[DEFEATED] Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"

[Toaslandia]

Gonna have to go FOR this Repeal. Hopefully this is the last time I have to vote on this, as my region's getting bored with having to vote on this almost every day.

[Scherzinger]

Oh i do love watching things like this, because it reminds me that the things im already doing, like the occasional purge of dissenters....ok...daily...purge, that i need not stop them at all. In my opinion, and our law here in our nation, anybody whom even mentions the term democracy in a positive manner is subject to execution on the spot, but whats the point of that? I can organize them for the entertainment of my public. Its a fair enough 'trial' that they were witnessed spouting the rubbish in the first place, so the guilty verdict in my opinion should remain. Rather funny. I think ill continue to remain neutral on the issue, since after all it wont affect my daily routines.

"So I assume your nation has not joined the world assembly, what then is your stake in this fight?"

on the contrary i am a member actually

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

[/quote]"I don't know what drugs you're on that gave you the impression of an ancap outlook from all of that, ambassador. The plain fact is the target resolution pretends to be a sober and reasonable protocol to protect innocent life while still allowing nations whose people wish it, to apply the death penalty in cases that warrant it; but is filled with so many self-contradictions and catch-22s that for all intents and purposes nobody in a WA state will ever again be executed."

"If the Assembly wants to outlaw capital punishment, just do it. Don't piss on our legs and tell us it's raining."[/quote]
OOC: Funny thing is, my nation used to have one of the HIGHEST drug consumption rates in our region (Top 5% in both the world and regional rankings respectively) before the government officially stepped in to regulate sales and enforce age limits and start taxing stores for it, and cannabis consumption is not only legal, but actively encouraged for medical uses, and recreational cannabis is allowed for anyone over the age of 18, although usage amongst the country's youth is endemic due to the general absence of religious influence or social conservatism, and thus the median age for "first time" users is actually lower than official statistics. So yeah, your "what drugs you're on" part is indeed true in some regards due to my nation's actual policies and rankings lol, and it is VERY possible my administrator is a cannabis user himself, so...

[Arasi Luvasa]

"So I assume your nation has not joined the world assembly, what then is your stake in this fight?"

on the contrary i am a member actually

"Then I am certain your nation is not permitted to do a number of those things under world assembly regulations, that is with or without the Preventing the Execution of Innocents resolution. Either way there doesn't seem to be any stake in the matter for you, I don't see why your nation would only ignore regulations when another regulation is repealed."

[Scherzinger]

on the contrary i am a member actually

"Then I am certain your nation is not permitted to do a number of those things under world assembly regulations, that is with or without the Preventing the Execution of Innocents resolution. Either way there doesn't seem to be any stake in the matter for you, I don't see why your nation would only ignore regulations when another regulation is repealed."

oh no worries weve been doing it forever. we just simply shrug it off and go about what we were doing

[Kenmoria]

"Then I am certain your nation is not permitted to do a number of those things under world assembly regulations, that is with or without the Preventing the Execution of Innocents resolution. Either way there doesn't seem to be any stake in the matter for you, I don't see why your nation would only ignore regulations when another regulation is repealed."

oh no worries weve been doing it forever. we just simply shrug it off and go about what we were doing

(OOC: Don’t do that; it is very poor role playing etiquette. Complying with resolutions is, from the IC perspective, mandatory, hence the Administrative Compliance Act. There are ways to noncomply with legislation well, but what you are doing is not one of them. Actually coming up with a reason, and roleplaying the effects of GA fines, is the way to do it. Otherwise, don’t post about your blatant noncompliance in the forums.)

“I am happy to see that this repeal attempt is significantly failing at the vote. Hopefully, this third lack of passage of a repeal might dissuade further tries, at least in the foreseeable future.”

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

(Image)

"The dark times that haunt the current age no longer appear as merely an impending threat. This Repeal is outrageous, we are normalizing these kinds of repeals as something normal, but Normalization is code for a retreat from any sense of moral and political responsibility, and it should be viewed as an act of political complicity with authoritarianism and condemned outright."

"What is being propagated by this Repeal Resolution apologists is not only a reactionary Populism and some fundamental tenets of style authoritarianism, but also a shameless whitewashing of the racism and authoritarianism at the center of this politics."

" We the Kingdom of Montenbourg exhort to all to Vote Against this Repeal. We live at a time in which totalitarian forms are with us again. Our society is no longer at the tipping point of authoritarianism; we are in the midst of what Hannah Arendt called “dark times” and individual and collective resistance is the only hope we have to move beyond this ominous moment in our history. Resist and persist."

*An Alliance Military attache scoffs*
"As if you can resist anything"

[Battlion]

oh no worries weve been doing it forever. we just simply shrug it off and go about what we were doing

(OOC: Don’t do that; it is very poor role playing etiquette. Complying with resolutions is, from the IC perspective, mandatory, hence the Administrative Compliance Act. There are ways to noncomply with legislation well, but what you are doing is not one of them. Actually coming up with a reason, and roleplaying the effects of GA fines, is the way to do it. Otherwise, don’t post about your blatant noncompliance in the forums.)

“I am happy to see that this repeal attempt is significantly failing at the vote. Hopefully, this third lack of passage of a repeal might dissuade further tries, at least in the foreseeable future.”

“I am also happy to see that this repeal attempt is failing at vote, by a greater margin than the target resolution was passed. So far, this looks to be a vote of confidence in the resolution and I sincerely hope proponents of repeal are able to accept this outcome as clear and decisive”

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

(OOC: Don’t do that; it is very poor role playing etiquette. Complying with resolutions is, from the IC perspective, mandatory, hence the Administrative Compliance Act. There are ways to noncomply with legislation well, but what you are doing is not one of them. Actually coming up with a reason, and roleplaying the effects of GA fines, is the way to do it. Otherwise, don’t post about your blatant noncompliance in the forums.)

“I am happy to see that this repeal attempt is significantly failing at the vote. Hopefully, this third lack of passage of a repeal might dissuade further tries, at least in the foreseeable future.”

“I am also happy to see that this repeal attempt is failing at vote, by a greater margin than the target resolution was passed. So far, this looks to be a vote of confidence in the resolution and I sincerely hope proponents of repeal are able to accept this outcome as clear and decisive”

"While the resolution has its heart at the right place, its just a terrible piece of legislation. It just forces a nation to undergo a series of processes to just get rid of an individual when the evidence is pretty concrete. The Alliance does use the death penalty, although rarely but we felt the need to express our concerns regarding the severe limitations placed upon smaller nations and governments that aren't as..... democratic as ours. But we do see it as a blatant attempt against the right of people to govern themselves. Even if a regime is authoritarian, it is allowed to exist solely because the citizens want it to do so. Otherwise, they would be revolting."

[Battlion]

“I am also happy to see that this repeal attempt is failing at vote, by a greater margin than the target resolution was passed. So far, this looks to be a vote of confidence in the resolution and I sincerely hope proponents of repeal are able to accept this outcome as clear and decisive”

"While the resolution has its heart at the right place, its just a terrible piece of legislation. It just forces a nation to undergo a series of processes to just get rid of an individual when the evidence is pretty concrete. The Alliance does use the death penalty, although rarely but we felt the need to express our concerns regarding the severe limitations placed upon smaller nations and governments that aren't as..... democratic as ours. But we do see it as a blatant attempt against the right of people to govern themselves. Even if a regime is authoritarian, it is allowed to exist solely because the citizens want it to do so. Otherwise, they would be revolting."

“Respectfully ambassador, it seems most of the WA is in disagreement that it’s a terrible piece of legislation.”

[The Earth Systems Alliance]

"While the resolution has its heart at the right place, its just a terrible piece of legislation. It just forces a nation to undergo a series of processes to just get rid of an individual when the evidence is pretty concrete. The Alliance does use the death penalty, although rarely but we felt the need to express our concerns regarding the severe limitations placed upon smaller nations and governments that aren't as..... democratic as ours. But we do see it as a blatant attempt against the right of people to govern themselves. Even if a regime is authoritarian, it is allowed to exist solely because the citizens want it to do so. Otherwise, they would be revolting."

“Respectfully ambassador, it seems most of the WA is in disagreement that it’s a terrible piece of legislation.”

"I was referring to what our lawmakers think of this resolution, not what other member-states think of it, but nonetheless it is their decision to see whether it's good or bad. We just want the best for the entirety of the Assembly, that's all."

[Wrapper]

"Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"" was defeated 9,739 votes to 7,198.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
To be expected. Let's try again in a couple months now, when the voters have gotten over all this finally, shall we?

[Kenmoria]

OOC:
To be expected. Let's try again in a couple months now, when the voters have gotten over all this finally, shall we?

(OOC: It’s been thrice attempted, and failed all three times. I believe the current populace of the WA likes ‘Preventing the Execution of Innocents’, and there is not enough support for it to be replaced with a more compromising alternative.)

[Aclion]

OOC:
To be expected. Let's try again in a couple months now, when the voters have gotten over all this finally, shall we?

(OOC: It’s been thrice attempted, and failed all three times. I believe the current populace of the WA likes ‘Preventing the Execution of Innocents’, and there is not enough support for it to be replaced with a more compromising alternative.)

The last one had majority support and was only pulled because of a technicality. This one only failed because one region switched it's vote.

[New Bremerton]

(OOC: It’s been thrice attempted, and failed all three times. I believe the current populace of the WA likes ‘Preventing the Execution of Innocents’, and there is not enough support for it to be replaced with a more compromising alternative.)

The last one had majority support and was only pulled because of a technicality. This one only failed because one region switched it's vote.

OOC: And the one before that never got to vote due to raider griefing. Again, no indication of popular support or lack thereof. As for this vote, we can't rule out voter fatigue. If the next attempt goes to vote 6-12 months from now and fails, only then will I be convinced that PtEoI is well and truly here to stay.

In the case of TNP, I received this TG:

The Ministry is nearly equally divided about this repeal. Among Ministry members, there is a majority objection to the practice of capital punishment, but the GA has elected to maintain this punitive option for member nations. GA#443 Preventing the Execution of Innocents (the target of this repeal) was passed to maintain checks and balances, and to create a WA body for sober second thought and review of such cases before executions may take place. The objective being to prevent innocent persons from being executed by overzealous, careless, or corrupted judiciaries. Noble in that cause, GA#443 also has its flaws and is perceived by some as too complex and invasive. As the Ministry vote is nearly equally split, the deciding factor must be the likelihood of passage of any replacing legislation, should the target be repealed. While this repeal makes a competent case in pointing out the flaws in the target, it is the opinion of the Ministry that the pursuant replacement would be unlikely to pass, leaving no protections whatsoever against unsound verdicts leading to the execution of innocents in a criminal context. At present, it is the belief of the Ministry that even a flawed legislation that saves innocent lives is better than no legislation at all.

For this reason, The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.

Emphasis mine. The message is clear. If PtEoI is to be repealed, any replacement resolution must enjoy broad support from WA member states.

[Bears Armed]

In the case of TNP, I received this TG:

The Ministry is nearly equally divided about this repeal. Among Ministry members, there is a majority objection to the practice of capital punishment, but the GA has elected to maintain this punitive option for member nations. GA#443 Preventing the Execution of Innocents (the target of this repeal) was passed to maintain checks and balances, and to create a WA body for sober second thought and review of such cases before executions may take place. The objective being to prevent innocent persons from being executed by overzealous, careless, or corrupted judiciaries. Noble in that cause, GA#443 also has its flaws and is perceived by some as too complex and invasive. As the Ministry vote is nearly equally split, the deciding factor must be the likelihood of passage of any replacing legislation, should the target be repealed. While this repeal makes a competent case in pointing out the flaws in the target, it is the opinion of the Ministry that the pursuant replacement would be unlikely to pass, leaving no protections whatsoever against unsound verdicts leading to the execution of innocents in a criminal context. At present, it is the belief of the Ministry that even a flawed legislation that saves innocent lives is better than no legislation at all.

For this reason, The Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against this proposal.

Emphasis mine. The message is clear. If PtEoI is to be repealed, any replacement resolution must enjoy broad support from WA member states.

Maybe somebody needs to point out to TNP that the GA already has resolutions forbidding punishment without trials, and requiring trials to be fair, so that any member nations which do practice capital punishment are fairly unlikely to execute innocents anyway...

[Battlion]

OOC: Ah yes, “one region” changed thus we should have a rerun... no that’s not how this should work at all. More votes for it than when it passed, the message is very clear.

[Wallenburg]

OOC: Ah yes, “one region” changed thus we should have a rerun... no that’s not how this should work at all. More votes for it than when it passed, the message is very clear.

Literally nobody said that...

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

"Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"" was defeated 9,739 votes to 7,198.

What did I just say earlier? ALL attempts to repeal PtEoI have failed SPECTACULARLY, over THREE times in a row (With this one having a more decisive margin than the second one). If this doesn't mean REJECTION, then I don't know what else does. Seriously, we have continualy debated the merits of the repeal and whether PtEoI is actually important for weeks/months, and every single time, only rightwing dictatorships and so-called "illiberal democracies" supported it, while a majority of leftwingers, the centre, and libertarians OPPOSED. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is about time that it is officially recognized that PTEOL has managed to withstand it's rite of passage regarding the Three Repeals and is here to stay for the long term.

Let it be clear that the attempts to legalize state-sanctioned murder and vendettas will NOT be tolerated, and if another repeal is drafted, it shall be rejected again and again and again. That being said, have I ever told you the definition of insanity? Insanity, is doing the same exact thing, over and over and over and over again, expecting something to change, when in reality....
Y'all are beating a dead horse.

TL;DR, the Third consecutive attempt to Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents" has been rejected by 9,739 delegate votes against, and only 7,198 delegates (With individual nations who don't have WA delegates included), and thus the legislation shall be upheld, though for how long, only time will tell, knowing the overzealousness of the supporters of the repeal.

OOC: This SO reminds me of the innumerable attempts to rule Obamacare/PPACA as "unconstitutional" and repeal it out of partisan hackery, only for the SCOTUS to rule that it IS constitutional and does NOT violate any amendments (How can a legislative bill that authorizes welfare, life, and proper health coverage to tens of millions of American citizens be "unconstitutional"is beyond me), thus upholding it and managing to withstand GOP attacks. If another repeal attempt starts, then PtEoL is NationStates's version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

[Wallenburg]

That's not even remotely accurate. The first attempt didn't even make it to vote, as raiders decided to mess with the delegate approval count while it was in queue. The second attempt was supported with a majority of WA votes, and only failed because GenSec ruled it illegal. This is the only time this resolution has failed at vote. Don't speak out of your ass, please.

[Battlion]

That's not even remotely accurate. The first attempt didn't even make it to vote, as raiders decided to mess with the delegate approval count while it was in queue. The second attempt was supported with a majority of WA votes, and only failed because GenSec ruled it illegal. This is the only time this resolution has failed at vote. Don't speak out of your ass, please.

What isn’t inaccurate is that we’ve debated this for months, and there’s an answer. Stick to it.

[Czechoslovakia and Zakarpattia]

That's not even remotely accurate. The first attempt didn't even make it to vote, as raiders decided to mess with the delegate approval count while it was in queue. The second attempt was supported with a majority of WA votes, and only failed because GenSec ruled it illegal. This is the only time this resolution has failed at vote. Don't speak out of your ass, please.

As an certain internet encyclopedia would mark your statement:
[citation needed]
ESPECIALLY the part about the "raiders messing with the delegate approvals" and the "majority of WA supports but it was ruled illegal", since this was rejected by an over 2000 vote margin in the GA once it was granted quorum, so for it to have been "approved" the last time, then the TOP nation with the most delegates who voted NO must have flipped entirely along with two thirds of individual nations to even swing a 2000 point lead for "Against" to "for", let alone make it conclusive. So, unless you have proper sources backing your allegation so you aren't talking out of your, excuse me for the profanity, asshole, keep your anecdotal/original research conjectures to yourself.

[Wrapper]

[citation needed]

Citation provided. Maybe next time you'll do a little research before accusing someone of making "anecdotal/original research conjectures"? Whatever that means.

[Wallenburg]

That's not even remotely accurate. The first attempt didn't even make it to vote, as raiders decided to mess with the delegate approval count while it was in queue. The second attempt was supported with a majority of WA votes, and only failed because GenSec ruled it illegal. This is the only time this resolution has failed at vote. Don't speak out of your ass, please.

As an certain internet encyclopedia would mark your statement:
[citation needed]
ESPECIALLY the part about the "raiders messing with the delegate approvals" and the "majority of WA supports but it was ruled illegal", since this was rejected by an over 2000 vote margin in the GA once it was granted quorum, so for it to have been "approved" the last time, then the TOP nation with the most delegates who voted NO must have flipped entirely along with two thirds of individual nations to even swing a 2000 point lead for "Against" to "for", let alone make it conclusive. So, unless you have proper sources backing your allegation so you aren't talking out of your, excuse me for the profanity, asshole, keep your anecdotal/original research conjectures to yourself.

Wow, this actually surprised me. I didn't expect you to double down on something you apparently know absolutely nothing about. See Wrapper's link to the previous at vote thread, and these posts in particular. Educate yourself before you Shrekutate yourself.