Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'illegal'.
Found 1 result
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