Againt torture is trash.

[Greater Bohimia]

REPEAL NOW!
This resolution underdigs our fundamental rights and our safety.

Repeal: “Against Torture”
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Resolution: GA#12

Proposed by: Greater Bohimia

General Assembly Resolution #12 “Against Torture” shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

As much as we understand there to be fundamental rights to life, dignity, and legal recognition for all persons within its jurisdiction. We cannot define torture in such an easy way of saying.

The following problems are:

1. We understand that pain and hurting can be seen as a form of torture if inflicted on others, however these events may occur even in situations that have nothing to do with inflicting pain intentionally, as well as the form of trauma. Trauma can happen to people in custody any minute! Trauma inflicted on people who have put themselves in an uncomfortable situation should not be defined as torture, simply because a police officer is interrogating a criminal that is now sad because someone is mean to him. Also the problem with this point is simple, people like these can now blindly accuse anyone of torture.

2. I believe our nations can set up these ground basic rules themselves, is it not psychological torture when you are acuused of a crime that can end with you on death row? Should death sentences be Illegal too? With resolutions like these we are stepping too far into privacy of free nations. Also for crimes against humanity and such we have SC.

3. Contradiction... This point creates a legal loophole where a person may commit torture for simply being in danger himself etc, etc...

4. Again we are reaching too far into Nations systems that we have zero say into, this point sounds more as an order to nations that they should cooperate and use standartised education in such matter, this is impossible as many nations have many different cultures therefore cannot take the same from such educatons. Also we shall not infringe into other nations security educations as it may be viewed as a security risk, we cant bend the protectors and police of other nations to our rules and will.

5. This is a rule that is insane on every ground, we want to make member nations to investigate and use their economical resources to accomplish our rules and call it their Duty? Sounds a bit too authoritarian. Whats next? If they cant spare anything to go for such witch hunts we will punish them in terms of sanctions and making the state basically an accomplice to such crimes? This goes back to Point 2 and 3

6. Impossible, if one confesses for a crime and then blames it on torture we have another loophole in which criminals can walk free.

7. This point gives reported members or nations no moving ground for self defence in the moment, you can imagine the rest...

I beg all who disagree with this resolution to REPEAL.
It not only creates loopholes for criminals, undermines our legal forces but also puts our national rights under a spiraling legal risks. We all understand torture is bad a resolution wont stop it and certainly not like this one, all it creates is a free ticket to freedom and accusations between people and states.

Thank you dearly.

[Lipizia]

Please, use

Code: Select all

[box][/box]

to delimit the proposal. Then, it seems a violation of 1a, because it seems that is talking a spokesperson, not the office of GA.
Then, remember that you can't call the proposal "Against Torture is trash", but you should call it "Repeal "Against Torture"". It's also a rude thing say "it's trash", considering also that Untecna is a prominent person of GA.
Against, because it's formulated badly and arrogantly.
I suggest to read the "Guide to BBCode" first to write anything else. And also the Newcomers' GA guide could be useful.

*puff*
oh my, this is a very full day

[Kshemarashtram]

Hmm... I guess I'll try to give some comments on it. Please rename to "[DRAFT] Repeal: Against Torture" though.

As much as we understand there to be fundamental rights to life, dignity, and legal recognition for all persons within its jurisdiction. We cannot define torture in such an easy way of saying.
The usage of "we" and later "I" would make it illegal under R1(a). But I guess "we" may still possibly be interpreted as referring to the World Assembly.
The following problems are:
(snip)
2. I believe our nations can set up these ground basic rules themselves, is it not psychological torture when you are acuused of a crime that can end with you on death row? Should death sentences be Illegal too? With resolutions like these we are stepping too far into privacy of free nations. Also for crimes against humanity and such we have SC.
"I believe" makes it definitely illegal under R1(a). Proposals must be from the perspective of the WA. Also, the SC doesn't and can't create binding legislation on crimes against humanity, or pretty much any matter. At most, it can write a Declaration expressing a community opinion. Also, "our nations can set these laws ourselves" is not quite a valid argument against international laws being passed.
(snip)
I beg all who disagree with this resolution to REPEAL.
"I beg" would make it illegal under R1(a). Proposals should be from the perspective of the WA.
It not only creates loopholes for criminals, undermines our legal forces but also puts our national rights under a spiraling legal risks. We all understand torture is bad a resolution wont stop it and certainly not like this one, all it creates is a free ticket to freedom and accusations between people and states.

Also, overall reads less like legislation and more like a polemical essay, although I'm not necessarily opposed to novel styles of writing. I may have more comments on getting more time and comparing with the target resolution, but I wrote some initial things I noticed.

Edit: Bah, you've submitted it. It's clearly illegal and not ready. Please pull it out of the queue and spend some time acting on feedback received on the forum so that it may have some chance of passing.

[Hesitant Dispatch 440]

(Co-)Author of the target here:

First, your proposal is illegal, as pointed out above.

1) The exceptions and qualifiers ("severe") to the definition of torture are not hard to abide by if you treat citizens humanely. If the conditions of your imprisonment, for example, are so grim that a court would find them to be inflicting constant severe psychological or physical pain, then maybe it should be classified as torture. Keeping someone incarcerated is merely law enforcement, starving them is not.

2) The resolution mandates that nations work on laws criminalising torture themselves and does not micromanage anything unnecessary in that regard.

3) Courts arbitrate whether or not someone is lying about their motives, not laws.

4) It's not standardised. Each nation is free to apply this education as appropriate to their local culture so long as it serves the purpose of "instruction on the international prohibition of torture and the rights of persons regarding it". This is a low bar. If your nation is culturally in favour of torture, leave the WA.

And of course, teaching Law Enforcement Agents about which rights the people they are dealing with have is not a security risk for any non tinpot dictatorship nation.

5) If a nation can't spare the resources to... carry out normal police and judiciary activities then they have bigger concerns. Nothing in the mandate says that nations should pursue this regardless of material condition, by the way. Something being a duty doesn't mean it should be done at any cost; a nation that has been nuked back into the stone age would, comprehensibly, not be able to operate much of its police and judiciary structures. They'd still have a duty to do so, but material conditions and more vital concerns are naturally accommodated without the need for carving out exceptions for increasingly-ludicrous conditions of public dysfunction.

6) Courts arbitrate whether or not someone is lying about their motives, not laws.

7) A member state cannot claim self defense against an individual. That's nonsensical. That's not what self defense is. If a report is not credible/is filed in bad faith, that is already foreseen as an exception and may, thus, be punished.

And, of course, you're from a fascist region, so tough luck. Felt like responding to this because it was a nice little exercise on a resolution I'd written, but this has a slim chance of getting to vote, much less passing.

[Lipizia]

It would be education wait receiving quite feedbacks first of submitting, but who cares. Too bad for you.
Wait to see Bisofeyr marking it illegal so.

[Ballotonia]

Greetings,

Marked Illegal due to a 1a violation: "Proposals must be written as law from the perspective of the World Assembly or General Assembly". Using "I" is thus a problem as the proposal is using the voice of the author, not he GA/WA. Also the "we" being used is problematic in this case, as it is unclear who "we" is referring to. Author and friends? Region mates? All WA member nations? The WA as an institution?

For instance, starting off with an often-used line "The General Assembly," would make it clear any "we" refers to the GA.

But this proposal does not do that, and in combination with the "I", the "we" is thus also becomes a problem. I suggest to also not use "we", although it can be used in a legal manner if done right.

Ballotonia

[The Crusader Kings]

Can we PLEASE stop forcing me get another drink? Now my table is soaking wet, half of my notes are dripping, and now I need to get a new cup of Tea.

All that aside, change the title. Unless you want to get drop kicked into the (Defeated) Proposal Archive of the WA.

This proposal has already been marked Illegal, meaning you seriously need to listen to the Members of the GA(Preferably including myself).

"With resolutions like these we are stepping too far into privacy of free nations" This is the only half-decent part of this proposal. I do agree, some of the newer proposals are toeing the line of Sovereignty.

"Also for crimes against humanity and such we have SC." "Humanity" AGAIN? This is what, the 3rd time this week? Also, the SC deals with Condemnations, Commendations, Liberations, etc. The GA and the SC are VERY different things.

"3. Contradiction... This point creates a legal loophole where a person may commit torture for simply being in danger himself etc, etc..." Having read Against Torture, I would like it if you showed what part of the Resolution you disagreed with, instead of simply saying "Contradiction".

"6. Impossible, if one confesses for a crime and then blames it on torture we have another loophole in which criminals can walk free." The one time I'll use my own Lore here, is forcing the Truth upon a prisoner using, say, a Sword "Torture"? I won't stab or cut them, but being near said Sword forced total Honesty...

OH! I almost forgot! The Author is from a Fascist region! The SAME Author that tried to make Proposal for Defense as well!

AGAINST on all counts, and AGAINST on Prejudice. To the Sword with this proposal.

Good day(or night) to you all.