[PASSED] Law Enforcement Education

[The Greater Siriusian Domain]

While I can agree with the idea behind this resolution, this is something that should be handled on the national level. Forcing nations that do not have an issue with either crime or law enforcement to waste funding on programs intended for those that do is counter-productive and could, in some cases, result in economic issues.

I will not support this resolution, and I will suggest that the other member nations of the Orion Arm oppose this as well.

[Lullary]

I do not agree with this resolution. Crime is a part of our culture, and if my people are not free to do whatever they want, can we really call ourselves Hobbits? I say not!

A nation that thrives on crime should be allowed to continue. A nation which has abolished a police force because it sees the corruption it often produces, must not be thrown out because a majority of nations think I should have pigs running around in blue. If this resolution passes, I will henceforth withdraw from the World Assembly, in order to maintain my personal freedoms.

[Verlzonia]

While I can agree with the idea behind this resolution, this is something that should be handled on the national level. Forcing nations that do not have an issue with either crime or law enforcement to waste funding on programs intended for those that do is counter-productive and could, in some cases, result in economic issues.

I will not support this resolution, and I will suggest that the other member nations of the Orion Arm oppose this as well.

This Is even more sad due to the fact that more nations are accepting the bill, which Is very silly. Hopefully we can turn the votes against the resolution. We will just have to try and convince them.

[Blackledge]

Voting against this issue both on principle and for the many reasons of this proposal's inadequacy that have already been observed by the honorable delegates from the CDSP, Christian Democrats, and others.

[Little Tralfamadore]

I too will be voting no for the reasons already given by many others. The resolution is incredibly vague and does not take into account the incredible diversity of WA nations

[Yourolandia]

What if the nation is a dictatorship ? Would you support that ? Also what if the nations don't even have a government (looking at you, anarchist labelled nations) ?

AGAINST the resolution.

[Communist EU]

Against this patronising claptrap! We do not need to be told that the police oppress the working class in favour of the ruling class and anti-democratic private property 'rights'.

[The Novakian Empire]

Very against.
Police already treat people in responsible and respectful manners,this resolution is completely unnessacary.

[Fresynde]

I am voting against this bill because it gives no specifics on what the program will do; it simply states that police will be taught to 'respect the public.' This seems like something that every police force already has, and I doubt that just making another, elementary program about it would do anything to stop the issue of police brutality. A better solution would be globally-mandated body cameras for law enforcement, or at least a program with well thought-out specifics. As-is, this bill is an expensive and childish way to write off a growing problem.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Voted against because it's a do-nothing resolution that would up my military spending. IC it wouldn't make any sense to the hivemind, so not bothering to put this in greenspeak.

[Lienastates]

This may be a great idea for some nations. However, the world is full of diverse nations. Some have special police forces to which these rules simply can't be applied, other nations may have a corrupt dystopian police regimes who abuse the power. Passing this legislation on the international level will only cause harm.
Our nation is against this legislation and cannot comprehend the overwhelming support for this resolution.

[Araraukar]

Other nations may have a corrupt dystopian police regimes who abuse the power.

Why do you say that like it's a bad thing? It certainly works in Araraukar. We're one of the nations with the lowest crime rate in the known multiverse.

Our nation is against this legislation and cannot comprehend the overwhelming support for this resolution.

OOC: It's called the lemming effect. People who are too lazy to read the text either vote according to the majority numbers, or on the title. It's long been the unofficial agreement that you could pass something that lets you do unspeakable things that would go against the Geneva Convention, if you just labeled it as "A Kitten For Everyone For Free" and had a couple of the superdelegates vote for it right off the bat.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: we need to raise the bloody approval requirement. It may not have helped with this, but it sure would help with this kind of crap. 8% or bust!

[Astrolinium]

"As IntFed as I personally am, this is certainly not an international issue. All six of our police officers are very respected in the community and meet with the people frequently on social visits anyway -- we don't see the need to spend more money on formal meetings for all nations when only a few face this issue, especially when this is probably not even the most effective way to get those nations to shape up. The Sublime Island Kingdom stands Opposed."

[Araraukar]

OOC: we need to raise the bloody approval requirement. It may not have helped with this, but it sure would help with this kind of crap. 8% or bust!

OOC: Pfft, make it a minimum of 30% while you're at it. 10% if you've made at least 1k posts on the GA forum.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: we need to raise the bloody approval requirement. It may not have helped with this, but it sure would help with this kind of crap. 8% or bust!

OOC: Pfft, make it a minimum of 30% while you're at it. 10% if you've made at least 1k posts on the GA forum. :P

Let's not encourage spam.

[Langersland]

"A trusting relationship? PAH!"

"Fear is all that is required to keep order, not 'understanding' or 'cohesion'"

"If my men want to beat criminals to within an inch of their lives, they don't need education about hearts and minds..."

"This is an unnecessary and flagrant breach of national sovereignty."

"This is tyranny."

[Araraukar]

Let's not encourage spam.

OOC: You might have guessed I wasn't entirely serious.

But more seriously, I'd be happy for the limit to actually be at 30% or so, but with much longer time allowed to try and garner approval for quorum. Like a week at minimum, maybe two weeks. Not all delegates log in every day, just like ordinary players, so the current model encourages the use of stamps/scripts to get the impatient/nolifer (do notice that I count myself in the latter category, it's not meant as an insult or literal representation) delegates who often don't think beyond "ooh, I got a nice TG, gonna approve of that". In addition to those who subscribe to Vancouvianism, of course.

[Imperium Anglorum]

OOC: we need to raise the bloody approval requirement. It may not have helped with this, but it sure would help with this kind of crap. 8% or bust!

Scion's RAT II barely made quorum. I think we ought keep quorum where it is. At least these bad resolutions encourage activity, if nothing else. The alternative is much worse.

"This resolution presents a non-solution to a problem which does not even exist in many member nations. Fortunately, the regional poll stands firmly opposed and I am quite happy to cast 512 votes against it."

Happy to see you and the rest of the Pacifics here to lend a hand. Hopefully, we can reverse the trend.

[Yoite]

"If this bill passes it will be a mark of shame on legislation history, one of many, but otherwise its language does not compel Yoite to take any action."

[Lentus]

Bah. Passive voice is and should never be a reason to oppose or support a resolution. Even if passive is the correct way to write (which it is, because it obscures and thereby protects the actor of an action, i.e. 'Mistakes were made'), it's not compelling as a reason for voting one way or another.

There are much better reasons to oppose.

That reason is that it's not an international issue. Some member nations have no unrest between their citizens and police. In other nations, it is a totalitarian police state; they don't want to have good relations between citizens and police.

Also, it's not the voice of the resolution that makes me vote against it, it's the fact that the voice makes it ineffective. It's great to use passive voice when talking to your boss to protect an identity (e.g."Mistakes were made today that halted production"), but when passing a law you should be specific.

"Funds will be needed..." from who? The WA or the host nation?
"The host nation will supply funds to Police Education Programs."

As it is currently written, it simply states funds will be needed. Who has the responsibility of supplying money? If you don't say, it's left up to the interpreter.

Who creates the education program, the World Assembly or the host nation? Had you put, "The World Assembly, RECOGNIZING..." in the beginning, or even near the action clause "The World Assembly, HEREBY creates..." then that question would have a clear answer.

If the World Assembly creates the program, then I have nothing to do with it but to implement it. If I create it, then I have full control, which presents issues that have been articulated well by others (length of the program, nature of content, how much money to supply, etc).

[Imperium Anglorum]

That reason is that it's not an international issue.

This is an example of such a reason.

Also, it's not the voice of the resolution that makes me vote against it, it's the fact that the voice makes it ineffective. It's great to use passive voice when talking to your boss to protect an identity (e.g."Mistakes were made today that halted production"), but when passing a law you should be specific.

"Funds will be needed..." from who? The WA or the host nation?
"The host nation will supply funds to Police Education Programs."

As it is currently written, it simply states funds will be needed. Who has the responsibility of supplying money? If you don't say, it's left up to the interpreter.

That's the point.

Who creates the education program, the World Assembly or the host nation? Had you put, "The World Assembly, RECOGNIZING..." in the beginning, or even near the action clause "The World Assembly, HEREBY creates..." then that question would have a clear answer.

Therefore, choice is allowed and nations who feel that they ought pay for it can do so and nations which don't want to don't have to (well, the WA pays for it, which means its a distributed cost per 17 GA...)

If the World Assembly creates the program, then I have nothing to do with it but to implement it. If I create it, then I have full control, which presents issues that have been articulated well by others (length of the program, nature of content, how much money to supply, etc).

All of which you can implement. All of which are problems which you can solve. Passive voice allows for ambiguity in interpretation which allows nations to choose whatever paths are most efficient for them.

These are international laws which are guidelines for domestic laws. You ought be ambiguous such that interpretations may vary in policy such that choices can be made most freely. Naturally, there are cases where this is bad, such as direct blockers, which ought be explicit, and extremely cohesive policies, which ought be well detailed such that nobody messes them up. But, from a national sovereigntist point of view, the ambiguity offered by passive constructions ought be exploited for gain and profit.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: we need to raise the bloody approval requirement. It may not have helped with this, but it sure would help with this kind of crap. 8% or bust!

Scion's RAT II barely made quorum. I think we ought keep quorum where it is. At least these bad resolutions encourage activity, if nothing else. The alternative is much worse.

OOC: Then perhaps authors should write legislation more acceptable to the general population. It will cut down on radicals forcing crap through. That is the worst alternative, bar none.

-snip-

OOC: Is the Flag Thief back?

[Aaaah Snaaaake]

"A trusting relationship? PAH!"

"Fear is all that is required to keep order, not 'understanding' or 'cohesion'"

"If my men want to beat criminals to within an inch of their lives, they don't need education about hearts and minds..."

"This is an unnecessary and flagrant breach of national sovereignty."

"This is tyranny."

[Wallace sweats, taking out a bandana from a suit pocket and wiping his forehead with a shaky hand. 'Jerry Garcia above he's in here too...' he mutters under his breath, taking a deep breath before addressing]

I think th-that statement is a good example of why this proposal is a good idea in merit, b-but it needs f-far m-more w-work and sp-sp-specific ddddetails!

[He finished with a squeak, running to the bathroom]

[Meridional Indochina]

The Federal Republic of Meridional Indochina recognizes that while this Proposal was made with the best of intentions, we disagree with the measures listed therein.

The Federal Republic's Ministry of State and International Affairs identifies that this Proposal would be significantly ineffective in certain sovereignties; and, in some circumstances, could even exacerbate the crisis of diminishing Public Trust.
For example, there are societies where crime is a part of their established culture. Their law enforcement bodies are non-existent and therefore, this Proposal of Public Trust promotion and validation would be null and void.

Our Ministry also finds that the level of enforcement, necessitated with this Proposal, is too broad and generic for effective application among members states: as criminal activity and conduct vary widely among member states, the measures needed to recover the Public Trust would not be covered by this Proposal.

As a democratic society which finds freedom, security, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights, we applaud your efforts to help promote these ideals to secure the Free World. However, the Federal Republic of Meridional Indochina finds that this Proposal, after conscientious review, would potentially increase the disparity of the Public Trust, thus defeating the purpose of this Proposal.

We, therefore, vote AGAINST this proposal.