Page 2 of 8
Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:16 pmby Wrapper
Araraukar wrote:To mods: Does your ruling address the strength issue as well, or do I need to file a separate GHR for that?
"Significant" is the correct strength as well. It may appear that very little is required to comply, but as written it affects large swaths of law enforcement agencies, and not just "police" in a traditional sense. The fact that the active clauses target all law enforcement agencies is enough to merit a "significant" strength.
Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2016 4:13 pmby Abacathea
Awwww helllll no!
We will be voting NAY and encouraging a swift and powerful stack against.
Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2016 9:49 pmby Excidium Planetis
Araraukar wrote:Excidium Planetis wrote:"I would add my thoughts on this resolution here, but I believe I have already expressed them all in my repeal draft." Ambassador Cornelia Schultz remarks.
OOC: It's bad form to pimp your proposal on someone else's thread.
OOC: It isn't pimping a proposal if you are authoring a repeal of the resolution in question. The author has a right to know I am drafting a repeal, and has a right to put their own input into the repeal. It is directly relevant to the discussion.
Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:12 pmby We Couldnt Agree On A Name
Wrapper wrote:It may appear that very little is required to comply, but as written it affects large swaths of law enforcement agencies.
The training requirement can be fulfilled by having each officer go through a 15 minute course. The meeting by holding a short annual meeting between the public and a PR representative from each agency. It's not that hard to meet the requirements.
Posted:
Thu Mar 31, 2016 10:15 pmby Excidium Planetis
We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:Wrapper wrote:It may appear that very little is required to comply, but as written it affects large swaths of law enforcement agencies.
The training requirement can be fulfilled by having each officer go through a 15 minute course. The meeting by holding a short annual meeting between the public and a PR representative from each agency. It's not that hard to meet the requirements.
It's actually quite easy to comply with most WA legislation.
Posted:
Fri Apr 01, 2016 4:54 amby Separatist Peoples
We Couldnt Agree On A Name wrote:Wrapper wrote:It may appear that very little is required to comply, but as written it affects large swaths of law enforcement agencies.
The training requirement can be fulfilled by having each officer go through a 15 minute course. The meeting by holding a short annual meeting between the public and a PR representative from each agency. It's not that hard to meet the requirements.
"Such requirements are entirely pointless. The C.D.S.P. Military Police, federal investigative branches, Air Marshals, and intelligence agencies have absolutely no need to relate well wit the general public. The scope is overbroad and, as a result, still wastes the time of thousands and thousands of officers, as well as the overhead costs so associated."
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:03 pmby Wrapper
This is now at vote.
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:04 pmby Tinfect
OOC:
And it's already swung in favour.
Hooray.
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:07 pmby Excidium Planetis
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
And it's already swung in favour.
Hooray.
OOC:
Yep. That's why I got prepared.
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:18 pmby Vancouvia
where them super d's at
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:21 pmby Meowington (Ancient)
As I see it, this is a waste of everyone's time and resources. This is something that can be implemented on a local level as needed, with no need for WA intervention.
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:22 pmby Verlzonia
A meeting to discuss about the issues In crime Instead of going out there and paroling while getting orders from the Intelligence on recent crime? The better resolution to uphold Is to Increase the CCTV's around the areas with higher crime rates and putmore money Into Police construction and recruitment If you are so smothered In crime! This has no effect on my nation so my statement may be warped but this Is just how I feel about this proposal.
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 9:27 pmby Aaaah Snaaaake
[Wallace stands to address the issue at vote, clearing his voice and wrapping his elegant suit jacket more firmly over his large girth and tie dye t-shirt]
For the Aaaah Snaaakean people, this is an issue that hits close to home. A young unarmed teenager was recently shot, and our government voted to have citizens routinely hold our law enforcement officers up to higher standards. It was quite a shock to the nation, as our police force is well known for integrity and almost all crime in our nation is non-existant. The victim of the shooting was an immigrant - the shooting racially motivated. The nation itself is extremely diverse. If the police think immigrants fair play for now, it is a slippery slope to other forms of racist action from police, hence our legislature nipping it in the bud quickly. While this proposal sounds fine to us, it covers nothing of the regrettably uglier side of those with power and the potential to abuse it due to their own prejudices. Until the proposal includes such clauses for the protection of all peoples from law enforcement hate crimes, Aaaah Snaaaake must regrettably vote against this proposal. Prime Badger Guantanamo Xaverina Bay sends her sincerest regret and apologies.
[Wallace sits back down and seems to drift into a happy daze, humming a familiar Janis Joplin tune to himself]
Posted:
Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:43 pmby Imperium Anglorum
Vancouvia wrote:where them super d's at
Unfortunately, not ready and not paying attention. I voted at 1:41 instead of 00:00:06. We'll have to find the Pacifics to vote this one down.
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:09 amby Normlpeople
"Thankfully this is so full of issues we can comply while doing nothing" Clover said. "Our Royal Guard serves the Princess, not the commoners of the Kingdom and that will not change."
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:15 amby Christian Democrats
This is not a legitimate issue of international concern, and this proposal should have been drafted more thoroughly.
AGAINST
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:30 amby Normlpeople
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Vancouvia wrote:where them super d's at
Unfortunately, not ready and not paying attention. I voted at 1:41 instead of 00:00:06. We'll have to find the Pacifics to vote this one down.
OOC: I'm torn. If this passes then we will have a recipe for Orange Julius in WA lore and history during its inevitable repeal. Heck, that will be the ultimate proof of the lemming theroy.
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 12:44 amby Verlzonia
Christian Democrats wrote:This is not a legitimate issue of international concern, and this proposal should have been drafted more thoroughly.
AGAINST
I agree, there Is no real proof of any need to make such a big plan for something that would be so simple
Not an international issue; Poorly written
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:36 amby Lentus
This resolution is:
A) Not an international issue. What if a WA nation had a feat relationship between police and citizens? This will create an unnecessary government program. It should be up to the nation's leader to determine tge status of that relationship, what it should be, and how it should come about. Moreover, unrest with law enforcement is not an issue of international security. A faint argument could be made stating that the government dealing with its citizens could be problematic, but it doesn't warrant WA action. The police in one region are powerless to the inhabitants of another.
B) Poorly written. It is written in passive voice. The "hereby clause" proclaiming action doesn't state that the WA, or anyone else for that matter, takes action. It also says "funds will be needed," but does not go about saying how much or how these funds will be acquired.
This Resolution will increase funding to law enforcement agencies to better educate both members of law enforcement and the public on how to maintain respectful relations. By educating the public and law enforcement agencies we will reduce crime and increase safety by encouraging citizens to cooperate with police and teaching law enforcement to be respectful of citizens rights.
That sounds like a description of the resolution that was done in its infancy. It sounds like a good ideal, and it is to be commended. It's again written passively, is not specific, and furthermore placed after the hereby clause (which I don't think I'd necessarily wrong, but it's out of place here).
Needless to say, I'm opposed.
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:43 amby Imperium Anglorum
Bah. Passive voice is and should never be a reason to oppose or support a resolution. Even if passive is the correct way to write (which it is, because it obscures and thereby protects the actor of an action, i.e. 'Mistakes were made'), it's not compelling as a reason for voting one way or another.
There are much better reasons to oppose.
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 1:45 amby LeaveAlone
LeaveAlone is against this proposal.
While we appreciate the concern, this entire issue is of no global merit or concern, as the issue presented is of a domestic matter.
LeaveAlone, for example, has a very well educated populace and a police force that works for the people, not against them.
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:54 amby Castroica
Whereas the Castroican people appreciate the spirit of the proposal at hand, our delegation to the World Assembly will be voting against the proposal. Not only would the articles of said proposal be exceedingly costly and impractical to implement, but the issue at hand, we feel, is not a matter for the World Assembly to rule on.
Furthermore, the resolution may easily reinforce the ideals of the bourgeois police state; what the resolution refers to as "education" could easily be abused and misinterpreted to mean almost anything, as the resolution offers no concrete standards for so-called "meetings" for "all law enforcement agencies", which is yet another unfortunate phrasing. Also, the level of funding for individual police agencies of sovereign states should not be the business of the WA; it is up to our people to decide where our funds should be allocated. Castroica has next to no crime, and our police force is very well funded. The WA should not have the authority to force us to allocate even more funds to a department of our sovereign government which does not require it.
Lastly, we note, with some regret, that nation of
Happy People Land is unfortunately classified as a "corporate bordello", and even though we do not always agree with these rigid classifications (the government of Castroica is neither "corrupt" nor a "dictatorship") we must admit that it further reinforces our previous point about the bourgeois police state. Castroica is a socialist country, and a socialist country cannot have a capitalist police force.
It is for these reasons that we vote no, and encourage our comrades, especially those in
the Red and Black (though we claim no authority to influence the region nor to speak on behalf of our delegate to the WA, whom also happens to be the WA Secretary-General, the Rose Commune of
Caelapes) to do the same.
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:58 amby East Gondwana
"The resolution completely fails to mention exactly what is entailed by 'education programs', only that 'funds will be needed' to finance them. As such, in order to comply, nations would need only come up with a 2 minute seminar (or similar) and label it an 'education program'. That said, the second clause may, if our reading of the text is correct, fail to actually mandate the creation of these 'education programs', meaning that the only thing that the resolution clearly requires nations to do in order to comply is 'hold public meetings to discuss issues with the public'. Of course, this renders the resolution effectively meaningless. We sincerely hope that this resolution is defeated so that a more effective and thorough piece of legislation can be passed."
-Gondwanan Delegation
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:22 amby Ktox
The Democratic Republic of Ktox finds this bill frighteningly impinging upon our sovereignty. How a country conducts their police force or educates their populace, is an internal matter, not one to be regulated upon by an international authority. Crime within Ktox's boarders is virtually unheard of, not because the World Assembly forced their will upon us, but because we took measures to do our own educating and gave the police force the needed tools and funding.
This is a national issue, not international.
Posted:
Sun Apr 10, 2016 4:34 amby Louisistan
"This resolution presents a non-solution to a problem which does not even exist in many member nations. Fortunately, the regional poll stands firmly opposed and I am quite happy to cast 512 votes against it."