[PASSED] Right to Adequate Sanitation

[Bible-Black]

TLDR: Everyone just keep with the status quo, tax people for more soap, add more showers to gas stations.

My issues start with
(a) It sounds as though we are setting up science centers to research what causes lack of sanitation. We need money to research hand washing, correct wiping techniques, safe sex, safe drug use, and how to take out our trash.

Then we are either doing what we already do, and putting up more Please wash hands after use
Or Request a mask to prevent germ spread in hospitals/public.

That entire mandate is repetitive of what we have introduced into society, and ignores the obvious link between poverty and sanitation. If it is dirty, clean it, don't pour money into figuring out how it got dirty

Then comes (b)
We are expanding the world assembly to include a sanitation department. Which nation wants to play janitor?

In fact (b)(c)(d) all seem repetitive and based on common sense. Why do we need money and legislation on how to properly dispose of our waste? Why does it require a m
ember summit, it reminds me of dealing with carbon emissions on a third world country scale with garbage men instead of pollutants. We have most of the answers, solutions, and education already instilled. It's redundant.

REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants, including but not limited to, constructing adequate solid waste management systems and ensuring access to public sanitation facilities;

This just tells me that we need to work together to add more port-a-potties, inter commerce landfills, and sinks in more public areas with taxed soap.

[Bible-Black]

Also the income inequality and basic welfare title, very misleading.

Cleaning poo, and finding out where it comes from reduces income inequality how?

[Chester Pearson]

The WA telling us we have to build toilets is not excessive WA micromanagement? If it's not, please tell me what is then, because I would really like to know?

This resolution doesn't mandate that you build toilets, neither expressly nor implicitly. It's meant to assist nations create adequate sanitation systems and habits in areas that would otherwise not have the means to do so. The only real provisions that this resolution mandates is that you create adequate public sanitation systems, like sewers and other waste management systems, and provide access to information regarding proper sanitation. This is an inherently international issue because waste buildup and the subsequent disease caused from it do not respect national borders. So before you go around assuming that this resolution demands you build toilets, I'd suggest you read it first.

REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants, including but not limited to, constructing adequate solid waste management systems and ensuring access to public sanitation facilities;

There is the main operative clause. It tells is we need to build toilets and showers. Are national governments so inept, that the WA needs to legislate upon it?

EDIT: Also, how does this reduce income equality? In order to do that, a clause mandating that we hire fecal cleaners would be necessary would it not?

[Sciongrad]

This resolution doesn't mandate that you build toilets, neither expressly nor implicitly. It's meant to assist nations create adequate sanitation systems and habits in areas that would otherwise not have the means to do so. The only real provisions that this resolution mandates is that you create adequate public sanitation systems, like sewers and other waste management systems, and provide access to information regarding proper sanitation. This is an inherently international issue because waste buildup and the subsequent disease caused from it do not respect national borders. So before you go around assuming that this resolution demands you build toilets, I'd suggest you read it first.

REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants, including but not limited to, constructing adequate solid waste management systems and ensuring access to public sanitation facilities;

There is the main operative clause. It tells is we need to build toilets and showers. Are national governments so inept, that the WA needs to legislate upon it?

While that clause certainly includes toilets, that's not what it's referring to primarily. And might I add, if your public facilities don't already have bathrooms, then it seems that you might want to take advantage of the WHA's expanded benefits under this resolution. Anyways, that clause primarily includes waste water collection, water treatment centers, and other such infrastructure. This is not a WA toilet building project. I don't think sanitation means what you think it means.

[Separatist Peoples]

TLDR: Everyone just keep with the status quo, tax people for more soap, add more showers to gas stations.

My issues start with
(a) It sounds as though we are setting up science centers to research what causes lack of sanitation. We need money to research hand washing, correct wiping techniques, safe sex, safe drug use, and how to take out our trash.

Then we are either doing what we already do, and putting up more Please wash hands after use
Or Request a mask to prevent germ spread in hospitals/public.

That entire mandate is repetitive of what we have introduced into society, and ignores the obvious link between poverty and sanitation. If it is dirty, clean it, don't pour money into figuring out how it got dirty

Then comes (b)
We are expanding the world assembly to include a sanitation department. Which nation wants to play janitor?

In fact (b)(c)(d) all seem repetitive and based on common sense. Why do we need money and legislation on how to properly dispose of our waste? Why does it require a m
ember summit, it reminds me of dealing with carbon emissions on a third world country scale with garbage men instead of pollutants. We have most of the answers, solutions, and education already instilled. It's redundant.

REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants, including but not limited to, constructing adequate solid waste management systems and ensuring access to public sanitation facilities;

This just tells me that we need to work together to add more port-a-potties, inter commerce landfills, and sinks in more public areas with taxed soap.

"Crazy thought here: maybe finding the source of the filth might determine the best, and cheapest, approach to fixing the problem? Unless you'd rather toss money down an ever-refilling hole?"

[Chester Pearson]

There is the main operative clause. It tells is we need to build toilets and showers. Are national governments so inept, that the WA needs to legislate upon it?

While that clause certainly includes toilets, that's not what it's referring to primarily. And might I add, if your public facilities don't already have bathrooms, then it seems that you might want to take advantage of the WHA's expanded benefits under this resolution. Anyways, that clause primarily includes waste water collection, water treatment centers, and other such infrastructure. This is not a WA toilet building project. I don't think sanitation means what you think it means.

Oh, I know exactly what sanitation means thank you very much..... Does this resolution demand that the bears now filter their drinking water, or the weasels now are required to build toilets? What about the Silicoids who require toxic waste to survive? Do they now have to filter that waste, or are they required to create more waste? I have to agree this is a noble cause, but as written seems fairly human centric....

[Sciongrad]

While that clause certainly includes toilets, that's not what it's referring to primarily. And might I add, if your public facilities don't already have bathrooms, then it seems that you might want to take advantage of the WHA's expanded benefits under this resolution. Anyways, that clause primarily includes waste water collection, water treatment centers, and other such infrastructure. This is not a WA toilet building project. I don't think sanitation means what you think it means.

Oh, I know exactly what sanitation means thank you very much..... Does this resolution demand that the bears now filter their drinking water, or the weasels now are required to build toilets? What about the Silicoids who require toxic waste to survive? Do they now have to filter that waste, or are they required to create more waste? I have to agree this is a noble cause, but as written seems fairly human centric....

The clause says, in relevant part, "REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants..." The qualifiers practical, reasonable, and necessary prevents weasels from being forced to build intricate systems of waste management. It's written so as to ensure that member nations are only required to do what's necessary, within reason.

[Chester Pearson]

Oh, I know exactly what sanitation means thank you very much..... Does this resolution demand that the bears now filter their drinking water, or the weasels now are required to build toilets? What about the Silicoids who require toxic waste to survive? Do they now have to filter that waste, or are they required to create more waste? I have to agree this is a noble cause, but as written seems fairly human centric....

The clause says, in relevant part, "REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants..." The qualifiers practical, reasonable, and necessary prevents weasels from being forced to build intricate systems of waste management. It's written so as to ensure that member nations are only required to do what's necessary, within reason.

Fair enough then. As for my other question that was conveniently ignored, how does this reduce income equality?

[Sciongrad]

The clause says, in relevant part, "REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants..." The qualifiers practical, reasonable, and necessary prevents weasels from being forced to build intricate systems of waste management. It's written so as to ensure that member nations are only required to do what's necessary, within reason.

Fair enough then. As for my other question that was conveniently ignored, how does this reduce income equality?

Oh, I can't speak to that - I agree that this should fall into the health category. This was written to the Social Justice category before the secretariat generously bought the clerks new category stamps, and I don't think his Excellency of Elke and Elba took these new categories into account, so it was submitted it as it was. That being said, I don't know if that category violation is that egregious.

[Chester Pearson]

Fair enough then. As for my other question that was conveniently ignored, how does this reduce income equality?

Oh, I can't speak to that - I agree that this should fall health into the health category. This was written to the Social Justice category before the secretariat generously bought the clerks new category stamps, and I don't think his Excellency of Elke and Elba took these new categories into account, so it was submitted it as it was. That being said, I don't know if that category violation is that egregious.

The fact that this does nothing to reduce income equality should make this a category violation, thus illegal....

[Bible-Black]

I was stating sarcasm, we know where the filth comes from, the TLDR, was just a sarcastic expression.

So this debate has come down to toilet equality?

That's the income equality, and basic welfare stated?

Still being sarcastic.

In all serious, the resolution is asking for redundancy. Public services already offered, just increasing the quality of your portapottys. I'd like to ask we recind the money on education with the already existing hand washing manuals, hand sanitizers, and the library copies of "Everybody Poops"

. That solves education appropriations. Also the expenses on where the filth comes from. Do we need to share this information through information summits, otherwise we don't need money at all for this, or to exchange our findings. This resolution is pointless, redundant, and unnesscary as it does not improve the status quo.

It's very misleading that it begins on the front page as basic welfare and income inequality solutions. Unneeded and only has the votes by misleading users

[Bible-Black]

The fact that this does nothing to reduce income equality should make this a category violation, thus illegal....

This alone should end this argument, besides all the lack of improvements on the status quo

[Targareyen]

This proposal does nothing to close the gaps in inequality in any insignificant way and is only taxing on the economies who are unable to support pointless welfare. Thus, this shouldn't be an issue for the WA to decide and should be left to each independent sovereignty.

[Defwa]

I'm concerned that this resolution does not do enough and may block another resolution from coming in later and doing better. Therefore I abstain.

[Chester Pearson]

The fact that this does nothing to reduce income equality should make this a category violation, thus illegal....

This alone should end this argument, besides all the lack of improvements on the status quo

http://www.nationstates.net/page=ga

I believe we have a category violation here. This resolution does nothing to reduce income equality in any way shape form. I believe the discard card should be played, as this resolution is illegal.

GHR filed. We now wait on the wise and honourable Secretariat to rule.

[Ardchoille]

Re Discard: As far as I know, the Discard function is for mods to implement, not for players to request -- and only then after consultation*. It's for egregious, really bad, terrible, awful, violations. Think Max Barry Day, previously undiscovered plagisarism, or saying NS is a game in the text of a Resolution.

A category violation is a technical glitch. If something escapes the author, he takes his lumps. If it escapes the players, they take theirs. If it escapes the mods, we take ours*². For the most part, category is arguable. Arguable Resolutions get repealed, not dumped.


*EDIT: And I do mean consultation. Heavy, serious, get-in-there-with-yer hobnailed-boots-on, consultation.

*2: A week's modding nothing but General. Or two weeks on Gameplay.

[Kryozerkia]

Thank you for your patience. Delegates. Ambassadors.

We've reviewed the legality of the "Right to Adequate Sanitation" category. Here is our official ruling:

The "Right to Adequate Sanitation" proposal straddles the new health category (either International Aid or Research) and the existing Social Justice category. However, it's best suited for Social Justice rather than one of the health subcategories -- thus legal.

The simplest means to determine the best category is to isolate the primary goals of the proposal. The "Right to Adequate Sanitation" has three goals: a) to educate b) to allocate funds and c) to improve general living conditions. The first two goals may belong new category, however, the third is clearly about general welfare. The deciding factor is the weight of each goal. The third goal/factor determines the ideal category. If the weight of the proposal wasn't about improving living conditions, the aid or research sub categories would be the sub-category of choice depending on the weight of the first two goals.

[Soviet Party]

The delegation from the Commonwealth of Soviet Party would like to officially thank the nation of Elke and Elba for this resolution.

While we did have initial concerns about this Resolution's scope and objectives, our concerns were adequately answered.

We applaud Elke and Elba for bringing an important matter to the floor, as so many other resolutions fail to do.

[Voltzenkrad]

Well.... Where am I to put all my useless waste now? I can't merely go around dumping it on ither countries streets anymore....,.

[Chester Pearson]

Thank you for your patience. Delegates. Ambassadors.

We've reviewed the legality of the "Right to Adequate Sanitation" category. Here is our official ruling:

The "Right to Adequate Sanitation" proposal straddles the new health category (either International Aid or Research) and the existing Social Justice category. However, it's best suited for Social Justice rather than one of the health subcategories -- thus legal.

The simplest means to determine the best category is to isolate the primary goals of the proposal. The "Right to Adequate Sanitation" has three goals: a) to educate b) to allocate funds and c) to improve general living conditions. The first two goals may belong new category, however, the third is clearly about general welfare. The deciding factor is the weight of each goal. The third goal/factor determines the ideal category. If the weight of the proposal wasn't about improving living conditions, the aid or research sub categories would be the sub-category of choice depending on the weight of the first two goals.

This is disappointing, but understandable. We appreciate the Secretariat taking the time to review this, and getting back to the Assembly so quickly.

[Crotoa]

I vote against this motion on simple grounds of unnecessary global over regulation. Although I can see why this would appeal to some voting members with good intentions, this appears to be yet another manufactured 'right' by the World Assembly. The wording in this bill is vague, and does not set limits on where sanitation is to be enforced. Will armed police barge into homes that the government deems unclean?

I believe this legislation will infringe upon more rights than it protects. I strongly urge my fellow delegates to vote against this bill.

-Crotoan Delegate Terésa Selt

[United Empire of Montieton]

I voted for this even though I honestly do not believe that sanitation is not a right,because ultimately it will help more developing nations and as a result, the regions economy, if we pass this bill.
The bill is simple, yet I think it has potential for very good things.

[The Original States]

As generous and admirable this is, The Republic of The Original States have decided to reject this. Our world is moving fast and people will be and have been left behind, we can't be relied upon to have to help them out.

[Iom Esperanto]

Don't you realize the consequences of this? It will dramatically damage the economy! Everyone will be forced to pay for the sanitation! Many people's economies are hurt enough and this will only further the damage.

[Jaquer]

We think expanding the influence of the WHA would result in a meddling of sovereignty. Downvote.