Human Rights Foundation

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby Corvo Attano » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:15 am

Shruti Shree, Malivian Representative

"Malivia is participating in the conference on the Bill of Human rights and generally supports the bill."
Fatherland Front

Nationmaster of Malivia
User avatar
Corvo Attano
 
Posts: 701
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:16 pm

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby Aethan » Sat Sep 02, 2017 10:19 am

Alanus Iuvenlis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Selucia

The Res Publica Seluciae announces its participation in the conference of the Bill of Human Rights and announces its support to the bill. We would suggest, however,
include some mention to no discrimination against someone by their age or sexual orientation also.
In Marea - Civis Sinistram - Selucia
PT Wiki Admin

Me quito la bandera de mi traje espacial, y escribo en el reverso "Yo soy de la humanidad", la frágil existencia milagrosa y casual
User avatar
Aethan
 
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:59 am
Location: Selucia

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby General.M » Sat Sep 02, 2017 2:01 pm

Adam Urzica, representative of New Endralon/Kizenia
We will also participate in the conference on the Bill of Human rights and we have already expressed our concerns in the General Assembly
Libertären Partei (Dorvik)(inactive)
Republikeinse Partij / Rekvaknsé Prta (Vanuku)(inactive)
Alianța Liberalilor (New Endralon/Kizenia)(inactive)
Natsional'naya Liga Patriotov (Trigunia)(active)

CRC for Keris and Macon
User avatar
General.M
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby RedReaper » Sun Sep 03, 2017 2:57 pm

Usama Safar Chair Of The Delegate Council On Foreign Affairs, Badaran RFSR;
The government of Badara would gladly participate in the Conference on the Bill of Rights and we are in full support of the bill.
Left Party - Social Liberal: Kazulia (Active)
User avatar
RedReaper
 
Posts: 401
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2017 10:02 am

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby Axxell » Mon Sep 04, 2017 4:02 pm

Silvano Rogi, Istalian Representative:

Thank you for your partecipation. So, there is to debate on the critical points showed by the Representative of New Endralon/Kizenia, especially the points which have important socio-economic implications.
I'm preparing a relations about the istalian feelings on these points, but for the moment every one is invited to express themself.

Thank you
Alleanza Radicale (Radical Alliance) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby Axxell » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:06 pm

Carlo Belli, Special Representative of the Istalian Presidency:

Greetings,
I'm the new appointed istalian representative to continue this dabate. A debate which primary involves some controversial provisions of the proposed Chart, the provisions about the material as well as psicological needs of a person.
I think we should look directly to the Chart and that the key words are the ones of the Article 3:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

So, what needs to a person to live? Everyone here can easily understand what needs to a person to live, some specific material and psicological needs! But what kind of life should it be? Why the poverty is a condition that put in danger the life of a person? I think it is something clear to everyone also this: no means to satisfy the needs of a person, a person who is not able to have access to essential goods, to helth care, to an education and so on.
So, why we should committ ourself to fight the poverty? Why is right to do this? I say to you, simply because through inaction and indifference we accept the infringiment of the most basic rights of a person due to his lack of means. And also indifference and inaction can be interpreted as a violation of the first article, which states that the men should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Some could say that if it is a decision of the involved person, so, we should respect his choice. We could, but we really should? I don't think so. Why? Because advocate the Liberty to justify such a decision would mean interpret the same provisions of the Chart about the Liberty and the freedoms in way to perform acts aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein, as stated by Article 30.
We cannot accept that a person decides, accepts, proposes himself to persue acts or accept behavior which can put in danger his life, his dignity as human beings, which can destroy reason and conscience of these person. So, people can choose to work in unfavorable work conditions if they want? My response it cannot be positive! Because, for example and to be a little extreme, if a person offers himself to be the slave of someone other, should we respect such a decision? Of course not, because the choice made by the candidate-slave will contrast with the Human Rights themself! The right to favourable work conditions is not important as right itself, but it is a right to assure to a person the respect of his rights of life, freedom and security, his right to equal dignity and so on.
We cannot abuse of the term "Liberty", we cannot understand this term simply as the freedom to do what we want. Absolutely not! Why? Because these Chart, as well as many other declaration of the same kind as well as most part of the law enforced in most part of our nations are in effect "systems of limits".
This Chart in effect bar someone, put limits to someone to act in way which can undermine these rights.
And about the other remarks made by Ambassador Urzica about the holidays, we peak of "leisure" for the worker, that is to enjoy moments of play and cultural and artistic recreation. The worker must have the opportunity to participate freely in cultural life, as Article 27 of the Declaration provides. This leads us to consider holidays as a period that, as our ancestors said, reasserts the body and spirit. In short, a healthy brace in work routine is much more necessary as more usurping is the type of work. But, how these people can enjoy their leisure if, again, they have not resource to enjoy it? Or maybe here everywhere is reasoning like if every worker arrives to set aside something? There are millions of people that live day by day. Without the assurance to have payed holiday, million of people would risk to have not resource to resist the holiday periods until that he restart to work.
We cannot resoning with the possibility of the evarage workers in our nations, because the reality is even more extendend and, as said, million of people have not the resource to enjoy holiday and freetime if they don't work every, and I say every day.
It is something of human? No! Even if the interested decides to do this! And this should be an universal right because the Human Rights are and have to be universal, we cannot consider the particular situation of this or that worker! The fact that exist million of people which live day by day and in the light of the needs of leisure for every man, in function to express and enjoy all other his rights, is the motivation of because among the Human Rights is consider also this provision.
These rights protect the people also from themself! It is not concepible that someone decide to reject one or all these rights because, and the Chart as well as all other the declarations of this kind are clear, these are rights are INALIENABLE! Nobody can reject some or all these Rights which the incipit of this Chart, as well as of its predecessor, clearly say that these are inalienable rights!

The freedom of these people to decide on such matter cannot limit their own Liberty and Rights! Cannot decide to risk their life as well as cannot decide to live in unworthy conditions, because suche decisions affect all the other human rights! And we hope that everyone will reflect on these words and on the difference between true Liberty, which want limits for all the other men, and Freedom to do what we want.

Thank you
Alleanza Radicale (Radical Alliance) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby General.M » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:30 am

Adam Urzica, representative of New Endralon/Kizenia
So, people can choose to work in unfavorable work conditions if they want? My response it cannot be positive!

Okay, I will reformulate my arguments. My point is, the World Congress or the Security Council or maybe the International Court can not decide what favorable conditions are. What are favourable conditions? That is a subjective question and can only be answered by the person involved. If a person chooses to work somewhere they consider that as favorable conditions. You know what an unfavorable working condition is? Unemployment... And that is what regulation creates. But this is not something we should discuss here. This is not a national assembly, this is a debate on the basic human rights. This is not a place to discuss things we could easily choose as a nation.

We cannot accept that a person decides, accepts, proposes himself to persue acts or accept behavior which can put in danger his life, his dignity as human beings, which can destroy reason and conscience of these person.

and
Istalian Law wrote:Euthanasia is allowed with consent from the patient and the treating doctor.

I think this says enough. Ofcourse there are different factors involved in eathanasia but I think this makes my point. A bit hypocrite, don't you think?

And about the other remarks made by Ambassador Urzica about the holidays, we peak of "leisure" for the worker, that is to enjoy moments of play and cultural and artistic recreation. The worker must have the opportunity to participate freely in cultural life, as Article 27 of the Declaration provides. This leads us to consider holidays as a period that, as our ancestors said, reasserts the body and spirit. In short, a healthy brace in work routine is much more necessary as more usurping is the type of work. But, how these people can enjoy their leisure if, again, they have not resource to enjoy it?

I am sorry, but could you explain me the difference between getting payed more than average while you work and not getting payed during holidays or getting less payed during work but getting payed during holidays if both will pay you the same every year? Indeed, there is almost no difference. But some people are saving for a worldtour or something and dont want to take a holiday. These people don't really like this law. Once again I tell you, this is an administrative law, and an administrative law has no place in the basic human rights.

we cannot consider the particular situation of this or that worker!

Well, we should! I thought you Istalians were so democratic but this sounds like majority rule. The difference, democracy is the will of the people, majority rule is the the will of the majority. If we can't consider the particular situations, this whole declaration is useless.

These rights protect the people also from themself! It is not concepible that someone decide to reject one or all these rights because, and the Chart as well as all other the declarations of this kind are clear, these are rights are INALIENABLE! Nobody can reject some or all these Rights which the incipit of this Chart, as well as of its predecessor, clearly say that these are inalienable rights!

I thought this was a discussion on how the first draft should be changed if it should be changed. I guess I missed when this draft was voted upon and implemented. What is the idea of this discussion if Istalia is not willing to change the first draft? Maybe this whole discussion is just an act to increase the legimaty of this declaration.

The whole problem with this declaration is that the word basic is misused by some people. You are free to make your own 'declaration extensive human rights according to Istalia'. Don't force us to implement these 'extensive rights'. Ofcourse, other 'social democratic' nations won't see a problem here as they already do everithing according to this declaration... Wars have been fought over basic human rights. We have joined the security council in embargoes against Beiteynu, Saridan and Vorona in the name of basic human rights. We didn't see a problem when Istalia blockaded Vorona because of basic human rights. But now, New Endralon/Kizenia is contradicting 'basic human rights'. Do you want to embargo us because of work regulation? Do you want to wage war against us because we don't have payed holidays? Go ahead, you will only give human rights abusers such a Beitenynu and Saridan right. Maybe Istalia does attack the sovereignity of nations in the name of 'basic human rights'...
Libertären Partei (Dorvik)(inactive)
Republikeinse Partij / Rekvaknsé Prta (Vanuku)(inactive)
Alianța Liberalilor (New Endralon/Kizenia)(inactive)
Natsional'naya Liga Patriotov (Trigunia)(active)

CRC for Keris and Macon
User avatar
General.M
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby Axxell » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:21 am

Carlo Belli, Special Representative of the Istalian Presidency:

I really don't understand Ambassador Urzica why all this hostility. I really don't understand especially the last words. Simply, you did someremarks and showed your point of view and then we did the same thing. Everyone here is showing his own point of view, why become so nervous? Because we are definding something? We didn't open this debate only to change something. We opened this debate to hear the most possible point of views and give them the opportunity to express their concerns, their support, their proposals. Obviously, Istalia presented this draft, we are pushed also to defend it, but this doesn't mean that we don't want find a consensus. I don't think that the representative by New Endralon/Kizenia should become so nervous for a response that didn't like him.
If we would say "this is the draft, accept or reject it", we would never have opened such debate and I would never began an extensive explanation of our position about why we think these provisions cannot be excluded, because we understand and shares the same motivations which pushed the accademic and juridic worlds to add it into virtually all the past declarations of the same kind.

Now, about your last remarks, do you really want to compare the decision of a person that is in so suffering condition to want end his life and the decision of a person between favorable and unfavorable work conditions?
And sorry, but do you think that in Istalia everyone can ask to a doctor to end his life whatever are his conditions?
A person in sufference clearly if takes the decision to ask to his doctor to proceed with the Euthanasia, and the doctor accepts, is because his sufference are so terrible that the euthanasia will be the only favourable solution.
While a worker, as you have said into the General Assembly, why should chose unfavourable working conditions? if because it is only his possibility to work, well... Sorry but we don't see the freedom of choice you talked about but only a person obliged to chose such conditions because the employers offer him only this. In Istalia we call it abuse of position and power. So, to whom apply the liberty you talked about? Only to the ones that have all the choices and can even reduce the choice of the others?

Then, to respond to your question about the difference between the "payement solutions" you mentioned, well... we see you your words that there is a provision to cover some kind of leisure projects. Or in the first case the worker set aside the surplus, or he gain it during the holidays, well... to us seems that you are still thinking to the leisure time of the worker. The period when you pay a person it is not so much important, in fact, in your example there are no difference! If they take the same ammount every year per contract, well, inside there will be always the provisions for the leisure time! Payed all together or day by day, it seems that in your examples there is always a solution for the leisure time of the worker. It isn't? Then, if the worker want use or not that money, or want or not use his leisure time, it would be a personal decision of the worker. We have to understand the Article of the Chart as a limit for the employers! The contractual terms are not important, like in the elementary education is not important the way. Since the employers offers to the employees the possibility to go in holiday without fear to be fired or without fear that his salary will be cut for the holidays day, so, if the employees want or not enjoy his leisure time and the money provided for this, well... it is his own decision.

We probably understand your concern Mr Urzica: this Chart don't want oblige an employees to enjoy his holidays. This Chart want assure that for the employees will be assured the possibility to chose and the possibility to enjoy it. But, if even doesn't exist a working contract that assure holidays and a salary not conditioned by the holiday days, where goes the Freedom of Choice of the worker? To us seems that without no provision in this sense, the patronage will be only the REAL one to be free to offer only contract and work place without provisions in this sense, contract which bar the employees at least to chose.

About your claims on the particular interest, simply the law, national as well as international, doesn't work in this sense! A Law should be universal, equal and fair. It is possible have specific law for specific categories, ok. But why, for example, an engeneer should have more protection or more adeguate working conditions than a laborer?
Why an istalian worker should have more protection carrying out its job than a Dovanian one?
But, we retourn on the point of all this situation: if the worker have at least the possibility to have access to a reasonable working contract, I think that nobody could accuse New Endralon or other nations to be infringing the human rights.

It is true, we cannot understand and accept that a person could chose something that could put in danger himself, but if the person have the possibility to chose, if his nations at least recognize him the right to chose and MOST IMPORTANT protects the worker from form of unfair deals or behavior to force and oblige this person to chose the option most favourable for the employer, eliminating in this way the possible to chose, I think that nobody could say to you or other nations that they are infringing the Human Rights. You enphatized your belief in the freedom of Choice, right? Well, you will agree with me that to make a Choice possible, should exist more than one option, right?
As can you see, the problem is a mere issue of interpretation! It is true, during my first statement I defended that position using extensevely the interpretation of our jurisdiction, like you did, I think it was my right, but as you can see, we can solve these issue talking about the interpretation of these Rights.
Because, we must also to be realistic! An interpretation like the one you did, would generate the condamnation of virtually all the nations of the world because the presence of homeless.
Obviously nobody would never condamn and accuse a nation for the presence of the homeless. In brief, it is clear that we cannot accuse a Government for all the situation which can exist into its nation. To end: a government would be accused in effect only if it would be possible recognize a clear intention to undermine one or more of these rights or if there is a clear aiding and abetting for particular categories at the detriment of the rest. And now I want turn to you your statement about the "will of the majority": stamping out the possibility for a worker at least to chose to have favourable worked condition, would it be a democratic and fair behavior? I think that make such a gift to the employeers cannot be even considered as "tyranny of majority", at least the opposite! Or not? Or the Govenrment of New Endralon when propose a law prefer work only for the one which voted for it? A Government should be the Government of all a nation, not only the Government of who voted for it, right?
I don't care of your political debate on liberatarianism or socialdemocracy, these are futile allusion and comments, used also, seems to me, in a pejorative way with no real proof of all such criticism. Istalia reached the position which cover today into the world also when the legislation it was heavily more "socialdemocratic", if we have to talk about worker rights as a specific policy of this or that political movement. Working right is also the right to be pay for our work! Or we want to deny also this? If we will even arrive to deny also this... well... why criminalize the Slavery?


Finally, about "who" decide what are the reasonable range of these rights? Well, often is called "Common sense", than we have centuries and millennia of juridic history and accademy, and then we will propose an International Juridic Court to solve such problems, an indipendent body inside the World Congress formed by indipendent judges from all over the world.
You cannot accept me and my world, but just like you respect the decision which can be taken by the highest judiciary body in your nation, I don't think you will doesn't recognize a similar international body, and furthermore, I'm sure that the juridic tradition of your nation is not too distant from the one of the great majority of the nations of Terra, despite the petty political opinion, the culture superstructure of our nations si no so different!

But the problem is just this: we can debate whatever we want, but then the work will rely on legal experts and judge, and we don't think that in NE/K the Government is free to influence the Juridic system of its own nation. Right? And be sure that a judge cannot interpret something like he wants or... like the political party at the power wants, and we are sure that NE/K is a fully democratic nation! "Common Sense" and "Juridic tradition", these are the keys! And I'm quite sure that a legal expertise would demolish all your interpretation, an interpretation biased by the fear to see your particular political positions undermine.

Thank you
Alleanza Radicale (Radical Alliance) - Istalia (Active)
User avatar
Axxell
 
Posts: 1496
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 8:08 am

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby General.M » Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:57 pm

Adam Urzica, representative of New Endralon/Kizenia
I really don't understand why Ambassador Urzica why all this hostility.

I think cultural and langual differences have derailed our discussion. In our culture this would be considered quite agressive so we responded as we thought we should do.
"These rights protect the people also from themself! It is not concepible that someone decide to reject one or all these rights because, and the Chart as well as all other the declarations of this kind are clear, these are rights are INALIENABLE! Nobody can reject some or all these Rights which the incipit of this Chart, as well as of its predecessor, clearly say that these are inalienable rights!" I will retreat my last words.

Now, back to the topic.
Finally, about "who" decide what are the reasonable range of these rights? Well, often is called "Common sense", than we have centuries and millennia of juridic history and accademy, and then we will propose an International Juridic Court to solve such problems, an indipendent body inside the World Congress formed by indipendent judge from all over the world.
You cannot accept me and my world, but just like you respect the decision which can be taken by the highest judiciary body in your nation, I don't think you will doesn't recognize a similar international body, and furthermore, I'm sure that the juridic tradition of your nation is not too distant from the one of the great majority of the nations of Terra, despite the petty political opinion, the culture superstructure of our nations si no so different!

This is indeed the case in our nation. But as you should also know, intrepetation is the biggest problem in almost all judiciary systems. This is exactely why both our nations have given every person the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court. And I think it happens quite often that after the appealement the result is quite different from the decision by the first judge. This is why we should work to make the declaration impossible to interepetend differentely than it was intendend.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Now, that we have both voiced our opinions, I will propose a change. We ask that the part 'and periodic holidays with pay.' will be deleted. The right to leisure is already voiced and we don't think this adds anything to the declaration.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

We ask that 'to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.' will also be deleted. Thanks to the part 'free choice of employment' this part is unneccesary. This can be misunderstood and is prone to wrong intrepetation.

Thank you
Libertären Partei (Dorvik)(inactive)
Republikeinse Partij / Rekvaknsé Prta (Vanuku)(inactive)
Alianța Liberalilor (New Endralon/Kizenia)(inactive)
Natsional'naya Liga Patriotov (Trigunia)(active)

CRC for Keris and Macon
User avatar
General.M
 
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 7:42 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Human Rights Foundation

Postby jamescfm » Mon Nov 05, 2018 12:57 am

Human Rights Foundation highlights "international beacons" in latest report

International non-profit organisation the Human Rights Foundation, formed to advance the cause of human rights across the globe, has released a report in which it points to several nations in Terra which it deems to be "international beacons" in terms of their protection of essential freedoms, such as the right to a fair trail, equality of opportunity and freedom of the press. Throughout the report, the organisation encourages these nations to use their international influence to pressure their allies into recognising the importance of human rights and democracy. The nine nations named in the report are Rutania, Hobrazia, Kalistan, Baltusia, Kanjor, Keymon, Barmenia, Dankuk and Kazulia.

Speaking to journalists from across Terra at the launch of the report, Secretary-General Stefan Zeltser explained the importance of putting human rights on the international agenda, saying "it is absolutely crucial that those nations at the forefront of the fight for global rights encourage other nations to join them in guaranteeing fundamental freedoms. Some of the nations highlighted in this report, like Kazulia and Kalistan, are among the most influential in Terra and it is essential that they fulfil the responsibility that their power brings". Zeltser went on to describe the methodology behind the report, explaining that the International Declaration of Human Rights was the basis for what constituted essential human rights
User avatar
jamescfm
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Organizations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron