else in a given nation/region/whatever. If a lifestyle were truly not sustainable, then it would, of course, die out of its own accord. That your Highness feels it is not sustainable is not quite the same thing. It is our impression that your Highness is merely saying it is not practiced by the majority of citizens and therefore, unimportant. It may be unimportant to those who are settled, but I assure your Highness, that to those who are nomadic, it is very important.

We are certainly puzzled by the connection between nomadic lifestyles and polygamy, cannibalism and forced marriages. If your Highness is attempting to imply that only social mores as practiced by the majority of citizens are sustainable, we would suggest that practices such as polygamy, cannibalism and forced marriages continue to exist, but out of sight of most governments, putting to rest the unsustainability claim. Nomadic lifestyles, by definition, cannot be practiced out of sight of any government. Further, while we understand why many cultures would be violently opposed to polygamy, cannibalism and forced marriage, we fail to see what the opposition to a non-settled lifestyle would be, other than Well, I just don't like it.

““Failing these two items, there seems to be a lack of a solid basis for the resolution to begin with. This is an internal issue and should be left as such, not something left to the whim of the World Assembly. The simple fact is that member nations are still a minority of the whole collection of nations. Without knowing the scope of the problem it is almost impossible to say what positive effects this resolution will have, if any.”

"All civil rights proposals deal with internal issues. It appears your Majesty is only concerned with civil rights when enough people are affected. This is, in our opinion, a very short-sighted position with regard to civil rights. Either there are civil rights for *all* citizens in a nation/region/whatever, or one doesn't really have civil rights then, does one?"

““We also have to consider the draconian measures of this resolution. ‘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.’ This is clearly a mater of micromanagement into how member nations are governed. It smacks of quotas.”

"Draconian? How... quaint. This is in fact micromanagement of how this proposal would be implemented. Smacking of quotas would require some sort of mathematical calculation of how many nomadic persons would be required, in addition to persons of the general populace, to sit on said advisory panel. Obviously, one or two would do. Hardly a quota system. Clearly, the intent of this section is to ensure that those with an intimate knowledge of nomadic lifestyles would be advising the government, as opposed to someone with no inherent knowledge of the subject, such as... oh I don't know... yourself?"

““The current vote is 1,299 for and 2,289 against. That is the resolution has the support of only 35% of the vote. Among the major powers against this are Europe, The South Pacific, Capitalist Paradise and The Council of Narnia. None of the other feeders have weighed in on the matter at this time.”

We fail to see what the voting record of other regions has to do with any other region's vote, but if popularity is how your Majesty decides which way to go on any given proposal, then... to each their own."

Maggie sits down and wipes off her glasses. It's going to be a very, very long day.

Are you claiming that this resolution is part of some massive conspiracy to boost the economies of non-member nations? I'd respectfully suggest putting down the pipe, because whatever you're smoking cannot be high-quality stuff.

I would never go as far to suggest a conspiracy. I might suggest that there are or at least some members who have established small semi-autonomous states so that their nation can avoid the legal ramifications of World Assembly resolutions while at the same time having a say and a voice in resolutions that impact all the members of the World Assembly. Such nations combined with other nations who are content to impose their own style of slavery on all other nations do combine to present resolutions which hurt World Assembly nations and give non World Assembly nations an advantage. This is not a “conspiracy” but it is a fact of life.

As nomadism is a phenomenon that transcends international borders, and nomads cross international borders, I can't imagine how it is not, in fact, an international concern.

A nomad’s larger region may cross a national border, but then this becomes a regional issue and not an “international” one. To be an international issue it needs to cross many borders, not just one or two of a given nation’s own borders. The nomads of the Antarctic will most likely have no impact on the region of New York. Many regions may not have any nomads. Some nations may have nomads who never leave their borders.

This gets ore interesting when you look at the nature of “international” as it impacts only World Assembly member states. Many of these nomads will cross borders between member and non member states frequently going into and out of the scope of this resolution.

Oh, by the way, I dare you to equate nomads (such as my ancestors and family) to polygamists, cannibals and other such ilk again.

Obviously I touched a nerve. Do you have something against polygamists? Polygamy has been a part of many glorious civilizations. Likewise while I personally don’t know of any cannibals, I do recall getting some well made arguments how it was a respected part of several cultures.

No, it smacks of making sure that people with appropriate knowledge and expertise on the subject (i.e. nomadism) are appointed to positions where they can advise their governments accordingly. I don't know how your government works, but our government likes to hire people who know what they're talking about on a subject and can guide us accordingly. Apparently, that's not a common practice, especially when it comes to WA ambassadors.

But then would you agree that you don’t have to be a “nomad” in order to have studied nomadic culture? An expert on the subject, indeed the strongest supporter of a subject might not be a member of that actual subject. Perhaps I am hung up on the “requires” as opposed to “encourages.”

And indeed if your government does hire the best people and those best people are in fact nomads then this resolution does nothing new. If this is not the case it certainly won’t cause that to happen. It will merely cause a quota of competent nomads to be added to the government, probably shifted to offices where they will be able to do the least good.

We are unclear on how it is that certain groups of people, who violate no law, should not be granted the same fundamental rights as anyone else in a given nation/region/whatever. If a lifestyle were truly not sustainable, then it would, of course, die out of its own accord. That your Highness feels it is not sustainable is not quite the same thing. It is our impression that your Highness is merely saying it is not practiced by the majority of citizens and therefore, unimportant. It may be unimportant to those who are settled, but I assure your Highness, that to those who are nomadic, it is very important.

But here lies the problem. You state that they “violate no law.” But it might be possible that they do violate one or more laws by being in a nomadic state. The most obvious is that of private property rights; obviously they have to be somewhere and typically this means being on someone else’s property. This is a problem even for non nomadic people. I’ve had complaints before about people being able to walk wherever they “ruddy well like.” Then there are resource considerations for any large scale migration of a people; can the local region support these people on a short term basis? You may think a people are entitled to roam wherever they like, but what about endangered habitats, or unsafe environments?

I do not wish to say that the practice is not important, but it is not universally important. More over there are certain regional and local situations which may be more important. This is not some absolute truth or fundamental right. It must be addressed on the local level, not on the global level of all World Assembly nations.

We are certainly puzzled by the connection between nomadic lifestyles and polygamy, cannibalism and forced marriages. If your Highness is attempting to imply that only social mores as practiced by the majority of citizens are sustainable, we would suggest that practices such as polygamy, cannibalism and forced marriages continue to exist, but out of sight of most governments, putting to rest the unsustainability claim. Nomadic lifestyles, by definition, cannot be practiced out of sight of any government. Further, while we understand why many cultures would be violently opposed to polygamy, cannibalism and forced marriage, we fail to see what the opposition to a non-settled lifestyle would be, other than Well, I just don't like it.

For every culture there exist strong defenders of the culture. You might have a strong reason to defend the nomadic lifestyle but there are those whose ancient cultures practiced polygamy would also insist that this is a core element of their culture and that it must be preserved. Perhaps it should but it is not an absolute right. It needs to be balanced with all the other necessary conditions which a society might find itself. The notion of a single global World Assembly solution is being discussed here, not the general principle itself.

I’ve been ignoring the general problems that could possibly occur with the nomadic lifestyle, assuming that it is a significant population. Such populations could significantly put pressure on a local region in terms of resources, jobs, and management. The health infrastructure, the education infrastructure, the food infrastructure could be given major short term stress and might not be able to cope with the temporary anomaly resulting in significant long term damage which the “settled” people will have to cope with long after the nomads have left the area.

Once again, this is a local problem. There is no one size fits all solution here. More over the problem exists equally well for member as well as non member states. Any World Assembly resolution would be a half effective solution.

I would never go as far to suggest a conspiracy. I might suggest that there are or at least some members who have established small semi-autonomous states so that their nation can avoid the legal ramifications of World Assembly resolutions while at the same time having a say and a voice in resolutions that impact all the members of the World Assembly. Such nations combined with other nations who are content to impose their own style of slavery on all other nations do combine to present resolutions which hurt World Assembly nations and give non World Assembly nations an advantage. This is not a “conspiracy” but it is a fact of life.



A nomad’s larger region may cross a national border, but then this becomes a regional issue and not an “international” one. To be an international issue it needs to cross many borders, not just one or two of a given nation’s own borders. The nomads of the Antarctic will most likely have no impact on the region of New York. Many regions may not have any nomads. Some nations may have nomads who never leave their borders.

This gets ore interesting when you look at the nature of “international” as it impacts only World Assembly member states. Many of these nomads will cross borders between member and non member states frequently going into and out of the scope of this resolution.



Obviously I touched a nerve. Do you have something against polygamists? Polygamy has been a part of many glorious civilizations. Likewise while I personally don’t know of any cannibals, I do recall getting some well made arguments how it was a respected part of several cultures.



But then would you agree that you don’t have to be a “nomad” in order to have studied nomadic culture? An expert on the subject, indeed the strongest supporter of a subject might not be a member of that actual subject. Perhaps I am hung up on the “requires” as opposed to “encourages.”

And indeed if your government does hire the best people and those best people are in fact nomads then this resolution does nothing new. If this is not the case it certainly won’t cause that to happen. It will merely cause a quota of competent nomads to be added to the government, probably shifted to offices where they will be able to do the least good.

Your Majesty's definition off " international " is simply incorrect. International simply means " between nations " it is not analogous to " inter-regional" which has a completely different meaning.

The claim on internationality of this resolution does not reside in the nature of nomadism in any case, it resides in the fact that Humans and their rights regardless of their ethnicity, nationality or other factors are international.

Human rights are not dependent on any factor other than humanity, to continue to claim otherwise suggests that your Majesty in fact does not believe in human rights and would rather this organisation did not seek to promote or defend them. If this is the case your Majesty should make their position clear.

yours e.t.c. ,

I would never go as far to suggest a conspiracy. I might suggest that there are or at least some members who have established small semi-autonomous states so that their nation can avoid the legal ramifications of World Assembly resolutions while at the same time having a say and a voice in resolutions that impact all the members of the World Assembly. Such nations combined with other nations who are content to impose their own style of slavery on all other nations do combine to present resolutions which hurt World Assembly nations and give non World Assembly nations an advantage. This is not a “conspiracy” but it is a fact of life.

Oh, I see. It's the "evil puppet and enslaver alliance". If I knew this session was going to be so entertaining I'd have brought popcorn.

A nomad’s larger region may cross a national border, but then this becomes a regional issue and not an “international” one. To be an international issue it needs to cross many borders, not just one or two of a given nation’s own borders.

Nonsense. The dictionary definition of "international", for your edification:

Main Entry: 1in·ter·na·tion·al
Pronunciation: \ˌin-tər-ˈnash-nəl, -ˈna-shə-nəl\
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or affecting two or more nations <international trade>
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a group or association having members in two or more nations <international movement>
3 : active, known, or reaching beyond national boundaries <an international reputation>

If it affects more than one nation, as migration across a border from one nation to another will, it's international. Hope this clears things up for you.

I'd also point out that nomadism takes place in many regions, in many nations, indeed throughout the known multiverse. It may not occur in every nation or region, but it surely occurs in enough of them to merit being considered international in scope.

The nomads of the Antarctic will most likely have no impact on the region of New York. Many regions may not have any nomads. Some nations may have nomads who never leave their borders.

That's all well and good. I fail to see what your point is.

This gets ore interesting when you look at the nature of “international” as it impacts only World Assembly member states. Many of these nomads will cross borders between member and non member states frequently going into and out of the scope of this resolution.

What happens in non-member states is out of the scope of this entire organization, and while we should take that into account, ultimately we can only legislate within our own organization.

Obviously I touched a nerve. Do you have something against polygamists? Polygamy has been a part of many glorious civilizations. Likewise while I personally don’t know of any cannibals, I do recall getting some well made arguments how it was a respected part of several cultures.

What I object to is having my culture and ancestry disparaged and lumped in with other groups that someone finds objectionable, and that "guilt by association" used to shoot down legislation that would protect our rights. How I may personally feel about polygamists and cannibals is not representative of my government or germane to the issue.

But then would you agree that you don’t have to be a “nomad” in order to have studied nomadic culture? An expert on the subject, indeed the strongest supporter of a subject might not be a member of that actual subject. Perhaps I am hung up on the “requires” as opposed to “encourages.”

Possibly. I would also agree that you don't have to be a nomad to understand us. However, I would respectfully suggest that a nomad is pretty well suited to understand nomadic culture and life, and is thus an ideal person to have in such a position. I would also note that the "requirement" is a pretty minimal one, and can be easily met without resorting to quotas.

And indeed if your government does hire the best people and those best people are in fact nomads then this resolution does nothing new.

Perhaps, but it doesn't do anything bad in this case, either.

If this is not the case it certainly won’t cause that to happen. It will merely cause a quota of competent nomads to be added to the government, probably shifted to offices where they will be able to do the least good.

No it won't, because of the portion of clause 5 which clearly states that nomads should be appointed to "advise government departments on how best to tailor government services to the cultural and practical needs of Nomads". It doesn't tell governments to "stick nomads somewhere where they're in charge of measuring drapes for government buildings" or to "put nomads in charge of fluffing the President's pillows". It tells them to put nomads in positions where they can actually do some good in shaping government services to best serve nomadic populations.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador and Argali representative

The Kingdom of Fulmaria has voted for this resolution.

Yes, there are a couple of faults, but they aren't that serious. On the whole, this resolution is helpful to those in need and by passing it, many more people will have a fair treating.

That's all I have to say.

Regards,
The Kingdom of Fulmaria

But here lies the problem. You state that they “violate no law.” But it might be possible that they do violate one or more laws by being in a nomadic state. The most obvious is that of private property rights; obviously they have to be somewhere and typically this means being on someone else’s property. This is a problem even for non nomadic people. I’ve had complaints before about people being able to walk wherever they “ruddy well like.” Then there are resource considerations for any large scale migration of a people; can the local region support these people on a short term basis? You may think a people are entitled to roam wherever they like, but what about endangered habitats, or unsafe environments?

I do not wish to say that the practice is not important, but it is not universally important. More over there are certain regional and local situations which may be more important. This is not some absolute truth or fundamental right. It must be addressed on the local level, not on the global level of all World Assembly nations.



For every culture there exist strong defenders of the culture. You might have a strong reason to defend the nomadic lifestyle but there are those whose ancient cultures practiced polygamy would also insist that this is a core element of their culture and that it must be preserved. Perhaps it should but it is not an absolute right. It needs to be balanced with all the other necessary conditions which a society might find itself. The notion of a single global World Assembly solution is being discussed here, not the general principle itself.

I’ve been ignoring the general problems that could possibly occur with the nomadic lifestyle, assuming that it is a significant population. Such populations could significantly put pressure on a local region in terms of resources, jobs, and management. The health infrastructure, the education infrastructure, the food infrastructure could be given major short term stress and might not be able to cope with the temporary anomaly resulting in significant long term damage which the “settled” people will have to cope with long after the nomads have left the area.

Once again, this is a local problem. There is no one size fits all solution here. More over the problem exists equally well for member as well as non member states. Any World Assembly resolution would be a half effective solution.

Would your Majesty like to read the resolution more closely, clause 6 clearly states that freedom of movement must be agreed between Nomads, Governments and settled citizens, not on the basis of the whim of Nomads.

Again this resolution does not outright ring fence anyone's right to any particular lifestyle, it only prevents governments unfairly depriving persons of their basic human rights, your ruminations on the validity of a nomadic lifestyle are not relevant.

Human rights are not a " Local problem" and the issues specific to nomadism and their interactions with the states in which they are citizens are left firmly, and fairly within the control of member nations by this resolution.


yours e.t.c. ,

The Artheres government has declared this World Assembly proposal unacceptable. Clause six is simply ridiculous. I have to wonder... is the World Assembly's job just to pump out imperfect, useless and downright dangerous proposals?

There are too many loopholes in this proposal, many loopholes that terrorists could abuse. I am not against the rights of Nomads, but clearly this proposal is forcing WA nations to bend over backwards and then some for nomadic peoples.

As such, on behalf of my glorious nation Artheres, I vote a resounding NO!

The Artheres government has declared this World Assembly proposal unacceptable. Clause six is simply ridiculous. I have to wonder... is the World Assembly's job just to pump out imperfect, useless and downright dangerous proposals?

There are too many loopholes in this proposal, many loopholes that terrorists could abuse. I am not against the rights of Nomads, but clearly this proposal is forcing WA nations to bend over backwards and then some for nomadic peoples.

As such, on behalf of my glorious nation Artheres, I vote a resounding NO!

If you think that increasing government control of nomadic migrations across international borders on mutually agreed terms with your neighbours and with nomads, and applying the same standards of border control to nomads as to settled persons represents "bending over backwards and then some" then we imagine you must have a very strange anatomy indeed respected ambassador.

Your nation would be more secure if this resolution were implemented, not less so.

Your mention of terrorism is completely gratuitous and plainly some form of scaremongering, what is the purpose of doing so?

your e.t.c ,

The Artheres government has declared this World Assembly proposal unacceptable. Clause six is simply ridiculous.

....how so?

I have to wonder... is the World Assembly's job just to pump out imperfect, useless and downright dangerous proposals?

I have to wonder, how many resolutions (or proposals, even) has the "glorious nation" of Artheres authored?

There are too many loopholes in this proposal, many loopholes that terrorists could abuse.

....such as?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

This decision is discriminative in nature and works in my opinion, advert or inadvertently, to undermine *settled* nations.
One of the most fundamental duties of a state is to care for its inhabitants.
Migratory\Nomadic behaviored are based on economic reason as well.
To make a long story short lets just say that it's hardly seems fair that somebody will enter into my house, eat the cake I just made and then bail-out leaving me with a hip of dishes...
Lets take an example from nature, the lion does not always sleep in the same place he slept yesterday but he always sleeps within its own territory.
I might offer an example that i know of from first hand; in now days Israel the Beduies, [Bed-oo-eem]which are a proud nation of brave desert nomads, might relocate tents within the borders of Israel, given that the new placement is not taken already by someone else, of course.
I believe it's the same in Mongolia as well.
A nation MUST have its right to secure its inhabitants welfare in a peaceful way, immigration and emigration are powerful tools in that process and cannot be revoked without dire consequences - therefore, I sugest a solution:

Suppose we take to a vote a resolution that define state borders of all nomadic nations within they can roam freely and be protected by this organization.
These new lands would be given on the expanse of states that these minorities are living in just like Israel gave Gaza and its surroundings to the Palestinians and evicted its own population with out any demands from the Palestinians and just like I hope that Turkey, Iran and Iraq will give the Kurds their own state.
That way we can make sure that these minorities are not bullied or treated with unfairness.
If the Nomadic minorities would have WA sanctioned territory we would be able to make sure that everyone are safe and that nobody's eating nobody else's' cake. :D



* my post should not be regarded as a political point of view, I am mearly bringing examples from my imidiate, known world and not making a political stand that might agravate or cause any other discomfort to other forum members, thx.

...To make a long story short lets just say that it's hardly seems fair that somebody will enter into my house, eat the cake I just made and then bail-out leaving me with a hip of dishes...
... Suppose we take to a vote a resolution that define state borders of all nomadic nations within they can roam freely and be protected by this organization.


If ever a simple solution will be possible for difficult problems, it is gladly accepted. But it is not so simply justly to give land away to nomads (or whatever group of people.) First groups live mixed. As we can imagine it will be different to unmix them. (Normally that is called ethnic cleansing or deportation, both things are a crime against humanity.) And lots of people are from mixed origin (if not all). (I know I have genetic relations with at least for different ethnic groups. In scientific way they know tell if you go back in past about 500 years ago to whatever place on your planet, with 75% from the people who live there you have ethnic relations with. With 25% you will not have. Their line doesn't have relations with anybody in the present time.)

And the example of a private house, I cannot see the value of this in the aspect of this resolution. All people inside a nation must be the citizens or are guests from outside. So if a nomad with the nation nationality is inside a nation it is also his nation. It is not a guest.
The only thing I could say that is maybe connected about a nation as a house, is that all citizens must abide the same law, but that law has to be fair for all citizens. Fairness and human rights for all is the nature of this proposal.

Regards


OOC:
Things about giving land away that is not theirs (about Gaza and Israël) are not the things we discuss. It is about NationStates what we discuss.

This decision is discriminative in nature and works in my opinion, advert or inadvertently, to undermine *settled* nations.
One of the most fundamental duties of a state is to care for its inhabitants.
Migratory\Nomadic behaviored are based on economic reason as well.
To make a long story short lets just say that it's hardly seems fair that somebody will enter into my house, eat the cake I just made and then bail-out leaving me with a hip of dishes...
Lets take an example from nature, the lion does not always sleep in the same place he slept yesterday but he always sleeps within its own territory.
I might offer an example that i know of from first hand; in now days Israel the Beduies, [Bed-oo-eem]which are a proud nation of brave desert nomads, might relocate tents within the borders of Israel, given that the new placement is not taken already by someone else, of course.
I believe it's the same in Mongolia as well.
A nation MUST have its right to secure its inhabitants welfare in a peaceful way, immigration and emigration are powerful tools in that process and cannot be revoked without dire consequences - therefore, I sugest a solution:

Suppose we take to a vote a resolution that define state borders of all nomadic nations within they can roam freely and be protected by this organization.
These new lands would be given on the expanse of states that these minorities are living in just like Israel gave Gaza and its surroundings to the Palestinians and evicted its own population with out any demands from the Palestinians and just like I hope that Turkey, Iran and Iraq will give the Kurds their own state.
That way we can make sure that these minorities are not bullied or treated with unfairness.
If the Nomadic minorities would have WA sanctioned territory we would be able to make sure that everyone are safe and that nobody's eating nobody else's' cake. :D



* my post should not be regarded as a political point of view, I am mearly bringing examples from my imidiate, known world and not making a political stand that might agravate or cause any other discomfort to other forum members, thx.


We thank the respected delegate for their interest in this debate and for their input, it reflects well on your nation that even if you do not accord with our resolution you are still prepared to offer construtive advice.

However, the resolution is written, it can only be rewritten if it is defeated at vote and we decide to rewrite it. Of course another concerned nation could write a totally different resolution, we would be most supportive of such a project.

Your particular suggestion is novel but unworkable and very questionable from a human rights perspective. The notion of creating nomadic "reservations" is discriminatory in the extreme and is really just a form of Ghettoisation.

All this resolution seeks to do is give member nations better control over their borders while allowing fair and negotiated access across them for nomads who would have to cross these borders under the same conditions as settled people.

This resolution does not give nomads extra rights, it only reqiures member nations with nomadic minorities who do not have basic human rights to restore them to the same levels as the settled citizens of these nations.

Again thank you for your interest, yours e.t.c. ,

At a point, two of the three ambassadors at the table of Baricia got up in protest, and were finally calmed by the third. After some discussion, the third arose,

"The first thing I must voice about this issue is the derogatory comments made about polygamy and/or polygamists during the course of this argument. Polygamy is a fully normal and acceptable societal paradigm in the Past and Future Imperii, though not in my own native Modern Imperium, and we find comparison of this cultural norm to cannibalism to be a grave insult to the Barician Imperii and their people.

Unfortunately, I must come to the point and voice the Three Imperii's sad rejection of this resolution. While we see the need for a resolution on this topic, and applaud the move made by the Urgenchi people, this resolution is not acceptable to the Imperii. Clauses 1, 2, 4, and 6 are fully acceptable and applauded by the Imperii, but the fifth clause is unacceptable. The Imperii would accept it if the resolution read that it "encourages", or even "strongly encourages", "requires" is unacceptable and a violation of our most sacred Precedent.

In our nations, ministries and departments exist already for dealing with nomadic peoples within our borders, who are given already all the rights guaranteed in this resolution. However, the Precedent clearly and obviously forbids requirements for ministerial or civil service positions to be a member of any group for any reason, which would include even the good-natured intention of this resolution. Therefore, we must, sadly, vote against this righteous and good World Assembly resolution.

We beg Urgench's pardon.

At a point, two of the three ambassadors at the table of Baricia got up in protest, and were finally calmed by the third. After some discussion, the third arose,

"The first thing I must voice about this issue is the derogatory comments made about polygamy and/or polygamists during the course of this argument. Polygamy is a fully normal and acceptable societal paradigm in the Past and Future Imperii, though not in my own native Modern Imperium, and we find comparison of this cultural norm to cannibalism to be a grave insult to the Barician Imperii and their people.

Unfortunately, I must come to the point and voice the Three Imperii's sad rejection of this resolution. While we see the need for a resolution on this topic, and applaud the move made by the Urgenchi people, this resolution is not acceptable to the Imperii. Clauses 1, 2, 4, and 6 are fully acceptable and applauded by the Imperii, but the fifth clause is unacceptable. The Imperii would accept it if the resolution read that it "encourages", or even "strongly encourages", "requires" is unacceptable and a violation of our most sacred Precedent.

In our nations, ministries and departments exist already for dealing with nomadic peoples within our borders, who are given already all the rights guaranteed in this resolution. However, the Precedent clearly and obviously forbids requirements for ministerial or civil service positions to be a member of any group for any reason, which would include even the good-natured intention of this resolution. Therefore, we must, sadly, vote against this righteous and good World Assembly resolution.

We beg Urgench's pardon.

But esteemed ambassador your nation would in fact be un effected by clause 5 if your nation already has the kind of institutions you speak of, and if all the other clauses are acceptable to your nation then please vote yes, for the sake of nomads living in nations less civilised than yours.

yours sincerely,

But esteemed ambassador your nation would in fact be un effected by clause 5 if your nation already has the kind of institutions you speak of, and if all the other clauses are acceptable to your nation then please vote yes, for the sake of nomads living in nations less civilised than yours.

yours sincerely,

The fifth clause of the resolution clearly states -

5. 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.

From my perspective, as a certified member of Baricia's Circle of Justice, the resolution could be interpreted:

1. Member nations must appoint Nomadic persons to the government.
2. These Nomadic persons must have appropriate expertise to assist in tailoring government services to nomads
3. Where no such persons currently exist, clause 4 shall suffice.

"[S]uch persons" is nowhere defined, and, on a reading, I would assume that "such persons" refers to government positions or departments which already exist must now be filled by nomadic persons, and if they do not exist, clause 4 will suffice, meaning that clause 5 would apply to the Imperii.

As an M.C.J. and as an officer of the Imperium, I took an oath to preserve the Precedent, and as far as my own reading, this resolution, specifically, clause 5, would contradict that oath.

The fifth clause of the resolution clearly states -



From my perspective, as a certified member of Baricia's Circle of Justice, the resolution could be interpreted:

1. Member nations must appoint Nomadic persons to the government.
2. These Nomadic persons must have appropriate expertise to assist in tailoring government services to nomads
3. Where no such persons currently exist, clause 4 shall suffice.

"[S]uch persons" is nowhere defined, and, on a reading, I would assume that "such persons" refers to government positions or departments which already exist must now be filled by nomadic persons, and if they do not exist, clause 4 will suffice, meaning that clause 5 would apply to the Imperii.

As an M.C.J. and as an officer of the Imperium, I took an oath to preserve the Precedent, and as far as my own reading, this resolution, specifically, clause 5, would contradict that oath.



Esteemed ambassador if your nation has already created effective and fair methods of administering nomadic affairs which do not contravene clause 1 and the nomadic citizens of your nation already enjoy the level of rights of your settled citizens as required by the other clauses of this resolution then clause 5 will not affect your nation.

The only clause we would see as being most opperative on your nation is clause 1, and from what you say such non-discriminatory policies probably already exist in your nation so really even clause 1 will only have a small and impact on your future decisions.

sincerely,

What the fuck is happening to the world (or NS)! Why havent we allowed these laws to pass. There about freedoms and rights! Why shouldnt nomads' lands be protected, theyve been living on them for thousands of years and shouldnt be forced to stray. Plus it only applies if you have nomads! and i LOVE the porous borders idea. Its already used in the real world!

From my perspective, as a certified member of Baricia's Circle of Justice, the resolution could be interpreted:

1. Member nations must appoint Nomadic persons to the government.
This would be a deeply weird reading of "...appoint Nomadic persons with appropriate expertise within their civil services to advise...". I can't make your statement mesh with the wording of the clause at all. Try this analysis:

1. Member nations must appoint Nomadic persons as advisors on nomad needs.
2. The nomadic persons in question must have appropriate expertise.
3. Either the nomadic persons in question must already be government employees ("civil servants"), or the nomadic persons in question become employed by the government to give advice (depending on whether you think "within" is a modifier to the noun phrase "Nomadic persons" or introducing the secondary object of "appoint").
4. If there are no nomadic persons with appropriate expertise (the only even faintly plausible instantiation of "such persons", stop being silly) then it is permissible to rely on Clause 4 for getting the advice you need.

But here lies the problem. You state that they “violate no law.” But it might be possible that they do violate one or more laws by being in a nomadic state. The most obvious is that of private property rights; obviously they have to be somewhere and typically this means being on someone else’s property.

Typically, nomadic people don't spend a great deal of time around settled people. When they are in the vicinity of settled people, they typically are respectful of personal property rights, as not being respectful of said rights will usually result in arrest. This is a common misconception of nomadic peoples - that they are incapable of respecting laws.

If your Majesty is saying that there are nations that have no open expanses, no places a nomadic group could exist, then chances are they won't want to go there. There is no provision for making your nation more hospitable or inviting to nomadic peoples.

Then there are resource considerations for any large scale migration of a people; can the local region support these people on a short term basis? You may think a people are entitled to roam wherever they like, but what about endangered habitats, or unsafe environments?

Again, your Highness; typically nomadic groups do not go to areas that cannot support them. They tend to be very aware of their environment and far more protective of it than any nation could possibly be. See, this is the kind of thing the government appointed liaison would be able to explain to you.

I do not wish to say that the practice is not important, but it is not universally important. More over there are certain regional and local situations which may be more important. This is not some absolute truth or fundamental right. It must be addressed on the local level, not on the global level of all World Assembly nations.

It is possible that some circumstance might make nomads in a given area problematic; surely this is the kind of the thing the liaison would be in position to assist with? I can't think of anything off the top of my head, but I'd be interested in hearing your Majesty's suppositions, of course.

For every culture there exist strong defenders of the culture. You might have a strong reason to defend the nomadic lifestyle but there are those whose ancient cultures practiced polygamy would also insist that this is a core element of their culture and that it must be preserved. Perhaps it should but it is not an absolute right. It needs to be balanced with all the other necessary conditions which a society might find itself.

Our nation has no particular interest in or revulsion to the practice of polygamy. Generally, objections to polygamy are based in religion. We're technocrats - we couldn't care less what a person's sexual lifestyle or identification is so long as all parties are consenting. There are actually some very strong social arguments for the practice of polygamy, but that's beside the point. Maggie has to fight a sudden to urge to quip 'the point is you are a racist!' Giving herself a mental shake and note to get some new movies in or in the alternative, get out more, she continues...

And other than the fact that we believe in civil rights for all don't say sapients, don't say sapients... people (cough), we have no axe to grind or special interest in this proposal.

I’ve been ignoring the general problems that could possibly occur with the nomadic lifestyle, assuming that it is a significant population. Such populations could significantly put pressure on a local region in terms of resources, jobs, and management. The health infrastructure, the education infrastructure, the food infrastructure could be given major short term stress and might not be able to cope with the temporary anomaly resulting in significant long term damage which the “settled” people will have to cope with long after the nomads have left the area.

Our difficulty with this argument, your Majesty, is the underlying premise. This resolution would not magically spring into being some rapacious band of disrespectful, law-breaking, government-sponging locusts, swarming through a nation depleting its resources without bar; The vision of arguing whether or not locusts were sapient suddenly flashed through Maggie's brain rather, it would protect the rights of those already practicing said lifestyle. This is where the bit about "organized and/or traditional" comes in. It then logically follows that nomadic routes and areas are already in existence and are regularly visited by virtue of the fact that they are sustainable. The purpose of the liaison would be to work through any possibly contentious areas, balancing the rights of all involved.

It is also illogical to assume that settling any existent nomadic peoples, which would then respect everyone's rights (cough), would result in any less of a drain on governmental or environmental resources than allowing nomadic peoples to continue their way of life unimpeded and with full civil rights. In fact, we would submit that the drain would be more, along with any potential societal dividend being lost.

Once again, this is a local problem. There is no one size fits all solution here. More over the problem exists equally well for member as well as non member states. Any World Assembly resolution would be a half effective solution.

The logical extension of this thought could easily be seen to be that since no civil rights legislation affects non-member nations, we shouldn't be bothered with them at all. One step further is there being no purpose to the WA since absolutely nothing we do here impacts non-member nations whatsoever. We all know your Highness that these statements simply aren't true. Yes, we should be concerned with equal rights for all citizens and in particular with finding ways to balance all of those rights regardless of the actions of non-member nations; perhaps in spite of their actions.

There is no suggestion in this proposal that the rights of nomadic peoples should supersede the rights of settled people. It is a roadmap for negotiating resolution between these already existent two groups while ensuring the rights of both sides are factored in. Will each get exactly what they want? Of course not. It is called compromise and fortunately, most people, other than diplomats, tend to practice it. But then, that is the nature of our job, is it not?

Smiling, and with a slight bow in the direction of Tzorsland, Maggie takes her seat. Bill snickered. "There for a minute I could hear you saying 'the point is you are a racist!'" Maggie looked at Bill; Bill looked at Maggie and both broke out into hysterical giggles. "So could I" gasped Maggie. After a minute or two, Maggie struggled to get herself under control. "Damn. I hope his Majesty doesn't think we're laughing at him. They really should have picked someone else for this job." Mopping her face with a handkerchief, Maggie tried to look... diplomatic or something... and smiled encouragingly in the general direction of Tzorsland. With an inward groan, she knew she was going to hear about this later.

" huh ...now look at that idiot " ... ..

Alicia looked at him in askance ..her eyes lit with a mixture of shock and awe from a few moments ago ...

" Huh ..now that lumbering drunk Darvek has got Susa drooling all over him" ...Ambassador Thomas sighed .... well at least he had shut up the narnians ..sort of .." Testosterone filled beasts ..".

Alicia stiffened besides him. He sighed once more, not noticing Alicia's reaction and listened in on the debate raging between Baricia and Urgench ..

" uh hum ....excuse me but ...my dear " ..addressing the delegate from Baricia .." I do find yout phrasing as a member of Baricia's Circle of Justice slightly , umm ..weird ....considering the recent rumors that you are facing charges of unprofessionalism ....' .."Of course it may not not be true ..but ...still .." ." Anyway could you care to explain what does your Oath say that makes fulfilling clauses 4 and 5 so hard ?? " .....

As he sat down, he shot a venemous glance at Darvek as the man giggled drunkenly and continued to act like a foolish preening bird ... .



__________________________________________________________________________

"Aut inveniam, aut faciam"

Oh, Light, where to start?

“Let us then carefully consider this significant human rights resolution. The first question is whether this actually merits the consideration of the World Assembly in the first place, or is this yet another case of micromanaging the internal affairs of member nations in order to give non member nations a significant economical advantage?”

Seriously? I mean, seriously?! This "question" is nothing more than a poorly veiled smear. I'm not going into the details, as the delegation from the Altan Steppes has more than sufficiently addressed these concerns, but the resolution at vote is clearly international in scope as it deals with, shockingly enough, issues across national borders.

The nomad culture is indeed one such culture but so too is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages, and so forth.

Again, astounding, and for all the wrong reasons. The primary one is that, quite simply, nomadic peoples can cross international boundaries, often inadvertently. Guess what? That doesn't have the first thing to do with polygamy, cannibalism, or forced marriages. Of course, Krioval had the collective wisdom to get the government out of the marriage contracting business, mooting two of the three. Let's not discuss my ancestors and how they may or may not relate to the third.

“We also have to consider the draconian measures of this resolution. ‘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.’ This is clearly a mater of micromanagement into how member nations are governed. It smacks of quotas.”

This has already been addressed quite well by the Altan Steppes delegation, but to reiterate, because the point is important, hiring people with expertise in a given area is a good thing. I mean, you'd actually begrudge a minority culture the courtesy of a friggin' advisory position when decisions about their people are at stake?

“The current vote is 1,299 for and 2,289 against. That is the resolution has the support of only 35% of the vote. Among the major powers against this are Europe, The South Pacific, Capitalist Paradise and The Council of Narnia. None of the other feeders have weighed in on the matter at this time.”

How delightfully irrelevant. Now, who's next?

The Artheres government has declared this World Assembly proposal unacceptable.

Oh, that's a shock.

I have to wonder... is the World Assembly's job just to pump out imperfect, useless and downright dangerous proposals?

First, it's hardly "pump[ing] out...useless...proposals" when a couple that Your Excellency dislikes happen to reach quorum. Second, these are resolutions now. Let's at least give the authors credit for mounting a successful campaign to bring their legislation forward, despite our personal beliefs of the quality of the resolution. Third, is there anything that Your Excellency would like to see passed, or does Your Excellency enjoy lamentably banal pissing contests?

There are too many loopholes in this proposal, many loopholes that terrorists could abuse.

A provocative claim. Now, please bring forth the evidence.

I am currently abstaining on this vote because I'm honestly not moved one way or the other by it. The following flood of crap arguments and manure reasoning, however, causes me to rethink that decision and consider casting my vote for.

King Harold XVI decides that he needs to “revise and extend” his remarks and so stands up to address the assembly.
Felix turns to an aide and whispers: "Have the launching chamber of the DEFENESTRATINATOR lined with silk and ermine, for we are about to defenestrate royalty."

“I have to admit, I think the discussion has been exceptionally civil. I had expected this resolution to devolve into the three ringed circus that occurred with the previous resolution but so far this has not happened. This has, perhaps, been one of the reasons for the decline in WATV in the past few days but I digress.”
A thing only becomes a circus when the Tzorslanders arrive. Ah, I see they are here with their big red noses, their funny hats and big shoes. Excellent!

“Let us then carefully consider this significant human rights resolution. The first question is whether this actually merits the consideration of the World Assembly in the first place, or is this yet another case of micromanaging the internal affairs of member nations in order to give non member nations a significant economical advantage?”
What madness is this? Why on earth (or any other world) would you think such a thing much less utter it publicly? Are you seriously insinuating that non-members have somehow co-opted Urgench and caused them to submit this legislation on behalf of some non-WA cabal?

Further, in that apparently fevered mind of yours, how did you arrive at the conclusion that this HUMAN RIGHTS resolution would give anyone an economic advantage.

I have always heard that certain mental illnesses are common amongst the crowned heads and this would seem to confirm the rumours.

“Is this issue a matter of ‘international’ scope? The last bit in clause six does have an cross national element to it but in general this resolution is not ‘international’ in scope.”
It certainly is international in scope if the nomads in question cross multiple national boundaries.

In addition, this body (as well as its predecessor the UN) has a tendency to consider human rights to be an international matter, by definition. I don't always agree with that particular "sentiment", but there is ample precedent for it being the case.

“Is this issue a matter of ‘fundamental human rights’? I do not think so.
That is simply your opinion, others would disagree.

Yes it is exceptionally not nice for any people to be denied of their traditional centuries old custom and tradition but there is no fundamental right to maintain a culture when circumstances or other conditions might otherwise indicate that elements of the culture can no longer be sustained or permitted. The nomad culture is indeed one such culture but so too is polygamy, cannibalism, forced marriages, and so forth. This is not to say that these are not, in and of themselves noble things that nations should be encouraged to do, but that does not mean they are in and of themselves fundamental rights that this august body should impose on all its members.”
I shouldn't even comment on this tripe, but....equating nomadic culture with polygamy, cannibalism, and forced marriages? You, your "highness", have demonstrated yourself to be nekulturny and worthy of the scorn of all assembled here.

“Failing these two items, there seems to be a lack of a solid basis for the resolution to begin with. This is an internal issue and should be left as such, not something left to the whim of the World Assembly. The simple fact is that member nations are still a minority of the whole collection of nations. Without knowing the scope of the problem it is almost impossible to say what positive effects this resolution will have, if any.”
But it doesn't "fail these two items". And what in the blue hell does the number of WA nations compared with the number of non-members have to do with anything?

“We also have to consider the draconian measures of this resolution.
Yes we would, if it did in fact have draconian measures included in it. It plainly does not.
‘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.’ This is clearly a mater of micromanagement into how member nations are governed. It smacks of quotas.”
Quotas? QUOTAS? Are you certain that is the word you were searching for? Just to make sure we're on the same page here, give me your definition of quotas.

“The current vote is 1,299 for and 2,289 against. That is the resolution has the support of only 35% of the vote. Among the major powers against this are Europe, The South Pacific, Capitalist Paradise and The Council of Narnia. None of the other feeders have weighed in on the matter at this time.”
Europe, Capitalist Paradise and Narnia are feeders now? And while I might accept that those three are certainly powerful regions, the only one in that list that would qualify as a "major power" is the South Pacific. Interesting grasp on NS politics you have there.

“Therefore my original vote still stands.”

With that he returns to his seat.
So in summary, your vote stands based on erroneous beliefs. I see.

I would never go as far to suggest a conspiracy.
Here we go. Let the backtracking begin in earnest.

I might suggest that there are or at least some members who have established small semi-autonomous states so that their nation can avoid the legal ramifications of World Assembly resolutions while at the same time having a say and a voice in resolutions that impact all the members of the World Assembly. Such nations combined with other nations who are content to impose their own style of slavery on all other nations do combine to present resolutions which hurt World Assembly nations and give non World Assembly nations an advantage. This is not a “conspiracy” but it is a fact of life.
We are not amused.

More to the point, I believe that you yourself have made use of these "semi-autonomous states" in the past. Those who live in glass houses should not throw potatoes.

A nomad’s larger region may cross a national border, but then this becomes a regional issue and not an “international” one. To be an international issue it needs to cross many borders, not just one or two of a given nation’s own borders. The nomads of the Antarctic will most likely have no impact on the region of New York. Many regions may not have any nomads. Some nations may have nomads who never leave their borders.
A regional issue? Many borders?

So if it's a human rights matter and only somewhere between 3 and 12 or so nations are affected, it isn't an international issue? Would you care to elaborate on that?


This gets ore interesting when you look at the nature of “international” as it impacts only World Assembly member states.
We are not discussing ore here, we are discussing nomads. If you must speak publicly or have words published for mass consumption, at least be familiar with the subject matter.

Many of these nomads will cross borders between member and non member states frequently going into and out of the scope of this resolution.
As you well know (or, considering the source, maybe not) resolutions can only affect member nations. What possible bearing could the fact that certain nomads may cross into non-member territory have on the resolution?

Obviously I touched a nerve. Do you have something against polygamists? Polygamy has been a part of many glorious civilizations. Likewise while I personally don’t know of any cannibals, I do recall getting some well made arguments how it was a respected part of several cultures.
Bullshit. More backpedaling. You said it. Your words are still there. You intended them as a slur. Live with it.

But then would you agree that you don’t have to be a “nomad” in order to have studied nomadic culture? An expert on the subject, indeed the strongest supporter of a subject might not be a member of that actual subject. Perhaps I am hung up on the “requires” as opposed to “encourages.”
Certainly there are academics and such who would be qualified for these positions, and the resolution does not preclude the hiring of such persons.

However, if I were to hire someone to put a roof on my house I would hire a roofer, rather than an architect or an engineer in an asphalt shingle factory.

And indeed if your government does hire the best people and those best people are in fact nomads then this resolution does nothing new. If this is not the case it certainly won’t cause that to happen. It will merely cause a quota of competent nomads to be added to the government, probably shifted to offices where they will be able to do the least good.
There you are with "quotas" again. Perhaps I'm missing something, but would you care to point out where this legislation establishes a "quota" of nomads to be hired?

But here lies the problem. You state that they “violate no law.” But it might be possible that they do violate one or more laws by being in a nomadic state.
Well I guess if they are in a nation that has outlawed nomads then you have a point.

The most obvious is that of private property rights; obviously they have to be somewhere and typically this means being on someone else’s property.
Where does this resolution give them the right to violate private property rights?

This is a problem even for non nomadic people. I’ve had complaints before about people being able to walk wherever they “ruddy well like.”
Are you feeling well? Off your meds, aren't you?

Then there are resource considerations for any large scale migration of a people; can the local region support these people on a short term basis?
If it can't then it's doubtful they would go there. Nomads tend to frequent areas that can support them.

You may think a people are entitled to roam wherever they like, but what about endangered habitats, or unsafe environments?
So you favor forced-settlement programs to protect the nomads from unsafe environments? Fascinating.

I do not wish to say that the practice is not important, but it is not universally important. More over there are certain regional and local situations which may be more important. This is not some absolute truth or fundamental right. It must be addressed on the local level, not on the global level of all World Assembly nations.
Why? Why should it not be addressed on a global level? I've heard a lot of opinions from you. I've heard a lot of declarative statements not backed by facts. Would you care to provide an argument that includes more than just your opinions?

For every culture there exist strong defenders of the culture. You might have a strong reason to defend the nomadic lifestyle but there are those whose ancient cultures practiced polygamy would also insist that this is a core element of their culture and that it must be preserved. Perhaps it should but it is not an absolute right. It needs to be balanced with all the other necessary conditions which a society might find itself. The notion of a single global World Assembly solution is being discussed here, not the general principle itself.
Again with the polygamy. Can't you find another nasty example of a distasteful practice to equate with nomadism?


I’ve been ignoring the general problems that could possibly occur with the nomadic lifestyle, assuming that it is a significant population. Such populations could significantly put pressure on a local region in terms of resources, jobs, and management. The health infrastructure, the education infrastructure, the food infrastructure could be given major short term stress and might not be able to cope with the temporary anomaly resulting in significant long term damage which the “settled” people will have to cope with long after the nomads have left the area.
So your solution is to deny them basic rights? Force them to settle? You've given examples here of hypothetical problems that are caused by nomads. How would you like to see them dealt with?

Once again, this is a local problem. There is no one size fits all solution here. More over the problem exists equally well for member as well as non member states. Any World Assembly resolution would be a half effective solution.
More declarative statements, handed down as if from God on high.

I have heard enough of this nonsense. Seize this fool and defenestrate him immediately!

King Harold XVI is defenestrated immediately.

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Absolutely for, nomands deserve equal rights to everyone else, what do their living habits matter to you?

We should point out that Tzorsland has besmirched our name with implications that we are a puppet regime of what they euphemisticaly call non member states, and that our attempt to improve the lives of our brother and sister Nomads is a part of a grand plot to undermine the economies of member states in favour of these shadowy nonmembers.

All of this is a disgusting lie! All of it is fantasy and gross insult! We demand that the rulers of Tzorsland recant these repellent insinuations emediately!

We are an independent and proud people, non-aligned and not beholden to any nation or region. We have presented the fruits of our labour to the w.a. in ernest and with wholely ethical intent.

The comments of Tzorsland in this debate prove that they have read perhaps two or three lines of our resolution at most and misunderstood them very foolishly indeed. The rest of their copious verbiage is bulked out with imbecilic commentary on matters seemingly completely beyond Tzorsland's mental grasp and vile insults against Urgench, and Nomads in general, betraying a level of bigotry that sickens us.

The rulers of Tzorsland are decietfull and there words show a shocking level of hate and prejudice.

We call on them to repent their shamefull hate speech and to make full apology to us for their grievous insult to our national honour.


Tamerlane Khan of Samarkand and Bhukhara, Grand Chancellor of the Empire of Urgench, Chamberlain of the Imperial Household.

All of it is fantasy and gross insult!Yep, that's Tzorsland. Don't worry, they're always like that; it's nothing to do with your proposal.
Whoever said TNC upheld the principles of freedom of speech to the degree you do? Last time I was aware, neither Henry Quord or Rev. Dr. Mar-tin Liu-tha Qing, Jr. were the ones ruling our nation. Are we here to discuss the merits of this proposal, or about how each other's traditions must bend to suit this proposal instead?
For someone who spent the entire debate on their own resolution lecturing other nations on how their judicial systems were inferior, you certainly have a thin shell when it comes to someone questioning your own nation's policies. But no, I never did imagine that we were running your country: if we were, your policies of racial segregation would be no more.Nomads certainly aren't 'biologically' more susceptible to causing disputes. But a group of people that shuffle around, whether they be nomads or not - literally standing on the rest of the populace's toes, is more than likely going to cause unrest.
First, I admire the rhetorical strategy, using a word like 'shuffle' to automatically cast suspicion on the group. Using 'move' would just be too, eh, too neutral. Second, you seem to unclear on what the word 'literally' means, unless you actually believe that nomads intentionally stand on other people's feet with a greater incidence than settled persons too. Third, you haven't remotely answered my question, so I'll ask again: why is a group that moves around more likely to commit crime and create disorder than a settled group?Therefore, they may move across mountains and wade through rivers to their heart's content in their own land (allotted to them), not ours. By the same token, 'settled' peoples may not settle in this portion of land.And until relatively recently, some Quodites had restrictive covenants on their houses that forbid sale of the property to Jews. About the same, I think: they keep to theirs, we'll keep to ours. Good fences make good neighbours.

-- Sam Benson
etc. etc.

Maggie and Bill share a box of Milk Duds while watching King Harold XVI fly through the air and out of the window.

Did you prepare the latest request for a new posting?

Bill reaches into his briefcase and produces it with a flourish. Won't do you any good, ya know, but here it is.

Maggie looked at the paper briefly. Eh. Save it for a couple days. Let's see if any more defenstrations go on. Wish we could institute the practice back home.

For someone who spent the entire debate on their own resolution lecturing other nations on how their judicial systems were inferior, you certainly have a thin shell when it comes to someone questioning your own nation's policies.

Oh? Is the Quod Delegation assuming that the guidelines put forth in Fair Criminal Trial were what TNC practiced beforehand? Unfortunately, this is blatantly incorrect - our nation had a far more centralized institution of justice established. However, we were prepared to lay these traditions aside for the WA ourselves - as was clearly indicated in the appropriate thread - a more fitting place for such discussions.

Third, you haven't remotely answered my question, so I'll ask again: why is a group that moves around more likely to commit crime and create disorder than a settled group?

Your first two 'points' address grammatical choices, so I'll just leave them be. As for your question, you've jumped to the conclusion that I'm referring to crime - which I'm not. Have you ever been in the aisle seat of an aeroplane, next to someone at the window seat that gets up and wants to move past you to relieve themselves every fifteen minutes? They have no wrong intentions, neither do you. But agitation is nonetheless caused. And if the problem can be minimized by keeping the two passengers in separate rows to each other, than so be it.

Now either you were criticizing the method of 'judging other nation's policies as inferior' earlier, or you were commending it. Because you happen to be doing that very same thing right now.

We figured it was going to be used for defenestrative purposes so we weren't worried.

Or it could have been the medieval equivalent of the Trojan Horse? Nevertheless, one would think that a giant trebuchet directed by a slightly mad dwarf would attract *some* sort of security attention...

*Beckons towards a satchel of gold*

Oh - and do the foyer pot-plants need replacing?

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

Oh? Is the Quod Delegation assuming that the guidelines put forth in Fair Criminal Trial were what TNC practiced beforehand? Unfortunately, this is blatantly incorrect - our nation had a far more centralized institution of justice established. However, we were prepared to lay these traditions aside for the WA ourselves - as was clearly indicated in the appropriate thread - a more fitting place for such discussions.



Your first two 'points' address grammatical choices, so I'll just leave them be. As for your question, you've jumped to the conclusion that I'm referring to crime - which I'm not. Have you ever been in the aisle seat of an aeroplane, next to someone at the window seat that gets up and wants to move past you to relieve themselves every fifteen minutes? They have no wrong intentions, neither do you. But agitation is nonetheless caused. And if the problem can be minimized by keeping the two passengers in separate rows to each other, than so be it.

Now either you were criticizing the method of 'judging other nation's policies as inferior' earlier, or you were commending it. Because you happen to be doing that very same thing right now.



Or it could have been the medieval equivalent of the Trojan Horse? Nevertheless, one would think that a giant trebuchet directed by a slightly mad dwarf would attract *some* sort of security attention...

*Beckons towards a satchel of gold*

Oh - and do the foyer pot-plants need replacing?

_________________
CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia


Of course the example used by the Narnian is flawed but we will try to explain how our resolution might be applied to it.

If both passengers had explained to each other before the flight what their requirements were they might have arranged to change seats, or make agreements on the frequency with which one of them might get up to use the bathroom or they might agree to swap seats to allow more comfort and less annoyance to each other.

This is the point of allowing Nomads, Settled communities and governments to nogotiate and agree on freedom of movement for nomads, it is also the point of a liaison as outlined in clause 4.

The sollution the Narnian suggests is a form of Ghettoisation as we have pointed out elsewhere and is as offensive to settled persons as it is to Nomads. It solves nothing and does nothing to end discrimination against nomads, it is certainly a world away from giving nomads the same rights as settled people.

yours e.t.c. ,

Whether or not these Nomads stay in one place or a hundred, they are human beings, just like us. They live as they deem acceptable, just as we live as we deem acceptable. As members of the human race, it is our responsponsibility to help one another. If this law promises help, equality and understanding, then we should vote for the affirmative. Besides, we cannot help where we were born, but we can help where we are going. In my Kingdom, Jyruma, we live in equality with one another, regardless of heritage, age or religion. Therfore, I implore you, members of the World Assembly, to consider, if you were a Nomad, what would you say?

I dislike this resolution mainly because of the first article that prohibits discrimination against Nomads in private sector employment practices; I don’t understand how it’s possible to employ nomads in positions that require physical presence in the work place.

Also, not all nomads are the same there are differences between gypsies, pastoral nomad tribes and hunter/gatherer nomads (for example the second requires large parcels of fertile lands to survive), so making a resolution that covers all can be very tricky.

In the end, it probably would be better to create separate regulation acts
Instead of a single human rights resolution

I dislike this resolution mainly because of the first article that prohibits discrimination against Nomads in private sector employment practices; I don’t understand how it’s possible to employ nomads in positions that require physical presence in the work place.

Also, not all nomads are the same there are differences between gypsies, pastoral nomad tribes and hunter/gatherer nomads (for example the second requires large parcels of fertile lands to survive), so making a resolution that covers all can be very tricky.

In the end, it probably would be better to create separate regulation acts
Instead of a single human rights resolution

We thank the respected ambassador for The Fat Bakers for their input but we should point out that large numbers of settled persons do not stay in one place and in one job all their lives, and that many nomads live lives which would make it eminently possible to employ them in jobs which would demand they stay in one place for a significant period of time. Proving that generalisation about what any group within society might do is pernicious.

Of course this resolution deals with as many types of Nomadism as possible since regardless of their life way every Nomad is a Human Being (for the purpose of this resolution in any case) and is therefore deserving of their basic Human Rights.

What sort of a regulation act are you suggesting respected ambassador? Do you mean settled persons righting laws which dictate how Nomads should live?
We would oppose such an insult.
Besides this resolution is not about regulating the lives of Nomads it is about restoring basic rights to Nomads who have been deprived of them by unsympathetic governments, it recognises that if these rights are restored then Nomads will have responsibilities to their governments, currently those without rights owe their governments nothing at all.

This situation is diluterious to all parties involved and damaging to national harmony, our resolution addresses it well and should be voted for by any member nation which is concerned for the rights of their citizens and the cohesion of society.

yours e.t.c.,

The very presence of Nomads within the borders of Armithan is a violation of our laws and as such, we vote Against. We value our security far too much to allow unregistered, wandering bands of vagabonds to take from our lands.

On a lesser note, how can any reasonable ruler allow such people to have any right to employment when the very nature of a Nomad is not one to stay in a single place, and thus is not reliable by any description of the word. How can we force the owners of business and industry to take these people, when they may not even be present in the region come the next week?

On a lesser note, how can any reasonable ruler allow such people to have any right to employment when the very nature of a Nomad is not one to stay in a single place, and thus is not reliable by any description of the word. How can we force the owners of business and industry to take these people, when they may not even be present in the region come the next week?
OOC: So just make leaving a job (without a valid reason) without giving a lengthy period of notice beforehand a criminal offence... or, at least, a civil offence requiring the payment of hefty compensation to the employer concerned...

The very presence of Nomads within the borders of Armithan is a violation of our laws and as such, we vote Against. We value our security far too much to allow unregistered, wandering bands of vagabonds to take from our lands.

On a lesser note, how can any reasonable ruler allow such people to have any right to employment when the very nature of a Nomad is not one to stay in a single place, and thus is not reliable by any description of the word. How can we force the owners of business and industry to take these people, when they may not even be present in the region come the next week?

Obviously if your nation has outlawed nomadism, one cannot expect your support for this resolution. But in answer to your question, I believe this anticipates the inclusion of migratory farm workers as nomadic, or other nomadic seasonal workers of this type.

The very presence of Nomads within the borders of Armithan is a violation of our laws and as such, we vote Against. We value our security far too much to allow unregistered, wandering bands of vagabonds to take from our lands.

On a lesser note, how can any reasonable ruler allow such people to have any right to employment when the very nature of a Nomad is not one to stay in a single place, and thus is not reliable by any description of the word. How can we force the owners of business and industry to take these people, when they may not even be present in the region come the next week?

Respected ambassador have you read the rest of this thread? if not we suggest you do, you will find answers to your questions there.

Nomads are not a threat to your petty nations security, the foolishness and rank ignorance of it's rulers are. Do you know any Nomads? Are you familiar with any aspect of the issue you are making banal pronouncements on?
Would you say such outrageous things about other minorities of your nation?

Yours e.t.c. ,

Obviously if your nation has outlawed nomadism, one cannot expect your support for this resolution. But in answer to your question, I believe this anticipates the inclusion of migratory farm workers as nomadic, or other nomadic seasonal workers of this type.

Indeed that is exactly the case, most seasonal workers and migratory farm workers would qualify perfectly under the definition in this resolution to the same rights of less peripetetic workers. We thank the esteemed ambassador for pointing this out.

yours e.t.c.,

Those who must travel to complete work for an employer are doing so to retain their status as employees, the important note, is that they go specifically to where they are needed and only for that reason, not because they refuse to stay in one place.

A worker who must travel to complete the work they have agreed to for recompense by an industrialist or other business owner, is by no means a nomad, for they will return to whence they came when the work is complete.

Respected ambassador have you read the rest of this thread? if not we suggest you do, you will find answers to your questions there.

Nomads are not a threat to your petty nations security, the foolishness and rank ignorance of it's rulers are. Do you know any Nomads? Are you familiar with any aspect of the issue you are making banal pronouncements on?
Would you say such outrageous things about other minorities of your nation?

Yours e.t.c. ,

There are no minorities within Armithan. All are citizens of this nation or not, there are no inbetweens. Those who are not, are either prisoners of the state, or visitors who intend upon returning to their home nations in time.

Khan Mongkha turns to his assistant and in a loud whisper says "Imbecile!"

What exactly do you define as a Nomad honoured ambassador? Should my nation, a nation of Nomads, submit to your logic in the definition of ourselves? Besides the definition in the resolution is a fixed quantity now, perhaps if you had been available to impart your wisdom during the drafting stage of this statute you could have influenced it's form, but considering you think Nomads are "wandering Vagabonds" we imagine your influence would ave been slight at best.

yours e.t.c. ,

Respected ambassador for Urgench, in what refers to the regulation acts its our nation believe that by regulating the creation of reserves to pastoral nomads or the providing of education systems capable of assimilating nomads, and the adaptation of vote registration and census to accept nomads, etc. The WA would be more affective in granting nomads basic rights them a generalist human rights resolution.

In what regards the employ policies we can accept that nomads are granted equal rights in access to short term contracts but not in long term or permanent contracts in positions that require a physical presence in the work place.( by definition nomads don’t stay for long in the same place)

There are no minorities within Armithan. All are citizens of this nation or not, there are no inbetweens. Those who are not, are either prisoners of the state, or visitors who intend upon returning to their home nations in time.

Your nation imprisons its disabled, its minority religions, its socio-economic minorities? your prison system must be overflowing. Your nation sounds repellent, and its government criminally insane. It is our fervent hope that your nation will better itself and behave in a manner consistent with decency, morality, and logic.

yours e.t.c. ,

Respected ambassador for Urgench, in what refers to the regulation acts its our nation believe that by regulating the creation of reserves to pastoral nomads or the providing of education systems capable of assimilating nomads, and the adaptation of vote registration and census to accept nomads, etc. The WA would be more affective in granting nomads basic rights them a generalist human rights resolution.

In what regards the employ policies we can accept that nomads are granted equal rights in access to short term contracts but not in long term or permanent contracts in positions that require a physical presence in the work place.( by definition nomads don’t stay for long in the same place)


Do you require that your settled citizens always live in the same place in order to be protected by your nations employment laws? And as we have pointed out before, most Nomads do not cover vast distances in their migrations, most would remain within easy reach or their employment were they to have rights within the work place.

Your use of terms like "reservation" and " assimilation" fill us with dread, these are terms used by governments intent on slowly exterminating ways of life they hold in contempt.

Nomads are humans, how else can their rights be protected in any other form than a Human Rights statute. Would you submit to having your Human Rights decided for you in a health and safety statute or property taxation bill?

We must stress that this is not a resolution which seeks to specifically protect a way of life i.e. Nomadism, it seeks to restore Human rights to humans who have been deprived of them on the basis of where they choose to live, the difference is profound.

yours e.t.c. ,

It's a bit lengthy but I wanted to address seevral posts rather then double posting.
Black is your posts, blue is my commentaries on them.

First groups live mixed. As we can imagine it will be different to unmix them. Normally that is called ethnic cleansing or deportation, both things are a crime against humanity.) Wrong;
1. USA made reservations for the native americans who ARE nomadic, nobody calls it a crime against humanity because its not, it's an autonomy.
2. These reservations are NOT gehttoes. Temenos would be a more acurate term, it's a whole chunk of land reserved just for these minorities.
3. I gave Israel as an example A.Because I know it B.Because even though it had the power to hold the territory and protect its inhabitants it moved out it's OWN inhabitants from an agricoltural town that was never, I repeat, -never- under arab control so they can form their own place with their own rules and costumes. In the same way the nations of the world can give away their own teritory even though these nomadic nation does not have any sustaining settelments on it to form a place of multy national concent for these nations.


And the example of a private house, I cannot see the value of this in the aspect of this resolution. All people inside a nation must be the citizens or are guests from outside. So if a nomad with the nation nationality is inside a nation it is also his nation It is not a guest. I see the problem my friend, we view nationality in a different way, let me ask you this. If there are 3 states[A,B and C] and you need a work permit in order to be hired in each of them but you are a nomad that's constantly on the move from A to B then to C and back to A, what is your nationality? A,B or is it C? or maybe you are a guest and it would be better that the powerful WA would give you a national shelter in a form of a new territory.

... ...
OOC:
Things about giving land away that is not theirs (about Gaza and Israël)[check your facts, you'll be surprised:wink:] are not the things we discuss. It is about NationStates what we discuss. As long as I'm not making an offence against anyone, I believe I can draw my examples from where ever I want.
BTW, if it is "about NationStates what we discuss" then problem is solved cause the nomadic population already has a land [like Mongolia works, see my first post]


Your particular suggestion is novel but unworkable and very questionable from a human rights perspective. The notion of creating nomadic "reservations" is discriminatory in the extreme and is really just a form of Ghettoisation.
Not necessarily, as I said before, Mongolia works in that way, one big city (Ulan batur) in the middle and nomads roaming freely all around (it's an amazing land, travel there :D.
+ If there is no patch of land to begin with, nations might contribute from their own, I'm willing to contribute and I will even though my landscape is barren :$:(

All this resolution seeks to do is give member nations better control over their borders while allowing fair and negotiated access across them for nomads who would have to cross these borders under the same conditions as settled people.this is somewhat unfair, you mean that if Im a nomad i can go to a capitalistic nation to make some money but as soon as I need a dentist I'll move to a more socialistic country, can you see the problem here mate?

This resolution does not give nomads extra rights, it only reqiures member nations with nomadic minorities who do not have basic human rights to restore them to the same levels(ehm, free clinic anyone?) as the settled citizens of these nations.



Absolutely for, nomands deserve equal rights to everyone else, what do their living habits matter to you? If nomads will come every time they need unimploiment money, free advance medical care or just welfare money on the expanse of my citizens and not as a part of WA orgenized help package it does matter to me.


CONCLUSION: May be it would be best if all nomadic nation would have a fund that pays back to nations that take care of their social needs, this fund would be operated, funded and maintained by the nomadic nations in the WA and for the nomadic nation in the WA.

In such case I would be happy to change my vote from:
"Against, we want rights for Nomads but don't like this resolution."
to:
"For, we love Nomads and this resolution is marvelous."

I'm confident that many socialy minded states would do the same as well.

Regards and respect to all peace loving nation, The Commonwealth of Tuxu. :)

Th"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."

This is ridiculous to give special treatment to these nomads.

"4. 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."

One party works for a living and pay their taxes. The other ones cons tourists and rob people. I do not think they can work on the same level.

"5. 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."

This is insane. We are not England or the ACLU/SPLC/ADL. We are Imerlia, and we will not give special services or treatment to someone just because they are different.

"6. 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."

They already have freedom of movement. It's them moving out of our country and moving to areas that are not in our country. ;)

The Republic of Imerlia has been preparing to handle these nomads as an invasion (hence our increased spending in Defense) and local counties have already begun making laws outlawing nomads to travel or settle within their areas.

These Nomads are not citizens. They should not get special status for that. They can however, go F themselves. :)

It's a bit lengthy but I wanted to address seevral posts rather then double posting.
Black is your posts, blue is my commentaries on them.







CONCLUSION: May be it would be best if all nomadic nation would have a fund that pays back to nations that take care of their social needs, this fund would be operated, funded and maintained by the nomadic nations in the WA and for the nomadic nation in the WA.

In such case I would be happy to change my vote from:
"Against, we want rights for Nomads but don't like this resolution."
to:
"For, we love Nomads and this resolution is marvelous."

I'm confident that many socialy minded states would do the same as well.

Regards and respect to all peace loving nation, The Commonwealth of Tuxu. :)

All of this is very interesting, but much of it is wrong headed. Urgench is a nomadic empire of which the ancestral territory of Mongolia is a part, no such city of Ulaan Bator exists within it. Your characterisation of it is in any case flawed. It is not a Nomadic reservation with only one city. If you are refering to the mythical "real world" then you should politely make this clear and remember that the tales of this legendary world are of minor use in the formulation of statutes for this world which is radically different.

You seem to miss the point that billions of nomads already pay taxes on their incomes and are therefore intitled to the services their governments create with them, unfortunately many governments fail to make this possible as they refuse to take into consideration the practicalities of providing services to nomads. Nomads are not freeloaders! If governments are foolish enough not to tax all their citizens because they simply forget nomads then that is their own concern, this resolution would require them to do so because it asks governments not to discriminate. This means in rights and responsibilities.

Temenos are obscene! they are ghettos with trees! To force people on to land they have not chosen to live on, to not consult them in the process and to segregate them because you do not appreciate the way they live is always and in every case a totally immoral act!

Your suggestion of a fund paid for by Nomadic nations taxpayers for other nation's nomadic citizens is ridiculous, it would entitle Nomadic states to demand that majority settled nations pay for all settled citizens within their borders! Ludicrous, unworkable and likely to create violent tensions between nations.

Nomads are humans, they have the same rights as settled people, some wicked and neglectfull governments do not realise this. That is why we have written this resolution, which has fairly balanced the restoration of rights to nomads and their concurrent obligations to the nations they live in.

yours e.t.c. ,

O.O.C. By the way your real world reference to Native American Reservation and how most people think they're pretty great is wildly inacurate, the reservations are the end point in a U.S. government policy to exterminate the Native Americans, to rob them of their land and to irradicate their culture. The reservations are a minute percentage of the land which Native americans once freely traversed and are a terrible form of segregation which means that little if any real contact occurs between settled immigrant americans and first nation peoples. Reservations would be a terrible model upon which to base any legislation to do with Nomads.

Dear nation of Urgench.

According to this section of your proposal:

1. of this resolution. Further, Member Nations which are not currently at war with each other or in a state of otherwise heightened antagonism with each other, should cooperate to allow Nomads properly regularized but easily facilitated access across international borders, fairly allowing freedom of movement whilst maintaining border integrity.

Taking into consideration that my nation as whole(including all of our minorities) is enjoying a caring and equal society I ask you this:

1. Would that section mean that a foreign nomadic society can work within my national borders with out works permits?

2. Would a foreign nomadic society can be entitled to welfare money or medical services and such services that are rendered by socialistic societies? (these services are funded by my own nation citizens of which they are all entitled, may they be nomads or not)

Again, if both questions answers are "No" I would be happy to change my vote.

Do you require that your settled citizens always live in the same place in order to be protected by your nations employment laws? And as we have pointed out before, most Nomads do not cover vast distances in their migrations, most would remain within easy reach or their employment were they to have rights within the work place.

Your use of terms like "reservation" and " assimilation" fill us with dread, these are terms used by governments intent on slowly exterminating ways of life they hold in contempt.

Nomads are humans, how else can their rights be protected in any other form than a Human Rights statute. Would you submit to having your Human Rights decided for you in a health and safety statute or property taxation bill?

We must stress that this is not a resolution which seeks to specifically protect a way of life i.e. Nomadism, it seeks to restore Human rights to humans who have been deprived of them on the basis of where they choose to live, the difference is profound.

yours e.t.c. ,

Reservations are a way to ensure that in nations that all land constitutes private property or state property; pastoral nomads are given enough land to survive. Also by assimilation (integration) on the educational system I meant that nomads should be granted access to the national education system.

And in regard to human rights being granted by health and safety statue or property taxation bill, that’s the away they are granted in a national level
Human rights declarations are international declarations of principal that after
Approval by the nations must be integrated in national law through alteration of the civil code and judicial code etc.

I just think that by proposing a more specific regulation rather them a more general human rights declaration, you will end most of the other nations doubts and do it more easy to approve (the proposal) obtaining the same result.

The proposal will still fit the human rights category but it should be structured as a regulation bill

1. Would that section mean that a foreign nomadic society can work within my national borders with out works permits?

I do not represent the Empire of Urgench, but I will attempt to answer this question nonetheless. Briefly, the answer is no. There is nothing in this resolution that would require any nation to allow nomadic employees to work without permits. The resolution does require, however, that the barriers to entry be universal - if work permits are not required for a non-nomadic worker, they cannot be suddenly imposed on a nomadic worker.

All of the above said, I suppose that your government could discriminate on the basis of the national origin of a worker. In such a case, a nomadic group seeking employment in your nation would have to go through whatever process currently exists for a foreigner seeking employment within your borders. The key concept is that the process needs to be the same without regard for whether the worker is nomadic or not.

2. Would a foreign nomadic society can be entitled to welfare money or medical services and such services that are rendered by socialistic societies? (these services are funded by my own nation citizens of which they are all entitled, may they be nomads or not)

Again, this only applies if foreign immigrants are granted these services. Some governments may impose a temporary waiting period on some social services for recent immigrants. These policies would be applied universally, whether the immigrant were nomadic or not, under this resolution.

Again, if both questions answers are "No" I would be happy to change my vote.

I hope that my answers are satisfactory to Your Excellency.

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

Dear nation of Urgench.

According to this section of your proposal:

1. of this resolution. Further, Member Nations which are not currently at war with each other or in a state of otherwise heightened antagonism with each other, should cooperate to allow Nomads properly regularized but easily facilitated access across international borders, fairly allowing freedom of movement whilst maintaining border integrity.

Taking into consideration that my nation as whole(including all of our minorities) is enjoying a caring and equal society I ask you this:

1. Would that section mean that a foreign nomadic society can work within my national borders with out works permits?

2. Would a foreign nomadic society can be entitled to welfare money or medical services and such services that are rendered by socialistic societies? (these services are funded by my own nation citizens of which they are all entitled, may they be nomads or not)

Again, if both questions answers are "No" I would be happy to change my vote.

We are happy to say that the answer to both questions is No. You may treat Nomads from foreign countries exactly as you would treat settled people from foreign countries, this is the essence of clause 1 i.e. that you apply the same rules and rights to nomads as you do to settled people. If settled persons require visas to work in your nation then so should nomads.

If foreign settled persons are not entitled to social welfare in your nation then nomads for abroad should not be entitled to them either.

The only principle this resolution requires is non-discrmination, this means that you maust treat all people in the same way, be thay nomad or settled.

We hope this clarifies things for you, and we hope that you will feel that you can vote for this resolution as a result. Many millions of people's lives will be improved if this resolution is passed.

yours sincerely,

Reservations are a way to ensure that in nations that all land constitutes private property or estate property; pastoral nomads are given enough land to survive. Also by assimilation (integration) on the educational system I meant that nomads should be granted access to the national education system.

I am sure that Your Excellency has meant well. Please consider, though, the history of some nations, including Krioval, wherein colonial powers attempted to subvert native organizations. The words "reservation" and "assimilation" are very charged when used among such populations. We do agree that, in nations with private property laws, the law must be obeyed at all times.

And in regard to human rights being granted by health and safety statue or property taxation bill, that’s the away they are granted in a national level
Human rights declarations are international declarations of principal that after
Approval by the nations must be integrated in national law through alteration of the civil code and judicial code etc.

Unfortunately, there is no way for the World Assembly to differentiate between these forms of legislation. When a resolution passes, it is up to each member nation to adjust their laws, where necessary, to come into compliance. (OOC: Your stats are adjusted automatically)

I just think that by proposing a more specific regulation rather them a more general human rights declaration, you will end most of the other nations doubts and do it more easy to approve (the proposal) obtaining the same result.

The proposal will still fit the human rights category but it should be structured as a regulation bill

The problem with Your Excellency's plan is that World Assembly resolutions are more an art than a science. If it is too specific, it can fail because many nations feel it is irrelevant to their nation's issues. If it is too general, it can fail because of loopholes or because it doesn't address one nation's specific concerns. I feel that this resolution does a good job of picking a relatively restricted issue and legislating based on it in a comprehensive way. If anything, it appears to be failing due to its over-specificity.

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

Reservations are a way to ensure that in nations that all land constitutes private property or estate property; pastoral nomads are given enough land to survive. Also by assimilation (integration) on the educational system I meant that nomads should be granted access to the national education system.

And in regard to human rights being granted by health and safety statue or property taxation bill, that’s the away they are granted in a national level
Human rights declarations are international declarations of principal that after
Approval by the nations must be integrated in national law through alteration of the civil code and judicial code etc.

I just think that by proposing a more specific regulation rather them a more general human rights declaration, you will end most of the other nations doubts and do it more easy to approve (the proposal) obtaining the same result.

The proposal will still fit the human rights category but it should be structured as a regulation bill

We thank the government of The Fat Bakers for their interest in our resolution it has allowed us to explain many important things.

We will however not dwell on the subject of reservations, which is deeply offensive to the proud nomadic people of Urgench. We will address your last point.

We would rather this resolution failed than do as you suggest i.e. introducing Human rights in some other statute covering what would ammount to settled governments telling Nomads how to live.
This is for two reasons, firstly it would be saying that Nomads are not Humans and must be given rights in the same way as non-sentient Animals would be. Secondly it is not the right of settled humans to impose their will on other humans who have the basic right to live as they wish.

yours e.t.c.,

Oh? Is the Quod Delegation assuming that the guidelines put forth in Fair Criminal Trial were what TNC practiced beforehand? Unfortunately, this is blatantly incorrect - our nation had a far more centralized institution of justice established. However, we were prepared to lay these traditions aside for the WA ourselves - as was clearly indicated in the appropriate thread - a more fitting place for such discussions.
I don't presume to speak for the Quodites but... you submitted a resolution which forced you to abandon your own judicial traditions? How noble. Why would you do that?

Have you ever been in the aisle seat of an aeroplane, next to someone at the window seat that gets up and wants to move past you to relieve themselves every fifteen minutes? They have no wrong intentions, neither do you. But agitation is nonetheless caused. And if the problem can be minimized by keeping the two passengers in separate rows to each other, than so be it.
Felix stares blankly at the Narnian diplomat.

And we are supposed to take from this analogy...what? That the passenger who moves around a lot should be relocated so as not to "agitate" his more sedentary seat-mate? Or that the sedentary one should be relocated so as not to interfere with the movements of the other?

Or it could have been the medieval equivalent of the Trojan Horse? Nevertheless, one would think that a giant trebuchet directed by a slightly mad dwarf would attract *some* sort of security attention...
They didn't blink when I drove the DEFENESTRATINATOR V.2 into the building. Why would they stop a trebuchet?

Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky
Chairman, Yeldan Committee For State Security

Some things were asked me by the Ambassador from Tuxu.
I think it is interesting for all who follows this debate.

Dear Ambassador from Tuxu,

I think we disagree totally on the nationality thing. I think you think a nationality is something ethnic. I think a nationality is from which country you are from (a citizen). I hope I am correct on this.

Some remarks:

It is from the romantic age in history that people thought that all people who speak one language, have one religion and have one culture need their own land. It gave an enormous boost to war and that gave much ethnic cleansing, hatred, killings and poverty. I believe this process will never end as long as we believe in a state which has its base in ethnic thinking. I think it will be better to focus on a nation that gives its inhabitants equal rights and that it doesn't discriminate against religion, gender, sexuality or ethnic origins.

The one who has the power is not the owner. So even when the legendary land of Israel has the power over Gaza, it is not the owner. You maybe surprised but even the government of that country thinks it is not the owner, Israel didn't change its borders to include Gaza, neither did it impose all their laws on Gaza 9it did use foreign laws or Israelian laws, whatever it felt was the most profitable for Israel). So maybe you can check your facts somewhat better.
I think the one who has the power needs to give all humans over which it has the power at least their basic rights given by the international community they are member of. In your case the WA. The act on nomads tries to address that.

Nomads are not one ethnic group, neither a nationality. (See definition of nomadism in the proposal.) So give all the nomads a land is as crazy as given al settled people a land.

Than the following question: "If there are 3 states[A,B and C] and you need a work permit in order to be hired in each of them but you are a nomad that's constantly on the move from A to B then to C and back to A, what is your nationality? A,B or is it C? or maybe you are a guest and it would be better that the powerful WA would give you a national shelter in a form of a new territory." I think every one deserves a passport, in my view a nationality. I also think that most government of nations give the one being born in a nation that nationality. Or you get the nationality of one of your parents. For me that will settle a lot. If some nations like to give a second, third or so to someone who has already a nationality I do not care. So if the nomad has a nationality from whatever country, the governments from A, B or C knows whether the nomad is a citizen or a guest. And logically a working permit is needed when in the law of a nation states a working permit is needed. Nothing to do with being a nomad or not. Others explained this in different ways.

The Ambassador from Tuxu said: "As long as I'm not making an offence against anyone, I believe I can draw my examples from where ever I want."
He is very right in that, but I think we can better take examples from reality in NationStates than from the "real"world.

Than there was something about the native Americans, the original owners of the whole area of the nowadays "real world" nation USA. it may be so they have nowadays freedom of movement in the USA, I do know from history lessons and books that many of them were deported to some barren lands because the immigrants (the new rulers) wanted that. I do know that deliberately diseases where brought to them. I do know many of them died. So I would call that genocide, but you may call that for the best of human rights or for the best of the native Americans. But I do condemn those things mentioned. Luckily nowadays native Americans have human rights in the USA, and likewise with the proposal we are now discussing we try to settle the same for nomads. We are not talking about giving the nomads the nationality they like to get free services for health care neither for free immigration for nomads. All is settled in the proposal for the ones who read the proposal carefully. And that is all explained very well by others in this debate.

I hope the Ambassador from Tuxu will understand our position and I hope that for some others it gave some useful information.

So please reconsider the votes against this proposal. It is for equal rights for nomads, not on freedom of movement or extra privileges for nomads. The last two things mentioned I am also against. (I would be in favour on those two things though if freedom of movement and extra rights were for all people in the WA.)

Regards

It is amusing that those most vehemently opposed to this resolution do so on the grounds that it gives nomads "special treatment" when really, all it does is "level the playing field." One can treat nomads like dirt if they are so inclined, provided they treat everyone else like dirt as well.

However, one problem does come to mind. Earlier I conceived a loophole that would simply require making a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, which most governments already do anyway. Then simply by making applications for citizenship require a permanent residence and then providing certain services (suffrage, legal rights, healthcare, etc.) to registered citizens only, a corrupt government can easily discriminate against nomads via means of discriminating against non-citizens. Just food for thought.

At any rate, the Congress votes for the resolution. The largest minority of our nation, the Traxans (of which I am not), were ancestrally nomads and only became a settled people after being conquered (by my people) and exiled to the western shores. Legislature such as this would have spared their forefathers from such suffering, and likely would have prevented the bloody wars and revolts which founded the Travda that is today.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

It is amusing that those most vehemently opposed to this resolution do so on the grounds that it gives nomads "special treatment" when really, all it does is "level the playing field." One can treat nomads like dirt if they are so inclined, provided they treat everyone else like dirt as well.

However, one problem does come to mind. Earlier I conceived a loophole that would simply require making a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, which most governments already do anyway. Then simply by making applications for citizenship require a permanent residence and then providing certain services (suffrage, legal rights, healthcare, etc.) to registered citizens only, a corrupt government can easily discriminate against nomads via means of discriminating against non-citizens. Just food for thought.

At any rate, the Congress votes for the resolution. The largest minority of our nation, the Traxans (of which I am not), were ancestrally nomads and only became a settled people after being conquered (by my people) and exiled to the western shores. Legislature such as this would have spared their forefathers from such suffering, and likely would have prevented the bloody wars and revolts which founded the Travda that is today.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda WA Chief Delegate

We thank esteemed ambassador Vokhuz Kon for their support and the congresses vote. It is heartening to know that there are nations with a concience in the w.a.

We accept that unscrupulous nations may find ways to circumvent our resolution, but we suspect that this is the case with every statute this organisation has ever produced, no matter how comprhensively an author seeks to prevent such.

However in the case you describe clause 1 would prevent discriminatory governments from denying Nomads ctizenship on the grounds of them not having a permanent address. Of course if a nation were insane enough it could find ways of depriving all its people of their citizenship just to try to circumvent this resolution but it would have to do so regardless of their being nomadic or not.

We hope this clarifies the issue you have raised, again we thank you for your nations support.

yours e.t.c. ,

I can see Nomads as humans, and as humans, they sometimes cannot be trusted. Now in accordance with CLause 6 of this proposal/resolution it says 'Freedom of movement' in a shorten version of it. Now what if these Nomads are hostile or if they bring disease, over population or create problems within an Economy? Now, I can agree to some of the clauses, in the Case of Jobs and such, I'd be happy to hire extra soldiers, that is the most widey available job in Heilsland.

I voted against before becomming a Delegate to my region, which is small and has very few WA members, so I find it fitting that I withdraw my vote. And allow Heilsland's Governing body to go through a more thurough discussion over this topic and opening our embassies to others in the region to put their two cents into the final vote of Heilsland.

Thank you Gents for your time,
Ambassador of Heilsland
Delegate for 'The Forgoten'

Your nation imprisons its disabled, its minority religions, its socio-economic minorities? your prison system must be overflowing. Your nation sounds repellent, and its government criminally insane. It is our fervent hope that your nation will better itself and behave in a manner consistent with decency, morality, and logic.

yours e.t.c. ,

What did I say, Representative Urgench? There are NO minorities, only citizens. I do not acknowledge sub-groups in government policy. I make no concessions for anyone based on who or what they are or claim to be. If you are a citizen, you are part of the system, obey the laws of Armithan, and thus will be treated fairly. What ever else you may be is of no consequence; you will not receive special treatment because of it nor shall you become a target of government wrath because of it. This is extended to visiting citizens of non-hostile nations for the duration of their visit for so long as they obey our laws.

For goodness sake don't be so tiresome, you mentioned imprisoning people for bizarre reasons we pointed out that this was wicked.

Your policy of total non-discrimination is however completely in line with the spirit and the word of this resolution, so why do you maintain opposition to it? what you describe is exactly what the resolution requires.

yours e.t.c. ,

We are glad to see most have seen this proposal as it is. A threat to natural order in any nation. Nations need a stable population not one that packs up and moves from place to place when they no longer feel like following the local laws. That is all the reason we've seen for most to become nomads as this implies. We understand that some here are nomads not by their own desire but due to natural actions; as our ancestors wondered years before they found a suitable world to settle; but we have found that world and short of another event that will force us to leave this one we will remain fixed here.

So in shirt we vote AGAINST this...


Zarta Warden,
Garne Ambassador WA

So in shirt we vote AGAINST this...I'm wearing a shirt too, but I'm still going to vote in favour. And you have, in common with other opponents, not demonstrated why nomads are more likely to commit crimes than settled people. Further, your logic seems a little warped: if they genuinely don't 'feel like following local laws' anymore, then wouldn't it be preferable to allow them to move on?

-- Sam Benson
etc. etc.

Incidentally, Jared Diamond's “The Worst History in the History of the Human Race” is an interesting article on why the nomadic lifestyle is preferable, and settlement was an evolutionary mistake.

we would point out that this resolution requires that your nation provide government services only at levels you currently provide to your settled citizens, if that is none or very few then so be it. We provide a number of services to CITIZENS but nomads would not be considered CITIZENS until they meet the requirements for such, since they have no fixed place they would not meet CITIZENShip requirement thus not be getting any services.

As for border control, the resolution requires that you cooperate with other member government only to control nomadic migration across your borders, totally preventing the worst case scenario you fear.For us we rule a planet and thus it means movement from one world to another... movement on the planet is regulated by laws. Nomads once they come in would know the laws and have agreed to follow them or they would not be here, just as many who want to visit don't get in; if they refuse to agree to follow our laws then we stop them before they get in. Those who do sneek in become criminals and we deal with them hard when we catch them... CITIZENS report criminals or they become such....... and loose CITIZENShip once found out.

Asma VeMooc,
Cavirrian Minster of Insanity,
CEO Joe's Travel Agency

I'm wearing a shirt too, but I'm still going to vote in favour. And you have, in common with other opponents, not demonstrated why nomads are more likely to commit crimes than settled people. Further, your logic seems a little warped: if they genuinely don't 'feel like following local laws' anymore, then wouldn't it be preferable to allow them to move on?

-- Sam Benson
etc. etc.

Incidentally, Jared Diamond's “The Worst History in the History of the Human Race” is an interesting article on why the nomadic lifestyle is preferable, and settlement was an evolutionary mistake.


We see that and wish to thank you for the note on our error. My wife that normaly checks my spelling is out of town so... all I can offer in return is a good meal as the one that cooks is here.

We didn't say all nomads are criminals nor mean to imply they are. Anyone who fails to follow our laws becomes a criminal.. even a citizen of long standing in our society will become a criminal if he breaks a law.

We find humans repulsive savages but since they exist we try to tolerate them when we have to. As we noted we were 'nomads' in our early years and most have heard the old stories told of those times for our people. We have settled now and no longer roam as such but explore new worlds to learn what we can to improve our own lives. We try our best to fit into other cultures and not change them or burden them. Anyone who is willing to provide a service that benifits not burdens is welcome. Those that come with hands out for something free will loose their hands and if they yell to loud their heads.

Zarta Warden,
Garne Ambassador WA

Zarta tell the man the truth... We hate humans period they are just what they are.... insane savages with no moral values.. They kill simply because they like killing and would eat their own if they could find a way to take the foul taste out of the meat...

Asma VeMooc,
Cavirrian Minster of Insanity,
CEO Joe's Travel Agency

5. 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.

Article found in the Sodang Special on August 10th, 2008:

Nash Hornsby, an eastern representative to Sodang's parliament had this to say about the newest WA proposal: "I agree with all of this proposal except for this particular clause (referring to clause 5). I believe that minorities should have very little say in my nation's governing body. They are in fact a minority, and since they are not a majority then why should they get a special representative in which we have to accommodate, and take advice from?. Sodang is always happy to allow nomads passage into and out of our nation upon successful completion of security checks and immigration procedures. However, I simply could not live with myself if I were to allow a small group of people that does not represent even a thousandth of our total population so much personalized attention and power. This would corrupt and undermine the very republic of which Sodang stands."

We didn't say all nomads are criminals nor mean to imply they are. Anyone who fails to follow our laws becomes a criminal.. even a citizen of long standing in our society will become a criminal if he breaks a law.

So you oppose this resolution because...why, exactly?

We find humans repulsive savages but since they exist we try to tolerate them when we have to. As we noted we were 'nomads' in our early years and most have heard the old stories told of those times for our people. We have settled now and no longer roam as such but explore new worlds to learn what we can to improve our own lives. We try our best to fit into other cultures and not change them or burden them. Anyone who is willing to provide a service that benifits not burdens is welcome. Those that come with hands out for something free will loose their hands and if they yell to loud their heads.

Now this is interesting. You believe humanity to be inferior to your species, yet you admit to cutting limbs from other beings' bodies. And somehow we are the savages? Please try to avoid our planets in your travels. You'll know they're ours because they'll be the peaceful ones, y'know, where we're not decapitating our citizens for "yelling too loud".

Zarta tell the man the truth... We hate humans period they are just what they are.... insane savages with no moral values.. They kill simply because they like killing and would eat their own if they could find a way to take the foul taste out of the meat...

Uh...huh. Could somebody please ready the defenestrator? Excellent. I am curious, however, as to why Your Excellency would presume that humans would taste "foul" to other humans. Oooh. Sorry, we're out of time.

::TWANG! SMASH! THUD!::

Wow. I'm still not sure what Cavirrans are made of, but they're surprisingly aerodynamic. Next!

Ambassador Darvek Tyvok-kan
Great Chiefdom of Krioval

Normads should be looked upon as a equal population, they are the same blood and flesh as everybody else, they just live under other circumstances, but so does a muslim live differently compared to a cristian.

Article found in the Sodang Special on August 10th, 2008:

Nash Hornsby, an eastern representative to Sodang's parliament had this to say about the newest WA proposal: "I agree with all of this proposal except for this particular clause (referring to clause 5). I believe that minorities should have very little say in my nation's governing body. They are in fact a minority, and since they are not a majority then why should they get a special representative in which we have to accommodate, and take advice from?. Sodang is always happy to allow nomads passage into and out of our nation upon successful completion of security checks and immigration procedures. However, I simply could not live with myself if I were to allow a small group of people that does not represent even a thousandth of our total population so much personalized attention and power. This would corrupt and undermine the very republic of which Sodang stands."


This resolution does not require you to give a minority any say in its governing body, all it asks is that you have an apropriately qalified nomadic individual help you to tailor the services you provide to them. There is no personalised power attached to this appointment and doubtless if nomads form so small a part of your nations population thay would have very little attention in any case.

To vote know against this resolution under this misaprehension would mean your nation would join a group of nations which are indifferent to or actively despise the plight of nomads. We urge you to vote for it and join the group of nations who care about a shared humanity and the rights it confers.

yours sincerely,

We provide a number of services to CITIZENS but nomads would not be considered CITIZENS until they meet the requirements for such, since they have no fixed place they would not meet CITIZENShip requirement thus not be getting any services.

For us we rule a planet and thus it means movement from one world to another... movement on the planet is regulated by laws. Nomads once they come in would know the laws and have agreed to follow them or they would not be here, just as many who want to visit don't get in; if they refuse to agree to follow our laws then we stop them before they get in. Those who do sneek in become criminals and we deal with them hard when we catch them... CITIZENS report criminals or they become such....... and loose CITIZENShip once found out.

Asma VeMooc,
Cavirrian Minster of Insanity,
CEO Joe's Travel Agency

Respected ambassador VeMooc, we will not address your offensive dogma on how nomads may not be citizens in your nation, and would remind you that Urgench is a nation of nomads and that we expect you to moderate your tone accordingly.

Your point about your nation's immigration pre-conditions is an odd one and frankly it makes very little sense, it would be very boring indeed to have to try to understand what you are trying to tell us about them.

Your attitude in this debate has been didactic and intentionally provocative, why is a mystery to us. We are not concerned to try to understand your point of view since your nation seems to be disgustingly prejudiced against nomadic peoples, this means you must hold our nation in contempt. This being the case you should know that we never forget an insult.


yours e.t.c. ,

Normads should be looked upon as a equal population, they are the same blood and flesh as everybody else, they just live under other circumstances, but so does a muslim live differently compared to a cristian.


The respected ambassador for Holm IV is absolutely correct, shared humanity ( or sapience ) should be the only determinative factor in our approach to the aplication of Human Rights. The permanently settled citizens of Urgench are a very small minority indeed but this has nothing whatsoever to do with their humanity or their rights as citizens.


yours e.t.c. ,

First, I will address what you said of our prison system, we imprison those who break our laws, period. We find nomadic life to be disorderly, and we are a rigidly ordered society, so such a lifestyle is banned within the borders of Armithan. Such people are autonomous, to enact regulations on them that take this autonomy away, and make their presence less of a security risk, takes away what make them Nomads.

To allow wanderers to come and go as they please leaves you vulnerable to them, as they've no permanent address to call upon in a search for information, and to notify their leaders that one or more among them are suspect in the commission of a crime, gives the guilty a head start on escaping justice. To track every band of Nomads that may enter even my comparatively small territory, would require a great deal of time, effort, and money...and I see no justification for this expense, simply close my borders to them, they can find a nation who welcomes them, like your own, Representative Urgench.

First, I will address what you said of our prison system, we imprison those who break our laws, period. We find nomadic life to be disorderly, and we are a rigidly ordered society, so such a lifestyle is banned within the borders of Armithan. Such people are autonomous, to enact regulations on them that take this autonomy away, and make their presence less of a security risk, takes away what make them Nomads.

To allow wanderers to come and go as they please leaves you vulnerable to them, as they've no permanent address to call upon in a search for information, and to notify their leaders that one or more among them are suspect in the commission of a crime, gives the guilty a head start on escaping justice. To track every band of Nomads that may enter even my comparatively small territory, would require a great deal of time, effort, and money...and I see no justification for this expense, simply close my borders to them, they can find a nation who welcomes them, like your own, Representative Urgench.

Khan Mongkha wearily begins writing a note to the ambassador for Armithan, the Urgenchi custom of never speaking above a whisper makes this essential. The elderly Khan grasps a bottle of tincture of opium which his assistant Tarmashirin hands him and takes a large number of droplets from its pipette, the note reads-

Respected ambassador please do not presume to lecture us on what constitutes the nature of Nomadism.

You have completely misunderstood the the clause which deals with freedom of movement. It allows your nation greater control over your borders and nomads who traverse it, in cooperation with your neighbours.

As for your last comment, what if all the nomadic nations of the w.a. decided to uproot their settled citizens because "they cost too much" and expected your nation to take them in? You would be justly outraged and disgusted at such prejudice, no?

yours e.t.c. ,

King Harold enters the chamber with cruches and a cast on his left leg.

"Boy that was fun. I'm really glad the defentration parachute worked as my engineers had promised it was. Landed me safe and sound without a scratch. Of course It was totally my fault I then tripped on the parachute and tumbled down the marble steps. I'm really getting to old for this kind of fun."

"So has this resolution failed yet? What's next on the queue?"

Anyway, I did vote for, for the reasons explained on post #5. however I am worried about the current divisions between the yes and no camps as this may divide the WA deeply.

Pfffffft! This is nothing compared to the Repeal of Gay Rights , or the ALC resolution, in the old UN, my dear. Now That was devisive. You should check them out in the archives. This is but a pale shadow.
Exceslior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

"Look at him! He is ready to do business, yes? Don't be shy now, he won't bite...much. Go on over and purchase a hat from Jonesey!."

Felix smiles expectantly at the assembled diplomats and waits for someone to approach the booth.


Sen Sulla walks over to the stand and says,
"My word! Those are fine looking chapeau you have there Mr. Jones. I'll buy a black one, please?"
The Senator hands the cash over to Jonesey, hoping that he'll still have his hand afterwards.


It has come to our attention that ambassador Sulla while seeking to be bribed has already firmly stated his oposition to this resolution elsewhere. This amounts to a form of extortion, we are therefore cancelling the great national honours we offered him.

Extortion is such a dirty word, my friend. i prefer to think of it as creative financing. Just to prove what a jolly good fellow that I am, I've decided that your bribe is not nearly enough, and thus needs increased. Thank you for your support and remember, In God we Trust all others must pay cash.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/aowasmall.jpg
Antarctic Oasis Department of WA Affairs
"We will bury you!"

As secretary of World Assembly Affairs it is my duty to inform you that the results of our regional poll on this resolution were as follows: 22% abstain, 11% "Viva Thessadoria!", 22% "Goats!", and 44% "Bribe me!" The bribes must not have amounted to nearly enough, because the Regional Delegate, The Dourian Embassy, nonetheless cast its vote AGAINST this resolution. Better luck next time, noble Urgenchi. We truly mean that.VICTORY IS MINE!!

Please, don't use scenarios such as that to make a point because you and I both know the outcome. Short of some horrific world event that left them nowhere else to go, they would be turned away.

Also, anything that requires you to settle down somewhere, if you don't reject and fight it successfully, would bring to an end your status of Nomad, as you would no longer be free to wander as you choose, living where it is most advantageous to you at the time.

Just because Armithan has outlawed the Nomadic lifestyle, does not mean we have never had Nomads within our borders, Honored Representative Urgench.

Sen Sulla walks over to the stand and says,
"My word! Those are fine looking chapeau you have there Mr. Jones. I'll buy a black one, please?"
The Senator hands the cash over to Jonesey, hoping that he'll still have his hand afterwards.
Jones takes the cash and eats it. He roars, gargles and curses while pacing up and down the rows of hats. Finally, he selects a black one and trots back to the counter, depositing it in front of Sen. Sulla. He pants and grins at the Senator, pleased with his accomplishment.

Pfffffft! This is nothing compared to the Repeal of Gay Rights , or the ALC resolution, in the old UN, my dear. Now That was devisive. You should check them out in the archives. This is but a pale shadow.
Exceslior,
Sen Horatio Sulla



Sen Sulla walks over to the stand and says,
"My word! Those are fine looking chapeau you have there Mr. Jones. I'll buy a black one, please?"
The Senator hands the cash over to Jonesey, hoping that he'll still have his hand afterwards.


.

Extortion is such a dirty word, my friend. i prefer to think of it as creative financing. Just to prove what a jolly good fellow that I am, I've decided that your bribe is not nearly enough, and thus needs increased. Thank you for your support and remember, In God we Trust all others must pay cash.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla


Very well respected ambassador Sulla, it is a shame you have decided to refuse our nation's honours, we were thinking of making you a "Hospitality consultant" to the Imperial Household, and a paid member of our nation's Bordello and Casino inspectorate with an anual income of something in the region of 12 billion darangs, tax free of course, but know you wil never know the delights of the nocturnal character of our empires thousands of teeming cities.


yours e.t.c. ,

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/aowasmall.jpg
Antarctic Oasis Department of WA Affairs
"We will bury you!"

As secretary of World Assembly Affairs it is my duty to inform you that the results of our regional poll on this resolution were as follows: 22% abstain, 11% "Viva Thessadoria!", 22% "Goats!", and 44% "Bribe me!" The bribes must not have amounted to nearly enough, because the Regional Delegate, The Dourian Embassy, nonetheless cast its vote AGAINST this resolution. Better luck next time, noble Urgenchi. We truly mean that.VICTORY IS MINE!!


We thank the noble delegate for Lois-Must-Die for their felicitations. The minister for foreign affairs of Urgench, his excellency Khan Nogai will be most displeased with our mission to the w.a. He was very specific about " securing the goodwill of the Antarctic Oasis" as he put it. We will not make the same mistake again.

yours e.t.c. ,

Darn it! The draft got defeated! :headbang:

so thats all, its over? hmm strange....on to the next one!

The government of the emperor of Urgench is deeply saddened that the World Assembly has not seen fit to obtain fair and decent treatment for some it's most vulnerable citizens.

However we are extremely honoured by the support of so many nations, those who helped Khan Mongkha during drafting, those who have voted for this resolution and more particularly those who's ambassadors have spoken so eloquently and so sensibly in favour of it here in this debate.

We will not name them individually because our meagre abilities will surely neglect to mention one or other of them, but His Divine Majesty the Emperor of Urgench, His August Mother the Dowager Empress Sorghakhtani, the government of Urgench and the proud Nomadic people of Urgench will always honour them for their efforts.
May their hordes ride swift across the plain and always close to their banners for all time.


Yours sincerely, Tamerlane Khan of Samarkand and Bhukhara, Grand Chancellor of the Empire and Chamberlain of the Imperial Household.

We would rather this resolution failed than do as you suggest i.e. introducing Human rights in some other statute covering what would ammount to settled governments telling Nomads how to live.

And there I was sad that I've missed the chance to change my vote...

When a new bill is being published lets make it legal boundaries clearer so us free and non oppressive nations might have a chance to stick together.

Peace and honor to us all, The Commonwealth of Tuxu.

And there I was sad that I've missed the chance to change my vote...

When a new bill is being published lets make it legal boundaries clearer so us free and non oppressive nations might have a chance to stick together.

Peace and honor to us all, The Commonwealth of Tuxu.


Exactly what are you talking about? Did you involve yourself in the drafting process? It lasted many weeks. Your contributions have been fatuous and have contributed to the down fall of a perfectly serviceable statute, if you imagine we want to collaborate with your nation on anything in future you are sorely mistaken. You may keep your vote, we do not want the vote of Tuxu its government is so foolish we would think it a failure on our part if we had its support.

yours e.t.c.,

The Sildavian Ambassador to the WA watches the Urgench's representative waving in anger and growling all around the place, and says just "tch, tch, tch...".
He is convinced that the WA is going to Hell in a handbasket, because of the new fashion of introducing drafts which concern national INTERIOR matters -rights and/or duties of citizens-, instead of concentrating on international EXTERNAL activities -relations between States.
Sildavia is a stable democracy, where civil rights are held sacred, where minorities are protected -because the rule of the majority is not democracy, as many think, it's just a populist dictatorship. By the way, vote in Sildavia is compulsory, because it is understood not just as a right, but also as a duty to contribute to the public affaiors, at the same level as paying taxes.
But far, very far from Sildavia's intentions, to try applying such principles as free trade unions, civil mariage as only valid bond -and therefore independent from the sex of the spouses-, free expression, bill of rights, complete and strict separation of any kind of religion from State and public affairs...; as we say, try to apply this to any other State is nonsense. "Let it be", and let us deal with practical international, non-ideological matters.

He is convinced that the WA is going to Hell in a handbasket, because of the new fashion of introducing drafts which concern national INTERIOR matters -rights and/or duties of citizens-, instead of concentrating on international EXTERNAL activities -relations between States.
'New fashion'? The old UN spent four years legislating on interior matters and the WA has done so consistently since then. If you think proposals about what you consider to be internal affairs are 'new', you've had your stuck in the sand for a good few years.

As for your last comment, what if all the nomadic nations of the w.a. decided to uproot their settled citizens because "they cost too much" and expected your nation to take them in? You would be justly outraged and disgusted at such prejudice, no?
An action against which this proposal would have given those people no protection at all, true? Perhaps you might have fared better if, instead of only protecting nomads from unfair discrimination by settled peoples, you had written a wider proposal that tried to ban unfair discrimination in the other direction too?


Borrin o Redwood,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
for
High Council of Clans,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed.

'New fashion'? The old UN spent four years legislating on interior matters and the WA has done so consistently since then. If you think proposals about what you consider to be internal affairs are 'new', you've had your stuck in the sand for a good few years.

"tch, tch, tch....", says again Sildavian Ambassador to the WA. "All this agressivity and mutual disqualifications are also a proof of the WA going to Hell in a handbasket. Luckily there are a lots of highly producing basket-weaving countries in the Assembly. We'll have a lot of baskets to choose from..." :rolleyes:

"tch, tch, tch....", says again Sildavian Ambassador to the WA. "All this agressivity and mutual disqualifications are also a proof of the WA going to Hell in a handbasket. Luckily there are a lots of highly producing basket-weaving countries in the Assembly. We'll have a lot of baskets to choose from..." :rolleyes:
Well, putting aside 'agressivity' not coming to close to being, you know, a word, this debate was strikingly tame. Repeal "Gay Rights", The Anti-Terrorism Act, Abortion Legality Convention, Child Pornography Prohibition...those were the barn-burners.

Bad luck to the Urgenchi delegation on the failure of the proposal. We hope it will not dissuade them from efforts at future legislation.

An action against which this proposal would have given those people no protection at all, true? Perhaps you might have fared better if, instead of only protecting nomads from unfair discrimination by settled peoples, you had written a wider proposal that tried to ban unfair discrimination in the other direction too?


Borrin o Redwood,
Ambassador to the World Assembly
for
High Council of Clans,
Confederated Clans of Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Goodness a number of you all seem to have advice now, what a pity you weren't around to give us such poor advice during the drafting faze, then you might all feel a little less obligated to share now, when we have completely lost patience with illinformed and illogical ideas.

Besides the greater proportion of those who voted against this resolution did so simply because they do not like Nomads, as a nomadic nation should we be expected to right bills of anti-discrimination for nations who despise us and persecute and marginalise their own nomadic minorities? Your question, respected ambassador Redwood, implies that our attempt to prevent discrimination against one group in society would necessarily have discriminated against other groups. This is patently ridiculous. How exactly does this logic work?

By all means You may write a more universal rights act, respected ambassador, and if you have the requisite skill and it is a decent one we will support it. If it partakes of the standard of logic evinced in your above comments then we may well have to oppose it on the grounds that it will be sloppy and ill-conceived.

yours sincerely,

yours e.t.c. ,

The Sildavian Ambassador to the WA watches the Urgench's representative waving in anger and growling all around the place, and says just "tch, tch, tch...".
He is convinced that the WA is going to Hell in a handbasket, because of the new fashion of introducing drafts which concern national INTERIOR matters -rights and/or duties of citizens-, instead of concentrating on international EXTERNAL activities -relations between States.
Sildavia is a stable democracy, where civil rights are held sacred, where minorities are protected -because the rule of the majority is not democracy, as many think, it's just a populist dictatorship. By the way, vote in Sildavia is compulsory, because it is understood not just as a right, but also as a duty to contribute to the public affaiors, at the same level as paying taxes.
But far, very far from Sildavia's intentions, to try applying such principles as free trade unions, civil mariage as only valid bond -and therefore independent from the sex of the spouses-, free expression, bill of rights, complete and strict separation of any kind of religion from State and public affairs...; as we say, try to apply this to any other State is nonsense. "Let it be", and let us deal with practical international, non-ideological matters.


Respected ambassador do not attribute your own manners to us, we do not "wave" in the fashion you imagine, and we are rarely angry. In this case we are incredulous and dismayed the difference is profound.

This hand basket you keep refering to and the business of going to hell in it makes no sense to us.

But in fact the protection of Human rights is of supreme international importance. In any event if your nation feels their are more important issues which the w.a. should be dealing with we sugest you bother to right a resolution on one of them and give us all the possibility of experiencing an acumen your nation has not shown in this debate.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Sildavian Ambassador to the WA watches the Urgench's representative waving in anger and growling all around the place, and says just "tch, tch, tch...".
He is convinced that the WA is going to Hell in a handbasket, because of the new fashion of introducing drafts which concern national INTERIOR matters -rights and/or duties of citizens-, instead of concentrating on international EXTERNAL activities -relations between States.
Sildavia is a stable democracy, where civil rights are held sacred, where minorities are protected -because the rule of the majority is not democracy, as many think, it's just a populist dictatorship. By the way, vote in Sildavia is compulsory, because it is understood not just as a right, but also as a duty to contribute to the public affaiors, at the same level as paying taxes.
But far, very far from Sildavia's intentions, to try applying such principles as free trade unions, civil mariage as only valid bond -and therefore independent from the sex of the spouses-, free expression, bill of rights, complete and strict separation of any kind of religion from State and public affairs...; as we say, try to apply this to any other State is nonsense. "Let it be", and let us deal with practical international, non-ideological matters.


Respected ambassador do not attribute your own manners to us, we do not "wave" in the fashion you imagine, and we are rarely angry. In this case we are incredulous and dismayed the difference is profound.

This hand basket you keep refering to and the business of going to hell in it makes no sense to us.

But in fact the protection of Human rights is of supreme international importance. In any event if your nation feels there are more important issues which the w.a. should be dealing with we suggest you bother to right a resolution on one of them and give us all the possibility of experiencing an acumen your nation has not shown in this debate.

yours e.t.c. ,

This resolution does not require you to give a minority any say in its governing body, all it asks is that you have an apropriately qalified nomadic individual help you to tailor the services you provide to them. Their is no personalised power attached to this appointment and doubtless if nomads from so small a part of your nations population thay would have very little attention in any case.

I will not be voting yes for this resolution unless it is revised to more specifically state the powers this individual possesses. In all general cases, where there are no rules to say someone can't do something, someone eventually will. If this person ends up having no power then he or she is just simply another fat cat that our taxpayers have to fork out a salary for every year.

Sildavia's Ambassador to the WA insists in advising his Urgenchian colleague to calm down. Don't try to put the blame of your fiasco on others, nor try to change the issue recommending others to introduce draft resolutions.
The fact is that the WA has overwhelmingly rejected the draft on Nomads rights. Don't try to analyze if the Nations which voted against did it because they are anti-Nomads, or hate them, or if it was just a bad morning for the Minister of Foreign Affairs who had a quarrel with his Missus at home and therefore ordered his ambassador at the WA to vote against. All these suppositions are perfectly imaginary and, in any case, irrelevant.

Sildavia's Ambassador to the WA insists in advising his Urgenchian colleague to calm down. Don't try to put the blame of your fiasco on others, nor try to change the issue recommending others to introduce draft resolutions.
The fact is that the WA has overwhelmingly rejected the draft on Nomads rights. Don't try to analyze if the Nations which voted against did it because they are anti-Nomads, or hate them, or if it was just a bad morning for the Minister of Foreign Affairs who had a quarrel with his Missus at home and therefore ordered his ambassador at the WA to vote against. All these suppositions are perfectly imaginary and, in any case, irrelevant.


The government of the emperor of Urgench is delighted with the advice of an ambassador as respected and honoured as that of Sildavia.

The ambassador's extremely precient summation of the course of this debate will doubtless form a part of the curriculum taught to Urgench's future international lawyers studying at the Unversity of the Empire at Khodzhent.

We envisage using the words quoted above of the respected ambassador to remind and caution ourselves whenever we are dealing with nations of Sildavia's calibre and status.

Yours in sincerity,

Resolution Close

Unless someone here is willing to revive it much needed WA rep support is needed

OK, this is not my thread, but does anyone else think it a good idea to lock?

The government of the emperor of Urgench is delighted with the advice of an ambassador as respected and honoured as that of Sildavia.

The ambassador's extremely precient summation of the course of this debate will doubtless form a part of the curriculum taught to Urgench's future international lawyers studying at the Unversity of the Empire at Khodzhent.

We envisage using the words quoted above of the respected ambassador to remind and caution ourselves whenever we are dealing with nations of Sildavia's calibre and status.

Yours in sincerity,

The Sildavian Ambassador smiles at the answer, and remind his Illustrious colleague of the Spanish proverb: "the devil is a clever guy, not because he's the devil, but because is so old…"

OK, this is not my thread, but does anyone else think it a good idea to lock?


O.O.C. Yes please.