[PASSED] First Responder Protection Act

[Welsh Cowboy]

I have decided to cast Welsh Cowboy's vote against this resolution. I feel that it is much too intrusive on member states, irrelevant on an international level, and I find the "ambulance camera" clause to be the final straw.

Francis Johannson,
Welsh Cowboy Ambassador to the World Assembly

[Discoveria]

"What's wrong with this act?" asked Matthew. "Oh, right. All of this..."

''Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.''

The world needs to show more respect and appreciation towards first responders.

ACKNOWLEDGING The great work first responders do around the world.

ACKNOWLEDGING That first responders save lives.

NOTING That first responders are sometimes hindered and therefore unable to do their job correctly. In some cases first responders are being physically abused whilst trying to do their job.

''First responders'' hereby defines ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel and civil defense units''. This is the wrong way to use the word "define". It should read 'Defines "first responders" as 'ambulance personnel...'. I suppose national judiciaries can just about make sense of the resolution still, so I won't consider this a fatal flaw. Nor will I consider the circular definition of first responders as, among other things, "first responders" to be a fatal flaw...

''Hindering'' hereby defines ''Verbal abuse, threatening or intervening with the situation on purpose'' Any free agent, when acting freely, intervenes in a situation on purpose. This clause should be a lot tighter.
This applies to uninvolved people only Then why isn't this understanding built into your definition of "hindering"? Is it so difficult to write it as "Defines "hindering" as "verbal abuse, threatening, or deliberate unwanted intervention, committed by persons other than the victim(s) and first responder(s), during the response to an emergency situation"?
''Involved people'' hereby defines ''victim(s) and first responder(s)''.As above.

''Physical abuse'' hereby defines ''any act resulting in a non-accidental physical injury''.

DECLARING:
1. First responders must not be hindered whilst doing their job.
a. Hindering first responders will be seen as an offense. This part of clause 1 has no effect, IMO. Consider the two sentences "Lady GaGa is seen as an international celebrity" and "Lady GaGa is an international celebrity". Only the second sentence makes Lady GaGa an international celebrity. This clause needs to be rewritten.

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault). Grammatical ambiguity! Does "assaulting first responders" mean 'first responders who commit assault'? It can be read that way. The whole sentence can also be read as saying 'Higher punishments shall be introduced when we assault first responders." Furthermore, introducing something does not make it permanent. Thus, nations can loophole this by introducing higher (surely you mean harsher?) punishments, then changing their minds.
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. This is highly intrusive. The Discoverian justice system does not need the WA to create a new category of criminal offence right down to what that offence must be called. It also does not need the WA to presume guilt and mandate a conviction. This is the fatal flaw for our delegation. You probably meant to use the word "prosecuted", but the law is what the law says.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s). This seems unfair to the perpetrator, IMO. But I will defer to more learned ambassadors as to whether this principle falls foul of sensible legal practice.
c. If a victim dies or suffers severe complications whilst the first responder being assaulted, the perpetrator can be held responsible for the death of the victim or the complications the victim suffers whilst the first responder is being assaulted. We also consider this to be unfair. It is not always possible to determine, after the death/injury, whether the outcome could have been averted if the first responder had been able to respond to the best of their ability.

3. The introduction of the HHPF (Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation). I'd prefer a stronger clause than just "introduction". Why not write this as 'ESTABLISHES the Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation'?
a. The HHPF will regularly research and try to improve the safety of first responders in all WA nations.
b. This includes a global campaign to stop violence against first responders.

FURTHERMORE
-Victims (in the situation) are excluded from section 1a. This should be built into section 1a! This is bad layout.
-First responders cannot be sued for any medical damage done to the victim. Why not? What if their actions lead to medical damage? Also, can first responders be sued for 'non-medical damage'? Why was it necessary to use the phrase 'medical damage' rather than simply 'damage', 'harm', 'injury', or any other reasonable alternative?
-Unless the damage was non-accidental and/or unnecessary in order to save the victim's life. There is almost never a good a reason to use the "and/or" construction. "or" would suffice.
-All new ambulances will be fitted with a small camera, thus helping authorities find perpetrators faster. Highly intrusive. Discoveria's ambulance manufacturers are capable of matching supply to demand without the WA's interference.

Co-author: Oppe Ruiver.

"I hope the WA nations in my region have the good sense to vote against this poorly written proposal."

(OOC: Edited several times due to Muphry's Law.)

[Aligned Planets]

"What's wrong with this act?" asked Matthew. "Oh, right. All of this..."

''Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.''

The world needs to show more respect and appreciation towards first responders.

ACKNOWLEDGING The great work first responders do around the world.

ACKNOWLEDGING That first responders save lives.

NOTING That first responders are sometimes hindered and therefore unable to do their job correctly. In some cases first responders are being physically abused whilst trying to do their job.

''First responders'' hereby defines ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel and civil defense units''. This is the wrong way to use the word "define". It should read 'Defines "first responders" as 'ambulance personnel...'. I suppose national judiciaries can just about make sense of the resolution still, so I won't consider this a fatal flaw. Nor will I consider the circular definition of first responders as, among other things, "first responders" to be a fatal flaw...

''Hindering'' hereby defines ''Verbal abuse, threatening or intervening with the situation on purpose'' Any free agent, when acting freely, intervenes in a situation on purpose. This clause should be a lot tighter.
This applies to uninvolved people only Then why isn't this understanding built into your definition of "hindering"? Is it so difficult to write it as "Defines "hindering" as "verbal abuse, threatening, or deliberate unwanted intervention, committed by persons other than the victim(s) and first responder(s), during the response to an emergency situation"?
''Involved people'' hereby defines ''victim(s) and first responder(s)''.As above.

''Physical abuse'' hereby defines ''any act resulting in a non-accidental physical injury''.

DECLARING:
1. First responders must not be hindered whilst doing their job.
a. Hindering first responders will be seen as an offense. This part of clause 1 has no effect, IMO. Consider the two sentences "Lady GaGa is seen as an international celebrity" and "Lady GaGa is an international celebrity". Only the second sentence makes Lady GaGa an international celebrity. This clause needs to be rewritten.

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault). Grammatical ambiguity! Does "assaulting first responders" mean 'first responders who commit assault'? It can be read that way. The whole sentence can also be read as saying 'Higher punishments shall be introduced when we assault first responders." Furthermore, introducing something does not make it permanent. Thus, nations can loophole this by introducing higher (surely you mean harsher?) punishments, then changing their minds.
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. This is highly intrusive. The Discoverian justice system does not need the WA to create a new category of criminal offence right down to what that offence must be called. It also does not need the WA to presume guilt and mandate a conviction. This is the fatal flaw for our delegation. You probably meant to use the word "prosecuted", but the law is what the law says.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s). This seems unfair to the perpetrator, IMO. But I will defer to more learned ambassadors as to whether this principle falls foul of sensible legal practice.
c. If a victim dies or suffers severe complications whilst the first responder being assaulted, the perpetrator can be held responsible for the death of the victim or the complications the victim suffers whilst the first responder is being assaulted. We also consider this to be unfair. It is not always possible to determine, after the death/injury, whether the outcome could have been averted if the first responder had been able to respond to the best of their ability.

3. The introduction of the HHPF (Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation). I'd prefer a stronger clause than just "introduction". Why not write this as 'ESTABLISHES the Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation'?
a. The HHPF will regularly research and try to improve the safety of first responders in all WA nations.
b. This includes a global campaign to stop violence against first responders.

FURTHERMORE
-Victims (in the situation) are excluded from section 1a. This should be built into section 1a! This is bad layout.
-First responders cannot be sued for any medical damage done to the victim. Why not? What if their actions lead to medical damage? Also, can first responders be sued for 'non-medical damage'? Why was it necessary to use the phrase 'medical damage' rather than simply 'damage', 'harm', 'injury', or any other reasonable alternative?
-Unless the damage was non-accidental and/or unnecessary in order to save the victim's life. There is almost never a good a reason to use the "and/or" construction. "or" would suffice.
-All new ambulances will be fitted with a small camera, thus helping authorities find perpetrators faster. Highly intrusive. Discoveria's ambulance manufacturers are capable of matching supply to demand without the WA's interference.

Co-author: Oppe Ruiver.

"I hope the WA nations in my region have the good sense to vote against this poorly written proposal."

(OOC: Edited several times due to Muphry's Law.)

I have instructed our delegate, Jaresh-Inyo, to vote against this legislation and concur with many of the points raised by the gracious delegate for Discoveria. We have enough ambiguity in our legal system as it is and do not need further cause for wide interpretation from the WA. We vote with our region, although note that our regional delegate has yet to cast his vote..

Laura Roslin.

[Iron Confederation]

Banning the "verbal abuse" of police officers is a violation of the principle of freedom of speech, and the Iron Confederation cannot condone this. We will be voting AGAINST such a proposal. The Iron Confederation does wholeheartedly believe in keeping first responders safe, but not by curtailing the basic rights of our citizens.

If, however, the proposal is modified to remove the "verbal abuse" sections, then we will pledge our support, despite its redundancy as the Iron Confederation already has similar laws in place.

As an additional note, we will also exploit a loophole in the proposal to avoid carrying it out - the last line says all new ambulances must be fitted with a camera, and we can simply fix our old ones without adding cameras and turn a blind eye to "verbal abuse".

[The Two Jerseys]

"What's wrong with this act?" asked Matthew. "Oh, right. All of this..."

''Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.''

The world needs to show more respect and appreciation towards first responders.

ACKNOWLEDGING The great work first responders do around the world.

ACKNOWLEDGING That first responders save lives.

NOTING That first responders are sometimes hindered and therefore unable to do their job correctly. In some cases first responders are being physically abused whilst trying to do their job.

''First responders'' hereby defines ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel and civil defense units''. This is the wrong way to use the word "define". It should read 'Defines "first responders" as 'ambulance personnel...'. I suppose national judiciaries can just about make sense of the resolution still, so I won't consider this a fatal flaw. Nor will I consider the circular definition of first responders as, among other things, "first responders" to be a fatal flaw...

''Hindering'' hereby defines ''Verbal abuse, threatening or intervening with the situation on purpose'' Any free agent, when acting freely, intervenes in a situation on purpose. This clause should be a lot tighter.
This applies to uninvolved people only Then why isn't this understanding built into your definition of "hindering"? Is it so difficult to write it as "Defines "hindering" as "verbal abuse, threatening, or deliberate unwanted intervention, committed by persons other than the victim(s) and first responder(s), during the response to an emergency situation"?
''Involved people'' hereby defines ''victim(s) and first responder(s)''.As above.

''Physical abuse'' hereby defines ''any act resulting in a non-accidental physical injury''.

DECLARING:
1. First responders must not be hindered whilst doing their job.
a. Hindering first responders will be seen as an offense. This part of clause 1 has no effect, IMO. Consider the two sentences "Lady GaGa is seen as an international celebrity" and "Lady GaGa is an international celebrity". Only the second sentence makes Lady GaGa an international celebrity. This clause needs to be rewritten.

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault). Grammatical ambiguity! Does "assaulting first responders" mean 'first responders who commit assault'? It can be read that way. The whole sentence can also be read as saying 'Higher punishments shall be introduced when we assault first responders." Furthermore, introducing something does not make it permanent. Thus, nations can loophole this by introducing higher (surely you mean harsher?) punishments, then changing their minds.
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. This is highly intrusive. The Discoverian justice system does not need the WA to create a new category of criminal offence right down to what that offence must be called. It also does not need the WA to presume guilt and mandate a conviction. This is the fatal flaw for our delegation. You probably meant to use the word "prosecuted", but the law is what the law says.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s). This seems unfair to the perpetrator, IMO. But I will defer to more learned ambassadors as to whether this principle falls foul of sensible legal practice.
c. If a victim dies or suffers severe complications whilst the first responder being assaulted, the perpetrator can be held responsible for the death of the victim or the complications the victim suffers whilst the first responder is being assaulted. We also consider this to be unfair. It is not always possible to determine, after the death/injury, whether the outcome could have been averted if the first responder had been able to respond to the best of their ability.

3. The introduction of the HHPF (Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation). I'd prefer a stronger clause than just "introduction". Why not write this as 'ESTABLISHES the Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation'?
a. The HHPF will regularly research and try to improve the safety of first responders in all WA nations.
b. This includes a global campaign to stop violence against first responders.

FURTHERMORE
-Victims (in the situation) are excluded from section 1a. This should be built into section 1a! This is bad layout.
-First responders cannot be sued for any medical damage done to the victim. Why not? What if their actions lead to medical damage? Also, can first responders be sued for 'non-medical damage'? Why was it necessary to use the phrase 'medical damage' rather than simply 'damage', 'harm', 'injury', or any other reasonable alternative?
-Unless the damage was non-accidental and/or unnecessary in order to save the victim's life. There is almost never a good a reason to use the "and/or" construction. "or" would suffice.
-All new ambulances will be fitted with a small camera, thus helping authorities find perpetrators faster. Highly intrusive. Discoveria's ambulance manufacturers are capable of matching supply to demand without the WA's interference.

Co-author: Oppe Ruiver.

"I hope the WA nations in my region have the good sense to vote against this poorly written proposal."

(OOC: Edited several times due to Muphry's Law.)

"Honored colleagues, the learned gentleman from Discoveria has voiced many concerns that the United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys shares. First off, this resolution is written in horribly mangled English, which in itself hobbles the resolution for the reasons that my learned colleague has already addressed.

"Second, the United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys does not view acts of violence committed against domestic public safety officials, by our citizens and within our borders, to be a crime against international law. Our nation, like all other civilized nations, already has domestic laws prohibiting assault, and we regard this resolution to be an illegal intrusion into our domestic affairs by the World Assembly.

"Furthermore, there is a provision within this resolution that we find to be egregious and most repugnant: The provision that reads,

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault).
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s).
c. If a victim dies or suffers severe complications whilst the first responder being assaulted, the perpetrator can be held responsible for the death of the victim or the complications the victim suffers whilst the first responder is being assaulted.

explicitly passes summary judgment on persons accused of assault without giving them the benefit of a trial and imposes criminal penalties upon them without due process. This provision is a gross injustice and an affront to our legal system, and is incompatible with the goals, intent, and spirit of the World Assembly in regards to promoting civil rights.

"The United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys hereby strongly opposes, nay, CONDEMNS this proposal, and charges all civilized nations to join us in voting AGAINST this proposal. We are gravely concerned that this resolution will in fact pass due to the negligence of representatives who vote in favor of the resolution after merely reading the title - j'accuse! - and we hereby pledge our enthusiastic support to any prospective effort to repeal this affront to the principle of justice with due process."

[Laeriland]

After due consideration the democratic republic finds itself opposed to this proposal. While not a bad attempt to get your name on the books as a resolution author, it falls short in several key areas as has already been pointed out.

[Auralia]

Opposed due to micromanagement concerns. I cannot believe that this resolution actually mandates that "all new ambulances will be fitted with a small camera."

[The Sierrian Empire]

Although the Sierrian Empire feels that the First Responder Protection Act has a good thought behind it, we have a few problems with the bill, which have caused us to vote AGAINST it for the following reasons;

'Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.''

The world needs to show more respect and appreciation towards first responders.

ACKNOWLEDGING The great work first responders do around the world.

ACKNOWLEDGING That first responders save lives.

NOTING That first responders are sometimes hindered and therefore unable to do their job correctly. In some cases first responders are being physically abused whilst trying to do their job.

''First responders'' hereby defines ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel and civil defense units''.

''Hindering'' hereby defines ''Verbal abuse, threatening or intervening with the situation on purpose''
This applies to uninvolved people only
''Involved people'' hereby defines ''victim(s) and first responder(s)''.

''Physical abuse'' hereby defines ''any act resulting in a non-accidental physical injury''.

DECLARING:
1. First responders must not be hindered whilst doing their job. We agree.
a. Hindering first responders will be seen as an offense. We agree.

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault). Like what? For instance, the average punishment for assault in Sierria is 2 years in local jail and a fine. Should we make this a federal offence? With federal prison as a punishment? This needs to be better specified.
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. Two charges? A judge in Sierria would make the prosecution drop one of the charges, unless the perpetrator attacked more than one person.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s). We agree.
c. If a victim dies or suffers severe complications whilst the first responder being assaulted, the perpetrator can be held responsible for the death of the victim or the complications the victim suffers whilst the first responder is being assaulted. We agree.

3. The introduction of the HHPF (Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation). We agree, and would be willing to donate funds if need be.
a. The HHPF will regularly research and try to improve the safety of first responders in all WA nations.
b. This includes a global campaign to stop violence against first responders.

FURTHERMORE
-Victims (in the situation) are excluded from section 1a. We agree.
-First responders cannot be sued for any medical damage done to the victim.
-Unless the damage was non-accidental and/or unnecessary in order to save the victim's life.
-All new ambulances will be fitted with a small camera, thus helping authorities find perpetrators faster. This is our main issue. The bill fails to state where the camera will be placed. If on the inside, it would be against the SE's patient rights, which states in chapter 4, section X, line A. "...nor shall any type of surveillance be aloud in any type of patient quarters/and or treatment area. This includes ambulances, operating areas, and patient care rooms...". Not to mention the fact that we already have closed-circuit television(CCTV) cameras located on every street corner, traffic light and alleyway. So we really don't need a camera on our ambulances.

[Flibbleites]

"What's wrong with this act?" asked Matthew. "Oh, right. All of this..."

''Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.''

The world needs to show more respect and appreciation towards first responders.

ACKNOWLEDGING The great work first responders do around the world.

ACKNOWLEDGING That first responders save lives.

NOTING That first responders are sometimes hindered and therefore unable to do their job correctly. In some cases first responders are being physically abused whilst trying to do their job.

''First responders'' hereby defines ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel and civil defense units''. This is the wrong way to use the word "define". It should read 'Defines "first responders" as 'ambulance personnel...'. I suppose national judiciaries can just about make sense of the resolution still, so I won't consider this a fatal flaw. Nor will I consider the circular definition of first responders as, among other things, "first responders" to be a fatal flaw...

''Hindering'' hereby defines ''Verbal abuse, threatening or intervening with the situation on purpose'' Any free agent, when acting freely, intervenes in a situation on purpose. This clause should be a lot tighter.
This applies to uninvolved people only Then why isn't this understanding built into your definition of "hindering"? Is it so difficult to write it as "Defines "hindering" as "verbal abuse, threatening, or deliberate unwanted intervention, committed by persons other than the victim(s) and first responder(s), during the response to an emergency situation"?
''Involved people'' hereby defines ''victim(s) and first responder(s)''.As above.

''Physical abuse'' hereby defines ''any act resulting in a non-accidental physical injury''.

DECLARING:
1. First responders must not be hindered whilst doing their job.
a. Hindering first responders will be seen as an offense. This part of clause 1 has no effect, IMO. Consider the two sentences "Lady GaGa is seen as an international celebrity" and "Lady GaGa is an international celebrity". Only the second sentence makes Lady GaGa an international celebrity. This clause needs to be rewritten.

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault). Grammatical ambiguity! Does "assaulting first responders" mean 'first responders who commit assault'? It can be read that way. The whole sentence can also be read as saying 'Higher punishments shall be introduced when we assault first responders." Furthermore, introducing something does not make it permanent. Thus, nations can loophole this by introducing higher (surely you mean harsher?) punishments, then changing their minds.
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. This is highly intrusive. The Discoverian justice system does not need the WA to create a new category of criminal offence right down to what that offence must be called. It also does not need the WA to presume guilt and mandate a conviction. This is the fatal flaw for our delegation. You probably meant to use the word "prosecuted", but the law is what the law says.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s). This seems unfair to the perpetrator, IMO. But I will defer to more learned ambassadors as to whether this principle falls foul of sensible legal practice.
c. If a victim dies or suffers severe complications whilst the first responder being assaulted, the perpetrator can be held responsible for the death of the victim or the complications the victim suffers whilst the first responder is being assaulted. We also consider this to be unfair. It is not always possible to determine, after the death/injury, whether the outcome could have been averted if the first responder had been able to respond to the best of their ability.

3. The introduction of the HHPF (Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation). I'd prefer a stronger clause than just "introduction". Why not write this as 'ESTABLISHES the Help for Humanitarian Personnel Foundation'?
a. The HHPF will regularly research and try to improve the safety of first responders in all WA nations.
b. This includes a global campaign to stop violence against first responders.

FURTHERMORE
-Victims (in the situation) are excluded from section 1a. This should be built into section 1a! This is bad layout.
-First responders cannot be sued for any medical damage done to the victim. Why not? What if their actions lead to medical damage? Also, can first responders be sued for 'non-medical damage'? Why was it necessary to use the phrase 'medical damage' rather than simply 'damage', 'harm', 'injury', or any other reasonable alternative?
-Unless the damage was non-accidental and/or unnecessary in order to save the victim's life. There is almost never a good a reason to use the "and/or" construction. "or" would suffice.
-All new ambulances will be fitted with a small camera, thus helping authorities find perpetrators faster. Highly intrusive. Discoveria's ambulance manufacturers are capable of matching supply to demand without the WA's interference.

Co-author: Oppe Ruiver.

"I hope the WA nations in my region have the good sense to vote against this poorly written proposal."

(OOC: Edited several times due to Muphry's Law.)

"Honored colleagues, the learned gentleman from Discoveria has voiced many concerns that the United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys shares. First off, this resolution is written in horribly mangled English, which in itself hobbles the resolution for the reasons that my learned colleague has already addressed.

"Second, the United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys does not view acts of violence committed against domestic public safety officials, by our citizens and within our borders, to be a crime against international law. Our nation, like all other civilized nations, already has domestic laws prohibiting assault, and we regard this resolution to be an illegal intrusion into our domestic affairs by the World Assembly.

"Furthermore, there is a provision within this resolution that we find to be egregious and most repugnant: The provision that reads,

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault).
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s).
c. If a victim dies or suffers severe complications whilst the first responder being assaulted, the perpetrator can be held responsible for the death of the victim or the complications the victim suffers whilst the first responder is being assaulted.

explicitly passes summary judgment on persons accused of assault without giving them the benefit of a trial and imposes criminal penalties upon them without due process. This provision is a gross injustice and an affront to our legal system, and is incompatible with the goals, intent, and spirit of the World Assembly in regards to promoting civil rights.

"The United Kingdom of the Two Jerseys hereby strongly opposes, nay, CONDEMNS this proposal, and charges all civilized nations to join us in voting AGAINST this proposal. We are gravely concerned that this resolution will in fact pass due to the negligence of representatives who vote in favor of the resolution after merely reading the title - j'accuse! - and we hereby pledge our enthusiastic support to any prospective effort to repeal this affront to the principle of justice with due process."

You know, it's too bad no one noticed this before it came up for vote because I think we've got a contradiction with Fairness in Criminal Trials here.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[New Tarajan]

The government of New Tarajan wants to express its understanding of the reasons some ambassadors have shown to not approve this resolution.
However, we believe that national legislations could easily resolve those all problems resulting from the natural inaccuracies of the text.
So, we officially VOTE FOR the resolution, believing the protection of first responding personnel to be a moral duty of all civilized nations.

[Kahlenberg]

The government of New Tarajan wants to express its understanding of the reasons some ambassadors have shown to not approve this resolution.
However, we believe that national legislations could easily resolve those all problems resulting from the natural inaccuracies of the text.
So, we officially VOTE FOR the resolution, believing the protection of first responding personnel to be a moral duty of all civilized nations.

Sir, you are completely right. It should be a duty for civilized nations. This multinational institute, however, has absolutely nothing to do with national matters such as this. This act is intrusive beyond belief (obliging cameras on ambulances, please allow us to decide on such trivial matters myself, our government isn't completely retarded you know..) and completely uncalled for. It doesn't solve anything a nation cannot solve by itself; the goal of multinational organizations is to tackle international problems! Next to that, this Act is a considerable danger to the judicial system in Kahlenberg in its current form and subsequently we see no other option than to withdraw our WA-membership should it be passed.

[New Tarajan]

Sir, you are completely right. It should be a duty for civilized nations. This multinational institute, however, has absolutely nothing to do with national matters such as this. This act is intrusive beyond belief (obliging cameras on ambulances, please allow us to decide on such trivial matters myself, our government isn't completely retarded you know..) and completely uncalled for. It doesn't solve anything a nation cannot solve by itself; the goal of multinational organizations is to tackle international problems! Next to that, this Act is a considerable danger to the judicial system in Kahlenberg in its current form and subsequently we see no other option than to withdraw our WA-membership should it be passed.

Honourable ambassador, I perfecly understand your position, although it would not be too excessive to resign from such an important organization as the World assembly? I don't believe it would be in the best interest of Kahlemberg, and I sincerely invite you to reconsider this option, even if the resolution in question will be approved.
Beyond this, there aren't doubts that this resolution go far beyond the normal limits of an international resolution, and this could create problems to single member nations; however, since this is a matter of concern for all countries, we believe this problem could be set aside, in this particular case.

[Fotar]

I must disagree with the notion proclaimed by the ambassador from New Tarajan that the flaws of this proposal do not outweigh the good it would do. As many of the other honorable ambassadors have pointed out, there are numerous instances of unnecessary requirements associated with this proposal that individual nations can enact themselves at their discretion.

I would like to underscore, however, the fact that this proposal completely trumps the judicial system of each and every nation by convicting, automatically, those who act in ways forbidden by this proposal. This is such an enormous flaw that no amount of good would be enough to convince the foxes of Fotar to accept this proposal as law. The principle behind the bill is solid. However, surely the World Assembly can do better than this.

[Brolosophy]

Property rights are non negotiable. Do not arrive on our property unless we call for you. Do not attempt to cross our property without asking.

[Dingo-Spalrado]

'First responders'' hereby defines ''Ambulance personnel, firefighters, doctors, police officers, first responders, rescue personnel and civil defense units''.

First responders hereby defines "first responders". This recursive statement implies personnel first onto a scene, whereas:

''Hindering'' hereby defines ''Verbal abuse, threatening or intervening with the situation on purpose''

Hindering hereby defines intervening with the situation on purpose

Ambulance personnel, etc. would be hindering the aforementioned first responders.

Against.

[Aligned Planets]

The government of New Tarajan wants to express its understanding of the reasons some ambassadors have shown to not approve this resolution.
However, we believe that national legislations could easily resolve those all problems resulting from the natural inaccuracies of the text.
So, we officially VOTE FOR the resolution, believing the protection of first responding personnel to be a moral duty of all civilized nations.

Jaresh-Inyo, emboldened by recent support from fellow delegates, stands.

Fellow delegates, a question to the honourable member for New Tarajan if we may.

His statement would imply that any irregularities arising from this World Assembly Bill can be simply corrected by further legislation in national parliaments and/or governments. Is the suggestion on the floor of the Assembly that any nation may amend, or correct, any WA Bill they disagree with simply through force of the national legislature? We did not realise such primacy still existed; we will pursue it in earnest.

Jaresh-Inyo steps down from the podium.

[The Sierrian Empire]

The government of New Tarajan wants to express its understanding of the reasons some ambassadors have shown to not approve this resolution.
However, we believe that national legislations could easily resolve those all problems resulting from the natural inaccuracies of the text.
So, we officially VOTE FOR the resolution, believing the protection of first responding personnel to be a moral duty of all civilized nations.

Jaresh-Inyo, emboldened by recent support from fellow delegates, stands.

Fellow delegates, a question to the honourable member for New Tarajan if we may.

His statement would imply that any irregularities arising from this World Assembly Bill can be simply corrected by further legislation in national parliaments and/or governments. Is the suggestion on the floor of the Assembly that any nation may amend, or correct, any WA Bill they disagree with simply through force of the national legislature? We did not realise such primacy still existed; we will pursue it in earnest.

Jaresh-Inyo steps down from the podium.

Sierrian Rep. Jammie Davenport stands up from his seat

"Do you have an answer Representative for New Tranjan? The answer is no. You cannot edit the resolutions as you please.'"

[Flibbleites]

The government of New Tarajan wants to express its understanding of the reasons some ambassadors have shown to not approve this resolution.
However, we believe that national legislations could easily resolve those all problems resulting from the natural inaccuracies of the text.
So, we officially VOTE FOR the resolution, believing the protection of first responding personnel to be a moral duty of all civilized nations.

Really? Would you care to explain how a nation can fix the fact that this resolution circumvents the courts by convicting people without a trial?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Lynndon]

My first foray into debating on these forums-- but Lynndon voted against this resolution, not because the nation is not concerned with protecting its first responders, but because it finds many issues with this resolution.

First responders as used in the resolution is not adequately defined. Does only the very first person to respond to an incident qualify as a first responder? What about his or her team? Or if the victim is removed from the scene and taken to a hospital in order to be treated, would the hospital staff be considered first responders as well? What about licensure?

Double jeopardy of sorts; someone who allegedly assaults a "first responder" would be charged with "assault" and "assault against a first responder".

Verbal abuse being a criminal offense is utterly absurd-- beyond abridging free speech, there are many circumstances under which someone could be verbally abusive-- mental health issues, disorders such as Tourette's, hallucination due to drugs, etc. They're to be held criminally liable for that?

[Aligned Planets]

We thank the esteemed delegate for The Sierrian Empire and the wise delegate for Flibbleites, whom we recognise from "that other place", for their kind support. Recognising the recent remarks by the most welcome Lynndon, we have our own comments to make on this ill-conceived legislation.

NOTING That first responders are sometimes hindered and [..] are being physically abused whilst trying to do their job.

We protest. We are outraged at the suggestion that the loving and patriotic citizens of our beloved nation could act in such a manner. Our people have been widely recognised by this esteemed body for having the great honour of the lowest crime rates in our local neighbourhood and in fact Aligned Planets is currently ranked 688th in the world for lowest crime rates with a score of 313 on the Relative Freedom From Crime Index.



I would ask all delegates to recognise the continued efforts of the President of the United Federation - President Roslin, seated next to the standing Ambassador, grimaces into the audience, fascinator atop her hair perched awkwardly - in her tireless fight to improve the lives of her 11.021 billion loyal citizens. She has spoken here, in this august chamber, on previous occasions of the enthusiasm at home for her policies and her desire to keep "popular capitalism" on the move. So yes, we utterly reject the honourable delegate for Boftie's suggestion here.

"First responders'' hereby defines[..]

This is ill-defined. In our society, where our citizens enjoy the benefits of being in the top 1% for safest nations, all of Aligned Planets men and women are capable of rendering aid in a situation; dear me, what dreadful impasse have we arrived at if able-bodied bystanders are at the scene yet are not covered by this legislation as 'first responders' because they are not a member of a quasi-official government body? This is a terrible transfer of power to the state, which we utterly oppose, and would in our opinion lead to greater harm throughout all nations as capable citizens are left paralyzed for fear of this Bill.

These are, however, mere technical points. I now cede to allow our dear leader, President of the United Federation of Aligned Planets Laura Roslin, to make our closing remarks.

Jaresh-Inyo folds into the seat besides the empty chair which Laura Roslin had just vacated as she took the podium.

We utterly reject, and are dismayed by, this attempt to override our national sovereignty through this overreaching criminal justice bill. And let us look at it for what it is. For although dressed up with all the moral rectitude of a 'Human Rights' legislation, the First Responder Protection Act is an attempt to federalise our courts and subvert our sovereign systems of justice.

It is our purpose to retain the power and influence of our Parliament, rather than denude it of many of its powers. I wonder what the honourable delegate for Boftie's policy is, in view of some of the things that he said. Would he have agreed to a commitment to extend the Assembly's powers to other supplementary sectors of justice integration without having any definition of what they are? One would have thought, from what he said, that he would. The World Assembly wants to extend its powers and competence into currency matters, but we said no, we would not agree to that.

From what the honourable delegate for New Tarajan said, it sounded as though he would agree, for the sake of agreeing, and for being Little Sir Echo, and saying, "Me, too." Would the honourable delegate have agreed to extending the legislation to the removal of habeas corpus from our legal tradition, to delegating implementing powers to the World Assembly, to a common legal policy, all without any attempt to define or limit them? The answer is yes. He does not have a clue about the definition of some of the things that he is saying, let alone securing a definition of others.

We continue to refuse to support this legislation.

Laura Roslin sits down.

[The Emerald and Former Crystal Isles]

After hearing your comments, and noticing the flaws in both format and writing of the resolution, as well as considering verbal abuse a hindering factor, I have decided to withdraw my vote in favor of the resolution, and will instead vote against this poorly written resolution, and will continue to do so until there comes a version with appropriate changes. I ask my fellow WA members in the Pony Lands and around the world, especially my delegate, Princess Luna, to do the same.

[Riojasia]

After reading the comments, noting the objections and seeing the voter numbers for this resolution, I will be drafting up a Repeal for this act to be submitted if this bill passes.

[Silar]

OFFICIAL
Permanent Observerate of the High Commonwealth of Silar to the World Assembly

The High Commonwealth would like to register its opinion AGAINST the proposed "First Responder Act." While we firmly stand for the rights and protections of those men and women with the bravery to stand in harms way to save, protect, and assist their fellow man and whom we continually applaud for their actions, we believe that this is a matter better left to individual nations and not to the World Assembly. We remind the General Assembly that this act, if passed, will enter into law binding on all nations and we point to the many specific mandates this bill establishes, including the creation of criminal law in member nations and the mandated presence of cameras in ambulances. We believe that the specifics of execution of World Assembly resolutions is best left to the individual member nation given the large diversity of cultures included in this organization. Micromanaging creates blanket law which may prove to be ineffective or, at the worst, wholly detrimental when put into force in WA member nations.

It is thus that we encourage the member nations of the General Assembly to vote against this proposal and, should it pass, to gather support for a repeal. We instead propose the introduction of legislation establishing the spirit of this law and encourage, even mandate that first responders receive protections while leaving the precise nature of those protections to member states.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
His Excellency Sir Fredrick Albion, KT, Minister Resident to the World Assembly
Permenant Observer of the High Commonwealth of Silar to the World Assembly

[Idantir]

We are surprised by the support this resolution has received in the voting thus far. We haven't heard about the plight of first responders throughout the world, but Idantir is a fledgling, remote nation. It's possible we simply missed the news?

Regardless, we will be voting against this resolution. This measure is poorly written, unduly interferes with national justice systems, and requires nations to spend precious funds on unnecessary, wasteful items such as cameras for ambulances. All this in a resolution that seems in search of a problem to solve. Even if we felt it was a problem, we feel that most nations probably have laws against abuse and assault that equally cover everybody regardless of their profession.

What's next? GA-mandated special protections for librarians? Never know when they're going to suffer verbal abuse over an overdue library book.

[Kahlenberg]

Sir, you are completely right. It should be a duty for civilized nations. This multinational institute, however, has absolutely nothing to do with national matters such as this. This act is intrusive beyond belief (obliging cameras on ambulances, please allow us to decide on such trivial matters myself, our government isn't completely retarded you know..) and completely uncalled for. It doesn't solve anything a nation cannot solve by itself; the goal of multinational organizations is to tackle international problems! Next to that, this Act is a considerable danger to the judicial system in Kahlenberg in its current form and subsequently we see no other option than to withdraw our WA-membership should it be passed.

Honourable ambassador, I perfecly understand your position, although it would not be too excessive to resign from such an important organization as the World assembly? I don't believe it would be in the best interest of Kahlemberg, and I sincerely invite you to reconsider this option, even if the resolution in question will be approved.
Beyond this, there aren't doubts that this resolution go far beyond the normal limits of an international resolution, and this could create problems to single member nations; however, since this is a matter of concern for all countries, we believe this problem could be set aside, in this particular case.

Dear sir, upon entering the World Assembly we have pledged to fulfill all legal duties membership entails. We are unable to implement this law without it hurting the very core of our judicial system: the belief that our citizens are innocent until there is sufficient proof of the contrary. We are also in no position to interpret this law in any other way without violating World Assembly rules. Therefore, resignation from the World Assembly is the only viable option for us. We will reconsider a reentry procedure only after the bill is repealed. We are willing to aid in drafting a text to remove this bill in the meantime.