At Vote:Repeal "Sexual Freedom" [Complete]

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
Voting on this Resolution ends Tuesday August 8th. Remember, if you haven't voted before, give me your UN.

Repeal "Sexual Freedom"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #7
Proposed by: Kivisto

Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: A Repeal of Sexual Freedom

Whereby UN Resolution #7 Sexual Freedom shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The United Nations

RECOGNIZING the Universal right to privacy for sexual relations;

COMMENDING the intent of Sexual Freedom to protect such privacy;

MINDFUL, however, that incidents, crimes or accidents may occur during the course of consensual sexual activity of which government agencies should be made aware;

FEARFUL that loose interpretations of Sexual Freedom's broad language may result in such incidents not being properly reported or investigated;

WISHING to curtail continued omissions;

ENCOURAGING a more detailed replacement; hereby

REPEALS UNR#7 Sexual Freedom
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
Original:
Description: What goes on between two (or more) consenting adults in the privacy of their homes should not be the concern of the state unless it is neccesary to enquire about the afore mentioned activities for medical reasons (e.g. if the individuals wish to give blood etc.).

Votes For: 2,538
Votes Against: 318

Implemented: Thu Mar 13 2003
http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=6
 
I would like to make a few points.
1) I think many UN nations might wish to know for purposes beyond just medical reasons as the repeal discusses. There might be various legal events that have some aspect of them in "the bedroom". For example if there is a divorce case that is about infidelity, it would be wise to have people be legally forced to admit that they cheated or did not. Not that it is their right to be silent (I mean beyond a 5th amendment type law). Also, if you have to admit you were cooking at this and this time creating an aliby or incriminating information...then why not you were with this person in a certain instance in the same circumstance. I understand not making bedroom matters criminal, but I don't understand why they can't be at least treated like most matters in the home.

2) The resolution obviously can be improved. I don't think anyone can deny that.

3) Is sexual freedom really a part of the UN Charter? Can we keep bedroom matters to indiviual nations? Is that too much to ask? If it is, focus on the first two points ;)
 
The Delegation from ST47, noting their nation name to be the Dominion of ST47, is in the opinion that this motion before the UN, Repeal "Sexual Freedom", is in the best interest of the peoples of the Dominion of ST47, with cause that the original resolution is incomplete, failing to allow for non-medical causes such as a criminal investigation or, with credit to the delegate from Sarcodina, a divorce. Also, through investigation into the initial resolution, the legal advisor to the delegate cites an example case of a drug lab staffed by two or more adults whom agree to create and/or consume illegal substances. Due to these points and others, the delegate from ST47 intends to and urges the delegate from the region of TNP to vote in an affirmative manner towards the repeal, against resolution U.N. 7.
 
The Constitutional Empire of Ermarian votes NAY, being concerned about the risk of discrimination without this law. With respect to crimes, the resolution as it stands does not interfere with the pursuit of justice anymore than other privacy laws do.

The rare cases where the state requires this information without being able to make a case that it is necessary to prevent harm do not really outweigh the need for privacy.

Surely in the case of a divorce, it is possible to prove an affair without also proving that sex was involved; and in the case of a fatherhood claim, the genetic relation can be verified without revealing when and how the child was conceived. The resolution does not make such circumstantial information confidential; it is only concerned with sex - literally "What happens in the bedroom."
 
AGAINST

No matter how detailed the new resolution is going to get, there will always be exceptions. Our stand is to let it be, that being said, our nation is secretly rebelling against the current resolution by ignoring it completely.

(UN: Breeding Goats)
 
FOR.

I can't agree with those who want Resolution #7 to stay. After all, the resolution is classic example of early UN legislation- that is, absolutely terrible. The fundamental flaw of the resolution would be the total absence of any mention of the word sex in the text of the resolution. If not for the brief mention of sex in the title, it would be totally irredeemable.

While we can make the assumption that the law deals with sex, and only with sex, the problem is that because of the total lack of definition present we are still making broad assumptions as to the scope of the resolution. As such, those assumptions are extremely (and totally needlessly) vunerable to attack by those who would try to abuse the resolution for their own criminal ends. Member states certainly don't need a virtual carte blanche for citizens to commit any number of illegal acts simply because the author of the original legislature couldn't be bothered to add mention of the very concept the resolution was written for.
 
I like this ^ guy.

BTW, the General above has his UN in the NSCP not TNP. I believe that is a requirement to vote, if not I will send North Sarcodina in ASAP.
 
Greater Boblandia:
Member states certainly don't need a virtual carte blanche for citizens to commit any number of illegal acts
Click to expand...
I am still not quite certain which criminal acts these are, which are also mentioned in the text of the repeal. The specific examples that were mentioned were dealing with civil law - things like divorce. Now, extramarital sex may be decisive in such lawsuits, but it is not a criminal act... :eyebrow:
 
Might as well as do a last ditch effort...

Why is it anti-democracy/freedom/UN to have a nation that makes adultery illegal? Where is the right of a citizen damaged? A Marriage is a civil matter that is formed to ensure stable families (or for whatever reason) and is rewarded often with special tax and legal status...why is breaking that civil contract a legal option?

Sarc
 
Because people deserve a choice and not have to suffer at the hands of a mistaken contract with an adulterating, alcoholic, horribly abusing disappointment.
 
Daimiaena:
Because it would be the only contract in history that didn't allow for a legal exit clause....
Click to expand...
And all those women in tears cowering in the corner from their husband's latest drunken antics their fist clenched to a belt? I guess she had it coming eh? Should've known better.
 
Got you.

Adulterating. Can't be counted, only with repeal.
Beating. Often the wife supposedly supports this mean thus making the original possible grounds for this not to be counted.
Alcholic. Well, this only is like germane for the above or another matter.

Either way, if you want women to be ensure the right for an easy divorce from the listed qualities above husband, then this repeal is for you.

Eh?
 
FOR

You people who voted against the repeal misread the information of this repeal.

These are the details of the repeal:
Description: UN Resolution #7: Sexual Freedom (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: A Repeal of Sexual Freedom

Whereby UN Resolution #7 Sexual Freedom shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The United Nations

RECOGNIZING the Universal right to privacy for sexual relations;

COMMENDING the intent of Sexual Freedom to protect such privacy;

MINDFUL, however, that incidents, crimes or accidents may occur during the course of consensual sexual activity of which government agencies should be made aware;

FEARFUL that loose interpretations of Sexual Freedom's broad language may result in such incidents not being properly reported or investigated;

WISHING to curtail continued omissions;

ENCOURAGING a more detailed replacement; hereby

REPEALS UNR#7 Sexual Freedom
Click to expand...

The words I put on bold is what you guys did not see in the resolution. The purpose of this repeal is to replace UN Resolution #7 with a more detailed version of it since the old resolution is said to be too broad.

I have also read the old resolution and this is how I interperet it:

Anything that goes on between two or more adults in their own homes does not concern the government except for medical reasons (physical disabilities, mental disabilities, insanity).

Here are the flaws of this old resolution:

1. Although the title of the resolution is called "Sexual Freedom", this law does not fully concern about sex since there is nothing that covers the sexual issues but it is no more than a general privacy issue.

2. Since this issue is too broad many other people would read it in a different perspective that is neither in my interpretation nor the general interpretation of the resolution. (i.e. one person would think that the law only concerns their freedom of religion while the other person thinks that the same law only concerns their freedom of speech)
 
They may encourage a more detaild replacement, but do they provide it?

I submit that they do NOT.

Therefore, *OPArsenal is AGAINST.
 
Sunbeam....disagreeing with something is not always due to misunderstanding something........sometimes it is easier to disagree with something that you do understand....
 
Originally Posted by OPArsenal
They may encourage a more detaild replacement, but do they provide it?

I submit that they do NOT.

Therefore, *OPArsenal is AGAINST.
Click to expand...
Simply rhetorical at this point, but there was at least one potential replacement floating around the UN forums during most of the repeal debate.

Also, to answer the most common complaint: Incest. Incest could occur between two consenting adults within the privacy of their home. And with a slightly less assuming and more literal reading of Resolution #7, the sanctity of the home allows anyone to do anything from stealing cable to planning armored car heists. And you can never get a warrant against them.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top