United Republic Empire wrote:I believe that the member nations of the WA are capable of deciding for themselves whether to accept or decline these proposals.
I agree. Leave these matters to national governments! They're not international issues.
Advertisement
by Christian Democrats » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:25 pm
United Republic Empire wrote:I believe that the member nations of the WA are capable of deciding for themselves whether to accept or decline these proposals.
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by The New California Republic » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:27 pm
by Grays Harbor » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:36 pm
Gardener Education Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Whoever
Description: The intent of this act to ensure higher education opportunities for employees that work in the gardening services.
Defines Gardening Services as: Companies that provide gardeners for clients that request a nice garden.
Defines Gardener as: a person that may be hired to work in a garden.
Clarifies that workers presiding in gardening shops are also covered under this resolution.
Defines gardening shop as: companies that provide gardening tools, implements, seeds, and fertilizer.
Clarifying:
Higher Education as: the opportunity to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond previous levels of school.
Establishing that all nations allow for their gardeners to obtain higher education opportunities.
Requires that member nations offer the chance for their gardeners to apply for financial aid for the furtherance of higher education.
by United Republic Empire » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:43 pm
Grays Harbor wrote:Escort Education Act? Seriously? Are we going to be bombarded now with one for every individual profession and job?Gardener Education Act
A resolution to promote funding and the development of education and the arts.
Category: Education and Creativity
Area of Effect: Educational
Proposed by: Whoever
Description: The intent of this act to ensure higher education opportunities for employees that work in the gardening services.
Defines Gardening Services as: Companies that provide gardeners for clients that request a nice garden.
Defines Gardener as: a person that may be hired to work in a garden.
Clarifies that workers presiding in gardening shops are also covered under this resolution.
Defines gardening shop as: companies that provide gardening tools, implements, seeds, and fertilizer.
Clarifying:
Higher Education as: the opportunity to pursue and achieve high-quality education and training beyond previous levels of school.
Establishing that all nations allow for their gardeners to obtain higher education opportunities.
Requires that member nations offer the chance for their gardeners to apply for financial aid for the furtherance of higher education.
As you can see, this could get ridiculous.
by United Republic Empire » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:47 pm
by Grays Harbor » Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:50 pm
by Mallorea and Riva » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:00 pm
by United Republic Empire » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:02 pm
Mallorea and Riva wrote:Please be careful with your tag nesting >_> [x][y] followed by [/y][/x], NOT [/x][/y]. Carry on.
by Attempted Socialism » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:07 pm
"Yes, it will be an excellent test of the intelligence of member states. If they vote for, their delegations will have intelligence issues."United Republic Empire wrote:Christian Democrats wrote:I agree. Leave these matters to national governments! They're not international issues.
what I meant was that I believe member states are capable of making an intelligent vote on the proposal. sorry, I should of been more clear and concise the first time.
Represented in the World Assembly by Ambassador Robert Mortimer Pride, called The Regicide Assume OOC unless otherwise indicated. My WA Authorship. | Cui Bono, quod seipsos custodes custodiunt? Bobberino: "The academic tone shines through." | Who am I in real life, my opinions and notes My NS career |
by Oresland » Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:40 pm
by Willania Imperium » Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:03 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:10 pm
by Veniyerris » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:12 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:But it does apply to everyone. The definition of escort is so broad that it may as well be everyone.
by Bears Armed » Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:51 am
by United Republic Empire » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:17 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Upon consideration, I have decided that -- in the absence of any justification within the proposals for singling-out these particular people -- "employees that work in the escort services" constitutes an 'arbitrary and divisive category' and that in my opinion these proposals are therefore illegal for contradiction of GA Resolution #35… so they’re now at 2:1 for ‘legal’, rather than just 2:0.
by Bears Armed » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:21 am
United Republic Empire wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Upon consideration, I have decided that -- in the absence of any justification within the proposals for singling-out these particular people -- "employees that work in the escort services" constitutes an 'arbitrary and divisive category' and that in my opinion these proposals are therefore illegal for contradiction of GA Resolution #35… so they’re now at 2:1 for ‘legal’, rather than just 2:0.
Could you explain how this contradicts civil rights ?? As these do not discriminate against anyone nor do they prevent equal treatment.
by United Republic Empire » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:25 am
Bears Armed wrote:United Republic Empire wrote:
Could you explain how this contradicts civil rights ?? As these do not discriminate against anyone nor do they prevent equal treatment.
OOC
Requiring that member nations provide assistance for the members of a specific group without requiring that they do so for everybody else as well, without providing a justification why that specific group needs that help more than other people do, is discrimination against the people outside that group. Not preventing equal treatment isn't enough.
by Bears Armed » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:30 am
United Republic Empire wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Requiring that member nations provide assistance for the members of a specific group without requiring that they do so for everybody else as well, without providing a justification why that specific group needs that help more than other people do, is discrimination against the people outside that group. Not preventing equal treatment isn't enough.
to discriminate is to block a group from getting the same opportunities - these proposals do not block individuals from going for the same opportunities
by United Republic Empire » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:32 am
Bears Armed wrote:United Republic Empire wrote:
to discriminate is to block a group from getting the same opportunities - these proposals do not block individuals from going for the same opportunities
OOC
For comparison, try reading your proposals with the words "employees that work in the escort services" replaced by "heterosexual white males": Does that still look non-discriminatory to you?
by Bears Armed » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:34 am
United Republic Empire wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
For comparison, try reading your proposals with the words "employees that work in the escort services" replaced by "heterosexual white males": Does that still look non-discriminatory to you?
except I'm not using descriptive adjectives to single out any one group.
by United Republic Empire » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:36 am
by United Republic Empire » Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:40 am
by Bears Armed » Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:27 am
United Republic Empire wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
How is specifying that the aid must be available for "employees that work in the escort services" -- and only specifying that in their case -- not singling out one group?
if that is the case then I refer to GA 18 with DEFINES a "Prisoner of War", henceforth “PoW”, as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation......which means GA 35 is a contradiction of GA 18 because GA 18 excludes a group
by United Republic Empire » Sun Dec 31, 2017 6:32 am
Bears Armed wrote:United Republic Empire wrote:
if that is the case then I refer to GA 18 with DEFINES a "Prisoner of War", henceforth “PoW”, as a member of a belligerent armed force, excluding diplomats, found in uniform or where there is other good reason to believe he or she belongs to an opposing armed force, who has been apprehended by an opposing nation......which means GA 35 is a contradiction of GA 18 because GA 18 excludes a group
OOC
1/. It could be argued that POWs, because of the special circumstances involved, are not an 'arbitrary' group (as specified in GAR #35) and that GAR#35 was therefore not in contradiction of GAR #18. However, you provide no argument in your proposals as to why governments must help employees "in the escort services" rather than employees in general, which looks arbitrary enough to me. You might be able to find arguments to include to settle this, in a longer drafting stage here.
2/. In any case, precedentary rulings say that a resolution passes it must automatically be regarded as 'legal', by default... but that that does not provide precedent for then allowing any subsequent actions which would previously have been regarded as illegal.
by The New California Republic » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:49 am
Bears Armed wrote:you provide no argument in your proposals as to why governments must help employees "in the escort services" rather than employees in general, which looks arbitrary enough to me. You might be able to find arguments to include to settle this, in a longer drafting stage here.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fachumonn
Advertisement