Sanctaria wrote:The good Ambassador has our support in his endeavour.
Your support is, as always, greatly appreciated.
Advertisement
by Mousebumples » Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:37 pm
Sanctaria wrote:The good Ambassador has our support in his endeavour.
by Snefaldia » Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:08 pm
by Glenn » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:06 pm
Mousebumples wrote:
NOTES that Clause 1a proclaims that all who are detained are “considered the accused until proven guilty;”
by Mousebumples » Mon Jan 16, 2012 6:20 am
Snefaldia wrote:My Lord High Chancellor's government supports this repeal, and will gladly vote for it should it come to quorum. Well done.
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Mon Jan 16, 2012 7:04 am
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Mallorea and Riva » Fri Mar 09, 2012 9:52 pm
REGRETS that WA member states are not required to protect convicts from outside threads as Clause 2d only provides protection for the convicted “from inside threats”;
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Fri Mar 09, 2012 11:53 pm
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Mousebumples » Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:25 am
by Mousebumples » Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:22 pm
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:
UNDERSTANDS that all individuals who are accused of a crime should be accorded certain rights and protections under international law;
REALIZES that the current resolution on the subject contains a number of flaws that make it ineffective, at best, and detrimental to WA member nations and their citizens, at worst;
MOURNS that clauses within this resolution’s text allow for the abuse of these rights under the guise of upholding them;
NOTES that Clause 1a proclaims that all who are detained are “considered the accused until proven guilty;” yet the resolution makes no attempt to ensure that innocence is presumed of all accused until proven otherwise in a court of law. As such, any accusation, no matter how spurious, may follow an individual throughout the rest of their life, even if they are never convicted of the crime in question;
QUESTIONS the details of Clause 1c, as “outside and inside threats” are referenced but not given any further elaboration. Such a lack of clarity may be exploited by nations wishing to evade compliance with this clause's intent;
REGRETS that WA member states are not required to protect convicts from outside threats as Clause 2d only provides protection for the convicted “from inside threats”, which fails to protect the convicted from the following:BELIEVES that misconduct, as detailed in Clause 2g(i), should also have the potential to result in the temporary loss or reduction of exercise time, which is not allowed under the terms of this resolution;
- Natural disasters and other potentially hazardous weather conditions, such as extreme temperatures, and
- Civil unrest that may threaten the lives and well-being of convicts;
ENCOURAGES the drafting of further proposals on this subject to ensure the protection of all who are accused, charged, and convicted of crimes within WA member nations;
REPEALS GA#62, “For the Detained and Convicted.”
by Libraria and Ausitoria » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:25 am
○ Commonwealth Capital (Bank) ○ ○ Commonwealth Connect (Bank Treaty) ○ ○ SeaScape (Shipping & Energy) ○(██████████████████████████████║║◙█[Θ]█]◙◙◙◙◙[█]
by Mousebumples » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:32 am
Libraria and Ausitoria wrote:We continue to support this proposal, including the crosses and crimson colouring.
May we enquire when we might expect to see it submitted?
by Scion Lop On » Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:06 am
MOURNS that clauses within thise resolution’s text allow for the abuse of these rights under the guise of upholding them;
by Mousebumples » Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:13 am
Scion Lop On wrote:While I support the resolution in the strongest of terms, I do have one small caveat.MOURNS that clauses within thise resolution’s text allow for the abuse of these rights under the guise of upholding them;
Instead of "mourns", I'd use something like "regrets," or "concerned." I'm not sure what it is about the word "mourn," but I don't think it incites the type of feeling you're looking for - it sort of implies extreme sadness. Although whether or not you decide to change the wording is your decision - I'll support it either way.
REGRETS that clauses within this resolution’s text allow for the abuse of these rights under the guise of upholding them;
...
DETAILS that WA member states are not required to protect convicts from outside threats as Clause 2d only provides protection for the convicted “from inside threats”, which fails to protect the convicted from the following:
- Natural disasters and other potentially hazardous weather conditions, such as extreme temperatures, and
- Civil unrest that may threaten the lives and well-being of convicts;
by Gatchina Ministry of Foreign Affairs » Sun Mar 25, 2012 1:00 pm
by Mousebumples » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:44 pm
THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:
UNDERSTANDS that all individuals who are accused of a crime should be accorded certain rights and protections under international law;
REALIZES that the current resolution on the subject contains a number of flaws that make it ineffective, at best, and detrimental to WA member nations and their citizens, at worst;
REGRETS that clauses within this resolution’s text allow for the abuse of these rights under the guise of upholding them;
NOTES that Clause 1a proclaims that all who are detained are “considered the accused until proven guilty;” yet the resolution does not make any attempt to ensure that innocence is presumed of all accused until proven otherwise. As such, any accusation, no matter how spurious, may follow individuals throughout the rest of their lives, even if they are never convicted of the crimes in question;
QUESTIONS the details of Clause 1c, as “outside and inside threats” are referenced but not given any further elaboration. Such a lack of clarity may be exploited by nations wishing to evade compliance with this clause's intent;
HIGHLIGHTS an additional shortcoming of the resolution's text, in that WA member states are not required to protect convicts from outside threats as Clause 2d only ensures protection for the convicted “from inside threats”, which fails to protect the convicted from the following:BELIEVES that misconduct, as detailed in Clause 2g(i), should also have the potential to result in the temporary loss or reduction of exercise time, which is not permitted under the terms of this flawed resolution;
- Natural disasters and other potentially hazardous weather conditions, such as extreme temperatures, and
- Civil unrest that threatens the lives and well-being of convicts;
ENCOURAGES the drafting of further proposals on this subject to ensure the protection of all who are accused, charged, and convicted of crimes within WA member nations;
REPEALS GA#62, “For the Detained and Convicted.”
by Ainocra » Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:57 am
by Mousebumples » Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:02 pm
by Moronist Decisions » Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:04 pm
by Mousebumples » Sat Mar 31, 2012 5:21 pm
Moronist Decisions wrote:Ambassador Eberhart,
The Council of Morons has requested me to send you a congratulatory message regarding this resolution reaching quorum, and look forward to voting for this in 16 hours' time.
Mr. Joe Smyslow
Deputy Chief Representative
Charges d'Affaires ad Interim
Director of International Mayhem
by Retired WerePenguins » Sat Mar 31, 2012 8:16 pm
Mousebumples wrote:(Of course, by that point, I'd had a few glasses of wine and wasn't in the best .... editing frame of mine.)
by R539 » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:42 am
RepentNowOrPayLater wrote:One of the kids at my school tried to tell me about something called secular ethics, but I told him I already have T-Mobile and my mom handles that anyway.
Milks Empire wrote:Whoever the hell thinks women cannot commit rape ought to be removed from society for being that stupid.
by Charlotte Ryberg » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:56 am
by Merfurian » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:26 am
by Aleksotopia » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:27 am
by Merfurian » Sun Apr 01, 2012 10:32 am
Aleksotopia wrote:Well while I agree that certain changes and alterations MUST be made as to make sure such legislation is not TOO broad, I do NOT believe that a repeal is necessary. This piece of legislation is extremely important in protecting the rights of fellow human beings, criminal or not. Just an idea here, but, is it possible to make a vote exclusive only to Delegates and Vice Delegates? I mean, could the World Assembly take this piece off for 24 hours, and the Delegates and Vice Delegates exclusively debate on it and rewrite it, and by the end of the 24 hours, the Legislation will represent ALL of the regions' interests? Just a thought Peace and Love
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement