At Vote:Repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning" [Complete]

Former English Colony

Former English Colony

InFECtious
-
-
-
-
Pronouns
she/her
TNP Nation
Former English Colony
Discord
Erastide
New UN Resolution. Voting ends Wednesday, get your vote in by Tuesday evening. THanks y'all. :)

Repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #35
Proposed by: Safalra

Description: UN Resolution #35: Stop dumping - Start Cleaning (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

Noting the passage of United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning',

Unconvinced that local charities are the most effective organisations for rectifying large-scale environmental damage,

Regretting that the resolution fails to consider that uncontaminated waste water, a byproduct of many industrial processes, when cooled and aerated is no longer harmful to aquatic ecosystems,

Noting that 'filtering' refers only to the removal of particulate matter and will not remove most chemical contaminants,

Observing that the concept of a 'federal prison' is alien to member States without federated government,

Concerned that the specified legal sentences are insufficiently flexible and prevent State judiciaries from considering extenuating circumstances such as time spent in custody,

Affirming that the basis of a United Nations resolution should be a considered analysis of the situation and not emotive rhetoric,

1. Repeals United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning';

2. Condemns the style of argument, false assumptions and ill-defined terms of the resolution;

3. Urges delegates to consider the differing structures of legislatures in member States when proposing future resolutions.
Click to expand...
 
This resolution is currently up for vote in the UN.

Please post your views and stance on this resolution below. Note, however, that you must have a UN nation in The North Pacific, or on active NPA duty, in order for the Delegate to count your vote.
 
Original Resolution

Noting the passage of United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning',

Unconvinced that local charities are the most effective organisations for rectifying large-scale environmental damage,
Click to expand...

This is a good point. The resolution required "a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city." First of all, it's a bit over kill to have three such organizations per town when no definition is supplied for how big a "town" is. If a town is considered any place with a population of at least 10 and a gas station, you've got too much to be effective. And the donation-only defeats the purpose of the organizations to begin with.

Regretting that the resolution fails to consider that uncontaminated waste water, a byproduct of many industrial processes, when cooled and aerated is no longer harmful to aquatic ecosystems,

Noting that 'filtering' refers only to the removal of particulate matter and will not remove most chemical contaminants,
Click to expand...

True... although filtering could easily be interpreted to include removing those chemicals.

Observing that the concept of a 'federal prison' is alien to member States without federated government,

Concerned that the specified legal sentences are insufficiently flexible and prevent State judiciaries from considering extenuating circumstances such as time spent in custody,
Click to expand...

Well, "federal prison" is kind of semantics... the general idea gets across. I'm not exactly falling for the second bit there either. "Time spent in custody" isn't always effective, as evidenced by Martha Stewart. :eyeroll:

Affirming that the basis of a United Nations resolution should be a considered analysis of the situation and not emotive rhetoric,
Click to expand...

I do agree here. The format of the resolution SUCKS. I read it just now and wanted to slap the author.

1. Repeals United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning';

2. Condemns the style of argument, false assumptions and ill-defined terms of the resolution;

3. Urges delegates to consider the differing structures of legislatures in member States when proposing future resolutions.
Click to expand...

Yada yada yada.

The resolution has good intentions, but it's highly ineffective and rather defeats itself in several places. Not all of the points brought up in this repeal are the best, but who's to say you have to vote for it for the reasons given?

IN FAVOR.
 
Direct from the Capital:

The House of Citizens, after taking a vote of its members, does hereby officially give its support for the resolution to formally repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning."  King Henry VI has certified his agreement to this decision so the current stance of the nation is FOR this resolution.

rex7vj.gif

Seal of the King of Ator
ATORA3.jpg

Seal of the House of Citizens
Click to expand...
 
Another repeal crosses the UN doorstep here.

I would agree with Hers that the formatting is not the best. However, its not so egregious as for me to vote for a repeal based on that.

Secondly, I would argue that the reasons brought forth in the repeal are extremely important. That is to say, if the repeal author misstates certain reasons, then it can be asked whether or not the author really wants to repeal for legitimate reasons? Maybe s/he simply dislikes that one particular resolution for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with the meat of the proposal.

I personally would like it if it were possible for repeals to contain preliminary language designed to REPLACE the law they are repealing. This way, they can really show everyone that they're repealing because of other issues, not because they hate the proposal. Honestly, I could write up a repeal of a resolution and announce its flaws (every resolution has flaws) and say I agree with the idea but not with the resolution (when in reality I disagree with the idea). Being able to say "we repeal X, AND we say Y and Z to replace X" would be a lot better.

Having said that,

AGAINST the repeal.
 
I had tried to get this repealed before. Here's mine to support this one. I'd suggest everyone look at Res 34 which is about a similar/same thing and is much better of a resolution.

In strong support of the sentiment of Resolution 35 though feeling that Resolution 34 (Oceanic Waste Dumping) is far better spoken and more feasible for this international body to support,

Moreover, citing the many uses of either incorrect or poorly worded grammatical statements occur within the resolution (see line 1 “Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment”, line 5 “These organizations couldn’t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won’t cause a tax raise. We can’t afford to not do this!” and more) that do not bode well for the professionalism that this body strives towards,

Moreover, noting the various improbabilities and flaws in the actual policy initiation, including though not exclusively:

a-Poor Standards for Law Enforcement without proper distinction between offenses both large and small see Section 3 “Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.”

b-Poor Limits Set, Section 1, for example uses “etc.” in list of illegal public water systems to dump in as well as not designating if private dumping is fine (for instance in many nationstates allow for selling of their beaches),

c-Lack of Definition of terms designated with a “”, see Section 2, “Require business to “filter” all liquid wastes”, that causes lack of clarity for many businesses by not defining what “filter” is or if it is up to the businesses or government.

Be it Repealed: Resolution #35 “Stop Dumping-Start Cleaning”
Click to expand...
 
Hersfold:
Noting that 'filtering' refers only to the removal of particulate matter and will not remove most chemical contaminants,
Click to expand...
True... although filtering could easily be interpreted to include removing those chemicals.
Click to expand...
Though you could interpret it like that, it would go against the conventional definition of filtering - the act of passing through a filter, which is a porous material through which a liquid or gas is passed in order to separate the fluid from suspended particulate matter (AHD - a similar definition appears in OED).

Observing that the concept of a 'federal prison' is alien to member States without federated government,

Concerned that the specified legal sentences are insufficiently flexible and prevent State judiciaries from considering extenuating circumstances such as time spent in custody,
Click to expand...
Well, "federal prison" is kind of semantics... the general idea gets across. I'm not exactly falling for the second bit there either.
Click to expand...
Falling for? It's not some kind of trick - specifying a fixed sentence disregards the legal traditions of member states. Time spent in custody was only one example of something that could have an effect - states might want a longer sentence for a second offence, for instance.
 
I could write a resolution requiring that every male child kill his mother by way of salt-water enima once he reaches the age of 14 and it would get passed. I think it should all be repealed and let us just start from the beginning.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the UN Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top