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