NationStates Jolt Archive

It is official! Common Sense Act II has reached Quorum, and will soon be voted on by the entire UN. Here is the official thread for comment about the new resolution.

It is official! Common Sense Act II has reached Quorum, and will soon be voted on by the entire UN. Here is the official thread for comment about the new resolution.

Just so no one misunderstands.. it's not a resolution yet. It has reached "Quorum" it must be passed to be a resolution.. ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

It is official! Common Sense Act II has reached Quorum, and will soon be voted on by the entire UN. Here is the official thread for comment about the new resolution.

Just so no one misunderstands.. it's not a resolution yet. It has reached "Quorum" it must be passed to be a resolution.. ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

And by reaching quorum, it has passed.

Yeah... Most U.N res. pass.

Yeah... Most U.N res. pass.

Remember the Peace Prize proposal...? 8)

Yeah... Most U.N res. pass.

Remember the Peace Prize proposal...? 8)

I do indeed. I helped defeat that one as did many. I might be up for the task again.. :lol:

Peace,
Stephanie.

While our court system essentially follows the principles of the Act as it is, we feel this is a sound resolution, if perhaps not the most important issue the UN could be debating. We will vote for it.

In the interest of full disclosure:

Common Sense Act II

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights Strength: Significant Proposed by: Fantasan

Description: : Far too many civil injustices occur each and every day in courts around the world. Frivolous lawsuits plague innocent homeowners and businessmen, who have done nothing wrong but earn enough money to become a target of an opportunist.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:
1:Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.
2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.
3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This proposal will lower the tax burden on all citizens, it will make the jobs of Judges and Juries easier, and will help restore a modicum of common sense to the world.

Approvals: 129 (Fantasan, Moleland, DaRight WingConspiracy, Pinoydude, More Hops and Barley, Ballotonia, _Myopia_, Cthonia, Carasek, Soviet Fraser Valley, Troon, Toledeau, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Flaming Moderates, JoyRide, Gil Eressea, Galerian, Majjiland, NewTexas, Norion, Xenites United, Quahog Prime, Walten, Eli, Frogwibble, Agrigento, Thallos, THE GREAT ONE, Westbubble, Tomlandia, Pessum Dare, Aboot, Nazi Deutschland Axis, Katzistanza, Snubis, Toryu, Scarvania, Dionalka, Teyrnix, Polka Fans World Wide, Cryptos Novus, Calculo, TheReigningDramaQueen, Emanuelia, Incertonia, Lamoni, Strawberry Fanatics, The Populations, Monrovia, Anomolies, One Bad Asp, South Alabama, Amarohalla, Greenmont, Niklok, Gemfish, Baudrillard, Har Akir, Hedgehogastan, New Zero Kanada, Edenism, Squeekerland, Linguatopia, Zakros, Tschisenoolat, HuntingtonBeachistan, Kryania, Markodonia, Sesquepadalia, Zunbia, Limbourgouis, Many Militias, Beanbag Chairs, Agents of Change, Squornshelous, Meerkats, Viscy, Palptatia, Fungus Amongus, Butthole, Ariddia, StIlTz, Broken corpses, Arlomania, The Lowcountry, The True Domination, Socialist Love, My Society, Greater Balhomais, Underaloz, Westrogoticae, Camarolina, Pax Romantica, Wufei, Kasperis, Treenudity, Cyberjaya, The Darwinistic States, Mathe, Occupied Smithania, Die Elite Reich, -Drakma-, Frrrpistan, Hedgetopia, Tol Barad, Axiomatic Set Theory, Prosperous Prospects, King Deonis, Tekcutnan, Kerta, Smasmi Danrea, Eikrongar, The Emperor Fenix, Erucolindin, Seliina, Music Maniacs, ChadMania, Geforce4, Sensible Hygiene, Crypto-Fascist Monks, Missing The News, Little, Aoduth, Tempus Incognitum, Judge Daltr, Bibliolia, Arizoneia, Houslandia, PAULSON)

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

The Republic of Goobergunchia has not approved this proposal. [Approve]

A UN History Edit: Another major topic on this resolution can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278808).

Yeah... Most U.N res. pass.

Remember the Peace Prize proposal...? 8)

I do indeed. I helped defeat that one as did many. I might be up for the task again.. :lol:

Peace,
Stephanie.

I'm willing to help.

I know I'll vote for it

By voting for this narrowly defined "Common Sense," aren't we violating common sense?

I know I'll vote for it

Why?

I know I'll vote for it

Why?

Why not this will get rid of many frivilous lawsuits?

I know I'll vote for it

Why?

Why not this will get rid of many frivilous lawsuits?

You mean like proper grammar?

The point is;

1) How hard have we been trying to get people to propose resolutions that would normally fall under the mandate of the UN and not intrude on national sovereignty?

2) While most of us agree that it's silly to sue over hot coffee being spilled in your lap. (coffee is suppose to be hot) This resolution has NO place in the UN. So now you're going to tell me you want the UN mandating your nations most basic civil laws?

3) This problem is exclusive to the real world United States of America. Therefore it doesn't affect the whole world. It affects ONE country in the entire world in real life. I think it probably affects even less in Nation States.

4) Do we really need this useless resolution? I mean think about it! What does this have to do with International issues?

5) If this passes, it will be a ticket to ride for every half-wit nation in Nation States to try and start proposing national laws in a body that doesn't legislate laws to begin with! The UN is NOT a legislative body.

I implore all of you not to vote in favour of this resolution.

I would also ask that if you agree with what I'm saying, that you do your best to get the message out to other UN delegates and members.

Thank You!

Peace,
Stephanie.

:lol:
The definitions of idiotic acts are all things that have happened in the past. Most of the things you described are pointless and you dont need a resolution to get rid of it. Just throw any any pointless case's before they even comes to going into court for it.

No nation has a right to use the "National Sovereignty" argument against my resolution if they have approved any of the following past resolutions:

"Mandatory Recycling"
"Replanting Trees"
"Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"
"Religious Tolerance"
"Free Education"
"Required Basic Healthcare"
"Due Process"
"Metric System"
"Outlaw Pedophilia"
"Fair Trial"


All of these resolutions violate national sovereignty, most more so than mine. It's very convenient for a lot of you to say "it's against National Sovereignty" when it's agaisnt what you want, but if it's part of your political agenda, suddenly you're on the bandwagon.

I've given up the "National Sovereignty" speech, because in this game it doesn't mean squat. The only way the right thing will get passed is if those who are for it started pushing for it and stopped holding back because they don't want to violate anyone's national sovereignty.
The wrong side won't stop pushing their agenda, so we have to start pushing ours in response!

No nation has a right to use the "National Sovereignty" argument against my resolution if they have approved any of the following past resolutions:

"Mandatory Recycling"
"Replanting Trees"
"Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"
"Religious Tolerance"
"Free Education"
"Required Basic Healthcare"
"Due Process"
"Metric System"
"Outlaw Pedophilia"
"Fair Trial"


All of these resolutions violate national sovereignty!

Ok, so you at least admit that your proposal does in fact "violate national sovereignty" So, what you're saying is, So I will just jump on the bandwagon and do it to? Ummm mmmk.

However, let's look at another side to this. While I may not of agreed personally with all of the above mentioned resolutions being passed. They all did have one thing in common that your resolution does not. They affected all people. Your resolution is not an international issue. It doesn't affect any one except for one country in the real world. It is a basic civil law issue.

It's also in the wrong category, your resolution would infringe on human and civil rights, not increase them. You will be blocking a political freedom at the expense of the little guy in favour of big corporations. You could of at least put it in the correct category.

VOTE AGAINST!

Peace,
Stephanie.

The way I figure is that I don't get enough votes to shift it one way or another. For the sake of argument, I've voted against the last 10 or so.

All right, I'm going to say it yet again. This proposal does not do what it says, it legalizes several different types of lawsuits and would cause a virtual anarchy in the economy.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

Ok, this means that if McDonalds were to sell a happy meal with shards of glass in the hamburger or if land o' lakes sold a package of butter with pieces of metal in it (which they recently did and went through quite a bit of effort to retrieve it) then the person who consumed the product would not be able to sue the company. There is nothing in there saying anything about exceptions or anything about liability. It simply states that if a legal product is damaging to the body then you cannot sue the company that sold you it, and a hamburger with shards of glass in it IS legal, so it a package of butter with pieces of metal in it.

And, because the company knows they cannot be sued for this. They will no doubt become more reckless in the quality of their product. If it costs 15c less a hamburger to make sure it doesn't get filled with glass, the company has no reason to take precautions to make sure glass doesn't get in it. I recently heard about a hip replacement company, which made artificial hips for surgical implant. And they neglected proper safety procedure in making sure the hip is sterile to save a little more money. So don't give me that crap that companies will "do the right thing" and make sure their product is safe anyways despite the costs. That's a complete lie and you know it.

4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This would mean, that if someone driving down the road and ran a red light, that if a policeman pulled you over, and shot you in the spine, you could not sue him or the police department for what happened. You might wonder, why would a policeman do that, policemen never commit crimes. Well, that isn't true, policeman are just as human as everyone else, but perhaps the policeman was mentally ill, and the police department neglected to do a background check, this would mean you STILL could not sue the department for that, because you were committing a crime at the time you incurred that injury.

It isn't even restricted to police brutality either, you could be running a red light, and then somebody runs you off the road, takes you out of the car, and beats you senseless. You still could not sue them, because you were in fact committing a crime at the time. Now how in the world is that justice?

And Fantasan, if you are going to write a reply, I don't want to hear some rant about how I am a communist, or some vague speech about how it's people like me that ruin the country, if you are going to reply, write a rebuttal to each paragraph I wrote, not just some blanket statement about how people are smart enough to not do that, an actual rebuttal to each of the arguments. I'm tired of your mindless ranting; if you are going to post make it relevant to what I wrote.

Would this resoution allow my citizens to place landmines on their property to deter tresspassers? Perhaps they could dig spike pits and electrify their doornobs to prevent this, as landmines could be illegal. There is plenty of potential for abuse in this so called "common sense" legislation.

From where does the UN derive the authority to interefere with a sovereign nation's system of civil litigation?

This proposal is yet another in a series of poorly composed, ill-conceived attempts at extending the purview of the UN beyond it's intended mandate.

In Ryhope, spreading urban legends (including the one about the McDonald's coffee case) is punishable by severe fines, and jail time for repeat offenders. Pity the original poster's nation doesn't have similar laws. We find that it cuts down on a lot of civil unrest, not to mention e-mail spamming.

Then why not claim that EVERYTHING is an urban legend?

I agree with Tisonica that it is not written correctly, if changes were made in the wording I would be for it. I totally agree that there are way too many frivolous lawsuits, however the wording on this will cause people to vote one way, and get something else altogether.

I really thing we need to fight medical lawsuits as well. Most lawsuits against doctors aren't well founded. I say we include that too!

I agree with Stephistan's points.


1) How hard have we been trying to get people to propose resolutions that would normally fall under the mandate of the UN and not intrude on national sovereignty?

2) While most of us agree that it's silly to sue over hot coffee being spilled in your lap. (coffee is suppose to be hot) This resolution has NO place in the UN. So now you're going to tell me you want the UN mandating your nations most basic civil laws?

3) This problem is exclusive to the real world United States of America. Therefore it doesn't affect the whole world. It affects ONE country in the entire world in real life. I think it probably affects even less in Nation States.

4) Do we really need this useless resolution? I mean think about it! What does this have to do with International issues?

5) If this passes, it will be a ticket to ride for every half-wit nation in Nation States to try and start proposing national laws in a body that doesn't legislate laws to begin with! The UN is NOT a legislative body.


Besides, I think there is a better way for individual nation-states to deal with this problem. I suggest that they draw up their own criteria for a frivolous lawsuit (which will hopefully be for more reasonable and airtight), and make it the responsibility of the suing party to pay for the cost entailed by the defending party if the lawsuit was deemed "frivolous" and the suing party lost.

- the Government of The Most Serene Republic of Mellifluousness.

I'm glad to see that so many people in NationStates are accomplished lawyers and can therefore write comprehensive documents . . or not. Whoever wrote this did not take the time to consider that different countries have different tort claims processes and that an act like this would be nothing more than a giant loophole when implemented on the national level. Tort reform is to be taken on the national level, not internationally.
Also, I don't know if anyone's noticed recently, but there are a lot of dictatorships out there in general who don't have any legal system, certainly not a claims court, so this wouldn't affect many states in the world anyway . . .

The Community of Gurthark strongly agrees with Tisonica. The resolution, as currently worded, is unwise and dangerous.

There is such a thing as *shared* liablility. If I do something potentially risky (eat a hamburger, drive my car, even try to drink coffee in a car), and you do something that makes my action *much* riskier than I had any reason to anticipate (serve rotting meat, drive *your* car while drunk, or serve coffee 20 deg. C above the standard serving temperature), you do not deserve to get off the hook entirely.

Sincerely,
Miranda Googleplex
United Nations Ambassador, Gurthark

Then why not claim that EVERYTHING is an urban legend?

Oh, you went and gave it away!

Altums urges all member nations to vote AGAINST this resolution, if you would like a reason why Altum feels this way please feel free to telegram us.

Steven,
President of Altum

I voted yes for this. Why?

It affects my country in no way, what so ever. On the other hand it at least gives me a week before i have to vote no to the liberal crap we usually have to vote for.

Foriegn minister of MalPractia

The resolution will have an impact on your nation, if it passes it will be implemented into your nation. I urge you to vote no on this resolution.


Steven,
President of Altum

...that does not include "All frivolous and pansy feel-good resolutions to the UN shall also henceforth be dismissed outright" does not go far enough in its proposal.

I voted yes for this. Why?

It affects my country in no way, what so ever. On the other hand it at least gives me a week before i have to vote no to the liberal crap we usually have to vote for.

Foriegn minister of MalPractia

I would argue that this resolution is just as liberal as most we see, because it still is aimed at restricting National Rights, even if it does in this case support businesses.

Read my article at http://www.angelfire.com/un/update for more info.

This bill serves only the established corporations and the fat cats running them. Although 3 of the 4 parts make some sense on the surface, the 3rd shows the fault in all.

If you knowingly do damage to your self, you can not hold the "defendant" liable. These sounds reasonable until you look a little deeper at the definitions, something totally missing from this supposed resolution.
What constitutes knowingly. If I by a processed food item, must I be a Nobel Prize chemist/biologist to know the effects of what I am eating. You use fat as an example, but what caused obesity. You think you know but unless you have your PHD in biology, there are probably more to it than just fat. You mention tobacco, how long were we lied to by corporation who doctored research proving it was safe. The problem with the idea of companies not being liable for dangers, even those that seem obvious, for dangers that anyone with “Common Sense" should know to avoid, neglects the fact that we don’t always know. We can't always know. If you want to sell me something and are willing to make a buck off it, in accepting that buck you take on the added responsibility of ensuring that I will not harm me, to the best of your ability, in spite of what I might do with it.

This works for warning labels and the like. Ignorance of the law may be no excuse, but we hold life of greater value. There are times that wilful injury is incurred, but I do not believe in though the baby out with the bathwater. The number of time that these labels are omitted not out of common sense but out of economy and greed far exceeds the time a "frivolous" lawsuit is filed.

We need tighter controls, not loser ones. If you spoke on limitations, shared responsibility, you may have had me on board. But this is a knee-jerk reactionary resolution, that shows the show lack of insight and compassion the presenters have not only for the people they are suppose to represent but society and civilization as we know

VOTE NO
Thank you and good day!

Yeah... Most U.N res. pass.

Remember the Peace Prize proposal...? 8)

I do indeed. I helped defeat that one as did many. I might be up for the task again.. :lol:

Peace,
Stephanie.

Do us a favor Stephanie: Please do campain AGAINST this ridiculous waste of time!! Yet another example of American arrogance. The proposal sites frivilous lawsuits all over the world, when in fact I can't think of another country where this law would even be remotely applicable. Clearly this is just a case of some american not being able to look beyond their own border. WAKE UP AMERICA!! YOUR PEOPLE AND "CULTURE" ARE NOT THE ONLY THINGS ON THIS PLANET! Most countries don't have your problems. Quit implying that just because americans put up with RETARDED lawsuits, it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

TD

All right, I'm going to say it yet again. This proposal does not do what it says, it legalizes several different types of lawsuits and would cause a virtual anarchy in the economy.

3:Consuming a legal product which is either high in fat or damaging to the body, such as fast food or tobacco.

Ok, this means that if McDonalds were to sell a happy meal with shards of glass in the hamburger or if land o' lakes sold a package of butter with pieces of metal in it (which they recently did and went through quite a bit of effort to retrieve it) then the person who consumed the product would not be able to sue the company. There is nothing in there saying anything about exceptions or anything about liability. It simply states that if a legal product is damaging to the body then you cannot sue the company that sold you it, and a hamburger with shards of glass in it IS legal, so it a package of butter with pieces of metal in it.

And, because the company knows they cannot be sued for this. They will no doubt become more reckless in the quality of their product. If it costs 15c less a hamburger to make sure it doesn't get filled with glass, the company has no reason to take precautions to make sure glass doesn't get in it. I recently heard about a hip replacement company, which made artificial hips for surgical implant. And they neglected proper safety procedure in making sure the hip is sterile to save a little more money. So don't give me that crap that companies will "do the right thing" and make sure their product is safe anyways despite the costs. That's a complete lie and you know it.

4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

This would mean, that if someone driving down the road and ran a red light, that if a policeman pulled you over, and shot you in the spine, you could not sue him or the police department for what happened. You might wonder, why would a policeman do that, policemen never commit crimes. Well, that isn't true, policeman are just as human as everyone else, but perhaps the policeman was mentally ill, and the police department neglected to do a background check, this would mean you STILL could not sue the department for that, because you were committing a crime at the time you incurred that injury.

It isn't even restricted to police brutality either, you could be running a red light, and then somebody runs you off the road, takes you out of the car, and beats you senseless. You still could not sue them, because you were in fact committing a crime at the time. Now how in the world is that justice?



Hear hear. These were the biggest problems I found in the act too. Thus I find it extremely dangerous and if it is about to pass, I will resign from UN.
Of course one might also argue if things like these belong to UN to decide or if the numerous lawsuits which are used as the reason for this actually are that numerous...(couple of celebrated cases in USA, when and where else?)
Living in a country with nearly no crimes committed whatsoever, my courts can deal with couple of stupid cases a year.

Thus I will vote NAY.

This proposal is a shame and it's a shame so many delegates supported it. Please have some common sense and vote against it !!!

I can't believe over 3000 members voted FOR the resoultion. This piece of "Common Sense" isn't worth the paper it's written on. Our nations courts should be able to decide what is frivoulous and what isn't without dictated to by the UN

I urge those who haven't voted to vote NO on this resolution. Do not allow this great chamber to dictate to nations on what should be heard in your nations courts

Darren Maskell
WNA Ambassador to the UN

i may be mistaken, but i swear that we have let resolutions that national courts should have control over, through. For example the not being able to retrial some one for the same crime thing??

So am i now to assume that the NS UN should have no control over national legal systems. You people confuse me.

i may be mistaken, but i swear that we have let resolutions that national courts should have control over, through. For example the not being able to retrial some one for the same crime thing??

So am i now to assume that the NS UN should have no control over national legal systems. You people confuse me.

I've stated this view in a few places, however I still believe that the NS UN should have as much power as those within it give it. If stupid laws are passed, by the UN then the UN states have to abide by them. My interpretation of the sentence at the top of the UN The UN is the world's governing body. Membership is voluntary, but all member nations must abide by UN rules. means that any member of the Un today must abide by all previous UN rules.

If you don't like it then leave. The members of the UN get what we deserve.

That said this is an appauling piece of legislation that should be defeated.

Dave
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

I am concerned that the UN resolution currently being debated would prevent, for example, tobacco companies from being sued although they intentionally target particularly vulnerable sections of the community such as young people and use flavourings like licorice and chocolate in cigarettes to encourage people to begin smoking. This resolution should recognise the addiction factor in smoking and the consumption of other legal drugs eg alcohol.

Everyone should VOTE FOR THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not against.

Clearly this is just a case of some american not being able to look beyond their own border. WAKE UP AMERICA!! YOUR PEOPLE AND "CULTURE" ARE NOT THE ONLY THINGS ON THIS PLANET! Most countries don't have your problems. Quit implying that just because americans put up with RETARDED lawsuits, it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.

TD

Then someone needs to make sure it doesn't happen

JUST VOTE AGAINST IT AND DON"T LET IT BE PASSED, I BEG OF ALL OF YOU TO VOTE AGAINST IT!!!

I can't believe over 3000 members voted FOR the resoultion. This piece of "Common Sense" isn't worth the paper it's written on. Our nations courts should be able to decide what is frivoulous and what isn't without dictated to by the UN

I urge those who haven't voted to vote NO on this resolution. Do not allow this great chamber to dictate to nations on what should be heard in your nations courts

Darren Maskell
WNA Ambassador to the UN

I'd like to add that for those who have voted for this resolution, and have since changed their minds, please feel free to withdraw your support.

In addition I would like to urge all the people who would have voted against it in the name of free courts to consider all the benefits to their economies that the cutting of this thick red tape would bring. :)

sorry double post

I am now totally against this proposed resolution. Initially, I looked and just passed it up as another person's rant against certain ridiculous activities seen increasingly throughout the world (I mean a general lack of common sense, not just leeward litigation). Now, though, I have reviewed the wording, the arguments presented for and against (of which I must comment that there are many more arguments against), and decided that this is not within the "mandate of the UN" (my vision of which, I admit, is in its infancy), and that it dangerously creates many loopholes for "legalizing" malicious crime in the judicial systems around the Nationstates world. I urge people to please vote against.



Do us a favor Stephanie: Please do campain AGAINST this ridiculous waste of time!! Yet another example of American arrogance. The proposal sites frivilous lawsuits all over the world, when in fact I can't think of another country where this law would even be remotely applicable. Clearly this is just a case of some american not being able to look beyond their own border. WAKE UP AMERICA!! YOUR PEOPLE AND "CULTURE" ARE NOT THE ONLY THINGS ON THIS PLANET! Most countries don't have your problems. Quit implying that just because americans put up with RETARDED lawsuits, it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.
TD

Considering that I'm certainly not the only American who will vote on this proposed resolution, this attack does not strengthen the argument against this as a resolution. It weakens our stand and paints a black mark on all of us opposing the Common Sense ACT II. TD, Please do not lump all the millions of people who are citizens of America into one mindset and one opinion. This lack of understanding shown towards diversity within a nation and the "individual identities of individuals" does your name no fame and provides a rallying point against us rather than for us (us being the people in opposition with the proposal). Please do not be so aligned as to fling mud at yourself, those many -individuals- in America, and the others against this proposed resolution so indiscriminately.
To your credit, you do try to isolate "some Americans" as the perpetrators in the middle of your post ("…of some american[s] not being…"). Here, though, I wanted to address the rest of your comments, which do not seem to be so particular. If I'm mistaken in this, then I apologize, but if I'm confused at your intent then others may be as well and it ought to be cleared up. Let's all work together to strike this proposal down. Thanks.

VOTE AGAINST, PLEASE!

Mitae

And, because the company knows they cannot be sued for this. They will no doubt become more reckless in the quality of their product. If it costs 15c less a hamburger to make sure it doesn't get filled with glass, the company has no reason to take precautions to make sure glass doesn't get in it. I recently heard about a hip replacement company, which made artificial hips for surgical implant. And they neglected proper safety procedure in making sure the hip is sterile to save a little more money. So don't give me that crap that companies will "do the right thing" and make sure their product is safe anyways despite the costs. That's a complete lie and you know it.

Err... I didn't know businesses made a point of driving themselves out of business by giving bad quality products. Sure, McDonalds COULD put glass shards in thier hamburgers under this resolution, but it would be all over the news and NO ONE would go there to eat. Why would they? With the common sense this resolution claims to bestow upon us, we see that eating glass shards is BAD FOR US. Let's say that some smart fast food chain, like Wendy's, notices the bone headed mistake McDonalds made and decides to make thie food safe for consumption. This would make each hamburger cost 15 more cents in my theoretical situation. People WOULD pay the 15 more cents not to eat glass shards. What is so hard to understand about this concept? Smart companies realize that people will NOT put up with low quality shit, even if it costs less. It's not hard to provide quality products. In fact it will bring in MORE money because more people will buy the hamburgers without glass shards in them then with. Even if every company in a stupid idealist liberal nightmare decided to all sell bad products at the exact same time, some smart entropenuer would step into the void and create good, quality products and the people WOULD come. Businessmen don't get to the top by being stupid. Give these people some credit.

This would mean, that if someone driving down the road and ran a red light, that if a policeman pulled you over, and shot you in the spine, you could not sue him or the police department for what happened. You might wonder, why would a policeman do that, policemen never commit crimes. Well, that isn't true, policeman are just as human as everyone else, but perhaps the policeman was mentally ill, and the police department neglected to do a background check, this would mean you STILL could not sue the department for that, because you were committing a crime at the time you incurred that injury.
It isn't even restricted to police brutality either, you could be running a red light, and then somebody runs you off the road, takes you out of the car, and beats you senseless. You still could not sue them, because you were in fact committing a crime at the time. Now how in the world is that justice?

Bzzzt! WRONG. Read the proposal before you post this crap. I quote directly from the proposal.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Lawsuits on the basis of IDIOTIC NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM! This means that judges will NOT dismiss a case where a COP SHOOTS YOU. That is not idiotic negligence. What? The person shot by the cop didn't duck when the cop fired? Give me a fucking break. That argument doesn't hold water and you know it. This proposal specifically states that this argument is invalid because a cop shooting someone that ran a red light is NOT idiotic negligence on the part of the criminal. Besides, TECHNICALLY when the cop pulls the person over the crime is ALREADY COMMITED. The person is not running a red light and on the side of the road at the same time. This argument is invalidated TWICE. Man I'm on a roll.

Hey, you guys know how dismissals of cases work right? You can bring ANYTHING to court. EVERY case will be heard by a judge. It is during the trial that a judge decides to dismiss a case, and he dismisses them by his own judgment on a case by case basis (heh, two puns). I don't know how you guys think it works, but even under this resolution judges can still hear the cases where a fat guy sues McDonalds for having high quantities of fat in their food when they clearly state they do. This resolution says that judges must decide which cases fall under this resolution and dismiss them. This, of course means, a judge can say that a case does not fall under this resolution, even if it does, and it can be heard if he wants to rebel for some stupid reason because dismissals are made by the judge alone. I think that judges would dismiss those cases though because they're a WASTE OF TIME. Some judges do this already, but this resolution just makes it a manditory instead of optional thing. The judgments are made by the judge, but we all know a stupid case when we see one. The judge is risking his own credibility when he chooses to hear a stupid case.

Do NOT vote against this resolution. I don't know if Fantasian meant to or if it was luck, but this resolution was simply, logically, and fluently composed so as to avoid ALL your stupid doomsday predictions that will never happen. You just have to know how to read the whole thing. It's reading comprehension. Work on it.

I think this is the best argument I've ever made. :)

EDIT: forgot to log back on Oonamahambra when I posted this. Just wanted to clarify what I meant by 'the best argument I ever made'. Well anyway, you know it was Oonamahambra,

Smart companies realize that people will NOT put up with low quality shit, even if it costs less.

Hrmm last time I checked McDonalds were making quite a lot of money from the sale of low quality shit. If people wont buy such things and the market is so wonderful then why is this the case? Even if it was, how about people who cannot afford to buy quality products?

I think this is the best argument I've ever made. :)

I pity you.

Smart companies realize that people will NOT put up with low quality shit, even if it costs less.

Hrmm last time I checked McDonalds were making quite a lot of money from the sale of low quality shit. If people wont buy such things and the market is so wonderful then why is this the case? Even if it was, how about people who cannot afford to buy quality products?

I think this is the best argument I've ever made. :)

I pity you.

...

McDonalds food isn't low quality by fast food standards. They wouldn't be in business if it was that bad. You can't tell me other fast food chains have 5 star resturant food. Actually, you CAN, but then you're just being a pessimist and your argument is 'I hate ALL fast food, so I'll say that McDonalds is bad food in an effort to undermine Oonamahambra's real point, which wasn't that McDonalds has great food'.

The point is NOT McDonalds has good or bad food. Quit nit picking and get to the point. If you beat around the bush, consider yourself WRONG. The issue at hand is NOT 'Does McDonalds have good food'. That was a responce to the poster I was arguing against. The issue at hand is 'Will every single company in existance sacrifice quality of their product till it's almost unuseable when this resolution is passed?' I answered no, they won't. They won't because they want to stay in business. Not EVERY company will sacrifice quality, because they're smart enough to know that if everyone else does sacrifice it, then their profits skyrocket because they have the better product and no one will buy hamburgers filled with glass shards when they can get safe hamburgers. If EVERY company realizes this, then they'll all continue to improve the quality of their service to stay competitive, as most do now, and nothing will really change. No, smart businessmen do NOT sell bad products when they can choose between that and staying competitive. Just give one two options 'Stay competitive with good products, or sell crap that no one will buy?'. You know as well as I what they would pick.

I pity you.

You don't rank up there either.

Even if it was, how about people who cannot afford to buy quality products?

I thought I should address this. I didn't in my last post.

See there's two parts to competition. Having the highest quality products and having the lowest prices. Trust me, poor people will get decent things for affordable prices. They do now and they will when this resolution passes. NO ONE in the United States gets 'low quality products' in the sense that we're talking about here. I don't think stores actually carry things that bad, because it's not sellable. What we're talking about here is a total breakdown of all quality control and products being sold that are UNUSABLE.

Smart companies realize that people will NOT put up with low quality shit, even if it costs less.

Hrmm last time I checked McDonalds were making quite a lot of money from the sale of low quality shit. If people wont buy such things and the market is so wonderful then why is this the case? Even if it was, how about people who cannot afford to buy quality products?

I think this is the best argument I've ever made. :)

I pity you.

...

McDonalds food isn't low quality by fast food standards. They wouldn't be in business if it was that bad. You can't tell me other fast food chains have 5 star resturant food. Actually, you CAN, but then you're just being a pessimist and your argument is 'I hate ALL fast food, so I'll say that McDonalds is bad food in an effort to undermine Oonamahambra's real point, which wasn't that McDonalds has great food'.

The point is NOT McDonalds has good or bad food. Quit nit picking and get to the point. If you beat around the bush, consider yourself WRONG. The issue at hand is NOT 'Does McDonalds have good food'. That was a responce to the poster I was arguing against. The issue at hand is 'Will every single company in existance sacrifice quality of their product till it's almost unuseable when this resolution is passed?' I answered no, they won't. They won't because they want to stay in business. Not EVERY company will sacrifice quality, because they're smart enough to know that if everyone else does sacrifice it, then their profits skyrocket because they have the better product and no one will buy hamburgers filled with glass shards when they can get safe hamburgers. If EVERY company realizes this, then they'll all continue to improve the quality of their service to stay competitive, as most do now, and nothing will really change. No, smart businessmen do NOT sell bad products when they can choose between that and staying competitive. Just give one two options 'Stay competitive with good products, or sell crap that no one will buy?'. You know as well as I what they would pick.

Ah but McDonalds is the perfect example that disproves your point because their food is cheap and shitty yet people still buy loads of it. Perhaps this is because they do not know what is in it but the point remains its crappy and people buy it. I believe you are also missing the point concerning the glass, no company is going to deliberatly fill their food with glass, but when food is prepared in poor conditions such things could be added accidently. This proposal seeks to remove all responsibility from the company which had such poor standards and seeks to blame the customer.

Then there are other examples already mentioned such as cigarettes. Companies can advertise such things and promote them to vunerable people in the full knowledge that their product is addictive and will in all probability eventually kill the consumer, why should they not be held responsible for this?

Basically people will buy crap, the sale of which is very profitable. Thus corporations need to be at the very least held responsible for such actions.

Even if it was, how about people who cannot afford to buy quality products?

I thought I should address this. I didn't in my last post.

See there's two parts to competition. Having the highest quality products and having the lowest prices. Trust me, poor people will get decent things for affordable prices. They do now and they will when this resolution passes. NO ONE in the United States gets 'low quality products' in the sense that we're talking about here. I don't think stores actually carry things that bad, because it's not sellable. What we're talking about here is a total breakdown of all quality control and products being sold that are UNUSABLE.

Then why are companies like McDonalds still in business? The US may be better than the third world but it is far from perfect and vast sections of the population live on incredibly low quality products even if not all of them realise it. Name one country anywhere in the world where poor people get decent things for affordable prices. If you seriously think it happens in the US then you are very very stupid.

Smart companies realize that people will NOT put up with low quality shit, even if it costs less.

Hrmm last time I checked McDonalds were making quite a lot of money from the sale of low quality shit. If people wont buy such things and the market is so wonderful then why is this the case? Even if it was, how about people who cannot afford to buy quality products?

I think this is the best argument I've ever made. :)

I pity you.

...

McDonalds food isn't low quality by fast food standards. They wouldn't be in business if it was that bad. You can't tell me other fast food chains have 5 star resturant food. Actually, you CAN, but then you're just being a pessimist and your argument is 'I hate ALL fast food, so I'll say that McDonalds is bad food in an effort to undermine Oonamahambra's real point, which wasn't that McDonalds has great food'.

The point is NOT McDonalds has good or bad food. Quit nit picking and get to the point. If you beat around the bush, consider yourself WRONG. The issue at hand is NOT 'Does McDonalds have good food'. That was a responce to the poster I was arguing against. The issue at hand is 'Will every single company in existance sacrifice quality of their product till it's almost unuseable when this resolution is passed?' I answered no, they won't. They won't because they want to stay in business. Not EVERY company will sacrifice quality, because they're smart enough to know that if everyone else does sacrifice it, then their profits skyrocket because they have the better product and no one will buy hamburgers filled with glass shards when they can get safe hamburgers. If EVERY company realizes this, then they'll all continue to improve the quality of their service to stay competitive, as most do now, and nothing will really change. No, smart businessmen do NOT sell bad products when they can choose between that and staying competitive. Just give one two options 'Stay competitive with good products, or sell crap that no one will buy?'. You know as well as I what they would pick.

Ah but McDonalds is the perfect example that disproves your point because their food is cheap and shitty yet people still buy loads of it. Perhaps this is because they do not know what is in it but the point remains its crappy and people buy it. I believe you are also missing the point concerning the glass, no company is going to deliberatly fill their food with glass, but when food is prepared in poor conditions such things could be added accidently. This proposal seeks to remove all responsibility from the company which had such poor standards and seeks to blame the customer.

Then there are other examples already mentioned such as cigarettes. Companies can advertise such things and promote them to vunerable people in the full knowledge that their product is addictive and will in all probability eventually kill the consumer, why should they not be held responsible for this?

Basically people will buy crap, the sale of which is very profitable. Thus corporations need to be at the very least held responsible for such actions.

Ok. YOU call it cheap and shitty. Nice. But what's your proof. What's your definition of shit and cheap? I want a vaguely scientific answer. If it's just 'THEIR MEAT IS CARDBOARD' I'm going to laugh. If it's 'It has high quantities of fat' I'll also laugh. That would be valid OPINION, but it's not a FACT. Because you believe it's shit, does not mean others disagree. People KNOW how fatty the food is. It's NOT a secret. Fattty food is not illegal. If there is a demand it will be supplied. Saying it's unhealty makes little difference, because a LOT of foods we eat are unhealthy. Have you ever eaten snack foods? Chips or donuts or that? How about potato salad (I want some of that now, actually)? Those are 'unhealthy' in a sense that if you eat too much it's bad for you.

Moderation in all things. McDonalds food isn't very bad for you if you don't eat too much of it.

Then there are other examples already mentioned such as cigarettes. Companies can advertise such things and promote them to vunerable people in the full knowledge that their product is addictive and will in all probability eventually kill the consumer, why should they not be held responsible for this?

I believe it's a combination of free will and cigarettes being legal. People KNOW cigarettes are bad for you. It's very hard to miss. If they choose to proceed in smoking cigarettes, that's their own choice. They are not FORCED into smoking.

Basically people will buy crap, the sale of which is very profitable. Thus corporations need to be at the very least held responsible for such actions.

You don't understand the scope of the 'cheap crap' we're talking about in this thread. People fear that products you call crap will be FAR worse in the future. They fear that your batteries will leak battery acid on your hands. That your electric tooth brush will shock you. That your cloths will tatter when you put them on your back. That houses will be poorly built death traps (some are, but they ARE torn down by the city). This is not how things are. No matter how bad you think things are now, trust me, they could be MUCH worse. That is what peole fear, and that is what I believe will not happen.

The reason McDonalds and these other companies are in business, Wolomy, is not because they produce "shit" as you put it, but they make what people want. Tons of people like their greasy fried food, and they make it the best of its kind.

Your saying McDonalds food is crap is like saying a compact car sucks because it's not an SUV! They're not the same thing! McDonalds food is what it's supposed to be, and they strive to make it the best greasy fast food there is. It's not "shit" by fast food standards, and is therefore what people who like fast food want to buy.

If they want a 5 star meal, they'll go to a real restaurant.
If they want greasy fast food, they go to McDonalds.

If people want a large, comfortable beast of a car, they get an SUV
If People want a maneuverable vehicle which is good on gas, they get a compact.

It is as simple as that. I have politely addressed your argument. Please do not insult me as many opponents have as of late.

Hail and well met frllow U N ians.

The people of Kenvar feel that, by not voting in favor of this issue is showing support to special intrest groups and consortiums of Lawers. It is well documented that in today's Legal system, it is known as the age of Litigation. THese law suits that arise out of stupidity and lemming like qualities of those that follow in the same foot steps pf previous lawsuits.

examples of such lawsuits...

Hot coffee is sevred well i would hope Hot....

KY Jelley does not go on toast.

Fast Food is not a gourmet or 5 star meal.

When most law suits arise out of the fact that people don't think they should be thrown out of court. People learn from their mistakes. If we can turn our mistakes into a million dollar industry, we will just keep committing the same mistakes.

The issue arose in a few fellow comments about the law suits towards company that produce potentially lethel products. In this case Tobacco.

This is a sticky issue, it became government approved when it was allowed to be maintained on the market. Before curent science and technology could prove that it was dangerous. Once the government learned the error of their ways they posted warnings, and started to restrict it by increaseing tax on it. I say the following, If the government allows a product upon the market with the intent that it is safe, then they are responsible for paying the for the result of their negilience. Also at the same time they should not pay till the end of time. All cases should be grandfathered to a point so that not all are allowed to seek lititgation. Just becasue everyone else reaps the rewards....

Fantasan, I fully agree with your views.

We in the Free Land of TNWSPITPATONDOSOTL must state our disapproval of this resolution, and as such shall VOTE AGAINST it.

Although we believe that the wording makes all of the conditions too vague, our most greivous concerns rest with the fourth definition of 'idiotic negligence'. To wit:
4:Any injury incurred during the commission of a crime, such as cutting yourself on a broken pane of glass while burglarizing a home.

Our concern with this defintion stems, not from injuries that occur unrelated to a petty crime the victim is committing (i.e. jay walking), but rather from injuries that occur to parties who are not committing the infractions.

Given the current definition, there is no statement of which parties are committing the crime and which parties are injured. Therefore, should this resolution pass, innocent parties who are injured by another party while the latter is committing a crime would be unable to seek damages against the latter.[1]

Although we understand the points that this proposal wishes to make, we believe that it is both outside the scope of the UN and so vague as to erode all rights of private citizens. We therefore urge all UN members to vote AGAINST this resolution,

Markle Greebo
TNWSPITPATONDOSOTLian ambassador to the UN by right of conquest.

[1] Example: A home owner is injured by another party who is in the process of burgling his/her home. Under this resolution, since the injury occured during the committing of a crime, the home owner would be unable to seek damages.

Did you read a word of my post? The proposal covers that. You just didn't read it all.

Which post exactly? There are several by you and all the ones I see in this thread deal with the quality of McDonald's food.

Markle Greebo
TNWSPITPATONDOSOTLian ambassador to the UN by right of conquest.

OOC Edit: I assume you are refering to the Liberal Hippies post (that is one of your nations, yes?). In which case I am formulating a reply stating why I don't believe the explanation given provides enough protection for citizens affected by this resolution.

Is this not an issue for each nation? It would seem to me that this is most definatly not with UN juristicion. Also it would not free up the court system as it would not stop the filing of suits, it would just been that disputes would not proceed past opening arguements.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

TNWSPITPATONDOSOTL takes issue with the fact that idiotic negligence is not a legally defined term, and therefore any definitions of it must be drawn solely from those provided within the resolution.
The proposal lists four defintions of the types of actions that constitute idiotic negligence, these actions are vague, for example, where does it state in the fourth option that the injury must be a direct result of the criminal action and inflicted upon the person performing the criminal activity?

Lawsuits on the basis of IDIOTIC NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM! This means that judges will NOT dismiss a case where a COP SHOOTS YOU. That is not idiotic negligence.

Under the definition given, that is idiotic negligence if it occurs whilst the victim is committing a crime, be it one as insignificant as littering. If you can provide me with a better definition of idiotic negligence drawn directly from either the proposed resolution or established international law, then it is possible that this would not be so. As the only definitions of idiotic negligence are those four which provide so many loopholes, we do not believe that the argument for the proposal is a convincing one.

Hey, you guys know how dismissals of cases work right? You can bring ANYTHING to court. EVERY case will be heard by a judge. It is during the trial that a judge decides to dismiss a case, and he dismisses them by his own judgment on a case by case basis [...] Some judges do this already, but this resolution just makes it a manditory instead of optional thing. The judgments are made by the judge, but we all know a stupid case when we see one. The judge is risking his own credibility when he chooses to hear a stupid case.

However, given the resolution, any country whose judges decide to hear a case that he deems to have significant merit but which also falls under one of the four broad definitions faces sanctions by an international body.

Lets all just face it - the common sense act isn't really very sensible at all.

Any way, "idiotic" legal systems don't affect other nations!
Why did this idiot bring it up to the UN in the forst place?!

I think this part is flawed:

2:Injuring oneself while using a tool in a reckless or improper manner, such as without safety gear or for a purpose the tool is obviously not supposed to do.

Does this mean workers can't sue their employers who violate the law? In our country it is the responsibility of the employer to make the workplace safe. So the employer should tell you how to safely use the tool. They must provide the safety or be they could be sued.
But this law says nothing of that and puts the responsibility onto the employee. It would make our OHSA laws null and void. This would take away safety protections on the job. OHSA has saved businesses money because injuries are down and medical costs from on the job injuries.

Vote this down! It is poorly crafted and garbage.

Its over 6000.


Now get your ass out of the UN.

What a waste of red tape. What will be the next? The UN resolution punishing suicide with death penalties? The UN resolution against bad weather? The UN resolution making fridays "casual day" at the workplace?

I urge any sensible government (and the unsensible ones too), to abstain from voting on this issue.

i am against it, the word "burglarizing" was used, and i am against such things

Oonamahambra: As exciting as McDonalds must be it isn't really on topic so if you really don't believe their food is poor quality I suggest you try eating some of it.

The reason McDonalds and these other companies are in business, Wolomy, is not because they produce "shit" as you put it, but they make what people want. Tons of people like their greasy fried food, and they make it the best of its kind.

Your saying McDonalds food is crap is like saying a compact car sucks because it's not an SUV! They're not the same thing! McDonalds food is what it's supposed to be, and they strive to make it the best greasy fast food there is. It's not "shit" by fast food standards, and is therefore what people who like fast food want to buy.

If they want a 5 star meal, they'll go to a real restaurant.
If they want greasy fast food, they go to McDonalds.

If people want a large, comfortable beast of a car, they get an SUV
If People want a maneuverable vehicle which is good on gas, they get a compact.

It is as simple as that. I have politely addressed your argument. Please do not insult me as many opponents have as of late.

People may want McDonalds food or be persuaded through marketing to want it but that is not the point, the point is McDonalds food is unhealthy and poor quality yet people still buy it and may well not understand the risks of doing so.

Again you should look at the example of cigarettes, someone who is addicted to smoking is quite likely to want to smoke regardless of the health risks. Tobacco companies target the vunerable who probably do not understand the risks, that or they don't care about them, by the time they realise their mistake it is often too late. You cannot simply use the freedom of choice argument here because it is wrong, people are easily manipulated into buying something and in many cases they will not understand all of the risks involved, allowing companies who clearly do know of these risks to get away with such things is wrong.

Your comparison with cars is rather silly, SUVs are bad but this is largely due to inefficiency and not the quality of the product recieved by the consumer. A small efficient car does not automatically equal a poor quality car, any sort of car can be produced cheaply so that for example the breaks may fail or something. This resolution seeks to remove all responsibility from a company when such things happen even if they only happen very rarely.

I realise there may be examples where this resolution could help, the one which comes to mind (and is possibly a myth) is that of someone burning themself spilling coffee and then sueing the company which sold it. Sadly it is far too broad and will have many damaging consequences.

The other very obvious problem with this resolution is that it is quite clearly not an international issue, it does not apply to probably the majority of nations and yet it infringes on national sovereignty. Since you have campaigned against issues which infringe on sovereignty in the past (even those on clearly international issues) I am surprised that you are supporting this.

As yet another instance where someone proposing a bill can't seem to understand that the UN has NO BUSINESS telling member nations how to conduct their internal affairs, WASTRA will again vote against this ridiculous bill.


The litigious responsibility of an individual or company is NO CONCERN of the NS UN. NONE. How domestic courts rule in favor or against liable parties is not the UN's business.

Sorry if I yell a lot in this argument, but it angers me when my post isn't even fully read.

Oonamahambra: As exciting as McDonalds must be it isn't really on topic so if you really don't believe their food is poor quality I suggest you try eating some of it.

God. It's just like you people not to address the issue. All you do is spout your uninformed opinions and then dance around any counter-point. No fucking shit. I SAID THAT. MCDONALDS WAS USED AS AN EXAMPLE! *I* SAID THE ISSUE IS NOT MCDONALDS! By the way, I have in fact eaten at McDonalds before, and I can say it's not the worst food I've ever had. Now LAY OFF the McDonalds subject and get to the real issue: will businesses sell crap, like pens that leak, if no one will buy them?

People may want McDonalds food or be persuaded through marketing to want it but that is not the point, the point is McDonalds food is unhealthy and poor quality yet people still buy it and may well not understand the risks of doing so.

That's bullshit. Find me ONE person that does not know that fast food is fatty. Don't lie, find ONE PERSON that dumb. You know, when you leave the 18-25 demographic, you start to see right through shitty marketing like McDonalds. I don't eat there because their marketing COMPELLS me to, I eat there because the food is quick and decent. Even people in the 18-25 demographic know how bad it is for you. We all have something called FREE WILL. Don't give me that unhealthy crap, everyone knows that. No one who eats there cares.

Again you should look at the example of cigarettes, someone who is addicted to smoking is quite likely to want to smoke regardless of the health risks. Tobacco companies target the vunerable who probably do not understand the risks, that or they don't care about them, by the time they realise their mistake it is often too late. You cannot simply use the freedom of choice argument here because it is wrong, people are easily manipulated into buying something and in many cases they will not understand all of the risks involved, allowing companies who clearly do know of these risks to get away with such things is wrong.

Oh that poor 18-25 demographic. I feel soooo sorry for their weak asses. They'll pull their head out and realize that there's ways to easily break the habit of cigarettes. Once again, everyone knows in the back of their head that smoking is bad for you, but no one that smokes really CARES.

Your comparison with cars is rather silly, SUVs are bad but this is largely due to inefficiency and not the quality of the product recieved by the consumer. A small efficient car does not automatically equal a poor quality car, any sort of car can be produced cheaply so that for example the breaks may fail or something. This resolution seeks to remove all responsibility from a company when such things happen even if they only happen very rarely.

I agree till you say 'This resoluion seeks to remove' and so on and so forth. I already gave undeniable proof right from the resolution.

Lawsuits on the basis of idiotic negligence on the part of the victim shall henceforth be dismissed in the courts of UN member nations, as they violate the civil liberties of those being sued.

Lawsuits based on the idiotic negligence ON THE PART OF THE VICTIM. The car makers are NOT the victim and are therefore are NOT exempt from their actions.

EVERY case will still go to court. Every single one. This just makes it manditory for the judge to dismiss a totally stupid case. JUDGES DECIDE IN THE COURTROOM DURING THE TRIAL OF THE CASE WHETHER THE CASE WILL OR WILL NOT BE DISMISSED. NO ONE CAN FORCE THE JUDGE TO DISMISS A CASE BECAUSE IT IS DONE BY HIS JUDGMENT ALONE. A JUDGE CAN STILL HEAR EVERY CASE BROUGHT TO HIM. THIS JUST MAKES IT MANDITORY TO DISMISS DUMB ONES OR RISK LOSING CREDIBILITY. A car maker would NOT be exempt from a badly made product because it was not the customers misuse of a product, but it was the proper use of a defective product that injured him.

I realise there may be examples where this resolution could help, the one which comes to mind (and is possibly a myth) is that of someone burning themself spilling coffee and then sueing the company which sold it. Sadly it is far too broad and will have many damaging consequences.

That lawsuit WAS justified, because the coffee was stored at 170 degrees. The temprature that does not burn you is 120 degrees. She got 2nd degree burns from it. This is the company giving out a dangerous product.

As yet another instance where someone proposing a bill can't seem to understand that the UN has NO BUSINESS telling member nations how to conduct their internal affairs, WASTRA will again vote against this ridiculous bill.


The litigious responsibility of an individual or company is NO CONCERN of the NS UN. NONE. How domestic courts rule in favor or against liable parties is not the UN's business.

Don't you think that's up to the majority to decide? Who are you to say what the UN can and cannot do?