NationStates Jolt Archive

REALISING that human dignity of all people is the foundation of justice and peace in the world.

REGRETTING many disregards to human rights committed by tyrannical nations.

DETERMINED to protect human rights by rule of law.

OBSERVING that a common understanding of rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance.

The WA shall endorse what will be called the WA bill of rights,

1. Everyone has the right to life except when sentenced bya court following his/her convivtion for which this penalty is provided by law.

2. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

3. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person.

4. Everyone is entitled to a full and fair trial by an independant tribunal when accused of criminal offense.

5. Everyone accused of criminal offense is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

6. No one shall be held guilty for a criminal offence which did not constitute a criminal offence at the time when it was committed.

7. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

8. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression.

9. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly.

10. Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.

11. Everyone is entitled to the rights and freedoms set forth in this resolution without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, and religion.

12. In time of national emergency, any nation may take mesure derogating from its obligations under this resolution.

Omnibus Proposals make the WA Gnomes cry.

What I'd suggest is taking ONE of these clauses, and turning it into a proposal. So write a proposal on Freedom of Assembly, or Freedom of Speech, or Retrospective Laws, or whatever. As it stands, this proposal is too broad. I mean, does Clause 8 protect child porn or plagiarism or revelation of state secrets? And if it doesn't, what other forms of speech does it not protect?

Omnibus Proposals make the WA Gnomes cry.

Are you saying it is illegal? Or just crying?

I'd make a case for illegal, since it duplicates (as one-liners) existing resolutions on trials and marriage. Since the rest of the points are also one-liners, I can't help but think that they make really crap legislation.

I'd make a case for illegal, since it duplicates (as one-liners) existing resolutions on trials and marriage. Since the rest of the points are also one-liners, I can't help but think that they make really crap legislation.

There is something to be said for simplicity, however. Resolutions don't have to be so specific that they're not open to interpretation by member states' judiciaries. In fact, that sort of flexibility may be better when dealing with "big picture" issues like this.

That said, paragraph 12 appears to obviate all the previous ones. What's to stop a nation from declaring a permanent "state of national emergency" in order to opt out of compliance altogether?

That said, paragraph 12 appears to obviate all the previous ones. What's to stop a nation from declaring a permanent "state of national emergency" in order to opt out of compliance altogether?

Nothing. The bill, in its current form, only protects citizens who were already protected. Citizens who are living in countries where this bill is meant to protect them, would find no protection.