Separatist Peoples wrote:"Honestly, that nations are willing to declare war on their own people to protect execution demonstrates that the death penalty is in desperate need of a good ban."
"That's where you are wrong, Mr. Bell, we don't need an international organization to say what policies our nations may have, because the international organization has no authority to make us comply with the proposal at hand. The issue with banning the death penalty should be and is in the hands of the nation debating the issue, and not the WA. We don't need the likes of you telling us what we should do with the death penalty."
Greater Cesnica wrote:Untecna wrote:It seeks to oppose "authoritarianism" while using authoritarianism.
Forcing nations to do such a thing (which will not work, I'm not convinced) is not opposing so-called "authoritarianism", it's using the exact same word that they say the death penalty is to try and progress their views.
If you don't agree with the majority, then leave the WA. That simple.
If you so think that, then why haven't I done that already? Hm? It's because there are good things here that I appreciate, this proposal is not one and I see it as immoral and rude to us who want to choose what we have. Besides, there is no way to enforce any of the measures placed in, as the death penalty policy can't, to my knowledge, change because of a resolution, and the "ban" in this proposal is nonexistent.