Goobergunchia
23-09-2004, 21:22
The Goobergunchian UN observer rises.
Mr. Secretary, I seek general consent to speak out of order.
The Secretary-General glances around. Without objection, the observer from Goobergunchia is recognized.
Mr. Secretary, I rise today to announce that a moment I have been waiting for for a very long time has arrived. It is now in order to repeal resolutions, including the "Common Sense II" resolution offered by Fantasan and adopted on 12 September 2003.
I now yield to the UN representative from Bawlmer for the purposes of making a motion of resolution.
[ooc: Bawlmer is my UN puppet - it's just extreme hassle to switch forum accounts, otherwise I'd post with it.]
The Chair recognizes the representative from Bawlmer.
The representative from Bawlmer rises.
Mr. Secretary, I send to the desk a motion in writing.
The Clerk will report the motion.
I, as the UN Ambassador from Bawlmer, hereby do move that the thirtieth resolution adopted by this body (Common Sense Act II) be struck out and rendered null and void.
This resolution unfairly restricts a citizen's right to sue businesses and others.
Provision one does not make allowances for time and place, and may permit unlawfully hot (such as those at boiling point that would severely burn somebody upon ingestion) beverages to be sold.
Provision three prevents a person from suing a company for selling harmful producs for consumption, even if the company did not tell the whole truth about its products.
Provisions two and four are marginally acceptable (if possibly outside of the scope of the United Nations), but are vague (especially provision two).
Lord Michael Evif, UN Ambassador for Bawlmer
The motion is submitted. To be put to a vote, it must receive 137 approvals from UN Delegates by Sunday, 26 September 2004. The Chair recognizes the representative from Bawlmer.
Mr. Secretary, I wish to begin my argument by recalling the debate on adoption of this resolution. Tisonica was the main opponent, who eloquently stated as follows:
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?
The debates on the resolution can be found at the following places. Note that support for the resolution was almost nonexistant in this forum, apart from the sponsor of the resolution in question.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278748
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278822
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278539
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279077
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279060
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279212
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278808
On September 12th, Tisonica moved to repeal this resolution, garnering 65 endorsements before being ruled out of order. Goobergunchia passed laws effectively nullifying this resolution later that day.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279311
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279408
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279369
Mr. Secretary, I acknowledge that my argument might not have been the most congent possible, but felt it necessary to submit this motion as soon as possible. [ooc: This is because I'll be incommunicado through Sunday.] If it is not brought to a full vote, I shall re-submit it with a stronger argument.
Mr. Secretary, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Secretary, I seek general consent to speak out of order.
The Secretary-General glances around. Without objection, the observer from Goobergunchia is recognized.
Mr. Secretary, I rise today to announce that a moment I have been waiting for for a very long time has arrived. It is now in order to repeal resolutions, including the "Common Sense II" resolution offered by Fantasan and adopted on 12 September 2003.
I now yield to the UN representative from Bawlmer for the purposes of making a motion of resolution.
[ooc: Bawlmer is my UN puppet - it's just extreme hassle to switch forum accounts, otherwise I'd post with it.]
The Chair recognizes the representative from Bawlmer.
The representative from Bawlmer rises.
Mr. Secretary, I send to the desk a motion in writing.
The Clerk will report the motion.
I, as the UN Ambassador from Bawlmer, hereby do move that the thirtieth resolution adopted by this body (Common Sense Act II) be struck out and rendered null and void.
This resolution unfairly restricts a citizen's right to sue businesses and others.
Provision one does not make allowances for time and place, and may permit unlawfully hot (such as those at boiling point that would severely burn somebody upon ingestion) beverages to be sold.
Provision three prevents a person from suing a company for selling harmful producs for consumption, even if the company did not tell the whole truth about its products.
Provisions two and four are marginally acceptable (if possibly outside of the scope of the United Nations), but are vague (especially provision two).
Lord Michael Evif, UN Ambassador for Bawlmer
The motion is submitted. To be put to a vote, it must receive 137 approvals from UN Delegates by Sunday, 26 September 2004. The Chair recognizes the representative from Bawlmer.
Mr. Secretary, I wish to begin my argument by recalling the debate on adoption of this resolution. Tisonica was the main opponent, who eloquently stated as follows:
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?
The debates on the resolution can be found at the following places. Note that support for the resolution was almost nonexistant in this forum, apart from the sponsor of the resolution in question.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278748
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278822
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278539
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279077
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279060
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279212
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=278808
On September 12th, Tisonica moved to repeal this resolution, garnering 65 endorsements before being ruled out of order. Goobergunchia passed laws effectively nullifying this resolution later that day.
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279311
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279408
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279369
Mr. Secretary, I acknowledge that my argument might not have been the most congent possible, but felt it necessary to submit this motion as soon as possible. [ooc: This is because I'll be incommunicado through Sunday.] If it is not brought to a full vote, I shall re-submit it with a stronger argument.
Mr. Secretary, I reserve the balance of my time.