|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 11, 2004 6:06:13 GMT -5
The latest UN Resolution up for debate and I quote:
Epidemic Prevention Protocol
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.
Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Huai bei
Description: Contagious Diseases Epidemic Prevention Protocol
Description:
Globalization, international trade and advanced transportation systems accelerate the spreading pace of contagious diseases and make every nation vulnerable. We need a solution to this problem :
Contagious Disease Epidemic Prevention Protocol
1. Every Nation is obliged to inform international community of every epidemic outbreak and to use all prudent medical means to isolate it.
2. International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) would be utilized to offer assistance to any Nation hit by contagious disease outbreak (recipient). The IRCO will manage donation and its distribution to recipient upon request of the recipient. IRCO will cooperates closely with Health Ministries of its members.
3. a)Every Nation has the right to quarantine any inbound passenger and potential-pathogen-carrier-cargo from Nation which is hit by the outbreak.
b) Every Nation has the right to ban import of food- and medical-product which is suspected to be a potential-pathogen-carrier from Nation which is hit by the outbreak.
Acknowledging that both actions are notably well within the Nation sovereignity.
Every Nation which is hit by epidemic outbreak and therefore affected by above mentioned actions is urged not to retaliate those actions.
4. Any person who, on behalf of the IRCO, renders medical care or assistance without the expectation of receiving compensation for such service, shall not be liable in civil damages for any act or omission, not constituting gross negligence, in the course of such care or assistance.
Explanation :
1.Definition of Epidemic :
affecting or tending to affect a disproportionately large number of individuals within a population, community, or region at the same time
2. Statement of Sovereignity Assurance:
This Protocol is humanitarian in nature. Sovereignity of each UN Member is guaranteed.
3. Animal to Human Contagious Disease:
If contagious disease suffered by animal can be spread to human and there is proven case that human have been infected, the nation should refer to point 1 of the protocol.
4. Recommended method for (humanitarian) donation :
First step : consult the recipient nation whether it would accept the offer
Second step : consult the recipient regarding the type of the aid
Third step : consult the recipient regarding the method to deliver the aid
Fourth step : If agreement reached of all of the previous steps , conduct the aid
Type of donations:
a) Financial aid
b) Medicament and Food should be sent by civil transportation means. In the case that there is an option to use military transportation means, the recipient should be consulted. If it is agreed upon, the donor can send them.
c) Medical Training ( in case of military medical personals read point b)
d) Medical Personals (in case of military medical personals read point b)
e) Scientific cooperation; Technology transfer
Votes For: 5991
Votes Against: 1141
[Delegate Votes]
Voting Ends: Wed Oct 13 2004
End Quote.
I am wary. Quarintine laws enacted? Infringement of human rights...
Martial law a probability...
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Oct 11, 2004 7:19:47 GMT -5
I agree, I really don't like all these moral decency resolutions...
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 11, 2004 9:05:55 GMT -5
I am wary. Quarintine laws enacted? Infringement of human rights... Martial law a probability... What, the human right to wander around spreading nasty diseases? Quarantine laws aren't defined, and they could be just as heavy-handed without this resolution as with it. But not taking any steps to control an epidemic would be like letting someone fire an AK47 randomly into a crowd. Is that a human right too? As for martial law, nations that want to impose it will do so regardless of this resolution. The only concrete thing this resolution does is require nations to inform the international community of any epidemic, which sounds like a pretty fundamental matter of international solidarity to me. It is a bit loosely worded in places (and I'm not sure moral decency is the right category, but the categories are pretty fucked in general), but overall I'm in favour. |
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 11, 2004 10:59:24 GMT -5
We're broadly in favour also (or at least not desperately opposed to it).
Although the game mechanics won't recognise it, the impact on civil rights is mainly citizens travelling abroad. Quite frankly, if citizens from S&V aren't treated like shit by foreign governments then we're obviously not spouting enough revolution.
|
|
|
|
Post by vequalsv0plusat on Oct 11, 2004 16:31:21 GMT -5
In principle, we're totally for this resolution. The only problem is that it's under the category "Moral Decency" and has a strength of "Strong...."
|
|
theyellowspot
Junior Member
still ignored, the fuse burned on...
Posts: 88
|
Post by theyellowspot on Oct 11, 2004 16:37:39 GMT -5
all these resolutions really irk me the way they sound so well-meaning, but are so vague as to allow so much other loop-hole related bullshit. i think i may have to vote against this, and just try to do my own thing as far as my "borders" go.
|
|
|
|
Post by Walter and Theodor on Oct 12, 2004 3:01:14 GMT -5
In W&T we don't send too much time looking at our UN rankings. We try to avoid comiing in at the bottom of any lists but outside of that...
With that said we recognize the importance of global coordination on these issues and we welcome this effort. Aside from the quarantine issue, which is not likely prevented anyway, this is mostly benign and fosters international cooperation on humanistic grounds rather than on the grounds of trade, policing and war. Its proposal are also fairly decentralized by UN standards as the IRC is the only singificant power bloc. We believe this proposal fits in with W&T's long term strategic master plan for global anarcho communist social transformation.
We would like to see more legislation like this, and more thought out, so we encourage a yes vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 12, 2004 7:00:16 GMT -5
Quote Clapton Pond:
"What, the human right to wander around spreading nasty diseases? Quarantine laws aren't defined, and they could be just as heavy-handed without this resolution as with it. But not taking any steps to control an epidemic would be like letting someone fire an AK47 randomly into a crowd. Is that a human right too?"
End quote.
Yes actually it is, funnily enough, despite what the mainstream view of it would be.
The right to roam, diseased or otherwise, is a human right.
The right to fire an AK-47 into the crowd is a human right too, although it infringes upon other human rights.
Both infringe on human rights, but human rights they are all the same.
Quarintine would be a perfect excuse to impose martial law where a excuse beforehand was lacking.
Quarintine laws are defined by......quarintine. The arrest of the population by right wing moralists.
I'm against the resolution at this moment of time for the misuse that could come out of it.
At the least I'll abstain.
|
|
|
|
Post by claptonpond on Oct 12, 2004 11:40:39 GMT -5
Yes actually it is, funnily enough, despite what the mainstream view of it would be. The right to roam, diseased or otherwise, is a human right. The right to fire an AK-47 into the crowd is a human right too, although it infringes upon other human rights. Both infringe on human rights, but human rights they are all the same. You could define pretty much anything as a human right. The whole concept's pretty meaningless unless you have a ruling class that decides what 'rights' to grant the rest of us. But supposing we accept that 'rights' actually exist; as you point out, some of them infringe others. How do we decide which ones are worth protecting? I'd argue that infected people have a 'duty' to minimise the risk of infecting others, and that they should quarantine themselves. If they fail to do so, then the people they're putting at risk have the 'right' to protect themselves by forcibly quarantining them. Quarantine is simply keeping contagious people apart from healthy people to stop infection spreading. Nothing to do with morals or the right wing. Anyway, the resolution only mentions quarantine for people travelling from affected areas, not for people where the epidemic's actually occurring. If someone wants to declare martial law (or impose quarantine, for that matter), they'll do it anyway - this resolution doesn't affect that at all. The only problems I have with the resolution are its category and strength. There probably isn't a better category because the categories are crap, but it sure as hell shouldn't be strong. |
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 13, 2004 6:23:02 GMT -5
You could define pretty much anything as a human right. The whole concept's pretty meaningless unless you have a ruling class that decides what 'rights' to grant the rest of us. That is my point, anything can be described as a human right. Nothing quite like a ruling class to decide what is best. (Usually for themselves) But supposing we accept that 'rights' actually exist; as you point out, some of them infringe others. How do we decide which ones are worth protecting? I'd argue that infected people have a 'duty' to minimise the risk of infecting others, and that they should quarantine themselves. If they fail to do so, then the people they're putting at risk have the 'right' to protect themselves by forcibly quarantining them. And how would they be forcibly quarintined? The expression of the human right to fire an AK-47 into the crowd? Mass execution? Would that be the 'right' of those protecting themselves, to establish martial law or execute, to protect themselves? How do we protect the human rights of those quarintined? How do we enforce their human rights when something is done against their human rights: ie quarintined against will? Forcibly quarintine? The dismissal of human rights for another's human rights to enfore the issue of how important human rights are......is that human rights? Quarantine is simply keeping contagious people apart from healthy people to stop infection spreading. Nothing to do with morals or the right wing. Define contagious. Define Healthy. The Contagious.......that could mean anybody in the Nazi Right winger's eyes...... Nazi Examples that could be used: people with HIV and people with AIDS......they will infect us all!!.....quarintined! People with depression......could be contagious to the populace! Take them away before they depress us all! People with mental health problems.......possessed by the devil, quarintine them before we all kill babies at the altar in satanic worship!....... People who can quarintine could quarintine anyone they did not like. Anyone they saw as contagious. Hitler did it. All part of his view of 'morals' Anyway, the resolution only mentions quarantine for people travelling from affected areas, not for people where the epidemic's actually occurring. If someone wants to declare martial law (or impose quarantine, for that matter), they'll do it anyway - this resolution doesn't affect that at all.. Maybe so, but with that resolution in their hand, it will be that bit more a leverage, that paper that means they can interpet anyway they like, and the UN passed it. The only problems I have with the resolution are its category and strength. There probably isn't a better category because the categories are crap, but it sure as hell shouldn't be strong. I have many problems with it, as stated. |
|
|
|
Post by Sacco & Vanzetti on Oct 13, 2004 17:08:36 GMT -5
Well it sure turned out to be a massive hit on Civil Rights. Ours are right down to "Superb" and we've been at "World Benchmark" for ages.
It's a good job our Political Freedoms here in S&V are "Widely Abused" otherwise I'm sure there'd be demonstrations, inevitably accompanied by the traditional burning of the UN office in Passionara.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 14, 2004 8:44:11 GMT -5
As suspected. It's not nice being right.  Riots have broken out, and protests are growing for The Free Land Of AIM to withdraw from the UN. |
|
theyellowspot
Junior Member
still ignored, the fuse burned on...
Posts: 88
|
Post by theyellowspot on Oct 14, 2004 13:53:09 GMT -5
As the population of The Armed Republic of the Yellow Spot was quite proud of their "World Benchmark" status in the category of Civil Rights, huge protests have broken out all over the country, and last night a few rocks were thrown through the windows at the office of the Odonian Island Delegate to the UN. People are calling for withdrawal from the UN, and a meeting has been scheduled for all the collectives to discuss the matter.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeLandofAIM on Oct 15, 2004 13:24:54 GMT -5
Discussions have been ongoing on a continous non stop basis since yesterday amongst and between the communes of The Free Land Of AIM following the infrigement on civil rights caused by he passing of the last UN Resolution.
Anti-UN vitrolic talk has grown.
|
|
|
|
Post by workerscommunes on Oct 15, 2004 14:52:50 GMT -5
Yeah I'm still stinging from that last resolution, it'll probably be ages before I'm back to 'Left-Wing Utopia'. I may resign if this flood of moral decency resolutions doesn't abate. |
|
