Wait, scratch my vote,
I am not FORI am strongly against, based on the operative clause 5, subsection A and B and C
A is a moral high ground where a father can force the mother to test for paternity, which itself is infringing upon the mothers rights. Subsection B is ignoring the civil right of a victim to refuse a rape kit etc. for being raped. C also ignored a witnesses right to freedom of speech (or rather lack thereof) and right not to testify, to force a witness to give up evidence because of probable cause is not legal in the US. You can not pin a man down and swab his dick based on probable cause that he might have raped a woman.
Under the phrase "EXEMPTS from clause 4"
4. FORBIDS governments, their agents and agencies from interfering with, conducting surveillance on, or investigating the private, consensual sexual activities of adults, subject to the exemptions below.
That means the government (police) is/are allowed to force a person to undergo a test for investigation and paternal purposes, and everyone knows a government can manipulate this as in "i was a paternity test" and gets a free DNA sample. If anyone has ever been a rape victim, they know that they have to give their prints to the police, and that even as a victim their prints remain in the system for the duration of their lifetime despite the fact they have no reason to be in the system. Therefore I find Clause 5 paradoxical and hypocritical.
For the most part, I like the Document. If this was the real model united nations I would motion to get rid of that clause. The government shouldn't be able to force people to do anything, and should not be exempted from this law.
Poll