The General Assembly thread

Ninvoth-Times

I just wasn’t familiar with the term, thanks.

Ninvoth-Times

I have a question, are repeals significantly different than regular resolutions? (For instance, many resolutions have their preambulatory clauses outlining the reasoning behind the resolution, while the operative clauses are the execution of that idea. However, for repeals, there are arguments in both sections. Why are they not only preambulatory clauses with the operative clause: Calls for resolution xxxx to be rendered null and void.) Why is this the case? (Sorry for the double post)

Uan-aa-Boa

Ninvoth-Times

I thought that was how repeals worked. They are just arguments in favour of the repeal with a single operative clause, because you’re not allowed to legislate in a repeal proposal. I don’t really think of repeals as having 2 sections. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question.

Daarwyrth

Uan-aa-Boa

You can have a bit of a preamble, like acknowledging the target resolution and such. As long as you don’t legislate in the preamble or anywhere else, it’s generally fine I think to have a preamble.

As to the “shall be struck out and rendered null and void” that’s an automatic part of the repeal proposal that it receives. I didn’t know this either and I had included the line in the actual text, which is why I had to delete the proposal as it posted that line twice 😛 repeals have to be submitted differently than normal proposals though, so that’s why they get that first line automatically.

Ninvoth-Times

That makes more sense.

Uan-aa-Boa

The margin is getting smaller on Daarwyrth’s repeal… you never know.

Next up is Safety and Integrity in Conflict Journalism which is coming from Refugia. I’m leaning against this one because I think it’s pretty naive about modern warfare. Conflict reporting is dominated by embedded journalists who accompany troops, and this proposal ignores them because it defines a conflict journalist as one operating “independently of any belligerent faction”. It requires the military to allow journalists working for news outlets in the enemy country to move freely throughout the conflict area and trust them not to be spies (though they can retaliate if they’re caught spying). And since it defines espionage as clandestine, going into enemy territory and publicly broadcasting what you see wouldn’t count as spying anyway.

Also, banning journalists from having weapons or bodyguards in a war zone seems a little harsh, and there seems to be no recognition of the fact that journalism is inherently likely to be propaganda even if the reporter is not officially connected to the troops of one side.

So I’m open to persuasion, but at a first read I don’t like the look of this much. I tend to read proposals in this way once they’ve been submitted and wish that I’d got my act together enough to make my comments in the drafting process.

Ninvoth-Times

I think their definition of an Act of Warfare is a bit narrow as well.

Uan-aa-Boa

Our fellow Forestian The New Bluestocking Homeland (aka Free Joy State) has a draft on the forum.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=505296

It’s a revisiting of Freedom of Dress and the attempt to end discrimination in uniforms and work dress codes, but it lacks the obvious shortcomings of Tinhampton’s attempt.

I encourage you to check it out and share your thoughts, and I’d be happy to convey feedback to the main forum if people aren’t comfortable there.

Daarwyrth

Uan-aa-Boa

A very interesting and well-written draft. It is a pity of the inclusion “For students in a school setting,” as personally I would have loved to see that banned, yet it is not a deal-breaker by any means. This is a draft I can find myself supportive of!

On another topic, yesterday I had a thought cross my mind about a potential resolution on pollinators and their protection. There is the Bee act already, but I couldn’t find anything specifically on pollinators (natural of artificial) in general. Would there be potential in such an idea?

Daarwyrth

I wanted to bring a resolution draft from the NS forums to your attention here, and hear your thoughts on its content. The draft is by Greater Cesnica and The Python, and it’s called “Enforcing Ethics in Farming”.

Personally, I am very supportive of the idea and I think the proposal is well-written as it is. Factory farming should be banned in its entirety without exception, and I think that the proposals approaches that subject very well.

I’d love to know what people here think!

Ninvoth-Times

I like the proposal a lot, however, I think they need to expand clause 2 a bit more as the challenge from immediately banning factory farming could be a food shortage as our systems need to readjust. I feel it’s probably more practical to phase this in over a span of 3-4 years so that farms have a chance to adapt and consumers don’t experience a significant lag in food.

Uan-aa-Boa

Ninvoth-Times

Good point, though I can imagine Cretox State grumbling about arbitrary numbers. It’s a strong first draft that will probably end up being diluted by compromises along the way, but that kind of drafting process can be good for crowd-sourcing those compromises.

Daarwyrth

Good points, and I agree with them!

And what do we think about Big Boyz’s “Protecting Valuable Habitats”? It seems he was a little faster in producing a proposal draft to protect all unique ecosystems 😛 I was sceptical at first when he posted his first draft, but I am actually impressed by how he is taking feedback and responding to commentary. The proposal is very long however, yet at the same time I realise this is a subject that needs to have a detailed and elaborate draft. I am beginning to warm up to it, yet there’s still much polishing to do, I think.

Ninvoth-Times

Any opinions on the current corporal punishment resolution?

Daarwyrth

Ninvoth-Times

Personally, I’m in favour because I want to see corporal punishment banned, but… I do see flaws in Clause d.i, which I believe is what many people are stumbling over. Especially the part “or while arresting a suspected criminal” is the big, glaring flaw. Because this could potentially entice or encourage police brutality, which would be horrible, of course. Not to mention completely unnecessary use of violence.

I still voted ‘for’ however, because corporal punishment is really a practice that needs to be banned, as it only and exclusively scars the child and does absolutely nothing to raise them or disclipline them, or whatever. It only causes harm, extensively so, which is why I would want to see this pass, and then an additional resolution come along that puts restrictions on police violence.

Ninvoth-Times

That was the main point to my vote against it, as well as the confusing aspect of subclause ii of clause d. I think while corporal punishment is abhorrent we shouldn’t be accepting legislation with apparent weaknesses even though it addresses a problem.

Daarwyrth

Ninvoth-Times

A valid concern and point! I hope the new version of the proposal will be improved in that regard 🙂

Bananaistan

Corporal punishment is not an international issue imo.

People need to consider more than just whether an idea is good policy or not and should firstly ask themselves if the international law is the best way to deal with the particular policy area.

Countries can decide for themselves whether an errant child getting a smack on the arse should be an international crime.

Daarwyrth

Bananaistan

I can’t deny that you do have a point. I’d argue that by using an international approach a larger part of the “world” can be spared from corporal punishment, yet I realise that argument is anything but stretchy enough to make it all the way.

On a different subject, I’m curious what people here think of “Prohibition Of Unwarranted Digital Surveillance”?

Bananaistan

Daarwyrth

ICly: it’s more wishy washy liberal nonsense and only the so-called liberal democracies would need an international law to stop them from abusing their citizens.

« Previous Page