We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Democratic Alliance
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: May 2147
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:57:33, October 03, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | I have Some issues with some of the things in this: Article 16: (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. The above could easily to used to justify an anti-abortion stance or to ban homosexual marriages, to make divorce more difficult and so on. Article 26 (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children. This could be used to force us to allow Private education, something we are fundlementally opposed to doing |
| Date | 16:38:34, October 03, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | i dislike Article 3 The ratifiers acknowledge that with respect to: Eminent Domain. The policy of their national government and law should be: The government may seize private property for vital government works and for corporate use. or The policy regarding eminent domain is left to local governments. or The government may not seize private property. or The government may seize private property for vital government works. but i'll vote yes... |
| Date | 03:54:57, October 06, 2005 CET | From | Social Libertarian party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | Article one, that could justify a pro compulsive social work bill. |
| Date | 22:09:35, November 01, 2005 CET | From |  RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | I don't like to interfere in the process of decision-making of other countries, but might I suggest that, if you have a problem with a possible interpretation of article 26 (which could be interpreted as forcing nations to allow private education, but which in my view only refers to the method of education or perhaps the profession that is taught), you attach an Interpretive Declaration to this instrument of ratification saying something along the lines of "We declare that Article 26 cannot be construed as to mean the allowing of private education." But this is only a humble suggestion from a foreign party, of course. |
| Date | 20:05:31, November 26, 2005 CET | From | Social Democratic Party of Darnussia | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | Again, I raise the same concerns about Article 16 |
| Date | 20:54:02, November 26, 2005 CET | From | Vuloch Ca Korzia | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | I agree with SDP. This treaty, however admirable in aim, reveals fundamentally unnacceptable principles in the detail. |
| Date | 15:21:26, November 27, 2005 CET | From | Chinkopodian Economic Democrats | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | Agree with SDP over Article 16. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 37 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 164 | ||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players consent to the reasonable and predictable consequences of the role-play they consent to. For example, players who role-play their characters as committing criminal offences should expect those characters to experience the predictable judicial consequences of that. |
| Random quote: "Modern technology owes ecology an apology." - Alan M. Eddison |