NationStates Jolt Archive

Mr. Secretary-General, I rise today to discuss a mostly-forgotten resolution and propose its repeal.

Almost four years ago, over the great protests of most speaking on this floor, the United Nations adopted "Common Sense Act II" by a vote of 8,627 for to 4,776 against. Immediately after it was approved, a proposal to repeal this resolution attracted great support, but was removed from the proposal queue due to the illegality of resolution repeals at that time. However, this restriction is no longer in force. And so, with a few modifications for grammar and modern rules, I put before this body for discussion the text of the original repeal, submitted by Tisonica on the 12th of September, 2003, and approved by me shortly after submission.

Lord Evif looks briefly at the desk that once belonged to the Alcardian States before continuing.

(The original thread for this resolution can be found at http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=279311, but please do not post to it - use this instead.)

Repeal "Common Sense Act II"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution.

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #30
Proposed by: Goobergunchia

Description: UN Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: WHEREAS the resolution “Common Sense Act II” was inherently flawed from the start, and its vague wording and broad effects will most likely cause many problems in UN member nations,

GIVEN that the resolution in question forces lawsuits against companies for selling a legal product, no matter how unsafe the product, to be dismissed in court,

GIVEN that the clause in “Common Sense Act II” stating that you cannot sue if you were committing a crime at the time you were injured would make it impossible to file many sorts of police brutality lawsuits,

GIVEN that the clause in “Common Sense Act II” stating that you cannot sue for consuming a legal product that harmed your body in some way would mean that you could not sue if a company made a recklessly dangerous product and you were injured by it,

BELIEVING that this would most likely cause businesses to become more careless in taking measures to make their products safer,

BELIEVING that it is in the best interest of all nations to not have laws forced upon them to make police brutality, wrongful death, liability, ect. lawsuits illegal,

ASSERTING that the resolution “Common Sense Act II” does in fact do the things listed above,

RESOLVES that the resolution “Common Sense Act II” is henceforth repealed to allow UN member nations to pass their own laws concerning the issues addressed by the “Common Sense Act II” proposal.

(Originally proposed by Tisonica.)

Mr. Secretary-General, I ask that the text of Resolution #30 appear in the Forum immediately following my remarks. I would further ask that members of this body review the text of this proposal prior to its submission and to make any remarks that they deem proper to make it more suitable for adoption by the United Nations.

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder, Democratic Underground region

The text of Resolution #30 is as follows:

Common Sense Act II
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Fantasan

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

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

Idiotic neglegence shall be defined as such:

1: Burning oneself with a hot beverage, such as coffee.

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

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

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

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

Vehemently opposed, Lord Evif, though for not entirely honourable reasons. You see, we have a draft repeal ourselves gathering dust somewhere in my office. Let me dig it out...

Repeal "Common Sense Act II"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution
Category: Repeal
Resolution: #30

Proposed by: Dashanzi

Description: UN Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

REGRETFULLY ACKNOWLEDGING that individuals may be reckless, irresponsible, ignorant and/or foolish, and

SOBERLY MINDFUL of the potential for the waste of time and resources represented by such individuals,

NONETHELESS REMAINS AGOG at the chutzpah exhibited in crafting a resolution that seeks to legislate against stupidity, yet which simultaneously fails to account for the myriad factors involved in personal decision-making, and furthermore

RAILS MOST FURIOUSLY at those who seek to undermine the lofty goals of this institution by assailing it with such egregious trivialities and alarmist pettifoggery, and consequently

RIGHTEOUSLY PURIFIES the UN statute of this most disingenuous resolution by

REPEALING United Nations Resolution #30: Common Sense Act II.
Discussion took place here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=509772). Perhaps we could pool resources?

Benedictions,

Personally, I'd be more likely to approve the former. I also believe the first repeal would be the one more likely to be supported by the general public due to its being easier for the average Joe to understand. Words with too many syllables have the tendency to get one's opinion dismissed by the general assembly. They don't like to feel that someone may be talking over their heads.

Also, "righteously purifies" is not a phrase guaranteed to go over well... Just a thought.

Ah, but the repeal is an aesthetic statement in itself, hence the flowery prose. However, I do not wish to comment further on my own repeal until Lord Evif has had opportunity to respond.

Benedictions,

Ambassador Kildarno leans over and whispers to his aide, "Who is this Mr. Secretary-General he keeps on talking to? One of the cleaning staff?"

Ahem...

My government prefers the effort submitted by Minister Qiang of the Dashanzi, if only because it made the cabinet chuckle at the use of "chutzpah" in the repeal. However, the repeal drafted originally by the government of the now extinct Tisonicans and championed now by Goobergunchia is stronger in content. Both make perfectly valid points in the text.

IC: Fine, repeal it, don't care.

-- George Madison
UN Ambassador

OOC: but Dashanzi's is just more fun.

A few points, Lord Evif...


GIVEN that the clause in “Common Sense Act II” stating that you cannot sue if you were committing a crime at the time you were injured would make it impossible to file many sorts of police brutality lawsuits,

This is incorrect. A person is not in the act of committing a crime while he or she is in police custody, and can therefore sue in response to police brutality. Likewise, once you have been apprehended, even while still on the scene of the crime, you are (generally) no longer committing a crime.


BELIEVING that this would most likely cause businesses to become more careless in taking measures to make their products safer,


This may be countered by the government imposing strict quality standards on all products. You can ensure that a product never reaches the shelf in the first place.

Still, my government may support this repeal, with some small modifications.


Christophe Boco (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christophe_Boco),
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

I'm afraid I must oppose this repeal on the grounds that its arguments are incorrect.

GIVEN that the resolution in question forces lawsuits against companies for selling a legal product, no matter how unsafe the product, to be dismissed in court,
Provided that the lawsuit in question arises from an idiotic act of the appellant. That's a rather important proviso. One might hope that national Health and Safety Executives didn't wait for someone to actually injure themselves before dealing with unsafe products under criminal law, and civil lawsuits not based on stupidity remain unaffected.

GIVEN that the clause in “Common Sense Act II” stating that you cannot sue if you were committing a crime at the time you were injured would make it impossible to file many sorts of police brutality lawsuits,
That's not actually what it states: an "injury occurring during the commission of a crime" is not the same as an injury that happens while a crime is going on, and in any case as Ambassador Boco has observed that's not when most cases of police brutality occur as I understand it. Further, the resolution doesn't stop the criminal filing a complaint, which is often a better way to proceed anyway.

GIVEN that the clause in “Common Sense Act II” stating that you cannot sue for consuming a legal product that harmed your body in some way would mean that you could not sue if a company made a recklessly dangerous product and you were injured by it,
You've had absinthe poisoning recently, haven't you? If a recklessly dangerous product is legal, that says more about the inadequacy of national laws than anything else. Again, surely a recklessly dangerous product is better pursued through criminal law than civil.

I'm not normally a supporter of the notion "caveat emptor", but in all of these cases I am boggled that anyone would consider letting someone profit from the consequences of their bad judgement.

While we prefer the Dashanzi version, we would be pleased to support either version, or one combining both, if such a proposal should reach quorum. We feel that it should be up to individual nations to decide what constitutes "idiotic negligence", and to decide for themselves how they want their legal systems to handle such matters.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

I was going to say something, but Ambassador Agaranth basically took the words out of my mouth.

Devon Rose, Ph.D.
Assistant UN Representative

OOC: but Dashanzi's is just more fun.

OOC: How can it not be fun when it uses "agog" and "chutzpah" in the same clause? That is fantastic!

IC:

While we're not sure who this Secretary-General is (probably some self-appointed smuck), we would support a combination of both proposals.

~Dr. Jules Hodz

P.S.: And welcome (back), Lord Evif.

We will not support the version proposed by Goobergunchia, due to its inaccurate statements and resultingly false arguments, some of which have been highlighted by the respected Gobbannian representative. We would urge Dashanzi not to allow its own repeal attempt to be soiled by this ironically challenged draft, introduced by a nation that no longer exists, and arising from a different era of UN legislation, one that produced some of the worst resolutions in this body's history. If Lord Evif would like to propose his own version of a repeal draft, one that meets the standards many in this body have come to expect from repeals, we'd sure like to see it.

Cdr. Jenny Chiang
Security Attache to the United Nations

While we're not sure who this Secretary-General is (probably some self-appointed smuck)Many assume it's Catherine Gratwick (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sovereign_UN_Territory#Important_People), who probably doesn't enjoy being fashioned "Mr." very much. :p

We're loath to break it to the representative from Intellect and Art, but Average Joe Delegate doesn't read past the first three lines. Triskaidekasyllabelated words in the body of the text cause them no concern. ;)

Repealing CSAII would be a major improvement to the body of international legislation. We're hopelessly fond of the Dashanzi version, but acknowledge that a happy blending of the two, eliminating the false arguments found in the Goobergunchia version, is most likely to meet with approval of a majority.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Perhaps I was thinking of Average Joe's cousin, Slightly Above Average George. Either way, wording does help.

If given the choice I would have to go with the repeal that is RAILS MOST FURIOUSLY against something.


Nigel S Youlkin
United Nations Ambassador At Large
The United State of Philimbesi

We would support either of these resolutions to repeal, and, given that preambulatory clauses are meant to direct attention, we do enjoy the unorthodox, yet amusing, repeal put forth by Dashanzi...

Roger Outhwaite
--UN Ambassador-in-Ordinary, Cwrulandia

OOC: I seem to be in a minority of one in liking CSA2. Oh well, I suppose now I get to annoy everyone simultaneously :-)

While we're not sure who this Secretary-General is (probably some self-appointed smuck)Many assume it's Catherine Gratwick (ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sovereign_UN_Territory#Important_People)

Lord Evif should be welcomed here after despite his anachronistic piped jacket and forced phraseology. He was around back in the day when we actually did have a Secretary General, (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Secretary_General_%28removed%29) and as we all know, old habits die hard.

Good to see you back, Lord Evif.

MJ Donovan
CEO Emeritus, Frisbeeteria, Inc.