NationStates

Blueflarst wrote:

Masurbia wrote:This proposal would make it illegal for authorities to exhume graves in an investigation.

The authority must not touch my body if i do want it.
Your laws can not be over the sanctity of the body

OOC: I think you missed the reply to that:

Erithaca wrote:

Masurbia wrote:This proposal would make it illegal for authorities to exhume graves in an investigation.

I fixed that by adding an exception for criminal investigations.

OOC: In response to my question why criminal investigations weren't specifically exempted, the author of this resolution wrote in another thread,

"In all fairness, it would have been appropriate to specifically include this, but clause 4.c. does reference criminal investigations in the words 'an epidemic, catastrophe, major accident or other compelling situation.' This is more an issue of writing style rather than a serious omission that would have a meaningful impact on the execution of this resolution."

I'm troubled by how vague that is. Epidemic and catastrophe generally don't describe a run-of-the-mill criminal case. "A compelling reason" clearly leaves interpretation up to courts. And given that the nations who would like to violate this resolution in principle are likely to have at least one rubber stamp court, the clause baaically undermines your whole resolution rather than just exempt specifically what you wanted to exempt. I can understand why this omission happened, but I think it undermines the resolution and even contradicts your preamble. So even though I support the goal of your resolution, my country will vote no.

This has to be one of the most one sided votes in recent history.

Palsada wrote:This has to be one of the most one sided votes in recent history.

Even though I don't support the resolution, I'm really surprised. This is hardly an offensive issue, it's well intended and the flaws seem pretty minor. I wouldn't mind if this passed. I'm sure there have been far worse proposals and I can think of resolutions that are on the books more flawed than this.

Liberimery will vote nay on this Resolution as we do not see it as something international law should be concerned with.

Why aren't we advocating for necrophilia yet?

Seriously protecting graves there is so many things we can focus on.

"We voted against. We compost the remains of the dead, and this would make things rather burdensome."

We the people of The Bunny Fire voted against this because it infringes on the rights of treasure hunters, cannibals, necromancers, and real estate developers everywhere. It also makes it more difficult for governments to recycle the buried corpses for their basic resources.

Inderlanda3 wrote:Seriously protecting graves there is so many things we can focus on.

Such as?

TNP's MoWAA IFV on Treatment of Deceased for your reading pleasure ---> https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1242673

The Unfounded wrote:"We voted against. We compost the remains of the dead, and this would make things rather burdensome."

(OOC: Composting is allowed so far as it is done before the deceased is buried, since then you are not mutilating the grave, only the body.)

Kenmoria wrote:

The Unfounded wrote:"We voted against. We compost the remains of the dead, and this would make things rather burdensome."

(OOC: Composting is allowed so far as it is done before the deceased is buried, since then you are not mutilating the grave, only the body.)

Yes but it also states that you must give the deceased the opportunity to Opt Out of things such as Composting, Organ Harvesting Etcetera. It's all under clause 4.

Kranostav wrote:TNP's MoWAA IFV on Treatment of Deceased for your reading pleasure ---> https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=1242673

OOC: Per the IFV, I'm changing my vote to against.

IC: We are amply persuaded by TNP's IFV recommending a no vote and will be changing our vote to AGAINST.

Neo Kalashnikov wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Composting is allowed so far as it is done before the deceased is buried, since then you are not mutilating the grave, only the body.)

Yes but it also states that you must give the deceased the opportunity to Opt Out of things such as Composting, Organ Harvesting Etcetera. It's all under clause 4.

(OOC: However, clause 4c contains an exception for a ‘compelling situation’, which is vague enough that any government could exploit it via creative compliance.)

The Evil Dark Empire of Evil Darkness wrote:Why aren't we advocating for necrophilia yet?

OOC: Because this isn't the NSG.

The Unfounded wrote:"We voted against. We compost the remains of the dead, and this would make things rather burdensome."

IC: "That is actually still allowed under the proposal. Just chop the bodies up before putting them in a compostor."

Lmao.... What even is this.......?????

Neo Kalashnikov wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Composting is allowed so far as it is done before the deceased is buried, since then you are not mutilating the grave, only the body.)

Yes but it also states that you must give the deceased the opportunity to Opt Out of things such as Composting, Organ Harvesting Etcetera. It's all under clause 4.

Agreed

Against. Even more so now that I received a telegram from the author accusing me of being a lemming for voting against it. You poisoned the well author, you poisoned the well.

Wakazia wrote:

Neo Kalashnikov wrote:Yes but it also states that you must give the deceased the opportunity to Opt Out of things such as Composting, Organ Harvesting Etcetera. It's all under clause 4.

Agreed

OOC: Actually it only says they need to be allowed to opt out of "scientific or medicinal use of organs or tissues". Composting is an agricultural use of nutrients and so that doesn't apply.

Unfortunately, this resolution creates many conflicts in laws and international. Therefore, I and a majority of my region voted against.
Before to propose a new resolution on the same subject, please, take in consideration our recommendation to make a better resolution that do not infringe both the human rights and the laws in conflict.

This is an important issue and I’m surprised to see the resolution getting annihilated on the voting floor despite its flaws.

DACOROMANIA wrote:Unfortunately, this resolution creates many conflicts in laws and international. Therefore, I and a majority of my region voted against.
Before to propose a new resolution on the same subject, please, take in consideration our recommendation to make a better resolution that do not infringe both the human rights and the laws in conflict.

(OOC: Could you highlight the laws in conflict with this proposal? That sounds as though you are suggesting duplication or contradictions, which would be grounds for a legality challenge.)

An interesting resolution.

"Esteemed members of the General Assembly,

After a careful and prudent review of the proposal at hand, the Government of Agrosia has determined it to be in the best interest of both the people of Agrosia, and of the world, if this resolution were defeated. Whilst agreeing fully that the rights/wishes of the deceased ought to be upheld, we recognize that poorer nations may lack the necessary resources to fully enforce this resolution.

Further, while we have laws in Agrosia that provide the deceased with certain inalienable rights, ground burial was prohibited in the late 1980s due to a lack of space for cemeteries. We feel that there is potential that this legislation, as currently written, could allow Agrosian citizens to challenge the burial ban in court, or that various Inspectors General within Agrosia would be forced to cite this crucial national law as being non-compliant with WA standards. In an effort to preserve necessary rule of law within our own nation, we are compelled to vote against this resolution."

Anthony O'Connell
Special Attaché to the General Assembly