Amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article V of the Constitution

[A Former User]

ARTICLE V. THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Section I. Preamble

I. This Declaration defines the rights which all member states of the European Union must recognize all people as holding. to which every citizen of the European Union is entitled.

II. These rights are inalienable, and every citizen any person within the territorial bounds of the European Union may use this Declaration in a court of law against any infringement on these rights that they may face.

---

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it contains a very large loophole - interpreted literally, it does not recognize the rights of those outside the European Union. Of course, the European Union only has jurisdiction over itself; but let me give the following example as to show why such an amendment is necessary:

Let us say that Country A leaves the European Union. A large number of its citizens are in Country B, which remains a member. Now let us say that Country B decides to kill all citizens of Country A within its bounds. While this is atrocious, the Constitution can be interpreted as to make such a thing legal.

In my opinion, this must be fixed immediately.

Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane

[Inquista]

Debate on this constitutional amendment starts NOW and will last until 21:25 GMT on June 25th, 2020.

I fully support this proposal by Councillor Bourgaize.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Pravoslaviya]

Cllr Tupac Shakur stood to speak

I agree there is some need to revisit the UDoHR. Some of the language is clunky and imprecise, and the very concept of 'citizen of the European Union' doesn't exist anywhere in EU law. I'd like it to be reworded to something along the lines of 'every citizen of every member state of the European Union', to clarify its meaning.

I oppose this amendment because there are certain things in the UDoHR which are clearly universal rights, like freedom from slavery, and some where it's reasonable for governments to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens. The right to equal protection under the law alone would eliminate any such distinction if it were applied to everybody, and it's arguable now that a country cannot make such a distinction between its own citizens and citizens of other member states.

It's reasonable for a country to restrict voting rights to citizens. To restrict non-citizens from buying too much property, and, for example, to reserve the right to restrict their access to that property as part of economic sanctions. To restrict state education funding for non-citizens. And a whole host of things that aren't explicitly stated in the UDoHR, but would be affected by the equal protection clause.

I agree the UDoHR needs reform, but please, not this reform.

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

I fully support this proposal from Coun. Bourgaize. I truly believe that human rights must be a priority of our legislation and that I believe that this motion would further protect the interests of the people.

Now with Coun. Shakur, I strongly disagree with your proposals. First of all, you want to strip our European peoples the best example of exercising democratic process which takes the form of elections. Tell me Coun. Shakur, are you a fascist? Are you afraid of not being elected as European councilor for your country? |Then you also want to restrict people from buying too much property and restrict state education funding for non-citizens. Coun. Shakur, I want to tell you that with the latest statistics. The literacy rate of many European member-states are decreasing and this would affect heavily the economic growth of the member-states and Europe as one. Employment rates would fall if you do that Coun. Shakur.

Think of your children and their future. We have to protect them and not remove them the rights to these benefits.

Lastly, I'd like to say these words;

The youth are the hope of the motherland!

That's all, thank you very much.

Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Pravoslaviya]

Van Halen, you cannot make up fake stats on the spot. Our literacy rate in Pravoslaviya is fine. If our region is becoming illiterate, it's the first I've heard of it. Maybe it's just Reitzmag?

And don't call me a fascist, Van Halen. You are the single biggest hypocrite. If I was worried about being elected to the Council, then I'd call an election with a day's notice and no debates, and run the election myself to make super-sure I didn't lose. Oh, and I wouldn't decide the winner based on popular vote. Not only that, but I wouldn't release the popular vote results. Take three days to count the votes as well, just to be sure. That'd be a really fascist way of going about things.

You shouldn't even be here, Van Halen. Maybe Nigel Farage should be in your place?

Reitzmag has this crazy election system and yet its councillor is calling me a fascist for saying that Pravoslaviyan elections should be for Pravoslaviyan citizens. Truth is, Van Halen doesn't believe in citizenship and he doesn't believe in nations. He only wants this amendment because it would further his goal of merging all our countries into one, presumably one where he's in charge of the elections, and we have no time to campaign or debate, but he gets loads of time to count the votes. I wonder who'd win?

If we don't want a Europe led and dominated by Reitzmag, then we have to vote against this amendment.

Cllr Tupac Shakur

[A Former User]

Cllr. Shakur, the UDoHR already restricts voting rights to citizens - it states that people only have the right to take part in the governance of their own countries. As such, I do not know, nor do I understand, how any of this would lead to a 'Europe led and dominated by Reitzmag.'

That takes me to my second point.

Cllr. Shakur, never has the Constitution been interpreted in the way that you claim it will be interpreted if this amendment passes. If it were so, then technically it would already be illegal to restrict voting and property to just citizens. However, it has been interpreted in a similar way to what I have previously stated; to defend the murders of many.

What is more important, outlandish hypotheticals or reality?

That is not to say that there should be further reform to ensure a more rational interpretation of the UDoHR in the future; however, that is out of the purview of this proposed amendment.

Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane

[Inquista]

I second what Councillor Bourgaize has had to say, and I would like to know which specific sections of the UDoHR does Councillor Shakur have reservations about extending to all people within the boundaries of the EU?

I've done a second scan through the UDoHR and I personally see no reasons to extend these to every individual located in the EU's boundaries. There is only one section which I could imagine as being perhaps somewhat questionable, which is Section XIII, Freedom of Movement. Section XIII says every person has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. However, just having the right to the freedom of movement doesn't mean that people can move totally freely within the EU, they simply have a right to legally cross borders, if and where they can, with the legal documentation such visas, if necessary, for instance. This is already something that is afforded to every single European, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be a right for every person located within the EU's jurisdiction.

I would just like some more specific clarity on your objections, Councillor Shakur.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[A Former User]

May we begin counting the votes?

Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane

[Inquista]

Yes, apologies. Final voting on this constitutional amendment begins NOW and will last until 20:15 GMT on July 3rd, 2020.

On behalf of the Most Blessed State of Inquista, I vote FOR this constitutional amendment.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Nofoaga]

On behalf of the Republic Nofoaga I vote FOR this ammendment.

Mrs. Azaya Dubecq
EU Councilor for Nofoaga

[Fayrrendel]

The Sublime Ottoman State votes FOR this admendment.

Mr. Su Tefvik
European Councillor, Court of Osman

[A Former User]

On behalf of the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane, I vote FOR this amendment.

Martin Bourgaize
Councillor for the People's Confederation of Eastern Haane

[Fremet]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR this amendment to the UDoHR.

Charles Michel
Councillor for the Kingdom of Fremet

[Icholasen]

On behalf of the United Dominions of Icholasen, I vote FOR this amendment.

---

• Councillor (Duchess) Poppy Carlton-Romanov

[Vayinaod]

On behalf of the Archrepublic of Vayinaod, I vote FOR this amendment.

Carita Falk
Cllr. for the Archrepublic of Vayinaod

[Czech Slavia]

On behalf of the Democratic Republic of Czech Slavia, I vote FOR this amendment .

Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia

[Leagio]

On behalf of the Commonwealth of Leagio, I vote FOR this amendment to the UDoHR.

Francis Plessis
EU Councilor for the Commonwealth of Leagio

[Spain]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Spain, I vote FOR this amendment.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

[Kingdom of Reitzmag]

On behalf of the Kingdom of Reitzmag, I vote FOR this amendment.

Friedrich van Allen
Councilor, Kingdom of Reitzmag

[Inquista]

With 11 votes for, this amendment to the UDoHR has PASSED.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista