NationStates

Consular wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: That still means that any criminal group will not be made aware of the identity of the individual unless they happen to be an immediate family member of the deceased, which would be ironic. It is impossible to enact revenge if you don’t know who you are enacting revenge against.)

"Ironic, perhaps, but also not impossible."

(OOC: I said that out-of-character, it is roleplay convention to not respond to OOC comments in IC, since the ambassador would be talking to air. On your actual point though, it is extremely unlikely for a criminal to be in the family of the person they wish to exact revenge on, even if they were under a false name. Whilst it could occur, it is so improbable it doesn’t really merit discussion. There’s no reason to stop an entire family from learning of their spouse/child/sibling/parent/whatever’s true identity on the off chance on of them is a violent criminal with a specific vendetta for a person.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Consular wrote:"Ironic, perhaps, but also not impossible."

(OOC: I said that out-of-character, it is roleplay convention to not respond to OOC comments in IC, since the ambassador would be talking to air. On your actual point though, it is extremely unlikely for a criminal to be in the family of the person they wish to exact revenge on, even if they were under a false name. Whilst it could occur, it is so improbable it doesn’t really merit discussion. There’s no reason to stop an entire family from learning of their spouse/child/sibling/parent/whatever’s true identity on the off chance on of them is a violent criminal with a specific vendetta for a person.)

Yeah I know but some of you folks go into ooc unnecessarily and I find it tedious.

United Massachusetts wrote:[*]Each bereaved individual shall be entitled to:

1. be involved in and present at funeral or other final rites barring prior written objection from the deceased individual,
2. access or visit the remains of the deceased individual, except where doing so is infeasible, dangerous, or poses a public health risk,
3. be provided the truthful circumstances of the death and of the deceased individual's life by the state,
4. and access counseling or guidance services at low, non-prohibitive cost.

[*]Member states shall make available the relevant counseling or guidance services to bereaved individuals at low, non-prohibitive cost.[/list]

I'm puzzled as to why it's necessary to have a whole clause to mandate the provision of one (and only one) of four things a bereaved individual is entitled to. What does the entitlement mean if not that the state has to provide the thing in question? And does this imply that state doesn't have to provide the other three entitlements?

Regardless, it's only fair to say that I'll vote against this in anything like its current form. It simply isn't the role of national government, let alone international law, to get involved in the way a grieving family arranges a funeral. And while I could support mandating the provision of psychological support, including through schools, to individuals that need it I cannot support doing so only for the bereaved while neglecting everyone else.

United Massachusetts wrote:

Christian Democrats wrote:How is this an international issue, and why is this proposal Human Rights instead of Social Justice?

I'm not convinced that something not being an international issue is a reason to prevent progress on the matter.

See subsidiarity.

“How is clause 2d supposed to work in nation with no government subsidies or nationalisation for counselling and therapy?”

Consular wrote:Yeah I know but some of you folks go into ooc unnecessarily and I find it tedious.

OOC: It's pretty much a necessity when either using RL references or if it's something that your IC ambassador would wave off as "a problem only utter savages suffer from" or similar attitude. For example, since UM said the stuff about his personal connection to this subject in the opening post, I'm keeping my comments on the draft generally as OOC to avoid mentioning what's the standard practice for dead bodies in Araraukar...

Kenmoria wrote:“How is clause 2d supposed to work in nation with no government subsidies or nationalisation for counselling and therapy?”

IC: "Well naturally your state would have to pay the private therapy industry the fees that the counseling of the bereaved people would otherwise pay."