Kenmoria wrote:"You also might want to change about the preamble, namely the understanding clause is a bit clunky and the first three are repetitive in their openings."
"Noted and fixed. Thank you for pointing that out."
"Gambling is not inherently fraudulent. Honest businesses do not imply players are paying to be handed money, and those players who are responsible with their money will not fritter it all away unless they are not in their right mind, which, for the third time now, you are reminded is the province of GA#123, which specifically addresses the problem of gambling addiction, and not this resolution, which deals with the issue strictly from the side of business ethics. For an Abrahamic state, your leaders and ambassadors are rather lacking in faith. GA#123 is sufficient from the standpoint of dealing with problem gambling via the general public, and the people who are not addicted are deprived of nothing through anyone's choice but their own."
"NEF does not work that way and you know it. Your attempt to twist the words of the law to suit you is unsurprising, considering it is my experience those of the Abrahamic faiths are rather fond of twisting laws to suit their personal tastes.", Sofia pauses, "Perhaps you may wish to review GA precedent and the actual intent behind previous WA legislation before issuing such challenges going forward?"
"You want to do what you want when you want on the basis of national sovereignty, the door is over there.", Sophia points to the door, "Until then, if the GA decides that it would be of benefit to legalise an industry in the interests of boosting local economies, which will in turn boost national economies, which will in turn boost the global economy, we will. Using power for the sake of power is tyranny, true, and that is not the reason for this resolution, but so is denying a couple celebrating their marriage champagne because there is a poor, afflicted man on the other side of the country who cannot look at a can of beer without going on a binge. You would have the couple denied their freedom because of the man's affliction. Jebslund, and, one hopes, the GA, would rather the couple have their champagne and the man be treated for his alcoholism. Besides, Jebslund has tried prohibition before, back in the Dreichtslund days. Alcohol use was far more prolific, with far worse results, and the unregulated alcohol was downright lethal half the time. I lost a cousin to a home-brewed can of brew, as a matter of fact. Her first and last."
"The new draft has closed that loophole. Thank you for bringing it to my attention! However, if $5 is high enough stakes to allow gambling facilities to operate at enough of a profit to stay in business, that is your decision to make. Your limit on stakes would also, in that situation, be in line with GA#123. How convenient for you!"
"Community commercial strength begets national commercial strength. National commercial strength begets international commercial success. The tree that is the WA becomes economically stronger by making the roots stronger. How you do not see that is beyond me, though I suspect you are blinded by your irrational hatred of gambling. Every encounter with the People of Abraham makes me ever more glad the Krakken does not bind its adherents to a 2000-plus-year-old collection of stories penned for farmers in what may as well have been an alien world."
"As to exploiting the poor by deluding them, I am beginning to wonder if you've even bothered to read GA#123, as one of its mandates is that gambling facility operators be barred from advertising gambling as a solution to financial problems and from promoting irresponsible gambling practices. To wit:
3. FURTHER MANDATES member countries where gambling advertising is permitted to prohibit Operators from using advertising or marketing techniques to:
• Specifically target individuals on low income or with financial problems, such as debts;
• Present gambling as a solution to financial problems;
• Promote irresponsible gambling or misrepresent the rules of the game;
I honestly fail to see how you can read that as anything short of a ban on precisely the predatory behaviour you are railing against, which, I remind you for the *fourth* time, is already handled by GA#123 and is therefore not within the purview of this resolution."
"Would it suit you, then, to liken it to banning films and games because some are photosensitive epileptics? What of cake makers? Are they murderers because there are some who are diabetic, for whom eating an entire cake would be dangerous? Should we all ban peanut butter to spare those with peanut allergies? Is my snack for today, coconut crisps, an affront to All That Is Right And Good because there are some who are allergic to coconut?"
"As to the poor having no means to get ahead, perhaps in your own nation, where only lip service and virtue signaling are given to the plight of the poor, the poor have no means other than a false hope of getting ahead, but not in any nation which actually cares for its destitute. Kermanic businesses pay their employees more than table scraps, with the government stepping in in times of need and job loss, and, if your nation truly cared for stopping corporate fat cats, rather than simply denouncing them to hide behind charity as an excuse to ban Things You Don't Like, yours would do the same."
"Yes. The results of that "victory" crossed my desk as I was putting the finishing touches on the new draft. Something about the challenge being thrown out on the grounds of GA#68 not working the way you have asserted and the assertion you've made as to how it works not even being a reasonable and legal interpretation?", Sofia grins, "By all means, continue weaponising the system. Well, trying to, anyway. We have no intention of giving you the satisfaction of blocking this resolution by any means other than the good old fashioned manner of getting delegations to vote against it."
