[PASSED] Repeal "First Responder Protection Act"

[The Two Jerseys]

Special Ambassador Max Schneider: The delegation from Rijosa has again submitted a repeal of GAR #237 and this time has included the contents of this resolution. Although it's not plagiarism per se, since the words are not the same, but we are - quite frankly - pissed! Is a GHR adequate in these circumstances?

We now put before you the (hopefully) final draft of this repeal. If nothing new comes up before tomorrow, we will submit this.

Repeal "First Responder Protection Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #237| Proposed by: Louisistan

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #237: First Responder Protection Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: RECOGNIZING the important role first responders play in medical emergencies and their need for special protection,

ACKNOWLEDGING the laudable intention behind GAR #237 "First Responder Protection Act",

HORRIFIED that GAR #237 does not respect basic rights such as the right not to be convicted twice for the same crime as well as the right for due process and trial, raising concerns with regard to GAR #37 "Fairness in Criminal Trials",

APPALLED that the resolution bypasses national judiciary by requiring conviction without a trial,

REGRETTING the micromanaging nature of GAR #237, which extends as far as camera installations in ambulances,

CONCERNED that the resolution's description calls for "Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick" to be "respected and protected in all circumstances", while "all circumstances" might include situations where First Responders may be unnecessary or even disruptive,

FIRMLY BELIEVING that the protection of First Responders is not a Human Right and indeed not an international issue,

DISAPPOINTED that a resolution was passed into international law by this body with such obvious flaws in both language and logic including - but not limited to -
1. A recursive definition of the term "First Responder",
2. The incorrect and confusing use of the word "define", making interpretation of the resolution's definitions difficult if not impossible
3. Failing to properly criminalise the physical -abuse of first responders, due to poorly-chosen wording

HOPING that special protection can be given to first responders through national legislation without violating basic rights,

the WA General Assembly hereby REPEALS GAR #237 "First Responder Protection Act"

We have included the secretariat's ruling, that the implication of GAR#122 being violated collides with mandatory compliance.
Furthermore we have included some of Ambassador Turing's most welcome suggestions, although some were reworded by us.

We have also included some advice that came with the secretariat's ruling and have stricken the part "and ORDERS it be stricken from international law." - although we thought it gave a nice personal touch to our repeal.

I don't know if it's technically plagiarism either, but I'm inclined to haul his ass in front of the moderators since he doesn't have the courtesy to put his proposal up for debate before submitting it.

I'd say you should send a GHR, if only for the sake of clarifying if this constitutes plagiarism.

[Louisistan]

I don't know if it's technically plagiarism either, but I'm inclined to haul his ass in front of the moderators since he doesn't have the courtesy to put his proposal up for debate before submitting it.

I'd say you should send a GHR, if only for the sake of clarifying if this constitutes plagiarism.

OOC: Yeah, that's what I decided to do: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=222083

[Zanzar]

I support this. The installing of the camera is a bit over dramatic.

[Louisistan]

I have refrained from submitting a GHR, after Riojasia has brought up an explanation in the moderation thread. I'm not sure if I believe it, but in dubio pro reo...

The Right Honorable Mrs. Iris Jorgsen, Lord Chancellor of Louisistan:
Esteemed Delegates and Ambassadors of the General Assembly,

minutes ago, The Confederacy of Louisistan has submitted this repeal to the General Assembly Repeals Board, which in turn assigned it the ID louisistan_1359451574 and presented it to the regional delegates for their approval.

Esteemed Delegates, it is now up to you! Please approve this proposal, so that we may strike down the so-called "First Responder Protection Act".

The Confederacy would like to thank the Ambassador from The United Kingdom of The Two Jerseys and Ambassador Turing from The Utopian Commonwealth of Discoveria. Your help in drafting this repeal was invaluable. As such, we each present you with two bottles of Whisky from the President's own distillery. Please enjoy!

[Discoveria]

"The Utopian *hic* Commonwealth of Discoveria hereby approves this act," Matthew slurred.

[Louisistan]

We are still having trouble to get the necessary number of approvals. Any help in campaigning would be greatly appreciated and of course we will award it with another bottle of Whisky.

[The Two Jerseys]

Well, we failed and Rijosa resubmitted his resolution AGAIN.

I knew this would happen, he keeps trying to ram a similar resolution down everyone's throat and it detracts from support for our resolution.

[Suevo-Prussia]

Ambassador Nils Becker: The Confederacy of Louisistan has left the WA after this proposal failed to reach quorum. We will take over this repeal effort but we willl wait to resubmit it when Riojasia's repeal fails again.

[Araraukar]

The Confederacy of Louisistan has left the WA after this proposal failed to reach quorum.

Might hurt your cause, since that seems like a childish action to take; having a temper tantrum over failing to reach quorum.

[Louisistan]

OOC: Yes, that may well be. It is however how I choose to roleplay Louisistan. Such an invasion on national judiciary was unacceptable for the Senate. Louisistan was willing to try to repeal it but since that failed the Senate had decided to leave the WA. As you can see by the sudden creation of my new WA puppet Suevo-Prussia, that decision was not supported by all of the Confederacy. Louisistanians (and now, for that matter, Suevo-Prussians) are likely to leave an organization if they feel it does them more harm than good and if they disagree with what the organization does. That's why Suevo-Prussia seceeded from Louisistan ;-)

As I said, my new WA puppet Suevo-Prussia will pursue this in the future.

[Walrasia]

I think there's enough support for a repeal, but both proposals are very shotgun approaches to the many problems. I would concentrate on the big things (cameras in ambulances, recursive definition of first responder) and leave the ambiguous assault stuff out.

There was a telegram campaign against the repeal based on their interpretation of the assault thing not being a problem, so you're likely to get more support without it. Less is more. Two repeals going at once certainly hasn't helped either.

[Suevo-Prussia]

There was a telegram campaign against the repeal based on their interpretation of the assault thing not being a problem, so you're likely to get more support without it. Less is more. Two repeals going at once certainly hasn't helped either.

Well that's great... If the delegation that launched the counter-campaign had just come out and say that this was a problem then one could certainly have talked about that. But it seems people would rather act destructively and shoot down the repeal. The 2 for 1 thing is why we will wait to resubmit until the proposal currently up for approval has run its natural course.
Thank you for the input, we will consider the change.

[Walrasia]

Hello Walrasia, I have noticed that you have voted for the "Repeal 'First Responders Protection Act.' Although I am not at all affiliated with the writer of the act, I would like to inform you that the main argument in the "Repeal 'First Responders Protection Act' is that it defies GAR #37. Yet in that resoltuion, it specifically states that a criminal offense is defined as any state prosecution. First responders work for the city, therefore, making all arguments of the "First Responders Protection Act" are illegal based on another resolution invalid and void.

FYI, that was the text. The carbon copy of my reply has been lost in the vast Walrasia mailrooms, but it must have been pretty convincing judging by the response:

I agree with you fully, and although there are major flaws with the "First Responder Protection Act" there would need to be a repeal written in a way that could not be interpreted wrong.

[Suevo-Prussia]

Hello Walrasia, I have noticed that you have voted for the "Repeal 'First Responders Protection Act.' Although I am not at all affiliated with the writer of the act, I would like to inform you that the main argument in the "Repeal 'First Responders Protection Act' is that it defies GAR #37. Yet in that resoltuion, it specifically states that a criminal offense is defined as any state prosecution. First responders work for the city, therefore, making all arguments of the "First Responders Protection Act" are illegal based on another resolution invalid and void.

I don't even.... I understand the words but I have no idea what's that supposed to say. I'll definitely look into that tomorrow, but I firmly believe that FRPA does contradict GAR #37 because it convicts people instead of charging them and then let the due process run its course.

[Suevo-Prussia]

John McGyver, Associate Counsel
Ladies and Gentlemen, the following telegram was sent to delegates who approved this repeal when it was first submitted:

Hello Walrasia, I have noticed that you have voted for the "Repeal 'First Responders Protection Act.' Although I am not at all affiliated with the writer of the act, I would like to inform you that the main argument in the "Repeal 'First Responders Protection Act' is that it defies GAR #37. Yet in that resoltuion, it specifically states that a criminal offense is defined as any state prosecution. First responders work for the city, therefore, making all arguments of the "First Responders Protection Act" are illegal based on another resolution invalid and void.

We don't feel that it contains any valid reason not to approve this proposal. And for future reference we gladly explain why.

Let's begin with the argument "the main argument in the "Repeal 'First Responders Protection Act' is that it defies GAR #37". That is untrue. There is no main argument. If there was a main argument, it would be that the resolution bypasses national judiciary. But since that is a NatSov argument, we did not put it up as the first argument in the repeal. The assumption that the problems with GAR #37 are the "main argument" obviously stems from the fact that it is the first in our long list of arguments.

Next up: Yet in that resoltuion, it specifically states that a criminal offense is defined as any state prosecution.. Indeed GAR #37 states: "DEFINES "criminal offences" as those prosecuted by the state or a state-appointed actor;". However, that has nothing to do with this repeal.

"First responders work for the city, therefore, making all arguments of the "First Responders Protection Act" are illegal based on another resolution invalid and void." First of all: No. Not all First Responders work for the city. While that may be true in the nation from which this campaign originated, it is untrue in both the Confederacy of Louisistan and the Commonwealth of Suevo-Prussia. In our countries, many first responders work for NGO's such as the red cross, or religious organizations.
Second, why would the fact that first responders work for the city make the argument illegal? I get the feeling this is somehow linked to the reference to GAR #37 and I believe the author of the telegram may have misunderstood that resolution. The clause defining criminal offences says that only the state can prosecute these offences. It does not say that anything committed against someone working for the state is a criminal offence.
Third, In a repeal, I am allowed to reference another resolution and base an argument on it, as long as the referenced resolution is not repealed at the time my proposal comes to a vote. The Confederacy of Louisistan has received a ruling from the secretariat on this where the current language on the matter was green-lighted.

Lastly, here's the problems between GAR #37 and GAR #237 to which we are referring:
GAR #37:

MANDATES that all persons charged with criminal offences in the jurisdictions of member nations shall be brought to trial with such reasonable speed as is consistent with both prosecution and defence properly assembling available relevant evidence;

The First Responder Protection Act requires the conviction of people without a trial. If anybody is still confused or doesn't believe this is a problem, he is invited to examine the difference between the words convict and a criminal charge.


OOC: It was very difficult for me to understand this telegram, I really could not follow the logic behind the argument. To me it seemed as if the author is jumping around from one argument to another but not finishing any of them. Maybe someone could help me with that? Does someone really understand what that telegram objected to? Or maybe the author himself would care to explain his logic?

[Potted Plants United]

Does someone really understand what that telegram objected to? Or maybe the author himself would care to explain his logic?

OOC: I think it objected to the fact that someone wanted to keep their status as a resolution writer.

[Discoveria]

I got the TG you are discussing. I promptly replied to the sender saying that the argument was flawed as the interpretation of "state" in GAR#37 was incorrect. The author said they agreed with me. If we trust this at face value then this objection should not happen again in future.

[Flibbleites]

Does someone really understand what that telegram objected to? Or maybe the author himself would care to explain his logic?

OOC: I think it objected to the fact that someone wanted to keep their status as a resolution writer.

OOC: And if that's the argument, it's one of the worst ones ever. Just because your resolution is repealed doesn't mean you're not the author of it, heck you even get to keep the badge.

[Suevo-Prussia]

The proposal has been resubmitted. Delegates please approve here.

[Shazbotdom]

"Isn't this a House of Cards violation for this current Submitted Draft with the mention of General Assembly Resolution Number Thirty Seven?" A small man says, who is later identified to be an employee of the Shazbotdom WA Delegate.

[San Leggera]

"Isn't this a House of Cards violation for this current Submitted Draft with the mention of General Assembly Resolution Number Thirty Seven?" A small man says, who is later identified to be an employee of the Shazbotdom WA Delegate.

This repeal would continue to stand strong on its own feet in the unlikely event that GA#37 is repealed itself, so it is not.
~Ambassador Hardcastle

[Ossitania]

"Isn't this a House of Cards violation for this current Submitted Draft with the mention of General Assembly Resolution Number Thirty Seven?" A small man says, who is later identified to be an employee of the Shazbotdom WA Delegate.

This repeal would continue to stand strong on its own feet in the unlikely event that GA#37 is repealed itself, so it is not.
~Ambassador Hardcastle

Also, HoC doesn't apply to repeals. HoC is a violation because if you base a piece of legislation on an earlier one and the earlier one gets repealed, it stops the later legislation working. Repeals have a single instantaneous effect that can't be undermined by the removal of legislation it refers to, so HoC doesn't apply.

[San Leggera]

This repeal would continue to stand strong on its own feet in the unlikely event that GA#37 is repealed itself, so it is not.
~Ambassador Hardcastle

Also, HoC doesn't apply to repeals. HoC is a violation because if you base a piece of legislation on an earlier one and the earlier one gets repealed, it stops the later legislation working. Repeals have a single instantaneous effect that can't be undermined by the removal of legislation it refers to, so HoC doesn't apply.

OOC: Ah, thanks for the explanation. the HoC rule was one that I never fully understood

[Shazbotdom]

Also, HoC doesn't apply to repeals. HoC is a violation because if you base a piece of legislation on an earlier one and the earlier one gets repealed, it stops the later legislation working. Repeals have a single instantaneous effect that can't be undermined by the removal of legislation it refers to, so HoC doesn't apply.

OOC: Ah, thanks for the explanation. the HoC rule was one that I never fully understood

OOC
Same here. The more you know. *insert video from TV here*

[Suevo-Prussia]

OOC: It very much looks like this is getting shot down again. I have two exams coming up so this will have to wait a week or two. After that, I will decide if I bring it up again or if I just wait a while. Also, I'm getting the feeling that I'm not very good at campaigning, so if a more experienced GA author could give me some useful advice on that, I woul dvery much appreciate it.