|
Controversy and divergence arise as delegates debate the discrimination of LGBTQI+ people
|
(CNN) During the last assembly of the UN's Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), delegates addressed the discrimination of the LGBTQI+ community in workplaces.
As the assembly began, two groups were formed: one supporting equal rights for all workers and pro-LGBTQI+, composed by the delegations of Brazil, China, USA, Poland, and Botswana. In opposition to these delegations, the delegations of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Russia, and Syria.
Once the committee session was initiated and the rules of the debate explained, the delegates were given 30 minutes for an unmoderated caucus, leading to two resolutions defending two opposite views of the topic.
The first resolution, entertained by the delegations of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Russia, and Syria, presented questionable clauses in regards to the topic of LGBTQI+ discrimination. On that note, the opposition sought to retaliate the homophobic claims from the submitters.
Highlights of the discussion
Throughout the debate, the focus points were the delegations of Sudan, China, Botswana, and Saudi Arabia. That being said, the injustices against LGBTQI+ citizens were faced divergently amongst the nations in the discussion.
Right at the beginning, the discussion circled the issue of bad working opportunities and conditions to the LGBTQI+ community once they are constantly faced with adversity and discrimination in different workplace environments. That being said, the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Sudan, for example, immediately stood on the fact that same-sex relations and other members of the community do not deserve to possess equal opportunities in the job market. In addition, their resolution sought to establish particular rules for countries to allow firing LGBTQI+ people from their jobs once their superiors become aware of their sexuality/gender identity. For example, as stated by the delegation of Sudan during the debate, “Same-sex marriages are a crime, and every nation should think likewise.”
Further along in the speech, opposing nations such as Botswana and Brazil, who were both against the resolution, entertained pivotal POI's in order to refute and tackle the homophobic ideals masked as "following religion."As stated during an interview with the delegates of Brazil, they criticized their opponent's position on the view, saying "it is appalling that resolutions as outwardly homophobic as this one are even entertained in the 21st century."
On that same note, the delegation of Botswana stated that "LGBTQI+ people should have their right to a job, and doing so does not affect any country's sovereignty."
Final considerations
After long sessions of discussion, alongside POI's, amendments, speeches, etc., the resolution submitted received the majority of votes in the house of delegates.
It is important to recognize the major shifts in the debate, such as Botswana voting in favor of the resolution despite being a part of the opposition, the reason being that the resolution did not go against any laws or culture from the nation, as the delegate stated.
The debate of the second resolution, submitted by Brazil, Botswana, China, USA, and Poland, ended up not being thoroughly debated due to time constrictions and will be further analyzed by the delegates during the next committee sessions.
As the assembly began, two groups were formed: one supporting equal rights for all workers and pro-LGBTQI+, composed by the delegations of Brazil, China, USA, Poland, and Botswana. In opposition to these delegations, the delegations of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Russia, and Syria.
Once the committee session was initiated and the rules of the debate explained, the delegates were given 30 minutes for an unmoderated caucus, leading to two resolutions defending two opposite views of the topic.
The first resolution, entertained by the delegations of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Russia, and Syria, presented questionable clauses in regards to the topic of LGBTQI+ discrimination. On that note, the opposition sought to retaliate the homophobic claims from the submitters.
Highlights of the discussion
Throughout the debate, the focus points were the delegations of Sudan, China, Botswana, and Saudi Arabia. That being said, the injustices against LGBTQI+ citizens were faced divergently amongst the nations in the discussion.
Right at the beginning, the discussion circled the issue of bad working opportunities and conditions to the LGBTQI+ community once they are constantly faced with adversity and discrimination in different workplace environments. That being said, the delegations of Saudi Arabia and Sudan, for example, immediately stood on the fact that same-sex relations and other members of the community do not deserve to possess equal opportunities in the job market. In addition, their resolution sought to establish particular rules for countries to allow firing LGBTQI+ people from their jobs once their superiors become aware of their sexuality/gender identity. For example, as stated by the delegation of Sudan during the debate, “Same-sex marriages are a crime, and every nation should think likewise.”
Further along in the speech, opposing nations such as Botswana and Brazil, who were both against the resolution, entertained pivotal POI's in order to refute and tackle the homophobic ideals masked as "following religion."As stated during an interview with the delegates of Brazil, they criticized their opponent's position on the view, saying "it is appalling that resolutions as outwardly homophobic as this one are even entertained in the 21st century."
On that same note, the delegation of Botswana stated that "LGBTQI+ people should have their right to a job, and doing so does not affect any country's sovereignty."
Final considerations
After long sessions of discussion, alongside POI's, amendments, speeches, etc., the resolution submitted received the majority of votes in the house of delegates.
It is important to recognize the major shifts in the debate, such as Botswana voting in favor of the resolution despite being a part of the opposition, the reason being that the resolution did not go against any laws or culture from the nation, as the delegate stated.
The debate of the second resolution, submitted by Brazil, Botswana, China, USA, and Poland, ended up not being thoroughly debated due to time constrictions and will be further analyzed by the delegates during the next committee sessions.
UNSC against P5
|
|
For the United Nations’ Security Council (UNSC), entertaining the motion of ‘dividing the house’ was not needed to polarize the committee. After ‘Proposing reforms to the United Nations Security Council’ was announced as the inauguratory topic of the forum, three resolution-writing blocs were rapidly assembled: the P5 members; the African bloc; and a concoction of the remaining delegations. Ultimately, positions were declared according to whether the member was in favor or against the veto power.
The possibility of reforms within the UNSC has proven to be a controversial and polemic issue since its prime introduction. Or rather, the fact that its Provisional Rules of Procedure remain unchanged since its foundation in October of 1945. Many members, such as the delegation of Colombia, argue that “changes must be made if the UN wishes to keep up with reality”. Traditionally, the Security Council comprises 15 members, 5 of which are permanent (meaning they also have the right to veto any resolution deemed irrelevant), whilst the remaining ten delegations are elected from pre-selected regional groups to provide equal geographical representation and serve two-year terms. Thus, these two aspects were amongst the reforms most widely suggested by the delegates. These also included but were not limited to: better representation of the African continent, increased transparency, improvements in the peacekeeping operations, the extension of the number of both permanent and non-permanent delegations in the committee. Regardless, there was one specific which all the delegations thereby present had an opinion—and that was whether the veto should be maintained or not.
The P5 members strongly and rightfully reaffirmed the necessity of the veto power, labeling it as the “pillar for international stability”, echoing the wise words of the delegate of France. If these are the most influential global nations in the political and socioeconomic spectrum, it is only logical that they receive autonomy at a larger scale. The bloc, as the minority within the committee, was aware that they would have to compromise. So, the aforementioned were willing to recognize Brazil and India as the two newest permanent members. Additionally, their resolution even implemented regulations on the conditions in which the veto can be used, such as seen in Clause 2 of the resolution. Clause 2 states:
2. Calls Upon the regulation of the veto power in situations where mass atrocities were committed
The definition of the term “mass atrocities” will be reached in collaboration with the International Criminal Court, the permanent members of the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice;
In such cases, when deemed by the permanent members and by the ICJ, the veto will be regulated and cannot be used;
This will be put into action when a conclusion is reached on the legal term; the members should reach an outcome in the timeline of 1 year.
Contrastingly, all remaining delegates firmly disagreed, arguing that maintaining the veto power is “antiquated” and does not offer enough representativity. According to India, it only creates a “power imbalance”. This view was further potentialized by the guest speaker, Nicolás Maduro. The Venezuelan President went straight to the point: the capitalist United States of America cannot be trusted. His speech was rather emphatic, attributing the failure of the League of Nations to the US’s inactivity and the P5’s “superiority complex”. By the end of his participation in the committee, Maduro appealed to his Communist allies, the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, for their support.
The possibility of reforms within the UNSC has proven to be a controversial and polemic issue since its prime introduction. Or rather, the fact that its Provisional Rules of Procedure remain unchanged since its foundation in October of 1945. Many members, such as the delegation of Colombia, argue that “changes must be made if the UN wishes to keep up with reality”. Traditionally, the Security Council comprises 15 members, 5 of which are permanent (meaning they also have the right to veto any resolution deemed irrelevant), whilst the remaining ten delegations are elected from pre-selected regional groups to provide equal geographical representation and serve two-year terms. Thus, these two aspects were amongst the reforms most widely suggested by the delegates. These also included but were not limited to: better representation of the African continent, increased transparency, improvements in the peacekeeping operations, the extension of the number of both permanent and non-permanent delegations in the committee. Regardless, there was one specific which all the delegations thereby present had an opinion—and that was whether the veto should be maintained or not.
The P5 members strongly and rightfully reaffirmed the necessity of the veto power, labeling it as the “pillar for international stability”, echoing the wise words of the delegate of France. If these are the most influential global nations in the political and socioeconomic spectrum, it is only logical that they receive autonomy at a larger scale. The bloc, as the minority within the committee, was aware that they would have to compromise. So, the aforementioned were willing to recognize Brazil and India as the two newest permanent members. Additionally, their resolution even implemented regulations on the conditions in which the veto can be used, such as seen in Clause 2 of the resolution. Clause 2 states:
2. Calls Upon the regulation of the veto power in situations where mass atrocities were committed
The definition of the term “mass atrocities” will be reached in collaboration with the International Criminal Court, the permanent members of the Security Council, and the International Court of Justice;
In such cases, when deemed by the permanent members and by the ICJ, the veto will be regulated and cannot be used;
This will be put into action when a conclusion is reached on the legal term; the members should reach an outcome in the timeline of 1 year.
Contrastingly, all remaining delegates firmly disagreed, arguing that maintaining the veto power is “antiquated” and does not offer enough representativity. According to India, it only creates a “power imbalance”. This view was further potentialized by the guest speaker, Nicolás Maduro. The Venezuelan President went straight to the point: the capitalist United States of America cannot be trusted. His speech was rather emphatic, attributing the failure of the League of Nations to the US’s inactivity and the P5’s “superiority complex”. By the end of his participation in the committee, Maduro appealed to his Communist allies, the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation, for their support.
|
AREN’T THEY SUPPOSED TO PROTECT?
|
“Police brutality” is a term that specifies the excessive and unreasonable use of force on civilians by several police members. This originated in 1872, however, it is still a dominant and increasing worldwide issue. These alarming actions generally take place due to racial, cultural, religious, or sexist stereotypes, and often when initiated, bring us back to the roots of our modern-day society. Over the years, especially recently, people have shown their severe discontent of this intolerable matter; even some who feel safe as aren’t anything out of the ‘expected’, still empathize and show their support towards all people who are frightened to do common things due to the terrifying possibility that they will be a victim. Most involved are aware that it is severely difficult to change someone’s intuitive perspectives; however, it is possible to manage and teach them how to react in this situation.
There is no simple and immediate solution to this problem, mainly because there is often no punishment. As all members of the police have the power to detain or use power towards anyone if they interpret it as fit, it is near to impossible to prove that an excess of force was induced. This occurs because the degree to which a person reads a situation cannot be measured by outsiders. Due to this, many reported assaults are not investigated enough or are simply dismissed. In addition, a lot of the time, there is no evidence, evidence that indicates a police member has used excessive force limits to DNA (on harmed area), digital content, or other specific data—again, increasing the dismissal and insufficient effort/time dedicated towards these reports. Moreover, it is too familiar for these cases to go unnoticed; on some special occasions, the assaults go viral on the media, and people on a global scale fight for the victim, however sadly, this is rare. All of these factors add up to form the frightening ratio that is 1 out of each 4.7 police members is accused of misconduct throughout their career. Based on this information, many want to put an end to this urgently ongoing issue; however, as mentioned before, there is no immediate solution to this. Today, the UN Human Rights Council got together to implement a few new policies that will hopefully reduce police brutality rates.
One of the resolutions, prominent submitted by Iran, India, Syria, China, and Cambodia, included six causes, some of which including: “Condemns any form of bias that would affect officer's decisions on the field” and “Calls upon the United Nations to create an agency that will send a representative of the agency that will aid the reformation of the police force”. However, the resolution was described as “extremely unspecific, vague, and at times contradicting” by a delegate of the UK, who then proceeded to say that it is “therefore ineffective”. Moreover, a delegate of Brazil stated that the “preambulatory clauses are vague” and the resolution, in general, is again “100% contradictory” and “will only waste more of this esteemed council's time”.
On the contrary, delegations of Canada, France, The Netherlands, the US, and Brazil main submitted to an outstanding resolution that presented clear and precise clauses and sub-clauses, which approach the situation precisely and hopefully successfully. Nine objective clauses were included in the resolution, one of which is the following: “2. Urges the creation of a non-police led response to deal with individuals with a mental health crisis;”
In conclusion, most of us humans hope that with the UN Human Rights Council’s impute, police brutality will significantly decrease, making our world a safer and better place.
There is no simple and immediate solution to this problem, mainly because there is often no punishment. As all members of the police have the power to detain or use power towards anyone if they interpret it as fit, it is near to impossible to prove that an excess of force was induced. This occurs because the degree to which a person reads a situation cannot be measured by outsiders. Due to this, many reported assaults are not investigated enough or are simply dismissed. In addition, a lot of the time, there is no evidence, evidence that indicates a police member has used excessive force limits to DNA (on harmed area), digital content, or other specific data—again, increasing the dismissal and insufficient effort/time dedicated towards these reports. Moreover, it is too familiar for these cases to go unnoticed; on some special occasions, the assaults go viral on the media, and people on a global scale fight for the victim, however sadly, this is rare. All of these factors add up to form the frightening ratio that is 1 out of each 4.7 police members is accused of misconduct throughout their career. Based on this information, many want to put an end to this urgently ongoing issue; however, as mentioned before, there is no immediate solution to this. Today, the UN Human Rights Council got together to implement a few new policies that will hopefully reduce police brutality rates.
One of the resolutions, prominent submitted by Iran, India, Syria, China, and Cambodia, included six causes, some of which including: “Condemns any form of bias that would affect officer's decisions on the field” and “Calls upon the United Nations to create an agency that will send a representative of the agency that will aid the reformation of the police force”. However, the resolution was described as “extremely unspecific, vague, and at times contradicting” by a delegate of the UK, who then proceeded to say that it is “therefore ineffective”. Moreover, a delegate of Brazil stated that the “preambulatory clauses are vague” and the resolution, in general, is again “100% contradictory” and “will only waste more of this esteemed council's time”.
On the contrary, delegations of Canada, France, The Netherlands, the US, and Brazil main submitted to an outstanding resolution that presented clear and precise clauses and sub-clauses, which approach the situation precisely and hopefully successfully. Nine objective clauses were included in the resolution, one of which is the following: “2. Urges the creation of a non-police led response to deal with individuals with a mental health crisis;”
In conclusion, most of us humans hope that with the UN Human Rights Council’s impute, police brutality will significantly decrease, making our world a safer and better place.
Interview with Chair of the Political Committee
|
|
Following the rapid advancement of debating resolutions in the Political Committee on the topic of ‘Tackling the Territorial Disputes and International Claims in the Antarctic Region’, Xinhua News entertained an interview with Chair Luiza Gutterres, with the objective of capturing an unbiased as well as neutral perspective in regards to the topic at hand. The transcript of the interview follows:
[I: Xinhua News Interviewer; L: Luiza Gutterres]
I: How are you enjoying the committee so far? Do you think that the members are well prepared and eager to debate?
L: I think that the nations of the Political Committee proposed their countries’ points of view throughout the committee sessions really well. They definitely came fully prepared. Of course, at the start of the debate, during the unmoderated caucus, there were uncertainties in regards to their respective positions in Topic A. So, there were two breakout rooms which we assigned the delegates to, but we noticed that one had fewer delegates than the other which contained most of the delegates in the committee session. So we could notice how they were still uncertain about whether they should join other delegations in the drafting and development of resolutions. But, as the sessions progressed, I thought that they worked really well and were extremely engaged and interested, making pertinent Points of Information.
I: What do you think will be the outcome of the resolution that is currently being entertained? Do you think that it is likely for it to pass or not?
L: Well, I do believe that this resolution is a resolution that I personally think is really strong. It contains very interesting clauses as well as pertinent solutions that must be implemented in the Antarctic region to manage the influx of countries intervening. However, I do believe that there are certain nations that strongly oppose the resolution. For example, countries such as Russia and Brazil are largely focused on exploitation in general and are more interested in grasping the virtues of the Antarctic treaty for their country’s economic sake. So I believe that it will be quite a tight vote. There is a possibility that this resolution passes, but there is still a great possibility that it does not.
I: How do you think that China’s absence in the committee has affected it so far?
L: Oh! It has affected it tremendously because China was one of the 12 main signatories of the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959. So, due to that, it played a very great part in the Antarctic region and treaty as a whole. Since 1959 and 1961, China really presented itself as one of the most interested nations in the virtues of the Antarctic region. So I believe that the lack of China in the situation is something that is somewhat impacting our viewpoint. However, it is not a tragedy. We still have nations that are keen on representing similar viewpoints, so we still have quite a balanced debate. Even though I’m quite biased to say because I have represented China several times. But I do believe that the debate is moving on quite well without it.
I: One final question. This is the Political Committee. So how do you think politics and the polarization between socialism and capitalism have impacted the views of the countries?
L: I think it has impacted it tremendously because you can see that, for example, Russia and other nations that are more focused on socialism present a totally different viewpoint than countries such as the non-Communist United States of America. Politics within this nation has also greatly impacted their different viewpoints, priorities, and the types of solutions that they would like to introduce to the Antarctic region. So politics really does play a part and is playing a part in the drafting of resolutions and in the debate as a whole. But, of course, respecting all different ideologies is also essential.
Thus, delegations continue to actively debate in the Political Committee, inflamed by member’s political agendas. Ultimately, the resolution that was debated has passed, with eight delegations voting in favor and three against. Unfortunately, China did not participate in such a relevant discussion, and without the solidarity of other socialist members, it was left with its viewpoint unrepresented.
[I: Xinhua News Interviewer; L: Luiza Gutterres]
I: How are you enjoying the committee so far? Do you think that the members are well prepared and eager to debate?
L: I think that the nations of the Political Committee proposed their countries’ points of view throughout the committee sessions really well. They definitely came fully prepared. Of course, at the start of the debate, during the unmoderated caucus, there were uncertainties in regards to their respective positions in Topic A. So, there were two breakout rooms which we assigned the delegates to, but we noticed that one had fewer delegates than the other which contained most of the delegates in the committee session. So we could notice how they were still uncertain about whether they should join other delegations in the drafting and development of resolutions. But, as the sessions progressed, I thought that they worked really well and were extremely engaged and interested, making pertinent Points of Information.
I: What do you think will be the outcome of the resolution that is currently being entertained? Do you think that it is likely for it to pass or not?
L: Well, I do believe that this resolution is a resolution that I personally think is really strong. It contains very interesting clauses as well as pertinent solutions that must be implemented in the Antarctic region to manage the influx of countries intervening. However, I do believe that there are certain nations that strongly oppose the resolution. For example, countries such as Russia and Brazil are largely focused on exploitation in general and are more interested in grasping the virtues of the Antarctic treaty for their country’s economic sake. So I believe that it will be quite a tight vote. There is a possibility that this resolution passes, but there is still a great possibility that it does not.
I: How do you think that China’s absence in the committee has affected it so far?
L: Oh! It has affected it tremendously because China was one of the 12 main signatories of the Antarctic Treaty, which was signed in 1959. So, due to that, it played a very great part in the Antarctic region and treaty as a whole. Since 1959 and 1961, China really presented itself as one of the most interested nations in the virtues of the Antarctic region. So I believe that the lack of China in the situation is something that is somewhat impacting our viewpoint. However, it is not a tragedy. We still have nations that are keen on representing similar viewpoints, so we still have quite a balanced debate. Even though I’m quite biased to say because I have represented China several times. But I do believe that the debate is moving on quite well without it.
I: One final question. This is the Political Committee. So how do you think politics and the polarization between socialism and capitalism have impacted the views of the countries?
L: I think it has impacted it tremendously because you can see that, for example, Russia and other nations that are more focused on socialism present a totally different viewpoint than countries such as the non-Communist United States of America. Politics within this nation has also greatly impacted their different viewpoints, priorities, and the types of solutions that they would like to introduce to the Antarctic region. So politics really does play a part and is playing a part in the drafting of resolutions and in the debate as a whole. But, of course, respecting all different ideologies is also essential.
Thus, delegations continue to actively debate in the Political Committee, inflamed by member’s political agendas. Ultimately, the resolution that was debated has passed, with eight delegations voting in favor and three against. Unfortunately, China did not participate in such a relevant discussion, and without the solidarity of other socialist members, it was left with its viewpoint unrepresented.
|
USA: Measures to Help End LGBTQIA+ Workplace Discrimination"An individual's sexual orientation has absolutely no correlation with it's intellectual capacity"
|
The executive order signed by Barack Obama in 2014 forbids workplace discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation by companies awarded federal contracts. Although some religious leaders requested exemptions, the order does not include religious exemptions, demonstrating that no one should use beliefs, no matter the circumstance, to justify discrimination or prejudice. In 2021, the US still firmly believes that faith is not an excuse for discrimination. "In fact, there are absolutely no plausible excuses."
The US assures to continue taking actions to end discrimination towards members of the LGBTQIA+ community within the workplace. The nation truly believes that in addition to being harmful to American community members, such discrimination has highly damaging effects on their economy and development. "Someone's sexual orientation does not measure its intellectual capacity. It's in science." So, when a country discriminates against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgender people, it loses the opportunity to have perhaps creative, intelligent, ambitious, and determined individuals contributing to its success. "The US cares about its citizens and, therefore, will do what is within their reach to stop workplace discrimination."
To help LGBTQIA+ individuals feel more integrated, the US suggests creating internal LGBTQIA+ communities within the workplace. "The goal is not to separate them from heterosexuals and create a segregated environment. Instead, it is to encourage them to join forces and support each other. It is likely that these individuals have become reluctant to speak up against discrimination or even give their opinions on a daily-basis occasion after suffering so many years of oppression. "By uniting with people that go through the same, each individual will become more confident in every aspect."
Furthermore, the US encourages employees to report any discrimination seen in their workplace to authority. This message predominantly focuses on achieving heterosexual individuals, who may use their privilege to voice those who aren't usually listened to. "In this country, a safe and comfortable workplace environment needs to be guaranteed for all. Any citizen who is accused of disrespecting someone's sexual orientation or gender identity will be investigated. Any company that neglects an act of discrimination will suffer consequences. This sort of behavior is not tolerated in America."
The US assures to continue taking actions to end discrimination towards members of the LGBTQIA+ community within the workplace. The nation truly believes that in addition to being harmful to American community members, such discrimination has highly damaging effects on their economy and development. "Someone's sexual orientation does not measure its intellectual capacity. It's in science." So, when a country discriminates against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, or transgender people, it loses the opportunity to have perhaps creative, intelligent, ambitious, and determined individuals contributing to its success. "The US cares about its citizens and, therefore, will do what is within their reach to stop workplace discrimination."
To help LGBTQIA+ individuals feel more integrated, the US suggests creating internal LGBTQIA+ communities within the workplace. "The goal is not to separate them from heterosexuals and create a segregated environment. Instead, it is to encourage them to join forces and support each other. It is likely that these individuals have become reluctant to speak up against discrimination or even give their opinions on a daily-basis occasion after suffering so many years of oppression. "By uniting with people that go through the same, each individual will become more confident in every aspect."
Furthermore, the US encourages employees to report any discrimination seen in their workplace to authority. This message predominantly focuses on achieving heterosexual individuals, who may use their privilege to voice those who aren't usually listened to. "In this country, a safe and comfortable workplace environment needs to be guaranteed for all. Any citizen who is accused of disrespecting someone's sexual orientation or gender identity will be investigated. Any company that neglects an act of discrimination will suffer consequences. This sort of behavior is not tolerated in America."
USAs and Brazil's infringement of sovereignty over countries religious beliefs of LGBTQ+
|
|
During today's meeting regarding LGBTQ+ discrimination in the workplace on the Economic & Social Council (ECOSOC) of the Model United Nations, the delegations enter disagreement over how the issue should be tackled.
The delegation of the United States has shockingly stated that "sovereignty is a privilege", while the delegation of Brazil has said that "this is not a matter of conquering beliefs, but a matter of human rights'' in order to show its support of the LGBT+ community in the workplace.
However, these countries fail to take into account that article 18 of the declaration of human rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of (...) religion; this right includes freedom (...) manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
Meanwhile, countries from the Arab Peninsula are strongly arguing for the freedom of religion of all, especially those that follow Islamic Law.
The delegation of Saudi Arabia has proclaimed, "there should not be any imposing measures regarding the LGBT+ community, as this infringes nations sovereignty by bounding Islamic Law".
Additionally, Iran has reinforced that there are no actual LGBTQ+ members (or at the very least very few) in some countries, and so the issue of preventing workplace discrimination is not of relevance.
With this in mind, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is main submitting a resolution in order to solve this problem, along with The Republic of Yemen, The Russian Federation, and The Republic of Sudan.
The resolution includes suggestions to countries such as the prohibition of altering official documents (such as birth certificates), the legal transparency between employers and employees, and the report of suspicious illegal activity from the LGBTQ+ community.
The delegation of the United States has shockingly stated that "sovereignty is a privilege", while the delegation of Brazil has said that "this is not a matter of conquering beliefs, but a matter of human rights'' in order to show its support of the LGBT+ community in the workplace.
However, these countries fail to take into account that article 18 of the declaration of human rights states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of (...) religion; this right includes freedom (...) manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance."
Meanwhile, countries from the Arab Peninsula are strongly arguing for the freedom of religion of all, especially those that follow Islamic Law.
The delegation of Saudi Arabia has proclaimed, "there should not be any imposing measures regarding the LGBT+ community, as this infringes nations sovereignty by bounding Islamic Law".
Additionally, Iran has reinforced that there are no actual LGBTQ+ members (or at the very least very few) in some countries, and so the issue of preventing workplace discrimination is not of relevance.
With this in mind, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is main submitting a resolution in order to solve this problem, along with The Republic of Yemen, The Russian Federation, and The Republic of Sudan.
The resolution includes suggestions to countries such as the prohibition of altering official documents (such as birth certificates), the legal transparency between employers and employees, and the report of suspicious illegal activity from the LGBTQ+ community.
|
FOX NEWS
|
Today an important discussion took place in the Economic and Social Committee during Day 1 of the Bramun conference. The topic was: Tackling LGBTQ+ discrimination in the workplace.
Participating in the debate were China, Sudan, Pakistan, Russia, United States, Botswana, Iran, Brazil, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Poland. It was as clear as water that the countries were split into groups according to their political opinions on the topic.
Suggesting that "companies and businesses create internal LGBTQ+ organizations that help create a positive environment for LGBTQ+ employees and help empower them within the organization"; it was one of the arguments the group in favor of helping the LGBTQ+ in the workplace presented.
As well as "Encouraging the development of policies that respect human rights, expressly including the rights of LGBTI people and in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. "
The United States, China, and Brazil were defending the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in the workplace, so everyone, independent of their gender or sexuality, would be treated equally and receive the same amount of benefits as any other person that shares the same position as theirs.
They maintain their position by defending the creation of a welcoming and tended workplace environment in which the LGBTQ+ community is included with no judgment.
On the other hand, countries such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen presented other important concerns about the topic. People outside the LGBTQ+ community can feel extremely uncomfortable around people who are members of the community.
This resolution also suggested that employers report any suspicious activity related to employees, which may imply acts of transgenderism, which could be considered a sign of mental illness. Employers should also detect and notify their superiors of any act of homosexuality, such as same-sex marriage or any kind of same-sex intimacy.
Countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan also suggested that part of the LGBTQ+ community should stay separated from hetero people in the workplace. And when assigned a work partner, the person would have to specify if they are comfortable working with an LGBTQ+ person.
So far, the final resolution has not been passed by the committee yet. Tomorrow we are expecting to start the day with it.
Participating in the debate were China, Sudan, Pakistan, Russia, United States, Botswana, Iran, Brazil, Yemen, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Poland. It was as clear as water that the countries were split into groups according to their political opinions on the topic.
Suggesting that "companies and businesses create internal LGBTQ+ organizations that help create a positive environment for LGBTQ+ employees and help empower them within the organization"; it was one of the arguments the group in favor of helping the LGBTQ+ in the workplace presented.
As well as "Encouraging the development of policies that respect human rights, expressly including the rights of LGBTI people and in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. "
The United States, China, and Brazil were defending the rights of the LGBTQ+ community in the workplace, so everyone, independent of their gender or sexuality, would be treated equally and receive the same amount of benefits as any other person that shares the same position as theirs.
They maintain their position by defending the creation of a welcoming and tended workplace environment in which the LGBTQ+ community is included with no judgment.
On the other hand, countries such as Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Yemen presented other important concerns about the topic. People outside the LGBTQ+ community can feel extremely uncomfortable around people who are members of the community.
This resolution also suggested that employers report any suspicious activity related to employees, which may imply acts of transgenderism, which could be considered a sign of mental illness. Employers should also detect and notify their superiors of any act of homosexuality, such as same-sex marriage or any kind of same-sex intimacy.
Countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Sudan also suggested that part of the LGBTQ+ community should stay separated from hetero people in the workplace. And when assigned a work partner, the person would have to specify if they are comfortable working with an LGBTQ+ person.
So far, the final resolution has not been passed by the committee yet. Tomorrow we are expecting to start the day with it.
AN ABSURDITY! In Churchill's War Ministry, The Cabinet took drastic decisions and left their job to civilians!
|
|
This week, after the Dunkirk incident (June 4, 1940) — the evacuation of Allied soldiers during World War II from the beaches and harbor of Dunkirk, in the north of France — the British War Ministry faced some serious issues as they were severely outnumbered by Nazi soldiers in the French borders.
The BEF (British Expeditionary Forces) had to evacuate quickly as they realized they were going to lose a lot of soldiers by encountering the Nazis and fighting them.
After this unplanned and disorganized occurrence, British civilians and fishermen were called to help incoming soldiers settle on British grounds. Several civilians risked their own lives doing the government's job! This explicitly shows how the British government is unmethodical and chaotic by simply leaving civilians to do their service. As parliamentary men are on vacations and "resolving important issues", they are simply leaving civilians to "clean up" their mess by risking their lives. These people have a family, they have a life, and still, these parliamentary laughable and foolish men are doing nothing while the people do their profession for them.
In the amazing USSR, things like these would never be a problem since our organized and breathtaking leader, Joseph Stalin, knows his priorities! Stalin knows the people are the preference, and he must protect us; afterall, we are the country.
Churchill and his men should follow our unproblematic leader's example. — He is working hard every day in order to provide the best for his citizens, instead of just drinking cocktails and tartlets and leaving his assignments to his people. Stalin understands the people's rights and the immaculate importance of their lives; he would never do such a thing.
A mere fisherman was invited to speak as a witness in Churchill's War Ministry, and he expressed how impressed and disturbed he was with this situation. He quoted: "I am a patriot man, but this is an absurd! I am doing your job for you while you are just drinking mojitos and having fun. At the end of this war, you know you will be back in your homes safe as sound while there were men that fought for you and are now resting in their graves."
This presents how the British government doesn't care for its civilians. Once more, this is absurd, and USSR civilians can be carefree because such a thing would never occur in this free nation.
The BEF (British Expeditionary Forces) had to evacuate quickly as they realized they were going to lose a lot of soldiers by encountering the Nazis and fighting them.
After this unplanned and disorganized occurrence, British civilians and fishermen were called to help incoming soldiers settle on British grounds. Several civilians risked their own lives doing the government's job! This explicitly shows how the British government is unmethodical and chaotic by simply leaving civilians to do their service. As parliamentary men are on vacations and "resolving important issues", they are simply leaving civilians to "clean up" their mess by risking their lives. These people have a family, they have a life, and still, these parliamentary laughable and foolish men are doing nothing while the people do their profession for them.
In the amazing USSR, things like these would never be a problem since our organized and breathtaking leader, Joseph Stalin, knows his priorities! Stalin knows the people are the preference, and he must protect us; afterall, we are the country.
Churchill and his men should follow our unproblematic leader's example. — He is working hard every day in order to provide the best for his citizens, instead of just drinking cocktails and tartlets and leaving his assignments to his people. Stalin understands the people's rights and the immaculate importance of their lives; he would never do such a thing.
A mere fisherman was invited to speak as a witness in Churchill's War Ministry, and he expressed how impressed and disturbed he was with this situation. He quoted: "I am a patriot man, but this is an absurd! I am doing your job for you while you are just drinking mojitos and having fun. At the end of this war, you know you will be back in your homes safe as sound while there were men that fought for you and are now resting in their graves."
This presents how the British government doesn't care for its civilians. Once more, this is absurd, and USSR civilians can be carefree because such a thing would never occur in this free nation.
|
The human rights committee is looking to create a new agency to prevent police brutality
|
Today in the Human Rights Council, the delegations have discussed the most effective measures in other to decrease police brutality. However, once again, the sovereignty of each nation has been taken into question because of the creation of a new organization.
The delegations of India, Iran, and others created a resolution that includes police training and the use of body cameras, all of which would be carried out by an organization (implicitly) funded by the UN. This decision was questioned by countries like the US and Brazil, as the direct interference on the police force of a country could be considered an infringement on those countries' sovereignties.
Additionally, the delegation of Brazil has pointed several times the contradictions and repetitive clauses mentioned in the resolution, such as the support for each countries sovereignty and urging international cooperation.
As a response, India mentioned several instances of police brutality in Brazil in an attempt to point out hypocrisy. Brazil responded by saying that the country is more than open to take measures so as to solve the issue, but not through the mentioned resolution.
The previous event brings into question how police brutality can be effectively solved without making the police force ineffective.
In Saudi Arabia, for example, the police force needs to reinforce the religious beliefs of Islamic Law.
Similarly, the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, controlled by the Saudi King, has the moral responsibility to regulate the mixing of the sexes, drugs, sorcery and witchcraft, and insults to religion in order to keep the country at peace.
Therefore, policies that would interfere with the police power, as suggested by the resolution in the Human Rights Council, would have been detrimental to the country.
The delegations of India, Iran, and others created a resolution that includes police training and the use of body cameras, all of which would be carried out by an organization (implicitly) funded by the UN. This decision was questioned by countries like the US and Brazil, as the direct interference on the police force of a country could be considered an infringement on those countries' sovereignties.
Additionally, the delegation of Brazil has pointed several times the contradictions and repetitive clauses mentioned in the resolution, such as the support for each countries sovereignty and urging international cooperation.
As a response, India mentioned several instances of police brutality in Brazil in an attempt to point out hypocrisy. Brazil responded by saying that the country is more than open to take measures so as to solve the issue, but not through the mentioned resolution.
The previous event brings into question how police brutality can be effectively solved without making the police force ineffective.
In Saudi Arabia, for example, the police force needs to reinforce the religious beliefs of Islamic Law.
Similarly, the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, controlled by the Saudi King, has the moral responsibility to regulate the mixing of the sexes, drugs, sorcery and witchcraft, and insults to religion in order to keep the country at peace.
Therefore, policies that would interfere with the police power, as suggested by the resolution in the Human Rights Council, would have been detrimental to the country.
Wednesday, March 24th 2021
|
|
The constant prejudice against the LGBTQ+ community is an active issue seen in countries around the world. On March 24th of 2021, countries’ delegates assembled to discuss the community’s discrimination specially in the workplace. The delegations decided to focus on the incorporation of laws according to the rights of this community.
Countries such as Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Suddan, Yemen, and Libya had a traditional point of view of the issue discussed. The delegations strongly believe that laws should be implemented in order to have a control of the community and eventually abolish it completely. The delegation of Pakistan accused the LGBTQ+ community of committing “immoral acts'' while the remaining delegates agreed and stated that every act that goes against their beliefs according to religion should be banned. In addition, this countries also decided that the laws generated should also prohibit homosexual members from contribuing to the businesses or county’s economy, as they have classified them as less capable of executing several jobs.
The delegations of Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Russia, agreed to the resolution that states that all citizens should be encourage to follow the beliefs of the islamic law and stimulated society to educate future generations the importance of traditional beliefs and the severity of homosexuality. It has been addressed by these delegates that businesses should have the right to deny hirement and allow the exclusion of members of the LGBTQ+ community in workplaces if their presence is uncomfortable for other co-workers.
In the other hand, countries such as Botswana, Brazil, China and the United States are committed to abolish discrimination againts the LGBTQ+ community in the work place, as they believe that equal rights need to be given to all citizens. It appears to be that the belief of equal rights and equal treatment is well seen by all these countries. After several attempts of generating a proper resolution for the difficulty, the delegations agreed that laws should be incorporated into the countries' system in order to protect the members of the LGBTQ+ community from prejudice and injustices due to opportunities and improper treatment.
In the conference, the delegation of Poland assures that their laws do not oppose the LGBTQ+ community movement, however the Poland population’s state of mind contains traditional beliefs. Therefore, this delegation joined the resolution made by the delegations of Botswana, Brazil, China, and the United States as a co-submitter.
In an exclusive interview with the delegation of the United States, it was determined that the country is in favor of providing equal rights as they stated “ The delegation of the USA is in favor of the incorporation of laws protecting the LGBTQ+ community everywhere, including in the workplace”. However, similarly to the country of Poland, the country still contains citizens with traditional beliefs that strongly oppose these laws. This circumstance creates a possible obstacle for the United States to achieve an equal environment, especially in the workplace.
Ultimately, as seen in the conference, all delegations seem to have an unassociated point of view of the LGBTQ+ community. Even though some countries disagreed with each other, the delegations were still able to generate two resolutions that have the potential of succeeding if they are well implemented in their respective countries.
Countries such as Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Suddan, Yemen, and Libya had a traditional point of view of the issue discussed. The delegations strongly believe that laws should be implemented in order to have a control of the community and eventually abolish it completely. The delegation of Pakistan accused the LGBTQ+ community of committing “immoral acts'' while the remaining delegates agreed and stated that every act that goes against their beliefs according to religion should be banned. In addition, this countries also decided that the laws generated should also prohibit homosexual members from contribuing to the businesses or county’s economy, as they have classified them as less capable of executing several jobs.
The delegations of Yemen, Iran, Sudan and Russia, agreed to the resolution that states that all citizens should be encourage to follow the beliefs of the islamic law and stimulated society to educate future generations the importance of traditional beliefs and the severity of homosexuality. It has been addressed by these delegates that businesses should have the right to deny hirement and allow the exclusion of members of the LGBTQ+ community in workplaces if their presence is uncomfortable for other co-workers.
In the other hand, countries such as Botswana, Brazil, China and the United States are committed to abolish discrimination againts the LGBTQ+ community in the work place, as they believe that equal rights need to be given to all citizens. It appears to be that the belief of equal rights and equal treatment is well seen by all these countries. After several attempts of generating a proper resolution for the difficulty, the delegations agreed that laws should be incorporated into the countries' system in order to protect the members of the LGBTQ+ community from prejudice and injustices due to opportunities and improper treatment.
In the conference, the delegation of Poland assures that their laws do not oppose the LGBTQ+ community movement, however the Poland population’s state of mind contains traditional beliefs. Therefore, this delegation joined the resolution made by the delegations of Botswana, Brazil, China, and the United States as a co-submitter.
In an exclusive interview with the delegation of the United States, it was determined that the country is in favor of providing equal rights as they stated “ The delegation of the USA is in favor of the incorporation of laws protecting the LGBTQ+ community everywhere, including in the workplace”. However, similarly to the country of Poland, the country still contains citizens with traditional beliefs that strongly oppose these laws. This circumstance creates a possible obstacle for the United States to achieve an equal environment, especially in the workplace.
Ultimately, as seen in the conference, all delegations seem to have an unassociated point of view of the LGBTQ+ community. Even though some countries disagreed with each other, the delegations were still able to generate two resolutions that have the potential of succeeding if they are well implemented in their respective countries.
|
Measurements to Decrease Police Brutality
|
Police brutality is an ongoing issue that has taken place at a global aspect. The delegations of numerous countries have assembled to discuss the difficulty that civilians and police officers are subjected to. In normal circumstances, police officers are not advised to use violence against citizens unless it is extremely necessary. However, the need to defend themselves is higher due to the aggression of citizens generally seen in protests.
Police brutality is considered to be a violation of Civil Rights, consequently countries decided to discuss the measures to be taken in order to abolish this complication. The delegations of India, Syria, Iran, and China concur that to terminate police brutality, laws should be applied in order to reinforce the protection of civilians and police officers. This circumstance will prevent police officers from being falsely accused of police brutality and it will protect civilians from being harmed or killed by any action that an authority may have committed. The generated laws may include body cameras in police officers and fundings given by specific agencies to eradicate the issue and help those who suffer from psychological effects due to past aggressions made by police officers. These delegations strongly agree that the resolutions are effective and that in a long term, the complication of police brutality could be completely abolished, proceeding to create a safer place for the future society.
On the contrary, the delegations of Canada, The Netherlands, Brazil, and the United States strongly disagreed to the resolution mentioned and distrusted the claims were not specific enough. The delegation of Brazil mentions they are “hypocritical” and “flawed” while the delegation of Canada agreed explaining the inconsistency of their declarations.
The country of the United States stated that it is essential to designate that the resolution varies depending on the country, and that the use of body cameras, for example, may affect the country's way of ruling according to their ideologies. While the delegation of Iran believed that all police officers should be notified for any misconduct committed, the other delegations might have perceived the solution as a diminishing action towards police officers.
Subsequently, The Netherlands agrees that that there should be a governmental organization that can control the fundings received. Canada believes that the fundings collected should not only be managed by UN members, but also by other organizations to give equal rights to all the community. However, India believes that if that action is taken, the credibility will be diminished, therefore, people that want to take part of the action should be members of the United Nations, so the resolution could be formally applied into the countries.
As a consequence, all countries concluded on a friendly amendment that states that the system of education for the police should encourage proper training to reduce police brutality in the near future.
The second resolution was made by the countries of Canada, Brazil, United States, and France, which states that all civilians and police officers should have access to mental health facilities and there should be a constant monitoring of police officers. However unlike the previous resolution, they believe several organizations should be included as well. These delegations strongly agree in human rights and that police brutality should be condemned.
Police brutality is considered to be a violation of Civil Rights, consequently countries decided to discuss the measures to be taken in order to abolish this complication. The delegations of India, Syria, Iran, and China concur that to terminate police brutality, laws should be applied in order to reinforce the protection of civilians and police officers. This circumstance will prevent police officers from being falsely accused of police brutality and it will protect civilians from being harmed or killed by any action that an authority may have committed. The generated laws may include body cameras in police officers and fundings given by specific agencies to eradicate the issue and help those who suffer from psychological effects due to past aggressions made by police officers. These delegations strongly agree that the resolutions are effective and that in a long term, the complication of police brutality could be completely abolished, proceeding to create a safer place for the future society.
On the contrary, the delegations of Canada, The Netherlands, Brazil, and the United States strongly disagreed to the resolution mentioned and distrusted the claims were not specific enough. The delegation of Brazil mentions they are “hypocritical” and “flawed” while the delegation of Canada agreed explaining the inconsistency of their declarations.
The country of the United States stated that it is essential to designate that the resolution varies depending on the country, and that the use of body cameras, for example, may affect the country's way of ruling according to their ideologies. While the delegation of Iran believed that all police officers should be notified for any misconduct committed, the other delegations might have perceived the solution as a diminishing action towards police officers.
Subsequently, The Netherlands agrees that that there should be a governmental organization that can control the fundings received. Canada believes that the fundings collected should not only be managed by UN members, but also by other organizations to give equal rights to all the community. However, India believes that if that action is taken, the credibility will be diminished, therefore, people that want to take part of the action should be members of the United Nations, so the resolution could be formally applied into the countries.
As a consequence, all countries concluded on a friendly amendment that states that the system of education for the police should encourage proper training to reduce police brutality in the near future.
The second resolution was made by the countries of Canada, Brazil, United States, and France, which states that all civilians and police officers should have access to mental health facilities and there should be a constant monitoring of police officers. However unlike the previous resolution, they believe several organizations should be included as well. These delegations strongly agree in human rights and that police brutality should be condemned.
UN conference succeeds in finding resolution for Antarctica territorial disputes
|
|
Today, a UN conference was held to re-evaluate whether a reform was needed for the treaty of Antarctica. The treaty was first agreed upon on December 1st, 1959 by 12 countries looking to establish certain parts of Antarctica as to be strictly used for research purposes and preservation of the area, and aren’t to be used for military purposes, scientific experiments and to exploit the natural resources the land provides. Currently, there is an overlap within the territories of some countries, therefore a plausible resolution was discussed, in search of one that benefits all parties involved. These twelve countries’ delegates met seeking a resolution that would appeal all countries involved that are looking for a change in the propositions brought by the treaty. At the beginning of the conference, the delegations of Brazil, UK, Russia, and Northern Ireland were explicit when expressing their disagreement with the current laws implemented by the treaty. These three nations emphasized they’re desire to solve this situation peacefully and under no circumstances want to engage in a war or military action of some sort and how they’d like to use the territory to extract natural resources.
They also proposed that if a mutually agreed upon resolution isn’t found they would like to take the issue into the international court of justice. The delegations of the USA, Morocco, Argentina, and India partially agree with what the aforementioned delegations have proposed, these delegations are open to putting the resources of Antarctica to other uses however they are interested in maintaining a sustainable environment. One of the many propositions that these countries are presenting involves having a sustainable form of tourism in the continent, however if more people are travelling around the globe more carbon dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere and will simply increase the estimate that by the year 2048 3186 gigatons of ice will have melted in Antarctica.
The delegations of South Africa, France, Australia, and Germany believe it would be beneficial for all nations if the current laws in the Antarctica treaty were maintained, and the sole purpose for this territory should be for research and should be a sustainable environment. The very first proposition this group of delegations made was to ban the extraction of resources provided in Antarctica to protect the planet and that their shouldn’t be a re-distribution of the overlapping land, the delegation of Brazil replied hastily to this proposal by saying “This proposal is useless, for starters by distributing the land these conflicts would cease to exist, furthermore, resources should be used because some countries such as Brazil, who desperately need resources that provide energy as it is becoming far too expensive to purchase these imported resources.” The delegation of UK whole heartedly agreed with what was said by the Brazilian delegate, to which the delegate of Australia replied, “The delegation of the UK only cares about money and not about taking good care of our home!” Moments later, after several discussions the delegation of UK proposed a sustainable form of extraction, to which the delegation of Australia replied by saying “This is a very utopic proposal, it is impossible to protect the environment whilst using natural resources for other purposes that harm the environment.” Eventually, a resolution was agreed upon.
Several changes occurred to the original resolution, but after all the delegations of the UK, Northern Ireland, Russia, and Brazil managed to find a resolution that passed. A couple tweaks were made to the resolution, for example the environment will remain protected and no nations will be able to use the area for resources or touristic purposes, the land was re-distributed and there isn’t any more conflict regarding the over lapping of territory.
They also proposed that if a mutually agreed upon resolution isn’t found they would like to take the issue into the international court of justice. The delegations of the USA, Morocco, Argentina, and India partially agree with what the aforementioned delegations have proposed, these delegations are open to putting the resources of Antarctica to other uses however they are interested in maintaining a sustainable environment. One of the many propositions that these countries are presenting involves having a sustainable form of tourism in the continent, however if more people are travelling around the globe more carbon dioxide will be emitted into the atmosphere and will simply increase the estimate that by the year 2048 3186 gigatons of ice will have melted in Antarctica.
The delegations of South Africa, France, Australia, and Germany believe it would be beneficial for all nations if the current laws in the Antarctica treaty were maintained, and the sole purpose for this territory should be for research and should be a sustainable environment. The very first proposition this group of delegations made was to ban the extraction of resources provided in Antarctica to protect the planet and that their shouldn’t be a re-distribution of the overlapping land, the delegation of Brazil replied hastily to this proposal by saying “This proposal is useless, for starters by distributing the land these conflicts would cease to exist, furthermore, resources should be used because some countries such as Brazil, who desperately need resources that provide energy as it is becoming far too expensive to purchase these imported resources.” The delegation of UK whole heartedly agreed with what was said by the Brazilian delegate, to which the delegate of Australia replied, “The delegation of the UK only cares about money and not about taking good care of our home!” Moments later, after several discussions the delegation of UK proposed a sustainable form of extraction, to which the delegation of Australia replied by saying “This is a very utopic proposal, it is impossible to protect the environment whilst using natural resources for other purposes that harm the environment.” Eventually, a resolution was agreed upon.
Several changes occurred to the original resolution, but after all the delegations of the UK, Northern Ireland, Russia, and Brazil managed to find a resolution that passed. A couple tweaks were made to the resolution, for example the environment will remain protected and no nations will be able to use the area for resources or touristic purposes, the land was re-distributed and there isn’t any more conflict regarding the over lapping of territory.
