[GA - At Vote] Repeal: “On Tobacco And Electronic Cigarettes”

Status
Not open for further replies.

TlomzKrano

Just a blob chasing cars
-
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Kranostav
Discord
Tlomz

ga.jpg

Repeal: “On Tobacco And Electronic Cigarettes”
Category: Repeal | GA #459
Proposed by: I Came I Saw I Dominated | Onsite Topic
General Assembly Resolution #459 “On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes” (Category: Regulation; Area of Effect: Consumer Protection) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of the target resolution to improve health by reducing smoking and related issues,

Reminding itself that passed resolutions cannot be amended to resolve errors,

Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,

Further concerned that members with governments appropriately disposed to tobacco corporations can therefore abide by the text of the target while also taking little useful action towards teaching their populations the harms of tobacco and smoke inhalation,

Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,

Further believing that this makes unavailable to the Assembly the ability to recommend which also also effectively eliminates the scope for discretion under WA resolutions,

Observing that not all member member nations are composed of species harmed by the targeted products and believing such to be an unnecessary overreach,

Further observing that the educational requirements would cause waste of resources in nations where tobacco use is low or non-existent,

Hopefully consigning to private essays rather than General Assembly resolutions titles starting with the word "On",

Certain that action will be taken by delegations committed to reducing smoking and similar issues in the eventuality of repeal,

Repeals "On Tobacco and Electronic Cigarettes".

Co-Authored by Imperium Anglorum
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
 
I disagree with the view taken by this repeal, and strongly suspect the resolution is being used to fight a completely different battle.

Regardless of the word used, it defeats the purpose of warning labels if the nation prints the warnings in a language the consumers cannot read. Such an act would not be a good-faith effort to comply with the law. So to suggest the wording matters so much that the resolution falls apart on that basis is a real stretch. Additionally, if the number of consumers partaking in these products is small, the education and resources spent on it would naturally be scaled back. If the product isn’t sold there then there would be no need for those resources to be expended outside of very basic and limited ones. It’s not a very convincing argument to me.

Against


It doesn’t matter that I disagree with the definition argument about the word “should,” and it doesn’t matter that words can mean different things in different contexts, because prior legality rulings have determined 1)that should is not a binding word 2)that writing stuff in languages people can’t read doesn’t violate compliance with resolutions. Both of these are ridiculous and bad conclusions in my opinion, but I cannot argue with the structural rules underpinning the WA. I can’t recommend we inform our region of these positions that have been litigated and rendered incorrect by Gen Sec either. So in order to bow to the inevitable and grudgingly recognize that because the author did not intend optionality but nevertheless it exists anyway on a purely legal basis, I Abstain.

*To be clear, this is a basic thread vote abstention. I am not declaring an intention to abstain at vote.
 
Last edited:
This appears to be a hodgepodge of poor reasons that fail to form a cohesive argument for repeal. The author makes a questionable assumption about the species of the populace; as far as I know, it is implied that nations are comprised of humans, and usage of words such as 'persons', 'humans', and 'human rights' in previous GARs reinforces that view. Requiring GARs to account for an infinite number of imaginary species is preposterous. Other arguments appear to be purely based on the choice of two words that bear no effect on the implementation of GA#459.

I especially take umbrage to the remarks on continued education. Given how quickly history and the impact of deadly diseases tends to be forgotten, education on the harmfulness of tobacco is essential even when tobacco is abolished.

Against.

WA: Orven
 
Last edited:
I don't like the resolution that aims to repeal, but I think that as it is written doesn't provide any reason or solid argument for it.

Against.
 
Against
I'm not really seeing the language issue as legit in the context of the whole clause, which makes clear that it is part of a mandate. In this case the word 'should' is simply a clarifying instruction within the frame of that mandate. If the word 'should' were used in part of an independent, stand-alone clause, then perhaps it could be interpreted as an unclear option, but that's not what happens in the target.
The other objections that the author rolls out from that misinterpretation, must also be dismissed
I don't believe the author has provided any genuine proof that there are species out there that aren't harmed by tobacco, so that's just a supposition. What we do have is a hefty body of evidence that tobacco is a carcinogen, and that cellular based species are subject to mutations from carcinogens, and that we have yet to see any evidence of any form of life that isn't cellular in nature.
The education piece is a worthwhile endeavor under any circumstance.

WA Nation is THX1138
 
Last edited:
Against.Most of the resolution seems to actually be arguing on the wording of GARs, rather than presenting strong reasons on why GAR#459 should be repealed.
I don't like the resolution that aims to repeal, but I think that as it is written doesn't provide any reason or solid argument for it.Against.
Please make sure you are providing the name of your WA nation with your votes. Thanks.
 
I encourage all of you, whenever you change your original post, to post again bringing that to our attention. Makes it easier to count when votes shift mid-vote. I have changed my position (slightly) on this issue and have also included language from my Discord argument.
 
Thanks for the update, Pallaith. I wasn't aware of the unintentional language allowing optionality in compliance and the GenSec's rulings on these issues. It re-contextualizes my view concerning a well-written repeal, but this isn't one.
 
At a fundamental level, the ability for people to identify products which contain addictive and carcinogenic substances is quite important. And I think that the packaging and form factors of those products has changed considerably over recent years. Tobacco is no longer only in the form of cigarettes, and definitely can be sold in a manner which is not prima facie evident to the consumer that it is addictive. This is especially the case with children and with the commercialisation of nicotine-containing liquids.

Concerned that the recently passed resolution permits member nations to abide by its requirements without in fact translating warnings into a language understandable by the local populace, as the language used repeatedly in the target is inherently optional,

Further concerned that members with governments appropriately disposed to tobacco corporations can therefore abide by the text of the target while also taking little useful action towards teaching their populations the harms of tobacco and smoke inhalation,

Believing that interpretation of the word "should" by national or international tribunals to invoke requirement would be an unprecedented shift in the interpretation of World Assembly statutes that would fundamentally shift the relationship between the Assembly and its constituent members so to engender incredible overreach,
That is what this section of the repeal is primarily focused on. If you truly believe that the repeal has a "misinterpretation", which is something that bowloftoast claims above, then I invite you to submit on the forum a legality challenge. The Honest Mistake rule prohibits interpretations of resolutions which are not reasonable. If this is in fact such an interpretation, the proposal will be discarded. I should of course, also tell you that in the discussion thread of this proposal on the forum, multiple GenSec members have already weighed in (Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricalia, and Bananaistan, among them, making at least half) saying that the use of the word "should" does not imply requirement in this context.

The implications of that are important. New products containing addictive chemicals can be released which are not within the scope of a customer's existing education, which would harm persons who are not aware of that fact. Moreover, this is exacerbated in nations in which there are dominant and subordinate languages. The first two that come to mind are Belgium, which has historically been controlled by the French-speaking south, and the United States, where the vast majority speaks English with a large number of insular secondary language groups. To not require nations to convey this sort of information would prove especially damaging to the most socially and linguistically disadvantaged amongst the population.

After repeal, there is nothing here which blocks the author, who has already drafted a replacement, from simply passing that replacement and filling the gap. I have no objection to it and would support such a proposal, in the same way I initially supported the original target resolution before reading it more carefully.

A few other quibbles.

Other arguments appear to be purely based on the choice of two words that bear no effect on the implementation of GA#459 ... as far as I know, it is implied that nations are comprised of humans, and usage of words such as 'persons', 'humans', and 'human rights' in previous GARs reinforces that view.
Regarding the first section, see above. Regarding the second, GA 355 codifies into General Assembly law the possibility of their existing other non-human species. I don't roleplay with that presumption, mostly because I think it invites bad argumentation, but previous GA resolutions do not reinforce that view, they explicitly dismantle any humano-centric conception of the Assembly's legislation writ large.
 
Last edited:
Other arguments appear to be purely based on the choice of two words that bear no effect on the implementation of GA#459 ... as far as I know, it is implied that nations are comprised of humans, and usage of words such as 'persons', 'humans', and 'human rights' in previous GARs reinforces that view.
Regarding the first section, see above. Regarding the second, GA 355 codifies into General Assembly law the possibility of their existing other non-human species. I don't roleplay with that presumption, mostly because I think it invites bad argumentation, but previous GA resolutions do not reinforce that view, they explicitly dismantle any humano-centric conception of the Assembly's legislation writ large.

Thank you for the clarification. With regards to the first section, I have already made a second post and should have edited my prior statement. For the second, I appreciate your pointing to GA#355.
 
Thank you for the clarification. With regards to the first section, I have already made a second post and should have edited my prior statement. For the second, I appreciate your pointing to GA#355.
Then regarding that: What would you believe to be a "well written" repeal?
 
That is what this section of the repeal is primarily focused on. If you truly believe that the repeal has a "misinterpretation", which is something that bowloftoast claims above, then I invite you to submit on the forum a legality challenge. The Honest Mistake rule prohibits interpretations of resolutions which are not reasonable. If this is in fact such an interpretation, the proposal will be discarded. I should of course, also tell you that in the discussion thread of this proposal on the forum, multiple GenSec members have already weighed in (Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricalia, and Bananaistan, among them, making at least half) saying that the use of the word "should" does not imply requirement in this context.
The contextual use of the word 'should' in a seemingly passive manner, but with mandatory implications has fallen into the language: 'You should breathe or you will die'.
Sure, it's not a statement of what one 'must' do to avoid death, but both words are understood as interchangeable in that context. Once two word's interchangeability, through wide use, has been commonly established in the language, then they can be used in each other's stead in any other context. Language is constantly evolving, and that's precisely how it happens. I find it pretty clear that that's what was intended in this proposal.
The fact that GenSec has ruled that the use of the word 'should' does not imply requirement in this context, doesn't mean that its use in this proposal can't establish its use as meaning requirement, henceforth, when the intent s clear. I'd suggest if the repeal fails, then the future use of 'should' as implying requirement, will have been established. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:
One that focused solely on the word "should". The point on education raised a red flag for a nation concerned about addiction resurgence, and the jab at the word "on" was an unnecessary distraction. As you said, opening the door to considering other 'species' added a complication though mostly through my ignorance of GA history. Consider it a preference from a relatively new nation. However, I appreciate the main content of your argument and will consider whether a repeal of the original legislation is warranted.

For now, I abstain.
WA: Orven

OOC: On the topic of "on" (the title for my next essay), I actually found your statement on that word amusing. What's a game without having some fun with it? Also, flipping through pages of repealed resolutions is mildly annoying.
 
Last edited:
The fact that GenSec has ruled that the use of the word 'should' does not imply requirement in this context, doesn't mean that its use in this proposal can't establish its use as meaning requirement, henceforth, when the intent s clear. I'd suggest if the repeal fails, then the future use of 'should' as implying requirement, will have been established. Problem solved.
I'm not exactly sure how to argue against this, mostly because it denies the reality of how the GA works. Of course, tell me if I'm interpreting your comments incorrectly.

First, the only things that actually count as precedent are not resolutions (which I think is what your repeal of Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities was trying to get to?), but GenSec rulings. I have a list of all of them linked on the forum, if you'd like to read them. But interpretation of the word "should" would not change in any possibility of the repeal succeeding or failing. Nor does the opposite of a positive resolution imply the negation of that positive resolution's claims.

Second, GenSec didn't rule, they instead simply refused to countenance the possibility of "should" implying anything more than optionality, dismissing it as ridiculous. So much so that one of the Secretariat members thought the repeal was illegal for even suggesting the possibility that it was not optional. And on top of that, I'm not sure why we should take any view of interpretation that isn't connected to the people who are in charge of interpretation, since (at least if you believe the legal positivists) the Secretariat is the body which sets what resolutions mean at a general level.

I might be a buff-old traditionalist when it comes to GA interpretation, coming from back when the moderators on high came down with truths (that all the GA regulars then protested against, at varying degrees, of course, every time), but the fact that the Secretariat can discard repeals for claiming things which they see in opposition to how the Secretariat reads the resolution means that varying from Secretariat interpretation is a hard-to-impossible task indeed. But as a whole, I feel that insofar as the Secretariat views the resolution as saying X, it says X, full stop.

OOC: On the topic of "on" (the title for my next essay), I actually found your statement on that word amusing. What's a game without having some fun with it? Also, flipping through pages of repealed resolutions is mildly annoying.
Lol, tell me next time we get around to "Ban on Secret Treaties" and the last clause in that proposal. Or Debtor Voting Rights' length. The list of repealed resolutions isn't all that bad when you use RexisQuexis™ Categories which sorts all the resolutions by categories and eliminates the ones which don't fall in. (It's linked in my Passed Resolutions thread.)

But, on the word on: Titles starting with the word "On X" are not descriptive. Beyond the fact that it doesn't seem to fit the aesthetics of the "law" theme, such titles do not provide helpful information on the sort of policies trying to be enacted.

The resolution "On Abortion" doesn't say "Permitting Abortion" for a reason, it's phrased in that vague manner so not to engender immediate opposition from pro-life voters. I mean, at a certain level, that title could be used to describe resolutions requiring abortions to resolutions requiring that people getting and performing abortions be tried for murder. All those possible resolutions in that range of policies are all "On Abortion".
 
Last edited:
I'm not exactly sure how to argue against this, mostly because it denies the reality of how the GA works. Of course, tell me if I'm interpreting your comments incorrectly.
First, the only things that actually count as precedent are not resolutions (which I think is what your repeal of Defending The Rights Of Sexual And Gender Minorities was trying to get to?), but GenSec rulings.
The whole of the WA is built on the concept of legal precedent. Once a law is established, it cant be changed: A precedent has been set. Once a law is passed, nations can't make amendments to it: Precedent. Once a legislation exists, another legislation can't cover the same ground: Precedent. Once a law is passed, it can't be considered anything but legal: Precedent. The rules that the Secretariat follows aren't arbitrary, they consider what has come before.
prec·e·dent
noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

The resolutions absolutely establish precedent, and that precedent is what guides how the Secretariat rules on legality. 'Is there another law on this already" if yes, then the proposal is illegal - because there is precedent. 'Will this legislation impact on existing law?' if yes, the proposal is illegal, because there is already precedent. etc.

With re to my repeal, if I wanted to see the author submit a version of DRSGM without clause 5 (which I did) I needed to see the original repealed, because it was already law (precedent) and couldn't be amended. I had hoped the repeal would pass (because it made sense) but at the end of the day, I'm equally happy that there is another attempt at addressing these type of exemptions. I genuinely don't care how it gets done, as long as that problem gets the attention it needs.

What I'm suggesting with re to your repeal, is that the target was legal, since it passed. As I understand it, the Secretariat's job is done once they've made a decision about a proposal's legality. How they arrive at that decision can't be said to have much bearing on how nations interpret a proposal, because 90% of voters don't even visit the forum when making their decisions, nor are they required to. They are only required to read the proposal. Sure, the Secretariat's decision is final, full stop, when determining legality, but once the decision on legality is made, it's in the hands of regions and nations to decide what a proposal does or doesn't mean, and vote accordingly.

What the Secretariat may or may not have thought about 'should' in considering the legality of your repeal, and their process, isn't law. Clearly the target's legal either way, regardless of what they think about 'should'. It's established, so there's the precedent.

I have to accept the Secretariat's decision on the legality of your repeal. I agree that your repeal was legal. That doesn't necessarily mean I have to agree with their rationale. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I don't see the Secretariat out there proactively telling nations how they are supposed to interpret the minutia of every proposal at vote.

And, given that 90% won't even read their rationale for making a proposal legal, perhaps you see what I'm getting at. That all said, since the repeal didn't pass, the Secretariat's reasoning for ruling your repeal legal, is moot anyhow.

In fact, it's pretty much in my nation's hands to make the decision about what 'should' means now, since as you say, it's ambiguous, and I don't think interpreting it as mandatory does even the least bit of harm, nor does that constitute a bad faith interpretation of the law.

That's my take on the whole thing.
 
Last edited:
The whole of the WA is built on the concept of legal precedent. Once a law is established, it cant be changed: A precedent has been set. Once a law is passed, nations can't make amendments to it: Precedent. Once a legislation exists, another legislation can't cover the same ground: Precedent. Once a law is passed, it can't be considered anything but legal: Precedent. The rules that the Secretariat follows aren't arbitrary, they consider what has come before.
prec·e·dent
noun
noun: precedent; plural noun: precedents
/ˈpresəd(ə)nt/
1.an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

The resolutions absolutely establish precedent, and that precedent is what guides how the Secretariat rules on legality. 'Is there another law on this already" if yes, then the proposal is illegal - because there is precedent. 'Will this legislation impact on existing law?' if yes, the proposal is illegal, because there is already precedent. etc.

With re to my repeal, if I wanted to see the author submit a version of DRSGM without clause 5 (which I did) I needed to see the original repealed, because it was already law (precedent) and couldn't be amended. I had hoped the repeal would pass (because it made sense) but at the end of the day, I'm equally happy that there is another attempt at addressing these type of exemptions. I genuinely don't care how it gets done, as long as that problem gets the attention it needs.

What I'm suggesting with re to your repeal, is that the target was legal, since it passed. As I understand it, the Secretariat's job is done once they've made a decision about a proposal's legality. How they arrive at that decision can't be said to have much bearing on how nations interpret a proposal, because 90% of voters don't even visit the forum when making their decisions, nor are they required to. They are only required to read the proposal. Sure, the Secretariat's decision is final, full stop, when determining legality, but once the decision on legality is made, it's in the hands of regions and nations to decide what a proposal does or doesn't mean, and vote accordingly.
I hate to come in and just say that this is wrong, but this is wrong. Precedents are established in the GA only in relation to two things: (1) the rules and (2) actual rulings made by the Secretariat. The Secretariat not taking action is not a precedent. If you walk into the GA and say that "you allowed X to do this before", the Secretariat will then say "that's not a ruling unless you can show me where we ruled to that effect". Moreover, you then need to produce a ruling from the correct body to have it entered as precedent, i.e. not the moderators. And then, the Secretariat could then discard the precedent and override it.

On top of that, the rules are not based on precedent in of itself. They are based on the content of resolutions. The reason why the law cannot be amended is not because of some vague assertion to the primacy of the past, but the fact that there is an Amendment rule that prohibits it. The reason why past resolutions cannot be contradicted is not because of a vague appeal to tradition, but because there is a Contradiction rule that says you cannot.

At a fundamental level, there is a distinction in the Assembly between the rules, case law, and what generally happens. The rules are not enforced in all situations, case law is not produced in all situations, and what generally happens is no guide on to the other two, beyond what the Secretariat rules. Simply because something happened in the past does not justify its happening now or again.

It seems, at least to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you make a play at Secretariat-rulings-do-not-require-me-to-vote-some-way, which is true. They do not. However, to say that they are unimportant is untrue, especially to the "GA regulars". The Secretariat's job is about legality, but the impact on interpretation carries forward to members of the Assembly because if those members wanted to make a repeal, that repeal is itself evaluated on its legality, which is determined by the Honest Mistake rule, which is adjudicated on whether or not the interpretation made by the repeal is a reasonable one. And if you don't believe me, make a repeal of the targeted resolution saying that it requires members to translate the warnings and watch that get ruled illegal, in total "precedent" of this repeal failing.

What the Secretariat may or may not have thought about 'should' in considering the legality of your repeal, and their process, isn't law. Clearly the target's legal either way, regardless of what they think about 'should'. It's established, so there's the precedent.
The belief that in the Assembly that a proposal is automatically legal upon passage was made for two reasons: (1) repeals cannot claim that previous legislation was illegal, though I would not classify this as meta gaming, and (2) there is no way for administrative staff to remove past resolutions, therefore, they are treated as if they are legal. Nobody is going to successfully claim that simply because Max Barry Day was passed by the Assembly when the mods weren't looking, that because precedent, doing so today is definitely fine. Nor would anyone claim that Fris reintroducing GA 2 word-for-word in a world where GA 2 is repealed would not get Fris ejected for plagiarism.

If you were able to get something illegal to quorum while everyone isn't looking and then cast a single vote in favour, and then DDOS the site so that nobody can do anything for the next few days and it passes, that does not mean that those illegal things are now allowed.

Moreover, I'm not sure how this argument interacts with the repeal; the repeal does not claim that the target is illegal. Nor would the target's creation of optional requirements also be illegal, so that's not even something that could be implied from the claims made by the repeal; even in the world where the proposal made such claims, so long as that is a reasonable interpretation, doing so in a repeal is also not illegal.
 
Last edited:
I hate to come in and just say that this is wrong, but this is wrong. Precedents are established in the GA only in relation to two things: (1) the rules and (2) actual rulings made by the Secretariat.
I basically think that's what I said. The rulings of gen sec consider what has come before, when determining legality. I think where we diverge is in whether you think I'm talking about strict legal precedent/case law, where one resolution sets a standard in law to which all others must comply (which I'm not talking about), and the concept of precedent in the broader general sense, and as it applies to Gensec determinations of legality, within the rules, and examples of that were provided. HoC, Honest Mistake, etc. This seems to me to be violent agreement between us on that point.

On top of that, the rules are not based on precedent in of itself. They are based on the content of resolutions. The reason why the law cannot be amended is not because of some vague assertion to the primacy of the past, but the fact that there is an Amendment rule that prohibits it.
I don't consider it necessarily a vague assertion, and I understand there are limitations that prevent amendments (and it's from those limitations where the rule comes) but it's also pretty much common sense that if you have a law that says 'action x is illegal' and a new resolution that says 'action x is legal' that's going to cause some consternation, so that is a consideration in the application of the rule.

At a fundamental level, there is a distinction in the Assembly between the rules, case law, and what generally happens. The rules are not enforced in all situations, case law is not produced in all situations, and what generally happens is no guide on to the other two, beyond what the Secretariat rules. Simply because something happened in the past does not justify its happening now or again.
And here is where I believe we get at the heart of the issue. The scope of Gensec's power stops at the immediate determination of legality of a proposal, within the rules they have to work with. GenSec is not the Supreme Court. No disrespect intended, but they don't have the authority, and they are not provided the ability to interpret law outside of their purview, which is to make determinations on legality, strictly within the house rules.
Theirs is more a custodial role. I have to assume that Gensec is without the ability to make determinations about what may come as a consequence of their decision. They don't really get to take the long view on what the unintended consequences might be, of resolutions they deem legal (see 457). Their only concern is whether it's legal in the immediate sense. I fully understand that, but that reality also comes with it's own problems.
I'm of the mind that it has to be either/ or: Either Gensec does have the ability to inform on the implications, or they don't. In the case of your repeal, you're suggesting that their process does inform as to the meaning and implications of the target. In the case of 457, Gensec's focus was on the legality of exemptions as a whole. Didn't even touch on what 457 meant in relation to the rules laid out in 35. So, in that case, the wide view was that their process didn't inform (wasn't germane) to the implications of the target, raised in my repeal. I see a bit of a double standard in that. Not from Gensec, per se, but in how some chose to apply Gensec's process in any given situation, when it suits them. There can be a variety of ways they reach their conclusions on legality. Those ways may not specifically address any voter interpretation. I hope I'm being clear, but I think it need to be all or nothing.

It seems, at least to me (correct me if I'm wrong) that you make a play at Secretariat-rulings-do-not-require-me-to-vote-some-way, which is true. They do not. However, to say that they are unimportant is untrue, especially to the "GA regulars". The Secretariat's job is about legality, but the impact on interpretation carries forward to members of the Assembly because if those members wanted to make a repeal, that repeal is itself evaluated on its legality
Here's where we diverge again, and for many of the reasons stated above. In the case of 457, where there would very clearly be some informed, long-term fallout from Gensec's decision on legality, that was ignored, perhaps as it needed to be - I'm not sure.
But, it's pretty hard to deny that 457, in it's practical application, goes hard against the spirit of 35. So much so, that many of the same people who were most vocal about how wrong my interpretation of things was, in rejecting the premise of my repeal, were the first to support the proposal that followed, seeking to limit religious exemptions. Using Gensec's decision as ammo to argue against my repeal (because their decision happened to focus on the legality of exemptions), but then later acknowledging that the problems raised in my repeal, exist. You'll forgive me if I see that as some playing it both ways.

Specific to what I think you're getting at, I feel the determination of the legality of 457, by Gensec did set a precedent. Even tried to challenge their decision. I think it ignored the elephant in the room, that given enough of these type of 'legal' exemptions, targeting enough ideological groups, that that represents death by a thousand cuts to 35. When everyone is exempted in their discrimination, then what you're left with is everyone discriminating, and 35 is nullified. Making legal a resolution, that is instrumental in nullifying another regulation - amending that law without repeal - was against the grain of the house rules. That may be controversial, but that's where I land on it.
 
Regarding what bowloftoast said above, exactly what is your position regarding precedent? Either it's binding or it's not. Either precedents are established by resolution passage or they are not. You seem to fall on the position that they are both binding and they are established by resolution passage. The former is true. The latter is not true, since precedents in the GA are established solely be promulgation of a Secretariat ruling.

In the context of your (THX's, to go by the authorial name) repeal, I still have no idea what that repeal argued, why what the repeal argued was true, or why what it claimed was important. There was some consternation in the Discord about it being unintelligible, but since the Secretariat is not entirely willing to say something is not understandable English, that's definitely a separate matter. And it's a matter for another place.

But vis-à-vis repeals and this sentence: "In the case of your repeal, you're suggesting that their process does inform as to the meaning and implications of the target", the answer is yes. Honest Mistake (as well as, for that matter, Contradiction and Duplication) proceedings fundamentally establish what a proposal means.
 
...exactly what is your position regarding precedent? Either it's binding or it's not. Either precedents are established by resolution passage or they are not. You seem to fall on the position that they are both binding and they are established by resolution passage. The former is true. The latter is not true, since precedents in the GA are established solely be promulgation of a Secretariat ruling.
I'm saying, for the third time, that one contributes to the other. The Secretariat does not make its rulings in a void, and many of the rules they apply take into consideration the legislation that has come before. If they didn't make that consideration, we wouldn't have (or need) rules like HoC or HM. If you have an established law that says X you can't pass another law that contradicts X, because there is a precedent set by the first law, and it's that precedent that makes the rule necessary. It's not that complicated.

In the context of your (THX's, to go by the authorial name) repeal, I still have no idea what that repeal argued, why what the repeal argued was true, or why what it claimed was important. There was some consternation in the Discord about it being unintelligible, but since the Secretariat is not entirely willing to say something is not understandable English, that's definitely a separate matter. And it's a matter for another place.
Yet you still felt the need to mention it...
It wasn't exactly rocket science, either, so I'll just repeat what I stated above..."given enough of these type of 'legal' exemptions, targeting enough ideological groups, that represents death by a thousand cuts to 35. When everyone is exempted in their discrimination, then what you're left with is everyone discriminating, and 35 is nullified. Gensec deeming legal, a resolution that is instrumental in nullifying [in part or whole, the mandates of] another regulation - amending 35 without repealing it - was against the grain of the house rules."
I mean, you can take a position that's somehow incredibly complicated and beyond the realm of human understanding, but it's not. In fact, I would imagine most 10 year olds could grasp that very simple concept. As to your not understanding why that might be important, perhaps comes from a diminished sense of the importance of equal civil rights and what CoCR represents, or, perhaps you're diminishing the importance of the giant hole in the current rules that allows something like that to legally occur, even though it's apparently illegal under Gensec's rules.

But vis-à-vis repeals and this sentence: "In the case of your repeal, you're suggesting that their process does inform as to the meaning and implications of the target", the answer is yes.
So, it's yes when it's your repeal, but when Gensec makes a decision like the one on 457, that has obvious implications on 35, the answer is no? I think I understand now.
 
Briefly, since I'm on mobile.

1. Precedent has nothing to do with GA resolutions. The reason Contradiction (not House of Cards) exists is because of the rule set up.

Moreover, I'm not sure what the alleged 'precedent' about House of Cards is. HOC is a procedural question about whether or not there exists a substantive reliance on a past resolution, not whether something happened in the past.

2. What you're suggesting is a contradiction of GA 35, there isn't one. Because Maowi's resolution doesn't exempt anyone from prior legislation, just from the resolution (s)he created. If that were clearer, that Maowi's resolution exempts religious organisations from GA 35, the repeal would be illegal for HM.

3. I'm not sure what you're claiming with my resolution relative to GA 35.

The claim I'm making is very simple. 'Precedent' only exists in GA Secretariat rulings. Everything else is governed by the Proposal rules. I'm not sure how there can be any other conception of how the GA works that so neatly reconciles Secretariat actions and proposal legalities.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top