[PASSED] Ban on Secret Treaties

[Fauxia]

Elsie: I don't think you understand how definitions work. When the law does what the law says, that doesn't mean that it does anything beyond what the law says. Otherwise, it would be a very strange world, how these invisible clauses keep popping in out of nowhere. Perhaps that is what your world appears to you, Ambassador. If that is the case, please tell me exactly what you are smoking – Military Intelligence may want to test it for merits in interrogations.

"I think the joke does throw the legislation off, but the law is what the law is what the law is. Legal? Yes. Good legislation? Probably not."

IA, by "weapons and felines" shouldn't that be "agreements by multiple governments involving weapons and felines?" Otherwise, it may be illegal due to category violation.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Holy shit. 'Secret treaty' is not used in the proposal outside its definition. The definition explicitly excludes pluralisations. The definition literally does not mean anything.

[Fauxia]

Holy shit. 'Secret treaty' is not used in the proposal outside its definition. The definition explicitly excludes pluralisations. The definition literally does not mean anything.

Oh. Yikes

[Thyerata]

Elsie: I don't think you understand how definitions work. When the law does what the law says, that doesn't mean that it does anything beyond what the law says. Otherwise, it would be a very strange world, how these invisible clauses keep popping in out of nowhere. Perhaps that is what your world appears to you, Ambassador. If that is the case, please tell me exactly what you are smoking – Military Intelligence may want to test it for merits in interrogations.

Elsie, darling, I have a doctorate in law and a Masters in public and international law (OOC: I have a Bachelors degree in law, and I'm about to begin a Masters in international human rights and humanitarian law), so I can speak very authoritatively when I say this is rubbish. The definition clause doesn't actually fulfill the point of a definition, and the Committee's name is ungrammatical. Further, your statement above shows how woefully uneducated you are about the law. Of course a law can do things beyond what the written words say - have you ever heard of statutory construction dear?
I'm tempted to challenge this as bloody stupid or a joke (or both)

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'm tempted to challenge this as bloody stupid or a joke (or both)

OOC: Go ahead. It's been challenged on multiple fronts. Also, this is the GA. The law does what the law says. If you don't like that, fine, find a different game to play. Also, if you have taken the liberty to actually look at the rules you constantly keep throwing up in everyone's face like a bloody filibuster, there isn't a bloody stupid rule.

[Thyerata]

I'm tempted to challenge this as bloody stupid or a joke (or both)

OOC: Go ahead. It's been challenged on multiple fronts. Also, this is the GA. The law does what the law says. If you don't like that, fine, find a different game to play. Also, if you have taken the liberty to actually look at the rules you constantly keep throwing up in everyone's face like a bloody filibuster, there isn't a bloody stupid rule.

Darling, the law may do what it says on the page, but it can also be reinterpreted to do, or mean, more than that. If it weren't for statutory construction we wouldn't have that erroneous GenSec precedent that says "no peacekeeping missions because of GAR2 clause 10.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Darling, the law may do what it says on the page, but it can also be reinterpreted to do, or mean, more than that. If it weren't for statutory construction we wouldn't have that erroneous GenSec precedent that says "no peacekeeping missions because of GAR2 clause 10.

But sweeting, even in section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978, it states in the body of section 6, the phrase 'unless the contrary intention appears', which just happens to be here the case. The structure of the definitions clause states something very clearly and very precisely. Try interpreting it differently.

EDIT: Responding to the below post as well – along with the one above - if you want to challenge it, challenge it. Go ahead.

[Fauxia]

OOC: Go ahead. It's been challenged on multiple fronts. Also, this is the GA. The law does what the law says. If you don't like that, fine, find a different game to play. Also, if you have taken the liberty to actually look at the rules you constantly keep throwing up in everyone's face like a bloody filibuster, there isn't a bloody stupid rule.

Darling, the law may do what it says on the page, but it can also be reinterpreted to do, or mean, more than that. If it weren't for statutory construction we wouldn't have that erroneous GenSec precedent that says "no peacekeeping missions because of GAR2 clause 10.

First of all, you just responded to an OoC post with an IC post. Secondly, GenSec, and before them, the mods, gets to interpret the law, and what they say goes. I think that certain clauses in GA #286 can be interpreted to mean that abortion can be illegalized. The mods ruled otherwise. I have to take it.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: The lack of a sense of humour found in certain Delegations concerns us. It doesn't concern us enough to do anything about it, mind you, but it concerns us nevertheless.

[Fauxia]

Fairburn: The lack of a sense of humour found in certain Delegations concerns us. It doesn't concern us enough to do anything about it, mind you, but it concerns us nevertheless.

"Do you say this in regards to the definition of 'secret treaty?'"

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: The lack of a sense of humour found in certain Delegations concerns us. It doesn't concern us enough to do anything about it, mind you, but it concerns us nevertheless.

"Do you say this in regards to the definition of 'secret treaty?'"

Fairburn: You mean the definition that is never used in the active clauses? Yes, it's used in the title, but the title isn't at all binding. The proposal could be named 'Life is like a box of chocolates' and it wouldn't make any difference to the actual mandates.

[Excidium Planetis]

Challenge Accepted. For brevity's sake I'll use shorthand, "weapons and kittens," instead of "military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats." If that's not sufficient then just replace the phrase in your head when you come to it.

Ban on Weapons and Kittens
Category: Furtherment of Democracy | Strength: Mild

I know I'm new but thanks to encouragement from my region mates in Forest (especially Uan aa Boa and our delegate Ransium) and from Araraukar, I took a couple days to read all the rules before posting here. And so far, if I'm reading the category rules right, then if you're going to ban secret treaties, AKA weapons and kittens, you probably have the wrong category. It must be global disarmament. Unless, of course, this is a joke.

OOC:
No. "Secret treaties" (a plural term) is not defined. The definition of "secret treaty" (a singular term) is defined, but explicitly says:

'Secret treaty' and all variant capitalisations thereof, excluding pluralisations, shall mean military-grade weapons and feline animals of varying sizes with tabby coats.

That means "secret treaties" is explicitly excluded from the definition.

See, because "undisclosed to the public" means "secret," so "treaties undisclosed to the public" means "weapons and kittens." Unless, of course, this is a joke.

No. "Undisclosed to the public" does not mean secret. And regardless of that, "secret treaty" is defined, not "treaties undisclosed to the public". Definitions only define the terms they define, they do not define other terms not defined.

[Nessuna-Arma]

OOC: The logic here astounds me.

So, you're saying, that if international law defines "X, in the singular" as "Y" and then uses X in the plural, that X in the plural means something else other than Y in the plural.

Have I got that right?

If that's true, then, more evidence that this is a JOKE. The English language and international law don't work that way.

We're supposed to be simulating international legislation here, and unless you are indeed making a joke of this whole thing, then the topic is secret treaties, not weapons and kittens.

Take the definition out.

[Fauxia]

Never mind, nothing here

[Nessuna-Arma]

The definition is what it is what it is. If it's a JOKE, you don't have to stay.

Who said anything about leaving? I'm debating the legality of the proposal. Isn't that how it works here? If not, please, enlighten me, and I'll change what I'm doing. I'm just taking cues from everyone else, as it seems those with the loudest voices get the most attention, I thought I should speak up a bit.

[Fauxia]

The definition is what it is what it is. If it's a JOKE, you don't have to stay.

Who said anything about leaving? I'm debating the legality of the proposal. Isn't that how it works here? If not, please, enlighten me, and I'll change what I'm doing. I'm just taking cues from everyone else, as it seems those with the loudest voices get the most attention, I thought I should speak up a bit.

My apologies, I thought you were talking about the WA as a whole.

[Fauxia]

OOC: The logic here astounds me.

So, you're saying, that if international law defines "X, in the singular" as "Y" and then uses X in the plural, that X in the plural means something else other than Y in the plural.

Have I got that right?

If that's true, then, more evidence that this is a JOKE. The English language and international law don't work that way.

We're supposed to be simulating international legislation here, and unless you are indeed making a joke of this whole thing, then the topic is secret treaties, not weapons and kittens.

Take the definition out.

It specifically says "not in the plural" though, unlike in your example. And once again, the definition can be whatever the hell it is defined as. The WA can do whatever the hell it wants in this respect

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: The logic here astounds me.

So, you're saying, that if international law defines "X, in the singular" as "Y" and then uses X in the plural, that X in the plural means something else other than Y in the plural.

Have I got that right?

OOC:
No, you got it completely wrong. The definition does not say "defines 'secret treaty' in the singular as", it explicitly says that plural is excluded from the definition. There is a colossal difference.

If X in the singular is a specific thing, it is not unreasonable to assume (evidence to the contrary not being present) that the plural means the same thing but in the plural. However, if X is a specific thing but not when it is plural, it is entirely unreasonable to assume that the plural is the same thing. You are interpreting the law in such a way as to contradict the explicit statements of the text. That is contrary to all interpretations of law.

We're supposed to be simulating international legislation here, and unless you are indeed making a joke of this whole thing, then the topic is secret treaties, not weapons and kittens.

Take the definition out.

You are taking things way too seriously here. This is the World Assembly, formed by Resolution 1 on April 1st, according to the text of that resolution, after the previous organization "spectacularly imploded in a colossal fireball of extra-dimensional inanity".

Take a step back for a minute. Go read World Assembly Headquarters, it might help you relax.


Edit to clarify:
Concerning the Joke rule:

Joke/Silly Proposals: Proposals intended solely to be 'humorous' or a 'joke' are removed

Emphasis not even added. The word solely is underlined in the actual rules for a reason. Jokes are allowed. It is when the only purpose of a proposal is to be a joke that the rule comes into play. Bitely's IBS proposal was ruled illegal (and I disagree with that) because GenSec deemed it to be solely a joke, with no serious intent behind it. IA, on the other hand, had a serious proposal here (100% serious) and, only after repeated frivolous demands for a definition, added in a joke definition to a proposal that was not designed as a joke. The proposal as it is is not solely a joke, it is mostly serious with a tacked on joke.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes, it's used in the title, but the title isn't at all binding.

It's not even used in the title. The definition doesn't apply in the plural, for 'secret treaties'.

OOC: The logic here astounds me.

So, you're saying, that if international law defines "X, in the singular" as "Y" and then uses X in the plural, that X in the plural means something else other than Y in the plural.

Have I got that right?

If that's true, then, more evidence that this is a JOKE. The English language and international law don't work that way.

We're supposed to be simulating international legislation here, and unless you are indeed making a joke of this whole thing, then the topic is secret treaties, not weapons and kittens.

Take the definition out.

I mean, you've got three problems here. First, as EP noted, you're misreading the text – at this point, probably purposefully. Second, your own analogy, a generous approbation at that, does not apply. When international law defines, say, 'X in the singular', and then just doesn't use X, that's a different matter entirely. Third, if you're doing this just to be loud, then I recommend either you get real, stop whinging, and file a legality challenge or stop initiating nuclear devices on your credibility.

[Nessuna-Arma]

You are taking things way too seriously here. This is the World Assembly, formed by Resolution 1 on April 1st, according to the text of that resolution, after the previous organization "spectacularly imploded in a colossal fireball of extra-dimensional inanity".

Take a step back for a minute. Go read World Assembly Headquarters, it might help you relax.

All right. Commencing dialing it down a notch. Two notches. Three notches. Four notches. Okay. I'm good.

Still think this a joke.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Still think this a joke.

It is a joke. It's also not solely a joke.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Yes, it's used in the title, but the title isn't at all binding.

It's not even used in the title. The definition doesn't apply in the plural, for 'secret treaties'.

My point still stands.

[Fauxia]

It's not even used in the title. The definition doesn't apply in the plural, for 'secret treaties'.

My point still stands.

Will you be voting for just because of the joke?

[States of Glory WA Office]

My point still stands.

Will you be voting for just because of the joke?

OOC: We don't have any official ruling as to whether this proposal, as written, violates the Committee rule, so I can't comment on that right now.

[Fauxia]

Will you be voting for just because of the joke?

OOC: We don't have any official ruling as to whether this proposal, as written, violates the Committee rule, so I can't comment on that right now.

It doesn't violate the committee rule. Period