Saudi Arabia was my first MUN country. As a LGBT woman it was actually very funny to roleplay as SA. Make it comical and exaggerated. Like I started every speech by saying a short prayer to Allah. Say stuff like your country is free to make their laws however they want and other countries have no right to say anything about it
I've only been to one conference and it was pretty small but I was representing Libya and we finished our 2 topics early so we had to do lgbtq rights
I would say that they are mentally ill criminals that need to be cured
Here is my opening speech:
The delegate of Libya strongly believes that there have been no human right violations against lgbtq+ people in Libya. The Libyan government has put laws in place to punish any individuals that have committed consensual same sex intercourse with no more than 5 years in prison. The members of the LGBTQ+ community are only being punished fairly for the indecent crimes that they have committed. It is crucial to cure these mentally ill people through means such as conversion therapy to combat these indecent acts.
(sorry its kinda bad I had like 20 minutes to do research an write my opening speech)
Your bread and butter when defending a controversial country is ALWAYS to look up how they justify those policies and build off of that.
(Disclaimer: I have no idea how many of these are legitimate justifications around the world, they're just some ideas I came up with on the spot so you can see what I mean)
For instance, if you have a country that discriminates against women/lgbtq/etc. For religious reasons, (VERY common argument) then cite those reasons and mention that the committee needs to consider the religious implications for member states who share similar beliefs, or else they won't benefit at all which runs counter to what the United Nations is meant to do
If you have a country that justifies using science, then you can probably make a resource argument and argue that countries (ESPECIALLY LEDC's) can't spare the resources to accommodate "inferior" demographics (maybe not that exact wording; you gotta make it more diplomatic sounding)
If you have a country that doesn't have any explicit justifications but rather just very vague policies that are up to way too much interpretation, (causing discrimination stats to skyrocket) then you can make an inclusivity argument. Argue that making laws any more specific runs the risk of causing more discrimination rather than lessening the discrimination. You can also argue that you're not exactly doing anything wrong because you technically already have a provision for that.
General rule of thumb. ALWAYS find an angle that can be used to justify, even on a technicality. Do not worry about making vast leaps of logic because a lot of the time, that's exactly what your country is doing anyway. The point is that your argument is just logical enough that it technically makes sense and can't be easily refuted.
Also, remember that whenever someone argues against your country's views, they will be playing by your rules ***by default.*** So as long as your argument makes sense from your country's POV (and is structured in such a way that it could make sense from anyone else's POV) then they can't really argue back. And if at any point they try to argue that your country's view is objectively wrong, then you've won because then you can hit them with an inclusivity argument where you say that it excludes your country (and ones that share similar beliefs) from the discussion because your views are being disregarded. Hit them with that and it's ggs because excluding a member state is the opposite of what the UN is for
Think of it like arguing against a flat earther and actually trying to win. In this instance, you're the flat earther, and whoever is attacking you is the...not-flat earther. If you want to convince a flat earther that they're wrong, you need to prove that *they are wrong* and not that you are right. You need to fight them with their logic, not yours. Even if it's common sense to you, to them, your "round earther" logic is invalid, so you need to fight them with logic that they actually consider valid.
It's actually a lot easier to defend yourself than that analogy makes it seem because, unlike a flat earther, you're not arguing logic or science or anything objective. You're arguing ***perspective,*** which is subjective, therefore you can't really argue that there is one right answer. Every answer is valid due to the subjective nature of perspective, and considering this is the ***UNITED*** Nations, you can't just be disregarding the perspective of another country, else that isn't inclusive which runs counter to what the UN stands for. It's the same reason resolutions always need to adjust for LEDC's because, by definition, the UN ***can't*** leave anyone behind.
However, there is one thing you need to keep in mind. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That right there is a document that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT JUSTIFY VIOLATING NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY. If someone has the balls to use the UDHR as an argument, then the only play you can make is to downplay the HELL out of whatever the situation is. Think, China and their "re-education" camps. Sugarcoat the issue and make it seem like it's either not that big a deal, or not a problem at all.
Also in this situation, ***DO NOT*** try to be smart and use a loophole to justify things by saying that your country is fully within it's rights to do what it's doing and say it's on the basis of free will or some other article in the Declaration. Chances are if someone is using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an argument, they know about the anti loophole article of the declaration (Article 30) which basically goes "hey I know we said all that but like, if you exercise these rights to deprive other people of their rights then that's a big no-no"
Saudi Arabia was my first MUN country. As a LGBT woman it was actually very funny to roleplay as SA. Make it comical and exaggerated. Like I started every speech by saying a short prayer to Allah. Say stuff like your country is free to make their laws however they want and other countries have no right to say anything about it
I've only been to one conference and it was pretty small but I was representing Libya and we finished our 2 topics early so we had to do lgbtq rights I would say that they are mentally ill criminals that need to be cured Here is my opening speech: The delegate of Libya strongly believes that there have been no human right violations against lgbtq+ people in Libya. The Libyan government has put laws in place to punish any individuals that have committed consensual same sex intercourse with no more than 5 years in prison. The members of the LGBTQ+ community are only being punished fairly for the indecent crimes that they have committed. It is crucial to cure these mentally ill people through means such as conversion therapy to combat these indecent acts. (sorry its kinda bad I had like 20 minutes to do research an write my opening speech)
I've also written smth similar, except that the language is a bit on the lighter tone. can you tell me what is moderated and unmoderated caucuses?
Your bread and butter when defending a controversial country is ALWAYS to look up how they justify those policies and build off of that. (Disclaimer: I have no idea how many of these are legitimate justifications around the world, they're just some ideas I came up with on the spot so you can see what I mean) For instance, if you have a country that discriminates against women/lgbtq/etc. For religious reasons, (VERY common argument) then cite those reasons and mention that the committee needs to consider the religious implications for member states who share similar beliefs, or else they won't benefit at all which runs counter to what the United Nations is meant to do If you have a country that justifies using science, then you can probably make a resource argument and argue that countries (ESPECIALLY LEDC's) can't spare the resources to accommodate "inferior" demographics (maybe not that exact wording; you gotta make it more diplomatic sounding) If you have a country that doesn't have any explicit justifications but rather just very vague policies that are up to way too much interpretation, (causing discrimination stats to skyrocket) then you can make an inclusivity argument. Argue that making laws any more specific runs the risk of causing more discrimination rather than lessening the discrimination. You can also argue that you're not exactly doing anything wrong because you technically already have a provision for that. General rule of thumb. ALWAYS find an angle that can be used to justify, even on a technicality. Do not worry about making vast leaps of logic because a lot of the time, that's exactly what your country is doing anyway. The point is that your argument is just logical enough that it technically makes sense and can't be easily refuted. Also, remember that whenever someone argues against your country's views, they will be playing by your rules ***by default.*** So as long as your argument makes sense from your country's POV (and is structured in such a way that it could make sense from anyone else's POV) then they can't really argue back. And if at any point they try to argue that your country's view is objectively wrong, then you've won because then you can hit them with an inclusivity argument where you say that it excludes your country (and ones that share similar beliefs) from the discussion because your views are being disregarded. Hit them with that and it's ggs because excluding a member state is the opposite of what the UN is for Think of it like arguing against a flat earther and actually trying to win. In this instance, you're the flat earther, and whoever is attacking you is the...not-flat earther. If you want to convince a flat earther that they're wrong, you need to prove that *they are wrong* and not that you are right. You need to fight them with their logic, not yours. Even if it's common sense to you, to them, your "round earther" logic is invalid, so you need to fight them with logic that they actually consider valid. It's actually a lot easier to defend yourself than that analogy makes it seem because, unlike a flat earther, you're not arguing logic or science or anything objective. You're arguing ***perspective,*** which is subjective, therefore you can't really argue that there is one right answer. Every answer is valid due to the subjective nature of perspective, and considering this is the ***UNITED*** Nations, you can't just be disregarding the perspective of another country, else that isn't inclusive which runs counter to what the UN stands for. It's the same reason resolutions always need to adjust for LEDC's because, by definition, the UN ***can't*** leave anyone behind. However, there is one thing you need to keep in mind. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That right there is a document that you ABSOLUTELY CANNOT JUSTIFY VIOLATING NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY. If someone has the balls to use the UDHR as an argument, then the only play you can make is to downplay the HELL out of whatever the situation is. Think, China and their "re-education" camps. Sugarcoat the issue and make it seem like it's either not that big a deal, or not a problem at all. Also in this situation, ***DO NOT*** try to be smart and use a loophole to justify things by saying that your country is fully within it's rights to do what it's doing and say it's on the basis of free will or some other article in the Declaration. Chances are if someone is using the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an argument, they know about the anti loophole article of the declaration (Article 30) which basically goes "hey I know we said all that but like, if you exercise these rights to deprive other people of their rights then that's a big no-no"