Separatist Peoples wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Three feeders and The Rejected Realms are all evenly split in their internal votes as of time of writing (that's a lie; TEP's vote is narrowly in favour last I checked but their delegate remains reluctant to flip). If all of that vote tilted more firmly in favour, especially in response to a more well-crafted resolution - and if the concerns that others have raised about students with disabilities, parental consent and such of the like were resolved in a future such draft - I'd be fairly confident in saying that "the voters" would support "self defense education."
That is a matter for a draft of its own. It is not a matter for a lazily-slapped-on Article 5 which you anticipate most voters will not see.
This Compact binds member states into doing nothing other than to allow self-defence as a "rebuttable affirmative defense" to charges wherein acts involving "willful physical harm to another individual" are committed. Articles 3-5 are non-binding in nature and have the effect of basically handing every member state a bíg fat A3 permission slip saying that they can allow anybody involved in such a crime to use unnecessary force - force which can kill and maim - and say it was self-defence, so long as somebody is allowed to refute that claim in the courts.
I support an international right to self-defence in principle. In practice, however, this Compact is very much lacking, occasionally - and literally - fatally.
Ooc: It's a blocker. It's literally intended to do little while protecting against unnecessary intervention into member states. I assume most voters of the ten thousand or so active ones won't bother reading that far, but I'm also not going to lie about it. It's a blocker.
As to the rest of this... Yes. That's rather the point. Self defense is extremely factually specific and rests heavily on what people consider to be "reasonable" and "necessary". What is acceptable use of force in Alabama and what is acceptable in Massachusetts is as varied as the difference between the same question in Canada and Australia. To say nothing of the differences outside common law jurisdictions. Your counterpoint would work if it wasn't lacking any realistic solution.
And that's rather the point, isn't it? Everybody thinks their formulation is the right one. So why should the WA be allowed to make a rule that literally cannot comport with the varied facets of self defense?
Ultimately, given how resoundingly unpopular your efforts on this topic and others are, I am not inclined to take your word for what people will support. You enthusiastically predict success only to realize failure. If you can raise realistic solutions to the issue that don't leave either pacifists or self determinists swinging in the wind, I am willing to listen. Until then, whinging about the inalienable right to self defense while unable to realize it is just pissing in the wind.
Ooc: that's what I thought.