[PASSED] Repeal "Assitance Givers Protection"

[The Two Jerseys]

The United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys concurs with the Dourian Embassy. We have read GA Resolution #106 and have found that in spite of the resolution's stated purpose of protecting passers-by from lawsuit should they render assistance in an emergency, the articles of the resolution instead offer protection to off-duty emergency responders who render assistance and explicitly ban private citizens from rendering aid to persons in distress, thereby contradicting itself.

Due to this egregious contradiction of its stated purpose, and due to our abhorrence of the fact that the resolution prohibits private citizens from rendering emergency aid to persons in distress, the United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys enthusiastically supports the repeal of GA Resolution #106.

[Hartwynd]

I have to say that repealing it could potentially lead to some good Samaritan's downfall. If it is repealed what is a good Samaritan to do but wait while the emergency personnel is too late to do any good.

[The Dourian Embassy]

I have to say that repealing it could potentially lead to some good Samaritan's downfall. If it is repealed what is a good Samaritan to do but wait while the emergency personnel is too late to do any good.

They already have to do that due to the current resolution's wording. If they're unsure of the situation, they cannot help in any way.

[Discoveria]

I have to say that repealing it could potentially lead to some good Samaritan's downfall. If it is repealed what is a good Samaritan to do but wait while the emergency personnel is too late to do any good.

They already have to do that due to the current resolution's wording. If they're unsure of the situation, they cannot help in any way.

Indeed. These good Samaritans have been in violation of international law for over 2 years now. The mind boggles.

[Byritannia]

I have read the document and I agree that AGP needs to be repealed, not only because I am a language-nazi (The mispelling is an eyesore), but also because this issue requires further attention. We need to replace this with a more comprehensive Act, with clearer terms and clauses. The concept behind this is noble, and should not be voided and/or ignored. I am therefore voting in favour of a repeal, but NOT self-legislation in the long term. Something this commonsensical should be put into law.

[Novus Niciae]

We like the idea behind GA#106 but it was poorly worded.

Hopefully a replacement bill will be drafted that is less ambiguous and less restrictive to good Samaritan 'aid givers' who may well be the only assistance a person may get if they need help in a remote area.

[Bears Armed]

I have to say that repealing it could potentially lead to some good Samaritan's downfall. If it is repealed what is a good Samaritan to do but wait while the emergency personnel is too late to do any good.

Nothing in the repeal would (or could) forbid you to have national laws on this subject, empowering those 'good samarritans' to act, anyhows...

[Quelesh]

Though I have a great deal of respect for the Bergnovinaian delegation, we recognize that the target resolution is flawed, and so we have voted in favor of the repeal.

Alexandria Yadoru
Quelesian WA ambassador

[Bergnovinaia]

Let it be stated, for the record, that my vote for this resolution does not in any way mean I support the effort. I am bound to vote for the people of Ainur as the delegate, and the majority is in support of the repeal.

I admit the proposal has flaws, I just do not approve of such a petty repeal (as already stated for various reasons). Kudos to the Dourians for a job well done in the repeal, convincing an overwhelming majority to already support the repeal effort.

I may redraft AGP at some point in the near future, it just depends on how busy I am between IRL school and work. Hopefully the redraft will be spared the red pen from the Dourian Grammar Nazis. If anyone wishes to work on me with the redraft effort, providing some assitance [sic], I will gladly share co-authorship.

Yours,

Berg

[Mikeswill]

Currently the vote to Repeal "Assitance Givers Protection" stands:

Votes For: 7,023 (90%)
Votes Against: 758 (10%)

despite the ignominious misspelling of the word “Assistance” in the title of the repeal bringing into question if said legislation is a legitimate action.

As such Mikeswill hasl voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Repeal "Assitance Givers Protection"".

[Sanctaria]

Currently the vote to Repeal "Assitance Givers Protection" stands:

Votes For: 7,023 (90%)
Votes Against: 758 (10%)

despite the ignominious misspelling of the word “Assistance” in the title of the repeal bringing into question if said legislation is a legitimate action.

As such Mikeswill hasl voted AGAINST the World Assembly Resolution "Repeal "Assitance Givers Protection"".

The original piece of legislation has the misspelling. The repeal title is automatically generated by the game.

[Allinlia]

We find the debate over misspelling quite humorous. We vote based on the merits of legislation and petty problems such as a wrong letter are hardly worth my time and energy. In any event the original resolution is quite simply full of problematic language and thus we absolutely do not support it. Therefore we have cast a strong voted in favor this repeal.

The motivations of the repeal effort are of little concern to us, this is about striking down troublesome legislation.

[Vincetinople]

Finally, an issue my people support. We are for the dismantling as much International Law as possible.

[Mikeswill]

I stand corrected on my previous post regarding the misspelling of the proposal. It is my error that I responded rashly without a thorough investigation of the proposal. I have thus withdrawn my vote and will most probably support the repeal if only to correct the initial error.

With apologies,

Mikeswill

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Charlotte Ryberg is supportive of the repeal.

[Free South Califas]

FOR repeal. Typos are embarrassing to the WAGA, but there are much more serious problems with the standing resolution in question, noted with some skill in the OP and graciously acknowledged by the honorable delegation from Bergnovinaia.

I may redraft AGP at some point in the near future, it just depends on how busy I am between IRL school and work. Hopefully the redraft will be spared the red pen from the Dourian Grammar Nazis. If anyone wishes to work on me with the redraft effort, providing some assitance [sic], I will gladly share co-authorship.

Yours,

Berg

OOC: I'm autistic, detail-focused and 'over'developed in spelling and grammar (as opposed to 'social detective' skills, executive function, etc). This is not at all my area of legal or political passion or expertise, but I will be more than happy to proofread it before it is submitted. Feel free to contact me by TG before you post the redraft, even, so we can get any spelling and grammar mistakes or ambiguities out of the way before the draft goes up for comment.

I'd prefer not to seem petty, it's mispelled, but that's not the only flaw it presents. I did provide a link in the original post to the original resolution.

I don't think it's petty to insist that international legislation be spelled correctly. The laws we pass are a reflection on this Assembly as a whole, and we certainly don't look like a respectable international legislature when we can't correctly spell the title of our laws.

That said, it's your repeal. If you don't think that argument bears mentioning, so be it.

We couldn't have said it better ourselves.

[Torisakia]

Got my vote.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Congrats in advance on on what could be the most lopsided vote in favor of a repeal ever.

[Mousebumples]

Congrats in advance on on what could be the most lopsided vote in favor of a repeal ever.

Unlikely. Repeal "On Expiration Dates" passed 91:9. Historically, if you follow voting trends, the margin just gets smaller - usually - at this point of the voting.

Otherwise, my congrats to the authoring delegation for their efforts on this repeal. I regret that I haven't been able to be more active during the repeal effort, but the end result is looking swell.

[Jim Henson]

Congrats in advance on on what could be the most lopsided vote in favor of a repeal ever.

Unlikely. Repeal "On Expiration Dates" passed 91:9. Historically, if you follow voting trends, the margin just gets smaller - usually - at this point of the voting.

Otherwise, my congrats to the authoring delegation for their efforts on this repeal. I regret that I haven't been able to be more active during the repeal effort, but the end result is looking swell.

It's actually getting bigger right now, but I don't think It will get to 91% before it's over.

[Free South Califas]

Votes For: 9,726 (91%)

Votes Against: 1,003 (9%)

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: in 36 minutes

[Jim Henson]

Thanks to everyone that supported this. The breadth of support was amazing.

Edit: Dourian Puppet.

[Mousebumples]

Unlikely. Repeal "On Expiration Dates" passed 91:9. Historically, if you follow voting trends, the margin just gets smaller - usually - at this point of the voting.

Otherwise, my congrats to the authoring delegation for their efforts on this repeal. I regret that I haven't been able to be more active during the repeal effort, but the end result is looking swell.

It's actually getting bigger right now, but I don't think It will get to 91% before it's over.

Final tally with exact math: 90.65% support
Repeal "On Expiration Dates" with exact math: 90.66% support

Not quite "most lopsided," but still pretty darn impressive!

[Sciongrad]

Congratulations to the Dourian delegation for passing this well-reasoned, and wholly necessary repeal. I think others may agree in hoping there will be more to come!

[Connors nation]

A link to the resolution I'm going to repeal.

Applauding the intentions of Ga #106 "Assitance Givers Protection,"

Seeking, however, to improve the quality of international law,

Believing that the resolution in question is poorly written,

Regretting that the ambiguity of its language precludes several of its clauses from being effectively enforced,

Recognizing that simply believing yourself capable of helping someone does not necessarily indicate capability to help effectively,
how do we vote
Notes that the resolution bars simple actions such as removing someone from harm's way, when doing so would be both warranted and acceptable.

Feeling that GA #106 unnecessarily ties the hands of nations who might be better arbiters of the merits of each individual case,

Emphasizes that harm resultant of negligence, even in the course of providing assistance, should still be actionable in civil court in at least some cases,

Accepting that most nations will pass their own laws on the subject without the interference of the World Assembly,

Hereby repeals Ga #106 "Assitance Givers Protection."

So the flaws inherent to this resolution are obvious, some maybe not so much.

The misspelling in the title is worth mentioning, but is not itself a basis for a repeal. Assuming that all the language problems didn't exist, the purpose of the resolution is very specific. It seeks to grant immunity to civil suits that might discourage people from helping emergency victims. This is an admirable goal, but not one I can hold is in the realm of the World Assembly. That said, there need to be concrete reasons for a repeal outside of Nat Sov.

Firstly, it makes no exceptions for those who are operating under impairment. Someone who has the proper training and has the opportunity to help, but who is clearly impaired(through drugs or alcohol, for instance), is protected from civil suits that might arise from their care, no matter how negligent. This is an obvious flaw.

Secondly, if you're unsure as to what occurred and you aren't an emergency responder, you may not help victims. I believe that will cause less people, not more, to provide assistance to those that need it in emergency situations. It makes a basic mistake that causes harm. It assumes all assistance is in the form of medical assistance. One can remove a victim from a dangerous situation and save his/her life.

Beyond that, and involving medical assistance: One can apply pressure to a wound without advanced medical training. One can be directed by someone who does have advanced medical training. One can assist those who do have medical training.

The ambiguity of language may make most of this moot. I can read it and wonder if it prohibits or allows anything. But assuming the language is sound, it does not do what it set out to do, which is to save lives. With that said, it has to go.