New Military Freedom Act

[Nuevo Sealandia]

I'm thinking we should revise the Military Freedom Act and replace it with a better one that doesn't raise so many objections. How's this for ya:

Article 1. Preamble.
The World Assembly recognizes that, when the needs of one nation compel it to take up arms against another, that nation should, and shall, have sufficient manpower to reach success in said conflict. However, it also recognizes that some individuals, be they religious or merely pacifistic, should not be compelled to fight in any war. But, in times of grave national danger, this is also sometimes necessary, through conscription. This Resolution for this august Assembly hopes to reconcile the difference between these objectors and their governments.

Article 2. Definitions.
1. A conscientious objector is a person who, for various reasons, objects to war in general. This can be because:
a. Their religion or philosophy objects to all war, making them a religious/philosophical objector.
b. They believe that the war currently embarked upon by their government is unsupportable.
2. A religious/philosophical objector is a person who objects to war based on personal belief.
a. A religion, to provide a valid objection, must have been logged by the government, the regional organization, or the World Assembly as "pacifist" (one that does not advocate harm of any person) for at least five years, as part of the cataloging of religions to judge the merit of other religious objections.
b. A personal philosophy must qualify as such by the believer undergoing, before the start of war, a personality test and an interview. Until these measures indicate a pacifistic temperament and beliefs, the believer shall not qualify as a valid objector.
3. A war of aggression is one in which the aggressor declares war first and without due process as judged by the World Assembly.
3. An unsupportable war is a war by which the objector believes that the government will not profit, or if it shall, then it shall do so unjustly. A war can be unsupportable for many reasons:
a. It is a war of aggression.
b. It is a war during which the objector's government has committed genocides or atrocities against the opposing, or its own, population.
c. It is a war that has continued for five years without lasting territorial or material gain on the part of the objector's government.
d. It is a war in which the objector's government has implemented the draft before the combined strength of the regular army and volunteers had fallen below one and one half times the size of the regular army before the war, after initially rising past that point.

Article 3. Responsibilities of nations.

1. No conscientious objector shall be made to fight unless the nation has lost more than half of its territory or its armed forces or its material wealth to the enemy, because then the war is deemed unwinnable whether said objector fights or not.
2. No conscientious objector shall be made to fight if this point is reached within five years of war.
3. Individuals who develop anti-war feelings during wartime are entitled to freedom of protest, but they do not qualify for exemptions, except from front-line combat.
4. Individuals who develop anti-war feelings while they are in the army (specifically while being fired upon by the enemy) are entitled to be treated in such a manner as the provost marshal/military chief of police/court-martial decides that they should be.
5. If a conscientious objector is found to have been made to fight, the objector's government shall be vulnerable to punishment by the Assembly.

Article 4. Conclusion.

Recognizing the right of governments to self-defense,

Recognizing the right of individuals to exercise of the right of conscientious objection,

This Assembly hereby places all members under the restrictions of this Resolution.

PLEASE BE CONSTRUCTIVE. I know that's like telling pigs not to roll in mud, but I actually want to get something workable passed here!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

2. A religious/philosophical objector is a person who objects to war based on personal belief.
a. A religion, to provide a valid objection, must have been logged by the government, the regional organization, or the World Assembly as "pacifist" for at least five years, as part of the cataloging of religions to judge the merit of other religious objections.
b. A personal philosophy must qualify as such by the believer undergoing, at least six months before the start of war, an interview with a government official, a personality test, and an observation of the believer's reaction to items of war materiel and videos or depictions of combat. Until at least two of these three measures indicate a pacifistic temperament and beliefs, the believer shall not qualify as a valid objector.

"HELL, no."

[Nuevo Sealandia]

2. A religious/philosophical objector is a person who objects to war based on personal belief.
a. A religion, to provide a valid objection, must have been logged by the government, the regional organization, or the World Assembly as "pacifist" for at least five years, as part of the cataloging of religions to judge the merit of other religious objections.
b. A personal philosophy must qualify as such by the believer undergoing, at least six months before the start of war, an interview with a government official, a personality test, and an observation of the believer's reaction to items of war materiel and videos or depictions of combat. Until at least two of these three measures indicate a pacifistic temperament and beliefs, the believer shall not qualify as a valid objector.

"HELL, no."

Elaborate.

[Tinfect]

Elaborate.

"Allow me;"

2. A religious/philosophical objector is a person who objects to war based on personal belief.
a. A religion, to provide a valid objection, must have been logged by the government, the regional organization, or the World Assembly as "pacifist" for at least five years, as part of the cataloging of religions to judge the merit of other religious objections.

"This, of course, would require that you create a system through which a Religion can apply for a "Pacifist" categorization. For obvious reasons, this would be of issue. Taking, for example, the Terran Christianity, as it makes such a convenient example with so many Member States allowing their governments to be controlled by it, but I digress. Certain tenets of the faith include, among other things, throwing stones at homosexuals, and heretics, and many of the "Heroes", of their holy book commit mass genocide of those who do not follow the faith, yet, in most cases I have seen, it claims to be a compassionate, or peaceful religion, and would many sects would surely apply for this status. When their beliefs are so violent in nature, how exactly can they be considered a Pacifist Religion?"

b. A personal philosophy must qualify as such by the believer undergoing, at least six months before the start of war,

"Quite an arbitrary time, it would be best to allow the test to be performed at any point."

an interview with a government official, a personality test, and an observation of the believer's reaction to items of war materiel and videos or depictions of combat. Until at least two of these three measures indicate a pacifistic temperament and beliefs, the believer shall not qualify as a valid objector.

"I believe the Lyricalian objection can be found here; the Proposal mandates that we psychologically harm our citizens should they wish to avoid conscription. I believe we can all see the problem here."

"Now, as for the rest of your draft;"

1. No conscientious objector shall be made to fight unless the nation has lost more than half of its territory or its armed forces or its material wealth to the enemy.

"Rather voids the point, doesn't it?"

2. No conscientious objector shall be made to fight if this point is reached within five years of war.

"Why not?"

3. Individuals who develop anti-war feelings during wartime are entitled to freedom of protest, but they do not qualify for exemptions.

"And why would that be? If they do not wish to fight in the war, they should have the opportunity to be removed from front-line engagements, at the least."

5. If a conscientious objector is found to have been made to fight, the objector's government shall be vulnerable to punishment by the Assembly, and if necessary armed enforcement by the Security Council.

"Ambassador, I am not certain where you heard of this 'Security Council', but I assure you, no such organization exists."

OOC:
For the purposes of the GA, the SC does not exist.

IC:

6. If this Resolution is passed, the previous Military Freedom Resolution is repealed.

"You cannot repeal a resolution, and simultaneously mandate things. The Secretariat has already been over this, so choose one."

3. A war of aggression is one in which the participant for which it is a war of aggression declares war first and without due process as judged by the World Assembly.

"Grammatically Cumbersome."

3. An unsupportable war is a war by which the objector believes that the government will not profit, or if it shall, then it shall do so unjustly. A war can be unsupportable for many reasons:

"If a government's only motive in war is Profit, one should absolutely not be condoning, much less approving of such actions."

c. It is a war that has continued for five years without lasting territorial or material gain on the part of the objector's government.

"Why should that be considered grounds to evade conscription? While the Imperium does not utilize the practice, that is quite an arbitrary point of contention with a war."

[Nuevo Sealandia]

The document is designed to stop people from fighting in a war unwillingly; if they support it because the government is making money from it, they support in nonetheless. It is also designed to stop "meat grinder" wars like Vietnam that become bogged down to no gain.

Otherwise, thank you for your help, Ambassador.

[Normlpeople]

Clover shook her head "If they do not wish to perform thier civic duties, then they are cowards and to be treated as such. Simply claiming you don't like war and don't believe in fighting despite cashing a military paycheque doesn't fly with me, or any of our military leadership."

OOC: Given the large failure of the repeal, this is unnecessary. It also likely contains more than enough of the original to qualify as plagiarism, a serious offense here in the WA. I'd suggest dumping this.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. We find our own replacement sufficient, should it eventually be needed."

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"This, of course, would require that you create a system through which a Religion can apply for a "Pacifist" categorization. For obvious reasons, this would be of issue. Taking, for example, the Terran Christianity, as it makes such a convenient example with so many Member States allowing their governments to be controlled by it, but I digress. Certain tenets of the faith include, among other things, throwing stones at homosexuals, and heretics, and many of the "Heroes", of their holy book commit mass genocide of those who do not follow the faith, yet, in most cases I have seen, it claims to be a compassionate, or peaceful religion, and would many sects would surely apply for this status. When their beliefs are so violent in nature, how exactly can they be considered a Pacifist Religion?"

It might interest you to note that they've added an entire new testament to the Bible since the last time you apparently read it, Ambassador. Even modern Jews reject the brutish practices of their ancient Hebrew forebears.

[Nuevo Sealandia]

Clover shook her head "If they do not wish to perform thier civic duties, then they are cowards and to be treated as such. Simply claiming you don't like war and don't believe in fighting despite cashing a military paycheque doesn't fly with me, or any of our military leadership."

OOC: Given the large failure of the repeal, this is unnecessary. It also likely contains more than enough of the original to qualify as plagiarism, a serious offense here in the WA. I'd suggest dumping this.

I'm trying to revise the old one to be less permissive of cowards citing random things to stay out, and therefore it is not plagarism per se. This would go in saying that it was a revision. Nobody would be paid who didn't fight; in case you didn't notice, conscientious objectors tend not to join the army in the first place.

[Tinfect]

I'm trying to revise the old one to be less permissive of cowards citing random things to stay out, and therefore it is not plagarism per se. This would go in saying that it was a revision.

OOC:
Actually no, that's plagiarism.

[Ktilqr]

First off I am a rank noob here in Nation States, having moved from a different game.
I however have strong feelings about religion and the state.

My state is extremely spiritual but secular, no one religion will be allowed to gain dominance, all gods are the same seen from a different angle, all beliefs are treated with the same respect and as long as what you believe does not interfere with another's right to believe what they do then you can act as you wish. This means that you can marry who you wish, you can enjoy whatever you need to use to reach enlightenment (or just to have fun lol), but until a child reaches maturity (age limits are just a guide) they should be protected as they don't have the ability to understand consequences.

So in my state I have a lot of members who would claim "conscientious objector" status cos they just don't want to fight. Religious reasons is something I would not allow, but a proven vegan would qualify for exemption. Some vegetarians would also qualify - but just because you say you are a Jainist wouldn't wash.

If however you were known for sweeping the pavement in front of you when you walked, wore only cotton clothes and never ate meat - whether you called yourself a "Jain" or a "yogi" I don't care - that you "wished to not even kill an insect" is all I want to know.

For this reason, I would reject any proposal that used "religion" as the basis for the law

[Nuevo Sealandia]

Okay, see, that's the thing about this game. All the countries are so different that everything that CAN be passed almost HAS been passed. Thanks for your help, people. I'm gonna sit on this for a while.

[Separatist Peoples]

Okay, see, that's the thing about this game. All the countries are so different that everything that CAN be passed almost HAS been passed. Thanks for your help, people. I'm gonna sit on this for a while.

OOC: and yet, people churn out drafts constantly. Hell, I've got about a half dozen drafts I'm just sitting on.

[Nuevo Sealandia]

Okay, see, that's the thing about this game. All the countries are so different that everything that CAN be passed almost HAS been passed. Thanks for your help, people. I'm gonna sit on this for a while.

OOC: and yet, people churn out drafts constantly. Hell, I've got about a half dozen drafts I'm just sitting on.

I will join you, friend.

[Normlpeople]

I'm trying to revise the old one to be less permissive of cowards citing random things to stay out, and therefore it is not plagarism per se. This would go in saying that it was a revision. Nobody would be paid who didn't fight; in case you didn't notice, conscientious objectors tend not to join the army in the first place.

OOC: Just to close off this end. Revisions, amendments, etc... are illegal. Should you wish to 'revise' it, assuming the old one did get repealed, you would need the original authors permission to use the text, or completely rewrite a new version.

IC: "We operate a system of manditory military service in our kingdom. All citizens must be ready to defend the Princess and her lands at all times after all. While they are performing this service, they are indeed paid."

[Uniao liberal da antartica]

I'm thinking we should revise the Military Freedom Act and replace it with a better one that doesn't raise so many objections. How's this for ya:

Article 1. Preamble.
The World Assembly recognizes that, when the needs of one nation compel it to take up arms against another, that nation should, and shall, have sufficient manpower to reach success in said conflict. However, it also recognizes that some individuals, be they religious or merely pacifistic, should not be compelled to fight in any war. But, in times of grave national danger, this is also sometimes necessary, through conscription. This Resolution for this august Assembly hopes to reconcile the difference between these objectors and their governments.

Article 2. Definitions.
1. A conscientious objector is a person who, for various reasons, objects to war in general. This can be because:
a. Their religion or philosophy objects to all war, making them a religious/philosophical objector.
b. They believe that the war currently embarked upon by their government is unsupportable.
2. A religious/philosophical objector is a person who objects to war based on personal belief.
a. A religion, to provide a valid objection, must have been logged by the government, the regional organization, or the World Assembly as "pacifist" (one that does not advocate harm of any person) for at least five years, as part of the cataloging of religions to judge the merit of other religious objections.
b. A personal philosophy must qualify as such by the believer undergoing, before the start of war, a personality test and an interview. Until these measures indicate a pacifistic temperament and beliefs, the believer shall not qualify as a valid objector.
3. A war of aggression is one in which the aggressor declares war first and without due process as judged by the World Assembly.
3. An unsupportable war is a war by which the objector believes that the government will not profit, or if it shall, then it shall do so unjustly. A war can be unsupportable for many reasons:
a. It is a war of aggression.
b. It is a war during which the objector's government has committed genocides or atrocities against the opposing, or its own, population.
c. It is a war that has continued for five years without lasting territorial or material gain on the part of the objector's government.
d. It is a war in which the objector's government has implemented the draft before the combined strength of the regular army and volunteers had fallen below one and one half times the size of the regular army before the war, after initially rising past that point.

Article 3. Responsibilities of nations.

1. No conscientious objector shall be made to fight unless the nation has lost more than half of its territory or its armed forces or its material wealth to the enemy, because then the war is deemed unwinnable whether said objector fights or not.
2. No conscientious objector shall be made to fight if this point is reached within five years of war.
3. Individuals who develop anti-war feelings during wartime are entitled to freedom of protest, but they do not qualify for exemptions, except from front-line combat.
4. Individuals who develop anti-war feelings while they are in the army (specifically while being fired upon by the enemy) are entitled to be treated in such a manner as the provost marshal/military chief of police/court-martial decides that they should be.
5. If a conscientious objector is found to have been made to fight, the objector's government shall be vulnerable to punishment by the Assembly.

Article 4. Conclusion.

Recognizing the right of governments to self-defense,

Recognizing the right of individuals to exercise of the right of conscientious objection,

This Assembly hereby places all members under the restrictions of this Resolution.

PLEASE BE CONSTRUCTIVE. I know that's like telling pigs not to roll in mud, but I actually want to get something workable passed here!

I dont have reason... its sealf defense like you say

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"HELL, no."

Elaborate.

"...we won't go."




"However, as the repeal appears to be failing, there will thankfully be no need to consider the hellish ramifications of this travesty of a replacement. Its gross overreach and micromanagement will remain academic. Good day, sir."

[Central Asian Republics]

This reeks of plagiarism. Try and create original Resolutions, not copy and paste older ones and then adding things to it.

[Flawdom]

This reeks of plagiarism. Try and create original Resolutions, not copy and paste older ones and then adding things to it.

OOC: To be fair, it was meant to be a revision and the OP has already been corrected as to how to go about this. Further 'this is plagiarism' comments are not constructive. Also, OP has already said that they're going to sit on this.

[Separatist Peoples]

This reeks of plagiarism. Try and create original Resolutions, not copy and paste older ones and then adding things to it.

OOC: To be fair, it was meant to be a revision and the OP has already been corrected as to how to go about this. Further 'this is plagiarism' comments are not constructive. Also, OP has already said that they're going to sit on this.

OOC: plagiarism gets one kicked from the WA. It's not a non-constructive comment. It's valid every time it's pointed out.

[Nuevo Sealandia]

Elaborate.

"...we won't go."




"However, as the repeal appears to be failing, there will thankfully be no need to consider the hellish ramifications of this travesty of a replacement. Its gross overreach and micromanagement will remain academic. Good day, sir."

Actually, what I'm trying to fix is the gross overreach in the last MFA.

And people do not seem to be clear about this - THIS IS A COMPLETE REWRITE. NO PART of it is copy-pasted from the last MFA. There would be some hijinks to get it through, but it is an ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

And anyway, I'm not submitting it yet. Simmer down.

[Separatist Peoples]

"...we won't go."




"However, as the repeal appears to be failing, there will thankfully be no need to consider the hellish ramifications of this travesty of a replacement. Its gross overreach and micromanagement will remain academic. Good day, sir."

Actually, what I'm trying to fix is the gross overreach in the last MFA.

And people do not seem to be clear about this - THIS IS A COMPLETE REWRITE. NO PART of it is copy-pasted from the last MFA. There would be some hijinks to get it through, but it is an ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

And anyway, I'm not submitting it yet. Simmer down.

"You have to repeal the original first."

[Flawdom]

Actually, what I'm trying to fix is the gross overreach in the last MFA.

And people do not seem to be clear about this - THIS IS A COMPLETE REWRITE. NO PART of it is copy-pasted from the last MFA. There would be some hijinks to get it through, but it is an ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.

And anyway, I'm not submitting it yet. Simmer down.

"You have to repeal the original first."

Exactly. And given that the repeal attempt utterly failed, any hope of this passing is minimal at best.

[Nuevo Sealandia]

My theory is that people didn't want to repeal it b/c it was the only act preventing nations from forcing CO's to fight. This one is better, because the consanguinity clause is ridiculous. I might try to get this one to pass and then get the old one repealed or something. I'm not going to try now anyway.

[Separatist Peoples]

My theory is that people didn't want to repeal it b/c it was the only act preventing nations from forcing CO's to fight. This one is better, because the consanguinity clause is ridiculous. I might try to get this one to pass and then get the old one repealed or something. I'm not going to try now anyway.

"You can't do it in that order. The repeal must come first."