NationStates

The clerk of the Louisistanian delegation goes through the chamber and distributes blue folders with the Louisistanian Coat of Arms on them. Within are two pieces of paper:













Submitted:

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 criminalize 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"

FOR.

The National Congressional Assembly of the Keystone Federation supports the repealing of this act. We would like to advise you to add a note, pointing out the blatant fact that by giving medical personnel the right to invade a current crime scene would potentially tamper evidence and make it more difficult for the authorities to investigate the scene.

FOR.

We also offer our full support for this repeal.

I know you mentioned the language failures in the resolution, but would it be worth elaborating on how it sets penalties for physical abuse of first responders despite not explicitly naming that as a crime? Because you know how the idiots can't figure this stuff out on their own...

Also, I know the whole NatSov argument isn't grounds for repeal, but it may be worth saying something to the effect that since this isn't a human rights issue the WA is unnecessarily intruding into domestic matters.

The Two Jerseys wrote:Also, I know the whole NatSov argument isn't grounds for repeal, but it may be worth saying something to the effect that since this isn't a human rights issue the WA is unnecessarily intruding into domestic matters.

OOC: (Before someone else posts) - It is okay to use NatSov as an argument as long as it does not constitute the only argument for the repeal. With First Responder Protection Act there is plenty to work with.

IC: "The Utopian Commonwealth supports this repeal attempt. We will think about the language of this draft."

Deputy Ambassador Roland Schulz:
On behalf of the Louisistanian Delegation and the Lord Chancellor of Louisistan we would like to thank you all for your support. Especially the support from Mr. Turing is highly appreciated. The Lord Chancellor is a big fan of yours and your work in this assembly.

Schulz turns to the Ambassador from the Keystone Federation:
In our society a sapient creature's life is considered more valuable than anything - as well as its well being. So if there is someone at a crime scene in need of medical attention, we would consider it more important to help that person than to collect evidence. So unless you can demonstrate a case where this is undesirable, I'm afraid we would rather not include this argument in our repeal.

He turns to the Ambassador from The Two Jerseys:
Thank you for the input. Where exactly does it penalize physical abuse? As far as I can see it only penalizes Assault on First Responders and hindering First Responders. Please elaborate. We will enumerate some of the logical and language flaws in our next draft and we will also include the NatSov argument. Thank you for your help.

Louisistan wrote:Schulz turns to the Ambassador from the Keystone Federation:
In our society a sapient creature's life is considered more valuable than anything - as well as its well being. So if there is someone at a crime scene in need of medical attention, we would consider it more important to help that person than to collect evidence. So unless you can demonstrate a case where this is undesirable, I'm afraid we would rather not include this argument in our repeal.

The Ambassador from the Keystone Federation turned back to Schulz:

Perhaps I could re-word our proposal. In the case of a crime scene where all individuals are pronounced deceased, I find it extremely unnecessary for medical personnel to examine the scene and clog up the evidence collecting process. If a victim of a crime is not pronounced deceased, we do see it necessary for them to be treated, however if the victim is pronounced dead at the scene, having it necessary that medical personnel are called in, would simply crowd the scene and prevent efficient work from being produced.

Deputy Ambassador Schulz: Well - that is of course true, Sir. But I really don't see where the resolution would require First Responders to be brought in if that was the case.

Keystone Ambassador
All of my claims have been made by the description of this Act which is, quote, ''Medical personnel exclusively engaged in the collection, transport or treatment of the wounded and sick shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.'' unquote. This is my main reason of concern, what defines the phrase, "all circumstances."?

Louisistan wrote:He turns to the Ambassador from The Two Jerseys:
Thank you for the input. Where exactly does it penalize physical abuse? As far as I can see it only penalizes Assault on First Responders and hindering First Responders. Please elaborate. We will enumerate some of the logical and language flaws in our next draft and we will also include the NatSov argument. Thank you for your help.

Physical abuse is punished through one of those logical fallacies. I'll break it down:

''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''. Note that "physical abuse" is not "hindering".

DECLARING:
1. First responders must not be hindered whilst doing their job.
a. Hindering first responders will be seen as an offense. Physical abuse is still allowed, apparently.

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault). What's "assault"? There's no definition of "assault" given.
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. "Suspects will be charged" = presumption of innocence; "Perpetrators will be convicted" = summary verdict from a kangaroo court. Also, nobody ever said "assault" (i.e., "physical abuse") is illegal, just "hindering". Now in our country, "hindering" is considered "obstruction", which is a misdemeanor, while "assault" is a felony; this resolution wants us to impose felony assault charges on what should be a misdemeanor. So, not only are they trumping up charges, they are summarily convicting people of crimes which technically aren't illegal under this resolution.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s). That's for OUR COURTS to decide.
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.

That should either clear things up or give you a headache trying to make sense of the logical fallacies.

The Two Jerseys wrote:That should either clear things up or give you a headache trying to make sense of the logical fallacies.

Currently, I'll opt for the headache.

The way I see it:

''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''. Note that "physical abuse" is not "hindering". Yes.

DECLARING:
1. First responders must not be hindered whilst doing their job.
a. Hindering first responders will be seen as an offense. Physical abuse is still allowed, apparently. Yes.

2. Higher punishments shall be introduced on assaulting first responders who are on duty (i.e. Higher than a regular assault). What's "assault"? There's no definition of "assault" given. Yes.
a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. "Suspects will be charged" = presumption of innocence; "Perpetrators will be convicted" = summary verdict from a kangaroo court.This is covered by the HORRIFIED clause. Also, nobody ever said "assault" (i.e., "physical abuse") is illegal, just "hindering". Now in our country, "hindering" is considered "obstruction", which is a misdemeanor, while "assault" is a felony; this resolution wants us to impose felony assault charges on what should be a misdemeanor. So, not only are they trumping up charges, they are summarily convicting people of crimes which technically aren't illegal under this resolution. Here's where you loose me: The way I see it, it doesn't mention physical abuse. Thus, it's not penalized. Instead an undefined crime "assault" is penalized but not defined. Hindering is considered an offense but no penalty is mandated.
b. This includes that the perpetrator has to pay any medical costs that may be charged upon the first responder(s). That's for OUR COURTS to decide. Indeed.
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.

Louisistan wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:That should either clear things up or give you a headache trying to make sense of the logical fallacies.

Currently, I'll opt for the headache.

The way I see it:

a. Perpetrators will be convicted of ''assault'' and ''assault against first responders''. "Suspects will be charged" = presumption of innocence; "Perpetrators will be convicted" = summary verdict from a kangaroo court.This is covered by the HORRIFIED clause. Also, nobody ever said "assault" (i.e., "physical abuse") is illegal, just "hindering". Now in our country, "hindering" is considered "obstruction", which is a misdemeanor, while "assault" is a felony; this resolution wants us to impose felony assault charges on what should be a misdemeanor. So, not only are they trumping up charges, they are summarily convicting people of crimes which technically aren't illegal under this resolution. Here's where you loose me: The way I see it, it doesn't mention physical abuse. Thus, it's not penalized. Instead an undefined crime "assault" is penalized but not defined. Hindering is considered an offense but no penalty is mandated.

I'd consider "assault" to encompass "physical abuse", though that's basically just nitpicking. You have the general idea though: the act defines one crime but punishes another undefined crime while not punishing the defined crime. Those would probably be a couple good talking points for the repeal.

Schulz: Very well then. This will be included in the next draft.

Special Ambassador Max Schneider enters the chamber, while the clerk distributes the latest draft.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your support and input. We have worked it into a second draft. Changes are marked in red. Please continue contributing.

Repeal "First Responder Protection Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #237 (supposedly)| 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 for due process and trial and the right not to be convicted twice for the same crime,

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

IRRITATED by the micromanaging mandate of 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,

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 phrasing of definitions wherein the term to be defined is used as the subject of the sentence, rendering the definition essentially meaningless in the context of the resolution
3. Definition of a crime (physical abuse) which is not punished and punishment of a crime (assault) that is not defined within the scope of the resolution

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

the WA General Assembly hereby REPEALS GAR #237 "First Responder Protection Act" and ORDERS it be stricken from international law.

Louisistan wrote:

OP will be updated shortly

Special Ambassador Max Schneider enters the chamber, while the clerk distributes the latest draft.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your support and input. We have worked it into a second draft. Changes are marked in red. Please continue contributing.

Repeal "First Responder Protection Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #237 (supposedly)| 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 for due process and trial and the right not to be convicted twice for the same crime,

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

IRRITATED by the micromanaging mandate of 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,

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 phrasing of definitions wherein the term to be defined is used as the subject of the sentence, rendering the definition essentially meaningless in the context of the resolution
3. Definition of a crime (physical abuse) which is not punished and punishment of a crime (assault) that is not defined within the scope of the resolution

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

the WA General Assembly hereby REPEALS GAR #237 "First Responder Protection Act" and ORDERS it be stricken from international law.

I'm liking the additions, though "FIRMLY BELIEVING that the protection of First Responders is not a Human Right," should be expanded.

How about "FIRMLY BELIEVING that the protection of First Responders is neither a basic Human Right nor an international issue, and as such is not subject to oversight or regulation by the World Assembly, and that the domestic laws of individual nations are sufficient to protect First Responders from acts of violence,"?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Louisistan wrote:

OP will be updated shortly

Special Ambassador Max Schneider enters the chamber, while the clerk distributes the latest draft.

Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for your support and input. We have worked it into a second draft. Changes are marked in red. Please continue contributing.

Repeal "First Responder Protection Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | Resolution: GAR #237 (supposedly)| 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 for due process and trial and the right not to be convicted twice for the same crime,

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

IRRITATED by the micromanaging mandate of 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,

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 phrasing of definitions wherein the term to be defined is used as the subject of the sentence, rendering the definition essentially meaningless in the context of the resolution
3. Definition of a crime (physical abuse) which is not punished and punishment of a crime (assault) that is not defined within the scope of the resolution

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

the WA General Assembly hereby REPEALS GAR #237 "First Responder Protection Act" and ORDERS it be stricken from international law.

I'm liking the additions, though "FIRMLY BELIEVING that the protection of First Responders is not a Human Right," should be expanded.

How about "FIRMLY BELIEVING that the protection of First Responders is neither a basic Human Right nor an international issue, and as such is not subject to oversight or regulation by the World Assembly, and that the domestic laws of individual nations are sufficient to protect First Responders from acts of violence,"?

While I firmly believe a repeal is in order on this legislate, I'm not entirely sure it's suffice to say it's not an international issue. I would be happier with a R&R than just an outright repeal.

Abacathea wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:I'm liking the additions, though "FIRMLY BELIEVING that the protection of First Responders is not a Human Right," should be expanded.

How about "FIRMLY BELIEVING that the protection of First Responders is neither a basic Human Right nor an international issue, and as such is not subject to oversight or regulation by the World Assembly, and that the domestic laws of individual nations are sufficient to protect First Responders from acts of violence,"?

While I firmly believe a repeal is in order on this legislate, I'm not entirely sure it's suffice to say it's not an international issue. I would be happier with a R&R than just an outright repeal.

Are people on one side of the border harassing first responders across the border, or are all our governments so ineffectual that we can't enforce our own laws? Unless that's the case I don't see how it's an issue for the WA to address.

Border disputes are international issues. Damming a river and reducing a neighboring country's water supply is an international issue. Foreign trade is an international issue. Treatment of infectious diseases is an international issue. Rampant lawlessness in failed states that threatens to spread to neighboring countries is an international issue. Simple criminal acts within national borders are not international issues.

I'm not opposed to changing the wording from "international issue" to "cross-border dispute" or something similar for the sake of clarity, but I will not go so far as to say that this is such a pressing and pervasive issue that it requires the WA to overrule domestic law.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Abacathea wrote:

While I firmly believe a repeal is in order on this legislate, I'm not entirely sure it's suffice to say it's not an international issue. I would be happier with a R&R than just an outright repeal.

Are people on one side of the border harassing first responders across the border, or are all our governments so ineffectual that we can't enforce our own laws? Unless that's the case I don't see how it's an issue for the WA to address.

Border disputes are international issues. Damming a river and reducing a neighboring country's water supply is an international issue. Foreign trade is an international issue. Treatment of infectious diseases is an international issue. Rampant lawlessness in failed states that threatens to spread to neighboring countries is an international issue. Simple criminal acts within national borders are not international issues.

I'm not opposed to changing the wording from "international issue" to "cross-border dispute" or something similar for the sake of clarity, but I will not go so far as to say that this is such a pressing and pervasive issue that it requires the WA to overrule domestic law.

OOC: My thoughts regarding it being an international issue, and more specifcally the drafting of a better piece of legislate, would be more along the lines of, take for example UN aide workers, or disaster relief responders etc.... In the worst of societies and especially one that is going through war like trauma, or environmental trauma, the protection of those who've gone there too aide would seem paramount... when society for all intensive purposes could adapt a "lawless" theme to it. I'm not sure I'm conveying my thoughts clearly enough here, but I suspect the general idea is there.

We support the repeal of this legislation.

Boftie wrote: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.

Boftie wrote:"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 and will work with fellow delegates to facilitate a repeal.

Laura Roslin sits down.

Henry Geralds, the Keystone Ambassador stood:

I would like to second Laura's notion. I would also like to point out the fact that the "First Responder Protection Act" was founded under no certain circumstances. By this, I mean the reason for it's establishment. There were no real events which took place that could have provoked such an act, and so as of now I see no reason for the Act in the first place. Just another reason for the Repealing of this Act.

Henry Geralds sits back down, adjusting his glasses.

Abacathea wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Are people on one side of the border harassing first responders across the border, or are all our governments so ineffectual that we can't enforce our own laws? Unless that's the case I don't see how it's an issue for the WA to address.

Border disputes are international issues. Damming a river and reducing a neighboring country's water supply is an international issue. Foreign trade is an international issue. Treatment of infectious diseases is an international issue. Rampant lawlessness in failed states that threatens to spread to neighboring countries is an international issue. Simple criminal acts within national borders are not international issues.

I'm not opposed to changing the wording from "international issue" to "cross-border dispute" or something similar for the sake of clarity, but I will not go so far as to say that this is such a pressing and pervasive issue that it requires the WA to overrule domestic law.

OOC: My thoughts regarding it being an international issue, and more specifcally the drafting of a better piece of legislate, would be more along the lines of, take for example UN aide workers, or disaster relief responders etc.... In the worst of societies and especially one that is going through war like trauma, or environmental trauma, the protection of those who've gone there too aide would seem paramount... when society for all intensive purposes could adapt a "lawless" theme to it. I'm not sure I'm conveying my thoughts clearly enough here, but I suspect the general idea is there.

I understand your viewpoint, and if there were a resolution that would offer protection to humanitarian workers in disaster areas and war zones we would certainly consider it for its own merits (though I would assume that in war zones there are existing protocols protecting noncombatants, and that in disaster areas there would already be some sort of emergency powers allowing authorities to detain troublemakers or even shoot them on sight, though this is a discussion for another time).

However, this resolution as written makes no distinction between humanitarian aid workers in extraordinary situations and regular paramedics/firefighters/police who routinely work in rough neighborhoods, and quite frankly we are offended at the resolution's implication that we are incapable of policing our own country at any given time. If a street gang harasses or attacks firefighters or EMTs responding to a routine call, our legal system already considers that a crime and the offenders will be arrested and prosecuted; we do not need the World Assembly to meddle in our business.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Abacathea wrote:
OOC: My thoughts regarding it being an international issue, and more specifcally the drafting of a better piece of legislate, would be more along the lines of, take for example UN aide workers, or disaster relief responders etc.... In the worst of societies and especially one that is going through war like trauma, or environmental trauma, the protection of those who've gone there too aide would seem paramount... when society for all intensive purposes could adapt a "lawless" theme to it. I'm not sure I'm conveying my thoughts clearly enough here, but I suspect the general idea is there.

I understand your viewpoint, and if there were a resolution that would offer protection to humanitarian workers in disaster areas and war zones we would certainly consider it for its own merits (though I would assume that in war zones there are existing protocols protecting noncombatants, and that in disaster areas there would already be some sort of emergency powers allowing authorities to detain troublemakers or even shoot them on sight, though this is a discussion for another time).

However, this resolution as written makes no distinction between humanitarian aid workers in extraordinary situations and regular paramedics/firefighters/police who routinely work in rough neighborhoods, and quite frankly we are offended at the resolution's implication that we are incapable of policing our own country at any given time. If a street gang harasses or attacks firefighters or EMTs responding to a routine call, our legal system already considers that a crime and the offenders will be arrested and prosecuted; we do not need the World Assembly to meddle in our business.

I believe we have reached an agreement so.

Aligned Planets wrote:

Boftie wrote:"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.

As I recall, the previous attempts at First Responder Protection legislation concerned providing first responders with immunity from civil liability suits, which we voted against as the proposals did not offer such protection to well-meaning Good Samaritans. Now this "protection" legislation has somehow turned from a civil tort matter into the criminalization of the harassment of first responders, which we have opposed for the variety of reasons already stated. We would much prefer if the entire criminal law aspect were dropped and the WA concentrated on protecting first responders from frivolous tort suits.

You have my definite support on this repeal, ambassador.
~Ambassador Hardcastle

Suggested clause;

"NOTING that, come on guys, seriously, what the hell?"