[DEFEATED] Repeal GAR #333 "Preserving Antimicrobials"

[Luna Amore]

Repeal "Preserving Antimicrobials"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA#332 | Proposed by: John Turner

The World Assembly,

Applauding the intentions of General Assembly Resolution #333 "Preserving Antimicrobials" to attempt to try and preserve the effectiveness of antimicrobials;

Detesting the inherent problems of convoluted overreaching legislation;

Concerned clause one which states "Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism of monitoring the spread of antimicrobial resistance in all member nations and international zones or borders", but fails to state as to how that mechanism will be created or administrated leading the the real possibility of gross overreach and fiduciary irresponsibility;

Also concerned clause three attempts to force non-members to comply with with this resolution as clause three clearly states "Mandates immediate action to be taken to lower infection rates in all places of treatment";

Mortified by clause three (a) which states "severely limiting the amount of antimicrobial substances exposed to livestock", which severely restricts livestock processing facilities where livestock is slaughtered from using disinfectants and antimicrobials, thus potentially allowing pathogens to enter to food chain;

Deeply opposed to the blocking nature of clause three (a) which prevents future legislation in the area of livestock growth and processing as those facilities would be restricted from the use of antimicrobials necessary to fend off disease and infection within livestock;

Believing that while the intentions of General Assembly Resolution #333 "Preserving Antimicrobials" may be noble, it also has serious flaws which desperately necessitate it's repeal;

Hereby repeals GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 333 "Preserving Antimicrobials".

[Flawdom]

While we are cautiously optimistic about this repeal, we are curious and/or concerned about some aspects. First off, what "moral supremacy" was GAR #333 based on? And is there a replacement to be scheduled or do you simply wish to repeal it?

That being said, we agree that #333's clause one is badly worded when defining jurisdiction so that alone merits a conditional approval from us.

OOC: As far as administration goes, I thought that would theoretically be done by WA gnomes?

[Wrapper]

OOC: Yeah, figured this one was coming. Both of you really ought to chill out a little bit. Just sayin'. Nevertheless, if you're serious about this....

IC: Well, we are not adamantly opposed to repealing this harmless little bit of legislation, but we would, erm, like to see a little more, erm, convincing argument that we should vote for this repeal. For example, does the resolution in question pose any kind of danger to our population in any way? Or, does it not go far enough to protect our population from harmful microbes? That sort of thing. Oh, and, firmly not buying the "force non-members to comply" argument:

Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism of monitoring the spread of antimicrobial resistance in all member nations and international zones or borders as well as publish a report on a periodic basis to inform about the status and prevalence of such resistance;

Monitoring. That's it. The WHA's mechanism can include gathering publicly available data from non-member nations; doing so would not be forcing any type of compliance on non-members. There is no mandate in that clause that forces non-members to give the committee anything. Granted, it is poorly worded -- that is, how can microbial resistance spread "in" borders? -- but that's it.

[Flawdom]

OOC: Yeah, figured this one was coming. Both of you really ought to chill out a little bit. Just sayin'. Nevertheless, if you're serious about this....

IC: Well, we are not adamantly opposed to repealing this harmless little bit of legislation, but we would, erm, like to see a little more, erm, convincing argument that we should vote for this repeal. For example, does the resolution in question pose any kind of danger to our population in any way? Or, does it not go far enough to protect our population from harmful microbes? That sort of thing. Oh, and, firmly not buying the "force non-members to comply" argument:

Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism of monitoring the spread of antimicrobial resistance in all member nations and international zones or borders as well as publish a report on a periodic basis to inform about the status and prevalence of such resistance;

Monitoring. That's it. The WHA's mechanism can include gathering publicly available data from non-member nations; doing so would not be forcing any type of compliance on non-members. There is no mandate in that clause that forces non-members to give the committee anything. Granted, it is poorly worded -- that is, how can microbial resistance spread "in" borders? -- but that's it.

You are assuming that such data is publicly available. I am sure that many nations do not disclose antimicrobial resistance, primarily in the name of national security. Where there is not publicly available data, the reading that this GAR forces non-member nations to comply is indeed possible even though we are all probably in agreement that that clause is not meant to be interpreted that way. Specific wording is the ideal, after all.

[Wrapper]

Where there is not publicly available data, the reading that this GAR forces non-member nations to comply is indeed possible

No, it isn't. The WHA is tasked with monitoring -- that is, observing, recording, detecting, etc. For example, if North Slobovia monitors the radio transmissions, or the naval movements, or the twinkly city lights, in South Slobovia, they're just listening or watching, in order to gather data. They're still monitoring even when there is no data forthcoming; e.g. no unencoded radio transmissions, no visible naval movements, or no twinkly city lights because the sun's shining. Now, if the resolution empowered the committee to collect specific data in international zones, then, yes, that would be forcing compliance, as they would have to have some way to come up with that data with nations that aren't as forthcoming with such data. Are we making sense?

[Flawdom]

Where there is not publicly available data, the reading that this GAR forces non-member nations to comply is indeed possible

No, it isn't. The WHA is tasked with monitoring -- that is, observing, recording, detecting, etc. For example, if North Slobovia monitors the radio transmissions, or the naval movements, or the twinkly city lights, in South Slobovia, they're just listening or watching, in order to gather data. They're still monitoring even when there is no data forthcoming; e.g. no unencoded radio transmissions, no visible naval movements, or no twinkly city lights because the sun's shining. Now, if the resolution empowered the committee to collect specific data in international zones, then, yes, that would be forcing compliance, as they would have to have some way to come up with that data with nations that aren't as forthcoming with such data. Are we making sense?

Ah, that makes more sense. I still think even monitoring non-member nations is outside of proper jurisdiction because said monitoring has been placed with no limitations as to what kind (public vs private) information they are empowered to monitor; and even monitoring public information can cause great discomfort for non-member nations (OOC: see Apple's new News app which listens to publicly available RSS feeds but news companies were still upset by this b/c they believed that it would divert revenue as it was presented as an Apple product). However, I see where you're coming from.

[Imperium Anglorum]

While we are cautiously optimistic about this repeal, we are curious and/or concerned about some aspects. First off, what "moral supremacy" was GAR #333 based on? And is there a replacement to be scheduled or do you simply wish to repeal it?

OOC: I never saw any moral supremacy in what I wrote. Science is by itself, lacking morality whatsoever. On the other point, I'm entirely sure that is exactly what he wants to do, after stating that he doesn't want to do it, mostly because of my resurrection of a repeal of one of his resolutions (after he attempted to repeal NAPA). Which is made most interesting by his continual attacks on my character and stating that I want to repeal all his work. So, no problems there, apparently.

That being said, we agree that #333's clause one is badly worded when defining jurisdiction so that alone merits a conditional approval from us.

Parsons: Where is that problem reflected in the text?

OOC: As far as administration goes, I thought that would theoretically be done by WA gnomes?

Parsons: Yes.

OOC: Yeah, figured this one was coming. Both of you really ought to chill out a little bit. Just sayin'. Nevertheless, if you're serious about this....

OOC: We all knew it was.

[Flawdom]

OOC: I never saw any moral supremacy in what I wrote. Science is by itself, lacking morality whatsoever. On the other point, I'm entirely sure that is exactly what he wants to do, after stating that he doesn't want to do it, mostly because of my resurrection of a repeal of one of his resolutions (after he attempted to repeal NAPA). Which is made most interesting by his continual attacks on my character and stating that I want to repeal all his work. So, no problems there, apparently.

OOC: Yeah, I didn't see any moral supremacy there either hence my confusion.

That being said, we agree that #333's clause one is badly worded when defining jurisdiction so that alone merits a conditional approval from us.

Parsons: Where is that problem reflected in the text?

Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism of monitoring the spread of antimicrobial resistance in all member nations and international zones or borders as well as publish a report on a periodic basis to inform about the status and prevalence of such resistance

IC: The bolded phrase can be interpreted that way because of the way that clause is phrased. Namely, the lack of any limiters that would define as such that only member nations' international zones/borders would be affected.

OOC: As far as administration goes, I thought that would theoretically be done by WA gnomes?

Parsons: Yes.

OOC: ok, good because in that case there's another thing he got wrong imo.

OOC: I'm pretty new here so if I've misunderstood something please don't blast me away into oblivion; just educate me.

[Caracasus]

We cannot see any real issue with the piece of legislation up for repeal. It appears clear to us that the only moral imperative present here is one that drives us to limit the very real threat of antimicrobial resistance developing in a range of pathogens.

For the argument that this legislation does not state exactly how this mechanism is created, we honestly struggle to see how the author could have laid out the exact mechanisms that would be applicable across all member nations within the 3k character limit. We understand that it is fairly commonplace for legislation to broadly outline the intended function of legislation, with the finer details being filled in by WA staff.

We also note international areas and borders to be very much part of the WA's remit. Should any legislation be passed that limits the trade of weaponry, it would not be beyond reason to expect part of that legislation to include something around borders of WA nations for example, should it be relevant. In this instance, the measuring and observation of diseases at land, air and sea borders appears very relevant and necessary in terms of this resolution.

As for the possibility of pathogens entering the food chain - on balance we feel that the potential for treatment resistant pathogens to enter the food chain to outweigh the need for the production of cheap meat.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons: Where is that problem reflected in the text?

Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism of monitoring the spread of antimicrobial resistance in all member nations and international zones or borders as well as publish a report on a periodic basis to inform about the status and prevalence of such resistance

IC: The bolded phrase can be interpreted that way because of the way that clause is phrased. Namely, the lack of any limiters that would define as such that only member nations' international zones/borders would be affected.

Parsons: However it is, it is monitoring. Whilst I wouldn't interpret it in that fashion, if we accept it as an unlimited statement, I would argue that those zones should be monitored in case there is an infection travelling outside of member nations.

OOC: I'm pretty new here so if I've misunderstood something please don't blast me away into oblivion; just educate me.

OOC: Horrid that so many of us simply don't bother with that anymore and go straight to the yelling.

[Flawdom]

We cannot see any real issue with the piece of legislation up for repeal. It appears clear to us that the only moral imperative present here is one that drives us to limit the very real threat of antimicrobial resistance developing in a range of pathogens.

For the argument that this legislation does not state exactly how this mechanism is created, we honestly struggle to see how the author could have laid out the exact mechanisms that would be applicable across all member nations within the 3k character limit. We understand that it is fairly commonplace for legislation to broadly outline the intended function of legislation, with the finer details being filled in by WA staff.

We also note international areas and borders to be very much part of the WA's remit. Should any legislation be passed that limits the trade of weaponry, it would not be beyond reason to expect part of that legislation to include something around borders of WA nations for example, should it be relevant. In this instance, the measuring and observation of diseases at land, air and sea borders appears very relevant and necessary in terms of this resolution.

As for the possibility of pathogens entering the food chain - on balance we feel that the potential for treatment resistant pathogens to enter the food chain to outweigh the need for the production of cheap meat.

If international areas and borders are to be used as your example suggests, then the phrasing should have been more clear as to suggest that. However, instead the wording seems to be too vague to suggest that your interpretation is the objectively 'correct' one when there are others as well. However, we are agreed that specifics of implementation are not necessarily supposed to be suggested in the text of the resolution because of the character limit. (OOC: again, I'm fairly sure that WA gnomes are supposed to take care of that anyway).

[Flawdom]

Parsons: However it is, it is monitoring. Whilst I wouldn't interpret it in that fashion, if we accept it as an unlimited statement, I would argue that those zones should be monitored in case there is an infection travelling outside of member nations.

We agree that ideally there should be monitoring, however Flawdom does not believe that the WA has the authority to mandate such to non-member nations, as monitoring suggests collecting data which if so would be mandated. However, even if monitoring were to mean as the Wrapperian Ambassador suggests it means, then non-member nations would object to this with good reason (OOC: If you go to my reply 2-3 posts up, I talk about the Apple News app controversy which mirrors this exactly imo). As such, either interpretation fails to satisfy the Empire.

OOC: Horrid that so many of us simply don't bother with that anymore and go straight to the yelling.

OOC: Indeed. I thank you for having that viewpoint.

[John Turner]

OOC: As far as administration goes, I thought that would theoretically be done by WA gnomes?

Not necessarily. The WA has agreed to the argument that there should be some sort of clause that clearly defines the scope of the administration as you can see here.

Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism of monitoring the spread of antimicrobial resistance in all member nations and international zones or borders as well as publish a report on a periodic basis to inform about the status and prevalence of such resistance;

Monitoring. That's it. The WHA's mechanism can include gathering publicly available data from non-member nations; doing so would not be forcing any type of compliance on non-members. There is no mandate in that clause that forces non-members to give the committee anything. Granted, it is poorly worded -- that is, how can microbial resistance spread "in" borders? -- but that's it.

My big concern is the wording of that clause. "Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism". That could mean anything. It is analogous to passing a resolution which rolls back the universe and telling the gnomes to create a "mechanism" which prevents The Big Bang from ever happening. This resolution was well under the character limit and could have stipulated what that mechanism was. The author was just being flat out lazy and was in a big rush to pass his resolution.

Let's be clear here. I have no qualms with a resolution preventing the degradation of antimicrobials. I personally think it is a good thing. My problems are lack of oversight, fiduciary indiscretion, laziness on the authors part, and the fact that harmful pathogens are now probably in the food supply of ever member nation as they cannot sanitize their meat plants without being in violation.

We also note international areas and borders to be very much part of the WA's remit. Should any legislation be passed that limits the trade of weaponry, it would not be beyond reason to expect part of that legislation to include something around borders of WA nations for example, should it be relevant. In this instance, the measuring and observation of diseases at land, air and sea borders appears very relevant and necessary in terms of this resolution.

Except this applies to non-members as well. The WA has no authority to interfere in the affairs of non-member nations and no obligation to monitor the state of pathogenic infiltration of those nations either as was argued here.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism of monitoring the spread of antimicrobial resistance in all member nations and international zones or borders as well as publish a report on a periodic basis to inform about the status and prevalence of such resistance;

Monitoring. That's it. The WHA's mechanism can include gathering publicly available data from non-member nations; doing so would not be forcing any type of compliance on non-members. There is no mandate in that clause that forces non-members to give the committee anything. Granted, it is poorly worded -- that is, how can microbial resistance spread "in" borders? -- but that's it.

My big concern is the wording of that clause. "Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism". That could mean anything. It is analogous to passing a resolution which rolls back the universe and telling the gnomes to create a "mechanism" which prevents The Big Bang from ever happening. This resolution was well under the character limit and could have stipulated what that mechanism was. The author was just being flat out lazy and was in a big rush to pass his resolution.

Parsons: If we're going to start chopping words off of resolutions, it would be damn easy to repeal everything! Look! Nuclear Arms Protocol now says that the WA 'Permits the usage of nuclear weapons'! Oh no! The author was lazy, incompetent, and in a big rush to start enforcing his plan to destroy nuclear weapons!

We also note international areas and borders to be very much part of the WA's remit. Should any legislation be passed that limits the trade of weaponry, it would not be beyond reason to expect part of that legislation to include something around borders of WA nations for example, should it be relevant. In this instance, the measuring and observation of diseases at land, air and sea borders appears very relevant and necessary in terms of this resolution.

Except this applies to non-members as well. The WA has no authority to interfere in the affairs of non-member nations and no obligation to monitor the state of pathogenic infiltration of those nations either as was argued here.

Parsons: Except it doesn't, since it doesn't break the metagaming rules, since it wasn't removed. The World Assembly doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens as was argued above by Wrapper.

[Flawdom]

Except this applies to non-members as well. The WA has no authority to interfere in the affairs of non-member nations and no obligation to monitor the state of pathogenic infiltration of those nations either as was argued here.

Parsons: Except it doesn't, since it doesn't break the metagaming rules, since it wasn't removed. The World Assembly doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens as was argued above by Wrapper.

The WA doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens, true, but it does force the monitoring of data from said non-member nations some of whom may want to withhold that data (OOC: again, Apple News app controversy). So while really out-of-the-blue-and-higly-unlikely, it could end up where WA gains data from non-member nations due to a WA resolution which I believe is outside the jurisdiction of the WA. If it doesn't, or if non-member nations do not produce the data, then that part of the clause in question serves no useful point.

[John Turner]

Parsons: Except it doesn't, since it doesn't break the metagaming rules, since it wasn't removed. The World Assembly doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens as was argued above by Wrapper.

The WA doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens, true, but it does force the monitoring of data from said non-member nations some of whom may want to withhold that data (OOC: again, Apple News app controversy). So while really out-of-the-blue-and-higly-unlikely, it could end up where WA gains data from non-member nations due to a WA resolution which I believe is outside the jurisdiction of the WA. If it doesn't, or if non-member nations do not produce the data, then that part of the clause in question serves no useful point.

Further to that the author knew that was a problem and admitted to it here.

OOC: Yeah, figured this one was coming. Both of you really ought to chill out a little bit. Just sayin'. Nevertheless, if you're serious about this....

You should have. The Federation deeply opposed this travesty of a resolution here and here. We weren't the only ones. If you look through this debate you will see this garnered wide scale opposition and the only reason it passed was because Mousebumples stacked in favor for it right out of the gates and the lemmings fell in line. The idea isn't the problem. The piss poor resolution that blocks any further action on the issue is. A resolution dealing with livestock would have a very hard time with this in the way. (Sorry for responding to your occ with an in-charatcer response but it seems appropriate.)

I would heavily encourage the author that if this is repealed to re-draft this legislation leaving out the parts about livestock and non-member nations, give it some actual teeth and The Federation would be happy to support a replacement.

[Wrapper]

My big concern is the wording of that clause. "Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism". That could mean anything. It is analogous to passing a resolution which rolls back the universe and telling the gnomes to create a "mechanism" which prevents The Big Bang from ever happening. This resolution was well under the character limit and could have stipulated what that mechanism was. The author was just being flat out lazy and was in a big rush to pass his resolution.

Well if you make that argument in your repeal -- instead of the specious "forces non-members to comply" one, which quite clearly it does not -- then we shall certainly reevaluate our position.

[John Turner]

My big concern is the wording of that clause. "Instructs the World Health Authority to create a mechanism". That could mean anything. It is analogous to passing a resolution which rolls back the universe and telling the gnomes to create a "mechanism" which prevents The Big Bang from ever happening. This resolution was well under the character limit and could have stipulated what that mechanism was. The author was just being flat out lazy and was in a big rush to pass his resolution.

Well if you make that argument in your repeal -- instead of the specious "forces non-members to comply" one, which quite clearly it does not -- then we shall certainly reevaluate our position.

OOC: That won't be easy without playing the metagaming and National Sovereignty cards. I am trying to keep the repeal civil and not be a total dick about it. (But if that is what you want...)

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Objects to the moral supremacy which this resolution is wholly based on;

"Some resolutions are more obnoxious about this than others, but I'm really not aware of any resolution this body has passed that doesn't at least imply that WA members are trying to be morally superior to non-members. I mean, some resolutions even mandate moral rectitude, for example in the conduct of warfare, in advancing certain human rights, in constraining state action in general. To borrow from another common WA complaint-and-response, the whole point of the World Assembly is to cause its members to climb up to some moral higher ground. This preamble clause seems unnecessarily petulant, in other words."

Also concerned clause one attempts to force non-members to comply with with this resolution as clause one clearly states "and international zones or borders";

"I don't see how a resolution advancing world health could possibly do its job without at least examining what's going on outside of member states. The WA does not encompass the entire universe of nations, and without precautionary information gathering, member nations could easily be blindsided by events outside our happy little bubble. I don't read this as mandating any action by, or against, non-member states. There are plenty of ways to keep tabs on international health that don't involve infiltrating non-member states and skulking around their garbage cans looking for empty pill bottles."

"We are currently weighing the other arguments in this repeal, and are undecided for the moment."

[Wrapper]

Well if you make that argument in your repeal -- instead of the specious "forces non-members to comply" one, which quite clearly it does not -- then we shall certainly reevaluate our position.

OOC: That won't be easy without playing the metagaming and National Sovereignty cards. I am trying to keep the repeal civil and not be a total dick about it. (But if that is what you want...)

OOC: Oh, I'm sure you can find some persuasive, middle-ground argument there somewhere. After all, I've never known you to be the "flat out lazy" or "in a big rush" type....

[John Turner]

Objects to the moral supremacy which this resolution is wholly based on;

"Some resolutions are more obnoxious about this than others, but I'm really not aware of any resolution this body has passed that doesn't at least imply that WA members are trying to be morally superior to non-members. I mean, some resolutions even mandate moral rectitude, for example in the conduct of warfare, in advancing certain human rights, in constraining state action in general. To borrow from another common WA complaint-and-response, the whole point of the World Assembly is to cause its members to climb up to some moral higher ground. This preamble clause seems unnecessarily petulant, in other words."

Didn't stop the author from making that exact same argument in one of their repeals which was taken at face value.

"I don't see how a resolution advancing world health could possibly do its job without at least examining what's going on outside of member states. The WA does not encompass the entire universe of nations, and without precautionary information gathering, member nations could easily be blindsided by events outside our happy little bubble. I don't read this as mandating any action by, or against, non-member states. There are plenty of ways to keep tabs on international health that don't involve infiltrating non-member states and skulking around their garbage cans looking for empty pill bottles."

"We are currently weighing the other arguments in this repeal, and are undecided for the moment."

May I direct you to here and here to rebut that?

[Wrapper]

May I direct you to here and here to rebut that?

Ah.... Hmmm, interesting....

Well, sir. If you were to revise your argument to say that clause three, and not clause one, mandates compliance in non-member nations, you'll have our unqualified support for this repeal. And, thank you for the transcript, ambassador. That debate occurred during the Intergalactic Karaoke League playoffs (OOC: my honeymoon), and we could not take part, alas.

[Flawdom]

The WA doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens, true, but it does force the monitoring of data from said non-member nations some of whom may want to withhold that data (OOC: again, Apple News app controversy). So while really out-of-the-blue-and-higly-unlikely, it could end up where WA gains data from non-member nations due to a WA resolution which I believe is outside the jurisdiction of the WA. If it doesn't, or if non-member nations do not produce the data, then that part of the clause in question serves no useful point.

Further to that the author knew that was a problem and admitted to it here.

I would like to remind you, sir, that the author admitted to Clause 3 being out of bounds in this subject, [i]not]/i] Clause 1. If you wish to revise your claim such that Clause 3 violates the sovereignty of non-member nations then We shall reevaluate Our position at that time. In the future, We would prefer if you keep claims in-context, but thank you for the transcript nevertheless.

[Caracasus]

Parsons: Except it doesn't, since it doesn't break the metagaming rules, since it wasn't removed. The World Assembly doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens as was argued above by Wrapper.

The WA doesn't force non-member nations to monitor pathogens, true, but it does force the monitoring of data from said non-member nations some of whom may want to withhold that data (OOC: again, Apple News app controversy). So while really out-of-the-blue-and-higly-unlikely, it could end up where WA gains data from non-member nations due to a WA resolution which I believe is outside the jurisdiction of the WA. If it doesn't, or if non-member nations do not produce the data, then that part of the clause in question serves no useful point.

Surely ambassador, if monitoring is taking place on borders, then it will concern people travelling into a WA nation, or from said WA nation? When dealing with pathogens, we feel that there is a case to be made for monitoring at international borders, after all if a non-WA nation does not wish data regarding pathogens in their country to be monitored, then they can always completely close their borders. The fact is, those pathogens will potentially have a pretty severe effect on the WA nation that borders the non WA nation.

In addition, we are not talking about monitoring pathogens within non WA nations. The act of monitoring pathogens would take place within WA nations, I.E at international borders, it would merely generate data of pathogens in nations that are not necessarily WA members.

We appreciate your analogy, and do see your argument ambassador, but there is a significant difference between an application on a mobile and a potentially lethal pathogen.

[John Turner]

Have touched up a few things. At this time we believe we can present a solid case for repeal.