"You make a good case, ambassador, I am unsure as to why I added that clause in the first place. I have thusly made some changes to the proposal."
Advertisement
by Marxist Germany » Tue May 12, 2020 10:52 am
by Maowi » Tue May 12, 2020 2:21 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: Grammar has been fixed, I am unsure as to how it is inaccurate.
Maowi wrote:Also ... this clause ...Worried that the vagueness of the term, "long-term health", allows member-states to sterilise minors citing reasons such as prevention of cancer in the genitalia, which can be deemed as a long-term health benefit by the Institutional Review Board,
... was confusing me, because I thought that it was just pointing out a possible emergency situation and being worried that the target allows the emergency to be fixed. But is your point that the target allows a hypothetical future cancer as a justification for a sterilisation of a minor??? Because that it doesn't do. A hypothetical is not a necessity.[...] which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.
by Marxist Germany » Tue May 12, 2020 2:45 pm
Maowi wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: Grammar has been fixed, I am unsure as to how it is inaccurate.
OOC: See my post here:Maowi wrote:Also ... this clause ...
... was confusing me, because I thought that it was just pointing out a possible emergency situation and being worried that the target allows the emergency to be fixed. But is your point that the target allows a hypothetical future cancer as a justification for a sterilisation of a minor??? Because that it doesn't do. A hypothetical is not a necessity.[...] which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person.
by Kenmoria » Tue May 12, 2020 3:31 pm
Stellonia wrote:"Is there a replacement draft for the resolution in question?"
by WayNeacTia » Tue May 12, 2020 7:17 pm
Kenmoria wrote:Stellonia wrote:"Is there a replacement draft for the resolution in question?"
“The ambassador for Marxist Germany, Mr. Schmidt, does not believe there is a need for a replacement because of GA #486, which covers a very similar area of legislation. However, if this repeal were to pass, I have plants to start work on a replacement proposal that would expand the protection given to WA residents against forcible sterilisation.”
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Stellonia » Tue May 12, 2020 7:35 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“The ambassador for Marxist Germany, Mr. Schmidt, does not believe there is a need for a replacement because of GA #486, which covers a very similar area of legislation. However, if this repeal were to pass, I have plants to start work on a replacement proposal that would expand the protection given to WA residents against forcible sterilisation.”
"Here's a better idea my good man. Mandate sterilization of all persons born. Then if they choose to have children, they can have the process easily reversed. Would cut down on massive population growth exponentially, and would also have the benefit of rendering the Stelloninan resolution on birth control moot."
Wayne
by WayNeacTia » Tue May 12, 2020 8:32 pm
Stellonia wrote:Wayneactia wrote:"Here's a better idea my good man. Mandate sterilization of all persons born. Then if they choose to have children, they can have the process easily reversed. Would cut down on massive population growth exponentially, and would also have the benefit of rendering the Stelloninan resolution on birth control moot."
Wayne
"We are not confident that the process can be 'easily reversed' in all cases. We also worry that such a requirement would offend the sensibilities of parents who would disapprove of having their children sterilized."
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Marxist Germany » Tue May 12, 2020 11:57 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Stellonia wrote:"We are not confident that the process can be 'easily reversed' in all cases. We also worry that such a requirement would offend the sensibilities of parents who would disapprove of having their children sterilized."
"Who gives a shit if parents are easily offended? Most parents are idiots, and thus should be treated as such. Perhaps the enlightened ones would see the long term value to preventing massive overpopulation."
Wayne
by Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Wed May 13, 2020 1:12 am
by Kenmoria » Wed May 13, 2020 3:11 am
Wayneactia wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“The ambassador for Marxist Germany, Mr. Schmidt, does not believe there is a need for a replacement because of GA #486, which covers a very similar area of legislation. However, if this repeal were to pass, I have plants to start work on a replacement proposal that would expand the protection given to WA residents against forcible sterilisation.”
"Here's a better idea my good man. Mandate sterilization of all persons born. Then if they choose to have children, they can have the process easily reversed. Would cut down on massive population growth exponentially, and would also have the benefit of rendering the Stelloninan resolution on birth control moot."
Wayne
Marxist Germany wrote:Wayneactia wrote:"Who gives a shit if parents are easily offended? Most parents are idiots, and thus should be treated as such. Perhaps the enlightened ones would see the long term value to preventing massive overpopulation."
Wayne
"Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by eco-fascists."
by Maowi » Wed May 13, 2020 4:09 am
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote:Agreed fully with the draft. Minors should not be sterilized for their "long term health benefit". Unless not doing so would be detrimental to their health, they should be allowed to decide whether they want to pursue those "long term health benefits" or not when they can make an informed choice about the procedure.
Clause 2 is especially harmful as it leaves it to a committee, not a legislative body, to create legislation answering issues not addressed by the target (such as how IRB will even look like, will it be a national or international body, will it be staffed by the specialists or lawyers, and what is the "incompetent person"). Noteworthy, GAR#299: Legal Competence is unhelpful for determining that last question, as its definition of legal competence is binding for that resolution only and no reference to the aforementioned definition is given in the target (ooc: in fact, such reference would be illegal as being House of Cards).
by Sancta Romana Ecclesia » Wed May 13, 2020 4:48 am
I in fact read that. There are two meanings of health: 1) state of being free from illness and injury; 2) general physical condition (thus we can say "he has bad health", which would make no sense in the previous meaning). Your objection to my reading applies if IRB were obliged to follow the first definition of health, but they are not. Under 2nd definition what I said is perfectly valid, things that are beneficial to one's condition (in long term) can be construed to be necessary for it.Maowi wrote:"Ambassador ... have you maybe considered reading the target? Look, I'll quote it for you now:
"It is unlawful in all member nations to sterilise, in any way, a person below the age of majority or any incompetent person, without the approval of an independent Institutional Review Board, which has certified after review, the necessity of sterilisation for the long-term health of that person."
"That does not allow minors to be sterilised if it in some way is beneficial to their health. It needs to be shown that the sterilisation is necessary for their health. There is a significant difference between the two."
Except this one doesn't refer to it at all, in fact, the terms "legal competence" or "legally (in)competent persons" are not even used in the target.Maowi wrote:"On the contrary - GAR 299 is extremely helpful. This is because it mandates that member nations set and enforce an age of legal competence, ensuring that this standard exists across all member nations and can be referred to by GA legislation."
by Maowi » Wed May 13, 2020 5:51 am
Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote: I in fact read that. There are two meanings of health: 1) state of being free from illness and injury; 2) general physical condition (thus we can say "he has bad health", which would make no sense in the previous meaning). Your objection to my reading applies if IRB were obliged to follow the first definition of health, but they are not. Under 2nd definition what I said is perfectly valid, things that are beneficial to one's condition (in long term) can be construed to be necessary for it.
Except this one doesn't refer to it at all, in fact, the terms "legal competence" or "legally (in)competent persons" are not even used in the target.
by Marxist Germany » Wed May 13, 2020 6:24 am
Maowi wrote:Sancta Romana Ecclesia wrote: I in fact read that. There are two meanings of health: 1) state of being free from illness and injury; 2) general physical condition (thus we can say "he has bad health", which would make no sense in the previous meaning). Your objection to my reading applies if IRB were obliged to follow the first definition of health, but they are not. Under 2nd definition what I said is perfectly valid, things that are beneficial to one's condition (in long term) can be construed to be necessary for it.
"... But why, with two definitions available, would member nations or IRBs pick the one which is more problematic and clearly goes against the spirit and intention of the resolution? Definition 1) would make more sense in this context and would make sure only the truly necessary sterilisations were approved."
by Maowi » Wed May 13, 2020 6:56 am
Marxist Germany wrote:Maowi wrote:"... But why, with two definitions available, would member nations or IRBs pick the one which is more problematic and clearly goes against the spirit and intention of the resolution? Definition 1) would make more sense in this context and would make sure only the truly necessary sterilisations were approved."
"For nefarious reasons, presumably, ambassador."
by Kenmoria » Wed May 13, 2020 7:33 am
Maowi wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"For nefarious reasons, presumably, ambassador."
"Apologies, that point ... did not make sense. The body which does have the power to enforce the definition which is in keeping with the spirit of the law is the WACC, as in clause 2 of the target. While it cannot create new legislation beyond the scope of the resolution - as your proposal claims it does - it can create regulations clarifying what compliance with the target looks like in practice. It seems unlikely to me that the committee would purposefully enforce the dishonest reading of the target."
by Maowi » Wed May 13, 2020 8:33 am
Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: I don’t think that assuming what legislation the WACC has created makes much sense, given that nobody actually knows what this committee might do with the resolution. I view it as far easier to imagine that the WACC has not created any secondary legislation, since no player has the ability to actually view any hypothetical laws created by WA gnomes.)
by Marxist Germany » Fri May 15, 2020 9:41 am
by Marxist Germany » Tue Jun 09, 2020 5:59 am
by Tinhampton » Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:46 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: The last attempt failed because the API campaign that I set up was extremely slow due to my forgetting to change the speed from recruitment to WA campaigning. I will be resubmitting this now.
by Marxist Germany » Sun Jun 14, 2020 1:15 pm
Tinhampton wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: The last attempt failed because the API campaign that I set up was extremely slow due to my forgetting to change the speed from recruitment to WA campaigning. I will be resubmitting this now.
33 approvals won out of 75 needed with about an hour to go. How slow was your telegram campaign this time around?
by WayNeacTia » Sun Jun 14, 2020 2:13 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Tinhampton wrote:33 approvals won out of 75 needed with about an hour to go. How slow was your telegram campaign this time around?
OOC: I sent a TG to every delegate within 24hrs. I now know that nstg web takes twice as long to campaign and will no longer use it. As to this draft, I'll try one last time in July.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Kenmoria » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:31 pm
Marxist Germany wrote:Tinhampton wrote:33 approvals won out of 75 needed with about an hour to go. How slow was your telegram campaign this time around?
OOC: I sent a TG to every delegate within 24hrs. I now know that nstg web takes twice as long to campaign and will no longer use it. As to this draft, I'll try one last time in July.
by Gorundu » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:53 pm
Wayneactia wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:OOC: I sent a TG to every delegate within 24hrs. I now know that nstg web takes twice as long to campaign and will no longer use it. As to this draft, I'll try one last time in July.
There may be a simpler answer here. Perhaps, and I am just floating this, no one is interested in repealing it? I know, I know, crazy talk right?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement