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[?]: RSDP - Democratic Front
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: June 2189
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 | 13:31:53, February 19, 2006 CET | From |  Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | Hell no to that crap |
| Date | 13:57:01, February 19, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | My, what an argument. :rolleyes: |
| Date | 22:24:11, February 19, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | Look, you keep trying to propose it, it keeps getting rejected, perhaps you should give up. Me and Prae have said and argued many times why we oppose it and why it is a piece of crap, thus we will not support it and there is no point us bringing up our arguments again. This got rejected just a few days ago |
| Date | 17:04:55, February 20, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | It is NOT a piece of crap, stop saying that if you can't back it up (which you can't). |
| Date | 17:07:18, February 20, 2006 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | The best you have shown in trying to argue against this is some crappy rethoric along the lines of "OMG!!! DA GOVERNMENT IS USING OUR MONEY TO FEED THE HUNGRY!!! OMG, I FEEL SO OPPRESSED!!! THEY ARE TALKING ALL MY LIBERTY AWAY, OMG!!! THIS IS SO ILLIBERAL!!!!" Well, my dear colleagues, if the Government doesn't do that, PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE STILL BE ALIVE DIE. And we consider that to be far more illiberal. The State has the power to keep these people alive, so it's its duty to do so. |
| Date | 20:27:32, February 20, 2006 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | The treaty is fine except for the clause on mandatory school for your kids. That just makes it an anti-human rights bill. |
| Date | 21:30:22, February 20, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | The RSDP would not know the meaning of the word liberal if it came up and slapped them round the face Lets break down the appalling crap the treaty is "Article I All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." This sets requirements on peoples' political beliefs and ideology. "Article 2 Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." This makes positive descrimination illegal. (and yet making positive discrimination illegal is not one of the articles, how convenient...) "Article 6 Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law." this makes abortion illegal. "article 7 All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Makes positive discrimination illegal again. Means that we must introduce a crime of "incitement to discrimination" which could cover practically anything anyone ever says. ""Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks." This makes eminent domain illegal. No taxes, and it makes any insult a crime, if i call someone stupid, i am now committing a crime. Goes against any provision for freedom of speech whatsoever. "Article 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State." This means that we are not allowed to stop anyone entering the country even if they pose a security risk. "(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country." This means that anyone who has been arrested can choose to leave the country. "Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." And not "incitement to hatred" for the RSDP either. Or incitement to commit an offence, for that matter. "Article 22 Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." Ok, so now we are forced to provide state welfare programmes and "redistribute" wealth. Is this a human right? Or is it just socialism? "Article 27 (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits." What does this actually mean? State art galleries? State TV? "(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author." No banning copyrights then, RSDP. Now, unlike what the left wing of Rutanian politics appears to be suggesting, I do not oppose human rights. Nor do I oppose us passing bills designed to improve human rights of Rutanians. What I DO oppose are badly written, ill thought out and politically biased treaties masquerading as human rights. Indeed, I find that quite offensive, especially when the title is used to smear anyone who opposes it by its nefarious proponents. That analysis was largely written by the Liberal Imperialist Party a while back, every time you bring this treaty up, i will post it. |
| Date | 21:49:22, February 20, 2006 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights |
| Message | "The best you have shown in trying to argue against this is some crappy rethoric along the lines of "OMG!!! DA GOVERNMENT IS USING OUR MONEY TO FEED THE HUNGRY!!! OMG, I FEEL SO OPPRESSED!!! THEY ARE TALKING ALL MY LIBERTY AWAY, OMG!!! THIS IS SO ILLIBERAL!!!!" Well, my dear colleagues, if the Government doesn't do that, PEOPLE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE STILL BE ALIVE DIE. And we consider that to be far more illiberal. The State has the power to keep these people alive, so it's its duty to do so." You are an idiot. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 94 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 380 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 125 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights |