Search results

Against

Against I don't see why the GA shouldn't be able to legislate on topics such as these, but nonetheless feel it is something of a cowardly choice and nonetheless a proposal of rather little value.

Against Flaws listed above, plus some national reasons.

Present There are some minor drafting issues here that cause some issues (improper capitalisation being one, where "public spaces" could be interpreted as not referring to the defined "Public Spaces", etc.), as well as some questionably-implementable ("prevent the device from being activated...

For Aside from being a little overbearing, I can see no major issues.

Present

Present Whilst I do feel this is overreaching slightly, I don't have any major issues, aside from that 5.1 should be, in line with standard practice, "publish" (instead of "set"), and include a more general requirement for public commitment to publishing (as not doing so renders any standards...

Present

Against Serious flaws have been pointed out above, and I'd remain generally opposed to this kind of intervention by the WA (even with consent—yes, I've read the resolution) as a matter of national policy only.

Present I'm not too certain about the pattern of definitions here; I'd probably forgive the lack of one for "sexual intercourse" if only the definition of "animal" weren't so bizarre... And my own guess for the motivation: perhaps because of the taboo and fairly uncontroversial nature of the...

For No particular issues beyond aforementioned formatting such; however, I do believe some flaws present themselves purely as a result of the proposal's mildness. Personally I don't really see the point of the proposal if it only addresses one easily-circumventable part of an unjust system of...

For

Present

Against How tiresome.

Against

As a point of order, given I don't really expect or need a response: I didn't ask why they're separate resolutions.

Against

You can have your repeal; it's a vote Present, not Against. In that case, why was that not the linked "replacement"/why was that not at least drafted forumside before the apparently-irrelevant repeal?

Present Concerns remain regarding the replacement even with only a cursory assessment—seems to entirely misunderstand and mislabel several vague headings (see "additives", "ingredients", "nutrient", "technology", and "warning"), and apparently subscribes to pseudoscientific, fearmongering...

Against National reasons