by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

The South Pacific WA Voting Center Board

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12345. . .7980»

Liberate SECFanatics

Present

Ban On Forced Blood Sports

For

Killing people for entertainment is wrong, especially if one or more of the participants have not given their consent.

SC Proposal 'Liberate SECFanatics' failed to reach quorum. Its vote is now closed.

Result:
0 For
5 Against
2 Present

Expected recommendation: Against.

NEW GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND VOTE
---------------------------------------------------

Title: Repeal "Individual Working Freedoms"
Author: Sciongrad
Purpose: To repeal "Individual Working Freedoms" on the ground of potential exploitation.

Sciongrad wrote:

The General Assembly,

Emphasizing this body's historic commitment to promoting the rights of workers and safeguarding the wellbeing of marginalized people,

Reaffirming its fundamental respect for individual autonomy, yet

Mindful of the disparities in bargaining power which often characterize relations between workers and employers,

Recalling the passage of General Assembly Resolution #302, Individual Working Freedoms,

Troubled that the resolution upsets the delicate balance between respect for the right to contract and the right of workers to seek protection from the government where inequality of bargaining power creates the possibility of exploitation,

Disturbed that the resolution deceptively frames the question of workweek hours as one of right to contract when individual employees often lack the requisite bargaining power to make any meaningful choice in how long they work,

Outraged that the resolution shrouds its purpose — permitting employers in nations indifferent or hostile to the rights of workers to set hours without any constraint — behind the language of individual autonomy,

Resolving to create a legislative framework more sensitive to the needs of workers and the true state of labor markets, as opposed to one which dresses up the obliteration of labor law in the garb of "individual rights in economic decision-making,"

Hereby repeals GA #302 Individual Working Freedoms.

View submitted proposal (Not submitted yet) | View on-site drafting thread

---------------------------------------------------

Please discuss and vote on how regional nations and the Delegate should vote on this proposal.
Always remember to include the name of the resolution you are talking about in your posts to avoid confusion!

In order to vote, your nation needs to be a member of the World Assembly so join it here if you haven't done so. If you are a member of the SPSF, please mention your SPSF activity status on your voting post.

To cast your vote, please post a message on this RMB containing:

  • The name of the resolution you are voting on (required)

  • Your vote (required)

  • Your opinion on the resolution (heavily recommended)

There are five standardized vote that you can cast:

  • For means that you want OWL to recommend that the Delegate and citizens vote in favor of the proposal.

  • Against means that you want OWL to recommend that the Delegate citizens vote against the proposal.

  • Abstain means that you want OWL to recommend that the Delegate citizens (and the delegate) not vote on the proposal.

  • No recommendation means that you do not want the Office to write any recommendation for citizens and the Delegate (though it still may produce a writeup with a compilation of various opinions for and against).

  • Present means that you personally do not want to register their views one way or the other, but want to let OWL know you are involved.

If there are multiple votes going on, use separate message posts for each vote.

An example ballot looks like this:

Example ballot wrote:Commend Tsunamy

I vote For.

Tsunamy has contributed immensely to the community of the South Pacific in his 17 years in the region. He helps promote activities, fighting coups, and is a key advisor to many critical decisions that decide on the region's future.

However, responding to a proposal is about more than just voting. You are strongly encouraged to write a sentence or two, or a paragraph, or however much you feel like, explaining your opinion. Not only is it important for other citizens to hear your substantive opinion in order to establish a constructive and lively dialogue, but OWL also relies on these expanded opinions when compiling the Opinions section and writing the Analysis section of the Recommendation Dashboard.

If you want more information, please read the more comprehensive Beginner Guide to the World Assembly

GA Proposal 'Ban On Forced Blood Sports' has gone to the voting floor. Its vote is now closed.

Result:
For: 5
Against: 1

OWL recommendation: For

.

·

·
·

·


Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'
·
·
..
·

Background Information

Proposal title: Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'
Author: Daarwyrth
Purpose: To repeal previous legislation, arguing vague terminology would make it possible for any worker to stay on paid leave permanently, undermining the proposal's intent of protecting workers' rights while not overburdening (small) employers.

Links


Vote .Against.
·

The Office's Analysis

The at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'", seeks to repeal GA Resolution #527, which installed a system of paid leave for workers. The repeal argues that the vague terminology, prominently the generous use of "reasonable" and "serious", render it unfit to cover this important aspect of employment law, and points to a possible replacement to be implemented instead. However, OWL voters weren't convinced by those arguments, finding that the wording criticized by the repeal are necessary to ensure a broader applicability, or at least don't impact the resolution's effectiveness to the point of a repeal being necessary. Thus, OWL recommends a vote AGAINST the at-vote resolution, "Repeal 'Protected Working Leave'".

Supplementary Opinions
·
·
FOR | AGAINST
·

For

From TSP Citizens

Canmore is a citizen of the South Pacific.

Canmore wrote:The Resolution is very well written and I do kinda agree that the current Resolution that protects workers has loopholes
I'm willing to repeal GA #527 so a stronger Resolution could replace it

Land Without Shrimp is a legislator of the South Pacific.

Land Without Shrimp wrote:A well written proposal that highlights the vague and imprecise wording in this WA mandate. If this is a significant and important issue (which I believe it is), then it deserves a better resolution than this.

From the World

Guy is a commended former Delegate of The Rejected Realms. On TRR's forums, they argued:

Guy wrote:For, as per my arguments against the original:

"I don’t think this proposal is very good, despite its noble objectives.

1) The definition of worker is sort-of an abbreviation of the classical one, but I query whether it’s not difficult to implement, and whether it should not be wider (uber drivers should be employees I will die on this hill)

2) Reasonable period of paid leave. I think a minimum entitlement to a period is better. In practice, leaving “reasonable” to be worked out between employer and employee, with no recourse to dispute resolution, is a recipe for disaster.

3) The categories of eligibility for leave — particularly only *serious* illness — are quite narrow. Even if it could be expanded on by later resolutions, it’s a significant missed opportunity.

The second point, in particular, means I cannot support this."

Marxist Germany is a citizen and former Senator of 10000 Islands. They stated on the NS forums:

Marxist Germany wrote:"Germany supports repealing this proposal and not replacing it at all; the World Assembly should not interfere with the labour rights of member-states."

Against

From TSP Citizens

Osheiga is a citizen of the South Pacific.

Osheiga wrote:Point 1 hinges a lot on the fact that “reasonable” isn’t defined, but the example chosen of a worker being on paid leave indefinitely shouldn’t be considered reasonable by anyone despite what the proposal argues. Our delegation has similar problems with point 3, since the same scenario also fails the “reasonability” test - if an employee is on paid leave for the entirety of their contact, it’s not a reasonable usage.

In addition, point 4 seems like a logistics issue more than one the WA needs to deal with, since “...if an analysis would deem the former to be able to do so on paper, while in reality circumstances would be different...” is simply assuming member nations are using flawed calculations for businesses, which isn’t an issue the original proposal is creating and therefore isn’t a valid reason to repeal in our delegation’s point of view.

With the points the Osheigan delegation takes issue with excluded, there simply isn’t enough substance left to justify a full repeal.

BlazeFirexd is a citizen of the South Pacific.

BlazeFirexd wrote:I feel that any worker should have the right to take protected leaves as we never know when an emergency situation comes to a worker.

From the World

Chimes is a former Delegate of The Rejected Realms. They wrote on TRR's forums:

Chimes wrote:Against. Not quite enough to convince me to support the repeal.

The North Pacific Ministry of WA Affairs explains the following rationale for recommending a vote AGAINST:

The Northern Light wrote:This repeal is correct in asserting that the target resolution contains numerous instances of "vague and imprecise" phrasing in its clauses. However, much of the repeal proposal falls apart when one considers reasonable nation theory: a nation will not willingly engage in behavior to its detriment. No rational government would interpret "a reasonable duration of paid leave" as encompassing the entirety of a time-limited worker's employment, or any disproportionate period of time. The repeal proposal does not explain precisely how the vast majority of its cited examples of ambiguity "[undermine] the security and protection" provided by the target resolution, and these examples would also not be applied by member nations to their own detriment. Further, section 4 of the repeal claims that the target's use of both governments and employers to fund paid leave has the potential to destroy small businesses if interpreted in a certain way. However, no rational government would interpret that provision in such a way that proves deleterious to its economy.

Overall, the repeal proposal is correct in asserting that the target resolution contains ambiguous language. However, this ambiguous language neither substantively compromises the target's provisions nor harms member nations, and in fact, flexible language is necessary for covering employment law through the World Assembly.



·

WELCOME BEGINNER'S GUIDE WRITING GUIDE VOTING CENTER LinkDISCORD


·

·
LinkLink
·
·
Read dispatch

Repeal "Individual Working Freedoms"

For

The original resolution "Mandates the removal of working time regulations". This is literally forcing nations to not have working time regulations, which are important laws in promoting workers' rights. I agree with the proposal in that the original resolution, under the guise of "freedom," actually forces nations to rescind worker protection laws and allows nations that do not have worker protection laws to simply stay the way they are. Additionally, the proposal highlights how employees often have less power than their employers, so taking having less labor laws only allows employers to exploit their workers more, giving the employees less control over their time. The original resolution is hypocritical because it talks about promoting individual freedoms, but it actually gives workers less freedom.

Repeal "Individual Working Freedoms"

For

The target resolution only serves to block national and international legislation on working time regulations, in the interest of employers, who often already bargain from advantageous positions when contracting workers. The justification was allegedly increasing the worker's freedoms when entering contracts, which would then not be influenced by legislation. This feigned innocence, in reality just further allowing employers to impose exploitative contracts on workers, is highlighted by the proposal at hand, which presents its arguments in a clear and logical manner. A repeal would not force nations unwilling to legislate working time regulations to do so, nor would it open up inappropriate gaps in international legislation, and thus is harmless to do.

NEW GENERAL ASSEMBLY PROPOSAL DISCUSSION AND VOTE
---------------------------------------------------

Title: Access To Abortion
Author: Imperium Anglorum
Purpose: To improve access to abortion using a vast array of means such as state-provided or funded abortions, abortifacients, contraceptives; non-discrimination regulations; WA-funded clinics via WA Choice Plus for members with no-adequate access.

Sciongrad wrote:

Whereas some rabidly anti-choice nations lack medical professionals willing to perform abortions, meaning the ability to access them is non-existent without funds needed for foreign travel, denying constructively abortion rights because of income and birth location:

And whereas discrimination in state policy or administration of tax on abortion recipients and providers is unfair and grossly unjust:

And whereas people have natural rights to property in their own person:

Be it enacted by this august World Assembly as follows:

  1. Definitions. In this resolution,

    1. abortion means a medical procedure to terminate a pregnancy deliberately,

    2. discrimination in tax, in relation to medical procedures, includes placing a burden in excess of that placed on other procedures of similar risk,

    3. IAO means Independent Adjudicative Office,

    4. recipient bona fide means a natural person demonstrating a bona fide desire for a commodity or service,

    5. resolution means General Assembly resolution,

    6. member means member nation, and

    7. tax includes solidarity contributions and other compulsory payments made to the state.

  2. Funding. Members must pay for or provide directly abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives to any recipient bona fide within their jurisdiction upon request. Members must also provide a means to access such services and commodities speedily and free at the point of service or provision.

  3. Non-discrimination. No members may:

    1. conduct discrimination in tax against a recipient or provider of abortion services or contraceptives in tax collection, assessment, or administration,

    2. discriminate against abortion clinics workers on account of occupation or place of employment,

    3. prosecute any person for receiving or providing section 7 compliant abortions, contraceptives, truthful medical advice, or education thereon,

    4. prohibit or levy discriminatory tariffs or tax against section 7 compliant contraceptives or abortifacients,

    5. fail to provide equal protection before the law to recipients or providers of abortion services, or

    6. implement policies intended to restrict access to section 7 regulated goods or services.

  4. Clinics. WA Choice Plus is established and may construct, per section 5, clinics with funds assessed by the General Accounting Office from members in which there does not exist, in the view of the WACC, adequate access to abortion. Such clinics shall offer free and safe abortions to any recipient bona fide. All members must, however, contribute separately to WA Choice Plus in proportion to expenses incurred within their jurisdiction at such clinics for their upkeep and maintenance.

    1. Members must arrange fully subsidised travel for any recipient bona fide, and one person of their choice, to receive care offered by such a clinic if abortion services are not speedily accessible. No limitation, except to prohibit travel to nations in which there is an on-going armed conflict, may be enforced by a member on a person's ability to exit a member for purposes of travelling to a clinic unless permitted by resolution.

    2. Clinics shall provide free healthcare and counselling for expectant parents as well as free contraceptives and abortifacients to any address serviceable by post within a member.

    3. Clinic lease terms. Any member may request the construction of section 4 clinics if they can show to the WACC that construction would expand access to abortion in an area where it is inadequate. The clinics will be built on land donated by members where the member doing so grants to the clinic a ten-year renewable lease in which no (a) direct tax or (b) indirect tax in excess of one per cent may be collected, along with the condition, reinforced by private contract, that upon disestablishment of the clinic, the assignee or seizer must remit to WA Choice Plus the fair market value of the improvements to that land.

    4. Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution and unless otherwise indicated by previous resolution, a member may restrict access to or section 2 funding for an abortion if that member can show that a sex-selective basis clearly impels its request.

    5. Health and safety. The World Health Authority (WHA) must issue regulations to ensure abortions, abortifacients, and contraceptives available to the general public are safe and effective for end-users and those with which they may be in close contact. Such regulations overrule those made by members unless it can be shown to the IAO that those WHA regulations are insufficient in fulfilling the mandates of this section.

    6. Interpretation. Members shall ascribe personhood to begin at birth. In this resolution, older resolutions overrule conflicting provisions of this resolution, singular words include the plural unless otherwise indicated, and section and list headings have no effect.

View submitted proposal | View on-site drafting thread

---------------------------------------------------

Please discuss and vote on how regional nations and the Delegate should vote on this proposal.
Always remember to include the name of the resolution you are talking about in your posts to avoid confusion!

In order to vote, your nation needs to be a member of the World Assembly so join it here if you haven't done so. If you are a member of the SPSF, please mention your SPSF activity status on your voting post.

To cast your vote, please post a message on this RMB containing:

  • The name of the resolution you are voting on (required)

  • Your vote (required)

  • Your opinion on the resolution (heavily recommended)

There are five standardized vote that you can cast:

  • For means that you want OWL to recommend that the Delegate and citizens vote in favor of the proposal.

  • Against means that you want OWL to recommend that the Delegate citizens vote against the proposal.

  • Abstain means that you want OWL to recommend that the Delegate citizens (and the delegate) not vote on the proposal.

  • No recommendation means that you do not want the Office to write any recommendation for citizens and the Delegate (though it still may produce a writeup with a compilation of various opinions for and against).

  • Present means that you personally do not want to register their views one way or the other, but want to let OWL know you are involved.

If there are multiple votes going on, use separate message posts for each vote.

An example ballot looks like this:

Example ballot wrote:Commend Tsunamy

I vote For.

Tsunamy has contributed immensely to the community of the South Pacific in his 17 years in the region. He helps promote activities, fighting coups, and is a key advisor to many critical decisions that decide on the region's future.

However, responding to a proposal is about more than just voting. You are strongly encouraged to write a sentence or two, or a paragraph, or however much you feel like, explaining your opinion. Not only is it important for other citizens to hear your substantive opinion in order to establish a constructive and lively dialogue, but OWL also relies on these expanded opinions when compiling the Opinions section and writing the Analysis section of the Recommendation Dashboard.

If you want more information, please read the more comprehensive Beginner Guide to the World Assembly

This proposal only needs a short time before it gets brought to the floor so this vote will be very short!

Access to Abortion

Against

GA#286 "Reproductive Freedoms" already guarantees an "Access to Abortion", and effectively enough so. The proposal at hand however takes the whole debate one step too far - forcing member states to provide free travel to free abortions makes abortion but a lighthearted ridiculousness, a rash decision made on a whim, where possible recipients are animated to quickly and thoughtlessly abort offspring rather than carefully consider this very emotional and heavy decision.

Access to Abortion

Against

Tepertopia has pointed out the existing resolution to this effect. I am curious whether it came up in the drafting discussion (I would find out but I'm as tempted to go through some thirty-two pages of discussion as I am in pulling my nails out).

Access to Abortion

Against

Aside from critical flaws on principles such as requiring states to directly fund abortions and excessive micromanagement like providing free traveling to and funding for WA-run clinics. This proposal seems to not be a good faith effort to improve access to abortion. Looks like it was made solely to spite on the pro-life crowds.

Access to Abortion

No Recommendation

Although I agree with Tepertopia that GA#286 "Reproductive Freedoms" already grants Access to Abortion, I believe that this is a very controversial issue and I do not feel that TSP citizens should be told what to vote. Wether you vote for or against, there will always be people do not agree with that decision. Thus, I believe that each nation of the great region of the South Pacific, should NOT be told what to do and should make the decision that they believe is appropriate from their nation. Although this will cause many fights, I believe that if the entire region is to vote on this issue, the vote would have to be unanimous, because otherwise, there will always be someone who disagrees.

Note: I am currently active military service, so my WA nation is not currently in the South Pacific.

Access to Abortion

No Recommendation
Like Imperial Dodo said, I think this will cause a lot of controversy. There is no way to pleasure both sides: conservative-leaning and liberal-leaning. I believe the members of the South Pacific should not be told what to vote on this.

Access to Abortion

FOR

One of the biggest reasons for abortion is economic reasons. By having poor infrastructure for abortion, it means unsafe abortions will be carried out and could cause death to both the pregnant woman and the unborn child.

Access to Abortion

Against

Pretty much what Tepertopia said. This resolution might be taking things a little bit too far on granting abortion rights, and I agree with United States of Vietnam that it is probably a joke to make pro-life conservatives angry.

Access to Abortion

For

(am SPSF so no WA)

Might as well make sure nations can't technically provide abortions, but make them so hard to access that in practise they aren't practical for many people. Expensive abortions aren't accessible to low-income people who are in most nations probably more likely to require abortions, and far-away clinics aren't practical and, having a large catchment area, are likely to have longer waiting times.

But I wish they had used the Abortionplex draft.

Access to Abortion

For

This proposal, while going far in a few places, is vital in preventing nations whose views on abortion are quite negative from instituting de facto pro-life policies in preventing the poor from accessing abortions, a group that also happen to be the most undereducated and most likely to suffer from unwanted pregnancies. It also provides protection to healthcare workers who provide abortions, an important consideration when fear of prosecution can negatively impact the willingness of trained healthcare professionals to provide abortion services.

In terms of current abortion protections, I trust the nit picking pedantry of the GA forums to have seen merit in this proposal to negate any ambivalence we may have on that point.

Finally, in regard to the expenses mandated, I would argue that the up front costs of providing for abortions is much less than the lifetime burden of having nations use welfare to provide for millions and billions of families who cannot afford to raise children they were unable to abort due to stringent laws. As stated, poorer families are more at risk of unwanted pregnancy, either from poorer education, lack of contraceptive resources, or any number of reasons. Especially in youth, the burden of a child for the unprepared can ruin the chances of a parent from accessing further education or being afforded the vocational opportunities to advance their careers. And if the individual costs of flying their citizens to where abortion clinics are is simply too much, perhaps that is an incentive to build their own, or appeal to the WACC to have clinics built on their land if the up front financial burden of a few buildings is simply too much to bear.

That’s all I have to say on that.

Edit: No, that was to all I had to say. I will also note that GA#286 does not address cost in any meaningful way, stating that nations may only add barriers that would be present for procedures of similar complexity . . . which in some nations, could reasonably be determined to mean the price paid for the abortion, assuming that nation has an inadequate healthcare system that fails their poorest citizens. Also, upon reading, it is noted just how vague the protections provided from this six year old proposal are. Any low skilled lawyer could work their way out of or around it in ten minutes. Without exacting standards, nations that do not want to provide abortions will find a way, putting their most vulnerable citizens at risk.

Access to Abortion

For

While usually I could not care less about GA votes beyond their effort to use what little power they have over my nation's statistics to tear apart my years of issue answering my way into top 1% rankings, I do suppose that as this one clearly has a real life political motive over an important topic that I will pay it some mind beyond my usual just reading the category it is in and voting accordingly, I have nothing exceptionally new to bring to this debate, I'm inclined to agree with Auph and Nak's points in this case about the benefits this supposedly frivolous proposal actually brings, and I think the bit about the nations having to pay for flying people out to abortion clinics, while perhaps meant simply as absurdism meant to anger pro-life advocates, more realistically would simply act as a way to force nations to build their own abortion clinics through heavy incentive as Auph said, furthermore, even if this proposal was as ridiculous as it seems people are making it out to be and simply a ploy to anger pro-life advocates, that I would vote for it in that case as well, as spiting pro-life advocates, while not as worthy a goal as promoting pro-choice abortion rights, is still not a completely un-worthy goal in my mind.

Access to Abortion

No reccomendation

This proposal is rather extreme on abortion rights, especially considering that GA #286 already makes it so member nations have to respect the right of their citizens to get an abortion. The government of member nations should not have to pay for abortions, unless covered in a government-run healthcare program.
However, I strongly believe in the fact that government should not impede on a woman's right to make a choice about her own body. That is why I am voting no recommendation, as member states should be able to choose their own stance on this issue without OWL providing guidance. Furthermore, I believe that an against recommendation by OWL would look anti-choice, which I do believe the department is not.

Note: I am currently active military, so my WA membership resides outside of North Prarie and the South Pacific.

We got another 12 hours to vote on this as the proposal hasn’t reached quorum yet

Access to Abortion

For

I don't have anything new to add to the conversation plus I'm on mobile so no explanation from me today.

Access to Abortion

For

I don't the abortion part is good, but the proposal is talking about the creation of WA clinics, and I like that.

Access to Abortion

For

I don't the abortion part is good, but the proposal is talking about the creation of WA clinics, and I like that.

«12345. . .7980»

Advertisement