NationStates Jolt Archive

TEXT AS BEING VOTED BELOW:

THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,

RECOGNIZING that legal unions of marriage vary among member nations and include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including nationally recognized effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the parties,

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,

APPALLED that certain member States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, the right to self-determination, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

ENACTS the following resolution:

1) Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, which ceases to have legal existence between the requesting party or parties to said marriage from the date the divorce is legally and finally pronounced, and shall henceforth be available to all inhabitants of the World Assembly member states without let or hindrance.

2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.

3) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

5) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party or parties seeking divorce for the sole reason of such seeking or for the sole reason there is no consent of all parties to such divorce.

6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

(ORIGINAL POST KEPT FOR HISTORICAL REASONS)

Building on the most welcome contributions from Their Excellencies the Honorable Ambassadors Studly Penguins, Ariovist Lynxkind, and Serifina Karin:

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMING that the Right to Divorce, as is the Right to Marry, is an inalienable Right and indissociable part of the Right to Assembly and Freedom to Associate,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore the W.A. Resolutions and the Charter of Rights, restricting Parties' Rights such as:

1) The Right to Divorce,
2) Access to a Court of Justice,
3) Access to a fair hearing,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties to a marriage (hereinafter "Parties") in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Any of the Parties may ask for a lawful divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

2) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the divorce soliciting Party, in case there is no consent of all Parties to such divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party feels unjustly disadvantadged.

3) No penalty, in particular the death penalty, shall be imposed on a Party found to have had sexual relations to another person which is not a Party.

4) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the only factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a divorce.


CREATES the World Assembly Provisional Commission for Divorce Rights (WAPCDR), whose duties SHALL be to:

1) MONITOR the application of the Resolution's provisions,

2) REPORT annually to the W.A. the state of Divorce Rights throughout the Member States,

3) ALERT the W.A. of Divorce Rights crisis situations,

4) CREATE a Task Force on Divorce Rights (WATFDR) which SHALL, no longer than six months after the Ratification of this Resolution:

a) REPORT to the W.A. a study for verifying if there is a necessity to change WAPCDR caracter from Provisional to Permanent, with the general objective to:

I) HEAR complaints from any person (citizen or not) in any of the Member States about abuses to such Rights,
II) NEGOTIATE and diplomatically INTERMEDIATE solutions to such abuses.

b) ADVISE the W.A. about the necessity of adding further duties, if any, to the WAPCWR.


FURTHER DETERMINES that the composition of WAPCDR Members shall not be more than 50 W.A. Nations, so as to further efficiency and representativity,

FURTHER DETERMINES that a minimum of 60% affirmative votes of present and non-abstaining W.A. Members shall be necessary to select WAPCDR Members,

PROHIBITS the use of funding promises or withdrawal threats as means of political leverage into WAPCWR deliberations,

FURTHER DETERMINES that membership in WAPCDR shall last two years, renewable for up to three consecutive terms.

Ever in search of greater perfection,

Adrian de Saint-Clair
Ambassador to the W.A.
The Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus

p.s.: Previous Draft in http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=582831

OOC: You don't need to start a new topic. I'm sure a mod will be by to merge them.

IC: I'm curious about this. Certainly there are nations where the word 'divorce' doesn't exist. You can look in our native language dictionaries all you want and you won't find any single word that means 'divorce'. Until we started talking with other nations, we had no concept of the word. You'd be telling nations like ours to suddenly allow for divorces where they had nothing of the sort before. I'm wondering how this proposal will deal with that.

What of nations that have no concept of marriage? Would nations now be required to create registries, laws, and employment to offer marriage services?

OOC: You don't need to start a new topic. I'm sure a mod will be by to merge them.

IC: I'm curious about this. Certainly there are nations where the word 'divorce' doesn't exist. You can look in our native language dictionaries all you want and you won't find any single word that means 'divorce'. Until we started talking with other nations, we had no concept of the word. You'd be telling nations like ours to suddenly allow for divorces where they had nothing of the sort before. I'm wondering how this proposal will deal with that.

To that I am not sure, but if Divorce isnt a problem in your Nation then I dont see a problem. All we take from this is that it will allow people reasonable access to handle a situation within the bounds of the law to resolve conflict.
Unless this legislation worries your respected government that the populace may realize that they dont have to stay married if they dont want to, but we dont see where the Author endorses it; rather endorsing your right to if you choose.

What of nations that have no concept of marriage? Would nations now be required to create registries, laws, and employment to offer marriage services?


No you wouldnt have to in our opinion, but the author would have to clarify this since this is a very good point you made here Ambassador. As far as the concept of "Marriage" goes, if "marriages" dont occur in your nation then "divorce" shouldnt be a concern; unless Im missing the boat here.

I think that it would allow for your citizens should they marry the right to legal assistance and resolution to a potential messy situation.

What of nations that have no concept of marriage? Would nations now be required to create registries, laws, and employment to offer marriage services?

If they have no concept of marriage, this wouldnt apply to them.

Rutianas: perhaps a definition of divorce is in order then.


I am liking this rewrite with the focus on divorce (I kinda felt that the two parts of your original draft needed to be seperated), especially the gender-neutral aspect, and also like the addition of the Unreasonable Delays clause. We actually thought of it after but had not the chance to reply. Again, as we stated with your other draft, you need to remove the Composition and Determination of Composition of WAPCDR clauses, as they could be deemed illegal, either through Game Mechanics or MetaGaming. Other than that, it seems fine

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Marriage is a bourgeois institution, and it has been abolished in Balawaristan pursuant to the Workman's struggle for the genuine social realization of the human species-being. If divorce is nothing more than the end of marriage, we support divorce, but this proposal is unacceptable, affirming as it does the "inalienable right to marry."

Marriage is founded on outmoded, patriarchal ideals of women as property, legitimized by fawning religious institutions before a god that is nothing more than a projection of sexist, bourgeois social order. Marriage does not extend from "freedom of assembly." It is exclusivist: it defines one group, the "family," against the outside world. It draws lines between us and them, the Self and the Other, and is responsible in part for the attitude of competition and struggle that defines human relations in many countries. Nothing could be more contrary to assembly, the coming together of women and men!

Our wymyn and men should come together, but they should come together fully. In Balawaristan, as in many other countries adhering to the shining ideals of Marxism-Leninism, we hold everything in common. Every house is every man's house, everyone is a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, a sister, and a brother to everyone else. The state is inseparable from the family.

By accepting this legislation, you will impose a social order that is alien to us. A millenia-old institution created by bigots and religious bogeymen will not be allowed into Balwaristan! We would sooner resign our membership than to submit to the imposition of anti-feminism at the whim of international capitalism.

Remove the clause declaring a non-existent "Right to Marry." It has no place in just, fully-realized human social engagement.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal

Marriage is a bourgeois institution, and it has been abolished in Balawaristan pursuant to the Workman's struggle for the genuine social realization of the human species-being. If divorce is nothing more than the end of marriage, we support divorce, but this proposal is unacceptable, affirming as it does the "inalienable right to marry."

Marriage is founded on outmoded, patriarchal ideals of women as property, legitimized by fawning religious institutions before a god that is nothing more than a projection of sexist, bourgeois social order. Marriage does not extend from "freedom of assembly." It is exclusivist: it defines one group, the "family," against the outside world. It draws lines between us and them, the Self and the Other, and is responsible in part for the attitude of competition and struggle that defines human relations in many countries. Nothing could be more contrary to assembly, the coming together of women and men!

Our wymyn and men should come together, but they should come together fully. In Balawaristan, as in many other countries adhering to the shining ideals of Marxism-Leninism, we hold everything in common. Every house is every man's house, everyone is a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, a sister, and a brother to everyone else. The state is inseparable from the family.

By accepting this legislation, you will impose a social order that is alien to us. A millenia-old institution created by bigots and religious bogeymen will not be allowed into Balwaristan! We would sooner resign our membership than to submit to the imposition of anti-feminism at the whim of international capitalism.

Remove the clause declaring a non-existent "Right to Marry." It has no place in just, fully-realized human social engagement.

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
I wonder... How does your view sit with Resolution #15?

Just wondering...

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

I fail to see why the World Assembly should be micromanaging such things.

In the words of Sheikh Nadnerb, I think I just threw up in my mouth. That's right, that's how bad the final element of this proposal is: I've been reduced to quoting Cluichstanis.

The committee composition is illegal, as structure and membership cannot be specified. The committee function is illegal, as resolutions cannot be amended. And this is not even discussing the existence of the committee in the first place. An entire council devoted to studying divorce rights? Women, racial or social minorities, members of persecuted religious or political groups - none of these have councils to monitor their rights, but people who get divorced do? What's next - a fully funded research study into the effects of teenage break-ups on consumption of Qäägen Däzs ice cream and screamo records?

Please. The committee is entirely unnecessary and serves no useful purpose. There is, perhaps, a case for a general commission on human rights, but there is nothing gained by such a narrowly focussed entity. (And, to reiterate, most of its functions are illegal: the monitoring element is the sole usable proscription.) Not to mention, I am happily divorced, and I don't particularly want my creepy ex-husbands checking up on me in the WA library.

I have not been instructed to oppose a divorce law, and so a few general comments on the substantive elements:
- your clause 3 is very worrying, minorly in case of a pre-nup, more seriously because it eliminates penalties for any kind of sex - including sex with a minor or a non-consenting 'non-Party';
- the consideration of 'feelings' in formal international law is troubling: it would be better, in 2a, to argue for an accommodation to be made only where the Party 'has probable cause to argue/assert that...';
- there seems little point celebrating 'cultural diversity' in your preamble;
- the proposal, perhaps intentionally, covers only formal legal ramifications and not the social stigma of divorce, particularly violent retribution.

Finally, my currently absent advisor Samantha Benson has prepared for me a hastily written memo in which she argues - and I am not, for the moment, sure on this - that the Freedom of Marriage Act did not necessarily dissolve preexisting unions that violated its requirements for consent. As such, I am simply curious whether any accommodation for subjects of forced marriage is necessary in this proposal.

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

Thank you, Dr Lois, for making us feel like gits for missing those points. They could easily be rectified though, as you suggest.

Perhaps a suggestion, Ambassador de Saint-Clair, at least in regards to section 3, modifying it to say 'Unless the sexual relation is illegal, or such penalty is set out in a pre-nuptial agreement'

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

And I thought the old Right to Divorce (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10394675&postcount=136) resolution was bad.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

If they have no concept of marriage, this wouldnt apply to them.

Rutianas: perhaps a definition of divorce is in order then.



We see no reason why we should define divorce in Rutian, our native language. We certainly understand the word in English and German quite well. Also, as we are only an observer nation within the World Assembly, this resolution, if passed, would not automatically apply to us. We merely wish to know why the WA feels it should shove divorce down nations throats that either have no concept of it, or disagree with it for whatever reason, for example, religious reasons. If their religion forbids divorce, then the WA states that it must be allowed, how do you think that should be taken? In writing legislation, all sides must be taken into account as well as the impact to all sides. This clearly hasn't done that. These religious states have just as much right to their beliefs as everyone else. If they outlaw divorce because their deity commands it, why should the WA be allowed to overrule that belief system?

I also must agree with the honorable ambassador from Balawaristan whom opposed marriage being a right. It is a privilege. Not a right. I'm unmarried because it is my right to remain unmarried. I have yet to find anyone to whom I wish to share the privilege of marriage.

Oh, and WA Resolution #15, in a nutshell, doesn't state that every nation must allow marriage. It simply says that a nation can't discriminate against people who wish to be married. It can't make separate rules. If a nation has abolished marriage completely, then it's not discriminating against anyone. I would hope that the respected ambassador could at least do research before coming close to accusing someone of not being in compliance with a passed resolution.

Paula Jenner

We see no reason why we should define divorce in Rutian, our native language. We certainly understand the word in English and German quite well. Also, as we are only an observer nation within the World Assembly, this resolution, if passed, would not automatically apply to us. We merely wish to know why the WA feels it should shove divorce down nations throats that either have no concept of it, or disagree with it for whatever reason, for example, religious reasons. If their religion forbids divorce, then the WA states that it must be allowed, how do you think that should be taken? In writing legislation, all sides must be taken into account as well as the impact to all sides. This clearly hasn't done that. These religious states have just as much right to their beliefs as everyone else. If they outlaw divorce because their deity commands it, why should the WA be allowed to overrule that belief system?I guess we took you too literally when we made that suggestion. As for the rest, I believe if you review the original planned proposal, it was aimed at protecting women's rights. I believe the this particular one is to help those (or males in a similar situation) get out of abusive or repressive marriages. Also, given such resolutions promoting rights and removing discrimination, I believe the WA has already set precedence when coming to overruling belief systems.

Oh, and WA Resolution #15, in a nutshell, doesn't state that every nation must allow marriage. It simply says that a nation can't discriminate against people who wish to be married. It can't make separate rules. If a nation has abolished marriage completely, then it's not discriminating against anyone. I would hope that the respected ambassador could at least do research before coming close to accusing someone of not being in compliance with a passed resolution.

*Ariovist Lynxkind raises his eyebrow*

Where, may I ask, am I accusing someone of not being in compliance with a passed resolution? I was merely and plainly asking where the resolution sits with them. If I was accusing them of non-compliance we would have stated so outright, not by putting hidden meaning into words. That is just not our way.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

What about countries in which the term 'marriage' applies only to any religious rites with which couples (or larger groups) may choose to formalise their relationships, and has nothing to do with either the 'contractural' side of those arrangements or the secular law-courts?
What about nations in which any laws on the subject of marriage are constitutionally defined as falling within the jurisdicition of some other level of government (e.g. ''Clans', States', 'Provinces'...) rather than the national one, and whose national governments would therefore be unable to implement such a proposal?

I guess we took you too literally when we made that suggestion. As for the rest, I believe if you review the original planned proposal, it was aimed at protecting women's rights. I believe the this particular one is to help those (or males in a similar situation) get out of abusive or repressive marriages. Also, given such resolutions promoting rights and removing discrimination, I believe the WA has already set precedence when coming to overruling belief systems.

I fear you may be correct. My government shares this belief, which is one of many reasons why the Republic is no longer a part of the World Assembly, rather just an observer nation for now. We find it to be against the very core of the World Assembly to just say 'we really don't care if this does damn you according to your beliefs, you'll do what we tell you anyway'. True, those nations have a choice to stay or leave, but if they all leave, then the World Assembly really can't call itself the World Assembly anymore. It's not representative of the World, but a small elite portion who have driven everyone else away.

Back to the topic at hand. If you intend on protecting women's rights to leave an abusive or repressive marriage, then do that, but it shouldn't go across the board. One thing that concerned me greatly was the fact that there is no protection from discrimination against a person because they hold the status of 'divorced'. In highly religious societies, this status could potentially be seen as taboo and the person in question could be treated very poorly.


*Ariovist Lynxkind raises his eyebrow*

Where, may I ask, am I accusing someone of not being in compliance with a passed resolution? I was merely and plainly asking where the resolution sits with them. If I was accusing them of non-compliance we would have stated so outright, not by putting hidden meaning into words. That is just not our way.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Oh, I didn't say that you did. I said that it seemed as though you were coming close to it. If I misunderstood, then I apologise.

We don't think we can better the analysis of Ambassador Merrywether, though we find ourselves greatly amused by what we suppose to be the accidental attempt to make adultery laws illegal.

I fear you may be correct. My government shares this belief, which is one of many reasons why the Republic is no longer a part of the World Assembly, rather just an observer nation for now. We find it to be against the very core of the World Assembly to just say 'we really don't care if this does damn you according to your beliefs, you'll do what we tell you anyway'. True, those nations have a choice to stay or leave, but if they all leave, then the World Assembly really can't call itself the World Assembly anymore. It's not representative of the World, but a small elite portion who have driven everyone else away.

Back to the topic at hand. If you intend on protecting women's rights to leave an abusive or repressive marriage, then do that, but it shouldn't go across the board. One thing that concerned me greatly was the fact that there is no protection from discrimination against a person because they hold the status of 'divorced'. In highly religious societies, this status could potentially be seen as taboo and the person in question could be treated very poorly.That is what this resolution is also trying to prevent, though it would have been more evident through the original incarnation. perhaps with the removal of the illegal committee sections, it could free up more space to expand on that

Oh, I didn't say that you did. I said that it seemed as though you were coming close to it. If I misunderstood, then I apologise.
That is fair enough. We admit some nations imply things through snide innuendo, but that is not our way.

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

Greetings, Most Honorable Ambassadors! I am truly heartened and overwhelmed by the responses my Draft has generated. Most important of all, it underscores the necessity of an appropiate action pertaining to the issue.

I shall elaborate on each one of the topics raised.

But first of all, I announce I am dropping the Committee clauses. I shall elaborate further on this decision on a future Draft of a Resolution. Proceeding:

Until we started talking with other nations, we had no concept of the word. You'd be telling nations like ours to suddenly allow for divorces where they had nothing of the sort before. I'm wondering how this proposal will deal with that.

With all due respect Noble Ambassador, such a confusion begs the question of how Your Excellency deal with same-sex marriages. Your Excellency stated Your Excellency is not an W.A. Member, therefore not bound by its Resolutions. I do also know Your Excellency is familiar with the following resolution:

Freedom of Marriage Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,

[...]

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

Article 2 (Protection of Marriage)

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

[...]

Article 3 (Non-discrimination)

(a) No State shall restrict the right to enter into such unions to persons of a certain sex or sexual orientation, nor shall they require that they be of the same or different sex.

(b) No State shall establish different conditions, requirements or effects to unions of persons of the same or different sex.

That said, it begs questions. Did your Nation have same-sex marriages before the Resolution? If not, did your nation suddenly allow for same-sex marriages where they had nothing of the sort before? How it was dealt with? More importantly, have Your Excellency raised this question when The Freedom to Marry Act was up to debate, before it was binding on W.A. Members?

perhaps a definition of divorce is in order then.

If it should be really so, what about:

a) A divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the divorce is legally pronounced.
b) A divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce.

In Balawaristan, as in many other countries adhering to the shining ideals of Marxism-Leninism, we hold everything in common.

Noble Ambassador, I would be the last person to deny Your Excellency, or your Nation the right to decide your destiny as a People, as I am bound by:

Rights and Duties of WA States

[...]

Section I:

The Principle of National Sovereignty:

Article 1 § Every WA Member State has the right to independence and hence to exercise freely, without dictation by any other NationState, all its legal powers, including the choice of its own form of government.

If there are no marriages within your Nation, there is no need to fear divorces.

I have not been instructed to oppose a divorce law, and so a few general comments on the substantive elements:
- your clause 3 is very worrying, minorly in case of a pre-nup, more seriously because it eliminates penalties for any kind of sex - including sex with a minor or a non-consenting 'non-Party';
- the consideration of 'feelings' in formal international law is troubling: it would be better, in 2a, to argue for an accommodation to be made only where the Party 'has probable cause to argue/assert that...';
- there seems little point celebrating 'cultural diversity' in your preamble;
- the proposal, perhaps intentionally, covers only formal legal ramifications and not the social stigma of divorce, particularly violent retribution.

Finally, my currently absent advisor Samantha Benson has prepared for me a hastily written memo in which she argues - and I am not, for the moment, sure on this - that the Freedom of Marriage Act did not necessarily dissolve preexisting unions that violated its requirements for consent. As such, I am simply curious whether any accommodation for subjects of forced marriage is necessary in this proposal.

Hon. Ambassador Dr. Lois Merrywether, your observations are astute, precise, and very pertinent. I deeply apologize having looked over such obvious loopholes. I should add however, that celebration of diversity is a heartfelt sentiment, not a cynical political blunder, it is always necessary to celebrate it, but in such celebration we should not yield to barbaric restrictions of inalienable rights occuring throughout The World. Your point will get serious attention in the next ReDraft. It is a promise I make to the Hon. Ambassador. As for the accomodations issue raised, the Draft Resolution is clear that any of the Parties may ask for a lawful divorce.

What about nations in which any laws on the subject of marriage are constitutionally defined as falling within the jurisdicition of some other level of government (e.g. ''Clans', States', 'Provinces'...) rather than the national one, and whose national governments would therefore be unable to implement such a proposal?

Hon. Ambassador, The W.A. already has a Binding Resolution which, I hope, is the answer to your pertinent doubt:

Rights and Duties of WA States

[...]

Section III:

The Role of the World Assembly:

Article 9 § Every WA Member State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law, including this World Assembly, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty.

Continuing:

We don't think we can better the analysis of Ambassador Merrywether, though we find ourselves greatly amused by what we suppose to be the accidental attempt to make adultery laws illegal.

Hon. Ambassador, this Resolution does not attempt to make adultery laws illegal. They already are illegal, as per Resolution #16:

Sexual Privacy Act
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Description: The Nations of the World Assembly,

CONVINCED of the need for legal limits to government interference in the private lives of individuals,

RESOLVED to create the adequate conditions for the development of sexual identity and sexual self-determination,

ADOPT the following Resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution establishes a right to sexual privacy without state intervention.

[...]

Article 2 (Definitions)

(a) Sexual Acts: any acts between two or more individuals which involve stimulation of the sexual organs.

(b) Consenting: giving full agreement by words or behavior with respect to all aspects of the sexual act or acts one is engaging in, while not being in circumstances that significantly impair judgement and seriously affect volition, including but not limited to any forms of coercion, deception, error on the identity of the partner; nor suffering from a severe mental illness.

[...]

Article 3 (Sexual privacy and its conditions of application)

(a) No Nation shall enact legislation prohibiting, criminalizing or otherwise regulating sexual acts between consenting individuals when practiced in the privacy of the home, or otherwise away from public exposure.

(b) Each Nation can define an age of consent.[...]

What Section 3 of The Draft Resolution affirms, or reaffirms, and denounces, is how abhorrent is some countries' practice of stoning "unfaithful" Parties, or some other even more gruesome "methods".

I thank and applaud each of the Hon. Ambassadors for their input. I shall expect for more, and in the interim submit another wording to the draft concerning the topics raised.

Yours truly,

Sa Majesté le Roi Adrian de Saint-Clair
Ambassador of The Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus to the W.A.
World Assembly Delegate

Hon. Ambassador, this Resolution does not attempt to make adultery laws illegal. They already are illegal, as per Resolution #16
A good point. We withdraw our objection on that ground, but retain our amusement none the less. It does, however, make the noted clause much less desirable; while one party to a marriage can break the vows of fidelity with legal impunity, it behooves divorce laws to take such clear breaches into account when determining the settlement. As the clause stands, they may not do so.

With all due respect Noble Ambassador, such a confusion begs the question of how Your Excellency deal with same-sex marriages. Your Excellency stated Your Excellency is not an W.A. Member, therefore not bound by its Resolutions. I do also know Your Excellency is familiar with the following resolution:



That said, it begs questions. Did your Nation have same-sex marriages before the Resolution? If not, did your nation suddenly allow for same-sex marriages where they had nothing of the sort before? How it was dealt with? More importantly, have Your Excellency raised this question when The Freedom to Marry Act was up to debate, before it was binding on W.A. Members?



You know, I have absolutely no clue what the Republic's view on same-sex marriage has to do with divorce.

It is a fact that Rutian has no word for 'divorce'. As stated, we understand the concept through English and German.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to sideline my concern with something that is not even being discussed here.

Oh, and for the record, the Republic passed legislation allowing for same-sex marriage even before the Freedom of Marriage act was in it's early drafting stage. But again, I don't know why it matters to a proposal that is attempting to legalise divorce through the entire WA.

Paula Jenner

Noble Ambassador Paula Jenner, I ask to be forgiven. I had absolutely no right whatsoever to make inferences about your Republic (which seems to me, by the day, an increasingly likeable place to visit - I'd say live, but I have a blood oath to my people, which I shall never perjure) no matter how statistically probable it had appeared to me.

Fact is that there is a strong correlation between Nations that do not approve divorce and those that do not approve of same-sex marriages, due to barbaric bigoted religious practices. It was never your case, it is crystal clear to me now.

I should have never put Your Honor in the common pit of bigoted and short-sighted persons.

It was a grave error of judgement, I regret it and I apologise for it.

I remain hopeful we can continue a dialogue about our differences of opinion.

Yours truly,

Sa Majesté le Roi Adrian de Saint-Clair
Ambassador of The Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus to the W.A.
World Assembly Delegate

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMING that the Right to Divorce is an inalienable Right and indissociable part of the Right to Assembly and Freedom to Associate,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore the W.A. Resolutions and the Charter of Rights, restricting Parties' Rights such as:

1) The Right to Divorce,
2) Access to a Court of Justice,
3) Access to a fair hearing,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce.

2) Any of the Parties may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the divorce soliciting Party, in case there is no consent of all Parties to such divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) No penalty of death, imprisonment, house arrest or banishment shall be imposed on a Party for the sole reason it was found to have had sexual relations to another adult, consenting person which is not a Party.

5) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the only factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a divorce.

6) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards Divorced Persons are strictly forbidden.

Noble Ambassador Paula Jenner, I ask to be forgiven. I had absolutely no right whatsoever to make inferences about your Republic (which seems to me, by the day, an increasingly likeable place to visit - I'd say live, but I have a blood oath to my people, which I shall never perjure) no matter how statistically probable it had appeared to me.

Fact is that there is a strong correlation between Nations that do not approve divorce and those that do not approve of same-sex marriages, due to barbaric bigoted religious practices. It was never your case, it is crystal clear to me now.

I should have never put Your Honor in the common pit of bigoted and short-sighted persons.

It was a grave error of judgement, I regret it and I apologise for it.

I remain hopeful we can continue a dialogue about our differences of opinion.

Yours truly,

Sa Majesté le Roi Adrian de Saint-Clair
Ambassador of The Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus to the W.A.
World Assembly Delegate

I can understand why the mistake was made. The apology is, of course, accepted. The Republic has made many changes in the past twenty years since our current Emperor took the throne. Had we met twenty years ago, I fear you may have been right about our Republic. Changes are still being made, but allowing for casual divorce is not one of them. We do allow for dissolution of a marriage in certain cases, one being spousal abuse, but we have not had such a case in over five hundred years. It is not that we do not approve of divorce. We hold no issue with it and I apologise if it appeared that way. We just do not have a word that means 'divorce' in our native tongue. The closest we have is diron'ti'lenschen which means 'painful splitting of two' literally, but it was what we used for the dissolution of marriages that we did allow for. Again, it was a very rare situation that a marriage was to be dissolved. In fact, I can only think of two cases without referencing our history books. Both were marriages of convenience to the Emperor of the time.

Marriage is not something many people enter into in Rutianas simply because of the seriousness of it. It is something sacred for us. Marriage is between two people and two people alone. Considering most Rutians do not wish to be monogamous, marriage is very rare indeed. In fact, the only person in the Republic that can enter into a marriage and not be tied down by it's sanctity is the Emperor or Empress.

As for religion, well, we are a spiritual people. Not completely religious as you might perceive it. The majority of us hold what you would consider pagan beliefs. We do have other religions and they are welcome among us.

I believe you will find that the Republic often speaks for others who for whatever reason are unable or unwilling to speak up. We simply see the bigger picture of legislation and how it will affect others. We have had practice in fine tuning our own for the diverse cultures that live within the Republic.

Paula Jenner

FSSU has ratified the resolution and it is now being implemented and adopted by the FSSU laws and legislations.

FSSU has ratified the resolution and it is now being implemented and adopted by the FSSU laws and legislations.

Uh, this isnt a resolution yet, just a possible proposal...

-Ariovist Lynxkind, Ambassador

FSSU has ratified the resolution and it is now being implemented and adopted by the FSSU laws and legislations.

Thank you very much, Hon. Ambassador for your support. I hope I can count on Your Excellency's support and the support of Your Excellency's Allies (W.A. Members & Delegates) when the Final Draft is ready for submission for W.A. Delegates appreciation and, hopefully, a vote before the Full Membership of the Most Esteemed World Assembly.

I ask my fellow Excellencies to review the last ReDraft, to say if it has achieved the necessary quality to be submitted, and to lend your voting support when the time comes.

I'll do as many reasonable drafts as necessary.

Sa Majesté le Roi Adrian de Saint-Clair
Ambassador of The Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus to the W.A.
World Assembly Delegate

Hon. Ambassador, The W.A. already has a Binding Resolution which, I hope, is the answer to your pertinent doubt:
So it does. Fortunately, I think that the current draft of your proposal's wording would mean that any such nation in which all of the constituent clans, states, provinces or whatever were themselves each separartely granting all of the rights that are listed here already anyway would probably count as being in compliance with its terms, without any need for a constitutional amendment giving the national government the power to legislate (and thus to accept WA legislation) on this topic, and so would not have to leave the WA if it were passed.
However you still haven't answered my other question: What about situations in which 'marriage' is purely a matter of religious ritual, completely separate from any 'civil contract' that might also be involved? To which of those two arrangements would this proposal apply?

We thank the honoured ambassador for the clarification of clause 4. In doing so, it is much clearer that it is somewhat irrelevant to the main thrust of the proposal, being a matter of criminal or civil law independent of divorce proceedings as such.

I can understand why the mistake was made. The apology is, of course, accepted. The Republic has made many changes in the past twenty years since our current Emperor took the throne. Had we met twenty years ago, I fear you may have been right about our Republic. Changes are still being made, but allowing for casual divorce is not one of them. We do allow for dissolution of a marriage in certain cases, one being spousal abuse, but we have not had such a case in over five hundred years. It is not that we do not approve of divorce. We hold no issue with it and I apologise if it appeared that way. We just do not have a word that means 'divorce' in our native tongue. The closest we have is diron'ti'lenschen which means 'painful splitting of two' literally, but it was what we used for the dissolution of marriages that we did allow for. Again, it was a very rare situation that a marriage was to be dissolved. In fact, I can only think of two cases without referencing our history books. Both were marriages of convenience to the Emperor of the time.

Marriage is not something many people enter into in Rutianas simply because of the seriousness of it. It is something sacred for us. Marriage is between two people and two people alone. Considering most Rutians do not wish to be monogamous, marriage is very rare indeed. In fact, the only person in the Republic that can enter into a marriage and not be tied down by it's sanctity is the Emperor or Empress.

As for religion, well, we are a spiritual people. Not completely religious as you might perceive it. The majority of us hold what you would consider pagan beliefs. We do have other religions and they are welcome among us.

I believe you will find that the Republic often speaks for others who for whatever reason are unable or unwilling to speak up. We simply see the bigger picture of legislation and how it will affect others. We have had practice in fine tuning our own for the diverse cultures that live within the Republic.

Paula Jenner

As is not unusual, the Ambassador for The Cat-Tribe is confused as to the point you are trying to make, Ambassador Jenner.

You make it clear that marriage exists in The Republic. You first appeared eto assert, however, either that you have a different word to describe the end or dissolution of a marriage or that marriages in The Republic never end or dissolve.

Some nations thought you were asserting the first was true and asked you to suggest other language. Now you assure us that is not necessary.

Some nations thought you were asserting the second was true, and they made the logical conclusion The Republic has exactly the sort of legislated misery and abuse that the proposal is intended to correct.

In lecturing other nations, however, you have made clear that The Republic has both marriage and a form of divorce. Your real complaint with the proposal appears simply to be one of distates for divorce on the grounds that "marriage is sacred" in your culture. Fine. If citizens of The Republic feel no need to get divorced because their marriages are happy, then you have nothing to fear from this proposal. If, on the other hand, you object because The Republic forces couples to remain married, we are back to the evil the proposal is intended to address.

When added to the fact that you are an observer nation with nothing at stake here and are merely taking an intellectual interest, your comments seem rather inapposite and obtuse. But, again, it may well be that I am simply not understanding you.

For the record, The Cat-Tribe is still contemplating its response to this proposal. We agree with the basic concept, but are not sure we support the way it is executed.

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMING that the Right to Divorce is an inalienable Right and indissociable part of the Right to Assembly and Freedom to Associate,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore the W.A. Resolutions and the Charter of Rights, restricting Parties' Rights such as:

1) The Right to Divorce,
2) Access to a Court of Justice,
3) Access to a fair hearing,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce.

2) Any of the Parties may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the divorce soliciting Party, in case there is no consent of all Parties to such divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) No penalty of death, imprisonment, house arrest or banishment shall be imposed on a Party for the sole reason it was found to have had sexual relations to another adult, consenting person which is not a Party.

5) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the only factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a divorce.

6) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards Divorced Persons are strictly forbidden.

It is of our humble opinion that Article 4 and 6 coincide with one another in a way. In Article 4 we would say "No penalty of any kind shall be imposed" that way it closes any leeway for legal punishment for "extra-cirricular" activites and would suggest that the Esteemed author try to find a way to merge Articles 4 and 6 to avoid sounding redunant without missing your aim.

Otherwise we are much more comfy with this verison of the resolution than the previous ones (Even though we liked them alot too). I know its still going to be a process, but its getting close and keep up the good work!! :)

We thank the honoured ambassador for the clarification of clause 4. In doing so, it is much clearer that it is somewhat irrelevant to the main thrust of the proposal, being a matter of criminal or civil law independent of divorce proceedings as such.

Hon. Ambassador, I disagree. As it is widely known, in some Nations routine set-ups are done by disaffected Parties in order to catch an "adultery" "on the spot", then the other Party is shot on site, or left in wilderness, no contact with children, no assets whatsoever, no food, nothing. Or this task is left for the local "Justice" to act upon.

All this in spite of Resolution #16. We know how covert and cruel some Nations can be with regards to sexual mores. At this very moment, and at any given time, there are Nations trying to Repeal such liberties. I wonder why.

Hence the need to frame the dissolutions of marriages in the Lawful framework of a Divorce, and the need to tie protections of Life and Liberty to a Lawful process of a Divorce and its aftermath.

Calling such worry irrelevant is highly offensive and disturbing.

I shall return to the original wording of article 4 ("No penalty of any kind shall be imposed"), or listen to your ideas of what precise wording, if any, and why, article 4 should have.

For the record, The Cat-Tribe is still contemplating its response to this proposal. We agree with the basic concept, but are not sure we support the way it is executed.

Honorable Ambassador, I can assure Your Excellency I am open to any inquiry Your Honor might have. What are Your Excellency's specific worries? Are there any additions, subtractions or modifications Your Excellency would like to submit for general appreciation?

I beg Your Honor to feel free to do so.

Hon. Ambassador, I disagree. As it is widely known, in some Nations routine set-ups are done by disaffected Parties in order to catch an "adultery" "on the spot", then the other Party is shot on site, or left in wilderness, no contact with children, no assets whatsoever, no food, nothing. Or this task is left for the local "Justice" to act upon.

All this in spite of Resolution #16. We know how covert and cruel some Nations can be with regards to sexual mores. At this very moment, and at any given time, there are Nations trying to Repeal such liberties. I wonder why.

Hence the need to frame the dissolutions of marriages in the Lawful framework of a Divorce, and the need to tie protections of Life and Liberty to a Lawful process of a Divorce and its aftermath.

Calling such worry irrelevant is highly offensive and disturbing.

I shall return to the original wording of article 4 ("No penalty of any kind shall be imposed"), or listen to your ideas of what precise wording, if any, and why, article 4 should have.

By reading the last of your post here " I shall return to the original wording of article 4 ("No penalty of any kind shall be imposed"), or listen to your ideas of what precise wording, if any, and why, article 4 should have.[/" did we offend you Honored Ambassador??

If so we offer our most sincere and deep apologies, just thought Article 4 needed to be closed off to any attempt by some tin-pot despot to make an end-run around to circumvent it, and make all of your hard work for nought. Again if we did manage to offend you Ambassador if you so wish, we will withdraw from this debate but still will support it should it get to a vote later. Let me know when its up for delegate vote and I will see what I can get my Home region to do to help your cause.

No Esteemed Hon. Ambassador, you do not have to offer any apologies whatsoever! Please watch whom I quote!

Your wording is identical to the original one of my authorship, and I think it was perfectly fine.

The Ambassador whom I quote, comes to debate without a modicum of knowledge about Previous Resolutions (Resolution #16), makes snarky and tangential comments,

though we find ourselves greatly amused by what we suppose to be the accidental attempt to make adultery laws illegal.

makes comments in a most distasteful way,

retain our amusement none the less. It does, however, make the noted clause much less desirable
In doing so, it is much clearer that it is somewhat irrelevant to the main thrust of the proposal

and all this without offering a single comma to the betterment of the text. It is not the spirit of the debate (or any debate whatsoever, for that case).

To say the least, I'm appalled, I expected more cavaliership on the pristine grounds of the W.A.

Please again, nothing against Your Horored Person, I apologize if it was made to sound this way. Your Honor inputs have been most thoughtful, precise, and a boost to the cause. I'm truly deeply sorry if such frustration appeared to be directed towards Your Honor.

Yours Truly,

Its all good Ambassador!! :) I was just saying if I had it was unawares. Yes I agree that some comments dont keep to the spirit of the debate.

I shall return to the original wording of article 4 ("No penalty of any kind shall be imposed"), or listen to your ideas of what precise wording, if any, and why, article 4 should have.
We have stated our opinion quite clearly, Ambassador, and have no intention of writing your resolution for you. If you wish to ensure that we find your proposal morally unsupportable, that is your business.

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE WORLD ASSEMBLY,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMING that the Right to Divorce is an inalienable Right and indissociable part of the Right to Assembly and Freedom to Associate,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore the W.A. Resolutions and the Charter of Rights, restricting Parties' Rights such as:

1) The Right to Divorce,
2) Access to a Court of Justice,
3) Access to a fair hearing,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.
b) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the only factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a Divorce.

2) Any of the Parties may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party, in case there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards Divorcing or Divorced Persons are strictly forbidden.

a) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a Party for the sole reason it was found to have had sexual relations to another adult, consenting person which is not a Party.


Esteemed Ambassadors, I shall start lobbying for Delegates' support only after there is a general consensus this is submission-grade material. From the Peoples of the World, to the Peoples of the World.

Improvements to the Draft, as always, are most welcome.

Yours truly,

Esteemed Ambassadors, I shall start lobbying for Delegates' support only after there is a general consensus this is submission-grade material.
It is not.

Both clauses 3 and 4 are unacceptable in their lack of specificity. No penalty of any kind may be applied to a person petitioning for a divorce that their partner contests? What an excellent way to avoid prosecution for an unrelated murder.

EMPHATICALLY AFFIRMING that the Right to Divorce is an inalienable Right and indissociable part of the Right to Assembly and Freedom to Associate,
We cannot possibly agree with this, honoured ambassador. Divorce is an oath-breaking. A legally sanctioned oath-breaking, but an oath-breaking none the less. As such it should never be a right; rather an exception granted in extremis only, when no other resort can be turned to.

At last, a constructive debate on substance! The Hon. Ambassador's doubts shall be answered.

Both clauses 3 and 4 are unacceptable in their lack of specificity. No penalty of any kind may be applied to a person petitioning for a divorce that their partner contests? What an excellent way to avoid prosecution for an unrelated murder.

As for section 4, I am saddened by the Ambassador's proclivity for a hasty reading. The fine print:

a) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a Party for the sole reason it was found to have had sexual relations to another adult, consenting person which is not a Party.

If an "adulterer" Party kills someone, it is abundantly clear "adultery" ceases to be a SOLE reason. The Party shall be tried for murder.

However, I agree such a loophole does exist in section 3:

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party, in case there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

It shall be changed to:

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

Closing remarks:

We cannot possibly agree with this, honoured ambassador. Divorce is an oath-breaking.

Fine. I shall never yield to those who would deny fundamental rights based on blind adherence to ideology.

I like the improvement to Section 3's wording, I never would've thought of that. Also subsection A of Article 3 I like the way that you have finally got the assests thing straightened out, I was worried that it could be a dealbreaker for some when the submission came, and possibly to vote.

Also as I agree with and really like the way this is worded and laid out, my only concern Hon. Ambassador is the use of "Inalienable Right" in the preamble. To us its a fancy way of saying "You must do this or you dont like people" and heres our reason why: We here at Studly Penguins we agree with Divorce when necessary or last resort, but to say its inalienable right to us is like saying that Sexual Freedom means having relations with whomever or whatever no matter its age, species, etc.

Im afraid that that wording may alienate the group of people who support this and those on the fence. We want to guarantee ones right to Divorce and the legal processes involved, but not say we will force you to make the divorce go through.

I see where this could head into loophole hell very easy. To guarantee access yes, but whos to say one nations court's would hear the case but not grant the divorce. I still lean towards Nat'l Soverignty b/c nations still should have a saying in their marital laws, but I think there needs something to either clear my concern or close the hole.

---Studly Penguins
WA Ambassador

Esteemed Noble Ambassador Studly Penguins, thank Your Honor once more for Your Honor's analysis and thoughtful insights. Your Honor has led me to a serious soul searching.

On the substantive points:

my only concern Hon. Ambassador is the use of "Inalienable Right" in the preamble. To us its a fancy way of saying "You must do this or you dont like people" and heres our reason why: We here at Studly Penguins we agree with Divorce when necessary or last resort

This resolution, as Your Honor might recall, was at first not gender-neutral. After many thoughtful inputs, Your Honor's included, I made a change of mind and I do not regret it. The reason: it furthered what I believe to be fundamental principles of dignity.

In saying my motive for the questioned preamble is "You must do this or you don't like people", I cannot say Your Honor is wrong. I do think some Nations don't like some people.

When notions as "divorce as last resort" are floated, I know that in Your Honor's Nation, as in Hon. Ambassador Prince Rhodri Mawr's Nation, that will be interpreted to mean counseling services. But in other nations, as few as they might be, I shudder at the thought that such notion could be interpreted as the "last resort" being considered only after beating your spouse into silent submission, raping your spouse into silent submission, threatening to kill your spouse or children to ensure a silent submission, etc.

I'd hate this resolution to be known as the "Spouse Battery Enabling Act". But as I re-read the substantive text of the Draft, I realized that the protections contained therein are sufficient to further my principles.

Conclusion: I do think that the right to happiness, the right to be free from agony and misery, are tied to the right of not being with someone who causes you harm (and therefore tied to the Right to Assembly and Freedom to Associate). And will forever think so. But maybe the "Right to Divorce Act" might not be the best venue to pursue it in the strong terms I think it deserves.

That being said, I am considering a new draft of "Spouse Battery Prevention Act" and will withdraw the "emphatically affirming..." phrase from the Draft Preamble.


p.s.: A point that was never raised: Tying the Draft to a previous Resolution (Right of Assembly) might create a "House of Cards" violation.

You still haven't answered one of my questions. The wording of this proposal still seems to take it for granted that 'Marriage' is a civil contract. What about any situations where the term 'Marriage' applies only to the religious side of things, and all of the civil contract -- the matters such as custody of offspring, or property -- is completely separate from this?

You still haven't answered one of my questions. The wording of this proposal still seems to take it for granted that 'Marriage' is a civil contract. What about any situations where the term 'Marriage' applies only to the religious side of things, and all of the civil contract -- the matters such as custody of offspring, or property -- is completely separate from this?

Dear ambassador, I am sorry for my lack of diligence. Your Honor shall have an answer.

It is a fact that some Religions (most, actually), will not recognise other Religions' marriages, nor the ones performed only by a State. I have no illusion, and hold no hopes nor wishes that any legislation would convince said Religions to accept divorces.

I am of the opinion that wholly religious Marriages, with no secular effects whatsoever, are out of the scope of this (or any) legislation. No W.A. Resolution can dictate the internal norms a Religious must have.

However, if a religious Marriage is registered with the State, or has Secular (States') Rights automatically bestowed upon such a marriage, it ceases to be an entirely religious entity. In my opinion such a Marriage should be, through the State, under the responsibilities of this Draft, should it become Law.

Always open to further inquiries,
Yours truly,

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore the W.A. Resolutions and the Charter of Rights, restricting Parties' Rights such as:

1) The Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce,
2) Access to a Court of Justice,
3) Access to a fair hearing,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.
b) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the sole factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a Divorce.

2) Any of the Parties may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards Divorcing or Divorced Persons are strictly forbidden.

a) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a Party for the sole reason it was found to have had sexual relations to another adult, consenting person which is not a Party.

We must reiterate that Clause 4a still appears unreasonable to us. If one party of a married couple has been conducting extra-marital sexual relations, that clearly has a bearing on the assessment of a divorce settlement. As written, any lawyer with an ounce of wit could use this clause to hold that extra-marital sex cannot even be used as grounds for divorce, never mind in the determination!

Clause 4a still appears unreasonable to us. [...] any lawyer with an ounce of wit could use this clause to hold that extra-marital sex cannot even be used as grounds for divorce, never mind in the determination!

Now THAT'S a serious loophole. One that I haven't thought about. One that could jeopardize all the substantive intents of the Draft. Thank you, Your Honor. But allow me to express this:

Why the #&*% haven't Your Honor expressed this specific concern before? I would have already scuttled that part for that reason ages ago! That said, thank Your Honor once more.

Does Your Honor still have any doubts about the specificity and loophole-free nature of the other "for the sole cause" clauses?

Any more objections to the text? Can I count on your support when the time comes?

Yours truly,

Now THAT'S a serious loophole. One that I haven't thought about. One that could jeopardize all the substantive intents of the Draft. Thank you, Your Honor. But allow me to express this:

Why the #&*% haven't Your Honor expressed this specific concern before? I would have already scuttled that part for that reason ages ago! That said, thank Your Honor once more.
We confess, with some embarrassment, to have been concentrating so hard on the issue of divorce settlements and the effect of the clause on the law in general that we had entirely missed the issue ourselves until just now. We unreservedly apologise for our failing in that regard.

Does Your Honor still have any doubts about the specificity and loophole-free nature of the other "for the sole cause" clauses?
We are inclined to agree that the qualification closes the serious loopholes that we discussed earlier. The clauses make us a little nervous, but that is likely mere paranoia on our part. Certainly we are unable to distil any misgivings into a more concrete form, and thus refrain from further comment.

We are delighted to see that the preamble now takes a stance with which we can concur. We cannot promise our support, but it seems quite likely.

As an aside, you commented earlier that reasonable nations such as Gobbannium make extensive use of counselling to limit the necessity for divorce. While this is largely true, it should be noted that a great deal of this counselling is pre-emptive; it is impressed upon couples that they should not marry unless they are prepared to be held to the lifetime commitment that they are making.

Dear ambassador, I am sorry for my lack of diligence. Your Honor shall have an answer.

It is a fact that some Religions (most, actually), will not recognise other Religions' marriages, nor the ones performed only by a State. I have no illusion, and hold no hopes nor wishes that any legislation would convince said Religions to accept divorces.

I am of the opinion that wholly religious Marriages, with no secular effects whatsoever, are out of the scope of this (or any) legislation. No W.A. Resolution can dictate the internal norms a Religious must have.

However, if a religious Marriage is registered with the State, or has Secular (States') Rights automatically bestowed upon such a marriage, it ceases to be an entirely religious entity. In my opinion such a Marriage should be, through the State, under the responsibilities of this Draft, should it become Law.
Hr'rmm, the religions in our homeland are generally more reasonable than the first part of your answer suggests... But anyway, the current wording of the proposal would still grant its 'Right of Divorce' even in the case of purely-religious marriages... and would, apparently, ignore any purely 'civil' contract about such matters that is not labelled as a 'marriage'. I think that maybe you need to add a clause defining the term 'marriage', "for the purpose of this Resolution", as being the sort of arrangement at which you intend these measures to be targeted...

Hr'rmm, the religions in our homeland are generally more reasonable than the first part of your answer suggests... But anyway, the current wording of the proposal would still grant its 'Right of Divorce' even in the case of purely-religious marriages... and would, apparently, ignore any purely 'civil' contract about such matters that is not labelled as a 'marriage'. I think that maybe you need to add a clause defining the term 'marriage', "for the purpose of this Resolution", as being the sort of arrangement at which you intend these measures to be targeted...

Esteemed Ambassador, I disagree that the Resolution would apply to purely religious marriages. But I see your point. To see if we can reach common ground, do let me share this tale... I dislike talking about mythical things, but anyway:

It is said that on the so-called "Real World" there is a religious entity also called "Catholic Church". It is said to have a freaking lot of adherents. The Church marries people, but does never, actually never, divorce people. It also does not recognizes many other religion's marriages, baptisms, etc. It also frowns at mixed-religion marriages.

Tale tells all people married in this Catholic Church register with the States, any State. (it is said to be a worldwide instituion, in the so-called "Real World")

Many Catholic married people do divorce with the State, and the church frowns upon it. Many divorcees are said to marry a second time. Perfectly legal in the eyes of States. But church is said to consider there new unions "adulteries" because the first union "can never be dissolved".

Conclusion: Legal divorces may create problems between people and their religions, but never between people and the State. And the W.A. can never legislate about problems between people and their religions.

That said, what about this addition:

5) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures any religion should follow.

My nation is undecided on the issue of this proposed resolution but i think each and every individual nation should have the rights to enact this law, because enacting this resolution through the WA may not or may contradict the laws on marriages and divorce of few or more then half the members of WA. Each individual nation has individual and even unique laws regarding divorce.

My nation is undecided on the issue of this proposed resolution but i think each and every individual nation should have the rights to enact this law, because enacting this resolution through the WA may not or may contradict the laws on marriages and divorce of few or more then half the members of WA. Each individual nation has individual and even unique laws regarding divorce.

Esteemed Noble Ambassador, this Draft is but a brick in the castle of Human Rights that has been erected through the World Assembly.

Fact is, there are already several Resolutions that regulate Marriage and Sexual Freedom, and other Human Rights. I suggest reviewing:

Freedom of Marriage Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13981509&postcount=17)
Sexual Privacy Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14020797&postcount=18)
Freedom of Assembly (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14306361&postcount=29)
The Charter of Civil Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14529687&postcount=37)

Isn't Your Honor worried about the situation of beaten spouses who have no recourse in the Law of their countries? Spouses that prefer suicide instead of a life of married abuse?

Are you not worried about their children?

Yours truly,

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore the W.A. Resolutions and the Charter of Rights, restricting Parties' Rights such as:

1) The Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce,
2) Access to a Court of Justice,
3) Access to a fair hearing,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.
b) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the sole factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a Divorce.

2) Any of the Parties may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards Divorcing or Divorced Persons are strictly forbidden.

5) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

I think that maybe you need to add a clause defining the term 'marriage', "for the purpose of this Resolution", as being the sort of arrangement at which you intend these measures to be targeted...

That could be viewed as a Violation on Duplication grounds, insofar:

Freedom of Marriage Act

[...]

CONVINCED that the union of two persons should be equally protected by the State regardless of gender or sexual orientation,

CONVINCED that it is necessary to adopt worldwide standards for the protection of minorities whenever persons of these minorities decide to share a life together,

[...]

RECOGNIZING that religious communities have different views and are free to recognize or not such unions,

ADOPT the following resolution:

Article 1 (Object)

(a) This resolution applies to civil contracts regulating the union of two persons and its effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the participants.

(b) This resolution does not affect the criteria and restrictions in existence for the celebration of rites within religious communities.

[...]

(a) All States shall have the minimum conditions to protect the union of two persons which shall include but are not restricted to provisions regulating the administration of the common estate and the inheritance rights acquired by those entering into such a union.

[...]

(c) No State shall create special categories of contracts with similar goals and effects to those stated in the previous article while imposing any of the restrictions stated in the previous sections.


The World Assembly does not have a precise definion of what Marriage is (and that is a good thing).

It does say that no matter what any Nation calls the union of two persons (marriage, bearriage, catriage, civil unions, domestic partnership, joint coalition for reproduction, etc.) the World Assembly shall define for its purposes such a union a "Marriage".

Insofar this is a Draft for a W.A. Resolution, it follows that it shall follow W.A. already existing definitions.

Hence the lack of need of a "new" definition of Marriage, even if "for purposes of this Resolution". It would be against the Rules and therefore, illegal.

That said, protection of religious freedoms is always necessary, and such protection would not be immediately obvious from the previous text. Hence the addition of clause 5). For bringing this to my attention, I wholeheartily thank Your Honor.

Always open for further inquiries,
Yours truly,

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore the W.A. Resolutions and the Charter of Rights, restricting Parties' Rights such as:

1) The Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce,
2) Access to a Court of Justice,
3) Access to a fair hearing,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.
b) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the sole factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a Divorce.

2) Any of the Parties may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards Divorcing or Divorced Persons are strictly forbidden.

5) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

Kudos to the addition of Article 5, very nice idea!!! Also we feel like this is submission grade, at least to test the waters here before long. Even though we have no real reservations left as to whether or not to support it, we will offer up one more concern Hon. Sionis Prioratus.

First we thank your Honor for judiciously and wonderfully addressing the concerns of ours regarding assests and the division of such. We feel the word "Reasonable" will allow for Nations to still slight one party or the other given the context of how air-tight the rest of this wonderful proposal is.

Instead of "Reasonable" could Full Latitude work instead?

Also when it comes to Child Placement, how much Due Dilligence would the court(s) be required to do to determine "Best Interest of said Minor Child"?? Background Checks, previous criminal records?? Also how much say would the children involved have, would any previous agreed upon arrangement(s) be honored, i.e. Dad agrees kids live with Mother, Dad vs. Mom, Grandparents/In-laws vs. Mom/or Dad? If courts are to decide this then how much research will they do, if courts screw that up, it could sink the entire aim of this prop and make the unconsciousable and irresponsible error of making Children a Bargaing Chip.

Again I emphatically say, this has no bearing in our opinion if nothing can be done here without messing up the aim and intent of the legislation. We just thought of these thoughts upon further inspection and thought we'd offer them up.

Now_
1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced

I suggest_
1) Definition of "Divorce": For the purpose of this resolution, a Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage in which one or more of the participants had been granted legal rights relative to the other[s] and/or over any associated offspring, or of any contract made under civil law thatwas legally equivalent to such a Marriage in its effects; however any 'Marriage' that is purely a matter of religious ceremony and symbolism, granting no participants any such legal rights, remains outside of this resolution's scope;

(and then you could drop '5' again...)

Unfortunately haste has marred what seemed to be a productive and useful drafting process. We commend the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus for their seemingly open and responsive approach to the formulation of this statute, we wish others would take note of such an example, however this statute is in our eyes not ready to be brought to vote.

We are wary of conflating legal statuses with human rights, and have had cause to consider the differences between them in detail. For this resolution to base itself on the concept that divorce is a human right instead of being part of a greater right to reasonable treatment under the law is dubious in our opinion.

We might say that the fourth article is completely unnecessary since the passage of the CoCR.

And we are dismayed that terms such as "unreasonable" and "reasonable" have been used so liberally without adequate indication for the purposes of jurisprudence of what might constitute either of these things.

We applaud the intentions and general approach of the authors of this statute, but we deplore their haste in submitting when it is still inchoate.

Should this proposal fail to gain enough approvals to reach quorum we will offer our assistance to its authors in further fine tuning its provisions should they wish it.


Yours sincerely,

The Korintari delegation has a question in regards to religion. What effect does it have on a nation that has exceptionally liberal laws concerning marriage? In Korintar, we feel it is not the within the government's right to regulate marriage beyond age of consent, that further regulations are to be determined by the religious authorities as they see fit. What effect, if any, will it have under such a system, or what effect will it have on various forms of polygamy (polyandry, polygyny, and complex marriage)? Most marriage laws are made assuming individual private property rights. What effect does this resolution have on states, such as Korintar, that do not recognize property rights in terms of ownership to a major degree?

I must be the lousiest lobbyist ever. Even Nazi proposals do usually get more endorsements than the one I submitted, no matter it was two weeks in constant debate, no matter I made innumerable concessions, no matter the constant vote begging. I know I'm just a rookie, but this totally p***** me off. Nothing is ever enough.

[/rant mode OFF]

I think I'll just head to the Strangers Bar and drink away my sorrow.



Two weeks is not long in debate honoured Ambassador. We took several months to develop the CoCR, and unless vote begging means a concerted telegram campaign bringing your resolution to the attention of a couple of hundred delegates, then it is hard to see how your lobbying would have been successful.

Do not be disheartened, simply get back to work. Treat this as a reprieve, especially since really this statute was not yet ready for vote.


Yours,

Two weeks is not long in debate honoured Ambassador. We took several months to develop the CoCR, and unless vote begging means a concerted telegram campaign bringing your resolution to the attention of a couple of hundred delegates, then it is hard to see how your lobbying would have been successful.

Do not be disheartened, simply get back to work. Treat this as a reprieve, especially since really this statute was not yet ready for vote.


Yours,

I agree with the Honorable delegation of Urgench. I learned this same lesson in a much more hard way, due to the one I submitted getting to a vote and passing, something called the Veterans Reform Act. It got repealed, after my over-zealousness calmed and I got to looking at it, OMG it was flawed from here to eternity.

Im still working on getting ready to submit as a Nat'l issue for everyday use on NS, but I havent got it there yet.

These aforementioned comments are not a contradiction of my voice of support over the course of this debate. I wish your submission luck all the way thru the process, but should it not get to a vote or doesnt pass, I look forward to working your Honor and the delegations from other Nations to get the ship righted and get it fine-tuned. :)

We must agree with our colleagues above. It is a rare proposal indeed that reaches quorum without a concerted telegram campaign, since regrettably few regional delegates make a habit of scanning the proposal queue.

I must be the lousiest lobbyist ever. Even Nazi proposals do usually get more endorsements than the one I submitted, no matter it was two weeks in constant debate, no matter I made innumerable concessions, no matter the constant vote begging. I know I'm just a rookie, but this totally p***** me off. Nothing is ever enough.

[/rant mode OFF]

I think I'll just head to the Strangers Bar and drink away my sorrow.

Aw, quit your bitching. Back in the days of the UN, Enn's Habeaus Corpus (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030245&postcount=74) took 15 submissions before it finally made quorum setting a record that stands to this day. This is what, your first submission?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

With still 48 hours to go, I'll treat this try as failed. Back to the drawing board. As always I'll hear Your Excellencies with the usual diligence, and try to address the Hon. Ambassadors' concerns in a way common ground may be reached.

First we thank your Honor for judiciously and wonderfully addressing the concerns of ours regarding assests and the division of such. We feel the word "Reasonable" will allow for Nations to still slight one party or the other given the context of how air-tight the rest of this wonderful proposal is. Instead of "Reasonable" could Full Latitude work instead?

And we are dismayed that terms such as "unreasonable" and "reasonable" have been used so liberally without adequate indication for the purposes of jurisprudence of what might constitute either of these things.

I must admit I also had some reservations.
Before I proceed, this is grosso modo, my modus operandi of text decision-making:

1) Text should, first and foremost, be elegant.
2) Text should be sober. That is, less said, better said.
3) Elegance and sobriety should never compromise the spirit of the text.

Maybe a definion of "reasonable"/"unreasonable" is in order. I'll think about that in due time. Suggestions in the interim are appreciated.

Also when it comes to Child Placement, how much Due Dilligence would the court(s) be required to do to determine "Best Interest of said Minor Child"?? Background Checks, previous criminal records?? Also how much say would the children involved have, would any previous agreed upon arrangement(s) be honored, i.e. Dad agrees kids live with Mother, Dad vs. Mom, Grandparents/In-laws vs. Mom/or Dad? If courts are to decide this then how much research will they do, if courts screw that up, it could sink the entire aim of this prop and make the unconsciousable and irresponsible error of making Children a Bargaing Chip.

Noble and Esteemed Ambassador, there was a topic discussing a Draft on "Parental Rights". It is worth emphasizing that not all children are born in wedlock. A separate Draft is an appropriate venue to discuss these concerns in full, for if they were to be discussed fully here, it would cease to be a single-issue Draft.

We are wary of conflating legal statuses with human rights, and have had cause to consider the differences between them in detail. For this resolution to base itself on the concept that divorce is a human right instead of being part of a greater right to reasonable treatment under the law is dubious in our opinion.

I'll try a different wording to the preamble in due time (OOC: You'd never guess what my RL profession is).

What effect, if any, will it have under such a system, or what effect will it have on various forms of polygamy (polyandry, polygyny, and complex marriage)?

I must also admit this has been a thought of mine, but I didn't know how to address it, and nobody before your honor have asked for a clarification on this. That said, I re-read the Freedom of Marriage Resolution, and noticed that it is silent on plural marriages. That is, it does not endorse them, nor prohibits them. Les Marquis Judiciares Royales have said to me that, according to centuries of jurisprudence, that which is not prohibited, should be considered legal until laws says otherwise. That said, what about this addition:

1) c) In case of plural marriages, where allowed, said dissolution shall apply solely to the requesting Party or Parties.


Most marriage laws are made assuming individual private property rights. What effect does this resolution have on states, such as Korintar, that do not recognize property rights in terms of ownership to a major degree?

That being so, I do not think the text as drafted should be a cause of concern. If there are not personal assets in the society at large, they certainly do not exist in a marriage, and therefore, should not be a cause of concern in a divorce.

Unfortunately haste has marred what seemed to be a productive and useful drafting process.

I concur, however sadly.

We commend the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus for their seemingly open and responsive approach to the formulation of this statute, we wish others would take note of such an example, however this statute is in our eyes not ready to be brought to vote.

Thank you, Your Honor. The Esteemed Ambassador has been most genteel in addressing the pains of a young and ambitious Ambassador.

We applaud the intentions and general approach of the authors of this statute, but we deplore their haste in submitting when it is still inchoate.

Thank Your Honor once more. In what regards haste, it shall not happen again. I must say it had something to do with regional internal politics, but that shall not propel me toward a wall no more.

I must admit I also had some reservations.
Before I proceed, this is grosso modo, my modus operandi of text decision-making:

1) Text should, first and foremost, be elegant.
2) Text should be sober. That is, less said, better said.
3) Elegance and sobriety should never compromise the spirit of the text.

A law, honoured Ambassador, should be clear, concise, coherent and just. These should be the primary concerns of a legislator. Thankfully clarity is rarely inelligent. Or at least it needn't be.

Maybe a definion of "reasonable"/"unreasonable" is in order. I'll think about that in due time. Suggestions in the interim are appreciated.

A simple example of what the clause in question envisages as reasonable should be sufficient, this would provide the basis for jurisprudential guidance.



Thank you, Your Honor. The Esteemed Ambassador has been most genteel in addressing the pains of a young and ambitious Ambassador.



Thank Your Honor once more. In what regards haste, it shall not happen again. I must say it had something to do with regional internal politics, but that shall not propel me toward a wall no more.


You need not thank us just yet honoured Ambassador, you may live to curse us. However our advice would be to clearly define the object of this statute before being bogged down in minutiae. Is this a statute which wishes simply to legalise divorce in all member states ? Or is it seeking to regularise the legal processes and outcomes of divorce ? Or is it a combination of both ?


What exactly is the desired outcome of this law honoured Ambassador ?


Yours sincerely,

Your consideration of our concerns is much appreciated, Ambassador de Saint-Clair.- T'blis Oltavi, Director of International Affairs

A law, honoured Ambassador, should be clear, concise, coherent and just. These should be the primary concerns of a legislator. Thankfully clarity is rarely inelligent. Or at least it needn't be.

I hope Your Honor is not implying that what I said is incompatible with Your Honor's assertions.

You need not thank us just yet honoured Ambassador, you may live to curse us.

Not to worry. In order to secure my birthright as Le Roi (King) I soon had to learn how to deal effectively with daggers disguised as smiles and handshakes. Although I very much prefer drawn swords. It is much more honorable, as my late Father, Dagobert IV Le Roi, taught me.

I'm the best fencer in my Empire. I had to, in order to become Le Roi. I see this Assembly... as a different, less polite Court.

That said, I summoned my Royal Advisers, they are still brainstorming.

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its Member States,

NOTING that contracts of marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of the Charter of Rights and various Resolutions of the W.A.,

RECOGNIZING the fallibilty of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a Person's Pursuit of Happiness, among them the choice of entering in Good Faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime, bringing untold sorrow,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident Sentient Rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties in unwanted marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

MINDFUL that the desire to act on dissolution of such an intimate bond is never joyful, bearing the burden of individual shame and the specter of public revilement,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.
b) If there are children to the Parties, the best interest of the child shall be the sole factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a Divorce.

2) Any of the Parties may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.
c) "Unreasonable" shall be construed as "creating real or potential obstacles, such as the Courts' Judges, Juries and Bureaucrats would not want to see applied on themselves, if should they be situated in a similar situation".

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.
b) "Reasonable" shall be construed as "creating real or potential aids, such as the Courts' Judges, Juries and Bureaucrats would like to see applied on themselves, if should they be situated in a similar situation".

4) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards Divorcing or Divorced Persons are strictly forbidden.

5) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

6) The sole restrictions shall apply in case of Legal Plural Marriages:

a) Pursuance of a Lawful Divorce in said Marriages shall be conducted solely in Nations that legally recognise Plural Marriages.
b) Legal Dissolution of said Marriages shall apply solely to the requesting Party or Parties.

Is this a statute which wishes simply to legalise divorce in all member states?

It is not a simple action, it has to be acknowledged. If "divorce" means "seeing one has done a terrible mistake in doing a decision of the most high importance, and having the means to pursue a second chance in life to find happiness" then yes.

Or is it seeking to regularise the legal processes and outcomes of divorce?

Yes, also. Divorce is never a simple matter. General, decent, humane guidelines should apply throughout the WA.

We might say that the fourth article is completely unnecessary since the passage of the CoCR.

I recognise the CoCR is a masterwork and an inspiration. However, divorce presents unique challenges. Some Nations shall treat Divorcees little better than lepers. Shall treat them as "deviants", "sexual predators", "fornicators", "whores" (or a male-equivalent noun). We must not blind ourselves from this sad reality.

Quoting from the CoCR:

The Charter of Civil Rights

Article 1. c ) All inhabitants of member states have the right not to be and indeed must not be discriminated against on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination, except for compelling practical purposes, such as hiring only female staff to work with battered women who have sought refuge from their abusers.

It is easy to see a situation where a Divorcee could be, say, denied a school teaching position, because "of his/her past practices", or because "S/He would be a negative role model for children". Any Nation could argue this is a "compelling practical purpose".

Article 2. d ) Nothing in this article shall be construed as to deny additional or stronger protections against discrimination and abuse enacted by member states.

That said, section 4) adds stronger protections against discrimination and abuse, which the CoCR does not prohibit, and 4) does not constitute an amendment.

Always open to further inquiries,
Yours truly,

I recognise the CoCR is a masterwork and an inspiration. However, divorce presents unique challenges. Some Nations shall treat Divorcees little better than lepers. Shall treat them as "deviants", "sexual predators", "fornicators", "whores" (or a male-equivalent noun). We must not blind ourselves from this sad reality.

Quoting from the CoCR:



It is easy to see a situation where a Divorcee could be, say, denied a school teaching position, because "of his/her past practices", or because "S/He would be a negative role model for children". Any Nation could argue this is a "compelling practical purpose".




Here you are unfortunately wrong honoured Ambassador. The CoCR does not allow states to use the term "compelling practical purposes" to cloak any sort of prejudice they choose. The example given within it is clear enough, but the rest of the statute would make such dishonest chicanery illegal in any case.

Many states have made much of the use of the term "compelling practical purposes", but have failed to fully comprehend the meaning of the CoCR's most vital clause, it's first. This clause completely disallows the kind of prejudice and discrimination you are referring to.


Yours,

That said, I eagerly await your other considerations on the other issues raised.

Yours truly,

It is not a simple action, it has to be acknowledged. If "divorce" means "seeing one has done a terrible mistake in doing a decision of the most high importance, and having the means to pursue a second chance in life to find happiness" then yes.

A divorce is a dissolution of a legal act of personal union between 2 or more persons. It may have complicated social outcomes, and indeed in the area of disposal of property and parental rights somewhat complicated legal outcomes, but in fact it is a relatively simple legal concept as compared with many others.



Divorce is never a simple matter. General, decent, humane guidelines should apply throughout the WA.

We would disagree with the first statement but concur with the second, so long as these guidelines do not create more complications and elaborate the difficulties involved in obtaining a divorce.

It is worth remembering that a divorce as viewed from the perspective of a legislator, as opposed to a social worker, is essentially neutral in nature. The dissolution of an act of personal union is akin to the liquidation of a limited company. So long as some form of oversight to how the disposal of assets and dependants is undertaken then "fairness" is not really an issue.

If those seeking to divorce one another choose to be inhumane to one another it is not the job of the legislator to interrupt them.


Yours,

Honoured ambassador, we have some brief points more of style than substance, so we would not be in the least bit offended should you choose to ignore them.

First, we find the presence of Significant Capital Letters a little off-putting. When applied to phrases that would not normally receive such significance, such as the "Pursuit of Happiness" for example, they can lead to a certain portentiousness that we should undoubtedly be the last person to comment on, but which none the less can lead to prejudice against a proposal.

Second, the draft occasionally refers to "Parties" without having given more than passing comment on the term beforehand. Given that the proposal is not short of space, we would recommend using the term "parties to a marriage" in full purely for clarity.

Third, unlike many other ambassadors who have offered their views, we do not see a particular need to define "reasonable" in the proposal. We have no objection to the definitions that the proposal offers, though, which seem entirely fitting.

Finally, might clause 4 be another opportunity to deploy the "for sole reason of" qualifier, lest its admonishments to refrain from discrimination be considered overly broad?

Noble and Esteemed Ambassador, there was a topic discussing a Draft on "Parental Rights". It is worth emphasizing that not all children are born in wedlock. A separate Draft is an appropriate venue to discuss these concerns in full, for if they were to be discussed fully here, it would cease to be a single-issue Draft.



Thank you for your observation your Honor but I am not looking to nit pick or devote an entire section to this. I did see the "Parental Rights" thread but I did not comment due to the feel of I dont think that the WA should be doing the parenting and the like for parents. That is what nations' child abuse/protection laws are for in our opinion.

I fully realise that kids come into this world out-of-wedlock. All I am asking is how in the hell is the court going to decide which "parent" or situation is going to be in the best interest of the child or "parties involved"??

That is what nations' child abuse/protection laws are for in our opinion.

I fully realise that kids come into this world out-of-wedlock. All I am asking is how in the hell is the court going to decide which "parent" or situation is going to be in the best interest of the child or "parties involved"??


The honoured Ambassador does realise that this organisation already has child protection legislation doesn't he ? This would undoubtedly guide courts assessing the best approach to the parenting of children of divorced couples.


Yours,

Honoured ambassador, we have some brief points more of style than substance, so we would not be in the least bit offended should you choose to ignore them.

First, we find the presence of Significant Capital Letters a little off-putting. When applied to phrases that would not normally receive such significance, such as the "Pursuit of Happiness" for example, they can lead to a certain portentiousness that we should undoubtedly be the last person to comment on, but which none the less can lead to prejudice against a proposal.

Esteemed Ambassador, you should be offended, should I ignore you. I admire people as myself who admire substance and style, and who do not see perfection of both as mutually exclusive. That said, I found after a reasoned review that said capitalization might indeed put off some Ambassadors. It will be minimized in the next version, and I would like your esteemed input as to its appropriateness.

(Pretending to be private: I just want to see this fucking thing passed! Alas, I also do know the best swords are the ones most subjected to heat and hammer. Sionis Prioratus is world-renowned for its swordsmanship!)

I might also say My Proclivity for Capitalization comes from My Royal Upbringing. I just can't help it! I always held my Late Father Le Roi's Standards as Sacred.

Second, the draft occasionally refers to "Parties" without having given more than passing comment on the term beforehand. Given that the proposal is not short of space, we would recommend using the term "parties to a marriage" in full purely for clarity.

[...]

Finally, might clause 4 be another opportunity to deploy the "for sole reason of" qualifier, lest its admonishments to refrain from discrimination be considered overly broad?

Those issues will be addressed in the next version.

Third, unlike many other ambassadors who have offered their views, we do not see a particular need to define "reasonable" in the proposal. We have no objection to the definitions that the proposal offers, though, which seem entirely fitting.

Me neither. However, I think Hon. Ambassador Mongkha's concerns are that there are Nations in WA addicted to exploiting loopholes; if it is so, it is a thought I share. In being so, His Honor has got a point. I wish to alienate no one who might concur with the basic spirit of the text. I created a separate section for "Definitions", because the v6.1 additions regarding said definitions became visually most unelegant. Also minor changes to the text, so as to increase sobriety.

I fully realise that kids come into this world out-of-wedlock. All I am asking is how in the hell is the court going to decide which "parent" or situation is going to be in the best interest of the child or "parties involved"??

The Child Protection Act has escaped my attention. That said, and upon review, and for greater clarity, the following shall be added:

c) The best interest of the child shall be construed through reasonable interpretations of the World Assembly existing resolutions.

("Reasonable" defined as defined in the text of the Resolution)

New Draft Version follows.

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member States,

NOTING that contracts of Marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of World Assembly resolutions,

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of a entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime, bringing untold sorrow,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties of unwanted Marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

MINDFUL that the desire to act on dissolution of such an intimate bond is never joyful, bearing the burden of individual shame and the specter of public revilement,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.
b) If there are children to the Parties of a Marriage, the best interest of the child shall be the sole factor in considering their placement with parents in the event of a Divorce.
c) The best interest of the child shall be construed through reasonable interpretations of the World Assembly existing resolutions.

2) Any of the Parties of a Marriage may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party of a Marriage has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) Discrimination, harassment and persecution of any kind towards persons for the sole reason they are divorcing or divorced are strictly forbidden.

5) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

6) The sole restrictions shall apply in case of legal Plural Marriages:

a) Pursuance of a Lawful Divorce in said Marriages shall be conducted solely in Nations that legally recognise Plural Marriages.
b) Legal Dissolution of said Marriages shall apply solely to the requesting Party or Parties.

7) The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this resolution:

a) Reasonable: "creating real or potential aids, such as the Courts' personnel would like to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".
b) Unreasonable: "creating real or potential obstacles, such as the Courts' personnel would not accept to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".

We will oppose this draft, on the basis that it continues to presume that the CoCR is unenforceable in this area. Naturally that is a fiction, and such an error leaves us in want of confidence in the perspicacity of this resolution's authors.

More worryingly it seems this resolution might in fact represent nothing more than an exercise in flattering the vanity of the honoured delegation of Sionis Prioratus. In our opinion the writing of laws for this organisation should be undertaken to remedy an injustice or to rectify a genuine problem of international nature, not to satisfy the ambition of a nation anxious for recognition. Nor, in our opinion, is legislation an appropriate place to explore an aesthetic impulse better suited to the writing of fiction or poetry. The law is a technical field, and such beauty as may be found in it arises purely from utility and clarity.

Laws are not meant to be read aloud to children, they are for the instruction and guidance of lawyers and other legislators, those in government and those charged with enforcing them.


Yours,

The honoured Ambassador does realise that this organisation already has child protection legislation doesn't he ? This would undoubtedly guide courts assessing the best approach to the parenting of children of divorced couples.


Yours,

Yes, I did know prior to making my statement on child placement. I do concur with your Honor that it would guide the courts; in our opinion though this legislation did not allow for that prior to the new revision.

What we saw was one parent say we dont want the kid(s) and the other parent have a violent criminal background that the kid would wind up in a bad spot.

OOC: Rationale behind this comes from a RL experience when I was in school, a kid in my class was being abused at home. Said kid came to school and the teachers could tell what was happening, but the state said unless we saw it happen first hand there was nothing they could do.

IC: Support for this is waning honored Sionis Prioratus. Have you considered possibly making a National Issue out of this if compromise has not been reached?

IC: Support for this is waning honored Sionis Prioratus. Have you considered possibly making a National Issue out of this if compromise has not been reached?

Esteemed ambassador, Your Honor's input has been the most insightful throughout the debate, Your Honor is a sensible person, should this alienate You Honor, it shall alienate scores more. Therefore sections 1 b) and 1 c) are stricken from the text.

We are gratified that the esteemed delegation of Sionis Prioratus has removed the unnecessary provisions for non-discrimination.


We are less gratified that our contribution, given in the spirit of collegiate cooperation with the intention of promoting legislative rectitude, seems to be of little or no account to the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus.

This is a shame. To sideline us, who otherwise might become ardent supporters of this statute, in a hopefully much improved form, is to risk our enmity toward this endeavour. And just as we are valuable allies, we are not inconsiderable opponents.

It is our sincerest hope that the esteemed Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus does not mistake our customary candor for opposition. We offer our time and advice in the hope that the honoured Ambassador will achieve a statute which he and his nation will truelly be able to be proud of, and for which, should it become law, the members of this organisation will thank them.



Yours,

given in the spirit of collegiate cooperation with the intention of promoting legislative rectitude, seems to be of little or no account to the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus.

This is a shame. To sideline us, who otherwise might become ardent supporters of this statute, in a hopefully much improved form, is to risk our enmity toward this endeavour.

Sir, Your Honor yourself has noticed my approach in careful hearing and addressing all the Ambassadors' concerns. This has never been otherwise.

Given the latitude of the text changes on account of your concerns, Your Honor implying that I took "little or no account" is highly offensive and dismissive.

Vanity. I do am a vain person, Your Honor. I am vain and proud. I am proud that my Empire's internal laws are among the most sensible and aesthetically-written in the World. The fact that even children in my Empire can understand its laws, I am sure is the base of centuries-lasting Justice in the Empire. How much more sensible would the World be if the notions of lawfulness and Justice could be ingrained since childhood, as it is in Sionis Prioratus. I take offense at the derogatory way children have been treated.

Do I take a hint of a threat in your remarks? I still want to believe these halls are for diplomacy.

Yours truly,

Sir, Your Honor yourself has noticed my approach in careful hearing and addressing all the Ambassadors' concerns. This has never been otherwise.

Given the latitude of the text changes on account of your concerns, Your Honor implying that I took "little or no account" is highly offensive and dismissive.

In fact the changes you made to this statute, honoured Ambassador, seemed to be as a result of the concerns of the honoured Ambassador for Studly Penguins. But if such was not the case then we thank you for addressing our concerns, however obliquely you may have indicated such.

Vanity. I do am a vain person, Your Honor. I am vain and proud. I am proud that my Empire's internal laws are among the most sensible and aesthetically-written in the World. The fact that even children in my Empire can understand its laws, I am sure is the base of centuries-lasting Justice in the Empire. How much more sensible would the World be if the notions of lawfulness and Justice could be ingrained since childhood, as it is in Sionis Prioratus. I take offense at the derogatory way children have been treated.

Charming and perhaps even well deserved though your national chauvinism may be honoured Ambassador, if your nation's laws pertaining to corporate law, or contract law, or indeed any of law's more byzantine specialisms are as readily accessible to your nation's children as to trained lawyers then we fear either for the quality of your laws or those who specialise in writing them. Unless of course your offspring are of some prodigal nature that is.

In any event no insult of children was implicit in our words, quite the opposite in fact. Our contention was that without the encumbrances of a specialised sort of intelligence, a child is better suited to the appreciation of beauty.

But by all means do take offense at nothing if you wish honoured Ambassador.

Do I take a hint of a threat in your remarks? I still want to believe these halls are for diplomacy.

No threat, honoured Ambassador, simply an indication of our attitude toward the proper conduct of drafting legislation in this place. You may wish to believe that diplomacy is an exercise in polite dissimulation, and you may even pretend to yourself that the w.a. is anything other than a coalescence of numerous competing and opposed policies of disparate and often irreconcilably contrasting nations.

This is international politics, honoured Ambassador and diplomacy is the language which expresses this phenomenon, since we are here to represent the interests of the government of the Emperor of Urgench and not to garner social connections our use of diplomacy need not always be honeyed and languorous.


Yours,

In fact the changes you made to this statute, honoured Ambassador, seemed to be as a result of the concerns of the honoured Ambassador for Studly Penguins. But if such was not the case then we thank you for addressing our concerns, however obliquely you may have indicated such.

I ask Your Honor to reread the Preamble before and after the submission of your concerns. The changes are the result of pondering over your concerns. I consider it to be a very wide rephrasing. I infer Your Honor was so laser-focused on what seemed to you to be a breach of the lard-labored Charter of Your Honor's authorship, that you may have ignored the attention I dispensed to Your Honor. And now, I accomplished the deletion of the contentious clause. Should this pass, I fervently hope the rights of divorced or divorcing persons will be upheld as Your Honor guarantees it should be.

Unless of course your offspring are of some prodigal nature that is.

Indeed that is the case. Almost half of our bugdet goes to education. Le Juge Président de la Cour Suprême, The Most Honorable Robert Laclos, was the defense attorney in an interregional dispute decades ago, at the tender age of eight. His defense is regarded by many in the Law profession as brilliant. (He's also an accomplished poet, mind you, with books translated to 18 languages) His televised court time in said case is to this day exhibited in kindergarten classes for debates. The expected age for entering higher education is fourteen, although many parents prefer not to expect that long.

You may wish to believe that diplomacy is an exercise in polite dissimulation, and you may even pretend to yourself that the w.a. is anything other than a coalescence of numerous competing and opposed policies of disparate and often irreconcilably contrasting nations.

This is international politics, honoured Ambassador and diplomacy is the language which expresses this phenomenon, since we are here to represent the interests of the government of the Emperor of Urgench and not to garner social connections our use of diplomacy need not always be honeyed and languorous.

In what regards the World Assembly, I have already pronounced:

Not to worry. In order to secure my birthright as Le Roi (King) I soon had to learn how to deal effectively with daggers disguised as smiles and handshakes. Although I very much prefer drawn swords. It is much more honorable, as my late Father, Dagobert IV Le Roi, taught me.

I'm the best fencer in my Empire. I had to, in order to become Le Roi. I see this Assembly... as a different, less polite Court.

That said, new draft follows. I invite all the Honorable Ambassadors to fire at will.

Yours truly,

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member States,

NOTING that contracts of Marriage vary among the States, even within the protections of World Assembly resolutions,

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of a entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime, bringing untold sorrow,

APPALLED that certain States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties of unwanted Marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

MINDFUL that the desire to act on dissolution of such an intimate bond is never joyful, bearing the burden of individual shame and the specter of public revilement,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of "Divorce": A Divorce is the legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.

2) Any of the Parties of a Marriage may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party of a Marriage has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

5) The sole restrictions shall apply in case of legal Plural Marriages:

a) Pursuance of a Lawful Divorce in said Marriages shall be conducted solely in Nations that legally recognise Plural Marriages.
b) Legal Dissolution of said Marriages shall apply solely to the requesting Party or Parties.

6) The following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this resolution:

a) Reasonable: "creating real or potential aids, such as the Courts' personnel would like to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".
b) Unreasonable: "creating real or potential obstacles, such as the Courts' personnel would not accept to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".

I don't have time to fully evaulate this proposal. However I'd recommend you claryify your argument in the preambles with a little more humor, and story. Therefore I'd take a look at the WAHQ resolution's preamble for further reference. Sort of like a writer's creed, show don't tell.


I look forward to reading your proposal more in depth, soon.
Eduard Heir

Indeed that is the case. Almost half of our bugdet goes to education. Le Juge Président de la Cour Suprême, The Most Honorable Robert Laclos, was the defense attorney in an interregional dispute decades ago, at the tender age of eight. His defense is regarded by many in the Law profession as brilliant. (He's also an accomplished poet, mind you, with books translated to 18 languages) His televised court time in said case is to this day exhibited in kindergarten classes for debates. The expected age for entering higher education is fourteen, although many parents prefer not to expect that long.


How interesting, honoured Ambassador, we here in the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench have extended our lives far beyond the span once allotted to our ancestors with the use of Dew drugs, our children would be barely older than infants at 14. We find the precipitate development you describe most intriguing.

But as to your revised draft, we are glad to see you have removed the needless committee, it was surplus to requirement. However a recommendation that states offer marriage guidance counseling and post divorce counseling to to those who may need it might be of use.


Yours,

However a recommendation that states offer marriage guidance counseling [...]

Illegal, amends Freedom of Marriage Act.

However a recommendation that states offer [...] post divorce counseling to to those who may need it might be of use.

Would alienate poorer Nations. Those services can be very costly. And even if there would not exist such an alienation, there would we go again down the slippery slope of "definitions". Once terms as "reasonable" had to be defined, I wonder a "complex" term such as "counseling" would be much more in "need" of a "definition".

How interesting, honoured Ambassador, we here in the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench have extended our lives far beyond the span once allotted to our ancestors with the use of Dew drugs, our children would be barely older than infants at 14. We find the precipitate development you describe most intriguing.

Does your Nation have a Scientific Trade Liaison?

Mesdames, Gentlemen, this debate is turning into an one-on-one rapport, do please join us!

Everybody comments will be appreciated, as always.

Yours truly,

Therefore I'd take a look at the WAHQ resolution's preamble for further reference.

World Assembly Headquarters

Ignoring the findings of a recent census of WA diplomats, revealing a disturbing prevalence among international envoys of "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, honest family types" and militant machistas;

Declaring, nonetheless, that it would be nice for these inmates to have an asylum to run;

Repeal "World Assembly Headquarters"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #8
Proposed by: The Regiment of Amoney

Description: WA Resolution #8: World Assembly Headquarters (Category: Political Stability; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: MADDENED by the fact that this bill calls W.A. member nations qoute "drunks, stoners, weirdos, military fruitcakes, sex addicts, rejects, dear little kiddies, and militant machistas"
[...]


*delightful laughter*

Although I admit I have a penchant for humor and storytelling, I can only imagine the effect of humor and storytelling on the draft's preamble would have on some ambassadors...

Yours truly,

Illegal, amends Freedom of Marriage Act.

Rubbish honoured Ambassador, we were closely involved in the writing and passage of that bill and we can assure you that offering marriage guidance counseling is not illegal under the freedom of marriage act.



Would alienate poorer Nations. Those services can be very costly. And even if there would not exist such an alienation, there would we go again down the slippery slope of "definitions". Once terms as "reasonable" had to be defined, I wonder a "complex" term such as "counseling" would be much more in "need" of a "definition".

If you recall we advised you not to define "reasonable" we suggested you offer an example, the term counseling is perfectly opaque, and in any event it would be foolish to define counseling from any particular point of view, rather it would be better to leave such a culturally specific concept in the hands of national provision in line with national norms.



Does your Nation have a Scientific Trade Liaison?

Better, we have the Yorta Corporation, would you like us to effect an introduction honoured Ambassador ?


Yours,


O.O.C. by the way since I notice you started doing it to, I should point out that the Urgenchi's offer all their contributions in debate in written form because it is considered deeply barbaric to speak above a whisper, that's why they sign off "yours" or "yours sincerely " e.t.c. it's not required or customary for any other delegations to do the same :)

Rubbish honoured Ambassador, we were closely involved in the writing and passage of that bill and we can assure you that offering marriage guidance counseling is not illegal under the freedom of marriage act.

Rubbish returned, Your Honor. Since you were SO closely involved in writing The Freedom of Marriage Act, and should you have found counseling so necessary, you would have been the first person to put it there yourself. Of course, you can always try to repeal The Freedom of Marriage Act so as to correct that terrible mistake, in case counseling was a recent epiphany of yours.

If you recall we advised you not to define "reasonable" we suggested you offer an example, the term counseling is perfectly opaque, and in any event it would be foolish to define counseling from any particular point of view, rather it would be better to leave such a culturally specific concept in the hands of national provision in line with national norms.

Really? Makes me wonder...

And we are dismayed that terms such as "unreasonable" and "reasonable" have been used so liberally without adequate indication for the purposes of jurisprudence of what might constitute either of these things.

And it would still alienate poorer Nations.

Yours truly,

Getting geared for Submission v2.0, Esteemed Ambassadors. I shall invite other active Ambassadors who have not yet added their voices to the debate.

Your Excellencies ideas will always get due diligence, and your concerns due attention, and the text be changed, should it be reasonable.

OOC: And hey, I got two-thirds of the minimum quorum last time. Not bad for a rookie with a completely fucked up campaign.

Our initial concerns over this resolution have been addressed to our satisfaction, and we have complete confidence that passage will result in great social progress for wymyn worldwide. Though we hold that the institution of marriage is fundamentally patriarchal and is, by consequence, unsalvageable, we realize that the Revolution must be implemented in steps, and we must take human good as we can get it. Our social scientists project two major benefits:

First, even before accounting for widespread social changes, wymyn will improve their condition. Presently, wymyn trapped within marriage are often subject to abuse, to marital rape, to being relegated to thankless child-rearing, and generally must sacrifice themselves for their husbands, accepting his authority. Divorce will allow wymyn trapped within harsh circumstances to escape and pursue another course. Even the threat of divorce will be sufficient for many wymyn to negotiate better treatment with their husbands, asserting their dignity.

Second, and more ambitiously, the legal protection of divorce will contribute to an erosion of anti-wymyn institutions that deny her actualization as a subject, rather than an object. She will see law that transcends the ethics crystallized in outmoded social customs and religious doctrines that regard the wymyn as property, as an Other. Slowly, she will come to a perception of herself that does not look to these institutions to define her. She will define her own self through her own desires, her internal, Revolutionary being. As more and more wymyn reject otherness and particularism, the institutions that both perpetuate and depend upon the subordination of wymyn will wither and die. The hopes of Simone de Beauvoir will finally be realized worldwide, as they are in Balawaristan.

We thank the honorable ambassador for his tireless work introducing and revising this proposal so as to achieve the greatest benefit and not merely placate opposition until it is toothless. Wymyn worldwide are sure to cast down the washbasin, pick up the rifle, the plowshare, or the pen, and praise not the name of some god but "Sionis Prioratus."

H.E. Dr. Marx al-Ghazal
Ambassador, the Workers' Republic of Balawaristan

Personally, I am opposed to both marriage and divorce, but a nation of University students and interns would hardly think to engage in either activity to begin with.

*ahem* I have recently received word that the Honorable Delegate Madame Ilera Liam of the Lost Pseudo-Civilization of Intellect and the Arts, however, is in favor of this proposal due to... let me see here... "personal experiences", whatever that means. Apparently her only request is that children be given a voice in custodial proceedings so that their preferences and opinions on their living situation may be fully taken into account by presiding courts. It also says here that... well that's for me to read. Apparently I'm to forward her a copy of the latest version of the proposal when it is completed.

Well, I suppose that counts for a "yay" vote from the Honorable Delegate. Seeing as I really am pretty much a messenger here, I guess that's all I have to say.

Rubbish returned, Your Honor. Since you were SO closely involved in writing The Freedom of Marriage Act, and should you have found counseling so necessary, you would have been the first person to put it there yourself. Of course, you can always try to repeal The Freedom of Marriage Act so as to correct that terrible mistake, in case counseling was a recent epiphany of yours.


Since the freedom of marriage act was intended to allow legal recognition for the personal unions of thos who had untill that time not enjoyed such recognition we are still at a loss to see how marriage guidance counseling for coulpes considering divorce could possibly be illegal under it but if the honoured Ambassador is convinced of this then it is not our job to dissuade them.


Really? Makes me wonder...



And it would still alienate poorer Nations.

Indeed an indication of what might be considered reasonable by this statute for the pusposes of jurisprudence is an example of such. Had we advocated a definition we would have said "we advocate a definition".

Naturally the honoured Ambassador's lack of comprehension of the english language in this matter is rather worrying and does not inspire us with confidence in their abilities to effectively draft a resolution.

Yours,

Oh, dear Prophet...

As for including State-sponsored Counseling on the Draft, I removed the Committee Clauses mostly for the undue financial burden on WA Member States. Poverty is a disgrace worse than marriages gone bad. The Draft speaks strictly about Courts, physical institutions that, in whatever shapes throughout the World, do already exist. I will not add expensive State-sponsored Counseling to the Draft. I. Will. Not. NOT.

Yours Truly,

Personally, I am opposed to both marriage and divorce, but a nation of University students and interns would hardly think to engage in either activity to begin with.

*ahem* I have recently received word that the Honorable Delegate Madame Ilera Liam of the Lost Pseudo-Civilization of Intellect and the Arts, however, is in favor of this proposal due to... let me see here... "personal experiences", whatever that means. Apparently her only request is that children be given a voice in custodial proceedings so that their preferences and opinions on their living situation may be fully taken into account by presiding courts. It also says here that... well that's for me to read. Apparently I'm to forward her a copy of the latest version of the proposal when it is completed.

Well, I suppose that counts for a "yay" vote from the Honorable Delegate. Seeing as I really am pretty much a messenger here, I guess that's all I have to say.

Dear Madam Ambassador, Your Honor can faithfully tell the Honorable Delegate Madame Ilera Liam children are one of my main concerns. I concur they should be given a voice.

A discussion is going on about a Draft on Parental Rights. I wholeheartedly advise Your Honor should give a look: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=583484

I do think that combining the two concerns into a single Draft would be a disservice to both. Therefore, in search of greater justice, I shall give support to each Draft with the utmost enthusiasm.

I hope this comforts Your Honor's Delegate.

Yours truly,

First, even before accounting for widespread social changes, wymyn will improve their condition. Presently, wymyn trapped within marriage are often subject to abuse, to marital rape, to being relegated to thankless child-rearing, and generally must sacrifice themselves for their husbands, accepting his authority. Divorce will allow wymyn trapped within harsh circumstances to escape and pursue another course. Even the threat of divorce will be sufficient for many wymyn to negotiate better treatment with their husbands, asserting their dignity.

I wholeheartedly agree, and find much joy in having been able to address Your Honor's concerns with dignity, reaching common ground. I agree the battle for true equality will be hard-fought. We should not mind being casualties.

Yours truly,

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member States,

NOTING that contracts of Marriage vary among the member States, even within the protections of World Assembly resolutions,

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of a entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime, bringing untold sorrow,

APPALLED that certain member States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties of unwanted Marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,

MINDFUL that the desire to act on dissolution of such an intimate bond is never joyful, bearing the burden of individual shame and the specter of public revilement,

ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Definition of Divorce: The legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.

2) Any of the Parties of a Marriage may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party of a Marriage has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantadge.

4) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

5) The sole restrictions shall apply in case of legal Plural Marriages:

a) Pursuance of a Lawful Divorce in said Marriages shall be conducted solely in Nations that legally recognise Plural Marriages.
b) Legal Dissolution of said Marriages shall apply solely to the requesting Party or Parties.

6) For greater clarity, the following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this resolution:

a) Reasonable: "creating real or potential aids, such as the Courts' personnel would like to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".
b) Unreasonable: "creating real or potential obstacles, such as the Courts' personnel would not accept to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
*snip*

I will try to give more specific commentary on specific provisions and language, but I think it worthwhile to share a general impression first: IMHO, YOU'VE BEEN GETTING SOME BAD ADVICE IN THIS THREAD.

In attempting to please various critics you have made multiple changes to your proposal that I think are unwise. I wish to review the thread before I comment in detail, but I am not sure some of the changes you have made in good faith have been (1) suggested in good faith in the first place and (2) wise. For example, I know you were raked over the coals concerning the need to define "reasonable" and "unreasonable." Personally, I think that is a silly objection. Law throughout history and across many nations routinely use reasonableness as a standard in a wide variety of contexts. The WA's Charter on Civil Rights refers to "unreasonable" discrimination.

Again, I am carefully reading your proposal and also looking at its evolution in this thread. Hopefully, I can make some helpful comments.

In the meantime, hang in there and keep fighting the good fight.

Indeed an indication of what might be considered reasonable by this statute for the purposes of jurisprudence is an example of such. Had we advocated a definition we would have said "we advocate a definition".




Just for the record, and in case the Honoured Ambassador for Cat-Tribe is referring to our advice concerning the term " reasonable " we have quoted our words above.

We never advocated defining "reasonable", we merely felt that an indication of what might be considered reasonable i.e. an example, might be of use to jurists looking for guidance in the matter.

We hope that it is not our good faith which is in question, and that the honoured Ambassador for Cat-Tribe was not referring to us in their contribution.


Yours sincerely,

*delightful laughter*

Although I admit I have a penchant for humor and storytelling, I can only imagine the effect of humor and storytelling on the draft's preamble would have on some ambassadors...

Yours truly,


Just saying...lately proposals have been getting a little dry, because they're attempting to be perfect. A world of corrupt divorces could be portrayed with a little satire, while the proposal could still retain a healthy balance between seriousness and interest.

(OOC: Okay, sure, Thomas Jefferson didn't need to crack jokes to make the Declaration of Independence an incredibly interesting document to read. But this IS NationStates. And none of us are Thomas Jefferson.)

Just for the record, and in case the Honoured Ambassador for Cat-Tribe is referring to our advice concerning the term " reasonable " we have quoted our words above.

We never advocated defining "reasonable", we merely felt that an indication of what might be considered reasonable i.e. an example, might be of use to jurists looking for guidance in the matter.

We hope that it is not our good faith which is in question, and that the honoured Ambassador for Cat-Tribe was not referring to us in their contribution.


Yours sincerely,

I regret my insinuation that some Ambassador have made suggestions in bad faith. What I meant to comment on were those who have made suggestions that the author of this proposal has adopted, but still oppose the proposal without making it clear that there are any changes that could be made to make the proposal acceptable. One can theoretically make worthy suggestions regardless of one's ultimate judgment concerning the proposal, but it does raise the question of why the proposal should be changed to please those who refuse to be pleased.

The Cat-Tribe is aware of your more recent statement that you did not intend to insist on a definition of reasonable. I feel, however, that your prior words indicated (perhaps unwittingly) otherwise:

And we are dismayed that terms such as "unreasonable" and "reasonable" have been used so liberally without adequate indication for the purposes of jurisprudence of what might constitute either of these things.

Further, although I am not sure I like the language currently used in the proposed resolution, I don't think it necessary to provide examples of "unreasonable delay" any more that it was necessary to provide examples of "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" in the CoCR (which, btw, we honor you for having authored.

While we are on the subject of CoCR, I don't believe I agree with the many comments you have made in this thread that suggested provisions of the resolution were made unnecessary by that fine legislation. Unless I am missing something, one has to rather stretch the language of the CoCR to say that it forbids nations from imposing burdens on those who seek divorce.

EDIT: I make the above statements with full awareness that I am being somewhat hypocritical in that I have criticized other Ambassadors' suggestions, but have not myself actually contributed any substantive improvements in the proposal. ;)

The Cat-Tribe is aware of your more recent statement that you did not intend to insist on a definition of reasonable. I feel, however, that your prior words indicated (perhaps unwittingly) otherwise:



Further, although I am not sure I like the language currently used in the proposed resolution, I don't think it necessary to provide examples of "unreasonable delay" any more that it was necessary to provide examples of "unfair and unreasonable discrimination" in the CoCR (which, btw, we honor you for having authored.

Very well we would never have insisted upon the inclusion of such examples, but to be accused of having insisted upon a definition when we in fact suggested an " indication for the purposes of jurisprudence " is contumacious indeed. We repeat, if we had advocated a definition we would have said " we advocate a definition" not an " indication for the purposes of jurisprudence ".

While we are on the subject of CoCR, I don't believe I agree with the many comments you have made in this thread that suggested provisions of the resolution were made unnecessary by that fine legislation. Unless I am missing something, one has to rather stretch the language of the CoCR to say that it forbids nations from imposing burdens on those who seek divorce.

We cannot disagree more. The CoCR makes it clear that all inhabitants of all member states are equal under the law ( not just un-divorced ones ) , it makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of a reductive categorisation ( being a "divorcee" in this instance ) and it specifically prohibits all forms of discrimination on such bases in the provisions of services, private and public, and in the work place. It could not have been more apposite to the case in hand.


If every resolution to be written in which will be contained some legal status which a person may enter in to is to ban discrimination against those who do, then these resolutions will endlessly repeat the work of the CoCR ad infinitum.


Yours,

EDIT: I make the above statements with full awareness that I am being somewhat hypocritical in that I have criticized other Ambassadors' suggestions, but have not myself actually contributed any substantive improvements in the proposal.

Don't yeh just HATE, when you want to help out someone, but you have know clue where to start. I have to admit. I'm dreadful at giving advice for good proposals like these.

Very well we would never have insisted upon the inclusion of such examples, but to be accused of having insisted upon a definition when we in fact suggested an " indication for the purposes of jurisprudence " is contumacious indeed. We repeat, if we had advocated a definition we would have said " we advocate a definition" not an " indication for the purposes of jurisprudence ".

Very well. I see no need to further quibble over what you meant or how your statement could reasonably have been understood. (Although I am amused at the suggestion that I am being "contumacious." Unless you are a figure of authority to which I report, it seems silly to accuse me of insubordination. :p)

We cannot disagree more. The CoCR makes it clear that all inhabitants of all member states are equal under the law ( not just un-divorced ones ) , it makes it illegal to discriminate against anyone on the basis of a reductive categorisation ( being a "divorcee" in this instance ) and it specifically prohibits all forms of discrimination on such bases in the provisions of services, private and public, and in the work place. It could not have been more apposite to the case in hand.

Come now. The fine legislation that is The CoCR makes discrimination illegal "on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination." You appear to be making the absurd claim that the language "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" means no discrimination on the basis of any categorization whatsoever. That is contrary to the plain language.

Further, I would assume any nation wishing to impose burdens on those seeking divorce or having obtained a divorce would claim that such categorization of individuals is NOT ABITRARILY ASSIGNED and, thus, is not included in the ban imposed by the CoCR.

The CoCR specifically bans numerous types of arbitrary and unfair grounds for categorizing individuals or groups, but neither its plain language nor a reasonable interpretation can expand that ban to every possible categorization.

Don't yeh just HATE, when you want to help out someone, but you have know clue where to start. I have to admit. I'm dreadful at giving advice for good proposals like these.

:D

I feel your pain.

Very well. I see no need to further quibble over what you meant or how your statement could reasonably have been understood. (Although I am amused at the suggestion that I am being "contumacious." Unless you are a figure of authority to which I report, it seems silly to accuse me of insubordination. :p)

We used the term contumacious quite appropriately to mean "stubbornly perverse " not insubordinate.



Come now. The fine legislation that is The CoCR makes discrimination illegal "on grounds including sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, sexual orientation or sexual identity, or any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which may be used for the purposes of discrimination." You appear to be making the absurd claim that the language "any other arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation" means no discrimination on the basis of any categorization whatsoever. That is contrary to the plain language.

It is not an absurd claim, it is a perfectly reasonable one. Unless you believe it would be reasonable to define an individual as intrinsically a divorcee as opposed to intrinsically a living being. To classify an individual as a Divorcee and discriminate against them on this basis would be arbitrary and reductive in the extreme.

Further, I would assume any nation wishing to impose burdens on those seeking divorce or having obtained a divorce would claim that such categorization of individuals is NOT ABITRARILY ASSIGNED and, thus, is not included in the ban imposed by the CoCR.

Just as they might once have claimed that it was not arbitrary to define a person as "black" or "gay" or "gypsy" when it is, so it would be arbitrary to define them as a " Divorcee" or a "plaintiff in a divorce case " and discriminate against them on that basis. Presumably the individual in question would define them self as much more than merely "divorced" and therefore it is an arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation for a government to do so.

The CoCR specifically bans numerous types of arbitrary and unfair grounds for categorizing individuals or groups, but neither its plain language nor a reasonable interpretation can expand that ban to every possible categorization.

That is exactly what it did do, honoured Ambassador, and no amount of wriggling will make that untrue.


Yours,

It is not an absurd claim, it is a perfectly reasonable one. Unless you believe it would be reasonable to define an individual as intrinsically a divorcee as opposed to intrinsically a living being. To classify an individual as a Divorcee and discriminate against them on this basis would be arbitrary and reductive in the extreme.

Just as they might once have claimed that it was not arbitrary to define a person as "black" or "gay" or "gypsy" when it is, so it would be arbitrary to define them as a " Divorcee" or a "plaintiff in a divorce case " and discriminate against them on that basis. Presumably the individual in question would define them self as much more than merely "divorced" and therefore it is an arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation for a government to do so.

That is exactly what it did do, honoured Ambassador, and no amount of wriggling will make that untrue.

Married, unmarried, divorced are all categorizations under the law with different legal ramifications, privileges, benefits, and/or responsibilities. The CoCR does not make these distinctions illegal.

I respectfully disagree with the Ambassador's reading of the CoCR, but I won't argue this point further because it is not my intent to limit the scope of the CoCR or to provide ammunition to anyone that would seek to wriggle out from its broad mandate.

Married, unmarried, divorced are all categorizations under the law with different legal ramifications, privileges, benefits, and/or responsibilities. The CoCR does not make these distinctions illegal.

Naturally It did not make legal statuses illegal, it made it illegal to unfairly discriminate against a person on the basis of their legal status that is all.

I respectfully disagree with the Ambassador's reading of the CoCR, but I won't argue this point further because it is not my intent to limit the scope of the CoCR or to provide ammunition to anyone that would seek to wriggle out from its broad mandate.

But the honoured Ambassador clearly believes that room exists ( of a seemingly vast and copious nature ) through which such wriggling could take place. That is a matter of very great concern to us, and we will be very anxious to prevent such a misconception infecting the legislative thinking of this place.

If it could be proven to us that such a gaping loophole existed in the CoCR we would ourselves author its repeal and seek to replace it.

Our intention in pointing out that the CoCR obviated the need to forbid discrimination against divorced persons was to allow the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus the room to expand and improve the core of their statute, and it is our hope that the CoCR will provide that facility to all w.a. legislation, if it does not then it is not doing its job.

However it is our absolutely firm belief that such is not the case and that the facility remains uncompromised.


Yours,

The CoCR specifically bans numerous types of arbitrary and unfair grounds for categorizing individuals or groups, but neither its plain language nor a reasonable interpretation can expand that ban to every possible categorization.

That is exactly what it did do, honoured Ambassador, and no amount of wriggling will make that untrue.

Oh? When I expressed concern that that wording effectively extended to forbidding discrimination on the basis of membership in specific families, and thus outlawed hereditary aristocracies and monarchies (and possibly even the passage of 'inheritable' property to ones' relatives), during the drafting stage, you assured me that that was NOT the case. Now, it seems, you are effectively claiming that it IS...

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

*snip*

This may be entirely unhelpful, but I would consider this alternative language:

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus

Description: The World Assembly

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage vary among member states but uniformly include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of participants,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,

DETERMINED that parties to marriage unions have an inalienable right to dissolve such unions,

ENACTS the following:

1) Any of the parties to a union of marriage may seek legal dissolution of said marriage, known as “divorce.”

2) Appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve dissolutions of marriages fairly, equitably, and with all due haste.

3) Upon dissolution of a marriage, appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

4) Upon dissolution of a marriage in which parties have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

5) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party seeking divorce for the reason that such party sought divorce or that all parties to the marriage do not consent to the divorce.

6) This resolution does not affect the internal, solely religious beliefs, procedures, and/or rites of any religion.

Oh? When I expressed concern that that wording effectively extended to forbidding discrimination on the basis of membership in specific families, and thus outlawed hereditary aristocracies and monarchies (and possibly even the passage of 'inheritable' property to ones' relatives), during the drafting stage, you assured me that that was NOT the case. Now, it seems, you are effectively claiming that it IS...


Indeed we are not honoured and esteemed Ambassador, the difference between being offered specific legal rights on the basis of heredity and unfair discrimination based upon one's legal status is a profound one.

I may not partake of the legal status of divorcee unless I have sought and obtained a legal dissolution of my marriage, I may not enjoy the rights pertaining to hereditory status unless I have legal claim on such heredity.

Qualification for a personal legal status is not discrimination unless the intent of the qualification is to discriminate unfairly.

Heredity is not discriminating, since enjoyment of a hereditary status remains optional, an individual may legally divest themselves of such a status after all, and others may be alienated to it by adoption e.t.c.

However the assignment of a legal status to a person which is then used to penalise them in some way is not optional on the part of the individual.

In this case we are talking about persons who happen to have divorced legal status being discriminated against on the basis of that legal status, this is clearly an example of an arbitrarily assigned and reductive categorisation which is then used for the purposes of unfair discrimination.

Thus it is illegal under the CoCR.


Yours,

This may be entirely unhelpful, but I would consider this alternative language:

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus

Description: The World Assembly

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage vary among member states but uniformly include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of participants,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,

DETERMINED that parties to marriage unions have an inalienable right to dissolve such unions,

ENACTS the following:

1) Any of the parties to a union of marriage may seek legal dissolution of said marriage, known as “divorce.”

2) Appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve dissolutions of marriages fairly, equitably, and with all due haste.

3) Upon dissolution of a marriage, appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

4) Upon dissolution of a marriage in which parties have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

5) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party seeking divorce for the reason that such party sought divorce or that all parties to the marriage do not consent to the divorce.

6) This resolution does not affect the internal, solely religious beliefs, procedures, and/or rites of any religion.





We would wholeheartedly and unreservedly support this wording of this statute.


Yours,

Mesdames, Gentlemen, this debate is turning into an one-on-one rapport, do please join us!

Everybody comments will be appreciated, as always.

Yours truly,

I have read your latest revision to your prop and we like it. Given the fact that a law can not cater to all, I am out of suggestions unless something really jumps out at me.

As far as the quoted passage, it is hard to jump into a fracas between two individuals that feel as passionately about your views as you and Honorable Urgench. Once the debate goes back more towards the issue here or whatever it is hard to try and interject an opinion.

Dear Holy f*cking Prophet, WHAT A FEEDBACK!

I'm moved beyond words.

I shall in due time carefully re-read all (ALL) the thread. What a journey it has been! It's way beyond my wildest initial expectations. I'm humbled that so many veterans and newbies alike have taken a cause I brought to attention (with high hopes but all but assured frustration) as one of its own.

Dear Cat-Tribe Ambassador, I'm specially thankful to you for taking the pains and reviewing and rewriting every single comma of the text. That's an act of love. I will never forget it. Rest assured many of your suggestions will be incorporated into the final (I hope) Draft. I wish I could say more to thank you, but I don't know how.

As said, sometime in the nearest future I'll review the entire thread and submit another Draft for renewed apreciation, and try to address the torrent of issues raised.

I can't help myself in saying it again. What a journey.

Your Excellencies,
Very Truly Yours,

Dear Holy f*cking Prophet, WHAT A FEEDBACK!

I'm moved beyond words.

I shall in due time carefully re-read all (ALL) the thread. What a journey it has been! It's way beyond my wildest initial expectations. I'm humbled that so many veterans and newbies alike have taken a cause I brought to attention (with high hopes but all but assured frustration) as one of its own.

Dear Cat-Tribe Ambassador, I'm specially thankful to you for taking the pains and reviewing and rewriting every single comma of the text. That's an act of love. I will never forget it. Rest assured many of your suggestions will be incorporated into the final (I hope) Draft. I wish I could say more to thank you, but I don't know how.

As said, sometime in the nearest future I'll review the entire thread and submit another Draft for renewed apreciation, and try to address the torrent of issues raised.

I can't help myself in saying it again. What a journey.

Your Excellencies,
Very Truly Yours,

De nada.

I leave it to you to do the heavy lifting. :wink:

The Cat Tribe / Sionis Prioratus / My Comments

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,
CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member States,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage vary among member states but uniformly include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of participants,
NOTING that contracts of Marriage vary among the member States, even within the protections of World Assembly resolutions,

I am certain that was not your intention, but the highlighted parts may be interpreted by some as imposing plural marriage where it does not exist. Also references to “common estate and inheritance rights” may needlessly alienate many nations that do not allow private property. “Rights” alone should be enough. Also, “recognizing” feels more elegant. I am ambivalent about the term “uniformly”.

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,
DETERMINED that parties to marriage unions have an inalienable right to dissolve such unions,
RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of a entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime, bringing untold sorrow,
APPALLED that certain member States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,
DECRYING the fact that such conditions subject many Parties of unwanted Marriages to a life of misery and abuses of the worst kind, abuses commonly scarring children for life,
MINDFUL that the desire to act on dissolution of such an intimate bond is never joyful, bearing the burden of individual shame and the specter of public revilement,

The topic of bestowing Divorce the title of Inalienable Right has been topic of heated discussion, it was my initial thought and text, but many reasonable nations have raised reasonable concerns that it should not be so. They were able to persuade me with thoughtful arguments. That said, I think “self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, and the right to pursue a second chance in life” is a much more powerful, broad and evocative of the noblest sapient sentiments language than “inalienable rights”
I do agree unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous, but putting it like that, just like that, may give the impression marriage is The Plague! :D Individual responsibility, individual broken dreams, untold sorrow, shame and the specter of public revilement (that’s one for you, Unibot ;) ), the recognition of the fallibity of human beings, should impair more empathy in more empathy-minded nations.

ENACTS the following:
ENACTS the following Resolution:

1) Any of the parties to a union of marriage may seek legal dissolution of said marriage, known as “divorce.”
1) Definition of Divorce: The legal dissolution of a Marriage, which ceases to have legal existence from the date the Divorce is legally and finally pronounced.
2) Any of the Parties of a Marriage may ask for a Lawful Divorce in a Court of Justice.

Although I find your wording stunningly elegant and sober, I think Courts should be mentioned. But to be coherent with the change below, “Courts” could be changed to “constituted legal systems”.

2) Appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve dissolutions of marriages fairly, equitably, and with all due haste.
a) There shall be no unreasonable impediments or delays to access to said Courts.
b) There shall be no unreasonable delays in Courts' proceedings.

Your wording is clearly a stunning evolution.

3) Upon dissolution of a marriage, appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.
a) Reasonable latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, in case a Party of a Marriage has probable cause to assert an unjust disadvantage.

As stated before, my only concern is that many nations do not allow private property. That wording could alienate such nations. Defense of personal assets is only applicable where possession of personal assets is allowed, thus making it economic system-neutral.

4) Upon dissolution of a marriage in which parties have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.
a) A Divorce does not dissolve legal parental bonds. Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a Divorce.

I think the two wordings are complementary, and both should be included. And (my opinion) your writing perfectly addresses Studly Penguins’ Ambassador concerns, that such matters should be left to the States. I concur, but was conflicted on what would be an appropriate wording. You solved it.

5) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party seeking divorce for the reason that such party sought divorce or that all parties to the marriage do not consent to the divorce.
3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on the Divorce soliciting Party for the sole reason there is no consent of all Parties to such Divorce.

Your wording is superior. I’d only add “or parties” after “party”, and “sole” before “reason”.

6) This resolution does not affect the internal, solely religious beliefs, procedures, and/or rites of any religion.
4) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

Your inclusion of “beliefs” is most relevant.

(no equivalent)
5) The sole restrictions shall apply in case of legal Plural Marriages:
a) Pursuance of a Lawful Divorce in said Marriages shall be conducted solely in Nations that legally recognize Plural Marriages.
b) Legal Dissolution of said Marriages shall apply solely to the requesting Party or Parties.


I do believe plural marriages deserve special treatment. First, because W.A. resolutions are silent on the subject. Second, because plural marriages are part of the fabric of the culture of many nations (and they have every right to be so, since it is not prohibited). Second, because many nations find them abhorrent (Sionis Prioratus subjects have never asked for such a right, and insofar I have no evidence whatsoever plural marriages possess any evil nature per se, I remain neutral on the subject). I find unfair that nations that find plural marriages abhorrent (again, NOT my case), should be compelled to perform divorces of said marriages, thus granting them unwilling recognition.

(no equivalent)
6) For greater clarity, the following definitions shall apply for the purposes of this resolution:
a) Reasonable: "creating real or potential aids, such as the Courts' personnel would like to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".
b) Unreasonable: "creating real or potential obstacles, such as the Courts' personnel would not accept to see applied on themselves, should they be similarly situated".

I am more than happy to scuttle this clause.

(On emphasizing appropriate: Strictly speaking it is amazing how the Ambassador of Urgench finds "reasonable" unreasonable, but "appropriate" appropriate. Dropping the adjective won't change the spirit of the most elegantly and soberly rewritten text.)

This is becoming preposterous, we never had any objection to the use of the term reasonable and continuing to pretend that we did is calumny.

We have tried to be of assistance to this process, devoting large amounts of our time and effort a long the way. But frankly it appears that instead of reading what we have actually written the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus has chosen to invent a dialogue between us which has never occurred. Why is mystifying.

As may be seen we have already expressed our support for the actual intent of this statute, we have offered our time and assistance to its achievement, and we wholeheartedly offered our support for the revisions made to it by the honoured Ambassador for Cat-Tribe.

We have endeavoured to remain professional during this process and have received nothing but rebuke and insult as a result.

Yours,



O.O.C. I'm pretty certain ( though not absolutely ) that the Freedom of Marriage act already requires states to recognise multiple marriages so requiring them to divorce them would be necessary.

The Cat Tribe / Sionis Prioratus / My Comments*snip*

I'll try to get back with more detail when and if I have time, but a couple of quick comments.

1. Look at the Freedom of Marriage Act. I took my language regarding what a marriage was from that Act, so no nation in compliance with that act should have a complaint about that language.

2. The "recognizing" provision has not legal effect and cannot force the recognition of plural marriages.

3. I disagree that my concise language makes marriage sound worse than your parade of horribles. I also think your language about divorce being "never joyful" and "bearing the burden of shame" is simply inaccurate. Divorces can be and often are entirely amicable.

4. I would not specifically mention courts, because nations may not have courts.

5. If a nation has no property rights, there should be no common estate or inheritance to worry about.

6. I think dealing separately with plural marriage is cumbersome, unnecessary, and unwise.

Obviously I chose the language that I did because I thought it would be best. Make whatever changes you think necessary and I will consider whether I support the result.

(OOC: Okay, sure, Thomas Jefferson didn't need to crack jokes to make the Declaration of Independence an incredibly interesting document to read. But this IS NationStates. And none of us are Thomas Jefferson.)

OOC: Man, I'm no Thomas Jefferson, but I sure as hell would like to be Kurt Vonnegut (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Kurt_Vonnegut). How I miss the old man. I cried the day he died. He's up in Heaven now. So it goes.

Indeed we are not honoured and esteemed Ambassador, the difference between being offered specific legal rights on the basis of heredity and unfair discrimination based upon one's legal status is a profound one.

I may not partake of the legal status of divorcee unless I have sought and obtained a legal dissolution of my marriage, I may not enjoy the rights pertaining to hereditory status unless I have legal claim on such heredity.

Qualification for a personal legal status is not discrimination unless the intent of the qualification is to discriminate unfairly.

Heredity is not discriminating, since enjoyment of a hereditary status remains optional, an individual may legally divest themselves of such a status after all, and others may be alienated to it by adoption e.t.c.

However the assignment of a legal status to a person which is then used to penalise them in some way is not optional on the part of the individual.
Hr'rmm. so we could -- if we were so minded, which we're not -- legally assign certain hereditary rights to the members of an entire 'race' (and, whatever the rights & wrongs of the situation might be for Humans, the concept of 'race' amongst us Ursines is not an "arbitrary" distinction: Our nation's population does, after all, include bloodlines that are descended [separately] from eight different species of pre-sapient Bears...), and this would NOT count as discriminating against the members of all the other races? That's... interesting...

Hr'rmm. so we could -- if we were so minded, which we're not -- legally assign certain hereditary rights to the members of an entire 'race' (and, whatever the rights & wrongs of the situation might be for Humans, the concept of 'race' amongst us Ursines is not an "arbitrary" distinction: Our nation's population does, after all, include bloodlines that are descended [separately] from eight different species of pre-sapient Bears...), and this would NOT count as discriminating against the members of all the other races? That's... interesting...


This is not the place to discuss this matter honoured Ambassador, we have endeavoured to keep discussion of the CoCR in this debate in context and have tried to focus this discussion on interactions of that statute with the one proposed here.

A more complicated exposition of the nature of heredity in relation to discrimination would be better held elsewhere. Suffice it to say that your suggested situation is only partially legal and indeed aspects of it are completely illegal.


Yours,

I like the re-write from the Delegation of Cat-Tribe due to, in my humble opinion, it sums up everything into a few short Articles thus creating brevity while preserving the props aim and integrity. I also like Sionis Prioratus' version also for reasons I have previously listed.

We thank the delegation of Cat-Tribe for covering our concerns of Child Placement and Asset allocations in your version of this legislation.

My official suggestion would be to try and strike a good,healthy balance between Cat-Tribe's version and yours Honored Sionis Prioratus and I think it would work out pretty good. Rationale behind my thinking being from reading your response earlier on Cat-Tribe's rewrite that it seemed you both agreed on roughly the same things and disagreed in about the same areas.

Our hope is simple: That any future disagreeances will be over the principles and merits of this prop rather than semantics. We can hammer out wording later prior to submission of needed, but to get it ready for submission we need to keep on hitting the issues here.

Sorry if this offends any member of any Delegation, but we felt it needed to be said.

Sincerely

Studly Penguins
WA Ambassador

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,

RECOGNIZING that legal unions of marriage vary among member nations and include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including nationally recognized effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the parties,

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,

APPALLED that certain member States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, the right to self-determination, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

ENACTS the following resolution:

1) Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, which ceases to have legal existence between the requesting party or parties from the date the divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

a) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

2) Any of the parties of a marriage may ask for a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with all due haste.

3) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party or parties seeking divorce for the sole reason of such seeking or for the sole reason there is no consent of all parties to such divorce.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

5) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

1) Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, which ceases to have legal existence between the requesting party or parties from the date the divorce is legally and finally pronounced.

Might we suggest that the above clause is in fact currently only a definition of what a divorce is and does not actually require member states to allow divorce within their jurisdiction.

A firmer wording might be- " 1) Divorce, the legal dissolution of a legal act of personal union ( a marriage ) , shall henceforth be available to all inhabitants of member states of the w.a. without let or hindrance. " or words to this effect.

And might we further suggest that the wording of this clause-

2) Any of the parties of a marriage may ask for a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems , which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with all due haste.

Be revised to- " 2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a divorce in the appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit , which shall resolve divorces fairly, equitably, and with promptitude " or words to this effect.


Yours,

Well, all those Charter-related discussions were very tiresome. Upon re-reading this huge thread, I recalled what in the first place prompted me to insert the Discrimination clause:

the proposal, perhaps intentionally, covers only formal legal ramifications and not the social stigma of divorce, particularly violent retribution.

[...]

-- Dr Lois Merrywether
WA Ambassador
Quintessence of Dust, Delegate of Wysteria

The resulting language I created to address the Esteemed Hon. Ambassador Dr Lois Merrywether's concerns was the cause of so much ruckus.

I am saddened the Hon. Ambassador's concern is still as yet unaddressed. (or is it?)

I'd like some input as to this. And I am overly glad I can already see the finish line for submission.

(OOC: I'm forever grateful to QuoD for introducing me to M83. I am just so totally addicted.)

Might we suggest that the above clause is in fact currently only a definition of what a divorce is and does not actually require member states to allow divorce within their jurisdiction.

[..]

[and] shall henceforth be available to all inhabitants of [the World Assembly] member states [..] without let or hidrance.

Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a divorce in the appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit , which shall resolve divorces fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.

Agreed, Hon. Ambassador. But is Your Honor sure "all due haste" wouldn't do it just fine also?
Do the other Excellencies agree also? Please do input, mesdames and gentlemen.

Yours truly,

Agreed, Hon. Ambassador. But is Your Honor sure "all due haste" wouldn't do it just fine also?

Yours truly,


Certainly " all due haste" has a similar meaning, but the word "haste" has unfortunate connotations of negligence and lack of diligence, "promptitude", a beautifull word in our humble opinion, contains the requirement for speed of action with a more carefull undertone.

But it is our desire to be exact as possible which suggested the utility of the term promptitude.

Yours,

Certainly " all due haste" has a similar meaning, but the word "haste" has unfortunate connotations of negligence and lack of diligence, "promptitude", a beautifull word in our humble opinion, contains the requirement for speed of action with a more carefull undertone.

But it is our desire to be exact as possible which suggested the utility of the term promptitude.

Yours,

Yes, we are inclined to agree here. "Haste" would sound like you want resolution fast, quick, easy, and cheap. It could allow for judicial officials to just "Express-Lane" proceedings opening the door for unjust rulings and gross miscarriage of justice for what the aim of this legislation is.

We like the word "promptitude". I would go on the notion of proceedings go at the rate the circumstances dictate rather than on a timeline of sorts.

Unfortunately Im not an English scholar so I am sure that it, promptitude, would cover my concerns.

Certainly " all due haste" has a similar meaning, but the word "haste" has unfortunate connotations of negligence and lack of diligence, "promptitude", a beautifull word in our humble opinion, contains the requirement for speed of action with a more carefull undertone.

But it is our desire to be exact as possible which suggested the utility of the term promptitude.

Yours,

Yes, we are inclined to agree here. "Haste" would sound like you want resolution fast, quick, easy, and cheap. It could allow for judicial officials to just "Express-Lane" proceedings opening the door for unjust rulings and gross miscarriage of justice for what the aim of this legislation is.

We like the word "promptitude". I would go on the notion of proceedings go at the rate the circumstances dictate rather than on a timeline of sorts.

Unfortunately Im not an English scholar so I am sure that it, promptitude, would cover my concerns.

Thank you, Your Excellencies. Most enlightening, indeed.

Yours truly,

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,

RECOGNIZING that legal unions of marriage vary among member nations and include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including nationally recognized effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the parties,

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,

APPALLED that certain member States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, the right to self-determination, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

ENACTS the following resolution:

1) Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, which ceases to have legal existence between the requesting party or parties to said marriage from the date the divorce is legally and finally pronounced, and shall henceforth be available to all inhabitants of the World Assembly member states without let or hindrance.

2) Any of the parties of a marriage may ask for a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.

3) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

5) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party or parties seeking divorce for the sole reason of such seeking or for the sole reason there is no consent of all parties to such divorce.

6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

It is with greay joy, satisfaction and relief that I announce, barring new concerns raised by the Excellencies The Ambassadors, that I am solely waiting for Dear and Esteemed Cat-Tribe Ambassador's input (he deserves it and owe him) to proceed to the second submission of the draft to the World Assembly Delegates' appreciation.

Cheers!

*a very assistant-looking person walks into the room and reads a prepared statement*

"Both the Honorable Delegate and her Representative Intern are currently engaged with pressing matters of the undead, but they wish to make it known that this proposal will receive their reserved support and approval upon submission."

*the assistant person with no name bows and exits*

It is with greay joy, satisfaction and relief that I announce, barring new concerns raised by the Excellencies The Ambassadors, that I am solely waiting for Dear and Esteemed Cat-Tribe Ambassador's input (he deserves it and owe him) to proceed to the second submission of the draft to the World Assembly Delegates' appreciation.

Cheers!

We are satisifed, with nothing jumping out at us that would be a deal-breaker and we love the air-tight wording!! Good Work your Honor!!!!

It is with greay joy, satisfaction and relief that I announce, barring new concerns raised by the Excellencies The Ambassadors, that I am solely waiting for Dear and Esteemed Cat-Tribe Ambassador's input (he deserves it and owe him) to proceed to the second submission of the draft to the World Assembly Delegates' appreciation.

Cheers!

:)

Although I feel my blessing is unnecessary, you have it. I believe the current draft is both an improvement over my suggestion and is worthy of praise in its own right.

Thank you for your perseverance in trying to solve a problem that needs addressing by the WA. :hail:

Good luck from here. :wink:

Perhaps our only last quibble, small though it may be, is that perhaps the wording of this clause-

2) Any of the parties of a marriage may ask for a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.


Could read - "2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolution fairly, equitably, and with promptitude."


This wording is perhaps clearer that any party to a marriage is entitled not only to request a divorce but also to obtain it.

Apart from this we would be completely happy to endorse the current wording of this statute and would commend its authors for their work in this field.

We would be happy to support this statute should it come to vote and would recommend to our regional delegate and other allies and friends that they approve and vote for this statute.

May the horde of Sionis Prioratus ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.

Yours,

Perhaps our only last quibble, small though it may be, is that perhaps the wording of this clause-




Could read - "2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolution fairly, equitably, and with promptitude."


This wording is perhaps clearer that any party to a marriage is entitled not only to request a divorce but also to obtain it.

Apart from this we would be completely happy to endorse the current wording of this statute and would commend its authors for their work in this field.

We would be happy to support this statute should it come to vote and would recommend to our regional delegate and other allies and friends that they approve and vote for this statute.

May the horde of Sionis Prioratus ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.

Yours,

Nice catch. The change you suggest is a wise one and I wholeheartedly endorse it.

Nice work everyone, especially Siornis Prioratus.

Yes, nice catch. I would imagine after the word change pointed out by Urgench it would be ready to submit!!

It is a well-written resolution, and I say that not just because I have come late to this particular discussion.

We do, however, object to this resolution entirely on principle. 1) We do not consider divorce an "inalienable right," because 2) marriage is something to be defined by respective governments and religions. To declare divorce, let alone speedy divorce, an inalienable right is to partially define marriage itself. We cannot take that right from the respective nations.

Thank you for your time.

It is a well-written resolution, and I say that not just because I have come late to this particular discussion.

We do, however, object to this resolution entirely on principle. 1) We do not consider divorce an "inalienable right," because 2) marriage is something to be defined by respective governments and religions. To declare divorce, let alone speedy divorce, an inalienable right is to partially define marriage itself. We cannot take that right from the respective nations.

Thank you for your time.

We respect you position, but wish you would reconsider. I'm sure you noted that the current version of the resolution does not say divorce is an inalienable right, so I take your objection to be the principle behind the proposal. The right to enter into a contract of marriage is inalienable (and protected by WA law), so it follows that the right to divorce -- to end the contract -- is also inalienable.

Marriage is already partially defined by WA law. Forcing parties to remain in an unhappy, unworkable, and/or harmful marriages is hardly an important aspect of national sovereignty.

Or at least that is my opinion.

My Father, Dagobert IV Le Roi, I do hope you can look at your son with pride. I can only hope I may be worthy of joining you someday in eternal happiness, hunting with you throughout the endless Elysium Fields, when the time should come.

May I hold intact your Honor, the Honor of our Ancestors, and the Honor of our Empire forever.

That said, resolution is submitted.

http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=divorce

I'm happy to have known and learned to admire so many Hon. Ambassadors.
May our congress, friendship, good standing and alliances prosper and thrive for all time.

The Right to a Lawful Divorce
A Resolution to affirm and clarify the Right to Pursue a Lawful Divorce and aiming to further the cause of Human Rights.

Category: Human Rights
Effect: Significant
Proposed by: Sionis Prioratus


THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD ASSEMBLED,

CELEBRATING the cultural diversity of its member states,

RECOGNIZING that legal unions of marriage vary among member nations and include civil contracts regulating the union of two or more persons including nationally recognized effects on the common estate and inheritance rights of the parties,

RECOGNIZING the fallibility of sentient desires and actions, failures which can touch aspects fundamental to a person's pursuit of happiness, among them the choice of entering in good faith in a partnership for the purpose of lasting a lifetime,

RECOGNIZING that unions of marriage may become unwanted, untenable, undesirable, harmful, and even dangerous,

APPALLED that certain member States have not desisted to devise ever subtler ways to try to ignore self-evident sentient rights, such as the right to happiness, the right to avoid harm to oneself and one's children, the right to self-determination, and the right to pursue a second chance in life,

ENACTS the following resolution:

1) Divorce is the legal dissolution of a marriage, which ceases to have legal existence between the requesting party or parties to said marriage from the date the divorce is legally and finally pronounced, and shall henceforth be available to all inhabitants of the World Assembly member states without let or hindrance.

2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.

3) Legal parenthood shall never be annulled by the sole reason of a divorce. In case the divorcing parties to a marriage have children, appropriate legal systems of member states shall resolve issues of custody of and support for said children with an overriding priority of the best interests of each and every child.

4) Upon divorce proceedings, appropriate latitude shall be given in the defense of personal assets, and appropriate legal systems of member states shall determine equitable distribution of the parties’ common estate and inheritance rights.

5) No penalty of any kind shall be imposed on a party or parties seeking divorce for the sole reason of such seeking or for the sole reason there is no consent of all parties to such divorce.

6) Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed so as to dictate the beliefs or the internal, solely religious procedures and rites any religion should follow.

Yours truly,

Luxem and Leon can live with this draft of the Resolution. We would like to Clause 3 to state that financial support for said children shall not cripple the ability of the supporter to make a living. And that support for said children can be rescinded if the custodial parent becomes financially able to support the children without the supporters support.
In Other words we want child support to be a means to feeding and Clothing the child/ren not the custodial parent way of punishing the other parent.
Respectfully,

The Honored Delegate wishes me to inform the representatives from Luxem and Leon that the custodial parent will always find ways to use their status to punish the other parent if such is their inclination, and using such a clause in an effort to prevent this would be utterly pointless.

Now, on to the floor fight!
Resolution is up for vote to the entire membership.

Yours truly,

(OOC: I can haz quorum?)

Intellect and the Arts has placed its Delegate-weight vote in favor of this measure. On its passage, I am under instruction to treat all interested parties to a celebratory round of alcoholic beverage in the Bar, with double rounds to the representative from Sionis Prioratus.

Intellect and the Arts has placed its Delegate-weight vote in favor of this measure. On its passage, I am under instruction to treat all interested parties to a celebratory round of alcoholic beverage in the Bar, with double rounds to the representative from Sionis Prioratus.

Thank you, Your Honor! :) But should it be so, as I hope it can (wow! simply amazing), we must remain sober until the time is right...

I've managed to TG in excess of 750 delegates (yes, you read it right)

And since then, in special since quorum, I've been receiving all sorts of TG's from NatSov's and other types, some elegant, the majority not so much, to say the least...

As of now, Aye is leading razor-thin, around 54%... Not exactly comfortable...

I beg to all those Excellencies devoted to the cause of human and other sapients' rights... do vote! Vote, beg others to vote, vote soon!

Yours ever truly,

We regret that clause 2's rendering of divorces being available merely for the asking runs contrary to Gobbannium's strong emphasis on mediation, and social and psychological counselling. We cannot support this proposal.

We in Sionis Prioratus understand such non-support stems from good faith. Unfortunately, wide latitude in hearing and reviewing does not necessarily ensures reaching of common ground. As in what concerns me and my Nation, our friendship is not damaged. I understand your motives, although I do not concur with its consequences.

However, I should add the Draft will not prohibit such counseling. My rationale behing denying such insertion in the draft is as follows: rich nations who can and whose tax-paying constituents/subjects are willing to pay, will pay.

In poverty stricken countries, counseling may be a budgetary burden too high indeed, and no matter what heartbraek a failed marriage can bring in such situations, the poverty that surrrounds it all is much more appaling. In my opinion, there is no need no make matters worse for every citizen, if counseling will still bring no good, for the ex-partners would still be appallingly poor.

We regret that clause 2's rendering of divorces being available merely for the asking runs contrary to Gobbannium's strong emphasis on mediation, and social and psychological counselling. We cannot support this proposal.


We urged the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus to include provision for state afforded marriage counseling and mediation, but were met with complete intransigence on the point.

However we do urge the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Gobbannium to reconsider their vote, the statute does not preclude the possibility of such mediation services and it does require that divorces be settled equitably, requirement of which could easily involve the recommendation of formal mediation by a national court as a remedy for acrimony in divorce proceedings.


Yours,

We are in FAVOR of the resolution at vote. We feel that all ppl deserve the right to a fair, safe, equitable divorce. This law allows for Nat'l soverignty by leaving legal resolution to the Judicial Branches in each nation. We feel that latitude is there to allow mediation/counseling to be ordered by a court if it chooses.

All this does is guarantee one's right to legal access if one so chooses in event of a divorce. If peeps dont get hitched in your nation, then this is a non-issue for you.

This leaves all religious mores and norms alone, where we in no way, no circumstance condone violence toward one party, male/female, when one decides to end a marriage. As we all know in RL ppl have been known to kill the other for "Honor" or community. We see this as murder in cold-blood, unacceptable and should be punished under full extents of all laws applicable. To say that "Well its part of their culture,religion,etc" is to say the Holocaust is okay and that the Nazi werent Criminals b/c that was just part of their culture, beliefs, etc. Tell that to all the survivors of that horrific event.

Though I feel that divorce should be a last resort, all should be able to do so freely and safely. So please vote and support it!!!

"The Peoples of the World Assembled"!?

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites must vote AGAINST this resolution. We feel that the World Assembly shouldn't be dictating marriage laws to it's members, and we certainly don't think that the WA should be dictating divorce laws.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

The Colony of Mooby the Yellow strongly supports this resolution. Any contract that two parties make should be dissoluble if those parties no longer wish to uphold it. Marriage, after all, is just a contract that says two consenting parties want to allow each other certain benefits, not some archaic special institution that some want to make it out to be.

The Colony of Mooby the Yellow strongly supports this resolution. Any contract that two parties make should be dissoluble if those parties no longer wish to uphold it. Marriage, after all, is just a contract that says two consenting parties want to allow each other certain benefits, not some archaic special institution that some want to make it out to be.


We could not agree more with the honoured Ambassador for Moob the Yellow, indeed if member states could look at the legal institution of marriage as an extension of contract law it might be easier for them to understand why this organisation has a right to regulate it.

Yours,

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites must vote AGAINST this resolution. We feel that the World Assembly shouldn't be dictating marriage laws to it's members, and we certainly don't think that the WA should be dictating divorce laws.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative
I concur with my colleague from Flibbleites. The People of Aundotutunagir have voted against this proposed resolution.

How is this passing? Every nation's culture should decide whether divorce should be legal, not a world mandate. This is infringing on nations' rights.

I agree with Aundotutunagir and Flibbleites.

Based on the vote of our region, and the stance taken by our Government on this matter, the Altani Federation will be voting against this resolution. While we do feel that people should be able to divorce if they wish, it is the belief of the Federation, and the region we reside in, that imposing international law on the subject of divorce is a step too far.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Proper marital relations are achieved by the observance of the proper social ethics; law can have no effect upon the harmony of the inner and outer quarters. Only the Dangjin Huangshang and the scholars of the Great Jin can understand the social effects of divorce and create law accordingly; how then can the Lianheguo think to legislate on such affairs?

The hare should not swim among the fish, nor should the painter offer advice on the affairs of the army. Why should the Lianheguo think to intrude upon the affairs of husband and wife?

Lǐ Hóngzhāng
Foreign Minister
Wàiwùbù shàngshū

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites must vote AGAINST this resolution. We feel that the World Assembly shouldn't be dictating marriage laws to it's members, and we certainly don't think that the WA should be dictating divorce laws.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I concur with my colleague from Flibbleites. The People of Aundotutunagir have voted against this proposed resolution.

How is this passing? Every nation's culture should decide whether divorce should be legal, not a world mandate. This is infringing on nations' rights.

I agree with Aundotutunagir and Flibbleites.

Based on the vote of our region, and the stance taken by our Government on this matter, the Altani Federation will be voting against this resolution. While we do feel that people should be able to divorce if they wish, it is the belief of the Federation, and the region we reside in, that imposing international law on the subject of divorce is a step too far.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Although I understand and have some respect for the concerns of national sovereignty, I beg other Ambassadors to look carefully at the proposed Resolution before voting against it.

The proposal does NOT micro-manage either marriage or divorce law of member nations.

What it does do is prevent the institution of marriage from becoming a form of slavery by allowing parties to the civil contract of marriage to dissolve said contract.

However we do urge the esteemed and respected Ambassador for Gobbannium to reconsider their vote, the statute does not preclude the possibility of such mediation services and it does require that divorces be settled equitably, requirement of which could easily involve the recommendation of formal mediation by a national court as a remedy for acrimony in divorce proceedings.
We fear the honoured ambassador misunderstands the nature of our problem. It is not that mediation cannot be applied to smooth the course of the divorce, though promptitude will strain such efforts; it is that counselling cannot be applied to prevent it. Consider:

2) Any of the parties to a marriage may ask for and obtain a lawful divorce in appropriate legal systems of the member state which they inhabit, which shall resolve such dissolutions fairly, equitably, and with promptitude.
Once the request has been made, the divorce will happen; we are given no latitude on that point. Even if the person making the request reconsiders and manages to restore union with their partner, they will still be forsworn. Should they choose to make this request before other services can be brought to their aid, this outcome is not unlikely.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites must vote AGAINST this resolution. We feel that the World Assembly shouldn't be dictating marriage laws to it's members, and we certainly don't think that the WA should be dictating divorce laws.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

I and my Region Vote against, for much the similar reason.

We fear the honoured ambassador misunderstands the nature of our problem. It is not that mediation cannot be applied to smooth the course of the divorce, though promptitude will strain such efforts; it is that counselling cannot be applied to prevent it. Consider:


Once the request has been made, the divorce will happen; we are given no latitude on that point. Even if the person making the request reconsiders and manages to restore union with their partner, they will still be forsworn. Should they choose to make this request before other services can be brought to their aid, this outcome is not unlikely.


Honoured and esteemed Ambassador the word "obtain " is qualified by the preceding "may", not "shall" not "will" and not "must" . So any party to a marriage "may obtain " a divorce. Nothing in that construction implies absolute inevitability.

In any event nothing in that wording precludes the cessation of proceedings in a divorce.

It must be considered though that the overwhelming majority of those couples who undertake the legal proceedings of a divorce will be anxious to have them not take any longer than necessary and nor will they appreciate any impediment to them. If such a reconciliation as the honoured Ambassador suggests is effected the statute does not preclude the cessation of the divorce.

And should the requirement of promptitude ( a virtue of this statute ) mean that the reconciliation occurs after the divorce is final, nothing is stopping the reconciled parties from re-marrying.


Yours,

We have to turn it down. There is no provision on forced marriages, it does not give the right tools for sovereign states to annul marriages that were formed in such ways.

We would prefer a much more basic law on tackling forced marriage than going deep into it.

We have to turn it down. There is no provision on forced marriages, it does not give the right tools for sovereign states to annul marriages that were formed in such ways.

We would prefer a much more basic law on tackling forced marriage than going deep into it.


The two issues are seperate but related honoured Ambassador, this statute is not dealing directly with "forced marriages" because it is a divorce law.

And in any case member states already have the power to annul forced marriages if they wish to, the w.a. does not need to give them the tools as you put it.

Yours,

We be voting against this. We not be liking the WA meddling with this issue since it's already forced marriage laws upon us. Part of the vows in Blasted Pirates be "til death do we part." not "until such a time that I no longer desire to be with you." I be urging all nations to reconsider their stance on this.

Arr.

Look this proposal is to controling, I think that it should the right for such a law to exist should be up to the nation's goverment to decide, not the World. This is neither wanted or needed and we should vote on something else.

Although I understand and have some respect for the concerns of national sovereignty, I beg other Ambassadors to look carefully at the proposed Resolution before voting against it.

The proposal does NOT micro-manage either marriage or divorce law of member nations.

What it does do is prevent the institution of marriage from becoming a form of slavery by allowing parties to the civil contract of marriage to dissolve said contract.Well, you could have affirmed the simple right to terminate a marriage without the silly "how-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb" instructions for resolving custody disputes and the division of assets. Really, I think nations already know to put the best interests of the child first and to use "appropriate legal systems" for dividing estates, etc. If the right to divorce was so important, you might have included a one-liner in the marriage-rights act, but you didn't. So instead we're given an excessive six-article law incorporating a veritable circus of unreadable prose in its text. You better believe we are opposing this.

Although I understand and have some respect for the concerns of national sovereignty, I beg other Ambassadors to look carefully at the proposed Resolution before voting against it.

The proposal does NOT micro-manage either marriage or divorce law of member nations.

What it does do is prevent the institution of marriage from becoming a form of slavery by allowing parties to the civil contract of marriage to dissolve said contract.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites currently doesn't have any divorce laws (or marriage laws for that matter) so this proposal forcing us to establish them is in fact micromanaging. Furthermore, we believe that the WA should be focusing on issues that are international in nature and divorce is not an international issue.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Well, you could have affirmed the simple right to terminate a marriage without the silly "how-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb" instructions for resolving custody disputes and the division of assets. Really, I think nations already know to put the best interests of the child first and to use "appropriate legal systems" for dividing estates, etc. If the right to divorce was so important, you might have included a one-liner in the marriage-rights act, but you didn't. So instead we're given an excessive six-article law incorporating a veritable circus of unreadable prose in its text. You better believe we are opposing this.


Is the honoured Ambassador for Cat-Tribe or indeed the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus at fault for not including a divorce clause in the Freedom of Marriage Act ?

Infact the oversight of their not being such a clause in any other statute rather makes the case for this resolution, seeing as it will rectify the ommission.

We agree with you about the wording in places though, and perhaps if it had been given more time before submission for approval such things might have been improved.


Yours,

Infact the oversight of their not being such a clause in any other statute rather makes the case for this resolution, seeing as it will rectify the ommission.



Why do we even need this? Honestly, this is grossly overstepping the bounds. There are nations out there that consider marriage "for life" and don't wish to make divorce or any sort of separation legal. Yet, here comes the WA saying everyone is entitled to a fair divorce trial. Really, this is totally uncalled for. To the author and their supporters, I can assure you there will be a movement to get this removed if it passes.

Respectfully,

William Young Manley Peterson, AKA WYMP
Deputy-Ambassador, Blasted Pirates

On the instructions of my homeland's government, I have cast the vote of the Bears Armed Mission AGAINST this proposal on the grounds that it goes too far into matters that should be determined nationally--or even more locally, as is the case in Bears Armed -- rather than by this international Assembly. Under the constitution of the Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed,in fact, contractural law is actually one of the matters that are reserved to the separate jursidictions of the many Clans and other Bodys rather than to the jurisdiction of the national government and so if this proposal does get passed then the national government of Bears Armed would be unable to comply with its terms.
Admittedly the national government of Bears Armed itself is no longer an actual member of this organisation, having resigned its seat (in favour of the now nominally-independent Mission that I have been chosen to lead) some time ago over the passage of another measure that intruded in this way, but if this proposal does pass then it will be yet another barrier that would need to fall before the nation of Bears Armed could re-join the Assembly.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
speaking for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

Marriage is a religious matter, not a political one. Divorce is something that should be handled by husband and wife, and no one else. By voting for this resolution, we set a dangerous precedent for increased foreign political intervention in the realm of religion. Couples already have the right to a divorce under sharia law, therefore let us not act as if that right is something provided by the state, and not Allah alone.

In our nation two can divorce, but this resolution would take away our traditional method of doing this. Also I'm sure this resolution strides way out of anything the WA should be involved in. To me it is a pity that this resolution even made it to the general vote. So in closing a vote "nay" is a vote for freedom.

Vladimir Noskbev
Lurikastani Ambassador to the WA general assembly,
speaking on behalf of PM Mikhail Petkov

In our nation two can divorce, but this resolution would take away our traditional method of doing this. Also I'm sure this resolution strides way out of anything the WA should be involved in. To me it is a pity that this resolution even made it to the general vote. So in closing a vote "nay" is a vote for freedom.


And yet, honoured Ambassador, this statute received strong support from delegates and seems to be rather popular with national delegations, is it so great a shame that democracy ( one of the principles of this organisation ) should be served ?


Yours,

Honored Ambassador,

We do not believe that the items outlined in this resolution are not necessarily that bad, but the passage of this resolution would pave the way for other similar resolutions that inhibit each member nation's government to govern their nation as they wish. It is a slippery slope, that we can't take the chance of going down.

Respectfully,

Vladimir Noskbev
Lurikastani Ambassador to the WA general assembly,
speaking on behalf of PM Mikhail Petkov

Honored Ambassador,

We do not believe that the items outlined in this resolution are not necessarily that bad, but the passage of this resolution would pave the way for other similar resolutions that inhibit each member nation's government to govern their nation as they wish. It is a slippery slope, that we can't take the chance of going down.

Respectfully,

Vladimir Noskbev
Lurikastani Ambassador to the WA general assembly,
speaking on behalf of PM Mikhail Petkov


Membership of this organisation implies that a nation is prepared to accept infringement of its national prerogative. It is telling that arguments of national sovereignty seem most popular when the issue at hand resembles anything of a moral nature, it suggests a double standard which we find illogical.

If this statute gravely compromised the actual ability of a member state to govern itself at all or massively abrogated national powers over large sectors of government responsibility we might understand, and indeed would be happy to support a position against it. However this statute does not do these things and it seems pointless to parade the dignity of nations before this organisation over such a small matter.


Yours,

my nation voted in favor because i liked what i saw and read

Vote against this! Freedom to Choose=Fail

Membership of this organisation implies that a nation is prepared to accept infringement of its national prerogative. It is telling that arguments of national sovereignty seem most popular when the issue at hand resembles anything of a moral nature, it suggests a double standard which we find illogical.

If this statute gravely compromised the actual ability of a member state to govern itself at all or massively abrogated national powers over large sectors of government responsibility we might understand, and indeed would be happy to support such a position. However this statute does not do these things and it seems pointless to parade the dignity of nations before this organisation over such a small matter.


Yours,

When you bring up morality you also bring up the fact that the WA nor any government of any sort (NS or RL) should regulate morality. I do believe it is way out of line to do so. I don't get why any government would want some big conglomerate of nations telling them what to do on moral grounds, as much as you wish it so it just isn't the WA's jurisdiction.

Vladimir Noskbev
Lurikastani Ambassador to the WA general assembly,
speaking on behalf of PM Mikhail Petkov

I do believe it is way out of line to do so. I don't get why any government would want some big conglomerate of nations telling them what to do on moral grounds, as much as you wish it so it just isn't the WA's jurisdiction.



In this particular detail the honoured Ambassador could not be more wrong, the World Assembly's "jurisdiction" is exactly whatever its member nations wish it to be, if they vote for statutes of the kind we are discussing then that is the only mandate that is needed.


Yours,

All I can say to close is there is no reason for the WA to legislate morality ever, and voting nay is the only correct course of action.


Vladimir Noskbev
Lurikastani Ambassador to the WA general assembly,
speaking on behalf of PM Mikhail Petkov

Marriage is a religious matter, not a political one. Divorce is something that should be handled by husband and wife, and no one else. By voting for this resolution, we set a dangerous precedent for increased foreign political intervention in the realm of religion. Couples already have the right to a divorce under sharia law, therefore let us not act as if that right is something provided by the state, and not Allah alone.

I believe the resolution is rather specific in only dealing with civil institutions of marriage and leaving religious beliefs, procedures, and rites alone.

So in closing a vote "nay" is a vote for freedom.


Freedom to do what? Freedom for whom?

Apparently you are fighting for the freedom of nations to deny basic freedoms to their inhabitants. Color me unpersuaded.

When you bring up morality you also bring up the fact that the WA nor any government of any sort (NS or RL) should regulate morality. I do believe it is way out of line to do so. I don't get why any government would want some big conglomerate of nations telling them what to do on moral grounds, as much as you wish it so it just isn't the WA's jurisdiction.

Meh. Your suggestion is itself a moral stance, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Although you may argue that such matters should not be legislated by the WA, there can be no doubt that the jurisdiction of the WA extends to such matters if the majority of voting nations says it does.

All I can say to close is there is no reason for the WA to legislate morality ever, and voting nay is the only correct course of action.

By this logic, the correct course of action on every proposed resolution is "nay." (And, as I said, that in and of itself is taking a moral position.)

Well, you could have affirmed the simple right to terminate a marriage without the silly "how-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb" instructions for resolving custody disputes and the division of assets. Really, I think nations already know to put the best interests of the child first and to use "appropriate legal systems" for dividing estates, etc. If the right to divorce was so important, you might have included a one-liner in the marriage-rights act, but you didn't. So instead we're given an excessive six-article law incorporating a veritable circus of unreadable prose in its text. You better believe we are opposing this.

We agree to disagree with you regarding this resolution, but add further comments for the benefit of other nations who might be on the fence. :wink:

1. Too bad you didn't raise these objections during the drafting phase of the resolution. Perhaps if this resolution does not pass you can suggest better language. (Unless your real objection has nothing to do with the actual language, but the principle behind the resolution).

2. Neither I nor the author of this resolution authored the Freedom of Marriage Act. In fact, I wasn't active in the WA when it was passed. Regardless, your argument is an irrelevant non sequitur.

3. The resolution really doesn't involve that much meddling. What you call micromanaging instructions are litle more than definitions of what an equitable divorce looks like. (And, fwiw, most of these provisions were added or kept because other nations specifically wanted them included).

4. If nations already look to the best interest of the child regarding custody and already use appropriate legal systems to divide estates equitably, then what the hell are you complaining about? The resolution apparently only codifies what you say is already normal practice (which makes your complaint about "'how-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb' instructions" itself a bit silly).

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites currently doesn't have any divorce laws (or marriage laws for that matter) so this proposal forcing us to establish them is in fact micromanaging. Furthermore, we believe that the WA should be focusing on issues that are international in nature and divorce is not an international issue.

Fair enough, but I must point out that if (despite the Freedom of Marriage Act) your nation has no marriage laws then you have no need for divorce laws and this resolution doesn't force you to do anything.

All I can say to close is there is no reason for the WA to legislate morality ever, and voting nay is the only correct course of action.


Vladimir Noskbev
Lurikastani Ambassador to the WA general assembly,
speaking on behalf of PM Mikhail Petkov


In fact the w.a. is not legislating for morality honoured Ambassador, it is in fact legislating for the dissolution of a specific form of legal contract which it seems only fair the inhabitants of w.a. member states should have the right to dissolve if they so wish.


Yours,

In fact the w.a. is not legislating for morality honoured Ambassador, it is in fact legislating for the dissolution of a specific form of legal contract which it seems only fair the inhabitants of w.a. member states should have the right to dissolve if they so wish.


Yours,

Morals aside, is this really something that should be dealt with on this level? Since when, aside from the Freedom of Marriage, is marriage an international issue? I can't tell you how many times I've heard of husbands rallying in the streets of Blasted Pirates begging for a way out of a marriage turned sour. And if you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.

The fact is this, yes the WA can do as it pleases within reason. But, we need to draw the line somewhere. Today, everyone is entitled to the right to divorce. Tomorrow, all males are required to attend a Kumbaya session every other Tuesday to deminish spousal abuse. If we as an organization don't hold enough faith in our member nations to handle something as simple as marriage, what the hell is the point in giving nations any rights at all? Why don't we just pass a resolution saying the WA has sminent domain over all sovereign issues?

Respectfully,

WYMP

Is the honoured Ambassador for Cat-Tribe or indeed the honoured Ambassador for Sionis Prioratus at fault for not including a divorce clause in the Freedom of Marriage Act ?I cannot fault them, but I can fault you. If I recall correctly, you were intimately involved in both drafts -- if the international "right" to divorce was so important to you, why not just slip it into the first resolution? You could have saved us five days of inane debate.

1. Too bad you didn't raise these objections during the drafting phase of the resolution. *snipped irrelevance*I didn't have a computer when this was being drafted; this resolution's reaching quorum was a complete surprise to me.

3. The resolution really doesn't involve that much meddling. What you call micromanaging instructions are litle more than definitions of what an equitable divorce looks like. (And, fwiw, most of these provisions were added or kept because other nations specifically wanted them included).

4. If nations already look to the best interest of the child regarding custody and already use appropriate legal systems to divide estates equitably, then what the hell are you complaining about? The resolution apparently only codifies what you say is already normal practice (which makes your complaint about "'how-to-screw-in-a-lightbulb' instructions" itself a bit silly).Oh, really? Most nations outlaw murder. Do we need a resolution mandating that nations do so? (Hint: the UN already tried it, and was shot down.) Most nations outlaw jaywalking. Do we need a resolution on that also? What about stop signs? They're red in most nations, aren't they? Let's make a resolution requiring such! I mean this is all "already normal practice" in member states, so passing it wouldn't be a complete waste of time, now would it?

I cannot fault them, but I can fault you. If I recall correctly, you were intimately involved in both drafts -- if the international "right" to divorce was so important to you, why not just slip it into the first resolution? You could have saved us five days of inane debate.

Indeed we are happy to absorb the honoured Ambassador's ire and to accept that an omission of a provision for divorce was a significant oversight in the FoMA. We would demur from accepting the entire responsibility since the respected delegation of Mendosia was possessed of a very strong view of what their legislative mission was to be, and that we did in fact urge them to include provision for divorce in their statute.

The respected Mendosian delegation refused our suggestion on the basis that theirs was a freedom of marriage statute which must adequately deal with such freedom before it could deal with a right to obtain a divorce and that including such a provision might in fact preclude the possibility of getting their statute on the books by it having one controversial provision too many. A contention we did not concur with we might add.

But the omission of this provision within that act makes the vote on this statute all the more needful, especially since there are now so many more kinds of marriage which will be legally recognised than before, making this statute truly universal in scope and not merely confined in effect to one section of member state's populations.


I didn't have a computer when this was being drafted; this resolution's reaching quorum was a complete surprise to me.


The popularity of this statute, despite some of its faults, and the enthusiasm with which it was approved were a surprise to us also, and indeed this enthusiasm rather makes the case that the membership of this organisation was anxious to see a law of this kind brought to vote.

Whether this is the best law of its kind might be debatable but the desire of the w.a. 's membership to see a law of this kind brought in to effect seems beyond doubt.

Yours,

Morals aside, is this really something that should be dealt with on this level? Since when, aside from the Freedom of Marriage, is marriage an international issue? I can't tell you how many times I've heard of husbands rallying in the streets of Blasted Pirates begging for a way out of a marriage turned sour. And if you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic.

The fact is this, yes the WA can do as it pleases within reason. But, we need to draw the line somewhere. Today, everyone is entitled to the right to divorce. Tomorrow, all males are required to attend a Kumbaya session every other Tuesday to deminish spousal abuse. If we as an organization don't hold enough faith in our member nations to handle something as simple as marriage, what the hell is the point in giving nations any rights at all? Why don't we just pass a resolution saying the WA has sminent domain over all sovereign issues?

Respectfully,

WYMP



By your own standard, honoured Ambassador, were the recently ratified fair trial laws of international importance ? Indeed are a substantial portion of the laws already promulgated by this organisation ?

We agree that a line must be drawn between the effective power of the world assembly and the right and more importantly the ability of its members to actually govern themselves. Where this line is drawn though rather depends on what one considers to be a matter which compromises national self governance and a matter which does not.

But that would rather beg question of why the honoured Ambassador for Blasted Pirates is so exercised over this particular statute and not for instance the anti piracy laws this organisation introduced some time ago. These laws not only presumably alienated his nation from its primary source of enrichment but probably also undermined its traditional way of life and deeply compromised its mode of governance, which is to ignore the very grave threat that statute represented to the national security and the very lives of the citizens of the entire membership of this organisation.


Why is national prerogative so vital to the honoured Ambassador in what he sees as the only slightly significant and narrow area of divorce and yet is of no account whatever in relation to a statute which presumably undermines the entire foundation of culture and governance of his nation ?


Yours,

By your own standard, honoured Ambassador, were the recently ratified fair trial laws of international importance ? Indeed are a substantial portion of the laws already promulgated by this organisation ?

And if the Ambassador would care to look at our voting history they would note that we voted against that measure.

10 days ago: Blasted Pirates voted against the World Assembly Resolution "Fairness in Criminal Trials".

The fact that this proposal is so popular is meaningless. I could draft a proposal with a title along the lines of "Free Teddy Bears for All." And I can almost guarantee it would pass in a landslide, despite the fact that it's body contained wording that made gambling legal. So long as teddy bears get dispursed, it would be passed.

We agree that a line must be drawn between the effective power of the world assembly and the right and more importantly the ability of its members to actually govern themselves. Where this line is drawn though rather depends on what one considers to be a matter which compromises national self governance and a matter which does not.

That's the smartest thing I've heard from you since my nation joined the WA.

But that would rather beg question of why the honoured Ambassador for Blasted Pirates is so exercised over this particular statute and not for instance the anti piracy laws this organisation introduced some time ago. These laws not only presumably alienated his nation from its primary source of enrichment but probably also undermined its traditional way of life and deeply compromised its mode of governance, which is to ignore the very grave threat that statute represented to the national security and the very lives of the citizens of the entire membership of this organisation.

Don't you dare try to change the subject. We have been working tirelessly to find a way to have that statute removed, and frankly that is of little importance to this discussion. If I were to take this route, I would question your motivation for voting on every HR resolution despite the breech of sovereignty. You and others like you don't care about what a nation perceives as right, so long as it agrees with what your ideals are. Whereas sovereigntists prefer to see each nation maintain their individuality.


Why is national prerogative so vital to the honoured Ambassador in what he sees as the only slightly significant and narrow area of divorce and yet is of no account whatever in relation to a statute which presumably undermines the entire foundation of culture and governance of his nation ?


Yours,

Because, Ambassador, this is the first step on the proverbial "slippery slope" as the Ambassador from OMGTKK stated, what comes next? If the way trials are handled, marriages, divorces etc, are all regulated by the WA what is to stop them from using that momentum to basically take control of all nations. We feel that there are several instances where the WA has overstepped its bounds and we'll be damned if we will sit idely by and let them do it again.

I would only pronounce myself again with final returns, and the final veredict of victory or defeat, but...

The fact that this proposal is so popular is meaningless. I could draft a proposal with a title along the lines of "Free Teddy Bears for All." And I can almost guarantee it would pass in a landslide, despite the fact that it's body contained wording that made gambling legal. So long as teddy bears get dispursed, it would be passed.

Teddy Bears = Divorce = Gambling.

Wow.

I would only pronounce myself again with final returns, and the final veredict of victory or defeat, but...



Teddy Bears = Divorce = Gambling.

Wow.

It's been tried before, and had quite a following.

The fact that this proposal is so popular is meaningless. I could draft a proposal with a title along the lines of "Free Teddy Bears for All." And I can almost guarantee it would pass in a landslide, despite the fact that it's body contained wording that made gambling legal. So long as teddy bears get dispursed, it would be passed.

By this line of reasoning it would make more sense to run the w.a. by executive and eliminate the democratic process altogether. Would the honoured Ambassador be happy if this logic were used to undermine the passage of a statute they supported ?

That's the smartest thing I've heard from you since my nation joined the WA.

We would thank you for this compliment if it were meant as such.



Don't you dare try to change the subject. We have been working tirelessly to find a way to have that statute removed, and frankly that is of little importance to this discussion.


Please do not tell us what to dare to do, honoured Ambassador, we are not obliged to heed your commands.

The matter of the piracy laws is absolutely to the point, since it marks an example of a statute which radically compromised national sovereignty and national security in ways this statute never could. It may be the case that your delegation has worked tirelessly ( evidence for which is scant ) for the repeal of Resolution #20 but it is certainly not the case for your NatSov co-religionists many of whom were ardent supporters of that statute, in flagrant contradiction of their avowed beliefs.



If I were to take this route, I would question your motivation for voting on every HR resolution despite the breech of sovereignty. You and others like you don't care about what a nation perceives as right, so long as it agrees with what your ideals are. Whereas sovereigntists prefer to see each nation maintain their individuality.

If by "individuality" the honoured Ambassador means pernicious practices aimed at suppressing human freedom and marginalisation of minorities then we are happy to have been involved in making such practices illegal. Humanity is not divisible by nationality, and the rights pertaining to humanity are no less divisible.



Because, Ambassador, this is the first step on the proverbial "slippery slope" as the Ambassador from OMGTKK stated, what comes next? If the way trials are handled, marriages, divorces etc, are all regulated by the WA what is to stop them from using that momentum to basically take control of all nations. We feel that there are several instances where the WA has overstepped its bounds and we'll be damned if we will sit idely by and let them do it again.


This is scaremongering, why pick one of the least instances of infringement of national prerogative to make so much protest and not the more flagrant and fundamental examples ?

The reason we ask is because national sovereignty seems the default argument which is used to oppose any statute of a social nature no matter how slight the effect, while statutes which have radical effects on national self governance but are not of a social nature rarely raise a peep from doctrinaire National Sovereigntists.

It suggests that the real political divide within this organisation is between socially conservative states happy to allow oppression and injustice in the name of national "individuality" but who are happy to ignore such individuality for other purposes and those states which maintain that laws which promote common decency and compassion are those which it is most vital to impose on national prerogative while being carefull in maintaining the overall integrity of national self governance in most other areas.

Yours,

The matter of the piracy laws is absolutely to the point, since it marks an example of a statute which radically compromised national sovereignty and national security in ways this statute never could. It may be the case that your delegation has worked tirelessly ( evidence for which is scant ) for the repeal of Resolution #20 but it is certainly not the case for your NatSov co-religionists many of whom were ardent supporters of that statute, in flagrant contradiction of their avowed beliefs.
You think that you know what the 'National Sovereignty' movement stands for? You're wrong!
The governments within that movement do accept that some legislation can and even should be made on an international basis -- otherwise, obviously, there would be no point in their having joined this organisation (or its precursor) in the first place... BUT they believe that that international legislation of a mandatory nature should generally* be limited to those matters that actually require cooperation between nations, or matters in which one nation's actions would have direct effects on other nations (and not just on any visitors to their territories from those other nations, either...), whilst everything else should be left to the national level for determination.
Dealing with international piracy is clearly, of necessity, an international matter.
Marriage and divorce, given that any nation's own policies on such matters would have no direct effects on any other nation, is not.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly,
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

________________________________________________________

* Many of those national governments do, however, make exceptions to this rule for the MOST fundamental of sapient rights such as freedom from slavery, or the right to "vote with your feet" by emigrating.

By this line of reasoning it would make more sense to run the w.a. by executive and eliminate the democratic process altogether. Would the honoured Ambassador be happy if this logic were used to undermine the passage of a statute they supported ?

That is not what we are suggesting, we are saying that most simply look at the title and vote accordingly which doesn't necessarily mean they fully support this, it just means they like the way it sounds. Most don't take into consideration the ramifications as some of us here do. The VRA comes to mind.

We would thank you for this compliment if it were meant as such.

You can take that for what you will. I'm not as piratey as other members of this delegation. :wink:

Please do not tell us what to dare to do, honoured Ambassador, we are not obliged to heed your commands.

The matter of the piracy laws is absolutely to the point, since it marks an example of a statute which radically compromised national sovereignty and national security in ways this statute never could. It may be the case that your delegation has worked tirelessly ( evidence for which is scant ) for the repeal of Resolution #20 but it is certainly not the case for your NatSov co-religionists many of whom were ardent supporters of that statute, in flagrant contradiction of their avowed beliefs.

Fine, but you are trying to change the face of this argument by questioning our ideals which we have been consistant in since we joined.

As for evidence on our efforts to remove the piracy act, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean we haven't been working on it. It is a matter that will take some time before we feel it appropriate to present before this body. Your accusation that natsovists supported R20 is also without merit since I have checked the records to see if your argument holds water, which it doesn't. Might I also remind that it passed by a slim majority, so they weren't exactly thrilled to see such a measure.

If by "individuality" the honoured Ambassador means pernicious practices aimed at suppressing human freedom and marginalisation of minorities then we are happy to have been involved in making such practices illegal. Humanity is not divisible by nationality, and the rights pertaining to humanity are no less divisible.

Oh now you're twisting my words around to paint my people as the scum of the earth. Although, they are pirates. But that's beside the point. It seems like everytime those that support these type of proposals encounter someone that doesn't like them that automatically means they favor "...practices aimed at suppressing human freedom and marginalisation of minorities...." Really Ambassador, those people do exist, but to say that anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you exhibits these behavoirs is just ludacris.

This is scaremongering, why pick one of the least instances of infringement of national prerogative to make so much protest and not the more flagrant and fundamental examples ?

Say what you like, but it's the truth.

The reason we ask is because national sovereignty seems the default argument which is used to oppose any statute of a social nature no matter how slight the effect, while statutes which have radical effects on national self governance but are not of a social nature rarely raise a peep from doctrinaire National Sovereigntists.

It suggests that the real political divide within this organisation is between socially conservative states happy to allow oppression and injustice in the name of national "individuality" but who are happy to ignore such individuality for other purposes and those states which maintain that laws which promote common decency and compassion are those which it is most vital to impose on national prerogative while being carefull in maintaining the overall integrity of national self governance in most other areas.

Yours,

St. Edmund has expressed out views of this, so we will not repeat them. We will say that your view of NatSov is fundamentally wrong.

You think that you know what the 'National Sovereignty' movement stands for? You're wrong!
The governments within that movement do accept that some legislation can and even should be made on an international basis -- otherwise, obviously, there would be no point in their having joined this organisation (or its precursor) in the first place... BUT they believe that that international legislation of a mandatory nature should generally* be limited to those matters that actually require cooperation between nations, or matters in which one nation's actions would have direct effects on other nations (and not just on any visitors to their territories from those other nations, either...), whilst everything else should be left to the national level for determination.
Dealing with international piracy is clearly, of necessity, an international matter.
Marriage and divorce, given that any nation's own policies on such matters would have no direct effects on any other nation, is not.


Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD,
Chief Observer at the World Assembly,
for
The Kingdom of St Edmund.

________________________________________________________

* Many of those national governments do, however, make exceptions to this rule for the MOST fundamental of sapient rights such as freedom from slavery, or the right to "vote with your feet" by emigrating.




This description is within a hairs breadth of of being exactly what we described ourselves. The only major difference between the two is that our is rather more realistic.

No "movement" worth the name exists of National Sovereigntist states, all that is left is a disparate and ad hoc collection of nations, some of whom are motivated by the most appalling policies who don the cloak of national sovereigntism simply to disguise their reactionary and socially conservative views.

This business of what national sovereigntists believe it is right for the w.a. to legislate on is hypocrisy of the highest order. The piracy laws allow foreign nations to enter other member state's waters and to violate their territory and to attack and kill indiscriminately without fear of justice, how this represents "international cooperation" is beyond us but proscribing a legal form of slavery, which marriage without the prospect of dissolution is, is somehow a dreadful violation of sovereignty.

None of the entirely arbitrary distinctions made by national sovereigntist states stand up to scrutiny. They are based on partiality and the morally bankrupt notion that human beings or their analogues are somehow intrinsically different according to where they happen to have been born.

In this case the statute is attempting to right the omission of not including a right to divorce in the FoMA, essentially this is merely an addendum to that law. Why this is so much more offensive than making laws for emigration is inexplicable, and in fact "the right to vote with your feet" would seem to us to represent a far more intrinsically controversial subject than the right to dissolve a specific form of legal contract.


Yours,

That is not what we are suggesting, we are saying that most simply look at the title and vote accordingly which doesn't necessarily mean they fully support this, it just means they like the way it sounds. Most don't take into consideration the ramifications as some of us here do. The VRA comes to mind.

And we could point to numerous examples of good statutes passed by this organisation which we would suggest it ratified because it is sensible to its responsibilities. We have no way of proving which of us is right which is why it was pointless of your delegation to raise this argument.



Fine, but you are trying to change the face of this argument by questioning our ideals which we have been consistant in since we joined.

It is not the ideals we question, it is there practical effect.

As for evidence on our efforts to remove the piracy act, just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean we haven't been working on it. It is a matter that will take some time before we feel it appropriate to present before this body. Your accusation that natsovists supported R20 is also without merit since I have checked the records to see if your argument holds water, which it doesn't. Might I also remind that it passed by a slim majority, so they weren't exactly thrilled to see such a measure.

We said the evidence was scant honoured Ambassador not non-existent, we accept your word in the matter and commend you for your endeavour. This does not change the fact that numerous national sovereigntist states voted for the piracy laws and other laws injurious to national sovereignty, even though they went quite beyond the stated bounds as outlined by honoured Ambassador Sweynnson.


Oh now you're twisting my words around to paint my people as the scum of the earth. Although, they are pirates. But that's beside the point. It seems like everytime those that support these type of proposals encounter someone that doesn't like them that automatically means they favor "...practices aimed at suppressing human freedom and marginalisation of minorities...." Really Ambassador, those people do exist, but to say that anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with you exhibits these behavoirs is just ludacris.

We are not painting you into the corner you imagine honoured Ambassador, it is merely the end result of following your own logic to its fullest extent.

And nowhere did we say that any state which disagrees with us is in favour of practices aimed at suppressing human freedom and marginalisation of minorities, those are your words not ours.

To employ your own trick honoured Ambassador we could say that we are capable of disagreeing with a law without having to pretend that it is a secret plot to take over the world assembly by some cabal as you do, but we choose not to use such trickery.



Say what you like, but it's the truth.

We will say as we wish, and point out that your assertion on this point is a logical and actual fallacy.



St. Edmund has expressed out views of this, so we will not repeat them. We will say that your view of NatSov is fundamentally wrong.


It is not wrong just it is just different, a principle we imagine you would approve of honoured Ambassador, no ?


Yours,

*snip*Well, you're certainly free to cluck incessantly about national sovereignty when the subject is the piracy act or international trade...

Let's discuss hypocrisy some more, shall we?

That is not what we are suggesting, we are saying that most simply look at the title and vote accordingly which doesn't necessarily mean they fully support this, it just means they like the way it sounds. Most don't take into consideration the ramifications as some of us here do.

Denigrating Ambassadors who have approved of the Draft by calling them dumb, or not as enlightened as you and your colleagues fathom yourselves...

Not exactly an appropiate way of trying to convince of your arguments.

It is the height of hubris, and diplomacy at its worst.

From what I have been reading at RMB's, most NatSov's do not even look at the title. It's been going along the lines: "Another Human Rights' Resolution!?!? Shoot the damned bitch down!!!! Did anyone see the title, by the way?"

We said the evidence was scant honoured Ambassador not non-existent, we accept your word in the matter and commend you for your endeavour. This does not change the fact that numerous national sovereigntist states voted for the piracy laws and other laws injurious to national sovereignty, even though they went quite beyond the stated bounds as outlined by honoured Ambassador Sweynnson.

Again, as you say, your evidence is scant at best. I'm sure there were some that did, but I can bet you the majority of them opposed it.

We are not painting you into the corner you imagine honoured Ambassador, it is merely the end result of following your own logic to its fullest extent.

And nowhere did we say that any state which disagrees with us is in favour of practices aimed at suppressing human freedom and marginalisation of minorities, those are your words not ours.

You may not have said it, but that is what your record of debate in these halls indicate.


We will say as we wish, and point out that your assertion on this point is a logical and actual fallacy.

Then we'll agree to disagree. But you just wait, there's going to be more of them. The same thing happened in the organization that dare not be named. It's only a matter of time.


Well, you're certainly free to cluck incessantly about national sovereignty when the subject is the piracy act or international trade...

Let's discuss hypocrisy some more, shall we?

Thank you, now I don't have to read back through that debate again.

Well, you're certainly free to cluck incessantly about national sovereignty when the subject is the piracy act or international trade...

Let's discuss hypocrisy some more, shall we?


Is this the limit of Omigodtheykilledkenny's honoured delegation's contribution ?

Sniping has become its habit then is it, and the habit of dispute by argumentation what of that ?


Yours,

Again, as you say, your evidence is scant at best. I'm sure there were some that did, but I can bet you the majority of them opposed it.

Bet with us all you wish, the debate on that issue shows exactly how the lots were cast.



You may not have said it, but that is what your record of debate in these halls indicate.

Rubbish honoured Ambassador, we nowhere said what you accuse us of saying, to continue to accuse us of this is dishonest and calumniating.




Then we'll agree to disagree. But you just wait, there's going to be more of them. The same thing happened in the organization that dare not be named. It's only a matter of time.

What dire warnings, why should we believe that the mistakes commited in the ancestor organisation of the w.a. will undoubtedly be repeated by it ?





Yours,

We've said our peace on the topic at vote, and our vote stands. And we will certainly not submit to any (hilariously ironic) lectures about "sniping" from any delegation in this august body, least of all yours.

We've said our peace on the topic at vote, and our vote stands. And we will certainly not submit to any (hilariously ironic) lectures about "sniping" from any delegation in this august body, least of all yours.



Ironic honoured Ambassador ? There was nothing Ironic about anything we said, and a few lines can hardly be considered a lecture.

Perhaps you have come to believe yourselves beyond dispute and no longer see the need to defend your accusations, very well you are entitled to believe that if you wish.


Yours,

Bet with us all you wish, the debate on that issue shows exactly how the lots were cast.

That's funny, really. I've been there, seen that and totally disagree with what you're saying.

Rubbish honoured Ambassador, we nowhere said what you accuse us of saying, to continue to accuse us of this is dishonest and calumniating.

My appologies, it was not your delegation we were thinking of.

What dire warnings, why should we believe that the mistakes commited in the ancestor organisation of the w.a. will undoubtedly be repeated by it ?

Yours,

Because a good many of those who penned them are still here.

Captain Dawson slowly lifted himself from the floor full of rage.

Damnit!!!! What do a man need do to get some sleep around here!!! WYMP, you've told them why we be opposing now shut up! Can't bloody sleep with all this arguing going one. And where's my rum!!!!

He slammed his hook down into the desk again and tried violently to remove it.

Honored Ambassadors, I'm sure we can agree to disagree without getting all huffy.

I am highly amused however that some of those identifying themselves with the Nat Sov movement have shown such contempt for the judgment of their fellow WA member nations. There is something contradictory about insisting that each nation should be trusted to take care of its own citizens while maintaining that these same nations can't be trusted to vote wisely on WA resolutions.

The region of Equinox has directed me to vote AGAINST this resolution, mainly on the grounds that this is an issue best dealt with on the national level, rather than the world level.

Honoured and esteemed Ambassador the word "obtain " is qualified by the preceding "may", not "shall" not "will" and not "must" . So any party to a marriage "may obtain " a divorce. Nothing in that construction implies absolute inevitability.
The honoured khan is quite wrong, we fear. The preceding "may" qualifies the construction "ask for and obtain"; the grouping makes it quite clear that asking and obtaining is all of a piece, and that optionality begins and ends with the asking. Were the other reading correct, the proposal would be entirely futile, and most certainly not Significant, since any nation could define its appropriate legal processes to consist solely of refusal.

The honoured khan is quite wrong, we fear. The preceding "may" qualifies the construction "ask for and obtain"; the grouping makes it quite clear that asking and obtaining is all of a piece, and that optionality begins and ends with the asking. Were the other reading correct, the proposal would be entirely futile, and most certainly not Significant, since any nation could define its appropriate legal processes to consist solely of refusal.


Indeed not honoured Ambassador, the optionality begins with asking and ends with obtaining the grouping of "ask for and obtain" does not indicate a unitary nature simply an equally optional one. One may ask for and one may obtain a divorce if one wishes such.

Yours,

This is an Outrage! Marriage Is Sacred! It Sould be bound my Law!!!!

I am highly amused however that some of those identifying themselves with the Nat Sov movement have shown such contempt for the judgment of their fellow WA member nations. There is something contradictory about insisting that each nation should be trusted to take care of its own citizens while maintaining that these same nations can't be trusted to vote wisely on WA resolutions.
OOC: 'Max Barry Day', anybody? ;)

OOC: 'Max Barry Day', anybody? ;)

A jar of honey fo you.

OOC: 'Max Barry Day', anybody? ;)

Um. Read my point again. Your whole Nat Sov argument is based on the idea that those that voted for "Max Barry Day" should be trusted to care for their own citizens without "interference" from the rest of us. Try explaining that logic without putting your foot in your mouth.

It was a joke. Whyn't you go and pull that stick out of your ass? :rolleyes:

It was a joke. Whyn't you go and pull that stick out of your ass? :rolleyes:

Apparently the Ambassador thinks personal insults substitute for substantive discussion and/or humor. That is unfortunate. :rolleyes:

Although the response was humorous, it was also intended to make a point. I responded to that point. I guess I should have put "LOL" first, to show I "got the joke" and placate my fellow Ambassadors. Mea cupla. :wink:

Apparently the Ambassador thinks personal insults substitute for substantive discussion and/or humor. That is unfortunate. :rolleyes:"Substantive discussion"? Forgive me, I thought your were just trying to be a smart-ass. I was simply returning the favor.

"Substantive discussion"? Forgive me, I thought your were just trying to be a smart-ass. I was simply returning the favor.

Obviously no one that disagrees with the Nat Sov philosophy can be serious OR funny. :eek::p

"Substantive discussion"? Forgive me, I thought your were just trying to be a smart-ass. I was simply returning the favor.

What is this fixation the honoured Ambassador seems to have with the posterior portions of other Ambassador's bodies ? Or is he refering to the Wild Ass or its domestic cousin the Donkey ?


Yours,

here is my take on the subject, if we make divorce illegal, not completely illegal, mind, just illegal untill any and all children that are direct descendants of the parents (ie. the married people in question) turn 18 and officially become adults (assuming adult age is 18 in the country in question), then it would bring an end to broken homes, and would most definetly make people think before having children, and therefore , help control over population.

since there is not really any "on the fence" vote, i will have to vote against this resolution, and for the sake of the children, i would advise you do the same

Um. Read my point again. Your whole Nat Sov argument is based on the idea that those that voted for "Max Barry Day" should be trusted to care for their own citizens without "interference" from the rest of us. Try explaining that logic without putting your foot in your mouth.No, it's based on the fact that my own government can be trusted to look after our own people a lot better than the sorts of governments & ambassadors who vote for proposals like that...

No, it's based on the fact that my own government can be trusted to look after our own people a lot better than the sorts of governments & ambassadors who vote for proposals like that...

See, I think that you just revealed the true agenda of the Nat Sov movement -- it is not a concern for national sovereignty in general but a desire to both belong to the WA and not have to comply with decisions of the WA regarding the management of one's nation.

Regardless, this point seems to be a bit odd coming from someone whose nation is NOT A MEMBER OF THE WA. Unless I am mistaken about that, your nation is never effected by WA resolutions.

Further, while you seem to manage your nation well with a due respect for freedom and individual dignity, other nations do not. I happen to believe that inalienable rights are matters of international concern. I fully understand that others may have a different opinion, and that is why we are having this debate.

here is my take on the subject, if we make divorce illegal, not completely illegal, mind, just illegal untill any and all children that are direct descendants of the parents (ie. the married people in question) turn 18 and officially become adults (assuming adult age is 18 in the country in question), then it would bring an end to broken homes, and would most definetly make people think before having children, and therefore , help control over population.

since there is not really any "on the fence" vote, i will have to vote against this resolution, and for the sake of the children, i would advise you do the same

I understand the Ambassador's concerns, but the idea that children are better off if estranged (or even violently opposed) parents are forced to remain married is mistaken. Although divorce can be hard on children, it can also be a boon to children. To take an extreme example, think of households in which there is abuse or domestic violence.

OOC: Man, I'm just so glad this is going to end in a matter of hours now. Both speeches are ready already.

See, I think that you just revealed the true agenda of the Nat Sov movement -- it is not a concern for national sovereignty in general but a desire to both belong to the WA and not have to comply with decisions of the WA regarding the management of one's nation.No, that sounds more like the agenda of Gatesville. The "true agenda" of the "NatSov" movement is to limit the WA to issues of genuine international import -- and you can understand why many here do not count divorce among them. If you want to read up more on sovereigntism and the sovereigntist movement, I suggest you peruse the stickies. I think we've heard enough federalist superiority for one debate.

No, that sounds more like the agenda of Gatesville. The "true agenda" of the "NatSov" movement is to limit the WA to issues of genuine international import -- and you can understand why many here do not count divorce among them. If you want to read up more on sovereigntism and the sovereigntist movement, I suggest you peruse the stickies. I think we've heard enough federalist superiority for one debate.

*sigh*

We will have to agree to disagree and will no doubt debate similar issues in the future.

For the record, I have long been absent from active participation in the WA, but I am no newbie and I am well-familiar with the NatSov arguments. I do share your recommendation that member nations read Hotrodia's excellent treatise on National Sovereignty (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11280700&postcount=4)--even if I don't complete agree with its assumptions.

EDIT: I hope my fellow Ambassadors will forgive my hubris and often grating style. At least most of the time, I don't really mean to say or imply that those that disagree with me are either idiots or evil, but I do sometimes fall into that trap in the heat of the moment. Obviously, the WA is full of diverse opinions and those that do not match mine are neither necessarily invalid nor necessarily ill-motivated. To the extent I have said or implied otherwise, I apologize.

Regardless, this point seems to be a bit odd coming from someone whose nation is NOT A MEMBER OF THE WA. Unless I am mistaken about that, your nation is never effected by WA resolutions.Our nation was a member of this Assembly, for a while, but had to leave when a resolution that the High Council of Clans could not legitimately ratify under our constitution was passed: We have since declared our 'Mission' here (http://www.nationstates.net/bears_armed_mission) to be a separate 'nation' for legal purposes, following a well-established precedent that we would not have been the first government to attempt but consider it acceptable to follow, so that we can legally continue to have a voice in this organisation's doings, because _
a/ We comply voluntarily with those resolutions that are compatible with our constitution, if their wording does not make doing so pointless for non-member nations.
b/ We are not entirely ruling out the possibility of the home nation itself re-joining the WA at some future date, if the body of international law involved can be brought into a condition that would be acceptable under our constitution.


Further, while you seem to manage your nation well with a due respect for freedom and individual dignity, other nations do not. I happen to believe that inalienable rights are matters of international concern.And unfortunately quite a few of the governments that do not manage their nations in ways that either of us would like are amongst those that would vote for, and promote, intrusive WA resolutions...
My government does accept that the most fundamental rights are legitimately matters of international concern -- for example, we supported the passage of the 'Ban on Slavery and Trafficking', and the attempt at drafting a proposal on emigration rights (to allow people to "vote with their feet", and leave nations whose policies they found too unpleasant) -- but we do not believe Divorce to be that 'fundamental'.

Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

It is difficult not to be condescending after winning. So, I won't even try.

Life is short, and I'm very, very happy. And I will apologize to no one for being very, very happy.

What amazed me the most in the voting phase is that so many Excellencies against the now Resolution whose deafening silence was made present during the pre-submission phase, they suddenly discovered their voices, torrents of arguments, passion!

Why the heck didn't you manifest yourselves before? Did you actually happen to think that I and other two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two Nations could never make it? In such a way that you actually didn’t even bother to show up?

An advice to the Wise: don’t Your Excellencies ever underestimate any other Ambassador again. I, for one, will never do so. It was an exercise in humility, I hope.

That said, life is short, and the time of this now Resolution shall be shorter still. I shall live to see it repealed. Such is life.

But in the interim, scores of failed and miserable and forced marriages will be dissolved. Second chances in life shall be given. Many people will taste self-determination for the first time in their lives. They’ll discover self-determination is addictive. That alone is justification enough for all the work and pain. I do not have and shall never have regrets about this resolution, even after its certain repeal.

Studly Penguins' Dear Ambassador, please arrange a place for me in the Elite Club of Ambassadors Whose Resolutions Have Been Repealed. I couldn't dream of a better company to have. You were loyal without ever being subservient, and that is most honorable. No one will ever be able to repeal our friendship.

Gobbanium's Ambassador, we fought, we disagreed. I will understand if you mount and achieve a repeal. We will still disagree, and we in Sionis Prioratus will still call you a friend of our Nation.

Urgench's Ambassador, we fought even harder, and disagreed even more passionately. However, discovery of mutual force of will and mutual fairness, led to a discovery of an even greater respect. You're the best critic one could ask for. I am most grateful for that. Keep up the good fight :)

Cat-Tribe's Ambassador, my eternal thanks for offering a hand in the direst of times. That shall never be forgotten. I am truly at a loss for words. :hail:

To the ones who opposed the now 39th W.A. Resolution for sole cause of being opposed to divorce: I do fervently pray that you'll never have to understand why a divorce is sometimes necessary. I wholeheartedly wish you most fruitful and happy and eternal marriages.

To everybody, may you live long, happy, rich and healthy lives.

…and to The Illustrious Renae …now the time is right! Let's get royally drunk! :) Everybody who is in the mood, please do join us ;)

Carpe diem, memento mori.

Yours ever truly,

Save a drink for us!!

The government of the emperor of Urgench wishes to offer its congratulations to the esteemed and respected delegation of Sionis Prioratus for having brought a sensible and decent resolution to ratification.

May the horde of Sionis Prioratus ride swift across the plain and ever to its banner for all time.


Yours sincerely, Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for Urgench.

No body takes marriage seriously. the concept of "til death do us part" has escaped most people stupid enough to enter this unholy union. Let them pay for their mistake, outlaw divorce!

The good Captain Dawson wishes to give a bottle of rum to the Amabassador from Sionis Prioratus, that is after he has drank all of the contents of it and smashed it over the Ambassador's head. That is if he were able to raise to his feet. We're content to abide by the laws, but should a repeal come to the floor, we'll be supporting it.

What amazed me the most in the voting phase is that so many Excellencies against the now Resolution whose deafening silence was made present during the pre-submission phase, they suddenly discovered their voices, torrents of arguments, passion!

Why the heck didn't you manifest yourselves before? Did you actually happen to think that I and other two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-two Nations could never make it? In such a way that you actually didn’t even bother to show up?

That said, life is short, and the time of this now Resolution shall be shorter still. I shall live to see it repealed. Such is life.

Studly Penguins' Dear Ambassador, please arrange a place for me in the Elite Club of Ambassadors Whose Resolutions Have Been Repealed."Shouldn't you be holding the crucifix? It is the prop for martyrs." --"The Birdcage"

What amazed me the most in the voting phase is that so many Excellencies against the now Resolution whose deafening silence was made present during the pre-submission phase, they suddenly discovered their voices, torrents of arguments, passion!
Regretably, this is normal. Few members can be bothered to send delegates to this assembly until such a time as something they disagree with comes to vote, at which time much moaning is made of how such a thing should not be sprung upon them.

It is equally regretable that the resolution changed from something we did not especially like but could live with to something we believe actively damaging to an honorable way of life at such a late hour, and that we did not note the small but significant change until after submission.

But in the interim, scores of failed and miserable and forced marriages will be dissolved.
Alas, there will also be many marriages killed off for the want of a little healing, and the honour of many individuals unnecessarily and irrevocably tarnished.

Gobbanium's Ambassador, we fought, we disagreed. I will understand if you mount and achieve a repeal. We will still disagree, and we in Sionis Prioratus will still call you a friend of our Nation.
The irony of this is that we do believe that the option of divorce should be open to those in such dire straits as the honoured ambassador has indicated. This resolution has, however, tipped the balance far too far in this direction. We wish the honoured ambassador well in dealing with the social illness of serial divorcees, and assure him that we likely will mount a repeal effort in due time.

If such a repeal should have solid footing, solid arguments, I myself will vote for it. And of course, start it all over again, trying to welcome your concerns into the fold.

Honored Ambassadors, the debate is over and the Resolution has passed. There is no need for gloating, sniping, or further debate.

If a repeal is drafted, we can debate it when it is presented to us.

In the meantime, I congratulate Adrian de Saint-Clair, Ambassador to the W.A. from The Holy Empire of Sionis Prioratus for his sucessful campaign. I, for one, think you have done the WA a great service.