NationStates Jolt Archive

We the Commonwealth of Ontarian would like to bring the following proposal to the UN's attention for discussion:

World Health Awareness
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Ontarian

Description: WHA's objective, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

The proposal be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations that:

(1) All topics of significance to global health initiatives be supported by its own section to ensure all nations have the necessary information at their disposal, with respect to older and newer members alike.

(2) All member nations under the United Nation recognize and adhere to the basic standards set forth by WHA, and that those standards be practiced for the purpose of health and welfare of its members.

(3) The United Nations recognizes such standards as a governing constitution for health and welfare for members of the United Nations.

(4)Further health related proposals given approval by the United Nations be added to the constitution of WHA.


The Commonwealth of Ontarian feels this is a necessary step towards a healthier global initiative. And would submit that such a proposal be taken into serious consideration with the global community in mind. We would welcome any additions/amendments that the community feel should be added.

Respecftully,

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

What standards? Does this basically state that if there is a health issue of international concern that the UN can deal with it? Or am I missing the point?

Health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being

To quote the economist, John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run, we're all dead". Life is a matter of dealing with increasing decrepitude, as we all slowly march towards the grave. As such, the idea of attaining this "complete physical, mental and social" well being seems hopelessly naive, and unattainable.

We will vote against.

I'm sorry. I'm too hung up on the idea of an international organization known as "WHA." I mean, wha's up with that?

What standards? Does this basically state that if there is a health issue of international concern that the UN can deal with it? Or am I missing the point?

Please refer to section (4) as it pertains to sections (2), (3) respectfully. Should a health issue arise that needs UN support to deal with, the process would undoubtedly go through the UN in the form of a resolution. That resolution would be added to this proposal as a guildline for members of the UN to follow. Hopefully this answers your question. Please let me know if it does not.


To quote the economist, John Maynard Keynes, "In the long run, we're all dead". Life is a matter of dealing with increasing decrepitude, as we all slowly march towards the grave. As such, the idea of attaining this "complete physical, mental and social" well being seems hopelessly naive, and unattainable.

It is not the intent of this proposal to give the belief that you will live forever, it is to attempt to reach a perfect state of "well-being".

Well-being is defined as: The state of being healthy, happy, or prosperous; welfare.

I'm sorry. I'm too hung up on the idea of an international organization known as "WHA." I mean, wha's up with that?

I fail to see the importance of how the name has anything to do with the legislation it is trying to provide. If you prefer, we can call it WHO, or was there a specific acronym you felt more appropriate? Please understand, that this has no bearing on the significance behind the proposal, it is simply a matter of asthetics.

The Commonwealth of Ontarian appreciates the feedback from these esteemed members, and looks forward to discussing this proposal as it pertains to the needs of the international community.


Sincerely,

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

Please refer to section (4) as it pertains to sections (2), (3) respectfully. Should a health issue arise that needs UN support to deal with, the process would undoubtedly go through the UN in the form of a resolution. That resolution would be added to this proposal as a guildline for members of the UN to follow. Hopefully this answers your question. Please let me know if it does not.Adding anything to an existing resolution would be amemding it thus not legal. Noting the bold line here Also I don't think you can write in something that effects a future proposal in yours. As this would do that.

(4)Further health related proposals given approval by the United Nations be added to the constitution of WHA.

Description: WHA's objective, is the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health. Health is defined as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.


I must say that this seems like a good idea in theory. However surely the highest possible level of health is a world without pain and could this not also infringe on peoples freedom. This legislation could lead to nations banning unhealthy foods and such to reach the "highest possible level of health". Surely the people of democratic nations at least have the choice of living how they want to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. Until this point is cleared up The Democratic Republic of Londim will be critical of this proposal.

Well-being is defined as: The state of being healthy, happy, or prosperous; welfare.




Many people are perfectly happy eating fast food, drinking beer and smoking. Sithya believes citizens are free to make bad choices in so far as their health is concerned (particularly since we have no socialised medicine). Information is out there, it's not rocket science for people to know what's good for them or not. As such, this initiative may not be necessary, and nothing we've seen so far suggests it would be.

We will vote against.

Adding anything to an existing resolution would be amemding it thus not legal. Noting the bold line here Also I don't think you can write in something that effects a future proposal in yours. As this would do that.

Anything that has been voted for as a resolution by the UN is not illegal. This proposal is merely creating a database, one that would continuously be updated as the issues arose and were approved by the UN, and a foundation for the basic health and welfare needs of the UN members.



Many people are perfectly happy eating fast food, drinking beer and smoking. Sithya believes citizens are free to make bad choices in so far as their health is concerned (particularly since we have no socialised medicine). Information is out there, it's not rocket science for people to know what's good for them or not. As such, this initiative may not be necessary, and nothing we've seen so far suggests it would be.

Many people are perfectly happy to commit terrorist acts, mass genocide, and global corruption. It was my understanding that the purpose of the UN was to agree upon the best interests of ALL its members. If life was not simply rocket science, we wouldn't need a UN in the first place.

I must say that this seems like a good idea in theory. However surely the highest possible level of health is a world without pain and could this not also infringe on peoples freedom. This legislation could lead to nations banning unhealthy foods and such to reach the "highest possible level of health". Surely the people of democratic nations at least have the choice of living how they want to whether it is healthy or unhealthy. Until this point is cleared up The Democratic Republic of Londim will be critical of this proposal.

OOC: This is the mission statement of the UN sanctioned charter known as WHO(world health organization). I couldn't think of a better statement, but would certainly take suggestions on a different way of wording it.


As always The Commonwealth of Ontarian is pleased that the esteemed members of the UN are adressing this issue, and as always look forward to more discussions.

Sincerely,

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

As it appears this proposal has been "removed" from the agenda of the UN, there is no further need for debate on this issue. Although, even before and after reviewing the "rules" for submitting proposals I fail to see the reasoning. In any event, this issue is now officially dead.

Regretfully,

Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

I'm not positive because I can't tell where your proposal ends, but it looks like you may have a branding violation.

4 may be a formatting violation as you're basically calling for the UN to make addendums to this proposal - which would be illegal.

1, 2 and 3 all look ok, but I doubt they would pass considering often-made complaints from various members.

I'm not positive because I can't tell where your proposal ends, but it looks like you may have a branding violation.

4 may be a formatting violation as you're basically calling for the UN to make addendums to this proposal - which would be illegal.

1, 2 and 3 all look ok, but I doubt they would pass considering often-made complaints from various members.

OOC:
It was re-worded to avoid branding violation, the acronym was changed to avoid branding violation, for that matter UN is a branding violation, so I don't see how this would apply but in any event, i changed as much as I could to avoid such a violation. The purpose was to create a "sticky" for any topics in relation to health be added to said "sticky", I suppose I could have re-worded it entirely to say, lets have a health "sticky", but it was an attempt at RP. really it sole purpose would have been to be udpated with any resolutions pertaining to health. Resolutions that have actually been voted on and passed through as legislation.

I thought I had reviewed the rules and followed them accordingly, but apprently not. It would have been nice to get some input from a mod before or after its done, but I am sure there are alot of topics that get deleted which they don't have time to explain.

OOC:
It was re-worded to avoid branding violation, the acronym was changed to avoid branding violation, for that matter UN is a branding violation, so I don't see how this would apply but in any event, i changed as much as I could to avoid such a violation.

You're thinking copyright infringement/plaguirsm. Branding violation is mentioning your nation or your region anywhere in the proposal.

The purpose was to create a "sticky" for any topics in relation to health be added to said "sticky", I suppose I could have re-worded it entirely to say, lets have a health "sticky", but it was an attempt at RP.

That would've been a metagaming violation. You can't force the forums to operate in any manner.

All committees (read the rules) including the WHA are governed and operate by RPed characters and cannot be specifically affiliated with any nation nor can they be structured in such a way that the forums or anyone else really control it. The only reason RPed characters can use it is because the UNO forum was created - the capability to RP the committees doesn't exist here. If the committee isn't RPed, we assume it just blindly marches on.

really it sole purpose would have been to be udpated with any resolutions pertaining to health. Resolutions that have actually been voted on and passed through as legislation.

Which would work as amendments or addendums and thus illegal

I thought I had reviewed the rules and followed them accordingly, but apprently not. It would have been nice to get some input from a mod before or after its done, but I am sure there are alot of topics that get deleted which they don't have time to explain.

Yeah. There are a dozen mods moderating some 100,000 accounts. The UN really has 3 mods that invest a considerable amount of time into it and one who actively participates in the UN community on a regular basis. Generally they rely on the regulars to advise on legality - and up until myself, Zeldon was the only regular who commented and his focus has generally not been legality. (Well, ok, arguably Sithya is a regular, but he's only been here for about a week)

You're thinking copyright infringement/plaguirsm. Branding violation is mentioning your nation or your region anywhere in the proposal.

That was an oversight on my part as I generally end every post with
Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

Could have easily been edited, but I do not have that ability unfortunately.
That would've been a metagaming violation. You can't force the forums to operate in any manner.

All committees (read the rules) including the WHA are governed and operate by RPed characters and cannot be specifically affiliated with any nation nor can they be structured in such a way that the forums or anyone else really control it. The only reason RPed characters can use it is because the UNO forum was created - the capability to RP the committees doesn't exist here. If the committee isn't RPed, we assume it just blindly marches on.

By those accounts then I guess this is a form of metagaming: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572, I was simply offering a more specific way of categorizing, it wasn't my intent to metagame with the proposal, a proposal that was done as an RP, I guess I chose the wrong venue to do so though, in hindsight.




Which would work as amendments or addendums and thus illegal.

That I believe is a POV, by that account one could also assume any resolution passed is an amendment to the constitution of the UN, which is what approved resolutions are, amendments to a UN constitution, to an extent.


Yeah. There are a dozen mods moderating some 100,000 accounts. The UN really has 3 mods that invest a considerable amount of time into it and one who actively participates in the UN community on a regular basis. Generally they rely on the regulars to advise on legality - and up until myself, Zeldon was the only regular who commented and his focus has generally not been legality. (Well, ok, arguably Sithya is a regular, but he's only been here for about a week)

Agree.

That was an oversight on my part as I generally end every post with
Prime Minister Gibson
The Commonwealth of Ontarian

Could have easily been edited, but I do not have that ability unfortunately.


Nor, unfortunately, do the mods


By those accounts then I guess this is a form of metagaming: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=357572, I was simply offering a more specific way of categorizing, it wasn't my intent to metagame with the proposal, a proposal that was done as an RP, I guess I chose the wrong venue to do so though, in hindsight.


You misunderstand. It is one thing to make a post and use it for RP or gameplay purposes. This forum is for both IC and OOC issues. It is another thing to make a proposal (a purely RP realm) that dictates a requirement to employ something on the forum (a reality realm). Yes we could put it on the forums, but the structure would have to have been our own design, not the proposal's.

Well....we couldn't have because pure RP stuff the mods want elsewhere - hence the reason UNO exists.

That I believe is a POV, by that account one could also assume any resolution passed is an amendment to the constitution of the UN, which is what approved resolutions are, amendments to a UN constitution, to an extent.

Not really. It changes the UN lawset, yes. However, the UN doesn't have a true constitution and when asked, most people couple the FAQ, UNR #26 and UNR #49 (or various combinations of the above) as the closest we've got to a UN Charter. There was a recent debate where a mod actually suggested moving UNR #49 out of the resolutions and sticking it as the charter to the UN (my impression was he'd have actually proposed it as a serious idea rather than a wishful thought if he had access to the game code).

Regardless, the rules read that you can't ammend passed resolutions. Period. Whether you want to argue the logic of the rule or not is for a different debate, the rules are the rules, and no amount of logic in this thread will change that.

Many people are perfectly happy eating fast food, drinking beer and smoking. Sithya believes citizens are free to make bad choices in so far as their health is concerned (particularly since we have no socialised medicine). Information is out there, it's not rocket science for people to know what's good for them or not. As such, this initiative may not be necessary, and nothing we've seen so far suggests it would be.

We will vote against.

We agree and shall respectfully vote against as well.

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/19063/page=display_region)

To clarify an earlier remark, it appears the representative was unable to detect the sarcasm in my speech. I was simply amused by the similarity between the acronym and an ugly perversion of the English language used mostly by teens and John Stewart.