IFC Council (IC)

[New Chilokver]

The Karlaesist Meritocracy of Chilokver Foreign Minister Ian Whiteway Resolution to Suspend Bratislav [Resolution Number: 54] Noting that the Republic of Bratislav recently passed a set of laws, as expressed in this article and that they have subsequently failed to notify the Coalition of the implementation of such anti-freedom laws. Disgusted at the laws’ attempt to turn Bratislav into a non-secular and ultra-conservative state, and the subsequent attempt to enforce patriotic pride and nationalism by forcing all laws to be ‘in line with the Bratislavian Culture and ideals of the Bratislavian Orthodox Church’. Horrified at the Bratislavian government's blatant discrimination of lesbians and gays by 'defining marriage as between a man and a woman' and outlawing gay marriage. Concerned at the Republic's various other restrictive laws including ‘the complete ban of abortions unless life threatening pregnancy is present’ and ‘Other decrees which embrace the family unit’, as well as the current unreast and protests caused by said laws. Hereby suspends the Republic of Bratislav until the IFC Council considers these matters to have been rectified and repeals this resolution. Signed, [Foreign Minister Ian Whiteway, The Karlaesist Meritocracy of Chilokver]

[Novo Wagondia]

"While Wagondia vehemently disagrees with the recent laws passed by the government of Bratislav, our delegation finds that it is not within the responsibilities of the IFC Council to examine the social conservatism of sovereign member states, and unless clear government atrocities are committed, in violation of international law, this council has no place determining the proper social policies of member states, as it is a violation of their sovereignty. While we personally condemn the actions of the government, no bill passed by this or previous councils mandates that nations must maintain liberal social policies. I reiterate: unless there is a clear and apparent government-sponsored crime against the gay population of Bratislav, or those seeking abortions, including restricted access to the political system or a cancellation of basic human rights, there is no precedent to suspend our founder. As such, Wagondia votes NAY, against Resolution 54.

[Vimira]

"While Wagondia vehemently disagrees with the recent laws passed by the government of Bratislav, our delegation finds that it is not within the responsibilities of the IFC Council to examine the social conservatism of sovereign member states, and unless clear government atrocities are committed, in violation of international law, this council has no place determining the proper social policies of member states, as it is a violation of their sovereignty. While we personally condemn the actions of the government, no bill passed by this or previous councils mandates that nations must maintain liberal social policies. I reiterate: unless there is a clear and apparent government-sponsored crime against the gay population of Bratislav, or those seeking abortions, including restricted access to the political system or a cancellation of basic human rights, there is no precedent to suspend our founder. As such, Wagondia votes NAY, against Resolution 54.

"Absolute hogwash" said Chevalier, as she practically coughed the words up in frustration.

"The Chief of Staff is simply attempting to protect the Secretary General's delegation in this Coalition due to its status and role in history. We, the people of Vimira, must argue, that this is an affront to our very persons, and that no such issue would ever arise in Vimirian politics-for it would be a disgrace to attempt and discredit anyone of basic liberties afforded to those viewed as not "in line" with general social norms. The Vimiran delegation thus motions for this legislation to be expedited to immediate voting, thus voting AYE on Resolution 54. We will except nothing but the Secretary General's immediate suspension from this coalition, and his replacement with the next highest ranking individual listed in the executive dossier. These most current laws of the country of Bratislav are criminal against the very values of this coalition, and to the very soul of mankind. We will not stand for it, Mr. Speaker!"

Chevalier then dramatically descended from the podium.

[Aigeantir]

"I would like to thank the Hon. Ian Whiteway for putting together Resolution 54, as it takes time to prepare these Resolutions, but unfortunately, Mr. Whiteway, I will have to vote against Resolution 54. Mr. Emilio did a good job at making the point, and I will only say that I second his views for the very same reason. The moment we begin to dictate the terms of someone elses' freedoms is the day that we lose freedom entirely. If the people of Bratislav have chosen this outlook, we must respect it, and it would make us the very thing we fight against to censure a nation because they do not meet to our standards that we have placed on them. I'm sorry, but I must vote NAY."

[Flardania]

"The Taisuist Autocratic Republic of Flardania thanks the Chilokveri for giving Flardania something they can easily oppose. Flardania can give a rats tail about Bratislav social decisions. For a simple thing called National Sovereignty which is a valid case sense this is not a social policing alliance, but rather a defense alliance. As long as the the Government of Bratislav are not engaging in clear and intentional atrocities such as killings or revoking rights to vote and such . The IFC should pay no mind. Also Flardania is greatly offended by this passage "Disgusted at the laws’ attempt to turn Bratislav into a non-secular....state". We are apparently unaware that governments must be secular in order to be a member of this alliance. There has never been anything requiring maintenance of Liberal Social Policy and Flardania refuse to start a slippery slope in this Council. If you are able to go after the founder with these claims then Flardania as well as other members may be at risk as well. For this with full authority and divine blessing The A.R.E.F votes NAY against Resolution 54.

[Novo Wagondia]

"While Wagondia vehemently disagrees with the recent laws passed by the government of Bratislav, our delegation finds that it is not within the responsibilities of the IFC Council to examine the social conservatism of sovereign member states, and unless clear government atrocities are committed, in violation of international law, this council has no place determining the proper social policies of member states, as it is a violation of their sovereignty. While we personally condemn the actions of the government, no bill passed by this or previous councils mandates that nations must maintain liberal social policies. I reiterate: unless there is a clear and apparent government-sponsored crime against the gay population of Bratislav, or those seeking abortions, including restricted access to the political system or a cancellation of basic human rights, there is no precedent to suspend our founder. As such, Wagondia votes NAY, against Resolution 54.

"Absolute hogwash" said Chevalier, as she practically coughed the words up in frustration.

"The Chief of Staff is simply attempting to protect the Secretary General's delegation in this Coalition due to its status and role in history. We, the people of Vimira, must argue, that this is an affront to our very persons, and that no such issue would ever arise in Vimirian politics-for it would be a disgrace to attempt and discredit anyone of basic liberties afforded to those viewed as not "in line" with general social norms. The Vimiran delegation thus motions for this legislation to be expedited to immediate voting. We will except nothing but the Secretary General's immediate suspension from this coalition, and his replacement with the next highest ranking individual listed in the executive dossier. The laws of the country of Bratislav are criminal against the very values of this coalition, and to the very soul of mankind. We will not stand for it, Mr. Speaker!"

Chevalier then dramatically descended from the podium.

"If I may offer a rebuttal, it is my entire point that we must view this is an objective manner, as is the very nature of international law. If there is no legislation in place to mandate gay rights and pro-choice policies, and if no international doctrine outlines the right to abortion or the right to homosexual marriage as an inalienable human right, there is simply no precedent legally to expel a member state on those grounds. This is not rule by the mob, where the plurality of socially liberal nations serves to interpret their own justice. One could just as easily ban a member state for devoting government fund to religion, using the same logic. A majority of nations in this coalition are not theocratic, and for that reason alone a nation that has committed no previously outlined crime nor restricted any essential democratic freedoms such as right to free speech and fair elections can perfectly well be expelled simply because their pro-religion policies were not favored by the liberal majority. Wagondia herself has excessive civil rights, and has long championed liberal social views, especially involving women's rights and LGBT rights, yet so far we are the only nation to overcome this bias and vote as according to the neutral and nonpartisan nature of justice."

[Vimira]

"More utter hogwash Mr. Speaker!" said Chevalier as she practically spat.

"These nations are hypocrites and wish only for the same standards of progressive social policy they hold other nations accompany to, in that garish Broadway act of an application they force prospective members to fill out, to apply to them. Why, if it is not a requirement for I.F.C nations to have progressive policy, and it is not the duty of the Coalition to police member states, or censure them for not being free, have prospective member states who do not have things such as Freedom of Assembly or Expression, or who have not given in to other viewed Coalition national norms, been denied on previous applications? You are the worst kind of hypocrites, the sort that believe in their own bulwark so efficiently that they are caught unawares when confronted with it. Utter disgrace."

[Novo Wagondia]

"More utter hogwash Mr. Speaker!" said Chevalier as she practically spat.

"These nations are hypocrites and wish only for the same standards of progressive social policy they hold other nations accompany to, in that garish Broadway act of an application they force prospective members to fill out, to apply to them. Why, if it is not a requirement for I.F.C nations to have progressive policy, and it is not the duty of the Coalition to police member states, or censure them for not being free, have prospective member states who do not have things such as Freedom of Assembly or Expression, or who have not given in to other viewed Coalition national norms, been denied on previous applications? You are the worst kind of hypocrites, the sort that believe in their own bulwark so efficiently that they are caught unawares when confronted with it. Utter disgrace."

"If I may, and with all due respect, Mr. Chevalier, we are here to weigh the legislation at vote, not to debate the merits of admission policy and our coalition acceptance standards. I will inform you that major Admission reform is being seriously discussed at all high levels of government, and will soon be implemented, so you will not have to worry, but for now this is not the place to make such comments."

[Vimira]

"More utter hogwash Mr. Speaker!" said Chevalier as she practically spat.

"These nations are hypocrites and wish only for the same standards of progressive social policy they hold other nations accompany to, in that garish Broadway act of an application they force prospective members to fill out, to apply to them. Why, if it is not a requirement for I.F.C nations to have progressive policy, and it is not the duty of the Coalition to police member states, or censure them for not being free, have prospective member states who do not have things such as Freedom of Assembly or Expression, or who have not given in to other viewed Coalition national norms, been denied on previous applications? You are the worst kind of hypocrites, the sort that believe in their own bulwark so efficiently that they are caught unawares when confronted with it. Utter disgrace."

"If I may, and with all due respect, Mr. Chevalier, we are here to weigh the legislation at vote, not to debate the merits of admission policy and our coalition acceptance standards. I will inform you that major Admission reform is being seriously discussed at all high levels of government, and will soon be implemented, so you will not have to worry, but for now this is not the place to make such comments."

"It is Madame Chevalier, to you Delegate. And with all due respect to you, and I fear the levels owed dwindle by the moment, this is exactly the time and place to discuss such. It is not the prerogative of freedom to wait for some puffed up bureaucrats to get around to reforms. You do this now, set an example, assert your principles, or you stop attempting to censure and protect others from those who disagree with you, in any way. For if you don't suspend your beloved founder, then you will all loose not simply the respect of this Delegation and the citizens behind it, but quite possibly the respect of the entire outside world, and your standing in it."

[Muzztopia]

I Prince James Saint-Omer of the Empire of Muzztopia and Antares Scorpi here by vote NAY on resolution #54

[Muzztopia]

Upon looking into the situation the debate over Bratislav's actions are completely worthless and of no value. There is no need to punish him here for how he chooses to run his nation. Seriously all of you just knock it off he did nothing so heinous as to deserve a suspension from the IFC.

[Aravea]

I, General Arcturus Nile of the Aravean Hegemony hereby vote NAY on Resolution #54. In addition the Hegemony vehemently condemns this abhorrent resolution and encourages its fellows to do the same.

[Roski]

"Is there really a resolution to ban Bratislav? For what reasons, that he's slapped the LGBT community in the face? How does that make him 'not free'," said Alaxsandr, a current representative of Roski, an observer state.

"Here's a quick question, how many nations have guns legalized for public use?"

[Rentalla]

Alexander Hemming stood. "When Rentalla first joined the predecessor to the IFC, The Western coalition, our head of state served for life, and was elected by a council that were not voted into power by the will of the people. We believed that only through direct control of our government could we avoid the horrors that plagued our nation in the past. We were, and in many ways still are very conservative. When we joined the WC, and became a founding member of the IFC we were under the impression that this was an alliance of both conservative and liberal nations. When we set up the IFC our goal was to foster a group that was opposed to the extremes of political ideology. While we dislike what Brastilav has done we can find no egregious offenses against liberty. I am sure if we look deep down at every member nation we could find something that could be considered against our goals. In Rentalla for instance communism has been outlawed, and cannot be taught in schools, or have a party formed. Aigeantir is a monarchy. We are not an alliance that supports a completely liberal agenda. If that were the case we would have to be expelled for not having a welfare system. As I said before this is an alliance of moderates, and when Rentalla joined the WC, and decided to continue to be a member of the IFC we knew we would be working with many nations who were different than our own, but we believed that this could be a place where both sides could join together and find common ground. It is for this reason that the Imperial Republic of Rentalla votes NAY on resolution 54 even though we disagree with the decisions of the Bratislav government."

[Aigeantir]

Alexander Hemming stood. When Rentalla first joined the predecessor to the IFC, The Western coalition, our head of state served for life, and was elected by a council that were not voted into power by the will of the people. We believed that only through direct control of our government could we avoid the horrors that plagued our nation in the past. We were, and in many ways still are very conservative. When we joined the WC, and became a founding member of the IFC we were under the impression that this was an alliance of both conservative and liberal nations. When we set up the IFC our goal was to foster a group that was opposed to the extremes of political ideology. While we dislike what Brastilav has done we can find no egregious offenses against liberty. I am sure if we look deep down at every member nation we could find something that could be considered against our goals. In Rentalla for instance communism has been outlawed, and cannot be taught in schools, or have a party formed. Aigeantir is a monarchy. We are not an alliance that supports a completely liberal agenda. If that were the case we would have to be expelled for not having a welfare system. As I said before this is an alliance of moderates, and when Rentalla joined the WC, and decided to continue to be a member of the IFC we knew we would be working with many nations who were different than our own, but we believed that this could be a place where both sides could join together and find common ground. It is for this reason that the Imperial Republic of Rentalla votes NAY on resolution 54 even though we disagree with the decisions of the Bratislav government.

"Just as a point of order, Aigéantir is a Constitutional Monarchy we have a democratic system, just we function much like the U.K. does."

[Vimira]

I demand some sort of repercussions for the Bratislavian Delegation and their government. Perhaps not suspension, but something. Anything, for this sort of injustice, simply cannot go unpunished.

[Novo Wagondia]

I demand some sort of repercussions for the Bratislavian Delegation and their government. Perhaps not suspension, but something. Anything, for this sort of injustice, simply cannot go unpunished.

"Madame, you are free to do what you like privately. Anything from creating a foundation to support gay rights in the IFC to calling for a boycott is all entirely available for your use. But we simply cannot eject or act against the Prime Minister as a united council unless the justice system has been breached."

[Aravea]

I demand some sort of repercussions for the Bratislavian Delegation and their government. Perhaps not suspension, but something. Anything, for this sort of injustice, simply cannot go unpunished.

"How about you return to your seat and be silent you impudent child? All I have heard from you thus far is utter nonsense and blatant libel and slander against a nation whose government happens to be a close ally of the Hegemony. I have worked with representatives of Bratislav for decades and through that time they have shown time and again their commitment to the ideals deeply cherished by the members of this alliance. In contrast you have done nothing aside from flinging baseless accusations and making a general nuisance of both yourself and this council."

[Rentalla]

In the hopes of satisfying both parties the Rentallan delegation moves to have the vote on resolution 54 delayed. We wish to delay any further voting, or debate until the delegation from Bratsilav can explain their actions.

[Elemental North]

"All will cease."

Seward's booming voice could be heard ringing, commanding, throughout the chamber.

"As the most Senior Executive present, I hereby take temporary control of this Council until which time the Speaker may resume his duties. The Rentalian Delegation is heard, seconded, and the voting on Res. 54 is thus suspended until which time the Speaker specifies otherwise, or the Bratislavian Delegation has been given his time on the podium."

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

"Thank you, Mr. Seward. I am quite capable of managing this Council, and I am certainly present.

The Council has complete and utter legislative supremacy and can discuss and vote whatever the hell it likes. Voting on both subjects will continue, unless a majority decides to postpone the vote; and in any case it looks like the vote is doomed to fail. Two people cannot suppress debate on their own: the motion must be carried by a majority, and two people is not a majority; and please don't ever again try to rule that without the Speaker's permission.

But in the meantime less us restore some semblance of order to this debate: would the delegation from Bratislav care to discuss the matter? I, even if nobody else, would like to hear the opinion of the delegation from Bratislav.

In the meantime, Nay from Ausitoria to postponing the vote."

Resolution 54

2 AYES *
0 ABSTENTIONS
7 NAYS

Motion to delay voting on Resolution 54

2 AYES *
0 ABSTENTIONS
1 NAYS^S

[Elemental North]

"Thank you, Mr. Seward. I am quite capable of managing this Council, and I am certainly present.

The Council has complete and utter legislative supremacy and can discuss and vote whatever the hell it likes. Voting on both subjects will continue, unless a majority decides to postpone the vote; and in any case it looks like the vote is doomed to fail. Two people cannot suppress debate on their own: the motion must be carried by a majority, and two people is not a majority; and please don't ever again try to rule that without the Speaker's permission.

But in the meantime less us restore some semblance of order to this debate: would the delegation from Bratislav care to discuss the matter? I, even if nobody else, would like to hear the opinion of the delegation from Bratislav.

In the meantime, Nay from Ausitoria to postponing the vote."

Resolution 54

2 AYES *
0 ABSTENTIONS
6 NAYS

Motion to delay voting on Resolution 54

2 AYES *
0 ABSTENTIONS
1 NAYS^S

You sir, were not present at the time, and the situation had to be dealt with. Thus, I dealt with it. End of story.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

And now I've had to undo what you've done, like normal. I do wish you wouldn't meddle so much and change things. If I'd let you continue for another five minutes you'd probably have passed seven new resolutions and elected yourself President-for-life, only counting your own vote.

Anyway, moving back to the substance of the debate, General Arcturus Nile, delegates have a right to speak unless decided otherwise by the Council, or; if they are outrageously out of order, by myself; please don't tell them to shut up. Madame Chevalier, please refrain from making demands.

I would like to bring up a point that the Chief of Staff raised at the beginning of this debate. Their delegation said "While we personally condemn the actions of the government, no bill passed by this or previous councils mandates that nations must maintain liberal social policies."

It could be argued, cogently I might think, that the International Freedom Coalition has a set of unwritten requirements, that is, standards for the membership; roughly in line with admission criterion, as Madame Chevalier alluded to. I would be particularly interested to know whether the Prime Minister would wish to approve an application from a country that outlaws gay marriage and abortion? Clearly members already in the IFC should be within admission standards.

The question also brushes up against the question of diversity: to what level is diversity of viewpoints within the IFC acceptable? For instance, as the delegation from Flardania so rightly points out, there is absolutely no requirement that IFC members be secular states: indeed, if there were, Ausitoria might have to resign, since our Church is technically part of the Tourism board, and largely integrated into local government. Fortunately the Ausitorian Church doesn't really believe in God anyway, so could be argued to be non-religious. But I digress.

The question of what we should permit cannot sensibly be decided objectively from our founding principles, for 'freedom' is a very vague concept. Thus we must subjectively decide whether Bratislav has overstepped the invisible line of what we each consider acceptable; and accept that this alliance will choose the majority decision.

So far six of you say Bratislav hasn't overstepped the line. Two of you say Bratislav has. Ausitoria believes that they are on the line, and will abstain, unless the delegates convince us otherwise.

[Elemental North]

And now I've had to undo what you've done, like normal. I do wish you wouldn't meddle so much and change things. If I'd let you continue for another five minutes you'd probably have passed seven new resolutions and elected yourself President-for-life, only counting your own vote.

Anyway, moving back to the substance of the debate, General Arcturus Nile, delegates have a right to speak unless decided otherwise by the Council, or; if they are outrageously out of order, by myself; please don't tell them to shut up. Madame Chevalier, please refrain from making demands.

I would like to bring up a point that the Chief of Staff raised at the beginning of this debate. Their delegation said "While we personally condemn the actions of the government, no bill passed by this or previous councils mandates that nations must maintain liberal social policies."

It could be argued, cogently I might think, that the International Freedom Coalition has a set of unwritten requirements, that is, standards for the membership; roughly in line with admission criterion, as Madame Chevalier alluded to. I would be particularly interested to know whether the Prime Minister would wish to approve an application from a country that outlaws gay marriage and abortion? Clearly members already in the IFC should be within admission standards.

The question also brushes up against the question of diversity: to what level is diversity of viewpoints within the IFC acceptable? For instance, as the delegation from Flardania so rightly points out, there is absolutely no requirement that IFC members be secular states: indeed, if there were, Ausitoria might have to resign, since our Church is technically part of the Tourism board, and largely integrated into local government. Fortunately the Ausitorian Church doesn't really believe in God anyway, so could be argued to be non-religious. But I digress.

The question of what we should permit cannot sensibly be decided objectively from our founding principles, for 'freedom' is a very vague concept. Thus we must subjectively decide whether Bratislav has overstepped the invisible line of what we each consider acceptable; and accept that this alliance will choose the majority decision.

So far six of you say Bratislav hasn't overstepped the line. Two of you say Bratislav has. Ausitoria believes that they are on the line, and will abstain, unless the delegates convince us otherwise.

Let the record show that we, as usual, do not appreciate the Delegates comments, and ask him to please descend from his pedestal and look at things from a practical viewpoint. But seeing as I have a better chance of having my toe fly off my foot with a pouch of magical pixie dust, than having the Speaker humble himself, I will continue on.

We wholly disagree with the laws in question in Bratislav, but understand that it is within the sovereignty of that nation to decide what laws to enact and to not. We thus are forced to vote NAY on the contentious issue of Resolution 54, but would like it noted that we do so under much prejudice and on a purely juris prudence standing and no other.

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Let the record show that we, as usual, do not appreciate the Delegates comments, and ask him to please descend from his pedestal and look at things from a practical viewpoint. But seeing as I have a better chance of having my toe fly off my foot with a pouch of magical pixie dust, than having the Speaker humble himself, I will continue on.

We wholly disagree with the laws in question in Bratislav, but understand that it is within the sovereignty of that nation to decide what laws to enact and to not. We thus are forced to vote NAY on the contentious issue of Resolution 54, but would like it noted that we do so under much prejudice and on a purely juris prudence standing and no other.

"Thank you. If I am occasionally officious it is only to ensure that everybody can speak without fear of a witch-hunt, and to protect the rights of all members to be counted. That is why I remain annoyed that you peremptorily closed the discussion with only two votes. There was a much easier solution: to remind people that it is nicer if they are politer. However I do appreciate your honourable intent."