NATION

PASSWORD

[Defeated] Standards On Police Accountability

A carefully preserved record of the most notable World Assembly debates.
User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

[Defeated] Standards On Police Accountability

Postby Isaris » Tue Jun 09, 2020 9:46 am

Standards On Police Accountability

A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation Area of Effect: Legal Reform Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve, and

Determined to ensure that such incidents occur less frequently around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation;

    2. "local" is defined as belonging to a particular locality;

    3. a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;

    4. an "onboard camera" is defined as an audio, video, or photographic recording device affixable to a vehicle;

    5. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its jurisdiction;

    6. a "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions; and

      2. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is at least equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any LEO who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as an LEO in a member state unless a mental health professional has concluded upon evaluation that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.

  3. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to conduct evaluations by mental health professionals on any person applying for employment at a police force. No person shall be hired to a police force in a member state who has been deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others upon evaluation by a mental health professional.

  4. Member states shall require LEOs within their jurisdictions to undergo an annual evaluation by a mental health professional. Any LEO deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others shall no longer be authorized to carry deadly weapons until a mental health professional has concluded upon a subsequent evaluation that they no longer pose such a danger.

  5. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and LEOs for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  6. Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require LEOs within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras, and provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technologies are available to the member states.

  7. Member states, if domestic funding cannot be obtained, may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and onboard cameras. Monies allocated to member states from the WA General Fund to fulfill these mandates shall only be appropriated for those purposes.

  8. Member states shall provide a penalty within their national legal codes for the destruction or discarding of any recording produced by a body-worn camera equipped by an LEO or an onboard camera affixed to a vehicle owned by a police force within their jurisdictions within less than one calendar year of its production or that is evidence in a criminal proceeding, and require police forces within their jurisdictions to maintain any recording produced by such cameras in good working condition and undamaged until it may be lawfully destroyed or discarded.

  9. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall strongly encourage local police forces within their jurisdictions to make a good faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing, and strongly encourage police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt community outreach policies that focus on building trust with the communities those forces are policing.

  10. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by LEOs as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.

Hello world. As was eluded to by my inquiry in the Q&A thread, I have drafted a proposal on the subject of police accountability. I'd first like to say that I do not wish this to be viewed as a knee-jerk reaction to recent events in the United States. It is accurate to say that those events initiated my desire to draft this proposal but its content is rooted in ideas surrounding police accountability for decades. Some of the policies that I am proposing here are already in place in many locations around the globe.

I am not a very experienced author but I have worked with a mentor to (hopefully) make everything here legal and sensible for the varied nations of the NS world. Any feedback, advice, or constructive criticism would be appreciated. I must also apologize as I am not overly familiar with the etiquette here surrounding IC and OOC speaking. I will try my best not to be rude and I hope you can overlook any gaffes on my part.

Edit: Regarding the concern of law enforcement officers absolutely needing to use force to perform their duties, I think that is covered under the context of §2a as preventing crime and/or arresting criminals can be argued to be "in defense of their community at large". (Edit 2: I would also argue it's currently covered by §2a of GA#374, which allows for exceptions for immunity necessary to ensure government employees or institutions [i.e., law enforcement officers or police forces] can carry out essential functions that would not otherwise be possible.) I also think that defining assault is problematic as each nation may have a different idea of what constitutes the crime of assault. If something like "aggravated assault" would be more palatable to the GA community, I would be willing to make that change, however (perhaps even dropping battery along with that). Also, I've decided to keep the Category and AoE I originally decided upon as law enforcement can be argued to be part of the legal industry. The main aim of this proposal is to reform law enforcement to provide more justice to all, not to increase police budgets or military budgets.

Draft #1
Standards On Police Accountability

A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation Area of Effect: Legal Reform Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve,

Determined to reduce the instances of such cases around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation;

    2. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its domain;

    3. a "law enforcement officer" is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions;

      2. who is authorized by their employer to carry deadly weapons; and

      3. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or incarcerating any person for, any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is comparable to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any law enforcement officer who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as a law enforcement officer in a member state.

  3. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and law enforcement officers for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  4. Member states shall provide all police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras and require all law enforcement officers within their domains to equip body-worn cameras if such technology is available to the member states.

  5. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall require local police forces within their domains to make a good-faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing.

  6. Member states shall require all police forces within their domains to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by law enforcement officers as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.
Summary of Change: added 4a and added "unless a mental health professional has evaluated said person and concluded that they are not a danger to themselves or others" to 2b

Draft #2
Standards On Police Accountability

A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation Area of Effect: Legal Reform Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve,

Determined to reduce the instances of such cases around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation;

    2. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its domain;

    3. a "law enforcement officer" is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions;

      2. who is authorized by their employer to carry deadly weapons; and

      3. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or incarcerating any person for, any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is comparable to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any law enforcement officer who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as a law enforcement officer in a member state unless a mental health professional has evaluated said person and concluded that they are not a danger to themselves or others.

  3. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and law enforcement officers for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  4. Member states shall provide all police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras and require all law enforcement officers within their domains to equip body-worn cameras if such technology is available to the member states.

    1. Member states may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras.

  5. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall require local police forces within their domains to make a good-faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing.

  6. Member states shall require all police forces within their domains to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by law enforcement officers as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.
Summary of Change: added 4ai and added "with a genuine financial need" to 4a

Draft #3
Standards On Police Accountability

A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation Area of Effect: Legal Reform Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve,

Determined to reduce the instances of such cases around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation;

    2. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its domain;

    3. a "law enforcement officer" is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions;

      2. who is authorized by their employer to carry deadly weapons; and

      3. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or incarcerating any person for, any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is comparable to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any law enforcement officer who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as a law enforcement officer in a member state unless a mental health professional has evaluated said person and concluded that they are not a danger to themselves or others.

  3. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and law enforcement officers for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  4. Member states shall provide all police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras and require all law enforcement officers within their domains to equip body-worn cameras if such technology is available to the member states.

    1. Member states with a genuine financial need may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras.

      1. Monies allocated to member states from the WA General Fund to fulfill this mandate shall only be appropriated for this purpose.

  5. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall require local police forces within their domains to make a good-faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing.

  6. Member states shall require all police forces within their domains to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by law enforcement officers as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.
Summary of Change: added definition for "local"; added definition for "body-worn camera"; added definition for "onboard camera" and added clause mandating onboard cameras on vehicles owned by police forces; removed clause relating to weapons in defining law enforcement officers; added onboard cameras to the clause regarding funding options; added clause regarding destruction or discarding of recordings from cameras; added clause about police forces maintaining recordings; changed clause about community hiring from "require" to "strongly encourage"; added clause about community outreach; other formatting and language tweaks incorporating feedback

Draft #4
Standards On Police Accountability

A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation Area of Effect: Legal Reform Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve, and

Determined to ensure that such incidents occur less frequently around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation;

    2. "local" is defined as belonging to a particular locality;

    3. a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;

    4. an "onboard camera" is defined as an audio, video, or photographic recording device affixable to a vehicle;

    5. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its jurisdiction;

    6. a "law enforcement officer" is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions; and

      2. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, or incarceration of any person for any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by law enforcement officers in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any law enforcement officer who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as a law enforcement officer in a member state unless a mental health professional has concluded upon evaluation that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.

  3. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to conduct evaluations by mental health professionals on any person applying for employment at a police force. No person shall be hired to a police force in a member state who has been deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others upon evaluation by a mental health professional.

  4. Member states shall require law enforcement officers within their jurisdictions to undergo an annual evaluation by a mental health professional. Any law enforcement officer deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others shall no longer be authorized to carry deadly weapons until a mental health professional has concluded upon a subsequent evaluation that they no longer pose such a danger.

  5. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and law enforcement officers for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  6. Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require law enforcement officers within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras if such technology is available to the member states.

  7. Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technology is available to the member states.

  8. Member states, if domestic funding cannot be obtained, may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and onboard cameras.

    1. Monies allocated to member states from the WA General Fund to fulfill these mandates shall only be appropriated for those purposes.

  9. Member states shall provide a penalty within their national legal codes for the destruction or discarding of any recording produced by a body-worn camera equipped by a law enforcement officer or an onboard camera affixed to a vehicle owned by a police force within their jurisdictions within less than one calendar year of its production or that is evidence in a criminal proceeding.

  10. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to maintain any recording produced by a body-worn camera or onboard camera in good working condition and undamaged until such a time it may be lawfully destroyed or discarded.

  11. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall strongly encourage local police forces within their jurisdictions to make a good-faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing.

  12. Member states shall strongly encourage police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt community outreach policies that focus on building trust with the communities those forces are policing.

  13. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by law enforcement officers as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.
Summary of Change: acronymed law enforcement officer as LEO; added "at least" to 2 so nations can make the penalty harsher if they desire; merged 8a with 8; merged 10 with 9; merged 12 with 11 as the new 10

Edit 3: I acknowledge that the draft is very "wordy"; however, I appreciate the formality of wordiness and I also have put a lot of effort into ensuring there is as little room as possible for loopholes. I understand that there will be opposition to this by some based on IC reasons and that's perfectly fine, but please don't base your opposition on the fact it's a bit overbearing in spelling everything out. It's my philosophy that wiggle room is easy for nefarious actors to interpret to allow them to do something against the spirit of the law and I don't want that to happen here. As I've had to cut down for the character limit, I have no plans to add anything further and I think I've addressed everything I wanted to with this proposal. If there are any other edits, and that's a big if, they'll be about format, spelling, or word choice that doesn't change the fundamental interpretation of this proposal.

Draft #5
Standards On Police Accountability

A resolution to enact uniform standards that protect workers, consumers, and the general public.

Category: Regulation Area of Effect: Legal Reform Proposed by: Isaris

The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve, and

Determined to ensure that such incidents occur less frequently around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation;

    2. "local" is defined as belonging to a particular locality;

    3. a "body-worn camera" is defined as a wearable audio, video, or photographic recording device;

    4. an "onboard camera" is defined as an audio, video, or photographic recording device affixable to a vehicle;

    5. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its jurisdiction;

    6. a "law enforcement officer (an LEO)" is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions; and

      2. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution, or incarceration of any person for any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is at least equivalent to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any LEO who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to serve as an LEO in a member state unless a mental health professional has concluded upon evaluation that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.

  3. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to conduct evaluations by mental health professionals on any person applying for employment at a police force. No person shall be hired to a police force in a member state who has been deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others upon evaluation by a mental health professional.

  4. Member states shall require LEOs within their jurisdictions to undergo an annual evaluation by a mental health professional. Any LEO deemed to pose a danger to themselves or others shall no longer be authorized to carry deadly weapons until a mental health professional has concluded upon a subsequent evaluation that they no longer pose such a danger.

  5. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and LEOs for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  6. Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and require LEOs within their jurisdictions to equip body-worn cameras if such technology is available to the member states.

  7. Member states shall provide police forces within their jurisdictions with onboard cameras and require those forces to affix onboard cameras to any vehicles owned by said forces if such technology is available to the member states.

  8. Member states, if domestic funding cannot be obtained, may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their jurisdictions with body-worn cameras and onboard cameras. Monies allocated to member states from the WA General Fund to fulfill these mandates shall only be appropriated for those purposes.

  9. Member states shall provide a penalty within their national legal codes for the destruction or discarding of any recording produced by a body-worn camera equipped by an LEO or an onboard camera affixed to a vehicle owned by a police force within their jurisdictions within less than one calendar year of its production or that is evidence in a criminal proceeding, and require police forces within their jurisdictions to maintain any recording produced by such cameras in good working condition and undamaged until it may be lawfully destroyed or discarded.

  10. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall strongly encourage local police forces within their jurisdictions to make a good faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing, and strongly encourage police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt community outreach policies that focus on building trust with the communities those forces are policing.

  11. Member states shall require police forces within their jurisdictions to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by LEOs as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.
Summary of Change: merged 6 and 7; fixed up grammar in 1fii because "the prevention of any person for any violation of law" didn't make sense, my apologies, it didn't click in my head until after I already finished the other edit
Last edited by Ransium on Sat Jun 27, 2020 11:05 am, edited 13 times in total.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:28 am

“This is a very good piece of legislation. I currently have just some feedback on clauses 2b and 4. Clause 2b seems overly harsh since it forever bars someone from a job even when the offence committed may have been several years ago. I acknowledge the need to remove a police officer from their job if such offences are committed in order to prevent further instances of such, but a lifetime ban in hundreds of nations seems excessive.

Clause 4 also presents the issues of funding and available technologies. There are some nations in the General Assembly who do not yet have the capability to make cameras that would be able to fit on an item of clothing. Furthermore, some impoverished countries may not have the resources to provide thousands of employees with what can be quite expensive equipment.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Tue Jun 09, 2020 10:51 am

Kenmoria wrote:“This is a very good piece of legislation. I currently have just some feedback on clauses 2b and 4. Clause 2b seems overly harsh since it forever bars someone from a job even when the offence committed may have been several years ago. I acknowledge the need to remove a police officer from their job if such offences are committed in order to prevent further instances of such, but a lifetime ban in hundreds of nations seems excessive.

Clause 4 also presents the issues of funding and available technologies. There are some nations in the General Assembly who do not yet have the capability to make cameras that would be able to fit on an item of clothing. Furthermore, some impoverished countries may not have the resources to provide thousands of employees with what can be quite expensive equipment.”

"I thank the ambassador from Kenmoria for their helpful feedback on our proposal. It is not the desire of Isaris to be excessive and I would ask that the ambassador provide some idea of what restrictions would be acceptable with regard to §2b. We can prevent abusive individuals from serving in police forces without punishing those who have reformed but it must be done right.

Regarding §4, I would remind the ambassador that it states 'if such technology is available to the member states'. This is intended to grant immunity to this clause to member states which do not have the technology available. However, on the subject of funding, I must acknowledge your point as one we had overlooked.

Would it be possible for the World Assembly to provide funding to such nations? If that is the case, we would be happy to include an additional clause relating to that issue."

User avatar
Comfed
Diplomat
 
Posts: 881
Founded: Apr 09, 2020
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Comfed » Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:20 am

I'm afraid the mere consideration of expanding rights for citizens of countries is unthinkable in Comfed.
I do like point 5 though.
Mall:
Best part about being a mod was engaging in normal player behavior and getting accused of abuse
"You think this is abuse? I'll SHOW you abuse."
Ever-Wandering Souls wrote:In the liberal justice system, raiding-based offenses are considered especially heinous. In The South Pacific, the dedicated defenders who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Council on Regional Security. These are their proscriptions. DUN DUN.

Numero Capitan wrote:I haven't bothered reading back but I can unequivocally say that I agree with everything HEM has said and Unibot is wrong

Put this in your sig if you passed biology and know that gender and sex are not the same thing.

User avatar
Morover
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1140
Founded: Oct 14, 2018
Libertarian Police State

Postby Morover » Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:22 am

Comfed wrote:I'm afraid the mere consideration of expanding rights for citizens of countries is unthinkable in Comfed.
I do like point 5 though.

"It may serve you well to exit this most august Assembly, then, before the gnomes catch you. I've heard they're vicious."

If you wish to use any of my previous work - be it World Assembly or otherwise - feel free to use it, but I ask that you credit me as a co-author. If the piece credits a non-CTE'd co-author, I ask that you approach them first.
Email Me


User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Jun 09, 2020 11:50 am

Isaris wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“This is a very good piece of legislation. I currently have just some feedback on clauses 2b and 4. Clause 2b seems overly harsh since it forever bars someone from a job even when the offence committed may have been several years ago. I acknowledge the need to remove a police officer from their job if such offences are committed in order to prevent further instances of such, but a lifetime ban in hundreds of nations seems excessive.

Clause 4 also presents the issues of funding and available technologies. There are some nations in the General Assembly who do not yet have the capability to make cameras that would be able to fit on an item of clothing. Furthermore, some impoverished countries may not have the resources to provide thousands of employees with what can be quite expensive equipment.”

"I thank the ambassador from Kenmoria for their helpful feedback on our proposal. It is not the desire of Isaris to be excessive and I would ask that the ambassador provide some idea of what restrictions would be acceptable with regard to §2b. We can prevent abusive individuals from serving in police forces without punishing those who have reformed but it must be done right.

Regarding §4, I would remind the ambassador that it states 'if such technology is available to the member states'. This is intended to grant immunity to this clause to member states which do not have the technology available. However, on the subject of funding, I must acknowledge your point as one we had overlooked.

Would it be possible for the World Assembly to provide funding to such nations? If that is the case, we would be happy to include an additional clause relating to that issue."

“I completely missed the exception due to technology on clause 4, so that isn’t an issue. With regards to the question of funding, there is the World Assembly General Fund for such a purpose, financed with mandatory donations from member states. You could use funds from that body to provide for member nations unable to enact the body-camera provision.

Section 2b is harder to address. I suggest something along the lines of this: ‘No police force of a member state may hire any person convicted of such an offence, unless it can be proven that said person has reformed such that they are very unlikely to commit another offence of this nature again.’”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Tue Jun 09, 2020 9:12 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Isaris wrote:"I thank the ambassador from Kenmoria for their helpful feedback on our proposal. It is not the desire of Isaris to be excessive and I would ask that the ambassador provide some idea of what restrictions would be acceptable with regard to §2b. We can prevent abusive individuals from serving in police forces without punishing those who have reformed but it must be done right.

Regarding §4, I would remind the ambassador that it states 'if such technology is available to the member states'. This is intended to grant immunity to this clause to member states which do not have the technology available. However, on the subject of funding, I must acknowledge your point as one we had overlooked.

Would it be possible for the World Assembly to provide funding to such nations? If that is the case, we would be happy to include an additional clause relating to that issue."

“I completely missed the exception due to technology on clause 4, so that isn’t an issue. With regards to the question of funding, there is the World Assembly General Fund for such a purpose, financed with mandatory donations from member states. You could use funds from that body to provide for member nations unable to enact the body-camera provision.

Section 2b is harder to address. I suggest something along the lines of this: ‘No police force of a member state may hire any person convicted of such an offence, unless it can be proven that said person has reformed such that they are very unlikely to commit another offence of this nature again.’”

"I am pleased to inform the ambassador from Kenmoria that we in Isaris have addressed your concerns and invite you to evaluate our new draft. Please refer to our new §2b, which now includes a stipulation about being evaluated by a mental health professional, and the addition of an §4a, which addresses the issue of funding for the mandated body-worn cameras. I hope that these changes will be satisfactory to Kenmoria. Please inform us if they are not and we will endeavor to correct whatever the issue may be."

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:08 am

Isaris wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:“I completely missed the exception due to technology on clause 4, so that isn’t an issue. With regards to the question of funding, there is the World Assembly General Fund for such a purpose, financed with mandatory donations from member states. You could use funds from that body to provide for member nations unable to enact the body-camera provision.

Section 2b is harder to address. I suggest something along the lines of this: ‘No police force of a member state may hire any person convicted of such an offence, unless it can be proven that said person has reformed such that they are very unlikely to commit another offence of this nature again.’”

"I am pleased to inform the ambassador from Kenmoria that we in Isaris have addressed your concerns and invite you to evaluate our new draft. Please refer to our new §2b, which now includes a stipulation about being evaluated by a mental health professional, and the addition of an §4a, which addresses the issue of funding for the mandated body-worn cameras. I hope that these changes will be satisfactory to Kenmoria. Please inform us if they are not and we will endeavor to correct whatever the issue may be."

"The new changes are perfect. I have no issues with the proposal currently."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:28 am

OOC: After speaking with my mentor on the new clauses, I have made another small update. Please see the new §4a and §4ai, and let me know if there are any problems to be dealt with!

User avatar
Shanghai industrial complex
Minister
 
Posts: 2823
Founded: Feb 20, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Shanghai industrial complex » Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:52 am

1.How about after the problem is solved, the police must ask the person seeking help to evaluate his service?Before, I called the police because of the loud noise of my neighbor. After the problem was solved, the police asked me to fill in a online feedback questionnaire.

2.Police must include psychology and stress control in training courses.And then there's a national database of tests and law enforcement.
Last edited by Shanghai industrial complex on Wed Jun 10, 2020 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
多看空我 仮面ライダークウガをたくさん見てください Watch more Masked Rider Kukuku Kuuga!

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:06 am

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:1.How about after the problem is solved, the police must ask the person seeking help to evaluate his service?Before, I called the police because of the loud noise of my neighbor. After the problem was solved, the police asked me to fill in a online feedback questionnaire.

2.Police must include psychology and stress control in training courses.And then there's a national database of tests and law enforcement.

OOC: While I think your example is too specific (i.e., what if nations don't have phones?), I'm willing to try my hand at crafting a more vague community outreach clause. I also don't think mandatory psychological testing is a bad idea, so I'll see what I can do there as well.

User avatar
Shanghai industrial complex
Minister
 
Posts: 2823
Founded: Feb 20, 2020
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Shanghai industrial complex » Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:14 am

Isaris wrote:
Shanghai industrial complex wrote:1.How about after the problem is solved, the police must ask the person seeking help to evaluate his service?Before, I called the police because of the loud noise of my neighbor. After the problem was solved, the police asked me to fill in a online feedback questionnaire.

2.Police must include psychology and stress control in training courses.And then there's a national database of tests and law enforcement.

OOC: While I think your example is too specific (i.e., what if nations don't have phones?), I'm willing to try my hand at crafting a more vague community outreach clause. I also don't think mandatory psychological testing is a bad idea, so I'll see what I can do there as well.

If nations don't have phone,you can use paper.What's important is that idea. :roll:
Last edited by Shanghai industrial complex on Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
多看空我 仮面ライダークウガをたくさん見てください Watch more Masked Rider Kukuku Kuuga!

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15445
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:24 am

OOC: Just quick notes:

The AoE is probably wrong. It doesn't do what it sounds like.

Prosecutors generally aren't part of police forces, to my knowledge at least?

Locality is defined but not used.

Why does clause 3 have "police forces and law enforcement officers" - wouldn't it be one or the other?

Clause 4 - why? Just, why? Make it an encouragement and take out the bit about wasting General Fund moneys and it makes more sense. You're obviously already aware of the tech level issue, so please be aware of the sensibility issue as well. Especially given how wide your definition for a law enforcement officer is, because carrying cameras everywhere could cause serious breaches of privacy or enable industrial espionage, etc. Given you don't define the cameras in any way, nor what's to be done with the pictures/footage, this clause currently creates a whole host of issues while solving none as far as I can see.

What's the "where such political subdivisions exist" in clause 5, given you're talking about the member states, not some subdivisions of them?

Instead of "domain", use "jurisdiction" - it aligns better with previous resolutions.

I'll never support this, because in IC my nation is a police state, and while it doesn't have police brutality issues (what with being modeled closer to my RL home nation's police), it's not going to want any extra restrictions (like getting mandated cameras on its officers, which would make undercover officers impossible, as well as make people less likely to want to come up to police on delicate matters given they know they'd be on camera) on what its police can or can't do.

EDIT: Not supporting doesn't mean not helping you, mind you. :P
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:45 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Just quick notes:

The AoE is probably wrong. It doesn't do what it sounds like.

Prosecutors generally aren't part of police forces, to my knowledge at least?

Locality is defined but not used.

Why does clause 3 have "police forces and law enforcement officers" - wouldn't it be one or the other?

Clause 4 - why? Just, why? Make it an encouragement and take out the bit about wasting General Fund moneys and it makes more sense. You're obviously already aware of the tech level issue, so please be aware of the sensibility issue as well. Especially given how wide your definition for a law enforcement officer is, because carrying cameras everywhere could cause serious breaches of privacy or enable industrial espionage, etc. Given you don't define the cameras in any way, nor what's to be done with the pictures/footage, this clause currently creates a whole host of issues while solving none as far as I can see.

What's the "where such political subdivisions exist" in clause 5, given you're talking about the member states, not some subdivisions of them?

Instead of "domain", use "jurisdiction" - it aligns better with previous resolutions.

I'll never support this, because in IC my nation is a police state, and while it doesn't have police brutality issues (what with being modeled closer to my RL home nation's police), it's not going to want any extra restrictions (like getting mandated cameras on its officers, which would make undercover officers impossible, as well as make people less likely to want to come up to police on delicate matters given they know they'd be on camera) on what its police can or can't do.

EDIT: Not supporting doesn't mean not helping you, mind you. :P

OOC: First I would like to address the points you've made that I respectfully disagree with.

#1: Law enforcement officers are involved in the prosecution process as witnesses and there are also police prosecutors in certain jurisdictions. Bailiffs are also considered law enforcement officers and have the authority to apprehend people who become violent in court proceedings or who are held in contempt.

#2: "local" as used in the context of my resolution is an adjective that relates to localities. i.e., "local police forces" are police forces which enforce the law on behalf of a local government, the government of a locality.

#3: A police force is the organization that employs law enforcement officers. Not everyone who is employed at a police force is a law enforcement officer.

#4: Body-worn cameras aren't just about making the police more accountable to civilians. They also shield law enforcement officers from false accusations of misconduct. That said, I do agree with your concerns regarding undercover officers and the footage. I don't want to disable undercover officers from being able to perform their duties, nor do I wish to enable member states to simply destroy or discard their footage.

#5: Not every nation subdivides itself into localities; however, for those that do, the structure of a police force at the national level and at the local level are going to be far different by their very nature.

I am certainly willing to use the word "jurisdiction" instead of "domain". And what AoE/category would you suggest? I was not really sure what to use and this was all I could think of at the time. Thank you very much for your feedback! I understand your IC reasons for not wanting to support this and appreciate your willingness to assist nonetheless.

Edit: fixed spelling
Last edited by Isaris on Wed Jun 10, 2020 5:51 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Araraukar
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15445
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Jun 10, 2020 6:53 am

Isaris wrote:And what AoE/category would you suggest?

OOC: Well, it depends really on what you're trying to do with it (that is, the actual content of the actual active clauses), but given it's about regulating the police forces, International Security (which is about police and military spending) sounds like the obvious one. Basically, consider that category if your proposal would mean nations having to put more money (for equipment, training, more people hired, etc.) in their police forces.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk. In IC in the WA.
Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Coronavirus related. This too. And this. These are all jokes. This isn't. This is, again, but it's also the last one.
Apologies for absences, RL has been hectic, nothing to do with COVID-19, I'm just busy with other things than NS.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8019
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:01 am

a cute tinhamptonian birb says hi (am criticising a slightly older version - was busy doing other stuff in the interim few hours, lol)
Isaris wrote:The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve, and

Determined to reduce the instances of such cases ensure that such incidents occur less frequently around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation; You dont use the word "locality" beyond this article. Why define it?

    2. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its domain;

    3. a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions;

      2. who is authorized by their employer police force to carry deadly weapons; and

      3. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or incarcerating prosecution, or incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by law enforcement officers LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is comparable Why not "equivalent?" to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians., save that no LEO shall be penalised for committing such an offense in defense of themselves, another person or the wider community.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any law enforcement officer who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to may serve as a law enforcement officer in a member state unless a mental health professional has evaluated said person and concluded that they are not a danger to themselves or others.
  3. No person convicted of an offense as described in Article 2 may serve as a LEO in a member state, unless it has been concluded by a mental health professional upon evaluation that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.

  4. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and law enforcement officers for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  5. Member states shall provide all police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras, which may be funded by member states through recourse to their own budget or (in the event that domestic funding cannot be obtained) the WA General Fund, and require all law enforcement officers LEOs within their domains to equip body-worn cameras if such technology is available to the member states.

    1. Member states may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras.

  6. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall require local police forces within their domains to make a good-faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing.

  7. Member states shall require all police forces within their domains to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by law enforcement officers as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:08 am

"We offer our tentative support for this, though we also find the proposed subcommittee to be wrong. Perhaps the subcommittee for civil rights is a better fit?"


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:53 am

Attempted Socialism wrote:"We offer our tentative support for this, though we also find the proposed subcommittee to be wrong. Perhaps the subcommittee for civil rights is a better fit?"

"The only committee mentioned in the proposal is the WA General Fund, which seems completely appropriate to me."
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:22 am

Tinhampton wrote:a cute tinhamptonian birb says hi (am criticising a slightly older version - was busy doing other stuff in the interim few hours, lol)
Isaris wrote:The World Assembly,

Recognizing the importance of a police force in the prevention and detection of crime, as well as the maintenance of public order,

Shocked by cases of law enforcement officers abusing their authority to cause harm to those they have sworn to protect and serve, and

Determined to reduce the instances of such cases ensure that such incidents occur less frequently around the world,

Hereby enacts the following:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution,

    1. a "locality" is defined as a political subdivision of a nation; You dont use the word "locality" beyond this article. Why define it?

    2. a "police force" is defined as an organization engaged in the enforcement of law on behalf of a national or local government within its domain;

    3. a "law enforcement officer" (LEO) is defined as an employee of a police force—

      1. who has lawful authority to make arrests or apprehensions;

      2. who is authorized by their employer police force to carry deadly weapons; and

      3. whose responsibilities are mainly engaging in or supervising the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or incarcerating prosecution, or incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, or protecting government officials against threats to personal safety.

  2. Member states shall provide a penalty for assault, battery, and homicide committed by law enforcement officers LEOs in the line of duty within their national legal codes that is comparable Why not "equivalent?" to that provided for the same offenses committed by civilians., save that no LEO shall be penalised for committing such an offense in defense of themselves, another person or the wider community.

    1. Such a penalty shall not be enforced on any law enforcement officer who committed such an offense in self-defense, in the defense of another person or persons, or in the defense of their community at large.

    2. Any person convicted of such an offense shall not be permitted to may serve as a law enforcement officer in a member state unless a mental health professional has evaluated said person and concluded that they are not a danger to themselves or others.
  3. No person convicted of an offense as described in Article 2 may serve as a LEO in a member state, unless it has been concluded by a mental health professional upon evaluation that they do not pose a danger to themselves or others.

  4. Member states shall provide access to recourse against police forces and law enforcement officers for civilians who are, or are family members of, victims of police misconduct within their national legal codes.

  5. Member states shall provide all police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras, which may be funded by member states through recourse to their own budget or (in the event that domestic funding cannot be obtained) the WA General Fund, and require all law enforcement officers LEOs within their domains to equip body-worn cameras if such technology is available to the member states.

    1. Member states may apply to the WA General Fund as a source of the funding required to provide police forces within their domains with body-worn cameras.

  6. Member states, where such political subdivisions exist, shall require local police forces within their domains to make a good-faith effort to hire a majority of their employees from within the communities those forces are policing.

  7. Member states shall require all police forces within their domains to adopt training policies that discourage the unnecessary use of force—especially lethal force—by law enforcement officers as a method of conflict resolution and obtaining compliance from civilians.

OOC: I'm not crazy about all of your feedback but I plan to incorporate some of it. Thank you for your suggestions!

Edit: I meant to address this as it was brought up before and I'm very adamant about keeping it included,
You dont use the word "locality" beyond this article. Why define it?

As I said in my reply to Araraukar, I later use the word "local" as an adjective relating to a locality. The word "local" and "locality" in the context of my draft are inherently linked. National level and local level police forces are also often structured very differently and I think it is unreasonable to expect a national level police force to source employees from specific communities.
Last edited by Isaris on Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8019
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:27 am

Isaris wrote:
Tinhampton wrote:a cute tinhamptonian birb says hi

OOC: I'm not crazy about all of your feedback but I plan to incorporate some of it. Thank you for your suggestions!

I am, however, crazy... at least a tad :P best of luck as ever
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; -45 Darkspawn Kill Points; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 45yo Tory woman; Cambridge graduate; possibly very controversial; currently reading your mind >:D

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:57 am

Isaris wrote:As I said in my reply to Araraukar, I later use the word "local" as an adjective relating to a locality. The word "local" and "locality" in the context of my draft are inherently linked. National level and local level police forces are also often structured very differently and I think it is unreasonable to expect a national level police force to source employees from specific communities.

(OOC: With that being the case, it would make more sense to instead define 'local'.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:04 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:"We offer our tentative support for this, though we also find the proposed subcommittee to be wrong. Perhaps the subcommittee for civil rights is a better fit?"

"The only committee mentioned in the proposal is the WA General Fund, which seems completely appropriate to me."

OOC: Subcommittee, as in the Subcommittee for Legal Reform or Civil Rights.


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

User avatar
Isaris
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 189
Founded: Jul 18, 2009
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Isaris » Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:31 am

Kenmoria wrote:
Isaris wrote:As I said in my reply to Araraukar, I later use the word "local" as an adjective relating to a locality. The word "local" and "locality" in the context of my draft are inherently linked. National level and local level police forces are also often structured very differently and I think it is unreasonable to expect a national level police force to source employees from specific communities.

(OOC: With that being the case, it would make more sense to instead define 'local'.)

OOC: OK, I'm going to define local right now to show you why I don't need to define it.

"local" is defined as relating to a particular area (a political subdivision of a nation)

I hope this helps you to understand. "locality" is a very generic word for something like a state, a province, a county, a city, a municipality, a district, etc. There are so many words and ways for how nations divide themselves (and even those subdivisions can have subdivisions) that this is the only one that can apply to anything.

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6529
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:00 pm

Attempted Socialism wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:"The only committee mentioned in the proposal is the WA General Fund, which seems completely appropriate to me."

OOC: Subcommittee, as in the Subcommittee for Legal Reform or Civil Rights.

(OOC: That's normally called the category/subcategory. I believe Araraukar has mentioned International Security as being the ideal choice. Civil rights could also work with a little bit of refocusing.

Isaris wrote:
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: With that being the case, it would make more sense to instead define 'local'.)

OOC: OK, I'm going to define local right now to show you why I don't need to define it.

"local" is defined as relating to a particular area (a political subdivision of a nation)

I hope this helps you to understand. "locality" is a very generic word for something like a state, a province, a county, a city, a municipality, a district, etc. There are so many words and ways for how nations divide themselves (and even those subdivisions can have subdivisions) that this is the only one that can apply to anything.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I don't see the issue with defining 'local' as something such as 'pertaining only to a particular political subdivision of a nation'. That definition makes perfect sense. On the other hand, is there even a need for a definition in the first place. There aren't many interpretations of 'locality' or 'local', and it isn't a particularly technical term.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Attempted Socialism
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1205
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Ex-Nation

Postby Attempted Socialism » Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:54 pm

Kenmoria wrote:
Attempted Socialism wrote:OOC: Subcommittee, as in the Subcommittee for Legal Reform or Civil Rights.

(OOC: That's normally called the category/subcategory. I believe Araraukar has mentioned International Security as being the ideal choice. Civil rights could also work with a little bit of refocusing.
Category doesn't really exist IC in a meaningful way, does it? Though I also misremembered, and should have used Civil Board. As an example:
18 hours ago: Godnumia Verblentaul submitted a proposal to the General Assembly Regulation Board entitled "regulations of coal power plants".

Either way, I tried to comment IC on something that should probably have been kept OOC due to GA procedure. Probably won't happen again.


Represented in the World Assembly by
Ambassador and Chairperson of the Executive International Relations Committee
Marcie Elizabeth 'MacBeth' Illum
Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated.
Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt?
Ivory Tower Critical-Realistic Sardonic Marxist Curmudgeon
Danish Political Scientist Seeks True Love Tenure
Specialities: State development; corruption; IR theory; Vodka
Experiences: Office-running; political campaigns; navigating byzantine academia politics

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to WA Archives

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads