NationStates Jolt Archive

Prohibition of Slavery

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights | Strength: Strong | Proposed by: Quintessence of Dust

Description: The World Assembly,

Considering slavery, forced labour and human trafficking to be violations of basic human rights,

Declares:

1. Holding under the law any person to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity, or binding any person to an employer by a contract to which they have not consented, shall be considered 'slavery' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

2. Requiring any person to work, enter a work contract, or conform to terms of employment, which they have not freely agreed themselves or through a person they have freely appointed to represent them, through such means as abduction, coercion, deception, destitution, or fraud, or threats of such, to themselves or their families, including such acts as violence or criminal damage, or unlawful detention or eviction, shall be considered 'forced labour' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

3. The definition of 'forced labour' excludes:
- conscription or alternative required national service;
- prison labour or community service given as sentence in the course of a fair trial;
- required service of wartime prisoners of war and internees, in accordance with international law;
- required national emergency service;
- normal civic duties;

4. Forcing or inducing the transfer of any person against their freely given will, or assisting or financing such actions, through similar forms of coercion, for the purposes of exploitation, such as slavery or forced labour, or situations approximating to such, sexual exploitation, or unauthorised medical procedures, shall be considered 'human trafficking' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

5. Such conditions shall be collectively referred to as 'servitude';

6. All persons under condition of servitude shall be immediately freed and all contracts or conditions enforcing servitude voided;

7. Persons fleeing servitude shall be accorded refugee status, and refoulement to nations where they would be returned to such conditions or punished for escaping them prohibited;

8. Reasonable action must be taken to prevent reprisals against such persons, including the passage and enforcement of laws to criminalise such;

9. Discrimination in civil, social, economic, legal and political rights, protection under law, access to public services, travel permission and any other rights afforded by national and international law based solely on prior condition of servitude shall be prohibited, excepting any positive actions taken at the national or more local level to assist with rehabilitation, such as priority access to sheltered accommodation;

10. Goods produced, in whole or in part, through servitude shall be permanently embargoed, and all investment and material support to nations, legal entities and persons practicing servitude immediately ended, except as transition assistance or compensated manumission to free people from such conditions;

11. Nations shall take part in a concerted diplomatic effort to end servitude, and to prevent areas having abandoned such from returning to such practices;

12. Nations shall apply due scrutiny to such institutions as industries employing significant proportions of migrant workers, legal or commercial sex industries, industries employing minors, and their national organ donation systems, to identify catalysts to human trafficking, and to work, where necessary in concert with others, to eliminate such.

I'd like to thank...Yelda!
A new version.
-- Samantha Benson
Congressional Liaison, Office of WA Affairs
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

For reference:
- old drafting thread; (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=524314)
- old debate thread. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545855)

It is pretty much at the very limit for character count, so for any major additions, it'd be helpful to identify 'offsets'.

There shouldn't be many implications dealing with the lack of a forced labor resolution; such a resolution didn't exist when this passed the last time either (thought it was in the pipeline).

I know I'll probably be ostracized for harping on incidental technicalities, but I'd feel better if the resolution included definitions of slavery and human trafficking, and included for clarity's sake a rule on forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

My point is: the only reason we didn't include language about forced labour last time was I knew a separate resolution was ready. Given that's not the case now, maybe we should include something about forced labour here.

I know I'll probably be ostracized for harping on incidental technicalities,
Not at all: that's the best part of the WA. ;)
but I'd feel better if the resolution included definitions of slavery and human trafficking, and included for clarity's sake a rule on forced labor imposed as a punishment for crime.
The reason for not definining slavery was that Clause 1 effectively does so. But this point was brought up several times before, so how about rephrasing it to:
Defines 'slavery' as holding under law a person to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;
For human trafficking, I'm not sure what a good definition would look like. I'll work on one now, but suggestions are welcome in the interim.

On forced labour, if this proposal deals with the subject, I would probably want to, as before, exempt:
- prison labour
- conscription or alternative service
- required work in emergency situations
- normal civic duties.

I have no intention of banning prison labour. But that may be jumping the gun a little.

-- Samantha Benson

All that makes good sense to me. As for a definition of human trafficking, what we're looking at that isn't covered by the definition of slavery is largely a slightly twisted form of indentured servitude, so I'd look in that direction. Wikipedia has a decent definition that you may want to use as a framework: "Human trafficking is the recruitment, transportation, harbouring, or receipt of people for the purposes of slavery, forced labor (including bonded labor or debt bondage) and servitude."

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

Well, they've basically taken that definition from a RL law:
"Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation.
Edit: Just found the Wiki page for the Palermo Protocols.

If we ban slavery we're going to have to ban capitalism as well. :wink:

If we ban slavery we're going to have to ban capitalism as well. :wink:

Why?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

My point is: the only reason we didn't include language about forced labour last time was I knew a separate resolution was ready. Given that's not the case now, maybe we should include something about forced labour here.
I don't have time to write or campaign for a new forced labor resolution right now, but if there's anything in the old one that you can use feel free to take it.

I am happy to learn that no one has come here to say that abolishing slavery is an infringement on the rights of Nations :)

I whole-heartedly support this resolution.

I don't have time to write or campaign for a new forced labor resolution right now, but if there's anything in the old one that you can use feel free to take it.
Ok, thanks!

I am happy to learn that no one has come here to say that abolishing slavery is an infringement on the rights of Nations :)

Don't worry, they'll be along soon.

A very competent proposal. I especially commend the inclusion of clause 8. And 9. And 6. Haha its a very thorough piece of work - and I'd support it wholeheartedly.

1. Declares that all persons are free, and that no person shall be held, under the law of any nation, to be the possession, property, or chattel of any other person or any legal entity;

Does this conflict with the rightful imprisonment of criminals? I'm not too sure myself...

_________________________

CoN Lord Chancellor
Delegate of The Council of Narnia

No, it doesn't. Prisoners aren't the 'property' of the state; they still have personhood, albeit a highly regulated form thereof.

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, has the same reservations as the honorable ambassador of the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal. While being convicted of a crime and being imprisoned does not make one "owned", it also does not allow one to be "free"; thus, there is a conflict between the criminal justice system of many countries (not in The United Socialist States of Jaynova, mind you...we are renowned for our complete lack of prisons)and this proposal.

If rider 1 were amended to reflect this concern, the USSJ would have no problem supporting this proposal.

OK!

A new version combining UN Resolutions #232 and #233 has been edited into the first place. I have obtained Yelda's permission and they will be credited as co-author. Many thanks to them for this.

The draft is now 8 characters shy of the character limit, so I cannot add anything at all without taking something else away.

I welcome all substantive comments on the current draft, and will endeavour to answer any questions. However, I can preempt one: do I think the WA has the right to blah blah? Yes, next.

I also need a new title. 'Abolition of Servitude' sounds a bit lame, but 'Slavery, Forced Labour, Human Trafficking' is too long. Seeing as, with clenched teeth, I'm personally considering 'The Mighty Pen of Freedom'

-- Samantha Benson

Might we suggest, On The Manumittance of Slaves ?


yours e.t.c. ,

I have confered with my cabinet, and we agree with this version of the proposal (and we like # 10, which we don't remember being in the debated draft.)

So, if brought to the floor in this form, you can count on a "Yay" from The United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific.

Might we suggest, On The Manumittance of Slaves?
OOC: Is there a particular reason for your fondness for 'On...x'? It reminds me of old political essays (On Liberty, On the Jewish Question, On Revolution). I have no aversion to it, but I don't really think of resolutions as essay-like.
I have confered with my cabinet, and we agree with this version of the proposal (and we like # 10, which we don't remember being in the debated draft.)
Thanks. #10 was in different form before, in two separate clauses and phrased a little differently, and it only applied to slavery.

"Slavery and Forced Labour Ban" would fit, though it lacks a certain artistic flare.

O.O.C. I think my fondness arises from having read to much 18th century polemic and the like, Hazlett's " On the pleasure of hating " springs to mind, i agree it's not very modern. I think Manumission would be an attractive and accurate inclusion in the title though, no?

I doubt most people even know what that means. Besides, there's a character limit for the title, and you don't want to waste it on unnecessary verbiage.

I doubt most people even know what that means. Besides, there's a character limit for the title, and you don't want to waste it on unnecessary verbiage.


O.O.C. And how is the exact term for what this resolution will do
" unnecessary verbiage " ?

Goodness you ave a jaded opinion of the intelligence of members:p

For the most part I'm very happy with the revisions, but I'd prefer that the resolution didn't exempt forced labor of POWs. Some of the greatest wartime atrocities have involved the conditions of forced labor imposed upon prisoners taken from the ranks of the "enemy," even when these so-called prisoners of war were arguably not even combatants. I strongly object to making allowances for countries to force foreign soldiers into wartime service for their enemy. Such a provision leaves the way wide open for exactly the abuses of human rights this resolution is attempting to reject.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

The original forced labour resolution said 'according to international law'. I was, in all honesty, assuming the WA would pass a resolution on PoWs at some stage anyway, which would legislate the issue in more detail. The Cobdenians were drafting one, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=562680) which included:
Detaining nations are permitted to use prisoners of war as a labour force. Such labour cannot, however, be used in industries involved either directly or indirectly in the furthering of the Detaining nation's war aims, such as munitions manufacturing and similar industries. Detaining nations may not use prisoners of war holding commissions for manual labour. Internees are not to be used as a labour force without their consent.
I'm not sure whether that last line completely prohibits forced labour or not.

Sorry if that's a bit of a non-answer. I suppose what I mean is that I would strongly bet that such labour will be regulated in future by the WA anyway, but I don't really want to rule out the possibility. If consensus is that it should be, though, I'll be glad to remove the line.

-- Samantha Benson

For the most part I'm very happy with the revisions, but I'd prefer that the resolution didn't exempt forced labor of POWs. Some of the greatest wartime atrocities have involved the conditions of forced labor imposed upon prisoners taken from the ranks of the "enemy," even when these so-called prisoners of war were arguably not even combatants. I strongly object to making allowances for countries to force foreign soldiers into wartime service for their enemy. Such a provision leaves the way wide open for exactly the abuses of human rights this resolution is attempting to reject.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE


Might that already be covered under Prevention of Torture?

In some cases, but not in all. A future resolution on the subject of treatment of prisoners of war can explicitly include or exempt POWs from forced labor. I'd much rather make the WA approve a standard for treatment of POWs on its own merits than see such a powerful exemption bundled with the current proposal.

As written, this resolution will allow forced servitude of POWs until it is repealed. Understanding that there are space constraints, I would be much more comfortable if the exemption included a caveat along the lines of the line you mentioned; "according to international law." At least then future resolutions can restrict the practice without having to worry about violating the Contradiction Rule. If the choice is to include the exemption as written or remove it, I would prefer silence that errs on the side of POW rights to a provision that abridges them.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

Ok, fair enough. I've added the rider, nipped and tucked, and the proposal is now 1 character shy of the limit.

I would incidentally encourage someone to write a PoW resolution at some point: it's an important subject.

The Holy Empire of New Illuve has some concerns regarding unintended consequences that may come out of Clause 4. There are no exemptions in place for such cases in which a person had been legally determined to be not mentally competent yet refuses medical treatment. Indeed - how would medical pratictioners be treated who are responding to an emergency where someone is unable (for whatever reason) to give consent via expressing his or her free will?

Furthermore, She is confused by the wording in the opening clause of Clause 4. Is the phrase "against their freely given will" to be read that one had NOT given consent to being transported and another party? If so: what if the person in question was unable to announce his or her will - for whatever reason - and the transport occurred?

The Holy Empire would also like to point out that "contracts" come in many different forms, and the wording of Clause 2 may result in unintended consequences. For example: signing a mobile phone contracted that was freely agreed to based on deceptive advertisement could result in the mobile phone company being found guilty of 'forced labor.'

Not only that, Clause 2 is going to have a major impact on the contractual law regimes of the WA member nations by simply mentioning the word "contract" as well as employee-employer relations including possibly mandating the creation of collective bargaining organizations should they not exist. And would not "threat of destitution" potentially effectively prevent an employer from saying "your counter-offer is not acceptable, so we have decided not to offer you employment" in some cases?

Not withstanding the above, the Holy Empire of New Illuve fully supports the spirit of this Resolution and would support its adoption.

As written, this resolution will allow forced servitude of POWs until it is repealed.

Actually no. Because it is explicitly excluded from the definition of forced labour, this resolution makes no assumption whatsoever about forced servitude of POWs, and any future resolution could deal with the problem fully and forcibly without needing a repeal. A sufficiently expensive lawyer could argue that the "international law" rider makes it more difficult, not less, to say anything about forced labour of POWs.

(OOC: on the other hand, I can't see the mods agreeing with that kind of nitpicking, so this is all by-the-by. :-)

I like it.

Yeah, "Slavery and Forced Labour Ban" would work well enough. Perhaps just "Slavery Ban". Or "Ban of Slavery". Or maybe "On Slavery Bans" or "Slavery on Bans" or...

Okay, I'd stick with "Slavery and Forced Labour Ban". No it's not superhero-spandex-underwear-flashy, but it works, and it's upfront about what the proposal would do.

Perhaps "Banning Slavery" would work. I don't know how the rest of the WA views utilizing those kind of gerund-titles. The thinking I did was that using them was cool, stopping such gerunds, being pointless.

After conferring with my government, Rutianas would indeed support such a proposal.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador and Delegate for the Korel Region

New Illuve: Thank you. I was very tired last night when I edited the proposal, so I've missed anything, please tell me. I believe I've responded to most of your concerns:

- '...perform work, enter a contract...' has been changed to '...work, enter a work contract...' in Clause 2;

- however, Clause 2 hasn't been edited to avoid the mention of collective bargaining: the clause doesn't actually say that people have the right to freely appoint someone to do represent them, but just that where they have done so, that will be recognised. Nations could enforce laws banning collective bargaining and still be in compliance;

- in Clause 4, the term 'unauthorised medical procedures', rather than 'medical procedures to which the person has consented' is used, that is, nations would presumably have laws authorising medical procedures on persons incompetent to consent, or permitting emergency medical treatment in cases where a person's consent cannot be discerned. So I don't believe this would stop legitimate treatment, as it only applies in cases using 'through similar means [as in Clause 3]';

- in Clause 4 the word 'against' is used rather than 'absent' to mean that the transfer is happening against the express wish of, rather than absent the express consent, of a person: in cases where consent cannot be obtained, it wouldn't apply.
And would not "threat of destitution" potentially effectively prevent an employer from saying "your counter-offer is not acceptable, so we have decided not to offer you employment" in some cases?
I'm not sure what to do about this, and I recognise the threat of destitution raises other problems as well. But I'm loathe to totally omit it.

Upon further reflection, the Holy Empire must reconsider Her objections regarding the phrase "threat of destitution". Not employing a person, while potentially resulting in the destitution of the person not being employed, would normally not be the intended consequence of the would-be employer. Any destitution would be a result of not having income, a situation that could be exacerbated by not being employed, but is essentially outside of the context of the usual and expected negotiations for a employment contract.

If, however, the employer were to use the threat of destitution as a negotiation tactic, that would fall outside of the context of the usual and expected negotiation styles, and would then therefore be covered by the Proposal.

A test could be if the employer actually and willfully threatened to cause the destitution rather than not relieving the threat - outside the employer's control - of destitution.

OOC: Haha, yes. I had the same thought into work on the bus this morning.

IC: The issue, I agree, is of a 'sin of commission'. A potential employer is not liable for the 'sin of omission' of not providing employment (providing such refusal is non-discriminatory, but that's an issue for another proposal). But actively pursuing destitution is a separate issue, and the only thing the current language concerns, so I'm content to leave the word as is.

I cannot submit this for a few days, so there is still plenty of time for additional questions/comments.

Finnally! Thanks for this!

- conscription or alternative required national service;
Is there provisions against discriminatory required national service?

No, there's not. That would be stuff for a separate proposal.

The government of the Commonwealth of Mendosia, committed to the advancement of human rights as the single most important issue of its foreign policy, having outlawed slavery centuries ago, but recognizing that new forms of slavery are pervasive throughout the world, as is frequently reported by the Mendosian News Agency, declares its full support to this initiative.

The Juggalotus Republic of Free Bikers endorses and supports this legislation.

-and suggests "An Act Emancipating Slaves and other Forced Labour.".

Submitted for a trial run as 'Prohibition of Slavery'.

A well-conceived and thoroughly written resolution completely in line with my own feelings and the ideological structure of the Federation. Wholeheartedly approved, with particular appreciation to the representative from Quintessence of Dust for thoughtful application of my own humble suggestions and the input of others.

Riley Fluffer
Representing the Federated Democratic States of Xanthal
Designated Agent of the Delegacy of SPACE

64 approvals:

Quintessence of Dust, RedWalesCymru, Gibraltenstein, Xanthal, The Fat Bakers, The Artic Republics, Khalifistan, Flibbleites, Yuehan land, Jimmy Hart, Eiga-Baka, Ugaritic Mot, Wierd Anarchists, Gallantaria, Kapoa, Mendosia, Lord Sumguy, The Radically Irish, Yugovenia, The Derrak Quadrant, Ventei, Charlotte Ryberg, Krioval, Scotchpinestan, Armenian Diaspora, Moon god, Americars, Varavano, Kotire, Rutianas, Imperium De Mundi, Brown Hornet, Saevitius, Duffys Beertopia, Circumfelx, Benedictinople, Kadoshim, Them BOnes, Txiniamagna, Misplaced States, Farrol, Port de Land, Floreria, Mstead, Tilgate, Hyltopia, Roma SPQR Latium, Chickenstate, Aatesio, Grand Democracy, Bears Armed, Sagittronia, Kaple, Palms and Coconuts, Conservative bigots, Cisco1, Pork Land, Lucanian Shires, Karistina, Mandrivia, American Border Collie, Troysvale, Adamtopiah, Sabrina The Wise

I will probably submit this for real late this week or next week, depending on how things are going. Until then, though, last minute edits can still be made so feel free to review the draft.

Oh no, do I see the recenly elected delegate of the New York Region approving your fine proposal? Old fart face, The Hirgizstanian Commonwealth of Victories isn't going to like this.

Am I correct in assuming that this resolution does not apply to forced labor for prisoners? It looks that way, but I just want to get a second opinion; not that I ever intend to do that in my nation, of course.

Yes, that's correct. The exemption is a bit broad, but it's just one of those issues we had to cede in the interests of politik.

Approvals: 86 (Quintessence of Dust, Jimmy Hart, R539, Egalitarians, Wierd Anarchists, Earth Worshippers, Mandrivia, Xanthal, Joobie, Belarum, Jey, Imperium De Mundi, Misplaced States, Indian Gangs, Kilpaka, Flibbleites, Beinirham, Imladris-Angrenost, Augmark, The Derrak Quadrant, Del alqau, Ikaros Wrath, South Lorenya, Mibive, Spiderpiggy, Worldia555, Kapoa, Graalium, Tilgate, Gaiah, Ciderbekistan, The Artic Republics, Dancing Ninja Islands, Palms and Coconuts, Loyale, Tarnisk, Neo-Celts, Tsruhkwah, Scythina, Beliefless Blasphemy, Ouroborii, Jacobish, Saevitius, Ventei, Catie the Great, Slowpokeia, Amor Morado, Insterburg, Midancient, Shanlyn, Zinaire, I cant select a name, Nedinud, Left-Libertarians, Xikuang, Duffys Beertopia, Ezocog, Happy goafers, Osea 767, Sanctaria, Embleite, Sancte Michael, Kotire, CublicityPunt, The Land of Schnauzers, Orange texas, Goldendoodles, Fruity Oat, Sekobi, The Great Irwin Rommel, The Big Angus, Soviet Taoistan, Mitaxia, Mengjiang, Alagaziar, F-Carthage IV, The Georgian State, Marxterra, Moroccan Freedom Army, FireStorm1, Monacia, Artritis, Erir, Rashuta, United Animal Kingdom, Titarkasus)

Approvals: 88 (Quintessence of Dust, Jimmy Hart, R539, Egalitarians, Wierd Anarchists, Earth Worshippers, Mandrivia, Xanthal, Joobie, Belarum, Jey, Imperium De Mundi, Misplaced States, Indian Gangs, Kilpaka, Flibbleites, Beinirham, Imladris-Angrenost, Augmark, The Derrak Quadrant, Del alqau, Ikaros Wrath, South Lorenya, Mibive, Spiderpiggy, Worldia555, Kapoa, Graalium, Tilgate, Gaiah, Ciderbekistan, The Artic Republics, Dancing Ninja Islands, Palms and Coconuts, Loyale, Tarnisk, Neo-Celts, Tsruhkwah, Scythina, Beliefless Blasphemy, Ouroborii, Jacobish, Saevitius, Ventei, Catie the Great, Slowpokeia, Amor Morado, Insterburg, Midancient, Shanlyn, Zinaire, I cant select a name, Nedinud, Left-Libertarians, Xikuang, Duffys Beertopia, Ezocog, Happy goafers, Osea 767, Sanctaria, Embleite, Sancte Michael, Kotire, CublicityPunt, The Land of Schnauzers, Orange texas, Goldendoodles, Fruity Oat, Sekobi, The Great Irwin Rommel, The Big Angus, Soviet Taoistan, Mitaxia, Mengjiang, Alagaziar, F-Carthage IV, The Georgian State, Marxterra, Moroccan Freedom Army, FireStorm1, Monacia, Artritis, Erir, Rashuta, United Animal Kingdom, Titarkasus, GRAS, New Hamilton)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

I doubt my proposal will gain 10 more approvals. It certainly won't reach quorum.

I believe I am justified in saying "I told you so" :tongue:

If a nation wants to use mandatory conscription during a time of war they should have that right. Having conscription and national service in this measure is beyond any negotiation with Talgat. We do not intend to use conscription or mandatory service in our nation, but if we were attacked, we should have the right to institute it if needed. In addition, this measure is a restatement of bits and pieces of previous measures.

So, our position needs to be amended. For obvious reasons. Whomever wished to serve up a plate of crow, our esteemed Minister of Foreign Affairs will eat it. Our apologies. We will support this measure.

Alright, fair enough. I really didn't expect this to reach quorum, but what's done is done.

Mods, please sticky this thread. And if you could change the title too: thank you.

How do you define "normal civic duties"? More spcifically, how do you define "normal"? In Gavreel voting is compulsory where it may not be so in other countries. Gavreel generally agrees to this resolution in so much as slavery and human trafficking is concerned. Although we believe nations have a right to dictate what level of "forced labour" is required by their governments and should not be overseen by WA resolutions.

Welcome back QoD! We are looking forward to see what the people of the WA think: hopefully it will pass without problems.

why give them refugee status? giving too many people refugee status overcrowds areas and puts them in worse conditions than some forms of slavery.

How do you define "normal civic duties"? More spcifically, how do you define "normal"?
"At 90 degrees to the plane" </MATHMO JOKE>

In Gavreel voting is compulsory where it may not be so in other countries.
Therefore in Gavreel, being forced to vote doesn't make the person forced a slave.

I'm all for human slavery! It may sound horrible to you peace loving people but my let me explain how it works. In my dictatorship if a person slips up, they go to jail, and become slaves. This helps enforce the laws, gives criminals something to do, and helps make money for the goverment.

I voted for the bill. I think it was well organized and well presented. It is complete and ready for implementation.

exactly. Slavery is essential!

What would stop employers from coercing employees into working conditions which meet all crieria for slavery by forcing contractual obligation to said criteria when there are no other employment opportunities? Thus forcing servitude at the penalty of certain death. How about preventing coercion into unfair working conditions through vague contractual language or "legalese"?

Until further notice, I will be voting against this resolution on the grounds that it will lead to such questionable practices as mentioned above.

- The Carolina Foothills: Delegate of The Black Region

What would stop employers from coercing employees into working conditions which meet all crieria for slavery by forcing contractual obligation to said criteria when there are no other employment opportunities? Thus forcing servitude at the penalty of certain death. How about preventing coercion into unfair working conditions through vague contractual language or "legalese"?

Until further notice, I will be voting against this resolution on the grounds that it will lead to such questionable practices as mentioned above.

- The Carolina Foothills: Delegate of The Black Region

This passage does.

2. Requiring any person to work, enter a work contract, or conform to terms of employment, which they have not freely agreed themselves or through a person they have freely appointed to represent them, through such means as abduction, coercion, deception, destitution, or fraud, or threats of such, to themselves or their families, including such acts as violence or criminal damage, or unlawful detention or eviction, shall be considered 'forced labour' and immediately prohibited in all nations;

I think that should answer your question.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

I'm all for human slavery! It may sound horrible to you peace loving people but my let me explain how it works. In my dictatorship if a person slips up, they go to jail, and become slaves. This helps enforce the laws, gives criminals something to do, and helps make money for the goverment.

Making criminals do forced labour as part of their sentence is still allowed by this proposal. Letting the government sell criminals as slaves isn't, as such, apart from being a bloody silly idea. Let's put all our burglars in rich homes, on the inside of the security precautions. Brilliant!

What the is that bs? My message was deleted as trolling and flamebait? I guess anything that goes against current liberal ideas is trolling? Well if you havent noticed, the policies the USA has been pursueing in the last 50 years have only lead us to ruin. This country needs new ideas, not just the same rehashed ideas you left wingers keep throwing to the uneducated masses.

The language is pretty vague, but I suppose it does touch on the topic... very well. This proposal has my support.

Yea this is a tight one.
But i thought long and hard.

And i voted for it.

But minor chsnges have to be made criminals should have rights taking AWAY from them so they become official Nation Labor.

ok thats fine

But minor chsnges have to be made criminals should have rights taking AWAY from them so they become official Nation Labor.

Two things.

1) No changes can be made once a proposal is at vote. What you see is what you get, end of story.

2) You clearly didn't listen to any of the debate before chipping in, because this non-issue has been raised a couple of times already.

Normal civic duties in my nation include labor for such things as construction of road, railway, highway, and buildings etc in exchange of food coupons. Obviously any unemployed or uneducated people 18 y.o and older can be ordered to do such tasks for many months and years. We feel that since it's in exchange of renumeration in coupons, it will not violate this resolution since it's a civic duty. Furthermore, it doesn't violate the "Living Wage Act" since it's not an employment but a civic duty.

I hope this act is passed.

Each country should be able to decide for themself whether they with to allow slavery and human trafficing or not. I do think though that the people of the country should be allowed to give their word in it, but, ultimately, the country should be able to decide its own code of ethics and morals and laws.

I think this is a miss leading issue, it is not slavery that should be ban it's work!

Two things.

1) No changes can be made once a proposal is at vote. What you see is what you get, end of story.

Okay, dumb question perhaps but when is the VERY last moment when changes can be made and where? How does one know which proposal is the very next in the queue?

*EDIT* I just answered my question by searching around a bit. I think I understand now.

snip pointless rantFrak off, no one cares what you think about this fictional "USA" of yours.
OOC: In other words, please keep your RL bs out of this thread, thank you.

Each country should be able to decide for themself whether they with to allow slavery and human trafficing or not. I do think though that the people of the country should be allowed to give their word in it, but, ultimately, the country should be able to decide its own code of ethics and morals and laws.You know, I'm a fairly hardcore sovereigntist but even I find the idea of slavery being allowed to be absolutly repugnant.

I think this is a miss leading issue, it is not slavery that should be ban it's work!

I'd reply to this, but I can only deal with one pinhead per day and today's not your day.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Although the intention and the overall structure of this proposal are both laudable, I must oppose it, on the grounds that in highly capitalistic societies, morally bankrupt corporations will be driven to seize greater levels of political power in order that their labor practices can fall under the exceptions listed in (3), in particular the provisions for civic duty and required national service. It seems we want the entities practicing forced labor to have less influence, not more; yet this proposal will force the latter. I would be perfectly willing to support a similar proposal without these weaknesses, but as it stands, the resolution is simply too vulnerable to the abuses that can occur when strong capitalism and strong government coincide.

-Dr. Jacques Williamsing, Ambassador of Fishsland.

I voted against for a couple of reasons:

#1, I believe this is a matter for the individual nations to decide for themselves. If this was a resolution denouncing the practice, then sure, but this is making nations accept a law which remains flawed.

#2, This resolution provides to action for those nations who do not obey, should the proposal be approved. Sore, in section 10, the resolution states that the goods will be embargoed, but who will embargo and who will enforce the embargo? WA funding will be cut off, but will my country be prevented from giving financial aid to a country which has legal slavery? What about private organizations within my country? Should I prevent them from donating financially to those countries?

#3, There is no compensation to those who currently, LEGALLY, own slaves. Like it or not, the people who own slaves in these countries where slavery is legal are not breaking the law and we are discussing taking away, forcefully removing his farm tools or cooks or general labor force. We are taking legal property without compensation for that loss.

IMHO

I think the measure has merit. I think the hearts are in the right place. I just think the bill fails on those three counts, jurisdiction, enforcement, and compensation for damage.

The Empire of Ruzan votes against this ban. If we don't have slaves, who will do all those manual jobs that Ruzanians don't want to do? It will kill the economy!

it says
3. The definition of 'forced labour' excludes:
- conscription or alternative required national service;
- prison labour or community service given as sentence in the course of a fair trial;
- required service of wartime prisoners of war and internees, in accordance with international law;
- required national emergency service;
- normal civic duties;

and i say that required national emergency service, normal civic duty, and prison labour or community service given as sentence in the course of a fair trial; should be allowed but otherwise i agree with the ban

Sorry for not replying much. I'm heading out now, but tomorrow I'll be on, and write a full-ish defence of the proposal, and try to respond to the criticisms levelled here.

Say "NO!" to this foolish proposal! Thankfully I, the mighty and benevolent Despot, am no longer member of this pathetic club known as the World Assembly, but one of my puppet nations is. Slavery is and has always been an important pillar of our economy, and it can't be banned! Don't force me to resign another nation from the WA, my friends! Vote against this filthy proposal!

I personally do not like slavery. I prefer a dictator government were we jsut rules the lives of everyone.

However, i do not see that you should bann everyone from having slaves. By doing that you are forcing your veiws on others, If you personally do not like people for having slavery you dont have to interact with them. But forcing everyone to not interact with them is forcing other nations to commit to your views which is wrong.

Unless of course you take over their country then you can force them to do wahtever you want.

The Holy Empire of Asynto supports this resolution. However, this is a slippery slope we tread. I am a relatively new country, so I do not know the WA policies on human rights, but were you to look at our country, we don't have many. Will you strip my nation of our sovereignty?

slavery, its a funny thing.
sometimes it gives you money, sometimes it forces you bankrupt, sometimes it just bites you right on the butt! i say that we should abolish slavery

why do we need to ban slavery because someone thinks it racist and capitalist if its gone so i believe that we should have slavery for 1 good reason and that is
who wants to make money i know i would

also i think it would be very communist for the WA to tell us how to run our nations

i also agree with strikertaria

President Jerzy "Jay" Novakovich of the United Socialist States of Jaynova, West Pacific, takes the floor:

"Comrades of the World Assembly,

The proposal before us today is a neccessary one. Slavery is one of the most repugnant practices I can think of; sexual slavery doubly so. It is what separates us from our barbaric past, and it must be stopped. In fact, some of the remarks made by a few of this proposal's opponents sadden me.

In particular, I would like to point to the above comments from the ambassador of Freedom1112. I only single these comments out in the hopes to bring a better understanding of our nations, so plese indulge me.

Ambassador of Freedom1112, you said, 'why do we need to ban slavery because someone thinks it racist and capitalist if its gone so i believe that we should have slavery for 1 good reason and that is
who wants to make money i know i would'

To answer you, first of all, I pose another question to you: why is slavery 'racist?' Surely, people of all races could be slaves, so that is not the issue here. Secondly, I say to you that as a Socialist nation, we do not believe that capitalism is evil, and we do not believe that it leads to the slavery that we are talking about here. However, you take it to that extreme when you propose that 'it makes us money' is an adequate reason to enslave people. In fact, it is ironic that a nation called Freedom 1112 would endorse slavery.

Also, you say, 'also i think it would be very communist for the WA to tell us how to run our nations.'

As a Socialist nation that came from the old Soviet Republics, I ask you, with all due respect, not to use the word 'communist' as an epithet. The Soviets used the word falsely to describe their system of despotic rule. Actual Communism is not 'evil' and it respects individual soverignty as well as the greater good.

Thank you."

What about the idea that nations will not force their ideals on others? That is just oppression, which you should only do for your own nation and other nations you conquer.

Forgive me if I offend anyone or anything(I'm a newbie).
As I understand it, the point of the WA is to come to a consensus on ideals and ideas of nations. In general, majority rules. Now, in proposals like (random example) protecting ambassadors, that might offend your ideals. You might think that giving ambassadors extra protection shows mistrust. However, if the WA's majority disagrees, then you must implement that policy in your nation or leave the WA.
I personally believe slavery is wrong, but I do not try to force you to show my own belief in your nation. Neither does anyone who holds that belief. Instead, we vote for this proposal.
As I said earlier, forgive me if I offended anyone or anything. I'm not very good at stating what I mean, either.

What about the idea that nations will not force their ideals on others? That is just oppression, which you should only do for your own nation and other nations you conquer.

Oh how I long for the days when people will actually read contracts before signing them. To quote the almighty FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/21563/page=faq#WA)
The WA is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Note that the definition of slavery and forced labor in this resolution (Article 1 to 3) are very narrow. MapleLeafss nation will certainly adapt to this new resolution by changing little bit so that all my slaves will still be treated very similarly than before.. But instead slaves in private property will be considered worker but without any economic choice of working for their 'master' anyway due to lack of other meaningful work. Those worker will be almost forced to choose between selling their labor to a boss or face starvation, poverty or a lack of prosperity. Also for all my government slaves (those are all government properties now), they will be forced to do 'civic duties' and/or conscribed to the army but just for doing menial tasks. So nothing much will change for them. Of course there will be no arm training for those 'conscript', just the same task as they were slaves like before.

I invite other nations opposed to all those human right resolutions to find loopholes in all those human right resolutions instead of leaving WA.

Or the slave-owners could simply use the classic technique of making themselves the only source of the work tools and then sell them at such extortive prices that the slaves are in turn forced to "buy" the tools on credit with the very same slave owner, and then be economically tied to the ex-slave owner due to their debt, which they almost certainly cannot pay back.

Or the slave-owners could simply use the classic technique of making themselves the only source of the work tools and then sell them at such extortive prices that the slaves are in turn forced to "buy" the tools on credit with the very same slave owner, and then be economically tied to the ex-slave owner due to their debt, which they almost certainly cannot pay back.
Remind me to start exporting cheap work tools to your nation.

You take our slaves who are mostly criminals and we have killers running the streets free to do what they want.

Remind me to start exporting cheap work tools to your nation.

:rolleyes:

Sasquatewain does not partake in what we believe to be the morally wrong practice of slavery. The Peoples are simply pointing out to a most classic and traditional avoidance of slavery law.

And, if we were slave-using government, I'd have the most simple reply of "import tariffs." After all, God knows a foreign plow needs a 500% governmental tax.

But thanks for the attempt. ;)

Or the slave-owners could simply use the classic technique of making themselves the only source of the work tools and then sell them at such extortive prices that the slaves are in turn forced to "buy" the tools on credit with the very same slave owner, and then be economically tied to the ex-slave owner due to their debt, which they almost certainly cannot pay back.

That makes me want to sing.

♪♫You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store♫♪

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

That makes me want to sing.

♪♫You load sixteen tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store♫♪

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
OOC: Ah yes, I remember quoting that verse back when people asked why my contributions to the former NSUN resolution against Forced Labour included "enforced indebtedness" amongst the means of coercion that it forbade...

The Government of the Emperor of Urgench wishes to congratulate the noble and esteemed delegation of Quintessence of Dust on their spectacular victory and the step forward this represents for the cause of human rights.


yours sincerely,

i do not approve of slavery and trafficing in slaves .it is the right of all people to live free period so i will support this as law

OK so we passed this, what next?

Don't know if it's been done before, but how about an international space program?

OK so we passed this, what next?

Don't know if it's been done before, but how about an international space program?

Since you are unaware of what the WA has done already, I suggest you take this opportunity to read the Passed Resolutions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=560628) and then while you're at it take a gander at the Proposal Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). Although an International Space Program hasn't ever been done, but that's due primarily to the vastly differing levels of technology found in nations that comprise the WA.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

We would like to congratulate the author of this for getting it passed... and to remind them that, under this, the Forensathan system of slavery is still legal in the WA. And, with this in place, we do not have to worry about attempts to ban it.

I will send over a slave to pick up a copy of this resolution from your delegate. Have a nice day!

Diplomat Asuka Felna

OOC: Though, given how NS currently is, it seems that congratulations may be premature.

We would like to congratulate the author of this for getting it passed... and to remind them that, under this, the Forensathan system of slavery is still legal in the WA. And, with this in place, we do not have to worry about attempts to ban it.

I will send over a slave to pick up a copy of this resolution from your delegate. Have a nice day!

Diplomat Asuka Felna

OOC: Though, given how NS currently is, it seems that congratulations may be premature.OOC: So that's why the system's crashed: It was being maintained by slaves in a WA nation...

;)

OOC: So that's why the system's crashed: It was being maintained by slaves in a WA nation...

;)

OOC: Of course. Do you think the gnomes would do this job willingly? :tongue:

TO THE WA COMPLIANCE COMMISSION:
When I receive the issues that match the law I will choose the side that follows the law.
Regards

We would like to congratulate the author of this for getting it passed... and to remind them that, under this, the Forensathan system of slavery is still legal in the WA. And, with this in place, we do not have to worry about attempts to ban it.

I will send over a slave to pick up a copy of this resolution from your delegate. Have a nice day!

Diplomat Asuka Felna

OOC: Though, given how NS currently is, it seems that congratulations may be premature.



That may not absolutely be the case respected Ambassador Felna. After all other statutes need not address slavery specifically to have the effect of banning your great nation's form of slavery.

Your words remind us of one of Temujin the Conqueror's maxims " A man must leave the field of battle tired, bloody, and thankfull for his life inspite of victory or defeat. Fools celebrate success in battle, the wise make ready for the next one. "

Yours e.t.c. ,

TO THE WA COMPLIANCE COMMISSION:
When I receive the issues that match the law I will choose the side that follows the law.
Regards

OOC: Any other old-timers reminded of Picker?

i comply