NationStates Jolt Archive

Another queued proposal, but this time by me :D

Repeal "Keep The World Disease-Free!" (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_proposal1/match=keep)

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #9 (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=8)
Proposed by: Jey (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=display_nation/nation=jey)

Description: UN Resolution #9: Keep The World Disease-Free! (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=8) (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly of the United Nations,

AWARE of the need for the prevention of diseases and for hygienic standards throughout member nations,

COMMENDING Resolution #9: Keep The World Disease-Free!, for its intentions to bring about disease prevention and hygienic standards in all member nations,

HOWEVER CONSIDERING that Resolution #9 fails to accomplish its goals to bring about stronger hygienic standards by not including any effective methods to do so, and only stating that citizens "should" be given the right to certain hygienic items,

FURTHER CONSIDERING that Resolution #9 fails to bring about the containment of diseases through increased access to vaccinations by directly stating that "[the vaccinations] don't have to be mandatory",

UNDERSTANDING that Resolutions #20 "'RBH' (Required Basic Healthcare) Replacement", #67 "Needle Sharing Prevention", and #77 "Epidemic Prevention Protocol" collectively provide UN member nations with declarations to bring about better hygienic standards as well as disease prevention,

CONCLUDING that Resolution #9 is not only unenforceable and void of actionable language, but its intentions are also covered by numerous amounts of passed legislations,

REPEALS Resolution #9: Keep The World Disease-Free!

Approvals: 200

Status: Quorum Reached: In Queue!

----

Original Resolution:

Keep The World Disease-Free! (http://www.nationstates.net/04379/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=8)

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Fallopian Tube (http://www.nationstates.net/page=display_nation/nation=fallopian_tube)

Description: While the hygiene standards of the world has certainly improved in the last 100 years, there is more to be done.

Every citizen in every land should have the right to:

At least one toilet in their house;
At least one washbasin in their house;
At least one of either a bathtub or a shower;
in order to comply with hygiene standards and prolong life expectancy.

Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory.
Vaccinations against the big diseases such as:
Malaria, typhoid, rubella, cholera, polio, et al.

With the backing of the UN, we can give even our poorest inhabitants a nice, clean, healthy life.

Votes For: 16,212
Votes Against: 3,020

Implemented: Mon Apr 14 2003

Of course we should repeal it. You make a very persuasive argument and a very well written repeal! Good job Jey!! You can count on our support.

I like how abstaining is given more fervor in the poll. That is so me. With my uberabstaining powers. Congrats on getting it to quorum.

We abstain!!

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

The right to a toilet/washbasin/bathtub or shower is a fundamental inalienable human right which the United Nations has no business in dictating. Therefore we strongly support this repeal, understanding however, that our commitment to a chicken in every potty, I mean a potty in every house, remains a fundamental goal in Tzorsland.

I'll be voting FOR the repeal, and sending the Jevian representative a gift pack from HotRodia.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

We support this repeal, and will vote for when it finally hits the floor.

Though we do support human rights, the original resolution has never made much sense and deserves to be wiped off the books.

Of course we should repeal it. You make a very persuasive argument and a very well written repeal! Good job Jey!! You can count on our support.

The people of Mikitivity tend to frown upon repeals, but in this case, the government of Jey has provided an very concise and well written argument in favour of repealing an old UN resolution, and can count upon my government's support when this repeal reaches the UN Floor.

OOC: This really is a well researched and written repeal. I honestly tend to really vote PRO green, PRO security, PRO infrastructure, PRO health, PRO safety ... and am shocked that a repeal managed to get me to say, "Yes, I'll vote in favour of this." Kudos! :)

Hmm... I believe... I'm convinced. UN Resolution No. 9 does not indicate how these things should be done, or give any specifics, really. There really is no action in the resolution at all. You have our support.

I recall the sentiments of the Sithyan representative, that it is incredible the UN believes the inalienable rights of man are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of going to the bog".

I'll vote for the repeal, though I imagine the debate will be rather boring, so will mainly be using to tell people who immediately start clamouring for a replacement where to stick it.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff

We applaud the esteemed representative for his fine work on this proposed repeal and will fully support it when it reaches the floor.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We applaud the esteemed representative for his fine work on this proposed repeal and will fully support it when it reaches the floor.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

We agree with the repeal and with those sentiments.

Respectfully,
Alfred Devereux Sweynsson MD
(Ambassador to the UN for
the St Edmundan Antarctic)

This repeal will have the support of my delegate nation.

The original resolution has got to be one of the most badly written ones still in existence and needs to be removed from the books.

We congratulate Jey and ACCEL on getting this to quorum

I don't like the original. I like the repeal. You do the math. Good job.

Close-to-vote BUMP.

I'll probably still vote for this. But here's what I don't like:

AWARE of the need for the prevention of diseases and for hygienic standards throughout member nations,
I don't consider this a particular concern of the UN, though if tackled on a suitably international scale, then ok.

COMMENDING Resolution #9: Keep The World Disease-Free!, for its intentions to bring about disease prevention and hygienic standards in all member nations,
As noted above, I'm not sure how commendable these intentions are. I certainly don't want people getting the idea we should be doing more of this.

HOWEVER CONSIDERING that Resolution #9 fails to accomplish its goals to bring about stronger hygienic standards by not including any effective methods to do so, and only stating that citizens "should" be given the right to certain hygienic items,
I don't like this, because it seems to imply a firmer mandate - which I would oppose - is required.

FURTHER CONSIDERING that Resolution #9 fails to bring about the containment of diseases through increased access to vaccinations by directly stating that "[the vaccinations] don't have to be mandatory",
If the UN mandated vaccinations, I'd oppose it. So I don't like this.

UNDERSTANDING that Resolutions #20 "'RBH' (Required Basic Healthcare) Replacement", #67 "Needle Sharing Prevention", and #77 "Epidemic Prevention Protocol" collectively provide UN member nations with declarations to bring about better hygienic standards as well as disease prevention,
Two of those I'd like to see repealed, so I'm not wild about their being cited as better.

CONCLUDING that Resolution #9 is not only unenforceable and void of actionable language, but its intentions are also covered by numerous amounts of passed legislations,
I don't want its provisions to be enforced - and I don't like the other passed "legislations".

REPEALS Resolution #9: Keep The World Disease-Free!
I'm ok with this bit. So, I'll probably still vote for. I'd just have prepared the proposal had argued that poor people deserve to live in filth.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

The Democratic States of Ross Port will be supporting this resolution. The original resolution was inconsise and broad.
- Ross Port Legislature,
Reference Point Island,
Ross Port

You have my support.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Why is this Jey person trying to destroy the efforts of this distinguished body to keep the world disease free? We voted for Clothing Supply Pact because it cured cancer. Now you're trying to get us to get rid of a resolution that cures heart disease?

Puh-lease.

[At this point, Enrique Lopez comes barrelling into the General Assembly and grabs the microphone from his rogue page.]

Ceorana will abstain, because, frankly, we don't care one way or the other.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

You have My Backing, how lil its really worth...
heh

Aria and Attica understand the concern of some that the existing resolution #9 does not provide concrete action on how to achieve it's most noble aims.

However we express reservations that a future resolution to provide stronger demands for action in these vital areas will not be forthcoming.

However following consultation with the Social Affairs Ministry, we find the problems with the existing resolution, particularly the lack of compulsion in vaccination and demands for concrete action on providing basic facilities to ensure health outweigh our reservations. As a result, the Allied States of Aria and Attica lends it's full weight to this repeal.

In addition to this we once again reaffirm our position that a more far ranging and active resolution to replace Resolution #9 be put before the UN.


Heraclitus Yannas & Deia Eripois
UN Reprisentative for Allied States of Aria and Attica
Minister for Housing and Social Affairs of Aria and Attica

The Republic of Aquiolonius Gloria agrees with Gruenberg.

It is unbelievable that this proposal suggests that the U.N. should have authority over how many toilets or showers people have. Such legislation should be carried by the national governments, not some international organisation my people never voted for.

We also have the opinion that resolution #9 is clearly incoherent with resolution #49 the "Rights and Duties of U.N. states." See the 1st section called "The Principle of National Sovereignty". Legislation like resolution #9, is clearly in violation of other U.N. decisions, wich in my opinion is much more important. Voting for the proposal would be enforcing U.N. legislation.

I also have some hypothetical questions about resolution #9.
-Does the U.N. intend to ban people from not owning a toilet or a shower?
-How is the U.N. supposed to enforce such a ban?
The fact is that by banning people from not having a toilet or shower means that people that don´t want these things are criminals. This violates a basic part of Aquilonius Gloria´s basic beliefs, wich is based on individuality and the individuals right to rule the course of his or her own life.

If the U.N. decides to punishe the national governments and not it´s people for violating resolution #9, wich is more likely, the U.N. will make the governments force showers and toilets upon their citizens. Yes we know that an overwelming majority want´s showers and toilets, but what about those that don´t want them.

Furthermore isn´t toilets and showers something that citizens should supply themselfes? Our government offers state of the art plumbing, the rest is up to each individual.

Even more alarming is the fact that poor countries cannot afford to invest in expensive sewersystems and showers and toilets. Such investment would take resources from education and food distribution, wich we don´t want to happen. Such legislation as resolution #9 is fine for the strong economies wich can easily invest to upgrade their existing sewersystems, but it would hurt the weakest of economies.

Vote yes to repeal resolution #9

Gunnar i Krossinum
Aquilonius Gloria Ambassador to the U.N.

Ladies and gentlemen of this ... esteemed ... not quite ... august ... yea right ... well ladies and gentlemen: It has been a long time since I have been able to rise up to debate a resolution that I frankly don't feel passionate about one way or the other. This repeal is simply a banning of toilets! Yes that's right, this whole resolution is about crap, and I'm not talking the organic manure type, but urine the right ballpark when you start thinking potty humor.

One can argue that the resolution doesn't go far enough.
At least one toilet in their house; Ever have to wait in line to use the family toilet?
At least one washbasin in their house; I'll give you a hint, it's in the same room with the toilet.
At least one of either a bathtub or a shower; The kids are like all day in that shower! I have to use the toilet damm it!

Yes indeed that is why in the current McManshions that are being built as I speak, there are often more bathrooms than there are bedrooms! But that's not the responsibility of the UN anyway.

Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory.

Did you know that a major cancer is caused by a virus? And that it can be cured by a simple vaccination? THIS RESOLUTION CURES CANCER! And you want to repeal it. For shame!

Now if you will excise me, I have to go and do my daily constitutional.

Ausserland has voted for the repeal. The original resolution does nothing more than clutter up the list of resolutions with poorly written pablum. It makes a couple of statements about the way the world ought to be, but doesn't require, prohibit, mandate, urge, or even recommend any action. "Should" is not a directive verb.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

His Most Excellent Imperial Majesty votes for the repeal. We are glad to repeal such a vague and ill-written proposal.

Landaman Pendankr
Ambassador

Of Course I'll vote FOR.

While the prevention of epidemics is reasonably the business of the UN, and hygenine is one good and relatively cheap way of insuring such., the Shadow-Kai support this repeal, since the original Resolution did not indicate who has to pay for these services (not all countries have as much money as you do), as well, it lacks anything in the way of enforcement against violators, or even inspection of suspected violators. Furthermore, it lists a few "Big Dieseases" that countries must provide vaccinations for, but fails to list of all them.

This resolution needs to go back to the drawing board.

Executor Ffeorg

The Republic of Steenhuffel is supporting this resolution although we would like to see a follow up one to encourage and promote international standards of hygiene and disease prevention in order to ensure that the next outbreak of toilet spider flu is stopped before it becomes a world wide plague.

The Republic of Neu Preussen Ordinung supports the repeal! Although it has been the practice of this government to support the poor and encourage high health standards, we fail to see were this item does this. Words are just words, unless action directs them to be more!

One thing I noticed is that Res#9 is pretty much looking to be up for Repeal because it's too vague and was made early on in NS history before Resolutions became more detailed and directive oriented.

For that reason, it makes sense to Repeal the Resolution with the intention of replacing it at some point with a Resolution that fits the present NS system better.


I've seen a copy of a replacement resolution for #9 floating around the ether. We may or may not see that surface up, depending on delegates and popularity of the idea.

It’s pretty difficult for me to understand what does concretely means and induce:

Every citizen in every land should have the right to: At least one toilet in their house; ….

And it’s why we support this repeal.

But we really think that this is a pretty important topic. Human waste is a huge health problems in every economically developing nation’s megalopolis and a serious one everywhere else.
It’s important to realize that humans are not “ecological” and that waste is an unintelligent part in the human design.

The government of Love and esterel is proudly committed to those humanitarian needs with a program to help some economically developing nation’s megalopolis to contain human waste by funding sewers and toilets.

Furthermore the LAE’s government would like to announce that it had just allowed funds to a scientific team with the ambitious long-term goal of decreasing the toxicity of human waste.
The team will search some adequate and inoffensive biological enzymes and then try to mastering them in order to convert (or ”Biodegrade”) human waste into non-toxic molecules. This process is aimed to take place inside the human body after the digestion process. The first experiments will be tested on mouses.
In an interesting analogy with cars, the team called its project the “Human Catalytic converter ».

It’s pretty difficult for me to understand what does concretely means and induce:



And it’s why we support this repeal.

But we really think that this is a pretty important topic. Human waste is a huge health problems in every economically developing nation’s megalopolis and a serious one everywhere else.
It’s important to realize that humans are not “ecological” and that waste is an unintelligent part in the human design.

The government of Love and esterel is proudly committed to those humanitarian needs with a program to help some economically developing nation’s megalopolis to contain human waste by funding sewers and toilets.

Furthermore the LAE’s government would like to announce that it had just allowed funds to a scientific team with the ambitious long-term goal of decreasing the toxicity of human waste.
The team will search some adequate and inoffensive biological bacterium and then try to mastering them in order to convert (or ”Biodegrade”) human waste into non-toxic molecules. This process is aimed to take place inside the human body after the digestion process. The first experiments will be tested on mouses.
In an interesting analogy with cars, the team called its project the “Human Catalytic converter ».

We applaud the efforts of the government of Love and esterel to advance science in this important manner. When the experiments progress to a second stage, we'd be happy to suggest a few members of this Assembly to serve as subjects. :D

[OOC: L&E, the plural of mouse is mice. :) ]

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Bored Ambassador-at-Large

As a new member to this august body, and in anticipation of continued participation, I am struck by the lack of debate on this topic. It appears that there is overwhelming support for this resolution without consideration for the long term ramifications of such actions. There is a slippery slope here that is not being discussed, and I shudder to think that this organization would not be mindful of the possibilities that are opened by this kind of logic. Repealing any resolution should be a weighty proposition in and of it's self, and in my humble estimation, only used for the most egregious errors in judgment, and not for the technicalities that this resolution states.
Thomas Tallis wsn't built in a day, well ok it was, but all important issues must be addressed in a series of relatted steps, and for meaningful change must be built on a solid foundation. "Keep the World Disease-Free" is just the basis for what I would hope are further efforts to raise the standards of all members citizens. No one resolution is going to end poverty, erradicate disease, or feed the poor, but only set the direction of the road that we will take to those ends.

In my miniscule capacity as one vote in this great body, I can't support such a repeal, and would ask members to reconsider.

There is a slippery slope here that is not being discussed, and I shudder to think that this organization would not be mindful of the possibilities that are opened by this kind of logic.
"Slippery slope", without any justification, is a logical fallacy. As such, that we're not taking this kind of logic into account seems wholly reasonable.

Repealing any resolution should be a weighty proposition in and of it's [sic] self, and in my humble estimation, only used for the most egregious errors in judgment, and not for the technicalities that this resolution states.
Why? It's ok to keep a moderately bad resolution around? What does that serve? Rebut the actual arguments, don't just say, "They're right, just not right enough."

Thomas Tallis wsn't built in a day, well ok it was, but all important issues must be addressed in a series of relatted steps, and for meaningful change must be built on a solid foundation. "Keep the World Disease-Free" is just the basis for what I would hope are further efforts to raise the standards of all members citizens. No one resolution is going to end poverty, erradicate disease, or feed the poor, but only set the direction of the road that we will take to those ends.
That's nice, but not really how the NSUN works. Resolutions can't set trends, because of rules on amendment, duplication, contradiction, and so on, and so establishing general principles serves very little.

None of which addresses a single word of the repeal, or the resolution. Maybe you should try that out?

In my miniscule capacity as one vote in this great body, I can't support such a repeal, and would ask members to reconsider.
Keep up this stuff, and I will reconsider, and switch my vote back to for.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

OOC: Excellent choice of name! I like Tallis's work.

As a new member to this august body, and in anticipation of continued participation, I am struck by the lack of debate on this topic. It appears that there is overwhelming support for this resolution without consideration for the long term ramifications of such actions. There is a slippery slope here that is not being discussed, and I shudder to think that this organization would not be mindful of the possibilities that are opened by this kind of logic. Repealing any resolution should be a weighty proposition in and of it's self, and in my humble estimation, only used for the most egregious errors in judgment, and not for the technicalities that this resolution states.
Thomas Tallis wsn't built in a day, well ok it was, but all important issues must be addressed in a series of relatted steps, and for meaningful change must be built on a solid foundation. "Keep the World Disease-Free" is just the basis for what I would hope are further efforts to raise the standards of all members citizens. No one resolution is going to end poverty, erradicate disease, or feed the poor, but only set the direction of the road that we will take to those ends.

In my miniscule capacity as one vote in this great body, I can't support such a repeal, and would ask members to reconsider.

We welcome the representative of Thomas Tallis to the Assembly. It's always nice to see a new member taking the time to give serious thought to a proposal, even when we disagree with his conclusions, and we look forward to his continued participation.

Our disagreement rests on two points. First, we reject the notion of the "slippery slope" out of hand. We've heard it before, time and time again, yet we've never seen this organization rolling downhill.

Second, we believe that the resolution under consideration provides no solid foundation for anything, except perhaps the belief that badly written, completely ineffective legislation will be passed by this organization. We invite the representative to reread the resolution carefully. It requires or prohibits absolutely nothing. It is, in terms of effect, meaningless. Anyone attempting to use it as a foundation for anything would find themselves building on quicksand.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I have been watching what goes on here for a while now. I agree that the current resolution the is up for consideration needs to be repealed. It falls into the list of resolutions that do absolutely nothing. I've noticed that there are many of those. I have to wonder how any of them got passed in the first place.

I have also noticed that there have been many repeals on the list of proposals, that did not make quorum. This puzzles me as well. If there are so many of us who want to see the horrid laws that have been passed removed from the books, why are the repeals not making it to vote? It's very unfortunate.

I hope that this repeal passes so that the current resolution is removed to make way for a better resolution that actually does something.

Sincerely,

Thea McDougal
The Dominion of Kemintiri

http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/8199/accelerusgatesvilleflagny3.gif (http://imageshack.us)

The Regional Delegate of Gatesville, The Gatesville Princess of Nevadar, has voted FOR this repeal in accord with the wishes presented to her by a majority of the citizens of the region, after reviewing both the Civic HQ and the offsite poll. Once again, this position is also shared by the current majority of UN voters.

Hellar Gray

We applaud the efforts of the government of Love and esterel to advance science in this important manner. When the experiments progress to a second stage, we'd be happy to suggest a few members of this Assembly to serve as subjects. :D

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Bored Ambassador-at-Large

This is a long term approach, and obviously, the first steps will be on animals such as mice and outside the human body, but when time will come the team will be very grateful to Lorelei M. Ahlmann for her suggested list of volunteers from this assembly.
Just to give more details the process is aimed to be pretty similar to chemical part of the natural digestion: Addition of chemicals (acid, enzymes...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion


[OOC: L&E, the plural of mouse is mice. :) ]

Ooops, thanks

I have been watching what goes on here for a while now. I agree that the current resolution the is up for consideration needs to be repealed. It falls into the list of resolutions that do absolutely nothing. I've noticed that there are many of those. I have to wonder how any of them got passed in the first place.

I have also noticed that there have been many repeals on the list of proposals, that did not make quorum. This puzzles me as well. If there are so many of us who want to see the horrid laws that have been passed removed from the books, why are the repeals not making it to vote? It's very unfortunate.

I hope that this repeal passes so that the current resolution is removed to make way for a better resolution that actually does something.

Sincerely,

Thea McDougal
The Dominion of Kemintiri

We welcome the representative of Kemintiri to the Assembly. Some thoughts from our perspective, having been here for a while....

As you review the list of resolutions, we think you'll find that many of the badly written, do-nothing resolutions were passed early in the history of this Assembly. Back then, commendable enthusiasm and the desire to get things going seemed the overriding element in legislation. Since then, the standards of quality required for passage have been raised considerably, although there have been some lamentable exceptions to that general statement.

As for repeals that fail to make quorum.... That's an extremely complicated subject. It's difficult to get any proposal -- repeal or otherwise -- to quorum without a telegram campaign. I suspect many authors of repeals are simply unaware of that. Also, many of the repeals submitted are, to be blunt, just plain dumb. There are other factors, too, e.g., hesitation by some members to support a repeal without a replacement ready for submission, the view of some members that repeals must be as sound and accurate as other proposals.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I wish to thank Gruenberg for his thoughts and appreciate the opportunity to clarify my point. The "slippery slope" I alluded to was the repeal of resolutions in general, and the need to understand the motives for any such repeals. The resolutions that were mentioned in the repeal, while all are worthy and neccessary additions, none speak to the general issue of physical hygiene, and none of them set any standard for the basic human needs for waste removal or cleanliness. It should always be incumbent upon this body to set standards and practices for its members, and I don't understand what is wrong with the requirement of toilets and washbasins. There appears to be an assumption that this repeal will lead to a replacement resolution, but I fear that the void left by its repeal will allow some nations the option of abandoning their public sewer systems to the corporate world, and there is no guarantee that this most basic of hygiene will come up for vote in a new resolution. All the drugs and vacinations won't do much good in a squalid environment.

Why replace this resolution when, as Ausserland states, "It requires or prohibits absolutely nothing. It is, in terms of effect, meaningless" for while it may be meaningless, its effect is not. The tenant of one household one toilet is a worthy standard, and should not be dismissed so cavalierly.

Why replace this resolution when, as Ausserland states, "It requires or prohibits absolutely nothing. It is, in terms of effect, meaningless" for while it may be meaningless, its effect is not. The tenant of one household one toilet is a worthy standard, and should not be dismissed so cavalierly.

We think the representative misunderstands our point. The resolution doesn't do a thing for the tenant of the one household. If it set the standard of one toilet per household, that would be different. But it mandates nothing; it prohibits nothing. The resolution makes a nice, feel-good statement about the way the world "should" be, but nations are completely free to do whatever they want.

We do not dismiss resolutions cavalierly. We examine a resolution proposed for repeal carefully, with proper attention to the language of the legislation. We follow the principle that "the law means what the law says". Good intentions are commendable, but we all know where they're used for paving material. In this case, the intentions were indeed commendable; the execution fails utterly to accomplish anything.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

...The resolution doesn't do a thing for the tenant of the one household. If it set the standard of one toilet per household, that would be different. But it mandates nothing; it prohibits nothing. The resolution makes a nice, feel-good statement about the way the world "should" be, but nations are completely free to do whatever they want.

...We examine a resolution proposed for repeal carefully, with proper attention to the language of the legislation...

...Good intentions are commendable, but we all know where they're used for paving material. In this case, the intentions were indeed commendable; the execution fails utterly to accomplish anything.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I agree! The repeal of this resolution is nothing about its purpose and certainly not for the idea itself. I believe, that it states this quite clearly. Perhaps once it is repealed it should be rewritten to include a more solid stanards and solutions to the proposed problems. Do not waste (no pun intended) time and space with such "feel-good statements" as put by Ausserland.

Neu Preussen commends the idea of the resolution, but votes to repeal it due to its utter lack of solid standards and prosposed solutions.

The resolutions that were mentioned in the repeal, while all are worthy and neccessary additions, none speak to the general issue of physical hygiene, and none of them set any standard for the basic human needs for waste removal or cleanliness.So what, you think that we need a resolution telling us how to wipe our own asses?

It should always be incumbent upon this body to set standards and practices for its members, and I don't understand what is wrong with the requirement of toilets and washbasins.Have you actually even read the resolution being repealed?
Every citizen in every land should have the right to:

At least one toilet in their house;
At least one washbasin in their house;
At least one of either a bathtub or a shower;
in order to comply with hygiene standards and prolong life expectancy.Now can you tell me where exactly it requires nations to give their people anything?

There appears to be an assumption that this repeal will lead to a replacement resolution, but I fear that the void left by its repeal will allow some nations the option of abandoning their public sewer systems to the corporate world,You say that like it's a bad thing.

Why replace this resolution when, as Ausserland states, "It requires or prohibits absolutely nothing. It is, in terms of effect, meaningless" for while it may be meaningless, its effect is not.How about, because it prevents a resolution that actually would do somthing from being submitted?

The tenant of one household one toilet is a worthy standard, and should not be dismissed so cavalierly.But as I mentioned, there's no requirement that the government insure that people have anything.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Basically everything I would say has already been said. I vote for.

But it mandates nothing; it prohibits nothing. The resolution makes a nice, feel-good statement about the way the world "should" be, but nations are completely free to do whatever they want.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Your point is well taken, and upon reflection I can see that Resolution 9 is vague, but you must understand that as the delegate from the glorious region of Old Europe, tradition plays a major role in our outlook on the world. While progressive in our thinking, our perspective is historical in nature. What passes for advancement is often just the shroud of change for the sake of change. We revere our ancestors, and recognize the wisdom and bravery it took to fashion a land out of nothing. It therefore is incumbent upon us to protect the sanctity of the past and preserve the institutions from which we sprang. To this end I remain vigilant in my role as delegate to this honored body, and can not idlely sit by when the spirit of our predessors is imperiled.

I must further add that world insurance corporations stand to benefit most from the repeal of Resolution # 9. Not one nation in Old Europe is governed by an insurance company. Perhaps some delegates are in the pockets of big insurance, perhaps not.

What confuses me are the two arguments used to support repeal: that Resolutin 9 prohibits further resolutions, or is without mandates. If, in fact, Resolution 9, as you stated, "mandates nothing", then I don't see why another resolution could not simply be proposed that adds those mandates. If, on the other hand Resolution 9 does prohibit further resolutions, then it must speak to some kind of mandate. Finally, and with all due respect, I suggest that you may wish to review the company you keep in your support for the repeal of Resolution # 9. Leftist, centrist, socialist governments need to be concerned here. There are no Right Wing, Capitalist, or Dictatorship governments voting against the repeal. That speaks volumes to me, and suggests other motives.

I have spent some time now reviewing the rules for resolutions, and quite frankly, it appears to me that it would be a toss up whether another resolution would be dismissed outright. Let us not disparrage our predessors by the willy-nilly repeal of their heartfelt endeavors.

...then I don't see why another resolution could not simply be proposed that adds those mandates...


Yes, We have suggested that in a previous comment. Adding a solid solution and standards. THAT IS the problem of the original proposal and why it is being repealed. Perhaps once it is repealed it should be rewritten and changed with solid solutions and standards being set, and a plan to do this plainly written out. We need to see the proposed action. NOT JUST the problem with "a feel good" statement and proposal. I think that is something that has been said and agreed uopn already. Where is the author of the original proposal. Does the author Nation have any such plans?

Your point is well taken, and upon reflection I can see that Resolution 9 is vague, but you must understand that as the delegate from the glorious region of Old Europe, tradition plays a major role in our outlook on the world. While progressive in our thinking, our perspective is historical in nature. What passes for advancement is often just the shroud of change for the sake of change. We revere our ancestors, and recognize the wisdom and bravery it took to fashion a land out of nothing. It therefore is incumbent upon us to protect the sanctity of the past and preserve the institutions from which we sprang. To this end I remain vigilant in my role as delegate to this honored body, and can not idlely sit by when the spirit of our predessors is imperiled.

I must further add that world insurance corporations stand to benefit most from the repeal of Resolution # 9. Not one nation in Old Europe is governed by an insurance company. Perhaps some delegates are in the pockets of big insurance, perhaps not.

What confuses me are the two arguments used to support repeal: that Resolutin 9 prohibits further resolutions, or is without mandates. If, in fact, Resolution 9, as you stated, "mandates nothing", then I don't see why another resolution could not simply be proposed that adds those mandates. If, on the other hand Resolution 9 does prohibit further resolutions, then it must speak to some kind of mandate. Finally, and with all due respect, I suggest that you may wish to review the company you keep in your support for the repeal of Resolution # 9. Leftist, centrist, socialist governments need to be concerned here. There are no Right Wing, Capitalist, or Dictatorship governments voting against the repeal. That speaks volumes to me, and suggests other motives.

I have spent some time now reviewing the rules for resolutions, and quite frankly, it appears to me that it would be a toss up whether another resolution would be dismissed outright. Let us not disparrage our predessors by the willy-nilly repeal of their heartfelt endeavors.

If you're interested in keeping the resolution for sentimentality's sake, do get yourself a teddy bear and put your sentiment there. Warm fuzzy feelings and appeals to tradition may be appropriate in other contexts, but not in the context of international law, where the lives of trillions of people and the policies of tens of thousands of nations depend on solid decision-making by this body. The stakes here are too high to govern our decisions by a childish emotional need to preserve in international law a relic of a low-quality resolution passed by this body. Don't use the resolution as a security blanket that you keep around because you're fond of it, even though it's old, ragged, and doesn't serve any genuine practical purpose.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Thomas Tallis makes a good point. If you find the language of Resolution 9 vague, perhaps it would be useful to write a better resolution as opposed to striking it from the books.

Resolution 9 proclaims it to be the right of every citizen to sanitary living conditions. There is no better option offered to Resolution 9 at this point. Who stands to benefit from this? Not the people. Not governments. Socially progressive nations who provide their citizens with healthcare will see their expenses go up. The average person living in more conservative countries will lose their right to minimal sanitary conditions. Those of us in more progressive countries will always act for the benefit of the public. The people of Ravacholiser will see no change in their high sanitary conditions, but others in more corrupt and jingoistic countries may. This repeal of Resolution 9 must be voted down until a better resolution is provided.

Thomas Tallis makes a good point. If you find the language of Resolution 9 vague, perhaps it would be useful to amend the resolution as opposed to striking it from the books.

Resolution 9 proclaims it to be the right of every citizen to sanitary living conditions. There is no better option offered to Resolution 9 at this point. Who stands to benefit from this? Not the people. Not governments. Socially progressive nations who provide their citizens with healthcare will see their expenses go up. The average person living in more conservative countries will lose their right to minimal sanitary conditions. Those of us in more progressive countries will always act for the benefit of the public. The people of Ravacholiser will see no change in their high sanitary conditions, but others in more corrupt and jingoistic countries may. This repeal of Resolution 9 must be voted down until a better resolution is provided.

Sweet Supercarious. Read the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8913201#post8913201) before spouting off, particularly the sections on Amendments and Duplication. Why the hell people don't read the rules of an organization before joining it, I just don't understand.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Sweet Supercarious. Read the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8913201#post8913201) before spouting off, particularly the sections on Amendments and Duplication. Why the hell people don't read the rules of an organization before joining it, I just don't understand.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Because people are lazy and can't be bothered. Either that, or they just don't have the intelligence required to understand the rules (as simple as they are to understand). It really is quite a shame. It's starting to look like we're going to have to take the rules and start beating people with them. *grabs a rather large book and starts walking towards any representative who has suggested amendments*

Point taken about the amendment.

However, the point hasn't been addresed about having nothing better on the books. The repeal will leave a black hole. Instead of wasting our time with this repeal business, write something better.

You know Sumner was beaten on the floor of the Senate, guess who ultimately won that discussion.

Point taken about the amendment.

However, the point hasn't been addresed about having nothing better on the books. The repeal will leave a black hole. Instead of wasting our time with this repeal business, write something better.

People can write better resolutions all they want. In order to replace a certian resolution, it needs to be repealed first. If that doesn't happen then the proposed resolution will be thrown out. There's something called duplication. It's not allowed. Of course, you would have known that if you had read the rules.

Sweet Supercarious. Read the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8913201#post8913201) before spouting off, particularly the sections on Amendments and Duplication. Why the hell people don't read the rules of an organization before joining it, I just don't understand.

That is the problem.

The resolution does two things, the first thing probably can't be duplicated and I can guarantee that no one would ever want to duplicate it. That is the suggestion of one toilet/basin/bathtub per house. My god who would ever want to duplicate that?

NO, one can argue that precisely because this resolution is so lame and that it does nothing that one could easily write a resolution on requirements for sanitary conditions without ever having to worry about whether or not it "duplicates" this lameo resolution. Because, shit, sanitary conditions have far more to do with things than toilets ... private ones at that! (Public toilets, for example could easily be legislated without duplicating this proposal ... why anyone would do so is totally beyond me.)

Now there is one nice piece of this resolution that is a pain in the bottom. Availability of vaccines is a piece of resolution that actually has some teeth.

"Furthermore, vaccinations should be made available to the public, although they don't have to be mandatory."

But what about resolution #98 Eradicate Smallpox?

Unfortunately (or is that fortunately ... depends I guess) this lamo resolution didn't cause mod deletion for resolution #98 even though it specifically mentioned vaccines in the text, "DECLARES ACCORDINGLY that all Member nations shall make a concerted effort to eradicate smallpox within their territory through the use of established disease eradication techniques, such as quarantine and vaccination."

So technically we don't need to repeal resolution #9 in order to get real resolutions because resolution #9 is infinitely beyond lame. That doesn't mean we shouldn't repeal it. But this is not a case of repeal and replace. It never has been.

We thank the honorable representative of Thomas Tallis for his thoughtful and cogent response to our remarks. We believe they deserve an equally careful reply.

Your point is well taken, and upon reflection I can see that Resolution 9 is vague, but you must understand that as the delegate from the glorious region of Old Europe, tradition plays a major role in our outlook on the world. While progressive in our thinking, our perspective is historical in nature. What passes for advancement is often just the shroud of change for the sake of change. We revere our ancestors, and recognize the wisdom and bravery it took to fashion a land out of nothing. It therefore is incumbent upon us to protect the sanctity of the past and preserve the institutions from which we sprang. To this end I remain vigilant in my role as delegate to this honored body, and can not idlely sit by when the spirit of our predessors is imperiled.

As a primarily dwarven nation, we fully share the respect for history and tradition expressed by the honorable representative. We respect the "spirit of our predesessors", but we don't think that requires keeping their specific enactments and policies as active influences on our citizens of today. We record history, we study it, we respect it, and we hope to learn from it. That doesn't mean that we should act as if we were living in it. We see keeping a well-intentioned but worthless resolution on the books, not as respecting history or the makers of it, but rather as being chained to the past.

I must further add that world insurance corporations stand to benefit most from the repeal of Resolution # 9. Not one nation in Old Europe is governed by an insurance company. Perhaps some delegates are in the pockets of big insurance, perhaps not.

We can find no basis for this contention. We believe UNR #9 is completely without effect. Its repeal will benefit no one except those who wish to see the rolls of NSUN legislation filled with meaningful, reasonable, well-drafted enactments.

What confuses me are the two arguments used to support repeal: that Resolutin 9 prohibits further resolutions, or is without mandates. If, in fact, Resolution 9, as you stated, "mandates nothing", then I don't see why another resolution could not simply be proposed that adds those mandates. If, on the other hand Resolution 9 does prohibit further resolutions, then it must speak to some kind of mandate. Finally, and with all due respect, I suggest that you may wish to review the company you keep in your support for the repeal of Resolution # 9. Leftist, centrist, socialist governments need to be concerned here. There are no Right Wing, Capitalist, or Dictatorship governments voting against the repeal. That speaks volumes to me, and suggests other motives.

We have never objected to NSUN Resolution #9 on the grounds that it is a "blocker". We believe it definitely is not, since it requires or prohibits nothing. However, there is a related issue. We're always concerned, when there is a worthless resolution on the books, about the potential for it to discourage someone -- perhaps one of our newer members -- from attempting to write a sound, meaningful proposal on the subject. Persons without a clear understanding of the duplication and contradiction rules may be discouraged from attempting to contribute something valuable.

On the point about the company we keep.... To be blunt, we couldn't care less. Our record on voting and support of proposals speaks for itself. We are happy to stand on it. If someone wants to tar us with guilt by association, that speaks only to their lack of ability to think logically. You're welcome to make any assumptions you like about our motives. We will continue to vote as we consider in the best interests of our nation and the international community.

I have spent some time now reviewing the rules for resolutions, and quite frankly, it appears to me that it would be a toss up whether another resolution would be dismissed outright. Let us not disparrage our predessors by the willy-nilly repeal of their heartfelt endeavors.

We're offended by the imputation that our position on this issue was arrived at "willy-nilly". We carefully studied this repeal and the original resolution and weighed the pros and cons. We resent the imputation that we did otherwise.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

There are no Right Wing, Capitalist, or Dictatorship governments voting against the repeal.
Gruenberg is a right wing, capitalist, borderline dictatorship. We're voting against.

So...I guess you can shut up now.

~Rono Pyandran
Chief of Staff
Curer of Cancer
Killer of Puppies

Because people are lazy and can't be bothered. Either that, or they just don't have the intelligence required to understand the rules (as simple as they are to understand). It really is quite a shame. It's starting to look like we're going to have to take the rules and start beating people with them. *grabs a rather large book and starts walking towards any representative who has suggested amendments*

Also wanna quote: Originally Posted by HotRodia "Sweet Supercarious. Read the Rules for UN Proposals before spouting off, particularly the sections on Amendments and Duplication. Why the hell people don't read the rules of an organization before joining it, I just don't understand."

OOC: These quotes are just for OOC comment...Now yes you have VALID points....but come on don't character bash! Lets be good UN reps ;)
*********
*Raising his hand, the Neu Preussen Ordinung Foreign Minister*

Neu Preussen Ordinung understands tradition and with holding "Old Europe". However, we also understand modern times. It is important to introduce proposals with meaning, and real standard and solutions. Once again, as it has been stated by us and other Nations before, it is not the idea, it is the fact that it lacks a plan of action, it lacks any real standards, and it lacks any real solid idea of a proposal already not covered by the previously stated UN proposal. It is just fluff, a "feel good" fluff. We need sound proposals with real solutions!

Thank you.

Gruenberg is a right wing, capitalist, borderline dictatorship. We're voting against.Ditto that:

Omigodtheykilledkenny's vote against Repeal "Keep The World Disease-Free!" has been noted.

Tommo the Stout enters the GA wearing his usual outfit -- a simple black suit with a deep purple shirt, complete with the black tie. His was an outfit of many quiet giggles, as his size (both veritcally and horizontally) lent to the fact that he resembled the Norderian flag when wearing it. His lengthy chin beard looked freshly re-braided.

He takes a seat in the large leather chair, eschewing for now the hammock erected behind the desk. When came his moment to speak, he rose, straightening out his coat, and briefly addressed the assembly.

"Resolution #9 is ineffective. The goal is a noble one, however, and as such, it is a sentiment I wish to see re-introduced in these halls sometime in the near future.

"The repeal placed before us today by the Jevian brainchild Reveal and Repeal meets our standards for repeals. As such, we do not feel that voting for it repesents a contradiction to Norderia's policy of opposing "Means To an End" repeals. I will be casting our vote accordingly."

As if forgetting that he had made the effort to use the chair, The Stout sat and reclined into his hammock, rocking gently side to side, listening to the debate. It was considerably more relaxing than the Individual Working Freedoms debate. He had said little when the vote went to the floor, but couldn't help but feel rather unsettled with Jessie McArthur leering at him between fidgeting, presumably out of intense boredom, or the whims of Gatesville concerning nukes and the North Sea -- indeed, today seemed more dull than usual.

"Is that a bad thing?" he asks Juhani.

Juhani Viljakainen doesn't even look over. "OMGTKK and Gruenberg rarely vote the same way we do, it's not unusual, or necessarily bad."

Tommo the Stout looks up at his envoy with a furrowed, confused brow. "I'm talking about the lack of nuclear threats or foreign ambassadors stealing looks at me."

Juhani turns slowly at the neck to look at his superior. He opens his mouth to speak, but stops. After a moment of consideration, he turns back around, entirely at a loss for words.

Sweet Supercarious. Read the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8913201#post8913201) before spouting off, particularly the sections on Amendments and Duplication. Why the hell people don't read the rules of an organization before joining it, I just don't understand.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce
Personnaly I don't read the "Terms of Service" every time I subscribe to something or buy a service (ISP, mobile phone, insurance....) it seems also to me that Nationstates is a game where we may help newcomers to comply with the rules.

Sweet Supercarious. Read the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8913201#post8913201) before spouting off, particularly the sections on Amendments and Duplication. Why the hell people don't read the rules of an organization before joining it, I just don't understand.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

I am not familiar with the delegate, but I must take umbridge at the hysterical nature of your admonition of Ravacholiser. It is quite clear from this debate that there is considerable doubt that Resolution 9 is a blocking resolution, and what seems so apparent to you is not quite so crystal clear to others. Let us comport ourselves in a manner worthy of this body, and welcome debate in this open forum.

I'm thinking more like, "let's welcome relevant debate in this forum," because the dozens of wise bozos you'll have posting in any repeal thread, screeching: "OMGzx u cant repael this!!!111just ammend it or rerite it:fluffle: don't leeve a black whole in teh law!!!111!1!!," are not offering anything germane to the discussion, are ignorant of the rules, and hence are wasting everybody's time. The frustrations of the HotRodian and Karmicarian representatives are totally understandable here.

We're offended by the imputation that our position on this issue was arrived at "willy-nilly". We carefully studied this repeal and the original resolution and weighed the pros and cons. We resent the imputation that we did otherwise.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

I apologize for any misunderstanding. That remark was not directed at you or your country, but rather as a general statement of the trend to repeal founding resolutions in general, and it is clear to me that the learned representative has studied this resolution quite carefully. You have made it much clearer to me, and I am begining to understand the workings of this hallowed body.

I'm thinking more like, "let's welcome relevant debate in this forum," because the dozens of wise bozos you'll have posting in any repeal thread, screeching: "OMGzx u cant repael this!!!111just ammend it or rerite it:fluffle: don't leeve a black whole in teh law!!!111!1!!," are not offering anything germane to the duscussion, are ignorant of the rules, and hence are wasting everybody's time. The frustrations of the HotRodian and Karmicarian representatives are totally understandable here.

You seem to be as cold as the the people, and nation, you represent. Please do excuse me for not understanding all the fine tunings and rules of this game. I apologize, I joined last week, and this is my first attempt at the UN. I am attempting to learn the rules and participate in this GAME. In terms of wasting time, kindly alerting me to certain rules would be more useful than your attempted admonishment. The time you wasted was by your own accord. I look forward to having fun in this forum and in the UN with other diplomatic people who have more class than those that inhibit AOL message boards. A real crass act.

You seem to be as cold as the the people, and nation, you represent.

You need to realize that once you get the 12th occurance in what is currently a 25 page debate thread, and you've seen this for the 20th time that it's not cold, it's just a cry of frustration. It's the same reaction I'm giving phone calls from political parties these days. Yes I like you, yes I'll vote for you, but I've already given money to you please stop calling me every other month wanting more money!

The ironic part is that you simply used the wrong hot button words. If a resolution is exceptionally vague, it is possible to er improve on the resolution by filling in the parts that are not covered by the resolution. Long term UN resolutions have a numer of fancy terms for such techniques, which are technically not amendments. As long as they are not house of cards violations (in other words the original resolution can be repealed and nothing happens) they are perfectly fine.

The ironic part is that you simply used the wrong hot button words. If a resolution is exceptionally vague, it is possible to er improve on the resolution by filling in the parts that are not covered by the resolution. Long term UN resolutions have a numer of fancy terms for such techniques, which are technically not amendments. As long as they are not house of cards violations (in other words the original resolution can be repealed and nothing happens) they are perfectly fine.

Thank you Tzorsland, this is rather helpful. I appreciate your candor.

Disease is an international issue. If a plague in your nation didn't have an impact on mine I'd support this repeal. I can't see a way a replacement could improve on the existing resolution, and then passed, after this repeal. I'm currently voting against here.

However it seems clear this repeal will pass. Does anyone else think a replacement will be passed, or just a blocker?

If a resolution is exceptionally vague, it is possible to er improve on the resolution by filling in the parts that are not covered by the resolution. Long term UN resolutions have a numer of fancy terms for such techniques, which are technically not amendments. As long as they are not house of cards violations (in other words the original resolution can be repealed and nothing happens) they are perfectly fine.

It is important that you not mention the word amendment though. Amendment is a special word, which is forbidden on this forum.

I'm thinking more like, "let's welcome relevant debate in this forum," because the dozens of wise bozos you'll have posting in any repeal thread, screeching: "OMGzx u cant repael this!!!111just ammend it or rerite it:fluffle: don't leeve a black whole in teh law!!!111!1!!," are not offering anything germane to the discussion, are ignorant of the rules, and hence are wasting everybody's time. The frustrations of the HotRodian and Karmicarian representatives are totally understandable here.

Um....yes it is very frustrating, but um.....I haven't posted my frustrations in this thread. I have in other repeal threads, but not this one. I think you may have confused me with someone else. No big deal, just wanted to point that out.

Point taken about the amendment.

However, the point hasn't been addresed about having nothing better on the books. The repeal will leave a black hole. Instead of wasting our time with this repeal business, write something better.

You know Sumner was beaten on the floor of the Senate, guess who ultimately won that discussion.

If we believed that repealing this resolution would leave a black hole -- or any color hole for that matter -- we'd vote against it. But it won't. We've said it over and over again: the resolution does absolutely nothing. Does it create an NSUN instrumentality to address the issue? No. Does it set in motion some other kind of NSUN activity? No. Does it require any nation to do anything? No. Does it prohibit any nation from doing anything? No. Does it require--or even urge--anyone to do anything? No. it makes a nice little statement about the way things should be. Period.

We can agree with the representative of Ravacholiser that the time of this Assembly could have been better spent considering legislation that would take positive steps to address this issue. But the repeal is on the floor for a vote. We can't change that at this late date. And we haven't heard a single, even faintly convincing argument for voting against it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

the resolution does absolutely nothing.

snip

And we haven't heard a single, even faintly convincing argument for voting against it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Do you think another resolution will do a better job of fighting global epidemics?

OT: Is there already a resoluton against germ warfare, btw?

Dicey Reilly, looking slightly flustered, rises:

I would like to make a personal comment on this proposal entirely separate from the views of the government of Ardchoille.

My comment is,"OMGzx u cant repael this!!!111just ammend it or rerite it :fluffle: don't leeve a black whole in teh law!!!111!1!!"

Having said that, I qualify as a wise bozo in the eyes of Omigodtheykilledkenny. Thus, I urge that nation to heed my words, which now have the full weight of wise-bozoism behind them. Omigodtheykilledkenny, I say unto you: "Keep your nasty tax laws off my current playmate's drawers! (Well, boxers, actually)."

I now turn with some relief to present the views of my government, which are that this repeal deserves to succeed, as it would remove a resolution which, as Mr Olembe has so cogently pointed out, does nothing.

The government of Ardchoille therefore votes FOR the repeal.

Disease is an international issue. If a plague in your nation didn't have an impact on mine I'd support this repeal. I can't see a way a replacement could improve on the existing resolution, and then passed, after this repeal. I'm currently voting against here.

Disease clearly can be an international issue, it all depends on the disease of course. This resolution doesn't really deal with disease at all, much less international disease. It simply cannot be replaced, because there is really nothing to replace.

There are several areas that one could implement as resolutions.

The most important, but oddly enough the last part of the resolution is the notion of vaccines. The resolution here is borderline pathetic as availability does not mean that anyone can be given them. (They can easily be made available but unaffordable.) A universal vaccination system comes up with the old "who will pay for it" debates. It would get very ugly, but if you want to give it a shot by all means take the point and get shot at.

Unsanitary conditions, for the most part do not cause international diseases. People travel to poor sanitary conditions all the time, make mistakes and suffer from "Montesuma's Revenge" but when they go home they do not spread those to the general population in their own home nations. Yes it would be nice to have sanitary standards, but it's hard to claim it's an international issue worthy of the UN. Sanitary conditions apply not only to the water closet, but to the kitchen as well. It applies to the common water source for washing and for drinking. It applies to the conditions of the various food markets, especially that of the meat/produce markets. A toilet in every house does not a sanitary condition make.

To the esteemed deligate of Ausserland, Mr. Olembe:

I can't think of a convincing argument against the repeal either, other than the repeal isn't worthy of being approved by a insanely wide margin when a simple wide margin would clearly do. After all there are still some really nasty resolutions out there that need to be repealed ASAP and they can't even make the queues. It's like a man walks by with explosives strapped on his back and one lets him pass. Another man walks by with a machine gun and one lets him pass. A third man walks by with pink finger nail clippers and he is arrested and executed on the spot.

Besides what will Tzorsland politicians do when they can no longer campaign on the promise of a toilet in every house? What will we do with all our "Flush Disease Now" buttons? I can't wait to find out.

This resolution doesn't really deal with disease at all, much less international disease. It simply cannot be replaced, because there is really nothing to replace.

There are several areas that one could implement as resolutions.

The most important, but oddly enough the last part of the resolution is the notion of vaccines. The resolution here is borderline pathetic as availability does not mean that anyone can be given them. (They can easily be made available but unaffordable.) A universal vaccination system comes up with the old "who will pay for it" debates. It would get very ugly, but if you want to give it a shot by all means take the point and get shot at.

Perhaps you are right. What I fear is that any vaccination resolution would be shot down for violating nat sov.

The current resolution is weak. It's practically a blocker.

As you have pointed out in your sig, I will take a weak resolution that at least firmly states the goals of the UN on a subject, over no resolution.

Do yall think we could pass a vaccination resolution that has teeth?

Originally Posted by Ausserland
the resolution does absolutely nothing.

snip

And we haven't heard a single, even faintly convincing argument for voting against it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Do you think another resolution will do a better job of fighting global epidemics?

Since the resolution in question does absolutely nothing, just about anything would be more effective.

OT: Is there already a resoluton against germ warfare, btw?

The representative is reminded that there is a handy list of passed NSUN Resolutions readily available as a stickied thread in this forum. If he had taken a few seconds to consult it, he would have found NSUNR #113, "UN Biological Weapons Ban".

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: Keep in mind that my representative is a crotchety old man with a temper. That's just his character.

Back IC:

I am not familiar with the delegate, but I must take umbridge at the hysterical nature of your admonition of Ravacholiser. It is quite clear from this debate that there is considerable doubt that Resolution 9 is a blocking resolution, and what seems so apparent to you is not quite so crystal clear to others. Let us comport ourselves in a manner worthy of this body, and welcome debate in this open forum.

Sonny, you ain't ever seen me do anything hysterical in nature. And whether you think it's a blocking resolution or not, it still needs to go. If you think it is blocking progress, then that's just another reason for it to be repealed. If not, then it's even more worthless than I think it is and it needs to be repealed. In this case, my opinion don't make much difference as to what anyone's vote should be.

And for your information, I do welcome debate. Bring it on.

I also comport myself in a manner worthy of this body. When this body gets its act together, maybe I'll act a little better.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Unsanitary conditions, for the most part do not cause international diseases. People travel to poor sanitary conditions all the time, make mistakes and suffer from "Montesuma's Revenge" but when they go home they do not spread those to the general population in their own home nations. Yes it would be nice to have sanitary standards, but it's hard to claim it's an international issue worthy of the UN. Sanitary conditions apply not only to the water closet, but to the kitchen as well. It applies to the common water source for washing and for drinking. It applies to the conditions of the various food markets, especially that of the meat/produce markets. A toilet in every house does not a sanitary condition make.Cholera?

We voted against the repeal, but will not waste time arguing an issue that is at this point a foregone conclusion. For those unhappy with this repeal, we suggest putting forward a bill mandating higher public health and sanitation standards.

Perhaps you are right. What I fear is that any vaccination resolution would be shot down for violating nat sov.

Do yall think we could pass a vaccination resolution that has teeth?

Personally I don't think the enemy of a good vaccination resolution is nat sov. I think the enemy of a good vaccination resolution is the "who will pay for it" card. Generally speaking rich nations probably already have a program, and poor nations can't afford one. Charity of rich nations towards poor ones is not a hallmark of the NS UN. People will cry, "too expenive" and vote NO.

A few things to consider about vaccinations.

First of all they must be safe and effective. Nations might be free to experment with questionable vaccines in cases of severe emergency but it's not the UN's role to make them do so.
Second is that they should only be necessary for diseases common to the nation, although they should be requied for foreign nationals traveling into that nation.
Third is that it must be cost effective; taking both the serious of the disease and the cost of the vaccine into account. A very expensive vaccine to prevent acme for example is right out.


I think the foreign nationals is the key towards making this an international issue, and that will cause the moderate nat sovs to relax their objections.

Cholera?

Ever wonder why Popeye the Sailor eats cold spinnach from a can and not fresh spinnach? Now we know. And that's from a sanitary country. With more than one toilet per house.

... A very expensive vaccine to prevent acme for example is right out.

Prevent Acme (http://home.nc.rr.com/tuco/looney/acme/acme.html)? Are you mad? What do you think keeps the Strangers Bar the peaceful haven and beloved retreat that so many of us have come to know and set up UN offices in? Why, without Acme it'd be dog eat dog, penguin exploding penguin, dolphin flaming dolphin! You bet any vaccine like that is out! Right out! How in the name of all that's wonderful did someone with looney-toon ideas like that get made head of a national delegation? You don't mean your misbegotten excuse for a nation is researching that sort of stuff, do you? Never in all my born days ...

Surrounded by concerned and soothing colleagues, Dicey Reilly is led away, while Brother Tim of Findhorn remains behind to make excuses ... "She's under a lot of stress right now, you know ...these late hours, all-night sittings ... free trade proposals ... "

The delegate for Lord of Hosts, as a delegate new to this esteemed house, would like to thank his learned friends for enlightening new-comers to the fact that the original Resolution #9, though apparently positive and well-meaning, in fact stands, under current proposal regulations, in the way of true and effective legislation forwarding hygiene and good health worldwide.

having consulted with our Sanhedrin (the Legislative body and Court of Law), Lord of Hosts has reversed its vote and now voted For this Repeal.

I also comport myself in a manner worthy of this body. When this body gets its act together, maybe I'll act a little better.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

*Chuckle* ;)

It seems that resolution #9 is reasonable. It's requesting basic sanitary conditions that does help offset the potential for disease. This doesn't have to be a one-or-the-other decision. Consider the rammifications if societies had working plumbing and toilets, and if all populace gained the potential to receive disease curative. It's not a catch-all, certainly, but it does help.

If you wish for your nation to exist in disease-ridden squalor, with waste piling in public venues, then repeal this. Otherwise, truly consider the importance of this matter.

If you wish for your nation to exist in disease-ridden squalor, with waste piling in public venues, then repeal this. Otherwise, truly consider the importance of this matter.

Some of us represent nations that are fully capable of making sensible decisions about such matters for themselves, without any need for such a resolution...

Last UN Decision

The resolution Repeal "Keep The World Disease-Free!" was passed 10,597 votes to 2,710.Meh.

Okay. Desicion's been made. Now into actions. In order to prevent diseases...

Some of us represent nations that are fully capable of making sensible decisions about such matters for themselves, without any need for such a resolution...

So then this resolution wouldn't be a problem. Too bad the decision has already been made. The resolution really only affected people whom were not sensible enough to make that decision.. on thier own.

So then this resolution wouldn't be a problem. Too bad the decision has already been made. The resolution really only affected people whom were not sensible enough to make that decision.. on thier own.

There seems to be a recent trend to repeal do nothing resolutions, especially if they are not in accord with the general spirit of the current UN makeup.

I'm not sure what that general spirit is, but it seems different from whatever spirit it was in when these various resolutions they keep repealing were first passed.

I think it's leaning towards a Nat Sov position, where local and international governments only exist to protect corporate interests.

That isn't true. Many of the active members of the NSO have been nothing but supportative of my government's efforts to get a Furtherment of Democracy proposal into the resolution queue.

Also I think it is important to point out that there are a number of resolutions that are rarely talked about as targets for repeal, including some that are clearly not corporate in nature. In particular many of the health standard resolutions are generally well respected, including some older resolutions.

OOC: I've already started the NSWiki stub for this repeal last night.

That isn't true. Many of the active members of the NSO have been nothing but supportative of my government's efforts to get a Furtherment of Democracy proposal into the resolution queue.

Indeed, and one active member of the NSO has even been trying to get a Furtherment of Democracy proposal of their own (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10923762&postcount=80) into the queue as well... ;)