[Gnejs]

Outlaw Necrophilia
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.


Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Karmicaria

Description: The NationStates United Nations,

DEFINING necrophilia, for the purposes of this resolution, as any unauthorized sexual act, performed on a deceased individual,

DISTURBED by the occurrence of necrophilia within the member nations of the UN,

NOTING that a corpse is incapable of consent, and that such lack of consent is why rape is commonly considered an inappropriate act,

OBSERVING many cases of emotional damage to the families of deceased individuals in cases of necrophilia,

RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses,

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to punish those guilty of corpse desecration to the fullest extent of the law, and,

CALLS UPON member nations to provide counseling and medical care for those engaging in acts of necrophilia.


Votes For: 1,516

Votes Against: 603


Voting Ends: Sat Sep 30 2006

[Saidercray]

For, though I think the resolution is rather spongy.

In fact, every nation can interprete whatever it wants into "the fullest extent of the law" and into "provide counseling and medical care". For example, Saidercray will provide a very lot of counseling and medical care, whereas "the fullest extent of the law" won't mean extreme punishment. For us, rehabilitation is better and more important than punishment. Other nations which think punishment is more important will translate the resolution into action in a way that's very different to ours.

The only real effect of the resolution will be that necrophile acts (not necrophilia itself, the title is a bit unfortunate) will be outlawed in the - probably very few - UN states where they aren't outlawed yet. For the vast majority, nothing will really change.

Yet, this one effect is an effect Saidercray supports as it serves to establish a UN-wide moral minimum that all nations have in common.

[Grosseschnauzer]

The real question is whether this is an appropriate subject for UN legislation, and not the merits of criminalization.

Under the rationale that this resolution is effectively using, anything could be the subject of a UN resolution on the basis that it needs to be made illegal.

That rationale is a weak foundation, and at the moment, we are undecided.

update:

We have decided to vote against, in part because our stated concerns appears to have support among other IDU members as a bsis to oppose.

As to the vampire question, I would think the law might not apply to them if for no other reason than they might not be considered "human."

[Federation of Disjunction]

Of course I'm against necrophilia on both a moral and a criminal basis, which means I'm for this resolution, I guess.

I do have to say though, that I take exception to the statement that there is "apparently" knowledge that necrophilia is occuring at an alrming rate in UN member nations. I find this supposition dubious. Show me evidence - even in RL.

I can't believe this reached quarum. There are much more deserving resolutions for our time.

[Eisophca]

I'm against, but weakly. Who really cares? Why is this an issue the UN has to deal with?

[Antrium]

No. AGAINST.

I hate resolutions like this because they don't do anything. "OBSERVING" and "RECOMMENDING" are not worth having a resolution for. If it passes, I'll really want to repeal it.

[Mikitivity]

OOC: I actually believe that although this isn't an "international" issue, that (1) this is what Max originally expected to see more of -- and is why there is a Moral Decency category, and (2) this is forcing us all to think about this ... while a vote against doesn't say we are pro-necrophilia, it certainly is a statement that there are bounds to UN resolutions and topics.

IC: Mikitivity wants to know how common this practice is in the IDU nations. In Mikitivity there are few *reports* of necrophilia. Also would vampire romance be necrophilia? What do our vampire populations have to say about this?

:jump:

[Baranxtu]

AGAINST, because
a) why the hell is this even a proposal?
b) I mean, really, what's the point?
c) Fo' realz, now
d)
Quote: RECOMMENDS that member nations outlaw the desecration of corpses, [/quote]
This is such a vague statement it could be taken as the basis for a lot of other things (because: how do we define desecration? Would a murderer whose crime has only been detected through autopsy claim that according to this resolution, the body was desecrated by the autopsy and as such all evidence obtained from it should be dismissed?).
e) There are so many more important things.... really...

[Gnejs]

AGAINST. Why is this in the UN?

[Bears Armed]

GnejsSep 27 2006, 07:20 AM AGAINST. Why is this in the UN? [/quote]
OOC: Because the delegates haven't brought any of the proposals that I (in my role as the government of 'St Edmundan Antarctic') submitted recently to quorum instead...