The South Pacific WA Voting Center Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .33343536373839. . .4849»
LodgedFromMessages


via The South Pacific

The Republic of New Itomorii

Commend Northrop-Grumman

For

via The South Pacific

The Kingdom of Greater Scottdascoda

Commend Northrop-Grumman

For

This proposal is needed so all prisoners have basic rights and governments and prisons are not exploiting prisoners as slaves for monetary gain.



via The South Pacific

The Grand Empire of New Goldman

Fair Treatment of Prisoners

For

I'm glad they decided to draft a sort of spiritual successor to the now repealed GA 500: International Criminal Protocol. While criminals are criminals to the eyes of people, they are people as well that needs some caring. Prison is not a time of punishment sometimes. It is a place where the felony doers reflect on their lives. I certainly support improving prisoners' sanitary conditions in jail.

via The South Pacific

The 🐝 Please Endorse BEEPEE 🐝 of Amerion

Fair Treatment of Prisoners

AGAINST!

Originally, I was going to use a red pen to indicate which part of the proposal I disagreed with. However, having read it in its entirety, I might as well have printed the proposal on an existing red-coloured sheet of paper.



via The South Pacific

The Kingdom of Rovere

Fair Treatment of Prisoners

For

This reolution is necessary for ensuring that prisoners have the opportunity to be rehabilitated and are free from ill treatment. The absence of such a resolution would be an embarrassement.

The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation

Vote for proposal Fair Treatment of Prisoners has been ended.

Result:
For: 9
Against: 1

OWL recommendation: For

Link:

.







Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'

Background Information

Proposal title: Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'
Author: Sylh Alanor
Purpose: To repeal previous legislation, arguing loopholes arising from unclear language might be seriously exploitable by anti-union employers and countries, consequently harming the target's intent.

Links


Vote .For.

The Office's Analysis

GA 530 "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" sought to implement international standards for the relationship between labour unions and their associated workers, and ensure that they can operate without undue interference by employers. The at-vote resolution however, while affirming these goals, points out critical flaws within this target resolution, prominently its inconsistent or vague use of terminology. As argued by the proposal, these are easily exploitable weaknesses ultimately undermining the target's intent. Support by GA 530's author for the repeal, alongside a promising replacement for GA 530 being prepared to address the concerns, leave little room for concern in this case. Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'".

Supplementary Opinions

For

From TSP Citizens

Tepertopia is the OWL Director and a Deputy Chair of the South Pacific.

Tepertopia wrote:The proposal raises some good points about the original resolution. As the author of Fairness in Collective Bargaining has voiced their support for this proposal and a replacement for the repeal target is nearing submission, I think it'd be safe to swap the target with a shiny new resolution that would fix the flaws pointed out in the proposal at hand.

Qvait is a member of the Council on Regional Security of the South Pacific.

Qvait wrote:Considering that the author of "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" supports the repeal based on the arguments presented in the proposed repeal, I believe that we should vote for the proposal knowing that another proposal exists to replace what will be repealed.

Greater Scottdascoda is a Citizen of the South Pacific.

Greater Scottdascoda wrote:there are loopholes which this proposal points out and I believe warrants a repeal and the author of "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" supports the proposal. There is a new proposal to replace the repeal is currently underway and Knowing that their is a replacement proposal is not far away, it is in my humble opinion safe to vote "For" the repeal.

From the World

Scalizagasti is the Overseer of the Assembly of the URA. He posted the following on the NS forums:

Scalizagasti wrote:"That being said, the Disappointed clause in this repeal makes a very convincing argument. As you have described, these vaguely defined terms give employers and governments a loophole to ignore some very important protections that the original resolution attempts to guarantee. For this reason, I support this repeal, and eagerly await the replacement."

Chimes is the Delegate of The Rejected Realms. They posted the following on TRR's forums:

Chimes wrote:Opposed the original proposal so im very supportive of this and I will note a better replacement is in the works on the NS forum.

Simone Republic is a Citizen of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Simone Republic wrote:For repeal. I am against collective bargaining as a matter of principle and I will also vote against the replacement.

Against

From TSP Citizens

Arvan Irawer is a Citizen of the South Pacific.

Arvan Irawer wrote:Fairness in Collective Bargaining was and is a resolution I firmly believe in. Although I do agree that there are loopholes, there will always be loopholes in any resolution no matter who drafts it. I believe Fairness in Collective Bargaining is a strong resolution and should be kept.

From the World

Castle Federation is a Citizen of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Castle Federation wrote:This is an often considered bar of WA literature. How much specificity in meaning is too extreme, and then how much is too little. We aren't accustomed to 12 page long proposals that define every nook and cranny of definitions and stipulations, and I honestly would not like to see that as that level of legalism misses the central point of the GA which is to come together and agree on a principle which is moderately defined through some act of law. It is a person to person call, but I find this argument of repeal too far in the overly scrupulous direction.

Kastonvia is a Deputy Speaker of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Kastonvia wrote:Against. I dont think that GAR#530 does more to harm the rights of workers than protect them as the author states.

Read dispatch

The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation

NEW GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND VOTE
---------------------------------------------------

Title: Death Penalty Ban
Author: Imperium Anglorum (co-authored by Cretox State)
Purpose: To internationally ban the death penalty, except for war crimes.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The World Assembly,

Recognising that there is no convincing and statistically robust evidence that the death penalty deters crime,

Hoping to spend money currently dedicated to the substantial administrative and legal costs of pursuing death penalties on enforcement or rehabilitation programmes which actually do reduce crime,

Gravely concerned that even under stringent protocols death penalties are issued against people who are actually innocent of the crimes for which they are to be punished, and

Believing that the death penalty in its application and pursuit targets the mentally ill, socio-economically disadvantaged, and members of racial and cultural minorities, even when administered under facially neutral statutes, hereby enacts the following:

  1. The death penalty is abolished except for crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war.

  2. All sentences contravening section 1 must be commuted forthwith under procedures not inconsistent with World Assembly law.

  3. Member nations collectively may further restrict the use of or abolish the death penalty, section 1 notwithstanding.

View submitted proposal | View on-site drafting thread

---------------------------------------------------

Please discuss and vote on how regional nations and the Delegate should vote on this proposal.
Always remember to include the name of the resolution you are talking about in your posts to avoid confusion!

Click here to read voting instruction (Please do this if you have never voted before!)

via The South Pacific

The Republic of New Itomorii

Death Penalty Ban

For.



via The South Pacific

The Mighty Foundation of Concrete Slab

Death Penalty Ban

Against

Repealing something that protects the death penalty is one thing. Banning it outright is another issue completely. While the death penalty is used very infrequently within Concrete Slab, this proposal is a dramatic overreach of World Assembly law and treads on one of our most sacred and long-held rights. Passing this proposal would be grounds for Concrete Slab's potential exit from the World Assembly, and as such, Leader Stoneworth must vehemently recommend an AGAINST vote.



via The South Pacific

The Noice of Arvan Irawer

Death penalty Ban

For

The Death penalty is cruel and should be abolished. The proposal makes excellent points about the fact that the death penalty does nothing overall.

Post by Stickmin suppressed by a moderator.

Post self-deleted by New Plant.

Post self-deleted by The island of Sorna.

via The South Pacific

The Federated Islands of Sandaoguo

Death Penalty Ban

For



via The South Pacific

The Valkyrian Republic of Qvait

Death Penalty Ban

For

It is time for the World Assembly to impose limitations and inevitably implement a total and universal ban on judicial murder. This atrocious act has been used in the name of revenge, not justice, and judicial murder tends to be an act that is used against the wrongfully accused, unjust crimes, and political dissidents. The proposed resolution is a step in the right direction.



via The South Pacific

The Kingdom of Greater Scottdascoda

Death Penalty Ban

Against

It should be up to individual nations to decide to have the Death Penalty. An outright blanket ban would affect every nation under the WA Membership and I am sure there are a number of nations with the death Penalty active that would have to change their laws. There are some unforgivable crimes where it may be warranted.

In relation to National Security. The Proposal Notes in Section 1. that the Death Penalty can be used by a military penal code in time of war. So not a outright Ban. I question in relation to Military crimes such as treasons and espionage as well as other matters of National Security. These same crimes can happen in non-wartime not just in wartime, but under the proposal the death penalty would not be allowed.

Post self-deleted by The land of slav people.

via The South Pacific

The ENDORSE BEEPEE of Purple Hyacinth

Death Penalty Ban

For

via The South Pacific

The Commonwealth of The Langburn Islands

Death Penalty Ban

For



via The South Pacific

The United Protectorate of Tepertopia

Death Penalty Ban

For

I believe the death penalty to be disproportionate and without a doubt not supportable for ordinary lawbreakers, and only in the most severe cases of war criminals, like a genocidal dictator, where a wrongful conviction simply isn't in the realm of the possible, their atrocious deeds are unquestionably unforgivable and allowing them what they denied their victims couldn't possibly be truly just, it should be an option. The proposal at hand makes this absolutely reasonable exception, and thus I can fully support it.

via The South Pacific

The 🐝 Please Endorse BEEPEE 🐝 of Amerion

Death Penalty Ban

Against

The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation

Vote for proposal Death Penalty Ban has been ended.

Result:
For: 7
Against: 4

OWL recommendation: For

Link:

.







Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'

Background Information

Proposal title: Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'
Author: Sylh Alanor
Purpose: To repeal previous legislation, arguing loopholes arising from unclear language might be seriously exploitable by anti-union employers and countries, consequently harming the target's intent.

Links


Vote .For.

The Office's Analysis

GA 530 "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" sought to implement international standards for the relationship between labour unions and their associated workers, and ensure that they can operate without undue interference by employers. The at-vote resolution however, while affirming these goals, points out critical flaws within this target resolution, prominently its inconsistent or vague use of terminology. As argued by the proposal, these are easily exploitable weaknesses ultimately undermining the target's intent. Support by GA 530's author for the repeal, alongside a promising replacement for GA 530 being prepared to address the concerns, leave little room for concern in this case. Thus, OWL recommends a vote FOR the at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Fairness in Collective Bargaining'".

Supplementary Opinions

For

From TSP Citizens

Tepertopia is the OWL Director and a Deputy Chair of the South Pacific.

Tepertopia wrote:The proposal raises some good points about the original resolution. As the author of Fairness in Collective Bargaining has voiced their support for this proposal and a replacement for the repeal target is nearing submission, I think it'd be safe to swap the target with a shiny new resolution that would fix the flaws pointed out in the proposal at hand.

Qvait is a member of the Council on Regional Security of the South Pacific.

Qvait wrote:Considering that the author of "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" supports the repeal based on the arguments presented in the proposed repeal, I believe that we should vote for the proposal knowing that another proposal exists to replace what will be repealed.

Greater Scottdascoda is a Citizen of the South Pacific.

Greater Scottdascoda wrote:there are loopholes which this proposal points out and I believe warrants a repeal and the author of "Fairness in Collective Bargaining" supports the proposal. There is a new proposal to replace the repeal is currently underway and Knowing that their is a replacement proposal is not far away, it is in my humble opinion safe to vote "For" the repeal.

From the World

Scalizagasti is the Overseer of the Assembly of the URA. He posted the following on the NS forums:

Scalizagasti wrote:"That being said, the Disappointed clause in this repeal makes a very convincing argument. As you have described, these vaguely defined terms give employers and governments a loophole to ignore some very important protections that the original resolution attempts to guarantee. For this reason, I support this repeal, and eagerly await the replacement."

Chimes is the Delegate of The Rejected Realms. They posted the following on TRR's forums:

Chimes wrote:Opposed the original proposal so im very supportive of this and I will note a better replacement is in the works on the NS forum.

Simone Republic is a Citizen of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Simone Republic wrote:For repeal. I am against collective bargaining as a matter of principle and I will also vote against the replacement.

Against

From TSP Citizens

Arvan Irawer is a Citizen of the South Pacific.

Arvan Irawer wrote:Fairness in Collective Bargaining was and is a resolution I firmly believe in. Although I do agree that there are loopholes, there will always be loopholes in any resolution no matter who drafts it. I believe Fairness in Collective Bargaining is a strong resolution and should be kept.

From the World

Castle Federation is a Citizen of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Castle Federation wrote:This is an often considered bar of WA literature. How much specificity in meaning is too extreme, and then how much is too little. We aren't accustomed to 12 page long proposals that define every nook and cranny of definitions and stipulations, and I honestly would not like to see that as that level of legalism misses the central point of the GA which is to come together and agree on a principle which is moderately defined through some act of law. It is a person to person call, but I find this argument of repeal too far in the overly scrupulous direction.

Kastonvia is a Deputy Speaker of The North Pacific. They posted the following on TNP's forums:

Kastonvia wrote:Against. I dont think that GAR#530 does more to harm the rights of workers than protect them as the author states.

Read dispatch

via The South Pacific

The Galactic Empire of Holota

Against

Post by Stickmin suppressed by a moderator.

The South Pacifican Government of Office of WA Legislation

NEW GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND VOTE
---------------------------------------------------

Title: Protecting Sapient Life
Author: Tinhampton (co-authored by Gorundu)
Purpose: To add onto "Death Penalty Ban" by banning the death penalty in cases of war crimes as well.

Tinhampton wrote:Recognising that GA#535 "Death Penalty Ban," while outlawing capital punishment in most circumstances, permits its deployment under military law in some circumstances, and

Seeking to abolish capital punishment in all circumstances across the WA, for reasons that have been stated in at least three different resolutions...

The General Assembly hereby:

  1. forbids the imposition of the death penalty in all cases where such has not already been prohibited by prior and standing international law, and

  2. prohibits members from deporting any person to a nation where said person faces a reasonable possibility of being sentenced to death for the crimes they have been charged with committing.

View submitted proposal | View on-site drafting thread

---------------------------------------------------

Please discuss and vote on how regional nations and the Delegate should vote on this proposal.
Always remember to include the name of the resolution you are talking about in your posts to avoid confusion!

Click here to read voting instruction (Please do this if you have never voted before!)

«12. . .33343536373839. . .4849»