[DRAFT] Repeal Toxic Heavy Metals Act

[Gineseng]

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the good intentions of the Toxic Heavy Metals Act;

Acknowledging that toxic heavy metals and their compounds steadily build up through food chains, poisoning organisms and affecting sapient beings that make their livelihood off the land and sea;

Noting that the definition of toxic heavy metals according to the Toxic Heavy Metals Act would include metals such as gold, platinum, and uranium;

Stressing that gold and platinum are not toxic metals and that their uses hold cultural significance in many countries;

Noting that uranium is an important source of energy for many nations outside of military purposes;

Believing that the Toxic Heavy Metals Act will cause harm to many countries due to this definition of toxic heavy metals and that an alternative solution must be sought for the issues caused by toxic heavy metals;

Repeals GA#371 Toxic Heavy Metals Act.

[Araraukar]

OOC: First of all, welcome to the GA forum!

And you did the right thing in posting here rather than submitting right away. Only this way we can help you make your proposal better, as once submitted, the text can no longer be changed.

Noting that the definition of toxic heavy metals according to the Toxic Heavy Metals Act would include metals such as gold, platinum, and uranium;

Well, uranium is toxic, in addition to being radioactive. However, it won't include metallic gold and platinum, because the target resolution says "Defines "toxic heavy metals" as any relatively dense metal or metalloid, or any compound thereof, that is noted for its potential toxicity by the World Assembly Scientific Programme;".

Stressing that gold and platinum are not toxic metals and that their uses hold cultural significance in many countries;

Well, actually soluble compounds of gold are toxic and platinum-based chemotherapy chemicals do exist, and they wouldn't be any good if they weren't toxic to the cells. However, pure metallic forms of both aren't, and thus wouldn't be affected by the target resolution.

Noting that uranium is an important source of energy for many nations outside of military purposes;

That's why there's the military exception in the target resolution: "Exempts the use of toxic heavy metals in military applications, so long as due care is taken to ensure safe disposal of said toxic heavy metals and/or their compounds, as covered by existing international law." I would say even the military needs to be careful with its toxic materials.

Believing that the Toxic Heavy Metals Act will cause harm to many countries due to this definition of toxic heavy metals and that an alternative solution must be sought for the issues caused by toxic heavy metals;

Not quite what the target resolution says: "Requires member states to research alternatives to reduce the use of, and where technologically and economically feasible, phase out the use of toxic heavy metals and their compounds;". Yes, you must research if it's feasible to not have toxic stuff, but if it's not, you don't have to.

Your arguments currently could count for the Honest Mistake violation, as you state the target resolution says X when it actually says Y.

[Kaboomlandia]

Acknowledging that toxic heavy metals and their compounds steadily build up through food chains, poisoning organisms and affecting sapient beings that make their livelihood off the land and sea;

Plagiarized word-for-word from the original. Illegal.

EDIT: To clarify, not only will this proposal be removed if you submit with that plagiarized clause in, you'll be immediately kicked from the WA.

[Wrapper]

Acknowledging that toxic heavy metals and their compounds steadily build up through food chains, poisoning organisms and affecting sapient beings that make their livelihood off the land and sea;

Plagiarized word-for-word from the original. Illegal.

EDIT: To clarify, not only will this proposal be removed if you submit with that plagiarized clause in, you'll be immediately kicked from the WA.

This is easily rectified by referencing the original and putting the duplicated text in quotation marks. It's permitted (and, for some, expected) that repeals quote their targets.

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is easily rectified by referencing the original and putting the duplicated text in quotation marks. It's permitted (and, for some, expected) that repeals quote their targets.

Thankfully. I also believe that more repeals should quote their targets. Plus, from a political perspective, its a very good tactic because it increases credibility in the eyes of the voter.