Universal Declaration of Human Rights


  • Admin

    Considering the current political climate in regional affairs, I can think of no better time to bring to light these 30 Articles of amendments to our European Constitution, all of which have been crafted by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

    Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    PREAMBLE
    Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
    Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
    Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
    Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
    Whereas the peoples of the European Union have reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
    Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the organs of the European Union, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
    Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

    Now, Therefore the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics proposes this universal declaration of human rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

    Article 1

    All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

    Article 2

    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

    Article 3

    Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

    Article 4

    No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

    Article 5

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

    Article 6

    Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

    Article 7

    All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

    Article 8

    Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

    Article 9

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

    Article 10

    Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

    Article 11

    (1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

    (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

    Article 12

    No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

    Article 13

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

    Article 14

    (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

    (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the European Union and/or United Nations.

    Article 15

    (1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

    Article 16

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. All marriages, regardless of race, nationality, religion, and sex have the right to pursue a family, be it through traditional forms of conception, in vitro fertilization, adoption, etc.

    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Article 17

    (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Article 18

    Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

    Article 19

    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

    Article 20

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

    (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

    Article 21

    (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

    (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

    (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

    Article 22

    Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

    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.

    Article 24

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

    Article 25

    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Article 26

    (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

    (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the Eurpean Union and/or United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

    (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

    Article 27

    (1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

    (2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

    Article 28

    Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

    Article 29

    (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

    (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the European Union and/or the United Nations.

    Article 30

    Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.


    Amendment I Proposed by Belarum on 15 May 2006.
    Amendment to Article 16, Section 1:

    All marriages, regardless of race, nationality, religion, and sex have the right to pursue a family, be it through traditional forms of conception, in vitro fertilization, adoption, etc.

    Passed by the Security Council with 5 votes for, 0 against, and 0 delegates abstaining from the vote on 26 May 2006.


  • Admin

    FOR.



  • Nazione Italiana calls for a slight change, giving undersigning (perhaps conservative) nations the right to decline marriage to same-sex couples. Again, it should state that it be the decression of the undersigining goverment what is considered a couple, allowed to marry (ex. in Nazione Italiana, a consenting male and female couple over legal age (17).) {A. 17}

    If this cannot be changed, we take a position against.



  • I, on the other hand, think same-sex marriage is a right. rolleyes.gif

    (P.S. I was for before and I'm still for now; seems I haven't passed my birthday laugh.gif )



  • Nazione Italiana stands by its statement and decision. Why should this decide for me what my government sees as a legal couple?



  • While many words are well picked by the representatives from the Soviet Union I see a lack of realism in their context. Barbarous acts have been executed in the name of democracy as well as any inhuman government such as medieval kingdoms as well as the sister ideologies of fascism and communism. While the Soviet Union strive to enforce political freedoms in order or ensure human rights, which I must amend the representatives from the Soviet Union for, they oppress other groups of our broad society. I would say that the starting point for this bill lies in western-democratic-right-social democratic-Christian values. However amusing, that such position should be defended by the Soviet Socialistic Republics, are of more ideological nature than the fact that they are. I would say that the representatives from the Soviet Union clearly are influenced by a westernised way of thinking. While I welcome such vitalization of the Soviet society I believe it lacks a broad and serious spectra, which I believe are essential for this parliament to defend and speak up for. And this is the very essence of my opposition in this matter, this parliament with its large variety of nation states with different political and public support, religious, ethnic, ideological conditions, makes it virtually impossible for this parliament to impose such details in it?s bills.

    Whilst I do support large portions of the declarations of human rights we would have problems if we seek to impose these laws on other nations.

    For instance, article 1:
    ?And should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood?
    Which regional body should uphold this part of the bill, should it be law? The ECJ, and what would the punishment be, further what is ?not acting in spirit of brotherhood? If I don?t lend my ladder to my neighbour? We can all understand the meaning of the law, but should it be written as law, we must be able to enforce it and uphold it. Otherwise the European parliament would sooner become a toothless body of fine rhetoric?s rather than a place for national unity. In this case we should perhaps discuss a regional defence bill and when regional military sanctions would apply. Will it ever be eligible for the union to intervene in national matters, with this law we say yes, without even having the discussion, or we say yes to an organisation of word instead of actions. It has always been my firmest belief that the regional cooperation, as well as national politics should always be in favour for the population. Therefore we would have to sort those things out before we could ever go to vote on this proposal. We all know that there are differences on some of these issues, and I ask the parliament to solve them before we go to vote on them.

    Furthermore, article 2, enforcing religious freedom are a grandeur thing to do. But what about extreme sects and cults? Perhaps they could have recognition in a neoliberal society, but hardly in any other. Considering societies with strong religious influence of tradition, such as Christian, Muslim, and Jewish etc. they would meet oppositions, should this parliament make it law to stop these countries with thousands of years of tradition, history and perhaps most important of all in a political debate, a vast political majority, to change their laws in order to ensure absolute political freedom for the sake of neoliberals and irresponsible politicians in this parliament?

    Article 3 stands in direct opposition to countries with death penalties. Whilst I?m not aware of which countries in this union who allows it, or even if any nation here does, I would like to put forth the question. Again this is a matter of culture, I?m not saying that a cultural phenomenon justifies a political stance, but at least we should take that into consideration. I believe there are some cultures where the death penalties can be justified. Even if I?m not of the same opinion, I understand their logics, and I defend their right to express it. At some point there are political incitements for society to take the life of another human being. I do only support the death penalty in times of war, but in a time when war and peace aren?t black and white anymore, perhaps the issue need some further discussion. One man or woman can still inflict enormous damage to a single society without a state of war. The very same person could also be ?perfectly sane? in matters of medical terms, but with a firm belief in what he or she is doing is the right thing to do. A politician does the same everyday, but in a much smaller scale, without (hopefully) bloodshed.

    Furthermore article 3 states that everyone has right to ?security of person.?. Again, how would we enforce and uphold this law? Not many nations can guarantee the safety and security of their citizens. Anarchistic states doesn?t, and others struggle with internal security. Should a nations be convicted in the ECJ for having 5% increase of crime from one year to another, and what other premise should be important?

    Concerning article 4, I could like to ask for a more forceful declaration against trafficking and trade of that nature. In most nations slavery isn?t the biggest problem, but trafficking. Both slavery and trafficking should be, in my opinion, illegal. But whilst I see that as a national matter with the European Union as a platform for cooperation, the Soviet Union wishes to declare it European law, without any means of upholding the law.

    I could go on rambling about almost every section in this manner, but of consideration for this parliament I?ll shorten it down. Only mentioning briefly a few other points.

    Article 7 would disable diplomatic immunity, which I consider an important way to give nations with an oppressed opposition a voice in the global community for instance.

    Article 9 is in great contrast to many common national laws of legal security.

    Article 14, (1), guarantees asylum to anyone who seeks it, regardless of the national capacity to receive political refugees, the political stance in the refugee question, and the national relations to the country the refugees are fleeing from. I would support a regional guarantee of harbouring political refugees, but not to impose such laws on all member states alike.

    Article 16, full age are different between many member states and makes it difficult to rule. Imposing such laws could furthermore in strict religious nations alienate different groups from each other rather than increase understanding through public awareness.

    Article 19 ensures the freedom of expression in any context, this without a regional law regulating what?s accepted as a political protest. Is running havoc cowardly hiding behind a mask, throwing rocks at the defenders of law and order such ?freedom of expression? as long as you whine about people getting rich for working instead of you?
    Again this should still be regarded as a domestic issue.

    I?ll stop here, while there are still more things to be said about the rest of the proposition.

    I oppose this declaration of human rights, as it would be complicated to write some of these things into law. I would however welcome a program of principle where large portions of this would be included, mainly those parts who wouldn?t fall under a different category or simply be excluded from the European parliaments work.

    I thank the members of parliament for their patience.

    Regards/
    Cato, HRE


  • Admin

    To begin with, my dear colleagues, I will start with the oppressive neo-conservative empire plaguing the people of its vicinity; this is not a law but a declaration of points commonly agreed to as 'human rights' similarly styled to these assured by the United Nations Organization elsewhere [ooc: real-world.] These points are not 'western-democratic-right-social democratic-Christian values' (WHAT?) but simply, points of common sense. Communism is an ideology for the liberation of man from the oppression of the capitalists and their burgeois systems that only assyre further exploitation and hurting of the commoner; as such, we have drafted this piece of legislation to limit the excuses you can use to exploit your people and the people of other countries.

    Apparently, the chaotic-minded capitalist neo-conservative lapdogs of the corporations that rule the countries your governments claim as theirs lack the means to trust the spirits of governments and try to achieve an outcome without enforcement but with cooperation; then again, when did your legions of lawyers, factory owners and scutati know how to cooperate with anybody other than one another? A question our scientists have yet to answer, while our archeologists remind us there is no historical evidence of that happening anytime the past four millenia.

    As for Article 2, you only reveal your phobia towards the different and the unknown. Once again, the words of Karl Marx are proven true; without a centrally-controlled religion, the jokes you dare call Capitalist States are threatened with direct collapse, just as they are at every time their weaknesses become apparent. This intolerance, phobia of the different and the unknown becomes hypocrisy when your great religiously-aligned powers whine at one another for forbidding the believers of their favoured religion do this or that in a differently aligned country, with direct results being nationalism, sectarianism and civil strife, let alone religious fanaticism!

    To conclude with your ignorance, I again remind you the value of cooperation. While it might be different from your tradition - which unfortunately includes a hundred workers with a single master over their head to coordinate them - the Soviet Union and other states have proven that if there is will, no enforcer is needed, as every one of us becomes the enforcer. If you believe that we will allow for this great institution to become a totalitarial corporation-dictatorship you defintely are wrong!

    Your continuous attacks on the Soviet Democracy on EPP-ED party level and parliamentarian level is once again apparent through your foul and most unwelcomed comments of dire xenophobia and racism that you transmit, trying to point out the superiority of your cultures to those of the multicultural Soviet Union and other countries that still have the Guts to stand up and do as they wish without your economical neo-colonialism. Suddenly, value of human life and rights is a western christian capitalist neoconservative monopoly! A true wonder - I must apologize on behalf of my government for hiding that we were western christian capitalist neoconservatives as well!

    As Sergei Kirov's sudden attack was finished, the adult Russian drank some of his water before moving away, clearly angered. The diplomatic incident was no minor one; and definitely, the diplomatic incident could very easily escalate further.



  • Seeing as how no counters were made to my statements... I take it that it will be changed accordingly?



  • Before anyone could respond, a commotion could be detected at the other end of the hall, as a man in long flowing grey robe angrily barges his way through, escorted by people in neat black suits and black sunglasses, a black and white armband depicting the flag of the nation that had hired them to aid this man in gaining an audience.

    "I DEMAND OUR RIGHT TO BE HEARD!" screamed the irate ambassador, the official representative of Alikhstan to the Rest of the (infidel) World.
    "This so-called "Bill" of "Human" "Rights" is a gross insult to all nations of the Third World! Your Christian, Capitalist and Zionist Values have no meaning or place in the nations of Islam, nor those not directly affliated with the Zionist Club called "Europe". "
    he paused, taking a deep breath, then striding forward, seeking to take in as much of the hall as possible.
    "That you allow Communists, Jews and worse to debate this issue is bad enough, but that you discriminate against Islam is Intolerable! We will not be mocked, and we too would call for a serious redraft of this so-called Bill, which by its very nature offends, seeking to impose a single universal code on the peoples of the World!"

    Pausing once more for breath, the Ambassador added, more calmly, "I specifically request that Articles 16 to 30 be removed or redrafted, as the implications behind them, and their aim of imposition on all the peoples of the world, must be rejected!"



  • Federal Ministry of European Affairs
    The Federal Republic has within its constitution adopted the belief that all human beings - regardless of sex, age, sexual orientation or identity, ethnic origin or disability - have the right to make their own choices, to express themselves freely and to shape their own lives.

    Our belief in democracy is founded upon the mutual recognition of all individuals as equals. We are committed to this. Our own social justice policies ensure that everyone has access to vital societal resources: education, work and democratic participation. Fair access must be defended in the face of existing social imbalances, and needs to be institutionally safeguarded throughout the EU.

    As a nation we believe in Justice. Justice in its many forms, particularily justice in gender equity. Women and men should enjoy the same power to define how society will develop and the role in which they productively play in it.

    We believe this Declaration allows for such and therefore fully endorse it. The Federal Republic votes **FOR **the motion at hand.

    user posted image
    Eva Straus MEP, Party Leader,
    [European Green Party] - Real Progress



  • QUOTE (Alikhstan @ Dec 24 2006, 01:39 AM)

    Before anyone could respond, a commotion could be detected at the other end of the hall, as a man in long flowing grey robe angrily barges his way through, escorted by people in neat black suits and black sunglasses, a black and white armband depicting the flag of the nation that had hired them to aid this man in gaining an audience.

    "I DEMAND OUR RIGHT TO BE HEARD!" screamed the irate ambassador, the official representative of Alikhstan to the Rest of the (infidel) World.
    "This so-called "Bill" of "Human" "Rights" is a gross insult to all nations of the Third World! Your Christian, Capitalist and Zionist Values have no meaning or place in the nations of Islam, nor those not directly affliated with the Zionist Club called "Europe". "
    he paused, taking a deep breath, then striding forward, seeking to take in as much of the hall as possible.
    "That you allow Communists, Jews and worse to debate this issue is bad enough, but that you discriminate against Islam is Intolerable! We will not be mocked, and we too would call for a serious redraft of this so-called Bill, which by its very nature offends, seeking to impose a single universal code on the peoples of the World!"

    Pausing once more for breath, the Ambassador added, more calmly, "I specifically request that Articles 16 to 30 be removed or redrafted, as the implications behind them, and their aim of imposition on all the peoples of the world, must be rejected!"

    In an attempt to break the silence of shock and confusion, the Rep. from Naz. Italiana stands again.

    Admirable Alikhstan,

    Although we agree in what articles need to be edited, I am at a miss as to what exactly in them is anti-muslim? The object of the document is to make all, muslims, christians, jews, and communists equal to the law.

    I'm sure the entire assembly, myself included, does not understand, nor agree with your word choice... seemingly anti-semetic and anti-communist. Although you do not agree with their views, the European Union has long stood for equality, liberity, and freedom. Your bashing of these peoples, is simply unacceptable.

    The Representive sits... and waits... for applause... maybe?


  • Admin

    May I ask the... honourable Italian representative why is he discriminating Communists by listing them seperately from religions and ethnicities, as though our breed is some sort of plague? This is outright political intolerance and racism, and we demand the foul comments are recalled in the name of democracy and tolerance, or else!...

    As for Mr. Akhmed, it is beyond sanity to dare beginning to answer to the foul comments made by islamofascist regimes that give the religion of Muhammad an evil and bad reputation across the globe. I expect, however, that greater tolerance will be shown from your side as well, at least within the halls of the Parliament and other regional institutions, as *cough* our colleagues from the West will show from now on *cough*



  • QUOTE (Soviet Union @ Dec 24 2006, 02:01 AM)

    May I ask the... honourable Italian representative why is he discriminating Communists by listing them seperately from religions and ethnicities, as though our breed is some sort of plague? This is outright political intolerance and racism, and we demand the foul comments are recalled in the name of democracy and tolerance, or else!...

    Dear communist friend...

    The listing of communist last in the spoken word was no error, nor was it purposeful or a gesture with a secret meaning. How dare you take my defending your good name and turn it into a seemingly discriminating! I shall think twice before I come to the plate for you.

    How dare you call me a racist, an intolerant, and discriminate!



  • Akhmed turned, and stared at the Soviet representative as if he was some kind of foul insect that had dared to crawl on his arm. He was about to muster a resounding retort when a short, bespectacled scribe with neatly cropped black hair and an arm full of papers came running up behind the Ambassador, and began frantically whispering in his ear.
    Calming himself, the Ambassador resumed his thunderous oratory, but in a more formal tone.

    "In honour to our hosts and the Italian Representatives, I shall ignore the provocative noise made by some of those present, and clarify our position on this matter!
    If these... Articles are to be allowed, the issue of choice and the demands of religion need to be made! They seek to impose a narrow-minded and frankly pro-western interpretation of the words "equality" "liberty" and "freedom".
    The smugness and self-righteousness with which you seek to impose such things as the legalization of homosexuality, the so-called freedom to allow single-mother families....all these undermine the tenets of our faith, and fly in the face of the enshrined rights and laws drawn up by the Caliphate of Alikhstan, approved by the masses as represented by the Imams and Satraps of Alikhstan."
    Lowering his tone, he delivered his final damning verdict.
    "Untill provisions are made for State Independence in determining its own legislation and religious and moral observances, SUCH A BILL CANNOT, WILL NOT AND WILL NEVER BE A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE WILL OF THIS WORLD!"



  • What oppressive neo-conservative empire does the Soviet representatives talk about? The only oppressive empire in these halls are the Soviet Union, it's uneducated warmongeres who belive there is some sort of end in itself to posses and wave about their nuclear arsenal. It's laughabel, yet I refrain from laught since the serious aspect steps in, that the Soviet Union dares to speak up for any kind of of "humanism" whilst it representatives stands for a conform ideology where "humanism" are second to state and collective. I ask the Soviet Union if it's leaders and representatives posses adequate knowledge in the communistic ideology.

    I assume the Soviet Union doesn't strive for true Marxist communism since there does exists a state called the Soviet Union. A nation of such "greatness" which the propaganda machine tries to impose on the world, should have every prerequisite of reform it's nation into a proletarian paradise.

    I assume by the statement by the Soviet representatives on 'western-democratic-right-social democratic-Christian values', that they are not familiar with common social science either. Even to oppose such a statement shows scarifying connections with the fact that the Soviet Union does posses nuclear weapons.

    '...but simply common sense' For someone who claims he belives in Marx and natural laws, I would ask the representatives if he believe that the natural state for man was to accept a universal declaration of human rights? If so, the Stone Age man would have adapted such behavior, if the representatives from the Soviet Union wonders; all science disagree. If the Soviet representatives could come to any conclution in this matter, the Soviet Unions holds two alternatives. 1, Marx was wrong and natural laws are not the highest ruling laws, thus the communistic ideology falls. 2, Mankinds history are in fact a well hidden paradise where humanism and human rights where something we have always had and believed in.

    I'm aware of the simplicity of this short ideological comparision, but I have my reasons.

    Now, if the Soviet representatives would listen briefly to my point of veiw;
    in the beginning humans acted upon instinct and survival. This creats conflict with human rights. Exampel. Human A are starving witheout food, but posses a weapon. Human B does posses food, but not enough for both of them, and no weapon. During the Stone Age, it would be perfectly motivated for human A to force human B to surrender his or her food. Even by taking human Bs life in order to save his own. Thus setting Alternative 2 of the above out of place. This might be regarded as uncivlized behavior by most people today, even if we can see occassional proofs of the very same scenario on places on earth today, but then again, that is uncivilized behaviour. For the Soviet Unions representatives reaction on this very issue, they do in fact give strenght to the scientific theory of mine, since they seems to be locked in "modern" day thinking regarding for instance, the values of life and rights of possession. Even if the neglect the will to survive, and human instincts as a factor to be reckoned with.

    As for 'Communism is an ideology for liberation of man form the oppression of the capitalists and their burgeoius systems that only assyre further exploitation and hurting of the commoner'. Capitalism stands for the highest growth in the world of wealth. During the last 40 years, the avergae lifespan of people in the third world increased from 46 to 64 years. Infant mortality has decreased from 18 to 8 per cent since 1950. The number of illiterate people has decreased from 70 to 25 per cent. Since 1970 the amount of children workers and starving people decreased by more than half. Since 1980 the amount of people who lives in absolute poverty by the standards of the UN, decreeased by more than 200 millions of people.

    Some interesting statistics for the Soviet Unions representatives to read and take with them back to the Kremlin.

    Now, and uneducated communist, socialist of any kind of uneducated person might try to take credit for his own ideology for this progress. But scientists from about every nation in the world are recognising the global capitalism and free democracy as the engine behind this positive progress. The flows of information, technology and wealth has enabeld people to have more freedom at their own leisure and to their beneft. Not the freedom the goverment sees fit through censorship and other ridiculus acts of facsism and communism. There are furthermore clear connections, with solid scentific grounds, between economic liberalism, capitalism and greater wealth and welfare. The countries who belong to the fifth of the worlds most economically liberal nations have ten times as much welfare compared to the fifth with the least liberal economy. This can be further claryfied with following exampels; The liberal fifth had an average yearly national growth of 2.56 per cent, compared to a negative national growth of 0.85 during the 1990ties. The fifth most liberal nations had aboslute poverty levels at 60 per cent lower than the less liberal fifth. The average lifespan are almost 20 years longer in the liberal fifth than in the non liberal fifth.

    The connection between economic liberty and political liberty are shown in the fact that citizens with the right to trade freely on the international market are four times more likely to enjoy political freedom.

    With this FACT, I would recommend the Soviet representatives to reconsider their selections of words in this debate more careful. There are other laws to protect the people than to be narrowminded, I support common laws to protect the people, but some peices of the proposal were inadeqate, out of date, downright stupid and not for this parliament to decide, but souverign nations.

    'Apparently, the chaotic-minded capitalist neo-conservative lapdogs of the corporations that rule the countries your governments claim as theirs lack the means to trust the spirits of governments and try to achieve an outcome without enforcement but with cooperation; then again, when did your legions of lawyers, factory owners and scutati know how to cooperate with anybody other than one another? A question our scientists have yet to answer, while our archeologists remind us there is no historical evidence of that happening anytime the past four millenia.'

    This time the representatives show their lack of knowledge in liberal economics, conservatism, as well as neo-conservatism, and probabyl in neo-liberalism as well. This, however, could be understanding since the Soviet represenatives spend most of their time complaining about theri political adversaries, rather than present facts.

    Calling the conservative ideology for 'chaotic-minded' is downright laughtabel. Conservatism are an ideology of strong govermental powers, a strong welfare system and a strong public sector. All of these three has been directly copied by social-liberals, and most socialists aswell. Even if the further veiw on society has been discussed. Calling the conservative ideology for chaotic only further implies the thoughtlessness, nonsens and lack of knowledge in their own and other ideologies. Which further impacts their veiw of society, the world and their reality. I would claim that the representatives from the Soviet Union has made the mistake to mix conservatism and liberalism all togheter, while I would inform them, that they in fact are two different ideologies.
    Our 'lack of means to trust the spirits of the goverment', are meet by the Soviet communistic lack of trust in the spirit of every free man or woman. Calling conservatism non-cooperational are also taken out of the air, as well as naive as the representatives seems to believe that lawyers and factory owners run our contries. I would encourage and welcome the representatives from the Soviet Union, and other socialistic and or communistic nations to visit other nations outside their own iron-curtain.
    Phobia towards the different and unknown? The stupidity and ignorance from the representatives of the Soviet Union starts to irritate me. As I have shown, I have got substance and thought behind my statements, I hope the Soviet Union does the same. I'm a strong supporter to religious freedom, if the representatives from the Soviet Union would have been observant, they would have known. But believe it or not, there might be cases when religious freedom contrasts the national laws, and I believe it would be foolish not to regluate that in a proposition. It's easy to write fancy words without substance, even a the representatives from the Soviet Union managed to do that. But to have legislativ substance to it, that's another thing.

    I must correct the representatives from the Soviet Union, and remind them that I'm a firm believer in religious freedom. Intolerance has only been shown by the representatives from the Soviet Union in many occassions stated above. There are few democratic capitalistic states who have a centrally-controlled religion. So again you are proven wrong. Cults with human sacrefice are contradictary to the values of life. What the Soviet Union does with this proposal is that they state the life as something prescious and valuabel. But with their other hand they allow religion to be absolutely free. In the case of human sacrefice, how would the Soviet Court rule, (or more important, a court with some sense of justice). I'm more in favor of life than religious cults where people hurt eachother. Even if that was the intent of the proposal, they made a fatal mistake by defending both, even if it ist't conventional law.

    The Soviet Union has always cooperated to who or whom they consider fit to recive their cooperation. There is no end in itself to cooperate just to cooperate, I believe there has to be a meaning in cooperating, such as increased wealth for the people. The Soviet Union makes another mistake when they consider 'if there is will, no enforcer is needed', as the goverments will, not the peoples will.
    I do not consider this as a move to creat a 'totalitarian corporation-dictatorship', I have never suggested anything of it's like. Either you are foolish or I have not been perfectly clear, if so I do apolegize.

    My continious work, perhaps they should be considered attacks in the militaristic world of yours, are apparent for my liberal thoughts and ideas. Whilst I can understand that the Soviet Union finds it most unwelcome that soemone questions them I thought this was a forum for serious debate whit ARGUMENTS rather than polemic clich?s.
    I find it most offending being compared with any sorts of rascism, xenophobia or neo-colonialism. If the Soviet Union could put forth any arguments for me being such I shall answer to them, and probably explain my point of veiw to the representatives from the Soviet Union.

    I'm looking forward to the Soviet representatives reply, should they dare, and this time I sincerly hope that they will constribute with some substance in this debate.


  • Admin

    These foul words shall never be forgotten. It is forgotten that these past forty years there has been a steady increase of socialist states; within two decades from the foundation of the USSR and other similar states, the said countries' illiteracy vanished, whereas nations first got social services, electricity networks, and a billion other improvements under a Communist Party-led government. The capitalist policy on the billions of poor humans is not forgotten, neither is the 'aid' offered by your money-hungry corporations to the Third World to 'help' it - always by ripping its resources and taking it straigfht into your homelands.

    To you, minimum wage and trade tariffs are 'pinko nonsense,' national sovereignity is secondary to trade interests, and you are eager to invade for things as petty as gaining access to a resource by force, most commonly oil. Your looney leaders establish juntas in innocent countries and indirectly oppress millions, if not billions, in order to gain immense benefits for themselves and their corporations. Your unemployment is in astronomical levels when compared to that of socialist states, whereas your people are exploited by massive propaganda campaigns that suggest consumerism, living for yourselves, and not giving a wooden nickle about anybody else.

    Your blindness forbids you to see value in treating the different ones as equals, and granting them the same rights as others. Capitalist states have oppressed homosexuals, minorities of ethnic and religious variety, even people of the very basic thing of being different in terms of physiology due to disease or otherwise. Your mighty empires and your 'by the Grace of God, Emperors' have been oppressing their people for millenia and guiding their folks to death in the Name of your Gods, simply for more personal gain.

    Who can forget the wave of dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, Asia and even Europe, produced by CIA? Who can forget that you split Germany in two because you opposed Soviet proposals of creating a unified, neutral and independent power, with no access to sensitive armaments? Who breached the treaties of disarmament and who kept it occupied until 1990, despite Soviet attempts to end the treaties? Who refused destroying the world's biochemical and nuclear arsenals completely numerous times? The capitalist menace has; not the people or governments of capitalist countries, but the capitalist controllers of te basic means of production, all for their own gain!

    Did not your own Messiah suggest you give away one of your two coats to the poor? Did he not follow almost to the line a number of orthodox Communist policies and ideals, almost 2000 years before they were even perceived by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels? Which religion promotes violence? None; and yet, the yoke you dare call 'system' has always been misguiding this, discriminating and oppressing. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, and so many other examples can be given as direct evidence of your personal gain overcoming your duties and fundamental obligations to rule your countries properly without harming anybody.

    You call us 'human rights abusers and violators' and yet it was us that first gave rights to women, and drafted a constitution not discriminating by race or religion. And until 1937 did we wait to be recognised by your states, and we became so only because you were afraid of the fascist siblings of yours. You measure your success in GDP growth, completely ignoring income equality for universal benefit and income growth of all your people with no exceptions; and you put your minorities in ghettos while they starve and are forced to resort to crimes to survive. No wonder minorities are so racist-ly encountered in your societies!

    You bring cults as an example, trying to get around rights, but again you fail. Human sacrifice is a murder, as such not supported by this Declaration; your xenophobia is shown by your prohibition of foreign cultural and religious symbols such as the islamic headscarf (hijab), by your tighter and tighter control of your society's different. Your xenophobia is shown by your deportations of people branded as terrorists, who will typically be muslim, communist, or anarchists; and your neo-colonialism is the economic dependence of the third world you create on your countries, the free trade agreements that harm their economies, and the evil measures your corporations take to push innocents into wage-slavery.

    This debate has died ever since you directly referred to me and my colleagues and our 'idiocy' or direct attacks using faulty propaganda on our political systems, without the slightest proof. As such, I am left with a single option to answer to your violent attacks, and I shall act immediately.

    Immediately after Sergei Kirov said these, the entire Soviet delegation immediately packed things and left the European Parliament and Commission offices despite some calls to stay.



  • _Dazed and completely shocked, the Italian delegate made his way, amongst the whispering, to the table of the Holy Roman Empire. _



  • Confusion and indescision wracked the Alikhi Ambassador, torn between agreement with the resounding denouncement of the hated Capitalist West, and delivering his own rejection of the hated Communists. Finally, a desire to return home and enjoy his hareem won out, and he decided to do both.
    "We too resolve to quit this pathetic excuse for a Parliament! The tyranny and opression of our peoples by the deluded west will not go unnoticed any longer! The smug, self-deluding indulgence of the communists in seeking to steal our words for their own nefarious purposes has convinced me that this is indeed Babylon, and I will not spend one day longer than necessary residing in this pit of sin!"
    Akhmed roared, before seeking to storm from the hall in an equally grandiose fashion, without appearing to imitate the communist representative.
    His much trouble clerk, tasked with maintaining the actual diplomacy and coaching the ambassador, sighed, and departed likewise, to begin clearing up the paperwork.



  • _The Italian, not wanting to seem like copy-cats made it out as fast as they could, while the hall started slowly to clear... But not until they gave the HRE Reps. a stirn talking to/congradulating. _



  • Oddly, the chair then recognised EC Geoffrey van Orden from the visitor's lobby. Seemingly the first Commissioner to be recognised in parliament

    I apologise to honourable and right honourable members present for giving any appearance of impropriety for rising in their house. I do, however, feel that further direction is needed.

    I commend the Human Rights Act as it stands. First and foremost, I believe it is already EU law (could be mistaken). I welcome the honourable member for what I believe is our first muslim commrade. I believe I speak for the entire union when I say that we are honoured by his presence. Second, it is clear that our own prejudices have blinded us to the concerns of the other. USSR, as leader of the EPP-ED, I can honestly vouch that no official party statement has been made against the right honourable member. I would urge the right honourable member not to confuse a majority of party members with the party itself. As a conservative, I believe that I may safely say that, as a group, we are perhaps the most blind to others. However, none of us has a perfect record. The communists had the best chance at a perfect record, as they are the newest ideology of the three major schools present. Lenin, I am afraid, blew that chance. I could also never ascribe to an ideology that does not value individuality or the principle of work, nor one that takes pride in murdering non-conformists (Romanoffs, pogroms). Christianity, Judaism and Islam have a common fault. Since the founding of Islam and one hundered years at the least after the founding of Christianity, all three have focussed on the suppression of minorities. All have been obsessed with championing the defamation of human rights and decency. Discrimination has been their calling-card. In response to our new and honourable friend, I would put to him that, as the USSR says, the nature of his objections reveal the extent of his own ignorance. I am sorry to offend, however, I agree that the same statement may be applied to many of my honourable and right honourable friends. A modern anti-human rights argument is against homosexuality. I wish to reject all defamation thereof and likewise presentiments made both in this house and the other place. Homosexuality is not a choice. Ask yourself: why would anyone choose to be discriminated against? Why, in the American south in the 18th-Century would one have volunteered to be a slave? Christians would argue that there is a difference; that homosexuality is a choice and race is not. I have already proven this statement to be false and I hope that no member present has the gall to again supplant it for reason. Divorced persons also face a distinct stigma in the more religious areas of the world. Yes, the world. I see no problem with divorce, even with the presence of children, and I would ask those opposed present why they would force to people to be together? Would they willingly co-habitate with a communist (I use this because the communist present is seemingly the only one that has no overwhelming anti-divorce sentiments)? It is an ironic, and all too often cruel, paradox that the religious right have taken upon themselves to decide who should and should not be permitted to be together. I, however, would supplant true conservative ideals: leave it for individuals to decide. By deciding for people, the religious right are no better than fascists or Hitler. This may be compared to the command economy of the real USSR, in which the people had no choice. The absence of choice is the absence of democracy. It is the supplanting of democracy with theocracy that I fear. Should the people choose socialism, I perfectly content that it is a choice, whether or not I agree. Provided the choice of the people, I am more than willing to be either in government or in opposition. The thing I cannot tolerate is dictation, whether by one person, one party or one religion. These matters with which modern religion occupies itself has, as I see it, little bearing on the matter of salvation. If there is a change I would like to see in the declaration, I would like to see inserted the right of all couples to adopt children, provided mental sanity (a 1 or 0 response, not leaving room for theo-cratic governments to side-step this by saying that same-sex couples or mixed-anything (race, religion, etc.) couples are unfit to raise children). All to often, we are all guilty of confusing conservatism with the religious right. We too often confuse Thatcher with Jesus, Churchill with God, Gladstone with Mohammed. Having studied the Bible, I concur with my right honourable collegue from the USSR, early Christianity was, essentially, pure communism with an official religion. (For those in question, read the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's Letter to the Romans) Like the writing on the wall, or in the dirt, a few words are all that are necessary to reduce any group to genocidic tears: inquisition, crusade, jihad, (don't know the word for the time Mohammed spent in the desert marauding), (and as I said before) pogrom. So please, the next time honourable or right honourable members sally forth to paint the town red, green or with halos, please remember: no belief is perfect; there is not a group with a perfect record on human rights, so please: get off your high horse, and come to the debate.

    Mr. van Orden sits, seemingly wearied by the shouts of present theo-crats.

    By the way USSR, I agree with minimum wage, thank you very much.