[Grosseschnauzer]

Quote: Repeal "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning"

A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal

Resolution: #35

Proposed by: Safalra

Description: UN Resolution #35: Stop dumping - Start Cleaning (Category: Environmental; Industry Affected: All Businesses) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The General Assembly,

Noting the passage of United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning',

Unconvinced that local charities are the most effective organisations for rectifying large-scale environmental damage,

Regretting that the resolution fails to consider that uncontaminated waste water, a byproduct of many industrial processes, when cooled and aerated is no longer harmful to aquatic ecosystems,

Noting that 'filtering' refers only to the removal of particulate matter and will not remove most chemical contaminants,

Observing that the concept of a 'federal prison' is alien to member States without federated government,

Concerned that the specified legal sentences are insufficiently flexible and prevent State judiciaries from considering extenuating circumstances such as time spent in custody,

Affirming that the basis of a United Nations resolution should be a considered analysis of the situation and not emotive rhetoric,

1. Repeals United Nations Resolution #35, 'Stop Dumping - Start Cleaning';

2. Condemns the style of argument, false assumptions and ill-defined terms of the resolution;

3. Urges delegates to consider the differing structures of legislatures in member States when proposing future resolutions.

Voting Ends: Wed Jan 25 2006 [/quote]

The referenced resolution whose repeal is proposed provides that:
Quote: UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #35
Stop dumping - Start Cleaning

A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental

Industry Affected: All Businesses

Proposed by: Whoway

Description: Our nations have gotten far 'out-of-hand.' Should it be illegal to dump toxic wastes? Yes! And there needs to be a more stiff punishment. We need to not only make it illegal to dump wastes into our streams, oceans, and city water removal systems; but we need to start non-profit, donation only organizations to start cleaning up what we have already destroyed! These organizations couldn?t harm our economies any, they are donation only; therefore they also won?t cause a tax raise. We can?t afford to not do this!

I hereby propose that we; UN members:

1.) Make it illegal, where not already, to dump wastes of any sort into public water systems. i.e.: Rivers, streams, oceans, ponds, city water removal systems, etc.

2.) Require business to ?filter? all liquid wastes.

3.) Breaking the 'Dumping' law requires either 5 to 7 years in a federal prison, fine up to $10,000 or 100 to 500 hours of community service. Governments court system's decision.

4.) The immediate government authorization to start a minimum of 3 non-profit, donation only 'cleaning' and 'citing' organizations per town or city. They will be authorized to distribute citations for dumping and use community service workers to clean up after ?dumpers.?

Votes For: 9,429
Votes Against: 5,490

Implemented: Tue Nov 4 2003 [/quote]

I would anticipate casting the region's vote on Tuesday night.

[Antrium]

I'll vote AGAINST.

I'm generally against all these repeals, I think there needs to either be a replacement first, or possibly just another resolution as an addition.

[Groot Gouda]

spring cleaning seams to start early. Oh well, against on principle.

[Grosseschnauzer]

Including this one, 5 of the last 6 votes have been on repeals. There are more repeals in the queue. So they've been in "spring cleaning" mode for quite a while now.

[Eisophca]

It's easier to pass a repeal than a substantive resolution, because you don't need to think up new ideas, just find flaws in old ones.

[Keeslandia]

The Empire votes "nay."

[Grosseschnauzer]

Quote: FOR    [ 0 ]    [0.00%]
AGAINST  [ 3 ]  [100.00%]
ABSTAIN  [ 0 ]  [0.00%][/quote]

Based on this, "NAY" it is.

[Sober Thought]

NON / NEIN / NO.

Ceorana's point is well taken, and illustrates a fine point made in Leonard Wibberly's Mouse that Roared:

While the pen may be mightier than the sword, the latter speaks louder than the former at any given moment.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

CeoranaJan 21 2006, 11:27 PM It's easier to pass a repeal than a substantive resolution, because you don't need to think up new ideas, just find flaws in old ones. [/quote]
Rather than amending those flaws the whole kit and caboodle is just tossed, bring us full circle. Perhaps an amended "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning" is in order?

[Groot Gouda]

The Dominion of BigRedCatJan 26 2006, 08:33 AM CeoranaJan 21 2006, 11:27 PM It's easier to pass a repeal than a substantive resolution, because you don't need to think up new ideas, just find flaws in old ones. [/quote]
Rather than amending those flaws the whole kit and caboodle is just tossed, bring us full circle. Perhaps an amended "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning" is in order? [/quote]
You can't amend UN resolutions, only create them or repeal them. As duplication is illegal, it's sometimes necessary to repeal a resolution before a new one can be submitted.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

Groot GoudaJan 26 2006, 03:57 PMThe Dominion of BigRedCatJan 26 2006, 08:33 AM CeoranaJan 21 2006, 11:27 PM It's easier to pass a repeal than a substantive resolution, because you don't need to think up new ideas, just find flaws in old ones. [/quote]
Rather than amending those flaws the whole kit and caboodle is just tossed, bring us full circle. Perhaps an amended "Stop dumping - Start Cleaning" is in order? [/quote]
You can't amend UN resolutions, only create them or repeal them. As duplication is illegal, it's sometimes necessary to repeal a resolution before a new one can be submitted.[/quote]
Yeah, I JUST read that in the FAQ after posting the above. =)

Is it possible to propose a new resolution that both repeals (a negative) and makes new policy (a postive) or do they have to be totally separate?

[Grosseschnauzer]

Repeals cannot enact new provisions.

There is a theory that has some support in practice, that it is possible to enact one or more new resolutions that cover the same subject matter in a different way before bring a repeal of the disfavored resolution. It's been discussed on several of the recent poll threads on the recent series of repeal proposals.

[The Dominion of BigRedCat]

GrosseschnauzerJan 26 2006, 05:54 PM Repeals cannot enact new provisions.

There is a theory that has some support in practice, that it is possible to enact one or more new resolutions that cover the same subject matter in a different way before bring a repeal of the disfavored resolution. It's been discussed on several of the recent poll threads on the recent series of repeal proposals. [/quote]
good to know. thank you =)

[Mikitivity]

Given the low turnout, I should add that what typically happening in Mikitivity's Council of Mayors meetings concerning many of these resolutions is we are debating the resolutions with no clear consensus -- and effectively abstaining.

That said, if any IDU member feels strongly about a future resolution and if it appears that the Council of Mayors is slow in agreeing upon a position to transmit to my office (with voting instructions), I'd be happy to listen to arguments and present them to my government.

(I.E. poke me please)

[Grosseschnauzer]

You can plan on four more resolutions coming to a vote already. The next one is also a repeal.