NationStates Jolt Archive

World Assembly Slavery Act

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant

BELIEVING that all people deserve to live free of exploitation

BELIEVING that all people deserve fair compensation for the work they do

DEFINES person for this resolution to mean a being with independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with others or a member of a species for which qualification for being a person is the norm

DEFINES people to mean a group of beings that qualify as persons

DEFINES slavery as the practice of buying and selling people as property and profitting from their work without their consent or giving them compensation equal to what they could get as a free person
a) Consent may only be given by a living person of the age of majority or older who is not suffering from any mental handicaps
b) Consent may not be given because of coercion or blackmail

BANS slavery throughout the entirety of the World Assembly membership

BANS all laws which would serve to separate former slaves from the regular citizenship of a nation

BANS all trade involving goods produced by slaves that are made from the point of this resolution's passage and on
a) All goods that fall under this ban which enter a member nation are to be destroyed immediately

REQUIRES all member nations to immediately free any slaves they have and compensate those slaves with an amount equal to what would be necessary to pay for the basic necessities of living for one year's time plus training to help the former slave find new employment

REQUIRES any nation that is freeing or has freed a slave to also provide that slave with access to all educational opportunities they missed as a slave as well as all other rights and opportunities normal for a citizen of the slave's age

Let's see if we can make this worthy of vote.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

The People's Republic of Nimtiam is highly in favor of this ban. Slavery is an abomination which should never be present in any civilized society.

We do, however, have a problem with this resolution.

REQUIRES all member nations to immediately free any slaves they have and compensate those slaves for the amount of work they did during their enslavement

These clauses are an issue for us because of their retroactive nature. We support the ban of slavery in the future, but to retroactively demand payment for all work is against principles of law. At the time of the slavery, we must assume that the slavery was legal, whatever our moral objections. Therefore, to require payment or is punishment for a legal, if unethical, act.

We would support that clause if it were adjusted to "STRONGLY RECOMMENDS" rather than "REQUIRES".

We are in support of the education, clause, however. Instead of just educational opportunities, however, we suggest that it be broadened to include all things given by the government to all free citizens throughout their life, as if the newly freed slave was the age at which citizens received those benefits. With the obvious exception of things which would be useless to the freed slave.

We also note the loophole that citizens of nations could free their slaves in anticipation of this act and therefore be exempt from providing for the benefits outlined. Perhaps it should be changed to apply to anyone denied these things because of slavery regardless of when they were freed.

With all due respect,
Ambassador Natara Youlunk
People's Republic of Nimtiam

These clauses are an issue for us because of their retroactive nature. We support the ban of slavery in the future, but to retroactively demand payment for all work is against principles of law. At the time of the slavery, we must assume that the slavery was legal, whatever our moral objections. Therefore, to require payment or is punishment for a legal, if unethical, act.

We would support that clause if it were adjusted to "STRONGLY RECOMMENDS" rather than "REQUIRES".
While I appreciate the point the ambassador is making, this solution would get my outright opposition. Only strongly recommending that nations free all current slaves is right out.

The reason for having something like this in the first place is that all these suddenly freed slaves are in an economically very bad position. Unlike a random worker who has just been fired or is starting job-hunting for the first time, a freed slave has no saved-up resources. Even if they're highly qualified individuals, they might easily find themselves in a situation where they have to take the first job to come along or starve. If the first job doesn't come along for a few months and your nation doesn't have a welfare system to support them, they just starve. Given the cries of outrage that turn up every time the subject is even mentioned, the only safe assumption is that nations don't have welfare systems. Therefore, unless you want to create a humanitarian crisis of stunning proportions, some form of compensation is necessary.

Second, while I too think that ex post facto laws are a bad idea, this isn't one. As of the moment of passage of this resolution (assuming it does), slavery becomes illegal and a wrong has been committed against the slaves quite apart from the moral wrong that's been committed anyway. Some sort of compensation is clearly in order.

That said, I'm not convinced that paying them for everything they've ever done as a slave is a viable solution. It's financially ruinous for one thing.

I have a vague memory that the UN's anti-slavery legislation also contained clauses forbidding member nations from buying goods produced by slave labour. Would it be possible to put something like that back in, or would it push the resolution out of category?

We would object to ( amongst other things ) the definition of a person contained in this resolution, as it stands we fear it will mitigate against certain kinds of disabled persons, the deaf-mute, persons with progressive wasting disorders or certain forms of autism for instance, many of whom will not have the ability to communicate abstract or logical thoughts with others.

yours e.t.c. ,

Both ambassadors Gabbannaen and Nimtiam make excellent points. On one hand if we go with back pay or compensation we could very well bankrupt some nations with very large slave populations and that would not help the situation.

On the other hand we simply cannot allow a multitude of people to be released from years of bondage with no support.

Perhaps I can suggest adding a WA X-Slave Support Fund to this measure, where member nations could donate funds for the reeducation and in some cases repatriation of released slaves? This might make the resolution harder to pass but I wanted to throw that idea out there.

Both ambassadors Gabbannaen and Nimtiam make excellent points. On one hand if we go with back pay or compensation we could very well bankrupt some nations with very large slave populations and that would not help the situation.

On the other hand we simply cannot allow a multitude of people to be released from years of bondage with no support.

Perhaps I can suggest adding a WA X-Slave Support Fund to this measure, where member nations could donate funds for the reeducation and in some cases repatriation of released slaves? This might make the resolution harder to pass but I wanted to throw that idea out there.



These donations, would they be voluntary or mandatory as in those appropriated by the w.a. as membership fees?

In any case why would nations which currently have enslaved inhabitants want to pay into this fund unless compelled to do so? And conversely, unless moved by some extraordinarily charitable impulse, why would states which do not have slaves wish to pay for the iniquities of those nations which do?

yours e.t.c ,

I must also object to retroactive compensation (and I think that's the only part of that clause that the distinguished representative from Nimtiam was objecting to).

Perhaps instead of a WA fund, perhaps we could strongly encourage nations to provide job-training and job-finding services to newly freed slaves?

Here's how my last draft (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=564428) looked.

Personally I would make freeing the slaves mandatory and the reparations voluntary, that way the slaves would be free and those nations who don't want to or can't afford to pay the reparations don't have to.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Nimtiam apologizes. We of course support requiring freedom for all slaves, we only meant to change the wording of the part about reparations, but realize that was not clear.

compensate those slaves for the amount of work they did during their enslavement

As other ambassadors have said, this would bankrupt nations, if the resolution insisted on complete compensation.

Would it suit other nations if the proposal required some sort of welfare system for a reasonable amount of time after which slaves were expected to stand on their own?

The Nation of Division 4-2 supports this measure in spirit, however we are in agreement with Nimtiam on the issue of required reparations. We feel that it could easily lead to a even larger crisis as entire nations suffer economic collapse, which could cause problems across their region, if not our entire world.

Would it suit other nations if the proposal required some sort of welfare system for a reasonable amount of time after which slaves were expected to stand on their own?
That would certainly answer my worry, Ambassador Natara.

There's a lot in Sam Benson's version that really should be considered for addition to this one, now I look at it properly. Thanks for the link!

I agree with the respected Ambassadors that there needs to be some kind of system put in place to help these people back on their feet. Re-education to learn a trade so that they could get jobs and a place to live

These donations, would they be voluntary or mandatory as in those appropriated by the w.a. as membership fees?

In any case why would nations which currently have enslaved inhabitants want to pay into this fund unless compelled to do so? And conversely, unless moved by some extraordinarily charitable impulse, why would states which do not have slaves wish to pay for the iniquities of those nations which do?

yours e.t.c ,

These donations would have to be voluntary. I dont see why non slave nations would have to pay but just as you see funds set up for disater relief, nations might be willing to make a donation. Maybe in exchange for favorable trade agreements, allowing foreign investment in their county, etc.?

OOC: Spent yesterday without internet access, so naturally I come into this a little late.

IC:

We are in support of the education, clause, however. Instead of just educational opportunities, however, we suggest that it be broadened to include all things given by the government to all free citizens throughout their life, as if the newly freed slave was the age at which citizens received those benefits. With the obvious exception of things which would be useless to the freed slave.

Please tell me what you think of the current wording.

We also note the loophole that citizens of nations could free their slaves in anticipation of this act and therefore be exempt from providing for the benefits outlined. Perhaps it should be changed to apply to anyone denied these things because of slavery regardless of when they were freed.

I did a wording change to cover this.

have a vague memory that the UN's anti-slavery legislation also contained clauses forbidding member nations from buying goods produced by slave labour. Would it be possible to put something like that back in, or would it push the resolution out of category?

Empress Catalia herself would be opposed to this. The oldest relics and houses in Forensatha, including the oldest sections of the Imperial Palace, were produced under the type of slavery that this proposal seeks to ban. In addition, in nations this forces to end slavery, such a provision could possibly end up banning all trade with outside nations, thus possibly destroying their economy as effectively as the provision about lifetime repayment would.

In any case, for systems that are economically dependent upon slavery, this proposal is going to be financial ruin anyway. There is no way around banning slavery without destroying someone's economy in the process.

There's a lot in Sam Benson's version that really should be considered for addition to this one, now I look at it properly. Thanks for the link!

There's a lot in it which won't be included in this one. The provision on trade banishment is as punitive as my own idea about retroactive compensation, if not more so, and part of my objective is to manage to ban the type of slavery that exploits people while keeping Forensatha's system intact. Aside from the fact that I personally have benefitted greatly from the system, any attempt to introduce or support legislation within the WA that would ban it would quickly see a new diplomat representing Forensatha.

I will consider the draft in question, but be warned that the draft likely won't get utilized for more than one or two sections at best.

We would object to ( amongst other things ) the definition of a person contained in this resolution, as it stands we fear it will mitigate against certain kinds of disabled persons, the deaf-mute, persons with progressive wasting disorders or certain forms of autism for instance, many of whom will not have the ability to communicate abstract or logical thoughts with others.

The definition is changed.

I agree with the respected Ambassadors that there needs to be some kind of system put in place to help these people back on their feet. Re-education to learn a trade so that they could get jobs and a place to live

Change made. Let me know what you think.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I will consider the draft in question, but be warned that the draft likely won't get utilized for more than one or two sections at best.
It will definitely not get 'utilized' for more one word without my explicit permission. Plagiarism is illegal, and I was posting that proposal, co-authored by Yelda and I, as a courtesy, not as an aid.

It will definitely not get 'utilized' for more one word without my explicit permission. Plagiarism is illegal, and I was posting that proposal, co-authored by Yelda and I, as a courtesy, not as an aid.

I'm not the one who suggested utilizing it.

But, no worries. Your permission is not needed. Your proposal will not be used at all. Please feel free to remove the link, as it is irrelevant to the discussion of the proposal at hand.

Try to have a nice day.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

A proposal that went through months of drafting in the UN in two separate proposal forms, was subjected to delegate review and GA vote, and adopted, and then redrafted for several weeks, which covers the same topic as yours, is 'irrelevant'? How so?

I think you may be confusing what you can disregard with what you wish to disregard.

A proposal that went through months of drafting in the UN in two separate proposal forms, was subjected to delegate review and GA vote, and adopted, and then redrafted for several weeks, which covers the same topic as yours, is 'irrelevant'? How so?

I think you may be confusing what you can disregard with what you wish to disregard.

It is irrelevant in the same exact way that all issues from that period are irrelevant: They are remnants of a defunct organization which the international community agreed to disband. Their laws serve as reference points, nothing more, and are not relevant to discussion of items before the World Assembly any more than the discussion of first nation of Forensatha is relevant to the current laws of the current nation to bear that name.

In short, irrelevant to the discussion at hand unless we are going to discuss the history of international laws on slavery. Since this isn't a history lesson, but an attempt at creating a new law that is based upon the makeup of the World Assembly and not based upon what the UN would try to pass, it serves no particular purpose in this discussion. As such, irrelevant.

Now, the discussion between you and I on the subject is over. If you wish to object to it, please feel free to object in person at the headquarters of the Forensathan World Assembly Mission. It's currently the bottom of the center of the lake along our northern border, and due to the Lake Preservation Decree, you are not allowed to wear anything while waiting on a representative. Wait time is at least 45 minutes, so send someone with a high lung capacity.

Any further attempts to discuss the matter of that past resolution with any member of the Forensathan World Assembly Mission currently in the WA building will be ignored, as you are speaking to the wrong people.

Try to have a nice day.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Ok, let me rephrase:
And thanks to Cobdenia, who's [sic] UN resolution served as a reference point for writing this one
What has changed? The UN law on diplomatic immunity was the 'reference point' for your cribbed effort. Why now is the UN law on slavery not the 'reference point' for a WA law on slavery?

Furthermore, the circumstances of the UN were actually structurally the same as the WA's are now. Resolution #68 was meaningless and Resolution #6 was repealed, meaning there was - as is the case now for the WA - no substantive law on personhood, slavery, forced labour, or human trafficking. There is precisely no institutional difference between the UN pre-Resolution #232 and the WA now, with regard to the issues contained in our respective proposals, and as such any attempt to invoke 'the times they are a-changing' wholly spurious.

We doubt you have entered into the fray without some justification for the racist, colonialist, phallocratic reactionism of your present draft; we'd just like to see it so it can be only discussed, is all.

I fail to see what hubbub is all about. The Forensathans can look to the UN proposal for inspiration, and the original drafters can give their permission to use parts of it if they so choose. If you don't want to look at it for help, don't. Simple as that.

Ok, let me rephrase:

What has changed? The UN law on diplomatic immunity was the 'reference point' for your cribbed effort. Why now is the UN law on slavery not the 'reference point' for a WA law on slavery?

I'm now beginning to regret that part about granting WA delegates diplomatic immunity.

First of all, the previous item, along with the previous attempt on dealing with this subject, were mostly written by Xen. In case you haven't noticed, I'm about 45 years younger and the opposite sex.

Second of all, the reference point for the previous was to mainly get ideas for writing one. Some items were also carried over, though in an altered form, with Cobdenia getting co-author credits because it was his resolution that was the source and he also added a very important definition.

Third, Cobdenia's ambassador didn't insult the intelligence of the then-diplomat from Forensatha. I'm usually lenient when it comes to referencing the UN, but since you felt the need to insult my intelligence by pointing out a regulation I planned to follow by asking you for permission before adding items, I'm going entirely by the book on this one. And that book happens to say the UN's laws are irrelevant to the WA.

Furthermore, the circumstances of the UN were actually structurally the same as the WA's are now. Resolution #68 was meaningless and Resolution #6 was repealed, meaning there was - as is the case now for the WA - no substantive law on personhood, slavery, forced labour, or human trafficking. There is precisely no institutional difference between the UN pre-Resolution #232 and the WA now, with regard to the issues contained in our respective proposals, and as such any attempt to invoke 'the times they are a-changing' wholly spurious.

So you mean to say the exact same regional delegates are in power as in that time, the exact same people are in the World Assembly as the UN, and the exact same laws already in place for the UN by that time are already in place for the World Assembly?

I didn't think so. Please do not waste my time any further with this line of argument.

We doubt you have entered into the fray without some justification for the racist, colonialist, phallocratic reactionism of your present draft; we'd just like to see it so it can be only discussed, is all.

Your nation is now classified, as per Forensathan rules on international diplomacy, as a hostile nation when it comes to diplomatic actions. All further conversation with your ambassador is hereby ceased and attempts to force conversation will be regarded as actions by your ambassador outside their role as a diplomat and responded to with as much lethal force as is necessary. If you wish to protest this classification or continue this conversation, please do so at the headquarters for the Forensathan World Assembly Mission. I am no longer authorized to continue conversation with you in regards to this or any other piece of legislation until this status is resolved.

On a personal note, I find it interesting you choose those terms when you have no evidence to back them as the intentions of this piece of regulation. Bring evidence behind those allegations when you visit the headquarters, as I will be writing a recommendation that your nation is not removed from the list until you prove it.

I'd wish you a nice day, but it occurs to me that you taking a trip through the window is more preferable right now.

I fail to see what hubbub is all about. The Forensathans can look to the UN proposal for inspiration, and the original drafters can give their permission to use parts of it if they so choose. If you don't want to look at it for help, don't. Simple as that.

I wish it were still that simple, but as it stands, I have regulations to follow. Just too bad the discussion of this proposal had to get bogged down by arguing because of them.

Oh well. It was a nice idea while it lasted, but it's over.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

I'm now beginning to regret that part about granting WA delegates diplomatic immunity.

First of all, the previous item, along with the previous attempt on dealing with this subject, were mostly written by Xen. In case you haven't noticed, I'm about 45 years younger and the opposite sex.

Second of all, the reference point for the previous was to mainly get ideas for writing one. Some items were also carried over, though in an altered form, with Cobdenia getting co-author credits because it was his resolution that was the source and he also added a very important definition.

Third, Cobdenia's ambassador didn't insult the intelligence of the then-diplomat from Forensatha. I'm usually lenient when it comes to referencing the UN, but since you felt the need to insult my intelligence by pointing out a regulation I planned to follow by asking you for permission before adding items, I'm going entirely by the book on this one. And that book happens to say the UN's laws are irrelevant to the WA.

I suggest you drop the roleplaying persona for a moment and actually think about what Quod is saying and asking. Yes, the UN's laws aren't binding- but the UN represents several years of collective legislative evolution, written and passed by some of the finest (in most cases) writers who have ever played this game.

To not take them into consideration is silly, and using an IC justification for it is even worse. No, you don't have to listen to what they wrote, and if you plan to you'd better have permission to use their words, but it's still a good idea to use them for inspiration. They did pass for a reason.


So you mean to say the exact same regional delegates are in power as in that time, the exact same people are in the World Assembly as the UN, and the exact same laws already in place for the UN by that time are already in place for the World Assembly?

I didn't think so. Please do not waste my time any further with this line of argument.

This is a stupid rebuttal and I'm sure you know it. I'll ask you the question personally- why shouldn't you take UN resolutions into consideration?

Your nation is now classified, as per Forensathan rules on international diplomacy, as a hostile nation when it comes to diplomatic actions. All further conversation with your ambassador is hereby ceased and attempts to force conversation will be regarded as actions by your ambassador outside their role as a diplomat and responded to with as much lethal force as is necessary. If you wish to protest this classification or continue this conversation, please do so at the headquarters for the Forensathan World Assembly Mission. I am no longer authorized to continue conversation with you in regards to this or any other piece of legislation until this status is resolved.

On a personal note, I find it interesting you choose those terms when you have no evidence to back them as the intentions of this piece of regulation. Bring evidence behind those allegations when you visit the headquarters, as I will be writing a recommendation that your nation is not removed from the list until you prove it.

I'd wish you a nice day, but it occurs to me that you taking a trip through the window is more preferable right now.

You are making a very silly mistake, but then again I'm sure you understand completely that Quod is right and you are wrong. Resorting to an IC blockade and petulantly stamping your feet is a profoundly stupid and immature response, and abandoning your legislation because you can't take advice isn't a good way to start your career in the WA.

Seriously reconsider your emotional reactionism.

I suggest you drop the roleplaying persona for a moment and actually think about what Quod is saying and asking. Yes, the UN's laws aren't binding- but the UN represents several years of collective legislative evolution, written and passed by some of the finest (in most cases) writers who have ever played this game.

To not take them into consideration is silly, and using an IC justification for it is even worse. No, you don't have to listen to what they wrote, and if you plan to you'd better have permission to use their words, but it's still a good idea to use them for inspiration. They did pass for a reason.

OOC: Okay, I'm not going to be responding ICly from this point on.

You might want to go back and read over the whole thing. Honestly? This doesn't stem from anything on my side. What it stems from is Quod taking offense that I said that I'd take the previous legislation into consideration in response to someone else's suggestion that I add parts from it to the current one. Pretty much, Quod was getting upset with the wrong person over something that wasn't even their idea and is something they'd obviously not even done yet. So, in this case, I feel perfectly justified in saying Quod was in the wrong on the issue. That, in turn, got translated through the persona, with the persona's individual quirks getting added to change the flavor.

This is a stupid rebuttal and I'm sure you know it. I'll ask you the question personally- why shouldn't you take UN resolutions into consideration?

Quod was arguing from a pure game mechanics viewpoint. From that viewpoint, he's right. The reply was from a different viewpoint. A legislative body is made up of more than just the rules that govern how it functions and the mechanics of the function.

As for taking past UN resolutions into consideration: My real feelings on that should be obvious. If they're not, then people haven't been paying attention.

You are making a very silly mistake, but then again I'm sure you understand completely that Quod is right and you are wrong. Resorting to an IC blockade and petulantly stamping your feet is a profoundly stupid and immature response, and abandoning your legislation because you can't take advice isn't a good way to start your career in the WA.

Seriously reconsider your emotional reactionism.

Actually, in this case, I'm going to go ahead and say Quod was in the wrong on the innitial reaction. Quod really should have been addressing the person who made the suggestion on the matter or should have worded it differently. In any case, I am perfectly satisfied that the reaction itself was, from a logical standpoint, justified. After all, Quod's reacting to someone's response to a suggestion over the suggestion itself.

I find it even more interesting about the accusations of intent behind the proposal. From a logical standpoint, I can't find any reason for half of those to be supported. He outright accused this proposal of coming from the standpoint of being racist, colonialist, male-dominated society reactionism. Nevermind the fact that the racism one actually goes against the definition of person, colonialist is one I can't even fathom how he got the logical evidence for, and the last one is a bizarre accusation. At that point, I determined he was just making accusations for the whole purpose of trolling the thread. So, I went entirely with how the diplomat would normally react to being accused of such a thing.

Really, I want proof that this proposal is racist, colonialist, and sexist. I know that Quod can't ever provide it. Realistically, as of this point, he has nothing OOCly he can say to defend his position and has ICly pissed off the diplomat. The IC blockade of him is just a natural result of his own words.

We are shocked at the dreadful turn this drafting debate has taken. We fear the pride and obstinacy of those Ambassadors best placed to achieve the formulation of a good statutory remedy to the evils of enslavement has impeded their better judgement.

We are disappointed that these Ambassadors should see no further than their own personal disputes and ignore the very real issues at stake in this debate.

Perhaps on reflection these honoured and esteemed Ambassadors, famed for their legislative acumen and surpassing skill will see fit to put aside their rancour and continue the excellent work they have begun.

Sincerely,

I'm now beginning to regret that part about granting WA delegates diplomatic immunity.
Ooh, man! Is it hot in here, or did I just get burned?

Oh, no, wait, it is (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14116504&postcount=64) just hot.

Sam wipes off with a towel, and launches into a Jenny Owen Youngs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwuIIsDjgZg)-inspired bit. The forced smiles of the assembled diplomats fade as they realize, with creeping horror, that she is going to sing all the verses. Interns from the International Public Policy desk dance around her in fluffy animal suits.
Second of all, the reference point for the previous was to mainly get [sic] ideas for writing one. Some items were also carried over, though in an altered form, with Cobdenia getting co-author credits because it was his resolution that was the source and he also added a very important definition.
So, my question is: what was so fundamentally defective about Resolution #232 that it should not be such a reference point for a proposal on the same subject?

#127 was about diplomatic immunity. The WA has no such law. Therefore it was used as a reference point.

#232 was about slavery. The WA has no such law. Yet it was not used as a reference point in your effort.
Third, Cobdenia's ambassador didn't insult the intelligence of the then-diplomat from Forensatha. I'm usually lenient when it comes to referencing the UN, but since you felt the need to insult my intelligence by pointing out a regulation I planned to follow by asking you for permission before adding items, I'm going entirely by the book on this one. And that book happens to say the UN's laws are irrelevant to the WA.Professionals tend to recognise that petty personal animosities are not justifications for subpar job performance. We even made up a card back in the melting pot days of the UN:
http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad21qe.png (http://test256.free.fr/UN Cards/cards.htm).
So you mean to say the exact same regional delegates are in power as in that time, the exact same people are in the World Assembly as the UN, and the exact same laws already in place for the UN by that time are already in place for the World Assembly?
No, I'd say there've been almost as many, though obviously not quite so many, changes in that regard as happened between the passage of UN Resolution #127, "Diplomatic Immunity", and the drafting of your own "Diplomat Protection Act".

Now, we know you are a very important person in the WA (http://s182867369.onlinehome.us/utnp/claroline/course/index.php?cid=LAW115), but as a nation that has been active in drafting for many months, we are trying to offer advice: if you choose to totally eschew what has come before you, so be it, but in most cases, there's a reason it came before you.

Now if you'll excuse me, my ice cream is melting.

-- Samantha Benson
etc. etc.

From:
Ambassador Lathom
Delegate to the WA from The Holy Empire of the Solarian Isles
Cleric in the service of the Solarian Divine Emperor

To:
Honored General Assembly of the World Assembly

Re:
Anti-slavery legislation

I should hate to see such vital legislation fail due solely to such petty bickering. What truly matters here is that we work together to solve the problem of slavery, not argue amongst ourselves about minor details. We should not allow our differences in opinion to derail this historic legislation. We should all take a few minutes to gather ourselves, cool off our tempers, and return to the table to continue our discussions.

Slavery is an injustice of the worst kind. All people are equal under the shining light of the Sol Invictus, and none has the right to own another. The Holy Empire of the Solarian Isles supports this legislation completely, and we look forward to it coming to vote.

OOC: Quintessence, you're going to have to excuse me for this, but you really are not going to get an IC reply from this point on. If you want to, then prove the allegations you made or admit that you're in the wrong.

Secondly, you're being a hypocrite. You posted a link to it, then objected to the resolution being utilized for this one based on the rules about plagiarism, and have now spent several posts arguing that it should be used. Which is it? Can it be used, or can it not?

Thirdly, when it comes to negotiation, a lot of professionals in the matter would have cut of diplomatic negotiation at the exact point I did, if not sooner. Depending on the nation, they might even arrange an inconvenient accident for the other diplomat, just to get a point across.

Fourthly, you've been disrupting this thread for quite a few posts. I'm normally a lenient person, but my leniency has limits. Please either deal with the first two items in this post or stop posting. Either one is acceptable.

IC:

We are shocked at the dreadful turn this drafting debate has taken. We fear the pride and obstinacy of those Ambassadors best placed to achieve the formulation of a good statutory remedy to the evils of enslavement has impeded their better judgement.

We are disappointed that these Ambassadors should see no further than their own personal disputes and ignore the very real issues at stake in this debate.

Perhaps on reflection these honoured and esteemed Ambassadors, famed for their legislative acumen and surpassing skill will see fit to put aside their rancour and continue the excellent work they have begun.

I am sorry to say that, at this time, direct dealing between the diplomats is no longer possible, due to the unprofessional behavior of the other party. However, I am perfectly willing to deal with others in editting this and getting it ready for the floor.

I should hate to see such vital legislation fail due solely to such petty bickering. What truly matters here is that we work together to solve the problem of slavery, not argue amongst ourselves about minor details. We should not allow our differences in opinion to derail this historic legislation. We should all take a few minutes to gather ourselves, cool off our tempers, and return to the table to continue our discussions.

Slavery is an injustice of the worst kind. All people are equal under the shining light of the Sol Invictus, and none has the right to own another. The Holy Empire of the Solarian Isles supports this legislation completely, and we look forward to it coming to vote.

Unfortunately, these things happen. So, do you have any suggestions for ways the draft can be improved?

Secondly, you're being a hypocrite. You posted a link to it, then objected to the resolution being utilized for this one based on the rules about plagiarism, and have now spent several posts arguing that it should be used. Which is it? Can it be used, or can it not?With my permission, of course it can be used.

Fourthly, you've been disrupting this thread for quite a few posts. I'm normally a lenient person, but my leniency has limits. Please either deal with the first two items in this post or stop posting. Either one is acceptable.
As you progress in the WA, you'll come to realize having to deal with opposing viewpoints comes with the territory. It's a big world, and not everyone's going to agree with you.

With my permission, of course it can be used.

Considering your attitude when you first replied, and the fact you're still arguing that point with the person who isn't even the one that suggested it, you'll have to excuse me if I would rather not be bothered with it.

As you progress in the WA, you'll come to realize having to deal with opposing viewpoints comes with the territory. It's a big world, and not everyone's going to agree with you.

I've also been proven wrong or convinced to change my mind on here before. Opposing viewpoints I typically don't have a problem with.

That said, I notice you specifically are avoiding dealing with certain allegations made about the intent of this proposal. That's a pretty common method in NSG for avoiding admitting you're wrong. However, I'm not feeling that nice, and I've been patient. So, can you prove those accusations, or not?

I also note the proposal you've already submitted on this subject, which you appear to have worked for quite some time on. Which tells me your entire purpose on here was to troll and delay this so your own proposal could be possibly passed first. Dirty tactics, Quintessence.

That said, I notice you specifically are avoiding dealing with certain allegations made about the intent of this proposal. That's a pretty common method in NSG for avoiding admitting you're wrong. However, I'm not feeling that nice, and I've been patient. So, can you prove those accusations, or not?
I thought you didn't want any more IC replies?
I also note the proposal you've already submitted on this subject, which you appear to have worked for quite some time on. Which tells me your entire purpose on here was to troll and delay this so your own proposal could be possibly passed first. Dirty tactics, Quintessence.
How do you screw in lightbulbs - just wait for the world to revolve around you?

No, I wrote my proposal before you came along. I didn't, I'll admit, do so solely in anticipation that one day you would come in and rock my world. I did so because I wanted the WA to pass an anti-slavery law as I'm quite involved in the RL Traffik campaign. But I haven't had much time, or much energy, for NS lately, and didn't TG for my proposal. Yours reminded me, and once it became clearly you would accept no criticism of your proposal without throwing a hissy fit, I thought I'd test submit mine to see how many proposals it gets. If it gets a few, with the current quorum threshold low I might try to take a half day at the library and TG for it, but I don't think it's garnered many at the moment. (The initial test sub got ~60, but delegates were more active then as it came during a proposal drought.)

I'm entirely willing to shelve mine, if it appears another good proposal is on the way - I absolutely don't want to get in the way of anyone. It just doesn't look like any such prospect is on the horizon.

I thought you didn't want any more IC replies?

I'm not asking ICly, am I?

How do you screw in lightbulbs - just wait for the world to revolve around you?

It's usually easy to get someone to do it for you. Typically, by asking nicely.

No, I wrote my proposal before you came along. I didn't, I'll admit, do so solely in anticipation that one day you would come in and rock my world. I did so because I wanted the WA to pass an anti-slavery law as I'm quite involved in the RL Traffik campaign. But I haven't had much time, or much energy, for NS lately, and didn't TG for my proposal. Yours reminded me, and once it became clearly you would accept no criticism of your proposal without throwing a hissy fit, I thought I'd test submit mine to see how many proposals it gets. If it gets a few, with the current quorum threshold low I might try to take a half day at the library and TG for it, but I don't think it's garnered many at the moment. (The initial test sub got ~60, but delegates were more active then as it came during a proposal drought.)

Prove the bolded part. Our argument didn't stem from my not accepting criticism. It stemmed from you objecting to someone else's idea that I include parts from your resolution and my saying that I'd consider it. The main issue of "hissyfits," as you so put it, is primarily your reaction to the idea, even though you were not even addressing the right person when it comes to who proposed it. I can even prove that. Here's the posts:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14112953&postcount=12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14113854&postcount=15
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14113910&postcount=16

So, if my response to criticism is a "hissyfit," then apparently a hissyfit involves changing wording in response to challenges to better meet them (4 replies to others in that post), explaining to someone why some changes won't be made (2 replies), and saying I'd consider another piece of work already linked to (by the author of it, no less) for a possible source of ideas, with no indication that I would actually include anything from it or what steps to inclusion would be taken as well as a warning that it would be mostly not utilized. I'd hate to see your definition of a temper tantrum.

My idea with this one was to draft a proposal that would ban slavery outright, while providing for the slaves being freed so they won't be just thrown out into a cold world while still not accidentally banning certain systems of welfare, such as one Forensatha uses.

I'm entirely willing to shelve mine, if it appears another good proposal is on the way - I absolutely don't want to get in the way of anyone. It just doesn't look like any such prospect is on the horizon.

From my end, this looks like a lie. Your actions on here, your claims behind those actions that don't stand up to the evidence, and you submitting that proposal all suggest that your intent is to kill this one so that your own can get through.

And, let's face it, you're right... none other is likely to get passed. You made it a special point to make a serious effort to kill this one, the others are very badly written, and this one will serve as a nice example of what others can expect any time they come on here to draft a proposal related to slavery.

I'm not asking ICly, am I?
Alright. My reply would involve my diplomat making reference to your nation's present socioeconomic system, which is based around hereditary slavery. You refer to your nation's social strata as 'castes'. That is 'racist'.

Slavery is heavily associated with the slavery employed by the imperial predecessor to the present Quintessential republic. The emancipation of slaves was the key to the political revolution that gave birth to Quintessence of Dust. The persistence of bonded labour was one of the major causes of insurrection of the colonies of the republic, leading to their eventual statehood. Hence 'colonialist'.

And 'phallocratic'? Well, Sam Benson has a tendency to so label everything she dislikes; in this case, it's because of the hereditary nature of the slavery system you practice. Such a system reflects the essential sexual subjugation of women (as only men can procreate outside their caste).
Prove the bolded part. Our argument didn't stem from my not accepting criticism. It stemmed from you objecting to someone else's idea that I include parts from your resolution and my saying that I'd consider it. The main issue of "hissyfits," as you so put it, is primarily your reaction to the idea, even though you were not even addressing the right person when it comes to who proposed it. I can even prove that. Here's the posts:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14112953&postcount=12
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14113854&postcount=15
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14113910&postcount=16

So, if my response to criticism is a "hissyfit," then apparently a hissyfit involves changing wording in response to challenges to better meet them (4 replies to others in that post), explaining to someone why some changes won't be made (2 replies), and saying I'd consider another piece of work already linked to (by the author of it, no less) for a possible source of ideas, with no indication that I would actually include anything from it or what steps to inclusion would be taken as well as a warning that it would be mostly not utilized. I'd hate to see your definition of a temper tantrum.
Yeah whatever.
My idea with this one was to draft a proposal that would ban slavery outright, while providing for the slaves being freed so they won't be just thrown out into a cold world while still not accidentally banning certain systems of welfare, such as one Forensatha uses.
Well, let's hold on. You go on to accuse me of being a liar, so this claim is worth examining. This is quite a change of tune, from someone whose 'Take One' in this subject tried to formalise the legality of slavery. If we're going to cast aspersions about others' motives, how about yours?
From my end, this looks like a lie. Your actions on here, your claims behind those actions that don't stand up to the evidence, and you submitting that proposal all suggest that your intent is to kill this one so that your own can get through.

And, let's face it, you're right... none other is likely to get passed. You made it a special point to make a serious effort to kill this one, the others are very badly written, and this one will serve as a nice example of what others can expect any time they come on here to draft a proposal related to slavery.Heh, your arrogance is jaw-dropping, even by the standards of the WA. I have made zero effort to kill this. What is said in this forum has 0 impact on the vote: the only way to kill a proposal is to telegram against it. I don't have any time to do that if you decide to submit this. All I've done is make a series of posts on a slow afternoon stuck at home. I posted the link originally hoping you might see some bits of my proposal you liked, and that we might work together - because, selfishly I'll admit, neither Yelda or I have time to do a full TG right now, and so it'd be neat to find someone to split the burden with, and for more normal reasons - or that at least you might rethink the embargo aspect - as it is evident it has worked in the past, and was not a top-of-the-head suggestion. All of this wholly irrelevant criss-cross only came about once your high-handedness emerged.

This isn't getting anywhere or helping at all. So I'll try to make a gesture of good faith: I do trust your motives in this proposal. And if you do really want to ban slavery, you're going to have to institute an embargo: otherwise, nations will simply establish colonies. If you'd been around for the Solar Panels debacle, this was how many nations planned to get around its provisions: by having external sources do the emitting. This could work as well for slavery. Portion off slave areas into vassal states, and then import the goods. Absent that, a ban on slavery itself would be meaningless.

Alright. My reply would involve my diplomat making reference to your nation's present socioeconomic system, which is based around hereditary slavery. You refer to your nation's social strata as 'castes'. That is 'racist'.

Slavery is heavily associated with the slavery employed by the imperial predecessor to the present Quintessential republic. The emancipation of slaves was the key to the political revolution that gave birth to Quintessence of Dust. The persistence of bonded labour was one of the major causes of insurrection of the colonies of the republic, leading to their eventual statehood. Hence 'colonialist'.

And 'phallocratic'? Well, Sam Benson has a tendency to so label everything she dislikes; in this case, it's because of the hereditary nature of the slavery system you practice. Such a system reflects the essential sexual subjugation of women (as only men can procreate outside their caste).

Ah! Okay, makes sense. A lot of sense, actually.

Well, let's hold on. You go on to accuse me of being a liar, so this claim is worth examining. This is quite a change of tune, from someone whose 'Take One' in this subject tried to formalise the legality of slavery. If we're going to cast aspersions about others' motives, how about yours?

Touche.

Admittedly, Forensatha has never done anything without a secondary motive. The entire nation is structured to be internally balanced by the conflict between the Twelve Houses and their politics. The nation, led by the House of Cats, has made it a special effort to back every single piece of legislation that is advancing and liberal in order to stab at the House of Rats, which is extremely conservative.

Admittedly, this legislation is part of that strategy. It's also part of a general WA strategy, in which the House of Cats advances several pieces of legislation that protect its own interests while at the same time getting on the good side of nations that might normally not particularly get along with it due to aspects of its society. However, it's also seeking to protect the traditional way of life. Banning slavery without actually banning the Forensathan system does that. In this case, the proposal actually does (technically, your own doesn't ban the Forensathan system either, but parts of it are tricky to work around).

One thing to keep in mind is that the Forensathan system of slavery is based around keeping the Twelve Houses able to marry without marrying each other or marrying citizens. Thus, they want to keep the slaves happy. The best way to do it? Outlaw torture of the slaves, mandate the slaves must be paid a fair wage, set up the job system to where it doesn't discriminate based on caste, and give people ways out of slavery. Since the system needs renewal of slaves to keep it functioning and they don't want to risk a military marred by incest, movement between the lower three castes is purposefully unrestricted. A citizen could easily join the military, serve for ten years, leave it, become a slave for ten years, and then join the military again. A side effect of this is that someone who is poor today could be the Emperor next month.

The entire nation is, basically, structured around keeping the Twelve Houses in power and keeping them too busy trying to stab each other in the back while appearing to be working together to actually destroy the nation through mismanagement. And the Twelve Houses set it up this way on purpose.

Now, my personal motives: Actually, I'll admit I have an ulterior motive for this. Diplomat Protection Act was done entirely for IC reasons; personally, I feel no particular way about diplomats. But this one is done also based upon the personal belief that people should have the right to make decisions about their own lives, which is why it's so specific about what constitutes slavery. If someone were to willingly put themselves in the position of being a slave based entirely upon personal wants, then I see no problem with it. However, I do see a problem with forcing people into such a system. If a slavery system crashes because no one is willing to be a slave in it, then the system was flawed and needed to be removed anyway.

Heh, your arrogance is jaw-dropping, even by the standards of the WA. I have made zero effort to kill this. What is said in this forum has 0 impact on the vote: the only way to kill a proposal is to telegram against it. I don't have any time to do that if you decide to submit this. All I've done is make a series of posts on a slow afternoon stuck at home. I posted the link originally hoping you might see some bits of my proposal you liked, and that we might work together - because, selfishly I'll admit, neither Yelda or I have time to do a full TG right now, and so it'd be neat to find someone to split the burden with, and for more normal reasons - or that at least you might rethink the embargo aspect - as it is evident it has worked in the past, and was not a top-of-the-head suggestion. All of this wholly irrelevant criss-cross only came about once your high-handedness emerged.

Before anyone accuses my arrogance of being without bounds, let me state up front that I had a professor go over my arrogance to see if it is truly limitless. Using superstring theory, he successfully proved to me that my arrogance is, in fact, not limitless. So, I have seen scientific proof that my arrogance is not limitless.

Otherwise... Yeah, I have to bow to your reasoning in this one. My arrogance will be screaming at me for a week on it, but my arrogance loves screaming at people. Strangely, I've also caught it writing haikus, despite the fact it constantly asserts that poetry is beneath it. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong.

Am I sometimes high-handed? Oh hell yes. I've not been refered to as "Triune the dragon" by friends for nothing.

As for the embargo: That is easily dealt with. I've had diplomats overruled ICly before based on OOC reasoning. Next IC post by me will have it having been overruled. Useful tool of Forensatha's government system is I always have an IC excuse for implementing OOC considerations into my WA arguments ;)

This isn't getting anywhere or helping at all. So I'll try to make a gesture of good faith: I do trust your motives in this proposal. And if you do really want to ban slavery, you're going to have to institute an embargo: otherwise, nations will simply establish colonies. If you'd been around for the Solar Panels debacle, this was how many nations planned to get around its provisions: by having external sources do the emitting. This could work as well for slavery. Portion off slave areas into vassal states, and then import the goods. Absent that, a ban on slavery itself would be meaningless.

I'll admit that my previous post is wrong on your motives and that your motives are honest, despite any aspirations about them I have made.

My problem with an embargo is the fact that it could easily bankrupt nations. If you embargo the goods, a nation that has had all of its trade goods produced by slaves for years will suddenly find itself unable to trade. That comes in addition to the costs of freeing the slaves, providing one year's worth of money to them, and then training them to get jobs and become part of society (under the way the draft currently stands). Economically, it would be ruinous.

And, anyway, even banning trade doesn't stop them from getting around this. They just create a colony that has slavery, have the goods there, confiscate the goods when one of the colony's ships lands at their nation, and then have the colony confiscate an amount of money equal to the cost of the goods when one of their ships is at the colony. It's merely an altered form of how some corrupt cops do business. In order to block it, we'd have to mandate a complete ban on all interaction with nations that have slave goods, which would produce even worse results for those nations.

This has been an extremely enlightening exchange, we wondered at the damascene conversion of the respected forensathan delegacy.

It is even more interesting to note the source of the honoured Ambassador's concern for our delegacy to expedite the process of bringing our resolution on non-discrimination to vote.


yours e.t.c.,

My problem with an embargo is the fact that it could easily bankrupt nations. If you embargo the goods, a nation that has had all of its trade goods produced by slaves for years will suddenly find itself unable to trade.
And the bad thing about this is...?

My problem with an embargo is the fact that it could easily bankrupt nations. If you embargo the goods, a nation that has had all of its trade goods produced by slaves for years will suddenly find itself unable to trade. That comes in addition to the costs of freeing the slaves, providing one year's worth of money to them, and then training them to get jobs and become part of society (under the way the draft currently stands). Economically, it would be ruinous.
Well, so be it. Nations that have practiced slavery should be given a waver from suffering the consequences of the basic inhumanity of their actions? I suppose one thing might be to make the law non-retroactive, that is, all goods produced by slavery prior to passage of the resolution can be traded (maybe limit this to no resale), but no further goods produced using slavery can be traded. Even so, banning slavery is going to profoundly change some nations' economies. No amount of icing is going to change that, and the economic consequences on those nations isn't my prime concern: the welfare of their people is.

It's like saying shutting down a brothel means the prostitutes have to get other jobs. Well, yah?
And, anyway, even banning trade doesn't stop them from getting around this. They just create a colony that has slavery, have the goods there, confiscate the goods when one of the colony's ships lands at their nation, and then have the colony confiscate an amount of money equal to the cost of the goods when one of their ships is at the colony. It's merely an altered form of how some corrupt cops do business. In order to block it, we'd have to mandate a complete ban on all interaction with nations that have slave goods, which would produce even worse results for those nations.
Well hold on: it's either economically devastating, or it's easily circumvented by legalistic trickery. It can't be both.

That said, you compare this system to 'corrupt cops'. Presumably your nation has laws against corruption in the law enforcement establishment? People break laws: what's important is enforcing them. It would be nonsense to legalise rape on the ground that it's probably going to happen anyway; similarly, a law against slave trading won't work unless it's properly enforced.

And this is a technical objection, not an objection to the principle of an embargo. Wouldn't it make sense to at least explore the possibilities of it? Or if not, at least prohibit investment: I don't see how that can be justified at all.

How does it look now? I included a non-retroactive ban on goods made by slavery, while at the same time possibly solving the issue of exploits.

Why not drop the words "for this resolution" from the defintion of a person? Then any clause in any later resolution that referred to "person"/"people" would automatically apply this widely, too, which my government considers to be a good idea...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly,
for
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Why not drop the words "for this resolution" from the defintion of a person? Then any clause in any later resolution that referred to "person"/"people" would automatically apply this widely, too, which my government considers to be a good idea...


Borrin o Redwood,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly,
for
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.



This resolution's definition of a person does not warrant use more broadly and it could hardly be a good thing to apply a definition such as this one to all w.a. statutes, we would oppose such an idea completely.

yours e.t.c.,

Why not drop the words "for this resolution" from the defintion of a person? Then any clause in any later resolution that referred to "person"/"people" would automatically apply this widely, too, which my government considers to be a good idea...

The objective of this proposal is to affect one particular area in a particular way. Not to set policy involving all resolutions that use the terms in question.

After perusing this proposal and the one submitted by Quintessence of Dust, we believe that this proposal would be more effective (not to mention more concise), and we strongly support it. We would simply request that a thorough grammar check be undertaken before the proposal is submitted.

...except this draft doesn't even begin to address forced labor or trafficking, something we know the Quintessentials took great care not to overlook.

...except this draft doesn't even begin to address forced labor or trafficking, something we know the Quintessentials took great care not to overlook.

Not correct.

DEFINES slavery as the practice of buying and selling people as property and profitting from their work without their consent or giving them compensation equal to what they could get as a free person
a) Consent may only be given by a living person of the age of majority or older who is not suffering from any mental handicaps
b) Consent may not be given because of coercion or blackmail

DEFINES person for this resolution to mean a <INSERT: HUMAN> being with independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with other <SUBSTITUTE HUMAN FOR ...s or a member of a species for which qualification for being a person is the norm>


ABSOLUTELY NOT<BANS slavery throughout the entirety of the World Assembly membership>

Perhaps sets tarriffs or other non-violent deterents against nations which practice slavery. The next thing to come of such a ban would be a redefinition of prison populations as slaves, a ban on prisons, or something of the sort. Not only that, a nation should be free to enslave prisoners, or to export them, and at a price if they can negotiate one.

I guess I was just too brief...
regarding the definition of slavery, it should exclude such parties as have willingly entered into endentured servant status.

Regarding the ban on all slavery
Rather than initiating a categoric ban on slavery, a nation should be allowed to ellect to become "Slave Free" in order to enter into preferred negotiation with and recieve favorable treatment from other sympathetic nations.

The part about freeing all slaves, and then training them... also unacceptable without both being a funded mandate to recompensate a nation for its losses, and providing an option to export said slaves to a slave friendly nation. It should be noted that the instant freeing of slaves, educated or not, would introduce into the economy a destabilizing effect by inserting unanticipated labor supply. A nation should have an opportunity to gain favored status through gradual and defined changes in slave management legislation. Suggestions include steps at percentage levels, or based on slave populations, which allow a gradual reduction in slave populations and a gradual increase in favorable treatment.

The blackmail or coersion clause:
There must also be some strong definition of blackmail or coersion, how it is to be proven, by whom, and to whom.

Given that particular clause, there is an entire section missing about how to deal with lawful management of human capital. There should also be an allowance made for the management of endentured servants as a differentiated and lawful class of worker.

Endentured servants must be defined, as well as methods of entering into, or being mandated into such a contract, methods of establishing fair and reasonable durations of such contracts, Establishment of governing bodies for resolution of contractual disputes, and the ability of creditors to cause the mandate of such a contract.

I am afraid to say that this discussion is moot. This proposal will never come up for vote before the WA. Quintessence's proposal is currently projected by me to hit quorum and be the one to go before the WA. It also is a categorical ban of slavery, and I predict it likely to pass.

In any case, note this is our second attempt on this subject. The first attempt was not a categorical ban on slavery (in fact, it actually allowed certain forms of it) and was effectively shot down before it was ever submitted. That's why this one is a categorical ban.

In any case, I fully expect slavery to be categorically banned within the WA in the next resolution. Unless a serious surprise happens and Quintessence's proposal fails to reach quorum, there is no point to continue any further work upon this proposal.

In any case, the WA would likely never support a resolution that allows any form of slavery to stay legal as part of its wording. That includes indentured servitude.

Since there is no reason to continue with this, I feel no need to address most of the rest of your challenge, especially since it's not going to see the floor. I have three other proposals waiting to be worked on anyway, so it's time to move on.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

Our nation is more in favour of a global recognition of the defintion of 'slave' and 'slavery', yet we have 2 major comments of the drafted act

i) repaparation and compensation works should only be voluntary depending on the nation's social and financial situation.

ii) "DEFINES person for this resolution to mean a being with independent capacity for wisdom, judgment, the formation of rational, abstract or logical thoughts, and the ability to communicate these thoughts with others or a member of a species for which qualification for being a person is the norm"

This defintion is inherently ineffective, not because it lacks clarity or logic, but it lacks backing. This removes a large sect of the enslaved from the protection of the act. The power of slave-owners are ignored as they can simply define their 'assets' as possessing none of the above mentioned traits, given the slaves' social status within the responsible nations.

It would only be an idealistic folly to believe that member states would abide by this act when no 'punishment' mechanism, or investigation mechanism is even mentioned within this Act.

The world would only laugh at the decisions of the delegates in their ivory tower, sitting in the floor of the WA Assembly. Slavery trade is unlawful, yet deep-rooted in many nations' culture and society. We have the obligation to uproot this once and for all.

Our nation propose all nations supporting this act MUST also pool efforts into the creation of a Monitoring and Response Unit for identifing such acts against humanity. This Unit should be allowed to operate alongside the equivalent of Interpol, to be empowered to request aid of 'Interpol' as well as the affected nation's judiciary forces. This Unit shall also be tasked to introduce education on basic human rights upon the education system on the affected nation as a way to ensure the nation can police itself in the future without need for foreign involvement.

Only when similar proposals are added within this draft shall our nation endorse this, otherwise, lame duck Act.

Ambassador Constandinos

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

Our nation believes with the support of a standing law-enforcement organisation, slavery can be first classified as a criminal act, then your slavery act would be passed without much hiccup.

I have not spent my time peeling at law documents/libraries, but i do believe once something is legitimised/stigmatised, then it will lead to less arguments since there will be a common agreement on the subject's standings.

We living in our world knows slavery is wrong, yet in NS, there is no such consensus. Unless that is reached, I fear any proposal to abolish slavery would be shot down.

Closed at proposer's request.