PASSED: The Right to Education

[Glen-Rhodes]

I still won't ever understand how anybody can reason that if you give a right, you aren't at all subject to not infringing on that right. To me, both the right and section 1 are mandates; the World Assembly giving the right is not optional and nations having to do all those things is not optional, either. So, it's essentially, "Hey, you can do whatever you want" then further down the line, "You have to do this this way and that that way, you can't do this, and anything you do must be done like this". Nations would point to the first sentence, the World Assembly would point to the second, and nobody would be able to win, since both sentences are completely accurate. But whatever. If I'm the only one that sees it that way, then I must be wrong.

Anyways, I asked before and never got a straight answer: if this resolution can impose things on national educational systems, even though nations have a right to have 'any other form of educational system', would it be legal for my resolution to do the same thing? In other words, assuming this passes, would the mandates in this be legal?

[Scolopendra]

Means and ends.

In this proposal, the ends are mandatory. The means are where the "right" applies. "[T]his Resolution does not affect a member state's right to have" "[a]ny other form of educational system" so long as the mandate is achieved.

Nevertheless, I'm just the second opinion called in because apparently this case needed one. I'm not much for salami-slicing arguments until everyone's blue in the face so there you go... especially considering that "I still won't ever understand" means that you've already decided that you will not ever understand, which tends to suggest that you're not going to change your mind. That isn't really my problem and I'm not about to lay claim to it.

While there may be logical flaws, it is not optional and as such does not violate the optionality clause.

Imposing things on nations has never been illegal in terms of WA resolutions. One would argue that's the entire point of resolutions; they are laws, regulations, commands, orders, and other such impositions on the anarchic freedom to do whatever one wants in most cases.

Glancing through that thread, it looks like most of the opposition to it is that others don't like it, not that it's illegal. I hate to break it to you, Glen-Rhodes, but it doesn't seem your high opinion of it is widely seconded. If you want my opinion, it's logically flawed. "[A] broad set of studies that a primary education must provide at the best quality possible, which consists of mathematics, science, language arts, and social studies;" directly conflicts with "no nation is to be subject to excessive interference by the World Assembly of specific curriculum;" since the WA is directly interfering with the curricula by demanding certain things, even if they are classes of things, be taught. Its only saving grace is the uncertainty provided by "excessive" and "specific," the meanings of which can be argued. I'd tend to think such things are bad in laws.

In short, perhaps the opposition to yours isn't because it's illegal, but because it is (perceived as) poor.

Anyway, since this has all the flavor of a personal issue ("why do people like this guy's education proposal and not mine?") I'm going to disinvolve myself in it... now.

[Glen-Rhodes]

This isn't a personal issue. I'm not going to delve in to who supports and opposes my resolution, because nine months of debate has made a long, complex list of people that support it, but oppose this part, and opinions based on the intricacies of unique educational systems. Nor am I going to delve in whose is better. What's at issue for me is a new precedent that the intention of resolutions are all that really matter, and whether or not this resolution would adversely affect my own.

"[T]his Resolution does not affect a member state's right to have" "[a]ny other form of educational system" so long as the mandate is achieved." To me, this speaks for itself. The resolution does not mention "so long as the mandate is achieved", but both moderators that took up the question of legality have based their decisions on that very phrase. But the mods are the authority, I am not.

So, if I'm not satisfied with the decisions, I am satisfied that this proposal, if passed, would not adversely affect my own. We'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether or not it is worthy.

[Meekinos]

So, if I'm not satisfied with the decisions, I am satisfied that this proposal, if passed, would not adversely affect my own. We'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether or not it is worthy.

Something that we, honoured ambassador, have been preparing ourselves for. We are marketing our product - this proposal - to the customers, the voters of the WA. They will determine if this is a product worth buying or not. We had previously quoted from the Meekinosian Capitalist Manifest and we believe the quote was relevant then and it is now.

"Never doubt the power of public opinion; their purchasing power is the proof. Give them what they want and they will buy." ~ Gavrill Raptis, 3rd Prophet, Master Tailor

We believe the power of the vote will determine the worthiness of our product.

[Glen-Rhodes]

We believe the power of the vote will determine the worthiness of our product.

Yeah, that's fine, so long as you aren't using it as an excuse to not withdraw an illegal proposal. I wish you'd take Ardchoille's advice and just withdraw it anyways. It'd save you having to argue against a repeal. If you do, my offer of merging our proposals would still be on the books.

[Meekinos]

We believe the power of the vote will determine the worthiness of our product.

Yeah, that's fine, so long as you aren't using it as an excuse to not withdraw an illegal proposal. I wish you'd take Ardchoille's advice and just withdraw it anyways. It'd save you having to argue against a repeal. If you do, my offer of merging our proposals would still be on the books.

Many would be saved from having to argue against an appeal if they never submitted their proposals. Even the most sound are challenged. It is impossible to please everyone because everyone is different.

[New Rockport]

There's another problem with this proposal. It's not a legal problem, but it's a problem nonetheless. Note the use of the plural Member States in Section 1...

1. Mandates that Member States shall:

...and the use of the singular its in subsections (a) through (e):

a) Not restrict the pursuit of learning for its citizens;
b) Promote learning and education within its borders;
c) Ensure affordability for its citizens if it has a user-pay system, so that even the lowest income earners are able to send their children to school and return to school in order to better themselves, without incurring a burdensome debt;
d) Create its own national standards for teachers to ensure a reasonable level of competence;
e) Establish a standard curriculum for its students based on its own needs and future goals;
f) Ensure that the tools needed for learning are made available to all;
g) Not force a citizen to end their education upon reaching age of majority.

The same inconsistency between singular and plural is repeated in Section 2:

2. Whereas no formal government funded educational system exists, Member States shall:
a) Allow its citizens to pursue their education abroad;
b) Allow for the private sector to provide education.

If Ms. Papadakis corrects this inconsistency, resolves Dr. Castro's issue, and re-submits the proposal, then I will pledge New Rockport's full support for the revised proposal and will assist with a telegram campaign to help it attain quorum. However, my government and I cannot support it in its current form.

Respectfully submitted,
Silvana Rossi
Ambassador to the World Assembly, Federal Republic of New Rockport
Delegate to the World Assembly, Region of Albion

[Meekinos]

We have noted your concerns.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Overall, I am pleased with the resolution, the resolution that is believed to be that of best fit to the myriad systems of education. The most important thing is that children cannot be denied the right to education whatsoever. Therefore I have voted for.

Well done, Meekinos.

[Leftmen]

I truly support this 100% for my country love education,I support this Resolution all the way and I truely do hope that it passes and no one tries to repeal it.

[Progressive Union]

(... With that one clause that you seem so adamant about keeping and protecting... The mandates are allowed to be ignored. This is optionality, and it is illegal...)

Honored Ambassadors,

All this talk about the legality of this proposal has my head spinning. Has the results of the "Oversight Committee" made a ruling on the question of legality yet, or is this statement just the opinion of the esteemed Doctor?

Aside from the question of legality, I see nothing else to derail the momentum this proposal has made in its quest to become a World Assembly resolution. I have addressed the nations of the Royal Federation of Nations region, and I have put my support behind this outstanding piece of legislature, despite the fact that I don't always see eye to eye with the honored ambassador from The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos.

D. Mark Melancon

Prime Minister - Commonwealth of Progressive Union
Ambassador-Delegate - Royal Federation of Nations

[Jey]

Clause 1-a is ridiculously expansive, and easily allows for such a hyperbolic interpretation. You can do anything under this clause. You can enter Atomic Bomb College and the government can't stop you. We are forced to use this interpretation to uphold resolutions to the strictest scrutiny.

But wait! What about Clause 3-f? That gives governments the right to do anything they want with the education system. We are totally confused by this resolution. Who's rights take precedent within it? The omnipotent rights of the individual or the omnipotent rights of the government.?

Should everything be ignored except clause 3-f? Because that's what it seems like. If that's the case...well, ok then.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian World Assembly Representative

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

I have noted another problem with this resolution.

As pointed out by Jey, this resolution pretty much lets anyone learn anything because they have the 'right' to education. Now does this apply to everyone or children over 12 or adults over 18 or what? The way I see it, people could go to a terrorist training camp and call it 'education' thus preventing any government intervention, or kids under 12 could be studying sexual education against the will of their parents, who seem effectively removed from the loop. Maybe I have read this wrong, if I have, I am sorry.

Aside from that, it is a good resolution although I would be hesitant to see if this makes a substantial difference as several like this have been voted on before.

[Altani WA Mission]

"Never doubt the power of public opinion; their purchasing power is the proof. Give them what they want and they will buy." ~ Gavrill Raptis, 3rd Prophet, Master Tailor

We believe the power of the vote will determine the worthiness of our product.

With all due respect, popularity does not equal quality; it just means people made a mistake and 'bought' something in large numbers. It would hardly be the first time the WA 'bought' a bad resolution, either.

This resolution is entirely too contradictory of itself for us to support it.

-Irina Misheli, Ambassador

[Turlmanistan]

I like this bill, it offers education to nation without an education system, and still allows our nations to have a unique education system even after this bill for nations that decide this, it has my individual support for this.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

I suggest a re-draft of this proposal, so the flaws it has can be smoothened out and that the loopholes can be closed. The idea is right but it isn't written how it should be, it doesn't make sense, it contradicts itself and there are several loopholes in it.

[Qumkent]

This dog's breakfast of a resolution is so poorly written and constructed and so internally contradictory that it is utterly meaningless. We are appalled that such complete lack of sound logic and legislative rectitude could have been applied to the formulation of a resolution purporting to deal with education.

Thankfully the internal contradictions contained in this resolution mean that it will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the education systems of member states, indeed its only effect will be to make it tremendously difficult to introduce sensible education legislation in future without this tissue of imbecility being first repealed.



Yours,

[Shoshogo]

What I especially appreciate about this resolution is that it does not require member nations to provide public education, and instead offers solutions for private-sector universal education.

[Koumpounophobia]

What I especially appreciate about this resolution is that it does not require member nations to provide public education, and instead offers solutions for private-sector universal education.

A nervous-looking fellow stood up at this point.
"Hello, I'm Herbert Norris, temporary ambassador and acting CEO of Koumpounophobia. President Newburn is currently on Kelevar handling some political matters, so I am here on his behalf. I wish to agree on the subject of private education. Our government is in fact a business, managing our citizens as a work force, and thus our private schools are in fact our public schools, as a part of the citizens' paycheck automatically goes to their child's school. This resolution actually would do little more than lower the amount pulled from paychecks, approximately paying our citizens more. If they have more money, they spend more money, which then stimulates our prestigious economy even more. So... what I mean to say is that this resolution ceases to be about education and more about economic stimulation, which we fully support. Thank you," he babbled out before blushing a fine purple-red color and sitting down.

[Jey]

...without this tissue of imbecility being first repealed.

Don't worry about that. We'll take care of it.

[Mikoyan-Guryevich]

I can't understand what good a repeal will do. People just seem to read the title of a resolution these days, then click FOR, without really delving into what the proposal will do. Ill bet I could pass a white supremacy bill disguised as a creativity proposal and nobody would notice.

Infact I might try it.

[Former Principalities]

I agree with what this act proposes, so I voted FOR. Anyway once it gets implemented nothing will happen to my nation, as this form of education standards is the norm, minus students learning abroad.

[Gobbannium]

We somewhat regret not being present during the drafting stage of this resolution. It is at least better spelt than the average education resolution, which we confess is rather damning it with faint praise. Its grammar is, however, still very much in the tradition of the category.

More relevantly, while we are enthusiastic fans of open-ended support for education, even we wince at the unlimited nature of the mandates. We find ourselves somewhat reluctantly voting against the proposal, given that its implementation does not match its aspiration.

We are, however, lost in admiration for the sneaky introduction of the mandatory welfare state in clause 1c.

Ensure affordability for its citizens if it has a user-pay system, so that even the lowest income earners are able to send their children to school and return to school in order to better themselves, without incurring a burdensome debt;

If adult education is not free to the user, all that someone who becomes unemployed need to is to enroll in an improving course of education and the state is required to support them to at least a modest degree. The Royal Educational Development Organisation would be happy to open whatever small, high-quality schools may be necessary to facilitate this.

[Newfoundsky]

As this may have been pointed out, it bears repeating:

The Resolution at vote covers ALL children and requires an equal learning opportunity. The Confederacy of Newfoundsky, for one, will not sacrifice the funding of the majority of the populations education simply to make "adequate" accommodations for the mentally challenged or those who would otherwise throw there education away. Such an act would degrade the over all quality of education for the majority.


Newfoundsky does not support this resolution.

[Qumkent]

As this may have been pointed out, it bears repeating:

The Resolution at vote covers ALL children and requires an equal learning opportunity. The Confederacy of Newfoundsky, for one, will not sacrifice the funding of the majority of the populations education simply to make "adequate" accommodations for the mentally challenged or those who would otherwise throw there education away. Such an act would degrade the over all quality of education for the majority.


Newfoundsky does not support this resolution.

What a remarkably grotesque and callous reason for opposing this statute. It should be pointed out that the outcome your Excellency's government fears is in any case unlikely ever to come about even if this statute passes since its wording makes it impossible to actually implement. The resolution is made a dead letter by its impoverished grammar.

Yours,