Jump to content

Calladan

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Calladan last won the day on February 9 2017

Calladan had the most liked content!

About Calladan

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am not convinced this repeal actually has any merit. Resolution #8 doesn't "not take account" of the census finding, it deliberately ignores it which is something slightly different. Also the fact that some of the delegates are........ a little strange just makes The WA a more colourful place to work. (And what's wrong with being a sex addict? Sex is natural. Sex is good. And according to a very reliable source, while not everybody does it, everybody should!). Of course, we should get rid of the honest family types - they have no business being here! I am also not convinced the line about the laws would be relevant either. According to the original resolution, HQ is not subject to any laws, which is why I keep getting thrown in the reflecting pool. If there were actual laws that might end badly. So - I do not entirely see the need to repeal the legislation. And also there is a question of what would happen if the resolution is repealed :- would The HQ have to be knocked down? Where would we meet? If the neutral jurisdiction rules are repealed, would there be a temporary resolution covering diplomatic immunity while we are at the HQ? There are a lot of questions that need to be answered before this is repealed, even if the replacement comes in almost at once. There seems to be a duplicated line, but setting that aside.... The original resolution is written in a somewhat vague format because it covers every nation in The World Assembly. Calladan's food production process might require a different process to Misthaven's and if The World Assembly tried to set down SPECIFIC rules, and list specific products that are banned or limited, it would be chaos. The closure of businesses is possibly problematic, however the regulations are designed within the nations, so it is not (directly) The WA that is doing the closing. All in all, I can't find a reason to support this. (Also - as you may have started to realise - I am not a fan of repeals). This doesn't even begin to make ANY sense. I get that it is legal, but seriously - who wrote this? Calladan has classified material. We don't put this on the internet. We consider the act of sharing this a criminal act that - if the perpetrator is convicted gets them launched into space without a spacesuit. So clearly that is not "lawful content" in Calladan. Honestly - this is insane, and the fact the support has got into double digits makes me despair for the future of The WA. I have commented enough about this on The GA forum quite a lot, but to summarise :- no. This doesn't really do a great deal. It creates two committees, then encourages nations to get a long. And while two members of The GA/GS have ruled on it, I would have thought it might be a violation of the Committee only rule? Over all I admit I like it - as always, the only thing that will redeem us is co-operation. This proposal has a MASSIVE pre-amble (seriously - one of the biggest I have seen) and ends up being a one line proposal :- "The World Assembly therefore URGES member nations to decrease the size of their manufacturing industry in order to protect green spaces and protect air quality, for the benefit of the population of member nations." Which is (according to Christian Democrats at least) a mandatory clause to reduce our manufacturing industry to protect green spaces. This is a good cause, and something we should be doing, but this resolution doesn't ACTUALLY ask us to increase then number of parks and green spaces. We just have to reduce the size of manufacturing industry. So - I have to admit - while I can't find anything objectionable about it, it's also entirely pointless and I think The WA can do better.
  2. I think the author is suffering some the "earth-centric" bias that some authors seem to get. While a ban on gasoline powered vehicles might help some of the developing nations, there are nations that have moved beyond gas powered vehicles and now use nuclear powered spaceships (or at least they use spaceships, which I am guessing are probably not powered by gasoline or other types of combustion engine - that would be weird). Which is why I suspect this has NO support. At all. And is probably not going to get any. Despite my vehement and vocal objections to the Library Compact resolution (for all the good that did me) I actually like this one. It was originally supposed to be an amendment to The Library Compact, but was made into its own proposal when it was pointed out amendments are against the rules. It provides for on line based storage of medical information so that it can be spread throughout The WA, it doesn't require everything being moved to one central building (thank gods), it puts emphasis on healthcare and provision of such, rather than just on storage of information and it does give concessions to the idea of private involvement in healthcare and research, rather than just forcing it to be government/state related. I think this is worth supporting and hope that it gains the 42 approvals it needs to come to the floor. (However it only has nine hours, as of this post, so I am not holding my breath). Calladan banned private ownership of guns a while back. So clearly we have major objections to this proposal, since it would require us to resign from The WA should it pass. Also - on a more general level - while we are a great believer in The WA and don't generally throw up the NatSov card, there are certain topics in which we do believe National Sovereignty should take precedence over World Assembly law and gun control is most definitely one of those (along with capital punishment and freedom of religion). So - on a personal level, I would suggest opposing this, and on a professional level, I would suggest opposing this. I can't actually find anything wrong with the original act, and it was passed five years ago by quite a large margin. Plus I am not a big fan of repeals. While I entirely support the motive behind this, the specific writing of it does leave something to be desired. The most problematic part is the "5 residential units in a residential building with 20 units" -- suggesting that hotels, hostels, even large blocks of luxury flats - would be required, by law, to set aside some part of their property for rental within the scope of affordable housing. And - depending on what "a unit" is, it could also be taken to mean "a room" as opposed to "flat", so if someone owns a mansion with 20 rooms, then they would be required to give up five of those rooms. Just to be clear - the motive and general idea of the proposal is one I entirely support, however I can not, in good conscience, recommend this as a proposal to support right now. My first thought was that "free trade" and "fair trade" are not synonyms and do not belong in the same sentence. And when you add to that the fact The WATF can "implement a process for the elimination of anti-business devices restricting the free trade of all goods" then that stomps on the definition of fair trade even more. It then goes on to say Member Nations can employ retaliatory tariffs against non Member Nations, despite the fact these are apparently outlawed in Clause 3 (however they might only be outlawed between Member Nations and not between Member/Non-Member Nation trading relations). Also - as a slight confession - I have never entirely understood all this trading crap, and generally skip over discussions about tariffs and so forth. Calladan tends to employ a fair trade philosophy where possible - we are fans of the free market up to a point, but when the free market leaves half a million unemployed and homeless it's time for someone to step in and do something about it. (But I am not going to start a political discussion here - I get enough of that on The WA forum arguing with various other nations who seem to think my nation is made up of headcases). Anyway - vote for this, don't vote for it - it's entirely up to you. Short, simple, to the point. Although I have no clue what that point actually is.
  3. Yes, but I always kind of felt the connection to The World Assembly was more of a virtual thing. That when I am speaking in the chamber, it is an avatar of me, and not the real me. The real me is safe at home in Calladan, in a VR simulator type thing. Plus how often do we bring the entire population of our nations with us if we do physically travel to WA.HQ? I am guessing never? Where as this Library they are talking of building is an actual..... well - building. Where actual books would have to go - real books, not virtual ones. *shrug* I just think having one library for the ENTIRE population of The World Assembly is bollocks. (Plus - quite honestly - if I am going to share my books with the entire world, I am going to do it electronically. Much better and easier and safer and less risk of the books getting set on fire or burned by acid or eaten by children!) (Which happens more often than you would think!)
  4. Firstly - I realise I have been away for the past three weeks, and I apologise for any dereliction of duty that that caused. But (as I mentioned on the message board) I was just getting so bored with the entire thing (the debates, the daily issues that were always the same, the fact that The World Assembly appeared to have become obsessed with nukes and patents!) that getting away for a while seemed like a good idea. (It was that or quit for good!) Secondly - I am not really a fan of this proposal either. Physical libraries are all well and good when they are accessible, but this is going to be out in the middle of nowhere. The World Assembly covers member nations from worlds that could be several billion light years apart - so wherever they build this "central repository" it is going to be a long way from some of the nations. And that is my main objection - if we were going to build on central library in each nation it would be better. That's something I could live with. But this - this is just a huge waste of time and money. So - I've already voted against it and would have suggest either voting against it, or with the majority of the nations.
  5. I have to confess, I have no clue if The FPA is good or bad. So, quite honestly, I have no idea whether repealing it would be wise or crazy making. But given that it replaced something that had been previously repealed, I would imagine it probably had more upsides than down. Plus - as a rule - I am not a big fan of repeals, especially not ones that are filed so soon after the resolutions pass. While Calladan is a huge believer in equality, and in socialism (to one degree or another), this is never going to work and is written in such a confusing way that it could be interpreted as requiring nations to do FAR more than the author intends. The second line especially could be ludicrously troublesome - in that it demands people are given housing so that "all are equal". Depending on how this is read, it could mean that EVERY citizen requires a house (even each member of a married couple who want to live together) and that all houses must be equal (which given that My Tri-Arch lives in what is essentially an armed fortress for security purposes would either require her to live in a basic council flat, or would require everyone to live in an armed fortress). The third line implies there will be a computer in every home, which is not necessarily true. Some people might not be able to afford one, some people object to computers. Supplying rations, rather than allowing people to buy their own food (using the basic income) will be problematic :- dietary requirements (both medical and religious) would need to be stored on a central database for the provision of the rations, which is - arguably - a gross invasion of privacy. As is storing contacts on a central government database -- I have no idea what that is about or why it is included in a proposal about basic human welfare and equality. It just smacks of huge government oversight which I have no implicit argument against but doesn't seem to be relevant to this specific proposal (or category). So - all in all - no. This doesn't make ANY concession to nations at war, nations that are unfriendly to each other and so on. If Calladan and Misthaven are at war, then we might want to refuse Misthaven aircraft the right to land in Calladan - or at least refuse them the right to land at civilian airports where the security might not be ready to deal with them. I am not sure if The ICAO already exists, nor it is entirely clear if the second half of the clause applies to the airlines or the nations (dangling modifiers are fun when used in jokes, but they are less fun when they cause potential confusion in international law). And the second paragraph just makes it even more confusing :- If you don't comply then you can't buy aircraft from other countries (for some reason) but you can build planes as long as they pass testing (and it isn't made clear if the testing is the same as the Free Skies compliance). When the aircraft does pass, then someone has to pay a fee to the nation (and at this point I admit I have no clue who is paying what nation) a yearly fee that amounts to over half a million dollars a year - although it isn't clear if this is per aircraft, per airline or per nation (and if it is per aircraft then it is probably MORE than the aircraft costs to make.......) Suffice to say - I am not a fan of this proposal. Along with equality and socialism, Calladan definitely supports "socialised medicine" (which we call our State Healthcare System - something we are very proud of). However we understand there are some other nations that might not be as forward thinking as we are and might still think a state funded healh-care-system would include death panels and babies being sacrificed for the good of the country, so we understand why this proposal would never have a chance of passing. And even though we actively support state funded health care, this proposal isn't the way to do it. Clause 3 is too vague, even with the qualifying details. I would also question the inclusion of cancer while leaving out a number of other terminal and "catastrophic" (for want of a better phrase) diseases. Clause 4 would also possibly be excessive in areas with a huge population (as odd as it sounds). And Clause 5 could be achieved while still being unbalanced - if space is going to be specified it needs to be done in a far better way. (The District 21 in Calladan has about 3 times the population of District 1, so clearly the hospitals would need to be bigger. But if you make the hospitals 3 times bigger in District 1, they could still - across the nation - hold 15% of the total population of Calladan). I, and my government, are truly in favour of state funded healthcare, and very much against private healthcare, but this is not the way to go about it. And the fifth proposal is identical to the fourth, with suggests someone filed the paperwork (or hit the submit key) twice
  6. So - here's the thing. I don't like this proposal. It allows for indiscriminate bigotry, xenophobia and racism to be enacted and enshrined in WA law and it passes itself off as doing it under the guise of formalising something that already exists. I also have my suspicions about why the author has proposed and submitted it, but since they are only suspicions, I won't make them public (but go to the WA/GA forum and look at his flag and you might get an idea of what my suspicions are). Anyway - I intend to try to launch a legal challenge against it, on the grounds that it violates The Civil Rights Charter (or whatever the resolution is called?) and that Clause 4 arguably violates Refugee Rights to a certain extent, but I am not sure how far that will get. And I know that even if this passes, I don't have to pay any attention to it, because Clause 2 says that the policy for my nation is up to me. But quite honestly I do not think The WA should be in the business of normalising this kind of intolerance and bigotry in law, and I would be very grateful if everyone could just ignore this and let it die a death. Thank you (I will get back to talking about other proposals forthwith, but I wanted to bring this up right away).
  7. Does anyone else think that General could do to be split up into General/US and General/Rest of the World? Because I have been going in there on and off, and there is one thread for the whole of UK politics, and the one or two times I have tried to start another thread, it either gets merged into the UK politics one or just ignored (maybe because no one cares which is fair enough) or because it gets swamped by all the American stuff. Meanwhile American politics covers 20, 30 threads with several topics getting two or three threads least. And when I try to contribute then most of them time I am either told that I don't understand (because I am not American), that the UK doesn't understand (because it isn't free, isn't democratic or just has too much tea) or just ignored (for both of the previous two reasons or another equally facile one). And I know it sounds like I am whining because I am not getting to play with the other kids, and that is not my point I swear - it's just that in the end I am going to stop going to the general forum because - quite honestly - there is very little in there to interest me. So - to get back to my first paragraph - I take it there is little or no chance of the Admins considering something like that? To move all the specifically American political topics into a sub-forum and the other political topics into a different sub-forum and then put all the other stuff (squirrels vs llamas for example) into an actual general forum? Because that might be fun and would at least make it more readable and might provoke more discussion about subjects other than Trump, Clinton and other such Americana. (No offence intended to any Americans here - I am just commenting!)
  8. Hopefully the last of the recent batch of Nuclear Weapons proposals, at least for the time being. Given that the repeal of #10 failed, I suspect this is probably not going anywhere either. Despite the fact that #10 doesn't seem to restrict the ability of The WA to limit the number of missiles a nation can have (except that it can't limit the number to 0) I am not convinced this proposal is the right way to go about it. Also Clause 2 is CLEARLY in violation of Resolution #10 since it overrides the right of a nation to hold nuclear weapons. Setting aside the huge number of nations that will oppose this on general NatSov issues, there is a MASSIVE logical problem in this proposal - the first two clauses mention a given age limit, however the active clause (which is the only one that really matters when it comes to passing a law) DOESN'T MENTION THE AGE LIMIT. So - as a result - this would legalise the sale and use of the drug for anyone of any age, even those under the given age. (Also - given the varying lifespans throughout The WA - 25 is kind of arbitrary). The first of three proposals dealing with education (which seems to have replaced nuclear weapons as the hot button topic for the time being - not sure if that is a good or bad thing). As proposals go it is not all that bad - a tad wordy and overly explanatory in places, and the phrase "the enjoyment of the right to education" is overused to the point of abuse in some places. However the basic aims seem to be more or less acceptable :- it isn't calling for free education for everyone (and so isn't shutting out private education for those who can afford it and those who want it for their children or themselves), it isn't requiring the state to pay for everything (thus pissing off the people who think that people should pay for their own education) but isn't dismissing the idea that the state can pay for everything (thus pissing off people who think private education is the work of satan), it is requiring ALL educational establishments to be held to account and to the same standards (so that private schools can't get away with being crap and state schools can't be closed down because people think they are crap - unless they are crap in which case they can be made to do better). As I said - my only real complaint is that for a proposal about education it is not all that clear and concise and Clause 6 seems to be attempting to include all potential targets but in doing so misses out colleges, academies and potentially other types. This isn't really a flaw, more of a comment. Firstly - I have no clue what the title of the proposal means. I have read the preamble three times and it sounds like something someone would say at an existential poetry reading. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I will leave up to you to decide. Secondly - the spelling, capitalisation and general grammar is somewhat questionable in places. Whether that is because English is not the first language of the proposer, or because of typos, or for some other reason, I don't know. But - that aside - this is still a relatively bad proposal. Clause 1 requires children to be given a free education, but does not specify what "a child" is - as in how long this education has to go on for (infant, junior, senior, sixth form, university). Clause 2 requires students to be "acquainted with" computer science, but does not specify to what degree that applies. Do they need to learn how to code? How to use Word? How to turn a computer on? What if they NEVER intend to use a computer in their chosen profession? Clause 3 is optional, so doesn't really matter. Ditto to Clause 4 (although oddly it is about the only Clause I approve of). Clause 5 is incredibly vague - "much higher" than what? Their neighbours? Than they do now? Than the average? Than the best in The WA? Clause 6 appears to have been lost somewhere. Which for a proposal about education is kind of embarrassing. Clauses 7 & 8 might bankrupt some of the institutions in question. And while I am all for having qualified teachers teaching our children, I am not convinced that these requirements are absolutely necessary. Clause 9 would almost certainly bankrupt the schools - if they need to keep at a "state of the art" level, they would have to improve every single year. I am kind of a technology freak at times, but even I don't replace my computer every year - my interface to The WA is seven years old and it serves me well. If a school has a thousand students (which is not beyond reason) then it might have a library with 200 computers. Replacing each one of those every six months would cost hundred of thousands of Coins - it's just not doable by any stretch of the imagination. Clause 10 would (optionally) make it a nightmare for parents to send their children to school. We build schools near to towns and villages because that's where the kids are. We don't build them out in the middle of nowhere because that's not where the kids are. If we put a school in the middle of nowhere, we have to run a bus service (or two, or three, or four or maybe more) to get the kids to and from school. And then if we run after school clubs we'd have to run maybe a dozen bus services BACK at night. Which would be prohibitively expensive. Instead we choose to build the school closer to the children so the children can get to the school easier. Clause 11 - meh. Given the litigious society we are moving into, permission slips from parents - paper slips - are the best evidence we have that little Becky Mienhiemer was given permission to go to Calladan Zoo and the fact she was eaten by the giant panda was not our fault - it was her mother's. So I am not convinced schools should move to a paperless office. All in all - as you have probably guessed - I am not a fan of this proposal. I am guessing the title was meant to say "Generations" because otherwise I am forced to ask what a Generati is? (Is it like Literati? Maserati? Who knows?) The preamble is kind of confusing (for which you can read "complete bollocks") and while Clause A, B, C and E kind of make sense and do have some logic behind them, Clause D is back to being complete bollocks (it asks us to monitor the product of methods which are at risk to life? What kind of sentence is that?) although this might be due to English not being the first language of the proposer. Also - I have no clue what this has to do with healthcare given it is all about the environment. So while I like the idea behind it, the actual proposal is a train wreck. The third of the education ones, and despite the branding, bad writing and ludicrous age limits, not the worst. It's still bad and needs quite a lot of work and in no way suitable for consideration, but compared to the previous one (see my huge list of flaws with that one) it is actually almost well thought out. However - the time limit option probably makes it illegal (WA resolutions become legal at once as far as I know), and the idea that if you break the law you get aid, but if you are rich you get sanctions is never going to fly with some of the more conservative members of The WA (conservative with a small "c" that is). The age limits will prove problematic with nations who have excessively long/short life spans, and the WA members who actively oppose socialism and socialist policies are going to look at Clause 3 and giggle hysterically (or throw things!). So while it kind of has the right idea - ensuring children get a good education - it is going the wrong way about it.
  9. (Firstly I am typing on a keyboard I am not used to, so if any typos creep in, please forgive me) So I re-read the original resolution that this is endeavouring to repeal, and it turns out that - incest aside - the concerns about bestiality could possibly be justified. There is nothing in there that limits this to single species sex. I understand the argument is that some nations have multiple sapient species (elves and dwarves in Middle-Earth for example) and if you write a blanket ban prohibiting sex between them, then there would be chaos. HOWEVER one of the clauses has a very specific requirement about age of consent, and the vast majority of nations do not have ages of consent for non-sapient beings, meaning that it would be illegal for those animals to consent and therefore they would not be covered by this resolution anyway. So I am not certain that that can be considered a problem big enough for this to be repealed over. And given the multi-sapient-species issue that this protects, I think it is probably not something that should be considered. While I can't see any reason not to support this - it does make some good arguments (although it is a little earth-centric in its thinking), it makes no mention of sustainable forests and replanting and so forth. In Calladan, when we hack down thousands of trees, we replant them a few months later with new trees. As I said, it seems a little bit planet bound (because while I can imagine that Calladan cutting down hundreds of trees would affect the nations that border our borders..... not my best sentence ever, I admit, I can't imagine it affecting a space-based empire several thousand light years away) I would pretty much say this could go either way. The general goals of this are very laudable indeed, but it is SO badly written I initially had trouble working out where the proposal began and the preamble ended, before I realised THERE WAS NO PREAMBLE. So - yeah. Despite being a huge union lass myself, I can not suggest supporting this because it is just such a mess. And very, very, very specifically written. I am not sure The WA should be writing laws to ensure that Paper Towels are kept well stocked in bathrooms in mines. I've made my view of this known on the main forum already. Essentially imagine me, with a HUGE flag with the word "NO" on it in giant letters. it's not the proposal per-se, but the idea that I am going to spend billions of coins to train someone to run very fast so they can win a bit of metal to put around their neck. And then every so often I can pay billions more coins to go in to debt to host this idiotic festival of running very fast so other countries can send their citizens to win bits of metal to go around their neck. It is the single stupidest idea and the biggest waste of time in the history of the world. And as a cost/benefit ratio, I would rather take the money, set it on fire and invite all the homeless in Calladan to sit around the fire, because at least then they would get some warmth out of it. Having said that - if you like watching people run very fast, throw things a long way and sit on the back of dancing horses - knock your self out. (Please - I am being quite literal here). Without reading through previous resolutions, wouldn't this more or less be implicitly covered by previous resolutions? If it isn't, then it could do to be slightly tidied up (there are a few prepositions missing in places which could lead to ambiguity and confusion when it comes to prosecution and court cases) and Clause 1 - depending on how open minded the government it - could pretty much prevent EVERY protest from being held (see the next paragraph) - but aside from that the general idea is good. "....if it doesn't create a risk to public safety" -- depending on the size of the protest, and where it is being held, and what it is, nearly EVERY gathering of people can be a risk to public safety. If you have a protest march down the high street, it will block ambulances, stopping them getting to where they are needed. Which is a risk to public safety. If you have two hundred people meeting in a park, there is a MAJOR risk of trampling and panic if someone yells "FIRE" - which is a risk to public safety. (You get the idea). I don't even know what the hell this is supposed to do. You want to be a member of The WA without suffering the effects? How would that even work? Even setting aside the game mechanics and coding issues, it's the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You can take part in the forum discussions whether you join The WA or not - Arunkur (apologies for the spelling?) has proved that. But that nation doesn't get a vote (a puppet version might, but that is beside the point). You can't have a vote but not get to suffer the consequences - that would just allow an entire block of nations to come in and screw every single vote if they wanted to. And I thought the Olympic Games proposal was the dumbest one I would see today. More people who want to stick their noses into my sex life. They are playing the incest card again, but this time they apparently also want to stop disabled people having sex. It won't surprise you to learn I do not think this is a good idea, because even if they hadn't mentioned "religious norms" at the end I am still not one for letting the state have the final say on what is right and wrong when it is consenting adults who are doing the foo-foo-nasty. And - since I have spent the past three days with my mother, who was a teacher for most of her life, and drilled correct grammar in to my head from quite an early age - I do feel compelled to point out that the last clause should read "Asking that the WA gives nations back", because The World Assembly is a single entity, much like you or I am, and if I were to say "asking that Tara McGill give back her puppy" it would just sound odd. Which has nothing to do with the repeal, it just bugged me when I read it (like I said - three days with my mother).
  10. Somewhat short and sweet and - grammar aside - very well defined. However, given the wide variety of nations and worlds in The WA (include desert nations without ice) it will probably fail to gain any support at vote if it ever gets there. And I am not sure it should - there are massive environmental problems, but building houses out of ice is probably not the way to fix them. I am pretty sure Mars has been colonised in Nation States already, and if The WA were to start bombing it there would almost certainly be all out war.So - on the whole - this is probably NOT a good idea. I am not even sure this is a valid GA resolution. My knowledge of the Security Council is sadly lacking (for which you can read non-existent) but shouldn't this be in there?? I am not certain The WA is empowered to ban capitalism - does the rule protecting ideologies extend to non governmental ideologies? (Which does lead me to a whole bunch of other questions about governmental ideologies vs financial ideologies, but that is a topic for another thread). I am not sure it is going anywhere, and while Calladan would support the idea behind this proposal, the proposal itself is just...... not one we could get behind. The first part of Clause Two makes it entirely optional as to whether The WA flag can be flown in a given nation or not. Which - from what I understand of the requirements of a proposal - means this is illegal. Unless Clause One ("The WA grants permission") makes it legal because it grants permission to all member nations? This is entirely harmless, and does something for member nations. So - assuming it isn't illegal and doesn't get removed on those grounds - I would actually recommend supporting this and voting for it if it ever comes to a vote. While it is true that - in some, rare case Diplomats have done bad things and have failed to be punished for their transgressions, I think that the DPA (#22) serve an important role and should not be repealed unless a very, VERY good replacement can be drafted first. Why 35? Is it 35 for every nation? What about nations where people only live for 21 years? What about nations where people live for 200 years? If the age was based on the nation (age of majority, age of something else) then it might make more sense, but a flat, arbitrary age seems ludicrous. Also - what is a gambling license? Can you lose it? How do you get it? Who gives it out? There is a somewhat marked lack of detail about the license. This is just so much of a mess I don't know where to begin. Which Regional Message Board? Why 100? For a proposal named "DISARM NUCLEAR NATIONS" they are suggesting letting nations ARM themselves with nukes!! Run! Run fast! Run long! RUN!!! I like the idea behind this one - it seems to be the same as setting up embassies or diplomatic buildings in foreign countries. No military forces (although the host country is permitted to police it) within the trade centres, and the renting country can do whatever they want within the area they have rented. The main flaw I can see is that there doesn't seem to be any detail as to whose laws govern the buildings and the trade area - it says that the laws are included in the agreement, but it could do with slightly more specificity. Also who has jurisdiction - if a crime is committed by someone from the renting nation in the trade area, is a crime against the renting nation or the host nation? (And so forth). Overall the idea is not that bad - it would help commerce between nations, increase global/international trade and so forth - but the lack of detail about the laws governing the area will be a problem. Who the frickty-frack is Nate Wright? Setting aside the fact the ink hasn't even dried on #391, I would disagree with the argument about "the wrong hands" because the purpose of that phrase was to allow nations to make up their mind one way or the other. While I am all for The WA deciding for nations on certain things "slavery bad", "social justice good" and so on, I think the idea of letting nations decide which other nations are "the wrong hands" is actually a good one. Plus I am not a fan of repealing resolutions right after they pass - I'd like to give things thought! At least the previous one had some good reasons -- this one is just "We like nukes!" (which #391 doesn't ban). Also - it doesn't mention repealing it. I am not certain this should come under Human Rights - Clause Two seems to suggest Social Justice (since it seems to be an attempt to form a massive, WA wide union), Clause 1 seems to be about trade and industry while Clause 3 doesn't seem to be about anything in particular (and is remarkably vague about by what rules they will required to abide). This is another one of those proposals of which I like the general idea, but the actual implementation is a bit vague and fluffy. And I suspect that Clause 2 - the massive, WA wide employee's union is going to screw it with some of the less liberal nations. The third out of four repeals. It also doesn't mention repeals and is another "WE WANT OUR NUKES!" proposal. And - just to pile on - seems to be wanting to write new legislation in a repeal, which I am fairly sure is against the rules. Oh - and #391 doesn't stop you making nukes. The fourth and last of the repeals - and it also doesn't mention actually repealing the shiny new resolution. And also - by the way - #391 doesn't prevent member states from building weapons so I have no idea why this person thinks it does.
  11. My main problem with the repeal is that the thrust of it seems to be based on the needs of the nation. And it won't come as a surprise to you that my government and My Tri-Arch - while understanding that the needs of a nation are important - generally focus on the rights of individuals over the rights of nations. Add to that the particular focus on the needs of a nation at war - a war that the individuals might oppose (whether for good or bad, right or wrong reasons) - and it just seems wrong to forcibly require people to stay in a country to support a war effort they have moral issues with. So - we'd also recommend a vote against on that basis alone.
  12. Given this ends in 7 hours, it will probably pass into history. Plus I am fairly sure that until "Assisted Suicide" is removed this is probably illegal. However, purely from a Calladanian point of view, the idea of more hospitals and free healthcare is always good, even if it might bankrupt a few nations and drive a few others crazy. But building MORE hospitals closer to war zones seems....... a little odd. Spelling aside, I am not entirely certain where this is going. It clearly states that torture and inhumane treatment is bad, and yet thinks nations should be allowed to torture terrorists and criminals, but only up to a point. It doesn't say whether it distinguishes between terrorists and criminals and SUSPECTED terrorists and criminals - so seems to be suggesting that torture be used as a punishment? Again - probably not going anywhere, but this is kind of creep and seems to serve no real purpose. Remarkably detailed management of crime and punishment. And remarkably lacking in details of what constitutes "endangered" and "critically endangered" fish - but doesn't stop someone from fishing them. Also - and I admit I am no expert - but isn't 1000 fish a day quite a lot? While it would appear the heart of the proposal is in the right place, it could possibly do to be rewritten in a less prescriptive manner. Again - this proposal appears to have the right idea, but the entire method of implementation is a little........ odd. Having never been a terrorist myself, I can not be certain, but I would guess it does not take over three months to plant a bomb at a landmark and detonate it. So quite why that was the timescale picked to ensure the safety of every given landmark is beyond me. Clause 3 also baffles me a little, although again it does seem to be coming from a good place Another well meaning but utterly pointless proposal. Given that Slavery was abolished by a previous resolution, I am not sure that The WA needs an army of "ENFORCERS" to investigate and then launch raids into every nation to free slaves, even if those raids have the permission of the government of the said nation. Also the spelling makes me want to cry and the use of the phrase "by the grace of God" makes me want to throw up. Unless I have entirely misunderstood the Resolution in question, #390 does NOT take control of the military and police forces of member nations, but merely requires them to make themselves available to provide evidence in regard to crimes committed in the nation that might fall under the purview of #390. Which would render the repeal invalid, because Clause 1 has no bearing on the resolution? Setting aside possible duplication issues (there have been so many repeals and resolutions it's hard to keep track) there are two main problems with this. Firstly - "make it illegal for judges to be persuaded" - while the intent of the text is clear, I would argue that the entire purpose of a trial is for a judge to be persuaded one way or the other by the evidence (I know that a jury usually makes the final decision, but the judge is the final arbiter in some cases and there are cases where there is no jury - for minor cases and so on). So - from a certain persnickety point of view - if you make it illegal for a judge to be persuaded - then you render it illegal to hold a trial. And - related to that - The text should read "All judges sitting on a case" because otherwise it would get confusing. The second problem is I have no idea if the sanction thing would work with any free trade resolutions or the like, how politics and judicial rules are supposed to fit together (If you don't return a verdict we like in this trial we will punish you politically?) While I understand the desire for free and fair trials, there are better ways... I'd like to be neutral and independent, but since Cigarettes kill more people than Marijuana every year, I never quite understand why people insist on banning one and not the other. So - as always - despite my general complete lack of interest in national sovereignty arguments (except for gun laws), I think I would apply it to this
  13. (smile) There is a general feeling (yet to be confirmed one way or the other) that this proposal is not a serious attempt to ban euthanasia within The WA, but to prevent a proposed repeal (that is also being debated) from coming to a vote and passing, because if the repeal leads to this - a complete and total ban - then a fair number of people would probably not want the repeal to pass in the first place (better the devil you know and all that). Like I said - this has yet to be confirmed one way or the other.......
  14. (The proposal - for reference) Euthanasia Ban Category: Moral Decency | Strength: Significant[/align] | Author : States of Glory WA Office The World Assembly, NOTING that some member states have legalised assisted suicide and euthanasia, CONCERNED about the moral implications of a right to die, BELIEVING assisted suicide to be an act of murder, HEREBY: PROHIBITS euthanasia and assisted suicide operations in all member states, REQUIRES member states to treat the performance of euthanasia and assisted suicide operations as an unlawful killing, MANDATES that member states forbid participation in euthanasia and assisted suicide operations, ALLOWS member states to restrict their residents from foreign travel if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is intending to evade euthanasia and assisted suicide laws, RESOLVES that World Assembly funds will not be used to facilitate euthanasia and assisted suicide operations, CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution affects member states' laws regarding non-assisted suicide.
  15. Well....... my recent appointment puts me in somewhat of a quandary here. Because while I will, of course, do my best to be an ever helpful assistant and support the author and original poster in their duties as Minister, I can not conceivably find any way to support this proposal, and if this is to be the replacement for the repeal that is currently being debated, I would have to vehemently oppose the repeal as well, so that this proposal could never make it past the drafting stage. While I accept the argument that nations should not be forced to legalise something that goes against their moral beliefs and/or any religious beliefs that they might follow, I do not believe that The WA should enforce those moral beliefs right across every nation. It should be down to the individual nation to choose. A tiny part of me is hoping that this is some sort of ploy - to write a proposal that forces the repeal to fail because the replacement is clearly so at odds with the original resolution that it makes the original resolution look measured and sensible by comparison (no offence), which is why I am bringing my initial objections here instead of in the more public forum But if that isn't the case, and this is a serious proposal - I have to ask : why?
×
×
  • Create New...