by Bergnovinaia » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:27 pm
by Ceni » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:33 pm
by Bergnovinaia » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:33 pm
Ceni wrote:In hindsight, I realize that we definitely rushed submission. I can't believe there were some glaring errors in the resolution- we'll have to go back to the drawing board, and that's probably a good thing.
by Ceni » Thu Jul 04, 2013 3:34 pm
Bergnovinaia wrote:Ceni wrote:In hindsight, I realize that we definitely rushed submission. I can't believe there were some glaring errors in the resolution- we'll have to go back to the drawing board, and that's probably a good thing.
Shall I expect the ambassador's approval of this repeal effort, then?
by Damanucus » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:34 pm
Bergnovinaia wrote:YET CONCERNED with the resolution's heinous failure to adequately define invasive species to include all known species that can destroy non-native eco-systems upon introduction;
NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" both disregards sapient beings as potential invasive species, and more alarmingly does not include species that are members of the Domain Bacteria, Domain Archaea, Kingdom Protista, and Kingdom Fungi;
BELIEVING that all of the domains and kingdoms left out of the definition all contain species that can be considered invasive and highly dangerous if introduced into the correct non-native habitat;
Bergnovinaia wrote:HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places a "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations," a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;
Bergnovinaia wrote:SADDENED that the target resolution merely "encourages cooperation between member-states and the World Assembly Science Program in identifying species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species," making a great policy optional instead of mandating the policy--something that would help to control the spread of invasive species in all member states;
Bergnovinaia wrote:IMPLORING the World Assembly to draft another version of this legislation that adequately deals with the numerous grave flaws;
by Discoveria » Thu Jul 04, 2013 4:46 pm
by Omigodtheykilledkenny » Thu Jul 04, 2013 9:47 pm
by Bergnovinaia » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:12 pm
Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:You can't simply say "bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi"? Why do we have to get overly technical with their precise scientific classification?
by The Akashic Records » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:26 pm
by Christian Democrats » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:29 pm
Leo Tolstoy wrote:Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority share in it.
by Ponderosa » Thu Jul 04, 2013 10:34 pm
Retired WerePenguins wrote:That's the one thing I like about the WA; it allows me to shove my moral compass up your legislative branch, assuming a majority agrees.
Steve Prefontaine wrote:The best pace is a suicide pace, and today is a good day to die.
Christopher Hitchens wrote:Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence.
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:31 am
The Akashic Records wrote:A point of concern for us is that, the reason that invasive species only included non-sapient ones was because of the meaning of sapient itself, and how it applies to citizens. Had the bill included the sapient species into the regulations, we can see easy circumventions of both the Charter of Civil Rights, as well as the Convention Against Genocide.
Sapient species is capable of making, at least, some sound judgments, and as such, there shouldn't be any grounds for their population to have a "rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment".
However, we do agree that it needed more refinements, as well as a much more significant clause in regards to international cooperation.
by Riasy » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:46 am
by Bergnovinaia » Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:49 am
Riasy wrote:I believe that mentioning of sapient organisms may introduce unnecessary controversy into this necessary repeal. Removing this part will make the repeal stronger.
Iljas Saparitti, Ambassador
by SkyDip » Fri Jul 05, 2013 1:29 pm
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:SkyDip's actions have, ultimately, destroyed the World Assembly.
Eist wrote:Yea... If you are just going to casually dismiss SkyDip's advice, you are probably not going to get very far at all.
Sedgistan wrote:SkyDip is trying to help, and is giving sound advice. I'd suggestion listening to him, as he has experience of writing (and advising others with) legal proposals.
Frisbeeteria wrote:What Skydip said. This bitchfest is an embarrassment to the Security Council.
by The Akashic Records » Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:03 pm
by Bergnovinaia » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:11 am
by United Federation of Canada » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:54 am
by Bergnovinaia » Sat Jul 06, 2013 8:59 am
United Federation of Canada wrote:Not one to be a negative Nancy here, but this passed by a fairly large margin. What makes you believe the Assembly members are going to instantly repeal it?
As it stands, our vote will be against any repeal of this act. (no offence Berg)
by United Federation of Canada » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:07 am
Bergnovinaia wrote:United Federation of Canada wrote:Not one to be a negative Nancy here, but this passed by a fairly large margin. What makes you believe the Assembly members are going to instantly repeal it?
As it stands, our vote will be against any repeal of this act. (no offence Berg)
I have my own theory about this, and I am going to actually (maybe) conduct a study on it, about something I call "Following the Pact Phenomenon" (FPP). I believe that once the vote margin reaches a certain majority (1,000 difference), many inexperienced WA voters will abide by FPP and cast their vote in the direction that the vote is going since, possibly, they believe that the majority is always right or, possibly, always want to vote with the majority. At this point, the only way a vote could be swung back is with a rally of big-vote delegates.
I believe this will pass because I feel that I can get many regional delegates on board with how well this repeal is crafted, as well as the support of one of the co-authors, Ceni. (I am not aware if the other will support or not. I will TG him soon.)
What is your reason to oppose this repeal?
by Bergnovinaia » Sat Jul 06, 2013 9:14 am
by The Akashic Records » Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:50 pm
Giving both this repeal and the piece of legislation that it is trying to pull from the books a more thorough look, I think, that the target resolution placed an "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potentially invasive species to nations" because some invasive species might be beneficial in some way, hence it mandates "that nations or other groups desiring to introduce any potentially beneficial non-native species conduct highly thorough research into the potential consequences thereof and maintain a fund for use in population control efforts should they become necessary".Bergnovinaia wrote:HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places an "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations," a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;
by Bergnovinaia » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:27 am
by Discoveria » Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:30 pm
Bergnovinaia wrote:Repeal GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.
Category: Repeal | GA #254|Proposed by: Bergnovinaia
The General Assembly,
APPLAUDING the intent behind GA #254, "Invasive Species Response Act;"
YET CONCERNED with the resolution's heinous failure to adequately define invasive species to include all known species that can destroy non-native ecosystems upon introduction;
NOTING that the resolution's definition of invasive species as "any non-sapient plant or animal species posing a serious risk of rapid, uncontrolled, and detrimental population growth upon being introduced to a new environment" alarmingly disregards bacteria, archaea, protists and fungi as potential invasive species threats;
OBSERVING that the biological domains and kingdoms omitted from the definition all contain species that can be considered invasive and highly dangerous if introduced into a non-native habitat;
HIGHLIGHTING that the target resolution places an "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations", a ban that is completely impossible to enforce since the introduction is "unregulated' and therefore out of the control of WA member states to enforce;
--Perhaps reword as "REGRETTING that the resolution's "international ban on the unregulated introduction of potential invasive species to nations" is impossible to enforce, because in most cases the introduction of a potential invasive species is by definition "unregulated" anyway;"
SADDENED that the target resolution merely "ENCOURAGES cooperation between member-states and the World Assembly Science Program in identifying species with the potential to thrive in and dominate certain environments or cause extinctions of native species", making a great policy optional instead of mandating the policy - something that would help to control the spread of invasive species in all member-states;
IMPLORING the World Assembly to draft another version of this legislation that adequately deals with the numerous grave flaws identified above; This is a controversial clause that may not be necessary, depending on your analysis of voter positions on the issue.
Hereby REPEALS GA #254, thereby making it completely null and void.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement