Voting on this poll will remain open until Monday, June 21st. As usual I will cast my vote based on the majority.

Just a reminder, that only nations that reside in Canada may vote in this poll, and no matter how many nations you have in Canada, you may only vote once.


--------------
Description:

CONVINCED that the freedom of press is a vital part of every nation's fundamental right of expression and a vital part of every human's right to the truth and knowledge of one's given country and one's perception of other countries. Freedom of press allows objective members of society to highlight the good and the bad of a given nation and to allow for members of that nation and members not of that nation to see an unbiased account of the current state of a given country.

DEEPLY DISTURBED by the quality of information on the state of the union in every member nation is widely disregarded to ignorance by the world because of lack of knowledge. Freedom of the press gives precedence to expanding the knowledge base of the current state of member and non-member nations alike.

CONDEMNING the misinformation of governments to the world that wish not to share the everyday occurrences in a given country through strict control of what can and cannot be reported by all forms of the press.

1. APPEALS to all member nations to enact legislature to allow immediate freedom of the press within their borders.

2. URGES all member nations to send the press to neighboring countries, far away countries, and even to areas of combat to bring back the full story to its citizens.

3. RECOMMENDS all members promote and expand the reaches of press within their given countries so that all citizens have some access to the news.

4. SUPPORTS all member nations in an effort to expand their news capabilities with needed funds, government assistance, and trade agreements to conform to the new standards of freedom of press.

For. How else will my people get to hear the Leafs' comments on making it 38 or even 60 years without the Cup? ^_^

*waits to be hit in the head with one of those rolling pins from a GARPA member*

*obliginly hits jet over the head with rolling-pin*

but seriously it sounds like a good resolution to me...didnt see anything i dont agree with

I have no problem with it, I just wish that people would stop judging the merit of a resolution on its length. I also wish that they would stop endorsing these long resolutions based on their use of buzz words and the number of paragraphs that start with capital letters. Really, all of that just adds to length and lowers the overall effectiveness of the resolution. Whatever, my vote is for.

I have never voted or endorsed a United Nations resolution proposal based upon these narrow criteria. The principles used for judging are whether:

1) The proposal resolution falls within the remit of the United Nations;
2) The proposal is not descriptive: in that it tackles both the problem and a possible solution rather than un-intelligent discussion of only the problem;
3) The proposal is well worded and constructed in its attempt to resolve a dilemma;
4) The proposal is enforceable, with clearly defined boundaries and parameters that constitute United Nation involvement or attention with ideological, philosophical, or praxis discourse as necessary;
5) The argument(s) are presented with adequate evidence to support the claims identified within; and
6) The proposal does not perpetuate the intitally identified problem by creating additional problems

To make such a claim is a gross injustice to those United Nations member Nations and brands those members a pawns or puppets with no ability for intelligent rational thought or to choose.
Maybe that is how you yourself operated in the past, but it is unfair to label others with the same limitation in cognition.

So explain how these UN resolutions come to vote anyways. Do you just submit one and it makes it to the table once in a while? Cause it seems that if that were true, there would be 99 resolutions a day to vote on. Why just one a week?

I direct you to this: the UN proposals page

Proposals are submitted, then UN delegates can approve them. If it is approved by 6% of regional delegates, then it goes up for vote.

That's why there can be long stretches with no resolution up for vote...it means, the delegates haven't let any reach quorum.

Personally I disagree with the resolution simply because no news is unbiased. Any anchorperson or correspondant is going to give the situation their particular spin, and then again freedom of the press can be carried way too far, giving some "journalists" the so-called right to priviledged information such as attack plans during an engagement, that sort of thing. JMHO

Welcome to Media-discourse athynz. Beautiful isn't it?

Of course bias will always be evident, but this proposal doesn't really have anything to do with that, it is just stating that the press should have the right to reveal the truth about any situation.

not to mention the media has a bad habit of undermining international relations and posting controversial materials to the public that have gotten them in trouble in the past, and always will. Plus full freedom gives the media the right to make up, rather than report, the news. Not that they don't already.

Iron Curtain, bad

but full priveledge to the media = just as bad.

Plus this will just cause more paparatzi crap, and we'll lose yet another princess.

I hardly see it as an overstatement to say that the fomulaic wording of proposals is one of the primary factors determining whether or not they recieve the delegate endorsements they need to become a UN resolution. Beginning with the resolution "Children in War" implemented on March 8, 2004 roughly two thirds of the resolutions passed in the UN have used a wording formula centering around the use of words and phrases like "recognizing that", "concerned with", "observing", "reiterating", "convinced that" and seemingly everyone's favourite "whereas". Many writers also make annoying use of their capslock while using those phrases as well. Really, all that's happening is that the writers of these resolutions are seeing that they have a better chance of getting their proposals endorsed if they resort to cheap writing tricks to be noticed. This really does reflect poorly on the UN. Maybe I should write a resolution about it! :lol:

ill support it. Im all up for "Anti UN configuration UN legislation.

I would suggest you check out the UN proposal page again. There are tons of proposals, that are are long, and that use the "buzz words" you talk about, that don't reach quorum. Why? Because people don't support the ideas represented within the proposals (For example, right now, 'Suspension of Prisoner Rights', 'Abolition of Uranium Mining', and 'A Plan to Secure Human Life'). Believe it or not, most of the proposal are read before being approved. Additionally, there are also a lot of poorly worded, short resolutions, that reach quorum, based on the content.

Secondly, while it is true that proposals that are longer, and well-worded, often gain a lot of approvals, there is a good reason for that. For example, there a tons of proposals that relate to gun laws. Say there is one that is short vs. one that is long. People are much more likely to approve the long one, not because of it's length, but because with the length, quite often, comes clarity. They define what they mean, instead of leaving it as a 2 sentence proposal, thus it's a better proposal, and will gain more approval. (For example, 'Outlaw Child Pornography')

Alright, good points, however if you really wanted to get your point across in a well defined way you would use something similar to the method used to word resolutions in formal debate or parliament. There would be no preamble. For example, something like Kyoto,

"Be it resolved that the Kyoto protocol be ratified in Canada.
For the purposes of the resolution, the term ratified will mean passed through an act of parliament, and enforced throughout Canada.
For the following reasons, the Kyoto protocol must be implemented:
1. In order for the environment of Canada to be protected, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow the rate of global warming.
2. To ensure the future health of Canadians, emissions of particulate must be reduced to lower rates of respiratory diseases.
3. Companies must be provided with incentive to switch to more environmentally friendly manufacturing processes."

Not only is this method of writing a resolution more to the point than other, longer resolutions, it also lends itself to debate more easily. A resolution in which every possible outcome is defined is nice, sure, but in trying to cover every possible reason a person could argue with a resolution you miss things. A simpler approach can be more encompassing and more effective than a long resolution. I'm not attacking members of Canada when I say these things. We vote against more resolutions than the average region merely because we do debate issues. I simply state that there is a continuing trend towards a poor style of writing proposals. Whether an idea is good or not is not what I'm taking issue with, I agree with this resolution. I just think that it would be a better read if it had been written differently, and I wish that writers would feel secure in putting forward good ideas, without feeling the pressure to pad their proposals in order to increase word count.

Well put Checkers. This hits the nail right on the head.

The UN resolution, Freedom of Press, was passed, 12882 votes to 3446.

I cast my votes FOR this resolution, based on the results of this poll.