[PASSED] First Responder Protection Act

[Araraukar]

I like the proposal, but I believe we should also include something about protecting first responders from getting sued by victims.

That's in another proposal. Can't remember if it passed, but it was debated here not so long ago.

[NPC]

I like the proposal, but I believe we should also include something about protecting first responders from getting sued by victims.

That's in another proposal. Can't remember if it passed, but it was debated here not so long ago.

Ah, I see, excellent. I apologize, I am brand new to the World Assembly.

[Araraukar]

Ah, I see, excellent. I apologize, I am brand new to the World Assembly.

Welcome to the insane asylum, then. You might want to read drafts of resolutions of the first couple of pages, and scan the names of some older ones (non-locked topics anyway), to have some idea of what's been recently talked of. Also, viewing the existing resolutions might be a good idea.

Oh, and if you head to the Strangers' Bar, beware: I'm pretty sure the alcohol content of the drinks is higher than what it says on the bottle.

[Point Breeze]

Author, I like the re-draft, I believe it has promise, but I'm afraid it'll be deleted because of the real-life reference. I believe that opening quote is from the convention that established the International Red Cross? That's a no-no.

[Abacathea]

Author, I like the re-draft, I believe it has promise, but I'm afraid it'll be deleted because of the real-life reference. I believe that opening quote is from the convention that established the International Red Cross? That's a no-no.

Assuming the mods spot it before it reaches the vote

[Demphor]

http://www.unausa.org/global-classrooms ... resolution

http://www.unausa.org/global-classrooms ... ve-clauses

You'll need this to make it look badass
~ MUN Member

[Araraukar]

You'll need this to make it look badass
~ MUN Member

We feel that would have been more appropriate as a telegram to the authoring nation, and additionally, copying from outside sources is very much frowned upon.

[Flibbleites]

Author, I like the re-draft, I believe it has promise, but I'm afraid it'll be deleted because of the real-life reference. I believe that opening quote is from the convention that established the International Red Cross?

I'm not so sure, Googleing that exact phrase only gives me hits on NS.

[Boftie]

Author, I like the re-draft, I believe it has promise, but I'm afraid it'll be deleted because of the real-life reference. I believe that opening quote is from the convention that established the International Red Cross? That's a no-no.

Nope, I know what you're thinking. Yes I have heard a phrase like this one, but I put it in my own words so that it wouldn't be the same. I'm not sure what the original phrase was, but it was way better than the one I made. It adds a nice touch though. I knew plagiarism wasn't permitted so I put it in my own words.

[Point Breeze]

My apologies. The phrase sounds very...convention-y.

[Boftie]

My apologies. The phrase sounds very...convention-y.

No problem, as I said it's based on one. Same meaning, different wording.

[Boftie]

Thanks to all the delegates who made it reach Quorum!

[United Federation of Canada]

Permanent Delegation of the United Federation of Canada to the World Assembly

Our delegation is vehemently opposed to this attempt to circumvent our national sovereignty.

-Higher punishments on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault)
-Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''.
-This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the victim.

We already have laws in place regarding assault, and we believe this is not required. We are also concerned that this will cause a significant amount of lawsuits. We beleive this will cause a significant strain on our justice system.

OOC: This is an illegal proposal ffs. There is no mandate in this, and required nations to do NOTHING. Also how is this significant strength? I will be submitting a GHR on this on the illegalities, to have this trash pulled.

[BushSucks-istan]

LOL dude calm down. Just vote no.

I will be submitting a GHR on this on the illegalities, to have this trash pulled.

Sad. Apparently many delegates thought is was worthy, suck it up.

the OP even changed the category because of your advice. You should have said it when it was still drafting. You're too late. Mods have already looked at this proposal, once because the name was wrong and once did the WA mod. If it wasn't good enough it would have been removed ages ago.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to go and report it just because you can.

You can start a repeal though!

[Christian Democrats]

I am definitely AGAINST this piece of junk. It is horribly written, and it is trying to fix a problem that does not exist. Why should the punishment for assaulting a doctor, for example, be more severe than the punishment for assaulting someone else, a regular person waiting to cross the street for instance?

Furthermore, this proposal criminalizes swearing against "ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel or any other civil defense units." So if I accidentally swear against the doctor who is removing a bullet from my arm after I have been shot, I will be charged with so-called "assault against a first responder" under the terms of this proposal. This hardly makes sense.

On a final note, why should there be "a global campaign to stop violence against first responders"? I did not realize that this was a problem. Such a global campaign sounds like a giant waste of money to me.

Please scrap this idea, Ambassador. It does not deserve a vote.

[Oppe Ruiver]

Why should the punishment for assaulting a doctor, for example, be more severe than the punishment for assaulting someone else, a regular person waiting to cross the street for instance?

Because this doctor is being assaulted while doing his job of SAVING LIVES, which directly puts two people at risk.

Furthermore, this proposal criminalizes swearing against "ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel or any other civil defense units." So if I accidentally swear against the doctor who is removing a bullet from my arm after I have been shot, I will be charged with so-called "assault against a first responder" under the terms of this proposal. This hardly makes sense

Why would a doctor sue you in this case? THAT hardly makes sense

[Christian Democrats]

Why would a doctor sue you in this case?

Who said anything about a civil suit?

Based on the language of this proposal, it would be criminal to swear against a doctor operating on you.

There is a difference between criminal assaults and civil assaults.

An individual sues for money. The state prosecutes individuals to have them incarcerated. If this proposal passes, then the state will have no option; it will be required to prosecute individuals who swear against a certain protected class of people.

[Oppe Ruiver]

Why would a doctor sue you in this case?

An individual sues for money. The state prosecutes individuals to have them incarcerated. If this proposal passes, then the state will have no option; it will be required to prosecute individuals who swear against a certain protected class of people.

Then people might actually learn to show some respect to others

[Christian Democrats]

An individual sues for money. The state prosecutes individuals to have them incarcerated. If this proposal passes, then the state will have no option; it will be required to prosecute individuals who swear against a certain protected class of people.

Then people might actually learn to show some respect to others

While the use of foul language is wrong, it would seem rather silly to convict people of assault and incarcerate them simply for swearing. Even sillier is the notion that this offense should be punished more harshly than actual assaults.

[Boftie]

It never said that an offense should be punished harder than an assault...

[Oppe Ruiver]

Then people might actually learn to show some respect to others

While the use of foul language is wrong, it would seem rather silly to convict people of assault and incarcerate them simply for swearing. Even sillier is the notion that this offense should be punished more harshly than actual assaults.

It does seem to me that, depending on a nation's juridical system of course, a judge would not convict a suspect of such a small charge, and even if he were to do so, I would assume the sentence would be very light.

[Kryozerkia]

LOL dude calm down. Just vote no.

I will be submitting a GHR on this on the illegalities, to have this trash pulled.

Sad. Apparently many delegates thought is was worthy, suck it up.

the OP even changed the category because of your advice. You should have said it when it was still drafting. You're too late. Mods have already looked at this proposal, once because the name was wrong and once did the WA mod. If it wasn't good enough it would have been removed ages ago.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to go and report it just because you can.

You can start a repeal though!

We can still remove it if we determine that it violates the proposal rules. It's now being reviewed for legality.

[BushSucks-istan]

LOL dude calm down. Just vote no.


Sad. Apparently many delegates thought is was worthy, suck it up.

the OP even changed the category because of your advice. You should have said it when it was still drafting. You're too late. Mods have already looked at this proposal, once because the name was wrong and once did the WA mod. If it wasn't good enough it would have been removed ages ago.

Just because you disagree doesn't mean you have to go and report it just because you can.

You can start a repeal though!

We can still remove it if we determine that it violates the proposal rules. It's now being reviewed for legality.

okay dokay

[BushSucks-istan]

While the use of foul language is wrong, it would seem rather silly to convict people of assault and incarcerate them simply for swearing. Even sillier is the notion that this offense should be punished more harshly than actual assaults.

It doesn't say that it should be punished harder than an assault. It says ''hindering should be seen as an offense''. Nowhere does it say it should be punished harder than assault. It doesn't even say it should be punished equivalent to assault.

[Araraukar]

...so let me get this straight.

Let's assume you drive your car into another car. The firemen and police come to cut you out of your car. They can't completely numb your pain as you need to be able to say when the pressure around your legs eases. If then the cutting instrument causes vibrations which aggravate possibly broken bones, and makes you swear in an attempt to verbally alleviate the pain, you can then be charged for "verbal assault" towards your helpers, even though you weren't swearing at them?

(I'm so glad cars have been banned in Araraukar.)