Calladan

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!)

(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.......

(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.

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?

Well - I told my wife about my new initiative, and two things came from it :- First, I am sleeping on the couch tonight, because telling your wife that you were SO BORED by the opera she took you to that your mind wandered into creating an entirely new governmental initiative is really not a good idea. Turns out she takes it badly. And secondly she pointed out that most of this information would be picked up by the Calladan immigration department -- when someone immigrates to Calladan from any other country, they would run a background check that would pretty much follow the MACE protocols and if the person requesting permission to immigrate was a bad enough criminal, then we would not grant it. And even if they were granted permission to immigrate, then ORC would still retain ALL of the information gathered during the immigration process - including all of the criminal records that this person has. She also pointed out that it would be more or less safe to assume that most other countries would have similar immigration processes, and so would have similar record gathering processes. Which would render this ENTIRE proposal somewhat pointless and useless. So - unless anyone can see a flaw in my wife's logic (and is willing to point it out to her - I already have one night on the couch and I am not getting another!) I think that my entire plan to carry this proposal forward is pretty much dead in the water.

I have kind of been discussing this under another thread on the GA board, but thought I would start a proper draft here before launching into the real world (so to speak). Basically the idea is for an international version of the criminal records background check. When Calladanian citizens apply for certain jobs (working with children, especially where they will be potentially left alone with those children, working in classified or high security jobs and so forth) they are required to undergo additional background checks - checks that require information from the ORC (Office of Records - Criminal). This is to ensure that - for example - a child molester can't simply move from District 1 to District 21 and get a new address in order to escape their past. The records provided are very, very strictly controlled - they only include criminal convictions for certain crimes (crimes that would be relevant and make them a danger to either children, or untrustworthy to work in security related jobs) and do not include convictions that are spent or convictions for crimes committed as minors (except under very special circumstances). I won't bore you with a full list, but examples include murder, child abuse, rape, computer hacking (viruses, malware), terrorism with bloodshed and sexual assault. (The sexual related crimes are only included when the job relates to working with children, but they are reported for both men and women). However, given that the world is getting smaller, it is not beyond reason that said child molester could move from one country to another. And while ORC has the records of every citizen in Calladan, it doesn't have any records outside of Calladan because it is a Calladan government department and other government object to us hacking into their record systems So what I am proposing is a mutual exchange of these records. That every country is required so set up a version of ORC (if they don't already have one) and that when requests come in from other WA member nations, they respond to the request and send the required information back on the subject of the request or they provide a compelling reason as to why they can not send the required information (eg - the subject of the request is not a citizen). The cost of the request will be paid by the nation that is making it - the nation that is fulfilling it will bill the requesting nation (at an agreed rate) once the request is fulfilled or rejected. (There will be an initial outlay for the cost of ORC - but most nations might have one of these already?) I realise there will be some objections under National Sovereignty - "Can you explain to me what right does the Calladan government have to demand information about one of my former citizens?" - or possibly objections because they are former citizens - "Why should we care what a former citizen of ours is doing once they have emigrated from our country? They're in your country now, they're your problem" but the one thing I think I CAN argue is that this IS an international topic, rather than a national one, because it does cover the interaction between two countries and an information exchange between the two. Anyway.... --xx--xx-- Title : International Background Check Protocols Category/Strength : (Not sure yet - this is the part I usually have the most trouble with) Noting that candidates for certain jobs require extra checks into their backgrounds, to ensure they are suitable for the positions, Noting that these checks into any criminal convictions that the candidate might have, Aware that the world is smaller than it once was, and that people can travel from one country to another relatively easily, Noting that this potentially makes complete background checks harder, as a candidate might move from country to country, Hoping that all nations would like their checks to be as complete as possible, The WA hereby :- 1. Creates The MACE Protocols (defined below) for the exchange of information between member nations; 2. Requires that member nations respond in a timely fashion to MACE requests from other member nations; a - the response must either be to provide the information, or an acceptable reason as to why the information was not provided. 3. Requires that the costs of a MACE request are paid by the requesting nation, not the nation carrying out the request; 4. Suggests the office dealing with the requests be given the most amusing name possible (eg Office of Records - Criminal, Department of Interior Criminal Kith, Files Uniting National Naughty Yokels) The MACE (Mutual Assistance on Checks for Employment) Protocols 1. Information can only pertain to a single citizen. 2. Information can only pertain to criminal convictions :- a - these convictions must be non-spent convictions; b - these convictions must be from when the citizen is an adult (if there is a conflict of ages of consent between nations, the youngest applies); c - if the requesting nation defines something as a crime that is not a crime in the nation fulfilling the request, it is ignored; d - if the nation fulfilling the request has more convictions under their MACE protocols, they can optionally provide them in the request fulfilment. 3. A MACE request can only be made by the government. It can not come directly from the employer. 4. Allow for limited bio-metric information to be included in the request (finger prints, hair colour, eye colour, height, weight, picture of face, full body picture) to take account of the face the citizen might have changed their name. --xx--xx-- That's about all I can think of at the minute. I am pretty sure I have probably missed something, but - since I have missed it, I don't know what it is I REALLY want to include the ability to set an exchange program with non-member nations (optional and not controlled) but I realise that will get me spanked six ways through Sunday, so I will leave it for now