At Vote:Right to Adequate Sanitation [Complete] [Complete]

[Abacathea]

Right to Adequate Sanitation
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.


Category: Social Justice

Strength: Significant

Proposed by: Elke and Elba​

Description: The World Assembly,

UNDERSTANDING that sanitation is vital to the health and well-being of all people, and that when neglected, is a detriment to human life and may result in widespread outbreaks of disease,

BELIEVING that it is the duty of both member nations and the World Assembly to see that measures towards ensuring adequate sanitation are achieved,

FURTHER BELIEVING that it is a right of all people to equitable access to sanitation,

Hereby,

EXPANDS the mandate of the World Health Authority (WHA) to include the following:
a) Directing all appropriate funds towards investigating the causes of poor sanitation in member nations, researching solutions, and utilizing all appropriate resources to assist member nations in dealing with poor sanitary conditions and the consequences thereof,
b) Sharing all research and relevant information with member nations in an effort to mitigate the causes of poor sanitation,
c) Advising member nations based on the aforementioned research measures,
d) Funding and directing education measures, in coordination with the governments of member nations and other relevant institutions that promote improving sanitation;

REQUIRES that member nations shall take all measures practical, reasonable and necessary in providing a safe level of sanitation for their inhabitants, including but not limited to, constructing adequate solid waste management systems and ensuring access to public sanitation facilities;

MANDATES that all member nations must freely provide educational material on the importance of sanitation;

ENCOURAGES member nations to work cooperatively with both one another and non-member nations to improve regional access to sanitation, the quality of sanitation, and other objectives regarding improved sanitation;

REQUESTS that member nations offer incentives for innovations and solutions to solve sanitation problems, and;

STRONGLY URGES member nations to set prices for publicly sponsored sanitation operations in such a manner so as to make them as affordable as feasible.

This resolution includes significant contributions made by Sciongrad.

 

[Abacathea]

MINISTERIAL REVIEW​

In this Minister's tenure as WA Minister, and as an Author for the World Assembly, we have never once uttered the phrase (while a resolution was at vote) "Not an international issue" however, we really find ourselves flumuxed in regards to how else to sum up how we feel on this matter.

This act is essentially asking the WA to direct funds to upgrade the plumbing infrastructure across the WA universe in the most inept possible ways. For example:

a) Directing all appropriate funds towards investigating the causes of poor sanitation in member nations, researching solutions, and utilizing all appropriate resources to assist member nations in dealing with poor sanitary conditions and the consequences thereof,

The wording here is quite concerning, first we have all "appropriate" funds, which is determined by whom? A WA body? To investigate the causes of poor sanitation? "They don't have toilets", researching solutions "they need toilets" and utilizing all appropriate resources "Let's order them toilets".

This act is extremely invasive at a significant strength piece and really doesn't serve a tremendous amount of benefit to the majority of WA nations who should be up to a much higher standard of living than this based off of currently existing legislation.

To be honest, we could have accepted this act for the benefits it might have served to some of the lesser developed nations, and then we spotted this:

MANDATES that all member nations must freely provide educational material on the importance of sanitation;

So there you have it, regardless of your tech levels, you are now OBLIGED AND REQUIRED under WA law to send a pamphlet to every home in your nation detailing the benefits of a good ol' flush!

MINISTERS SUGGESTION​

​

As a result of the above, the ministers suggested vote is a FIRM AGAINST on this post.

AS PER USUAL THIS IS A SUGGESTED VOTE ONLY, PLEASE VOTE FOR, AGAINST OR ABSTAIN AS DESIRED BELOW.​

 

[Abacathea]

This resolution is currently up for vote in the WA at major tonight.

 

[Abacathea]

Against. What utter nonsense.

 

[Acoustic Siberia]

What a shockingly terribly summary of this proposal. The fact you don't consider addressing improved sanitation - which is one of the RL UN's Millennium Development Goals - to be worthy of the WA's consideration suggests an utterly crass, callous breed of First Worlder navel gazing.

 

[Abacathea]

What a shockingly terribly summary of this proposal. The fact you don't consider addressing improved sanitation - which is one of the RL UN's Millennium Development Goals - to be worthy of the WA's consideration suggests an utterly crass, callous breed of First Worlder navel gazing.

Gruen are you being deliberately obtuse or is it just an aspect of your personality you aren't aware you sport?

I'll reiterate, this proposal as written is not an international issue. I'll outline with less rhetoric for you as to why I deem it to be so;

• The proposal by virtue of it's title appears to deem this to be a "Right". It's not, it's a necessity sure, perhaps even a fundamental requirement, but a "right" is a stretch.
  
• The proposal affords the committee whose powers it's extending a sweeping level of power in relation to the appropriation of funds for the utilization of something as trivial as ascertaining why there isn't adequate sanitation, the answer is fundamental, in modern tech nations, there presumably is, and in past tech nations or low economy nations, the funds either aren't there or the technology isn't, this isn't rocket science and certainly doesn't require a committee to ascertain it.
  
• The requirement to issue educational material on this in all nations is insane, I have a population of near 3 billion and have a fantastic infrastructure including plumbing and waste management, why on earth should I be forced to issue such material by virtue of this proposal?
  
• The Authors, Sciongrad and Elke and Elba are capable of producing FAR better material than this, both of them. This was a project which was worked, then abandoned, then worked, then submitted as a "last stab at doing something" in the assembly. The fact remains this could have been a lot better than it is.
  
• Lastly, as you yourself know, RL != NS, just because the modern day UN stuck their hand in the fire, are you going to do it too? Don't be so disingenuous Gruen.
  

Those are the reasons I'm recommending an against vote, if you happen to feel this is indicative of my being born with a silver spoon in my mouth, so be it. The reality is, I assess, I deliver an opinion, no more, no less. Vote against if you want. I really couldn't care less if I tried.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I have invited the author to join the debate.

 

[Alunya]

I have invited the author to join the debate.

Excellent! We are particularly interested in his or her views on clumping versus non-clumping; clay, sand, paper, pine or wheat strata; deodorized versus fragrance-free; and enclosed versus plein air. Proper scooping techniques, numbers and locations of the facilities, proximity to loud and scary noises, appropriate distances from food and water resources, under-linings and spill containment, automated cleansing, and frequency of cleansing are all important issues to us -- everywhere, around the world.

It has been said that the human body demonstrates that God Himself is a Sanitation Engineer; who else would run a wastewater pipe through a recreation area?

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Abacathea]

It has been said that the human body demonstrates that God Himself is a Sanitation Engineer; who else would run a wastewater pipe through a recreation area?

That is quite possibly the best quote I have ever seen.

 

[Alunya]

It is the punch line of a very common engineering joke (of which this is a variant).

I've always made it a point, when visiting a campus, to find the lowest elevation, then observe which disciplines are situated nearby. Under a hydraulic gradient, s*** flows downhill...

Anyway, at that moment, we all needed a bit of levity.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Fenichi]

This proposal is too authoritative as much as it is vague. If it were written any other way the Principality of Legington would have considered this proposal. In its current state however it does not gain our support.

Against.

 

[Sciongrad]

Please do tell me if I'm overstepping my boundaries here, because my only goal here is to be helpful and informative. So I guess I'll get down to brass tacks. I mean no disrespect to you Abacathea, but frankly, you need to hold yourself to a higher standard regarding writing resolution summaries. This one is awful, and this isn't the only time. This is a trend that I've noticed. And I'm not basing this on malice or anything - I don't think you've ever written a summary on mine, so I have nothing to be bitter over - but you should look into spending more time on these. Anyways, the current summary and subsequent rebuttal demonstrate little to no understanding of the topic, so I'd like to clarify a few things for everyone.

The proposal by virtue of it's title appears to deem this to be a "Right". It's not, it's a necessity sure, perhaps even a fundamental requirement, but a "right" is a stretch.

This is actually sort of horrifying. This demonstrates either that you have a warped sense of what constitutes a right or you've just been so entitled to adequate sanitation your whole life that you simply assume it's not an issue. And, even if you were right (hehe, get it - right?), I don't think it's good policy to vote based on the title of a resolution.

The proposal affords the committee whose powers it's extending a sweeping level of power in relation to the appropriation of funds for the utilization of something as trivial as ascertaining why there isn't adequate sanitation, the answer is fundamental, in modern tech nations, there presumably is, and in past tech nations or low economy nations, the funds either aren't there or the technology isn't, this isn't rocket science and certainly doesn't require a committee to ascertain it.

This shows a misunderstanding of two things - the World Assembly bureaucracy and the complexity of sanitation policy. First of all, this resolution does not offer a "sweeping level of power" to the committee. It offers the same level of flexibility as any other committee in the World Assembly, it merely explicitly states that the committee can fund itself, as per GAR#17. You're acting like this is shocking, but the point you made can be made of any other committee. Secondly, sanitation policy is not as easy as "they need more money and technology," and I'm actually sort of offended that you're talking as if you have some knowledge or authority on the topic when you clearly have not put in any amount of research.

The requirement to issue educational material on this in all nations is insane, I have a population of near 3 billion and have a fantastic infrastructure including plumbing and waste management, why on earth should I be forced to issue such material by virtue of this proposal?

That would be horrible if that's what the clause actually said. It doesn't say "mandates that all member nations must freely give a sanitation pamphlet to every single inhabitant of their territories," it says "mandates that all member nations must freely provide education material." This means that if someone wants access to sanitation information, the government must provide it freely. This is just common sense. This means through a website, through government offices, whatever. It's bad policy to either charge people for information directly related to their health or to simply deny them access to this information at all. But as it stands, your interpretation of the clause is not correct.

Lastly, as you yourself know, RL != NS, just because the modern day UN stuck their hand in the fire, are you going to do it too? Don't be so disingenuous Gruen.

Actually, you should know better, because RL=/=NS doesn't mean what you think it does. If someone said "the ozone layer is disintegrating because of pollution!" then that is an example of RL=/=NS because that isn't necessarily true in the NS universe. However, the argument you're making seems to be that you can't use real life as an example of what constitutes good policy in NS. For example, the UN thinks it's a good idea to help impoverished countries receive clean water. If someone wrote a resolution on that, and then cited the real UN's efforts as evidence that it's good policy, then the RL=/=NS principle doesn't apply. I hope I've cleared that up so you don't misuse this in the future.

So to Abacathea and the other North Pacificans, I hope this clarifies any issues you have with the draft. If anyone desires further clarification, feel free to ask!

 

[Abacathea]

I'll respond to this later. Reserving this for a response posting.

 

[Alunya]

FOR (I wanted to wait until the author to speak.)

Thank you Sciongrad for clarifying some matters. For any that may think that sanitation is a simple subject, a quick glance at this wiki page will highlight just some of the technologies. Finding a good working solution for any drainage basin is no easy matter, and outside assistance and expertise can be helpful even if the entire basin is contained within one nation. When there are downstream (or upstream) nations, the matter can indeed become international. Furthermore, outbreaks of disease due to poor sanitation in one nation can have an impact in any other nation that is in communication, by land, sea or air, as people travel. I see this issue as one of interest to the World Assembly community.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Lord Nwahs]

Thinking about it after a while, I'm voting For.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

You are most welcome here Sciongrad. I am glad that this proposal has generated a debate.

I am counting two in favour and two against. Not voting.

 

[Lord Byron]

Against

No lengthy explanation given.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Lodged a vote of against.

 

[Flemingovia]

For.

 

[Abacathea]

Please do tell me if I'm overstepping my boundaries here, because my only goal here is to be helpful and informative. So I guess I'll get down to brass tacks. I mean no disrespect to you Abacathea, but frankly, you need to hold yourself to a higher standard regarding writing resolution summaries. This one is awful, and this isn't the only time. This is a trend that I've noticed. And I'm not basing this on malice or anything - I don't think you've ever written a summary on mine, so I have nothing to be bitter over - but you should look into spending more time on these.

I'd certainly be happy to discuss this further with you. I've been attempting to put a little more rhetoric into these as of late to see if it would generate more interest. If there's anywhere in particular you think I've really f*|"ed up I'd be intruiged to know for feedback reasons.

This is actually sort of horrifying. This demonstrates either that you have a warped sense of what constitutes a right or you've just been so entitled to adequate sanitation your whole life that you simply assume it's not an issue.

My vote is not based singularly off of the the title, although I do feel it, constitues a percentage of the text and therefore entitled to be scrutinized, if the title was called "the feel good puppy act" and was about killing lions, I'd still have an issue with it. Title is as valid a place to start as anything else. And yes, Ireland's sanitation is pretty good, I've never had a reason to question it. Could do with a little less limescale in the water, but c'est la vie.

This shows a misunderstanding of two things - the World Assembly bureaucracy and the complexity of sanitation policy. First of all, this resolution does not offer a "sweeping level of power" to the committee. It offers the same level of flexibility as any other committee in the World Assembly, it merely explicitly states that the committee can fund itself, as per GAR#17. You're acting like this is shocking, but the point you made can be made of any other committee. Secondly, sanitation policy is not as easy as "they need more money and technology," and I'm actually sort of offended that you're talking as if you have some knowledge or authority on the topic when you clearly have not put in any amount of research.

Your offence is most confusing considering these reviews are never respective of how I feel on the author. The law is what the law says, and this law says:

a) Directing all appropriate funds towards investigating the causes of poor sanitation in member nations, researching solutions, and utilizing all appropriate resources to assist member nations in dealing with poor sanitary conditions and the consequences thereof,

Essentially this committee has been given carte blanche to direct any and all funds as it deems "appropriate" and utilizing all resources it deems "appropriate" at any given time towards resolving this issue, which to be frank I'm still not convinced is as big an issue as you and EnE feel. I'm not saying it's not an issue, but it's one I'd associate more with third world, developmentally challenged nations, not nations that are expected to be in compliance with every other act in the WA books. It boggles the mind.

Actually, you should know better, because RL=/=NS doesn't mean what you think it does. If someone said "the ozone layer is disintegrating because of pollution!" then that is an example of RL=/=NS because that isn't necessarily true in the NS universe. However, the argument you're making seems to be that you can't use real life as an example of what constitutes good policy in NS. For example, the UN thinks it's a good idea to help impoverished countries receive clean water. If someone wrote a resolution on that, and then cited the real UN's efforts as evidence that it's good policy, then the RL=/=NS principle doesn't apply. I hope I've cleared that up so you don't misuse this in the future.

There was no misuse of this I assure you, in fact I think you've possibly misused how I've used it to claim I misused it. I'm more than familiar with the RL=/=NS prinicpal and how it works Sci. Legislation on Tectonic plate movements may be a good idea RL but not transferable to NS, legislation on interdimensional warfare may seem good NS side but not RL side, what I was getting at is just because the UN implemented such a strategy doesn't mean that the same techniques for implementation are applicable NS side, and that IS a valid method of equating the NS=/=RL rule.

All in all, I have zero issue with you and EnE objecting to my view on this proposal, however I'm still outside on the "this seems an issue of note" considering the strength on it and generally surrounding the topic. A different WA minister may feel differently, that's politics. Not something I felt should be called out in such a way as to almost matter of factly state I'm wrong, but hey, I've been known to be. To EnE's credit they have contacted me to see what I personally disliked about the proposal, and I am thankful for that, although as you pointed out I don't have the level of insight into the topic that others might, but then I doubt 50% of the major voters would either.

I leave this to the voting populous for their decision, as has always been my way, while I ponder a few things regarding this situation.

 

[Sciongrad]

I'd certainly be happy to discuss this further with you. I've been attempting to put a little more rhetoric into these as of late to see if it would generate more interest. If there's anywhere in particular you think I've really f*|"ed up I'd be intruiged to know for feedback reasons.

Of course! I'm sure that you're more than qualified, but I do feel as if your summaries don't currently do you justice. I don't think it's my place, but I'll always offer friendly advice if I see something is amiss.

My vote is not based singularly off of the the title, although I do feel it, constitues a percentage of the text and therefore entitled to be scrutinized, if the title was called "the feel good puppy act" and was about killing lions, I'd still have an issue with it. Title is as valid a place to start as anything else. And yes, Ireland's sanitation is pretty good, I've never had a reason to question it. Could do with a little less limescale in the water, but c'est la vie.

The point here is that sanitation is a right, but one that is not commonly discussed, and due to your easy access to most sanitation programs, it's no big deal to you. When it's causing widespread disease and death in Africa and Southeast Asia, however, it's certainly something that should be resolved. And this is no different for the WA.

Your offence is most confusing considering these reviews are never respective of how I feel on the author.

I take offense because you don't know what you're talking about regarding the complexity of the topic issue and yet have the audacity to dismiss it as basic and not worthy of the WA's time. If we didn't legislate on topics that some WA members didn't understand, then we'd certainly have a problem! And I don't think you're the only one who's generalizing this as the World Assembly Toilet Campaign either, but it's certainly more than that.

Essentially this committee has been given carte blanche to direct any and all funds as it deems "appropriate" and utilizing all resources it deems "appropriate" at any given time towards resolving this issue, which to be frank I'm still not convinced is as big an issue as you and EnE feel. I'm not saying it's not an issue, but it's one I'd associate more with third world, developmentally challenged nations, not nations that are expected to be in compliance with every other act in the WA books. It boggles the mind.

Wait, before I rebut the rest of your claim, are you saying that there are no third world nations in the World Assembly, or that they aren't common? I mean, that's just not grounded in any fact. Simply because member nations are in compliance with past resolutions doesn't mean they're all economically stable, and there are even past resolutions dedicated to helping struggling nations. The World Assembly helping underdeveloped nations is not new. I agree that this is not a major issue in my country or yours, but the third world, which does comprise a sizable number of World Assembly nations, sees this is a serious issue. I mean, if you can show me the specific resolutions that lead you to believe all citizens of WA member states live in comfort and ease, then I'll surely acquiesce, and I'd be interested in seejng your repeal attempts of resolutions like GAR#107 and GAR#226 that would logically follow.

Anyways, regarding the rest of your text. This still is making a mountain out of a molehill, and like I said, shows that you might not understand how the bureaucracy works. All committees can fund themselves, that's how committees work and that's why GAR#17 was passed. All this does is state that concept in legal terms. You seem to think that this is giving them unbridled access to all sorts of funds, but that's not what it says. It says "directing all appropriate funds," not "all the funds it could ever want or need." This says, in layman's terms, "the WHA shall be able to fund its sanitation programs."

There was no misuse of this I assure you, in fact I think you've possibly misused how I've used it to claim I misused it. I'm more than familiar with the RL=/=NS prinicpal and how it works Sci. Legislation on Tectonic plate movements may be a good idea RL but not transferable to NS, legislation on interdimensional warfare may seem good NS side but not RL side, what I was getting at is just because the UN implemented such a strategy doesn't mean that the same techniques for implementation are applicable NS side, and that IS a valid method of equating the NS=/=RL rule.

You're still not making sense, because poor sanitation is a problem that's not exclusive to either NS or RL. The real UN supports it because it's a problem endemic to poor regions, and this holds true in NS as well. You may understand the difference between NS=/=RL, but this is not an instance where it applies.

 

[Alunya]

And I don't think you're the only one who's generalizing this as the World Assembly Toilet Campaign either, but it's certainly more than that.

As I had focused in my previous post on waste water treatment techniques, I may have lent some credence to this. I am well aware that storm water run-off and solid (trash) waste management are also significant aspects of sanitation.

Even advanced nations could benefit from a clearinghouse. While a modern state might not need to be told "Don't piss upstream from your water supply," they could benefit from learning about the latest expandable polymer liners to refurbish old drain pipes. I think there is room enough in this resolution to include everyone.

>^,,^<
Alunya

 

[Abacathea]

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 WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.

 

[r3naissanc3r]

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 WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.