NationStates

Posted: **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.

I agree. Leave these matters to national governments! They're not international issues.

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:27 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
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.

Nice highlight of a contradiction there. I tip my hat to you, my good Sir!

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:36 pm**

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.

Posted: **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.

Just opens up a new horizon for more content and ideas to be passed around and shared.

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:47 pm**

Christian Democrats wrote:
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.

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.

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 1:50 pm**

United Republic Empire wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Escort Education Act? Seriously? Are we going to be bombarded now with one for every individual profession and job?
As you can see, this could get ridiculous.

Just opens up a new horizon for more content and ideas to be passed around and shared.

You say that like it's a good thing? Really?

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:00 pm**

Please be careful with your tag nesting >_> [x][y] followed by [/y][/x], NOT [/x][/y]. Carry on.

Posted: **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.

Sorry about that and thank you so very much for fixing that. I couldn't figure out why it was looking so strange. It was driving me crazy.

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:07 pm**

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.

"Yes, it will be an excellent test of the intelligence of member states. If they vote for, their delegations will have intelligence issues."

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 3:40 pm**

United Republic Empire wrote:
Grays Harbor wrote:Escort Education Act? Seriously? Are we going to be bombarded now with one for every individual profession and job?

As you can see, this could get ridiculous.

Just opens up a new horizon for more content and ideas to be passed around and shared.

Seriously? These are issues that should be dealt with by individual nations. Not the international community. I don't want to see proposals like the one that Grays Harbor put, and I'm sure many other nations don't.

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 9:03 pm**

The Emperor reads the drafts submitted for his approval.

"I'm sorry, but I don't see the use of such proposals? How is this an international issue? Why focus on escorts? Instead of focusing on healthcare or education policies in general, why only affect it to these type of workers?"

Posted: **Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:10 pm**

But it does apply to everyone. The definition of escort is so broad that it may as well be everyone.

Posted: **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.

Pretty much, so why don’t we just have a better education and healthcare standards proposal without the escort requirement?

Posted: **Sun Dec 31, 2017 4:51 am**

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.

Posted: **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.

Could you explain how this contradicts civil rights ?? As these do not discriminate against anyone nor do they prevent/deny equal treatment. As it does not say that other employees can not go for these opportunities as well.

Posted: **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.

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.

Posted: **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.

to discriminate is to block a group from getting the same opportunities - these proposals do not block individuals from going for the same opportunities

Posted: **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

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?

Posted: **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?

except I'm not using descriptive adjectives to single out any one group.

Posted: **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.

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?

Posted: **Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:36 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
United Republic Empire wrote:
except I'm not using descriptive adjectives to single out any one group.

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?

because It does not say only this group. Which means other groups can go for the same opportunities.

Posted: **Sun Dec 31, 2017 5:40 am**

Bears Armed wrote:
United Republic Empire wrote:
except I'm not using descriptive adjectives to single out any one group.

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

Posted: **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

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.

Posted: **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.

the fact that it defines a PoW as a member of a belligerent armed force means they are a part of a group to say otherwise is a matter of personal opinion since it is enshrined in WA law

group is defined as a number of people or things that are located close together or are considered or classed together

Posted: **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.

OOC: The problem is that, in their current form, neither of these proposals were drafted on the forum at all. The last draft that was posted here was thought to be illegal, then it was submitted anyway regardless, and GenSec deemed it illegal. Then these 2 new proposals suddenly appear out of nowhere with no drafting at all...

NationStates

[Submitted] Escort Health Act & Escort Education Act