Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #145: Animal Cruelty Prevention (Category: Moral Decency; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

DETERMINING that "Animal Cruelty Prevention" does not address certain complexities, and that it neglects to place safeguards on certain exceptions that it grants:

• "Animal Cruelty Prevention" considers any "reasonable person" qualified to determine the degree of care appropriate for an animal, rather than relying on expert advice that might be offered by a professional, such as a veterinarian;

• Anyone is allowed to mistreat an animal, so long as the mistreatment is for religious reasons;

• The definition of domestic animals can also be applied to humans, thus legalizing the sacrifice of human beings and other sapient creatures;

• "Wild animals" may be abused or mistreated with impunity;

BELIEVING that these flaws may lead to grave and unintended consequences;

ASSERTING that it is in its best interest to repeal ineffective legislation, such as resolution #145;

Hereby,

REPEALS General Assembly Resolution #145, "Animal Cruelty Prevention."

Co-authored by: Knootoss.

Votes For: 5,780 (53%)
Votes Against: 5,174 (47%)

Implemented: Wed Apr 18 2012

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #58: Right to Privacy (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

Applauding the intent of General Assembly Resolution #58,

Regretting the resolution fails to account for certain aspects of the privacy issue,

Observing the text defines privacy, and establishes types of privacy, but does not specifically state that a person has a right to privacy, or that the government cannot infringe on all of those types of privacy,

Believing the text should clearly state that 'consent' to infringe on ones privacy can be considered given by seeking to enter a secure location or someone else's property, or by trying to use services like transportation or hospitals,

Realizing the resolution forbids secret espionage programs that monitor citizens or gathers their personal information, but then adds "unless authorized by law" which removes all protection for citizens from such programs,

Noticing the resolution creates no restrictions on when a government can make private information pubic which it finds in the course of an investigation,

Understanding a more effective resolution is needed to fully provide the protection of personal privacy,

Hereby repeals General Assembly Resolution #58 Right to Privacy.

Votes For: 6,354 (61%)
Votes Against: 4,003 (39%)

Implemented: Sun Apr 22 2012

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #187: Double Jeopardy Prohibition (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly:

APPLAUDS the aim of GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition, which was to ban the deplorable practice of Double Jeopardy within WA member states;

REGRETS that the resolution ultimately overstepped its intended purpose and made it much more difficult for WA member states to ensure that those individuals who have committed a crime are appropriately punished;

NOTES that the resolution's text includes the following statement: "1. Once an individual has been acquitted of a crime, member states shall not try that individual for the same alleged criminal act again.";

CLARIFIES that the term "acquitted" in the aforementioned clause is not the same as a final judgment of innocence, which in turn creates a number of legal problems for WA member states;

DETAILS that this restriction outlaws a number of otherwise fair and necessary judicial proceedings such as:

1. Trial de novo, which is a common civil law occurrence in which a trial is essentially redone,

2. Concurrent jurisdiction, which may exist on both on the international and national level and may result in local politics playing a role in determining where an individual is tried in order to impact the outcome of the trial,

3. Prosecution appeal, which may be necessary in the event of any or all of the following:

   1. Learning of judge or jury bias during the original proceedings,

   2. Tampering with evidence, or

   3. Discovering new evidence that may have changed the outcome of the case;

REPEALS GAR #187, Double Jeopardy Prohibition.

Co-Authored by: Mallorea and Riva

Votes For: 9,388 (84%)
Votes Against: 1,755 (16%)

Implemented: Thu Apr 26 2012

Description: RECOGNIZES that those detained by police and judicial authorities either while awaiting adjudication or investigation, or while serving a penal sentence, may be vulnerable to abuse.

WORRIES that those members of society who have been accused but not yet found guilty may be forced to endure worse treatment than those whose guilt has been determined.

THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

1. DEFINES:

1. "detainee" as a person who is in custody while subjected to questioning, criminal proceedings and/or trial, but for whom either (a) a verdict has not yet been determined at a trial, or (b) whose guilt is determined but is awaiting a punishment to be pronounced.

2. "convict" as a person who is serving a custodial sentence after guilt has been pronounced.

2. STIPULATES that all detainees must be presumed to be innocent until a formal verdict is determined at a trial.

3. REQUIRES all member nations to provide the following, at a minimum, to all detainees and convicts:

1. Sufficient and appropriate living space.

2. Regular access to physical activity.

3. A diet sufficient to sustain life.

4. Appropriate clothing for extant environmental conditions as deemed necessary for the inmate.

5. Prevention of abuse, with the proviso that effects that are directly due to the loss of freedom, such as isolation, shall not be considered abuse.

6. Access to correspondence and visitation with consenting family members and friends from the outside community on a regular, reasonably frequent basis, in a manner consistent with the safety and security of the institution, institutional staff and inmates.

4. PERMITS member nations to temporarily suspend the services detailed in clauses 3b and 3f above for a reasonably short period of time, as punishment for misbehavior after a reasonable judgment is made.

5. MANDATES that member nations shall each establish national standards jointly with the World Assembly Commission on Human Rights for all services listed in clause 3 above, and further requires member nations to meet or exceed such standards.

6. ALLOWS member nations to monitor inmates who are taking advantage of the services listed above in order to maintain institutional security and order, except as otherwise regulated by extant or future international law.

7. OBLIGATES all nations to additionally provide detainees with:

1. Conditions, privileges, and rights that are no worse than those accorded to convicts who pose a similar risk to institutional safety and security.

2. Notification of the reason for their detention.

3. Access to legal documentation relevant to their trial, in a form accessible to the detainee.

4. The right to prepare for their own defense.

8. OBLIGES member nations to provide oversight of convict and detainee care beyond that exercised by the direct management of the correctional institution

9. GRANTS all detainees and convicts the right to have appeals of conditions of detainment heard by oversight institutions specified in clause 8.

10. FORBIDS member nations from arranging to house their detainees and/or convicts at facilities in outside nations for the purposes of evading compliance with this resolution.

Votes For: 8,271 (73%)
Votes Against: 3,026 (27%)

Implemented: Mon Apr 30 2012

Description: WA General Assembly Resolution #190: Habeas Corpus Act (Category: Human Rights; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: THE WORLD ASSEMBLY:

APPLAUDS the aim of protecting individuals from unreasonable detainment practices.

REALIZES, however, that the specific time limits listed within the resolution's text may risk the safety and prosperity of WA member nations; for example:

1. Clause 1 may require WA member nations to criminalize otherwise non-criminal offenses for the purposes of public safety.

   1. Government-provided child protective services would be severely limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period, due to shortcomings in GAR#19, Child Protection Act, in combination with GAR#190. This limit would apply to, for example, children who are removed from their homes due to suspicions of parental/guardian abuse.

   2. Non-criminal detainment of intoxicated individuals is limited to a maximum of 6 hours per 7 day period. This may not be sufficient to allow individuals to be held for the duration of their intoxication.

   3. Six hours of administrative detainment for illegal immigrants may be insufficient to accurately determine where such individuals originated from prior to their deportation.

2. There are no exceptions granted for Clauses 1 & 2 with regards to “special circumstances.”

   1. Some suspects may be considered a “flight risk” if they are not detained while sufficient evidence is collected and compiled for the purposes of charging them with a crime. This process may take longer than the maximum time allowed.

   2. Some crimes, such as terrorist attacks or serial killings, may be especially complicated, which would require additional detainment time before charges can be formally filed. Such a circumstance is outlawed.

QUOTES the following line in the resolution’s text, which reads: “CLARIFIES that nothing in this resolution shall be interpreted as prohibiting any of the following,” and

SPECIFIES that the aforementioned phrasing does not in any way exempt the following items from any of the preceding clauses of the resolution. Therefore, “Involuntary psychiatric commitment” and “Medical quarantines” are not prohibited but are limited, such that they are only allowed for up to 6 hours within 7 days in the absence of criminal suspicion. As a result:

1. Individuals who undergo “involuntary psychiatric commitment” must be treated and released after 6 hours. Most psychiatric treatments take multiple days, if not weeks or months, to be fully effective. This 6 hour limit prevents WA member nations from providing effective treatment to these individuals.

2. An individual cannot be “medical(ly) quarantine(d)” for more than 6 hours. This negates the quarantining efforts as, even with appropriate treatment, individuals will typically remain contagious after such a short period of time.

HOPES that an improved version of the Habeas Corpus protections will be considered by this Assembly.

REPEALS GAR#190, Habeas Corpus Act.

Votes For: 8,944 (83%)
Votes Against: 1,775 (17%)

Implemented: Fri May 4 2012