Amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
-
I must agree with my colleague van Allen on this topic. I fear that this amendment could limit the local authority in expanding it's infrastructure, if it can't move people from one location to another in order to build an important infrastructure projects like rapid transit lines. This would greatly damage the development of the public transportation, and would support maintaining a great reliance on private transport, which many could argue would be damaging to the environment. Creating reservoirs in places where people live would also be made almost impossible, denying the many benefits they provide. Just as it could limit the possibility of a government to open up a military facility in certain regions and limiting the capabilities of member states to defend themselves.
Of course if these things were done without the appropriate compensation to the people that are being moved, that would be, in the eyes of many, problematic. But altogether prohibiting what you defined as population transfer is not the correct way of preventing inappropriate compensations for such transfers and could have many negative consequences. Thank you.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
I, along with my fellow colleagues, have some disdain towards the writing of this amendment. The text of the amendment is vague and could result in different interpretations of what is 'Population transfer, defined as the forcible movement, imposed by an authority, of a large group of people from one region to another." In Leagio, the matter of displacement or civil forfeiture or eminent domain is where the needs of the Common, State, and Territorial governments require expansion of urban areas to provide the needs of the citzenry. Whenever situations like this occur that require the moving of people of an area, Common Law in Leagio requires that the individuals be compensated with the property of equal quality or value done by an independent government agency. I feel that this amendment has to be worked a bit and so to this amendment, I propose an amendment:
Amendment 1:
III. Population transfer, defined as the forcible movement, imposed by an authority, of a large group of people from one region to another, for reasons relating to a groups culture, religion, sexual orientation, and political beliefs is recognized as a violation of the right of freedom of movement and is thus prohibited.
-
I support this amendment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because this is the proper way to do it and it doesn't protect squatters and other groups with an European Union act. Still, I will support the amendment proposed by Councillor Plessis, as it would give a better look to the proposed text instead of the one it has right now. Apart from that, the basis given to amend this Section of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
In Spain, the law is very clear for things like this: If you want to buy a slum, you can, because there's no law to avoid it. The state indeed invests in social housing, but the people living in slums need to agree firstly. If they don't agree, just a judge can move them if there are enough risks for their lifes and health. Otherwise, people can't build slums or a non-permanent house in protected areas, such as beaches, National Parks or next to critical state infrastructure, as the police would be allowed to dismantle them without their consent. Of course, we have sometimes found problems with this, and we often need to take to court some of this cases just to get a proper order to apply the law.
Councillor van Allen, it is extremely to me that your country does mass movements of people whether if the people agree or not. I have been reading about this until a few minutes ago and I cannot believe people agree on leaving their houses and getting a new one without any single protest. I just have 2 or 3 options why this happens: a) They love their Government and Mr. Bridges will get all the seats on the next Parliamentary election; b) They are pointing a gun to their heads so they have to accept; or c) Reitzmag is kind of a happy living utopia where everyone is happy to leave their old house no matter what. Whatever it is, I hope this amendment starts controlling these kinds of situations.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
Councilors, I feel it is fair point to be concerned about expropriation for purposes of public utility, such as new power lines, railroads and so on being effectively impossible to construct under this admendment. No amendment will be able to prevent abuses and excesses from governments. Though I feel the admendements I will lay out will adequately address this issue. Nations should, through the proper processes have some sort of avenue to commit to local construction efforts in desperate need of it, without having to go through the arduous process of getting unwilling people off of land that is needed for the public.
The Councillor from Leagio's amendment falls somewhat short to my standards and what I feel, should be the standards of a humane Europe. It is both too open ended at once too restrictive on the people it protects. Most laws, at least from my experience from days as Committee Chairman, refer to 'protected statuses' in addition to any other statuses that the bill may want to emphasize. Hence I propose this admendment:
Amendment II
III. Population transfer, defined as the forcible movement, imposed by an authority, of a large group of people from one region to another, for reasons relating to innate characteristics of a group including: a group's culture, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs or other protected statuses as outlined in the UDoHR, is recognized as a violation of the right of freedom of movement and is thus prohibited.
Next the first Admendement presented by the Councilor was too open ended for what purposes can a government relocate people. Under this amendment its perhaps possible to relocate a group of people without violating this Admendment. For example, we could have a scenario where a government may forcibly relocate people in an area due to political reasons. For example if say, my government tomorrow had a Fascist in power, they could theoretically commit population transfer everyone in Kazmurbirha or even some small village of strategic importance just because the city has growing to be favorable to left-wingers. Though some may find it unlikely, it is always wise to remain vigilant over the unlikely. Because any learned person of history knows the unusual is often what put the strength of a social order to the test. Thus to strengthen this amendment, it should be added that the only circumstance that will be exempt from this provision will be when the government has demonstrated that there is an actual public need to relocate people. In other words, Eminent Domain:
Admendment III
IV. Eminent Domain, also synonymous with Land Acquisition, Compulsory Purchase, Expropriation, or Resumption for the uses for tangible public utility shall be exempt from the third clause of this section.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
We declare ourselves against the first amendment, is too general. Our constitution prohibits to force the movement of one or a group of people beyond 250 kilometers of their usual live place of this citizens
We think that the idea of the Ruthund Councilior is better, is more concret and the idea is the same
Imagine if the Republic decide to close a marginal zone of one city, we have to move the pople who lives there to another places, or for example ilegal inmigrants, we have to recoloc them temporarily in other places of the same city or of the country
So the first amendment is too general and
prevents us from doing it, is a good idea but its generality could prevent some social and security ideasSo our country will not vote to the first amendment of the point but we will acept without any problem the idea of the last Councilor
Nicolás Fernández Pérez
Councilor of the Left-Handed Democratic Republic -
I agree with the Councillor of Leagio amendment is more coherent.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
Debate is now over. It is time to vote on amendments. The Council shall vote on amendments until 1400 GMT on February 23nd, 2021. There are three amendments:
Amendment 1: (Proposed by Francis Plessis)
III. Population transfer, defined as the forcible movement, imposed by an authority, of a large group of people from one region to another, for reasons relating to a groups culture, religion, sexual orientation, and political beliefs is recognized as a violation of the right of freedom of movement and is thus prohibited.
Amendment II (Proposed by Tony Odhinazen)
III. Population transfer, defined as the forcible movement, imposed by an authority, of a large group of people from one region to another, for reasons relating to innate characteristics of a group including: a group's culture, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs or other protected statuses as outlined in the UDoHR, is recognized as a violation of the right of freedom of movement and is thus prohibited.
Admendment III (Proposed by Tony Odhinazen)
IV. Eminent Domain, also synonymous with Land Acquisition, Compulsory Purchase, Expropriation, or Resumption for the uses for tangible public utility shall be exempt from the third clause of this section.
I vote FOR Amendments II and III and AGAINST Amendment I.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for Fremet -
I vote FOR amendments II and III and AGAINST amendment I.
Donald Tusk
Deputy Speaker and Councillor for Spain -
I vote FOR Amendments II and III and against Amendment I.
Tony Odhinazen
EU Councilor, Ruthund -
United Duchies votes against all amendments
-
The Left-Handed Democratic Republic vote FOR amendements II and III and againts the amendment I
-
The Empire of Inimicus votes AGAINST amendment 1 and FOR amendments 2 and 3.
Sir Augustus Barrington
*Empire of Inimicus -
I vote AGAINST Amendment I and FOR Amendment II and III.
Councillor Aylin Gökçen of Alkharya
-
I vote FOR Amendments II and III and AGAINST Amendment I.
Václav Kohout
Councillor for Czech Slavia -
I vote FOR Amendment III and AGAINST Amendments I and II.
Cllr Tupac Shakur
-
I vote FOR amendments II and III and AGAINST amendment I.
Emma Granger
Councillor for Montenbourg -
I vote AGANIST all ammendments
Adam Karlssen
*Councillor for Mennrimiak -
Voting on the amendments has CLOSED.
With 0 votes for, 9 votes against, and no abstentions, Amendment 1 has FAILED.
With 8 votes for, 3 votes against, and no abstentions, Amendment 2 has PASSED.
With 9 votes for, 2 votes against, and no abstentions, Amendment 3 has PASSED.The legislation has been updated to reflect the passed amendments.
Final voting begins NOW and will last until 26 February 2021 at 20h00 GMT.
On behalf of the Kingdom of Fremet, I vote FOR this measure, as amended.
Charles Michel
Council Speaker and Councilor for the Kingdom of Fremet -
The Imperial Government votes FOR this Amendmendment.
Cllr Sir Augustus Barrington
Empire of Inimicus -
On behalf of the United Duchies, I vote FOR this measure, as amended.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe
Councillour for United Duchies
The Kingdom of Spain
