[DEFEATED] Limitations on Banishment

[Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle]

"....We are gathered today in this courtroom to discuss the potential banishment of the former Skylus Ambassador, Fredrick Hall. Do you have anything to say?"

All eyes moved to the front of the room.
"...Your Honor...I have been accused."
"And who might have accused you, pray?"

Hall surged to his feet and jabbed a handcuffed hand in the direction of another Ambassador.
"Him. He accused me, just to have a higher position!!"

The clamor in the room rose to a roar as Fredrick sat back down in his chair.

Judge Greg slammed his gavel down upon the pedestal. "SILENCE!"
As the room quieted, the older man cleared his throat and glared down at the man who Hall had accused.
"Well, Forester? What say you?"

"I say that what he has said is a lie. I have known everyone in this room my entire life, sir. I wouldn't dare do such a thing."

(Would this work? I haven't done this before.)

Out of Character:
While this is good Roleplay, it doesn't relate to the thread. See, the topic is this proposal "Banishment Ban", and as with nearly all GA roleplay, the scene is the World Assembly Headquarters, usually in a room referred to as a debate chamber, or sometimes the debate chamber, or a drafting room, etc.

Basically, we aren't in a court, but in a conference room for discussing the merits of a proposed WA law.

You can choose to have any characters you want appear here, but the common convention is to have a WA Ambassador from your nation. Some players will do multiple Ambassadors, or assistants, or security guards, or even the leaders of their nations.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: That is why this proposal allows banishment under certain circumstances. However, the effectiveness of banishment as a punishment is meaningless if the punishment is a breach of civil rights. Some nations believe that torture is effective; should we not ban it, then?

Fairburn: If this sister of hers was rendered stateless due to her banishment, that was a horrifying situation which this proposal is trying to prevent.

Fairburn: Oh, boo-hoo. If this Tirek character is now stateless because of your government, I'll simply put more effort into pursuing this proposal. Why are you all quiet, Neville? Speak up, man!

"But Sir," Twilight objects, "you would have us allow dangerous criminals, who cannot otherwise be imprisoned, return to our nation."

Fairburn: Why can't they be imprisoned? What's stopping you from applying alternative punishments?

"banishment has saved my nation. Multiple times!"

Fairburn: Any nation which relies on violations of civil rights to survive is a very inefficient nation.

"Please," she pleads, "for the sake of my little ponies, make changes to this proposal."

Fairburn: Let me think on that.

Three seconds later...

Fairburn: No.

[Excidium Planetis]

Blackbourne enters the room. "Sergeant Timmons?"

Timmons gulps.

Blackbourne stares down his security guard.

Timmons clears his throat. He then lifts his left arm, and begins playing audio over his datatab. It takes the form of one of those text-to-speech programs with the annoying robotic voices.

"While this proposal would not affect out great nation." the program says.

"Because we will just execute the criminals anyways." the program continues, before weirdly pausing again.

"Ambassador Blackbourne would like to point out."

"That banishment which does not result in the loss of citizenship."

"Is not covered by this proposal." The program finishes.

Blackbourne suddenly slaps himself on the head. "Sergeant Timmons... I could have done that myself."

[States of Glory WA Office]

Neville: Someone's planning a repeal of GA #386 a.k.a Reducing Statelessness, so this is the perfect opportunity for us to revive this draft.

[Aclion]

Could the ambassador explain why banishment is an unacceptable breach of a persons civil rights while imprisonment is not?

[Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle]

Fairburn: Why can't they be imprisoned? What's stopping you from applying alternative punishments?

Fairburn: Any nation which relies on violations of civil rights to survive is a very inefficient nation.

Fairburn: Let me think on that.

Three seconds later...

Fairburn: No.

"The individual in question was none other than Nightmare Moon, a powerful alicorn." Twilight desperately explains. "Ordinary prisons would have proven no match for her magical abilities. Only a thousand year banishment to the moon, using the Elements of Harmony, was capable of stopping her and saving our nation from eternal night.

"You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival is on the line, and the price of thousands of innocent lives is far higher than allowing a few criminals to run free."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
We are deeply concerned by the affects this proposal would seem to have on less developed nations. It is all well and good for the larger, established nations to say that a punishment is considered a violation of right. Yet that same punishment allows for small nations to not have to make the choice between wasting crucial resources on the care of criminal or their execution. And for our equine collegues it seems to me there is not a reasonable means of controlling such a being, and that either execution or banishment were the only two options. We have historically used this punishment for those who were beyond reasonable lawful means of control, beyond stripping someone of their ability to do harm, the next nearest you can do is insure they are far from where they are able to do harm.
We also find that this resolution leaves unclear the status of internal banishment. For those nations fortunate to have undesirable terrain within their borders, exercising the banishment of a individual to a designated area doesn't deprive them of their citizenship per-se but it clearly resembles the rest of your concerns. Yet is perfectly permissible in the greater context of your resolution.
We find these and the ex-post facto nature of the resolution objectionable. We are unable to support this resolution at this time.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yet that same punishment allows for small nations to not have to make the choice between wasting crucial resources on the care of criminal or their execution.

OOC: What happens when you 'banish' someone?

Can they return to the nation?
Yes. If you have a small nation which is so underdeveloped that it has to choose between the resources between the care of a criminal and their execution, then necessarily, that nation is also probably unable to keep its borders secure. If it cannot keep its just-a-few-mile-perimeter prisons secure, there is no reason to expect that the many hundreds of miles of border would be secure.

Can they wreck havoc if they have the support of foreign actors?
Yes. They are outside of the jurisdiction of the state. Therefore, they can smuggle themselves to some neutral nation and find some benefactors which would aid them in their cause to harm the state. Because they are not in prison, one cannot then easily prevent this criminal from plotting. And because they can easily return to the nation in the scenario you set up, then they can unleash havoc at home.

Will it be harder to maintain state control over their actions?
Yes. If one has a claim over someone else because they are a citizen, if they are caught abroad plotting against the state, they can then be extradited back to their nation. But if you 'banished' them, then you don't have as strong a claim over that person. Also, necessarily, because they are not in your state's prisons, it is harder to control that person's actions.

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

OOC: A Response to Each Point

OOC: What happens when you 'banish' someone?
Can they return to the nation?
Yes. If you have a small nation which is so underdeveloped that it has to choose between the resources between the care of a criminal and their execution, then necessarily, that nation is also probably unable to keep its borders secure. If it cannot keep its just-a-few-mile-perimeter prisons secure, there is no reason to expect that the many hundreds of miles of border would be secure.

That formulation would rely upon the assumption that the nations are land locked and share a border. For maritime nations, all you need to banish someone is a ship and an nearby island. While you could argue that said Island is an type of prison, the character of the punishment is not the deprivation of liberty as with conventional prisons but instead the forced exclusion of the individual from society i.e. Banishment. Land locked nations to have an option by utilizing remote or nearly impassible terrain. While more probable that banished persons would be able to effect some form of egress, they will most likely seek refuge away from the banishing state.

Which brings us to point 2:

Can they wreck havoc if they have the support of foreign actors?
Yes. They are outside of the jurisdiction of the state. Therefore, they can smuggle themselves to some neutral nation and find some benefactors which would aid them in their cause to harm the state. Because they are not in prison, one cannot then easily prevent this criminal from plotting. And because they can easily return to the nation in the scenario you set up, then they can unleash havoc at home.

I do concede that yes, if they are able to make it to Foriegn Lands they are able to act outside the authority of the state. Yet said same person maybe have been outside the authority of state to begin with, their actions either depriving of them of the protection of the state or for political reasons being stripped of such protection. The actions then of such a person have to be viewed as proximate to how much damage can be caused. Left in their home state where they retain influence and resources and are closer to any such intended targets the possiblity of success is much higher. Yet stripped of such resources and having to escape first from wherever they are left, disconnected from existing networks, and possibly a language barrier would be obstacles that would have to be overcome to make the individual capable of causing harm in their home state. If said individual were to cause harm it would be more likely in the nation of receipt that in the nation of origin. So for the home country this is a win.

Will it be harder to maintain state control over their actions?
Yes. If one has a claim over someone else because they are a citizen, if they are caught abroad plotting against the state, they can then be extradited back to their nation. But if you 'banished' them, then you don't have as strong a claim over that person. Also, necessarily, because they are not in your state's prisons, it is harder to control that person's actions.

For the home nation, this issue remains moot. They convieablely do not wish the return of such an individual, that further goes to having any stay or control over their actions. For the recieving nations is where state control becomes interesting. Either the individual is there illegally (most likely) and thus any actions taken against them by the recieving state will be against an alien, or they have assimilated into the recieving society and thus may be entitled to the protections of that state. In either case the goal is accomplished for the originating state.
Personally I disagree with banishment as punishment as it forces other societies to adapt to those whom the orginating society expelled, yet felt it was important to argue on behalf of my nation given the history and culture I have developed for it.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: What happens when you 'banish' someone?

Can they return to the nation?
Yes. If you have a small nation which is so underdeveloped that it has to choose between the resources between the care of a criminal and their execution, then necessarily, that nation is also probably unable to keep its borders secure. If it cannot keep its just-a-few-mile-perimeter prisons secure, there is no reason to expect that the many hundreds of miles of border would be secure.

OOC
As was pointed out, island nations would have a much easier time preventing foreigners from arriving unnoticed. And because these nations likely already need to patrol their coasts and ports as part of customs enforcement, they wouldn't need additional expenses.

At the same time, small islands would be least likely to have the available space and resources for prisons.

As a ridiculous example, take the Principality of Sealand: there is no way that Sealand could host an entire prison for its criminals, but banishment is a very valid option.

[Separatist Peoples]

As a ridiculous example, take the Principality of Sealand: there is no way that Sealand could host an entire prison for its criminals, but banishment is a very valid option.

OOC: Ridiculous but valid. I suppose the major issue is that Sealand would be foisting off it's ne'er-do-wells on the rest of the world by doing that, and the international community as a whole has rather a lot of interest in preventing that.

[Aclion]

As a ridiculous example, take the Principality of Sealand: there is no way that Sealand could host an entire prison for its criminals, but banishment is a very valid option.

OOC: Ridiculous but valid. I suppose the major issue is that Sealand would be foisting off it's ne'er-do-wells on the rest of the world by doing that, and the international community as a whole has rather a lot of interest in preventing that.

OOC: suppose that another nation is willing to take them though? I mean, there are 177,717 of us.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC: Ridiculous but valid. I suppose the major issue is that Sealand would be foisting off it's ne'er-do-wells on the rest of the world by doing that, and the international community as a whole has rather a lot of interest in preventing that.

OOC: suppose that another nation is willing to take them though? I mean, there are 177,717 of us.

OOC
There are only 26,614 WA member nations, and most don't exist in the same universe. Exporting our criminals to other universes is a bit ridiculous even for the WA.

Edit: And even if you did, for crimes such as treason which would merit removal of citizenship, imprisonment in another nation would not be allowed by this resolution, as it would constitute banishment.

[Aclion]

OOC: suppose that another nation is willing to take them though? I mean, there are 177,717 of us.

OOC
There are only 26,614 WA member nations, and most don't exist in the same universe. Exporting our criminals to other universes is a bit ridiculous even for the WA.

Edit: And even if you did, for crimes such as treason which would merit removal of citizenship, imprisonment in another nation would not be allowed by this resolution, as it would constitute banishment.

You can hardly use a proposal to justify it's own argument ambassador, it's circular reasoning.

All the same one would not need twenty thousand, nations or even twenty. If a single nation is willing to take an exile then the argument that the exiles banishment imposes on other nations is demolished.

[Los Angeles de lxs Liberadxs]

As a ridiculous example, take the Principality of Sealand: there is no way that Sealand could host an entire prison for its criminals, but banishment is a very valid option.

OOC: Ridiculous but valid. I suppose the major issue is that Sealand would be foisting off it's ne'er-do-wells on the rest of the world by doing that, and the international community as a whole has rather a lot of interest in preventing that.

I'm not super worried about that because there is at least one WA Member State enthusiastic to host banned people in their private prison complex. The problem is then that some countries (ahem) are prohibited by their own laws from engaging in private property relations or imprisonment, or especially both. Such countries are then forced to embrace encarceration and/or mass executions on a scale normally reserved for revolutions and punishing terrorism and such.
--IC BELOW--

Could the ambassador explain why banishment is an unacceptable breach of a persons civil rights while imprisonment is not?

Dressed for warm weather in a breezy, unbuttoned black jacket, a half-unbuttoned white collared shirt and a loosened red tie, Cde. Delegate José Dalrimple perks up at this. Frankly, he doesn't look like he's ever had to hit someone in his life, but he does look like the guy to ask for help finding illicit substances if you had to guess which WAGA delegates were slinging. After the other delegation's remarks, he stands up, briefly and slowly sways from left to right, and begins to speak in a surprisingly warm and confident baritone:

"Indeed, this is the quandary faced by our Confederación as this draft is being relitigated. Our laws explicitly disallow imprisonment as punishment; the closest thing we have to prisons are the new, non-coercive, 'soft' labor and deportation processing camps that will help reconcile Federal law with GAR #386. For decades, La Confederación and previous governments have successfully used the ban and exile to remove people who threaten others' freedoms, and execution for fascist officers and racist propagandists, so that we can maintain a free and orderly society for those who wish to contribute and those who cannot contribute alike.

This is no small matter of philosophy, governance or jurisprudence in La Confederación. Already, due to the international movement to reduce statelessness, we face the potential that abusers, exploiters and reactionaries will be elevated in status and reach. Our Department of Membership, Citizenship and Border Action predicts that some of our banned residents will become celebrity dissidents in the liberal world within months, threatening the stability of our fragile relations with centrist governments in the region.

If banishment is abolished entirely, we will soon face the question of whether to reopen the hated prisons of odious past regimes, and start teaching our youth the ways of the baton and the panopticon again, placing them in daily contact with highly skilled manipulators, meanwhile relegitimizing the authority of the state to restrict movement and association and creating a new class of law enforcers who learn to solve their problems with beatings and shouting. Our laws against participating in profit relations mean we cannot resort to paying foreign capitalists to warehouse our antisocials. The only alternative I see is to round up and execute every banned person who hasn't voluntarily left the country, and maybe even mobilize border guards to identify and execute them on reentry. I shudder to imagine the effect on our culture and politics of either adaptation.

This whole notion, I'm afraid, is irreconcilable with libertarian jurisprudence. We firmly oppose this draft and would be happy to assist any effort to stop it from being considered in the General Assembly.

For more info on how Califan law interacts with GAR #386, see our delegation for your copy of the Impact of GAR #386 on Califan jurisprudence pamphlet from the DMCBA.

Comrades and fellow delegates, thank you for your time and consideration." Dalrimple slumped back into his seat, somehow looking even more unbuttoned than before, and began to focus on a vaporizer pen as he appeared to aimlessly shuffle through documents and notes. The Federal WAGA Delegation had been heard and soon it would be time to fly home, forget the whole World Assembly, resign and get back to local administrative work.

[Excidium Planetis]

OOC
There are only 26,614 WA member nations, and most don't exist in the same universe. Exporting our criminals to other universes is a bit ridiculous even for the WA.

Edit: And even if you did, for crimes such as treason which would merit removal of citizenship, imprisonment in another nation would not be allowed by this resolution, as it would constitute banishment.

You can hardly use a proposal to justify it's own argument ambassador, it's circular reasoning.

OOC
1) that was OOC, so I'm not an "ambassador". I'm me.
2) I was not justifying the proposal, I was arguing against it. You can't foist anyone off even to a willing nation if this proposal passes, as it would be banishment.

All the same one would not need twenty thousand, nations or even twenty. If a single nation is willing to take an exile then the argument that the exiles banishment imposes on other nations is demolished.

I wasn't aware that was what you were arguing.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Could the ambassador explain why banishment is an unacceptable breach of a persons civil rights while imprisonment is not?

Neville: At least with imprisonment, you get residence and some civil rights. Without citizenship, you don't have guaranteed residence or protection in any nation.

Fairburn: Why can't they be imprisoned? What's stopping you from applying alternative punishments?

Fairburn: Any nation which relies on violations of civil rights to survive is a very inefficient nation.

Fairburn: Let me think on that.

Three seconds later...

Fairburn: No.

"The individual in question was none other than Nightmare Moon, a powerful alicorn." Twilight desperately explains. "Ordinary prisons would have proven no match for her magical abilities. Only a thousand year banishment to the moon, using the Elements of Harmony, was capable of stopping her and saving our nation from eternal night.

Fairburn: Wait, if this Nightmare Moon was too strong to be imprisoned, how was she not too strong to have her banishment enforced? I smell a rat.

Neville: Really? All I smell are ponies. Sweet, sweet ponies... (drools)

Fairburn: O...K...

"You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival is on the line, and the price of thousands of innocent lives is far higher than allowing a few criminals to run free."

Fairburn: "You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival in on the line, and the price of innocent lives is far higher than a person's right not to be tortured/whipped/flogged/executed/sterilised/euthanised."

No.

OOC: Ridiculous but valid. I suppose the major issue is that Sealand would be foisting off it's ne'er-do-wells on the rest of the world by doing that, and the international community as a whole has rather a lot of interest in preventing that.

OOC: suppose that another nation is willing to take them though? I mean, there are 177,717 of us.

OOC: They may be able to stay, but they still won't be a citizen. Protecting the right to citizenship the key aim of this proposal.

[Alicorn Princess Twilight Sparkle]

Fairburn: Wait, if this Nightmare Moon was too strong to be imprisoned, how was she not too strong to have her banishment enforced? I smell a rat.

Neville: Really? All I smell are ponies. Sweet, sweet ponies... (drools)

Fairburn: O...K...

"...well." Twilight Sparkle says. "The scent of ponies aside, Nightmare Moon's banishment wasn't enforced, in fact, she was able to return to Equestria after one thousand years, and threaten our nation once again. However, her banishment to the moon removed her threat long enough for new wielders of the Elements of Harmony to appear, and prepare to battle her once more."

Fairburn: "You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival in on the line, and the price of innocent lives is far higher than a person's right not to be tortured/whipped/flogged/executed/sterilised/euthanised."

No.

Twilight Sparkle gasps. "I would never do such a thing to my little ponies! Banishment is not nearly on the same moral level as torture and execution.

"But, I suppose, for the sake of argument, the latter is not prohibited by this World Assembly."

[Los Angeles de lxs Liberadxs]

"You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival is on the line, and the price of thousands of innocent lives is far higher than allowing a few criminals to run free."

Fairburn: "You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival in on the line, and the price of innocent lives is far higher than a person's right not to be tortured/whipped/flogged/executed/sterilised/euthanised."

No.

At this, Cde. Del. Dalrimple's replacement, Cde. Del. Stef Obergon, seemingly half fat and bone, a commanding but simultaneously disarming figure dressed like a late 20th century musician all ruffled and purple, bellows at about twice Dalrimple's volume, "And here I thought prison, a veritable smorgasbord of all those things, was the humane alternative to banishment!"

Neville: At least with imprisonment, you get residence and some civil rights. Without citizenship, you don't have guaranteed residence or protection in any nation.

"Actually, on a serious note", adds Obergon in a more somber tone and respectful volume, "Now that GAR #386 Reducing Statelessness is international law, I believe the esteemed delegate will find that banished people now have WA citizen status, which all other WA member states must recognize, no matter how severe their infraction. If your laws also require equal treatment, like our Equal Treatment Act, then all newly banished people must be granted WA passports and legal identification, too, which they can use to find safety in just about any other country. Hell, we'll fly them out and give them breakfast. If this draft hinges on the argument that banished people have no civil rights, it's now obsolete at best."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Fairburn: Wait, if this Nightmare Moon was too strong to be imprisoned, how was she not too strong to have her banishment enforced? I smell a rat.

Neville: Really? All I smell are ponies. Sweet, sweet ponies... (drools)

Fairburn: O...K...

"...well." Twilight Sparkle says. "The scent of ponies aside, Nightmare Moon's banishment wasn't enforced, in fact, she was able to return to Equestria after one thousand years, and threaten our nation once again. However, her banishment to the moon removed her threat long enough for new wielders of the Elements of Harmony to appear, and prepare to battle her once more."

The Amabassador from The United Royal Isles of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
Was that not the original terms of banishment: that the dangerous and clearly unstable criminal be banned for 1000 years? By our estimation then, that it was 1000 years for the individual to return is a sign of successfully enforcing your banishment. Presumably then your nation did not have the same level of violence as it would have had you allowed this ~looks at the name and is puzzled for a moment, before shrugging it off and returning to his thought~ Nightmare Moon to remain? That this individual was given time and chance to redeem themselves apart and away from you society before returning yet chose not to remains an indication of their character, and not a sleight against the punishment. By all accounts this appears to me successful.

Fairburn: "You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival in on the line, and the price of innocent lives is far higher than a person's right not to be tortured/whipped/flogged/executed/sterilised/euthanised."

We find the ambassador's comments regarding what he feels are appropriate punishments highly flippant and disregards the diversity of moral systems held throughout the member states of the World Assembly. While he may feel that it better that a criminal person be subjected to abuses, we find that such treatment is distasteful. At its core, banishment remains a life affirming alternate punishment for many nations, and retains more of a person'a civil rights than depriving them of either their life (execution), or their liberty (imprisonment). The individual is deprived only of the comfort of the society they have been expelled from, presumably for their transgressions against that society. They retain their capacity to make the best of their lot, and improve their personal condition by seeking out a new society, or improve the condition of their banishment through labor.
We remain firmly opposed to this measure. We could see how it is in the international interest to reduce the amount of banished persons by providing guidelines to who can be banished and under what circumstances, but an outright ban as this proposes goes beyond reasonable and intrudes upon the rights of member-states to determine punishment based upon their own values.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Wait, if this Nightmare Moon was too strong to be imprisoned, how was she not too strong to have her banishment enforced? I smell a rat.

Neville: Really? All I smell are ponies. Sweet, sweet ponies... (drools)

Fairburn: O...K...

"...well." Twilight Sparkle says. "The scent of ponies aside, Nightmare Moon's banishment wasn't enforced, in fact, she was able to return to Equestria after one thousand years, and threaten our nation once again. However, her banishment to the moon removed her threat long enough for new wielders of the Elements of Harmony to appear, and prepare to battle her once more."

Fairburn: Now I'm confused. If the banishment was never enforced, why wasn't she able to return earlier? It's like they always say, Fairburn: Never debate with children or ponies.

Fairburn: "You may call us inefficient, but the fact remains that our survival in on the line, and the price of innocent lives is far higher than a person's right not to be tortured/whipped/flogged/executed/sterilised/euthanised."

No.

At this, Cde. Del. Dalrimple's replacement, Cde. Del. Stef Obergon, seemingly half fat and bone, a commanding but simultaneously disarming figure dressed like a late 20th century musician all ruffled and purple, bellows at about twice Dalrimple's volume, "And here I thought prison, a veritable smorgasbord of all those things, was the humane alternative to banishment!"

Neville: I don't know about you, but we certainly don't torture, whip, flog, execute, sterilise or euthanise our prisoners. If your nation does do these things then that is your government's problem, not ours.

Neville: At least with imprisonment, you get residence and some civil rights. Without citizenship, you don't have guaranteed residence or protection in any nation.

"Actually, on a serious note", adds Obergon in a more somber tone and respectful volume, "Now that GAR #386 Reducing Statelessness is international law, I believe the esteemed delegate will find that banished people now have WA citizen status, which all other WA member states must recognize, no matter how severe their infraction. If your laws also require equal treatment, like our Equal Treatment Act, then all newly banished people must be granted WA passports and legal identification, too, which they can use to find safety in just about any other country. Hell, we'll fly them out and give them breakfast. If this draft hinges on the argument that banished people have no civil rights, it's now obsolete at best."

Neville: The resolution which you refer to prohibits governments from removing nationality, but member states are still allowed to deprive people of their citizenship and therefore render them stateless. This resolution will reduce the numbers of refugees, which is surely a laudable international goal.

At its core, banishment remains a life affirming alternate punishment for many nations, and retains more of a person'a civil rights than depriving them of either their life (execution), or their liberty (imprisonment).

Fairburn: Explain how banishment doesn't deprive a person of their liberty.

The individual is deprived only of the comfort of the society they have been expelled from, presumably for their transgressions against that society.

Fairburn: To say that citizenship is a "comfort" is completely asinine. If having the right to equal protection under the law and being able to maintain contact with an embassy is a "comfort" then I'd hate to see what your nation considers to be superfluous.

We remain firmly opposed to this measure. We could see how it is in the international interest to reduce the amount of banished persons by providing guidelines to who can be banished and under what circumstances, but an outright ban as this proposes goes beyond reasonable and intrudes upon the rights of member-states to determine punishment based upon their own values.

Neville: Thankfully, this proposal doesn't ban banishment outright. In fact, it provides guidelines to who can be banished and under what circumstances. It's almost as if I actually thought about this, isn't it?

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

The Ambassador from the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
Before I begin, We wish to thank the esteemed delegation from States of Glory for their enthusiastic debate on this matter, and request clarification on a matter of import to the debate. We request to know if the removal of persons from society, without depriving said person of citizenship would qualify to trigger this matter? That banishment as defined here requires two explicit acts, the removal of citizenship & the imposing terms of prohibition against the individual. If there is no declaration of removal of citizenship and only the prohibitions against passage or return, then is a nation imposing banishment, or some other punishment?
We thank the ambassador in advance for this answer as we feel that it will provide clarity to this matter. As such,

Neville: I don't know about you, but we certainly don't torture, whip, flog, execute, sterilise or euthanise our prisoners. If your nation does do these things then that is your government's problem, not ours.

We appreciate the ambassador and his office for clarifying this point, as we found their first statement on this matter quite in poor taste and not reflective of the intention behind the sentiment. We concede that any one of such abhorrent actions could be justified under the same logic as our equine colleagues were justifying the use of banishment. We disagree however with the false equivence between these punishments and banishment.

At its core, banishment remains a life affirming alternate punishment for many nations, and retains more of a person's rights than depriving them of either their life (execution), or their liberty (imprisonment).

Fairburn: Explain how banishment doesn't deprive a person of their liberty.

The individual is deprived only of the comfort of the society they have been expelled from, presumably for their transgressions against that society.

Fairburn: To say that citizenship is a "comfort" is completely asinine. If having the right to equal protection under the law and being able to maintain contact with an embassy is a "comfort" then I'd hate to see what your nation considers to be superfluous.

Nothing inherent in banishment impedes an individual from making choices as to shelter, personal autonomy, personal style, daily routine, etc... nor does it infringe their freedom of movement (excepting only to return to their nation state). Whereas imprisonment by definition must reduce, or remove that very same list of freedoms, possibly for the life of the individual. We concede that banished persons are deprived of some form of liberty, yet argue this is fundamentally a different kind of liberty than would be at stake with other punishments. We also find this issue is crucial to the understanding of punishment in a larger sense.
All punishments violate personal liberties or they fail as punishments. Even fines violate the individual liberty to choose how their money is spent. Society only has limited sanctions against persons who go against it, most obviously as declaring people as having transgressed and thus deserving of appropriate punishment. Punishments are thus derived from societies mandate to balance the rights and freedoms of individuals against competing rights and the needs of society as a whole.
Thus it is incumbent upon society to exercise care in determining which deprivation of liberty is best at (1) reprimanding the criminal for harm done, (2) reimbursing society for any harm done, (3) deterring individuals from committing crimes, (4) being in proportion and weight to the crime, and/or (5) preventing future harm to society.
For those banished, the price paid is in forfeiting the protection of the country they have offended against. When there exists many countries within the world, how can it be said that citizenship is more important than that an individual's right to their life, or the exercise of their will in making for themselves a life? The individual retains all personal freedoms they can achieve for themselves. As there are plenty of nations within the wider world with relatively agreeable immigration policies, it remains fully conceivable that the individual will even be able to gain the protection of a nation. In this respect citizenship is a comfort to the individual as they do not have to endeavor to attain it, they are solely responsible for maintaining it. We agree that with citizenship comes many other ancillary rights, and as such cannot be consideration lightly or in a vacuum.
With that said however, we ask what is so valuable of about citizenship that makes protecting it more important than protecting individual autonomy and self determination, more important than protecting life? If this esteemed body has seen fit to recognize the rights of nations to choose life as forfeit for crimes then it should see fit to recognize the rights of nations to choose recognition of citizenship as forfeit all the same. Citizenship is and remains a legal construct first and foremost, whereas life and self determination are derived not from governments but the self.

We remain firmly opposed to this measure. We could see how it is in the international interest to reduce the amount of banished persons by providing guidelines to who can be banished and under what circumstances, but an outright ban as this proposes goes beyond reasonable and intrudes upon the rights of member-states to determine punishment based upon their own values.

Neville: Thankfully, this proposal doesn't ban banishment outright. In fact, it provides guidelines to who can be banished and under what circumstances. It's almost as if I actually thought about this, isn't it?

Yet, as stated its purpose is to ban. The limits proposed are limited solely to the case that the banished person happen to have citizenship of another nation. How is this equal protection of the laws: that if someone is fortunate enough to be recognized in another state their life may be spared, or their autonomy preserved? It places at disadvantage all those persons not fortunate enough to have gained citizenship in another state, most notably those without the means to do so. The guidelines we refer to here would be to some framework for ensuring that banishment was reserved to those crimes whose alternate would be life in prison or execution. Or that banished persons be allowed to appeal their banishment with a neutral third party or maybe a council. The specifics are not important as of yet, but the fact remains that guidelines would clarify this matter and retain the flexibility of member-sates in this area as is afforded by several other resolutions regarding punishments. As is, we remain firmly opposed to the resolution and shall consider the possibility of presenting a competing resolution.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Before I begin, We wish to thank the esteemed delegation from States of Glory for their enthusiastic debate on this matter, and request clarification on a matter of import to the debate. We request to know if the removal of persons from society, without depriving said person of citizenship would qualify to trigger this matter? That banishment as defined here requires two explicit acts, the removal of citizenship & the imposing terms of prohibition against the individual. If there is no declaration of removal of citizenship and only the prohibitions against passage or return, then is a nation imposing banishment, or some other punishment?

Neville: Let me answer that question with a question: Do citizens in your nation have right of abode?

Neville: I don't know about you, but we certainly don't torture, whip, flog, execute, sterilise or euthanise our prisoners. If your nation does do these things then that is your government's problem, not ours.

We appreciate the ambassador and his office for clarifying this point, as we found their first statement on this matter quite in poor taste and not reflective of the intention behind the sentiment. We concede that any one of such abhorrent actions could be justified under the same logic as our equine colleagues were justifying the use of banishment. We disagree however with the false equivence between these punishments and banishment.

Fairburn: Simply crying "false equivalence!!!" isn't enough. You need to demonstrate why it's a false equivalence.

With that said however, we ask what is so valuable of about citizenship that makes protecting it more important than protecting individual autonomy and self determination, more important than protecting life? If this esteemed body has seen fit to recognize the rights of nations to choose life as forfeit for crimes then it should see fit to recognize the rights of nations to choose recognition of citizenship as forfeit all the same. Citizenship is and remains a legal construct first and foremost, whereas life and self determination are derived not from governments but the self.

Fairburn: Oh, we agree that the protection of life is a noble goal, but it'd be diplomatic suicide to attempt to ban the death penalty. That doesn't mean that we should completely give up on forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, however.

Neville: Besides, it's debatable if capital punishment is an international issue, while banishment has a clear international remit.

How is this equal protection of the laws: that if someone is fortunate enough to be recognized in another state their life may be spared, or their autonomy preserved? It places at disadvantage all those persons not fortunate enough to have gained citizenship in another state, most notably those without the means to do so.

Fairburn: Well, if you'd rather that we ban exile outright in the name of equality then we'd be more than happy to accommodate you.

The guidelines we refer to here would be to some framework for ensuring that banishment was reserved to those crimes whose alternate would be life in prison or execution.

Neville: GA #375 a.k.a Crime and Punishment already bans disproportionate punishments.

Or that banished persons be allowed to appeal their banishment with a neutral third party or maybe a council.

Neville: GA #202 a.k.a Convict Appellate Rights already grants the right of appeal.

As is, we remain firmly opposed to the resolution and shall consider the possibility of presenting a competing resolution.

Fairburn: You're "considering the possibility"? I'm shaking with fear. Please, have mercy.

[Kitzerland]

Whiskers raises an eyebrow.
"So, under this resolution, no crime would be punishable with banishment unless the target has dual citizenship? And yet capital punishment is still legal under the circumstance of "grievous crimes". In effect, this would make the WA's opinion on banishment that it is worse than execution."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

Speaking at the request of the Office of the Ambassador, The Honorsble J.Everett, The Chief Legal Theorist of Royal House of The United Royal Islands of Euramathania, The Learned Scholar A.E Carter-Jones:
We thank the Ambassador's Assistant for his inquiry and shall endeavor to clarify the question at hand:

Before I begin, We wish to thank the esteemed delegation from States of Glory for their enthusiastic debate on this matter, and request clarification on a matter of import to the debate. We request to know if the removal of persons from society, without depriving said person of citizenship would qualify to trigger this matter? That banishment as defined here requires two explicit acts, the removal of citizenship & the imposing terms of prohibition against the individual. If there is no declaration of removal of citizenship and only the prohibitions against passage or return, then is a nation imposing banishment, or some other punishment?

Neville: Let me answer that question with a question: Do citizens in your nation have right of abode?

First, a definition of the 'right of abode': the perrogative to have or maintain a place of residence, house, or home. Proscriptively, no such right exists within the cannon of laws as they currently exist. However the natural right of self determination contains within it the freedom of any individual to choose for themselves their abode, and ,as within their capacity, to maintain their residence as such while adhering to the norms and customs for said choice. For clarity, the laws do not mandate that an individual is allowed to own property or build a home, yet they do recognize that such an action may be undertaken of the individual's own will to do so, and that they are only limited in this freedom by their own means and capacity to fulfill this desire. The laws respect this freedom. As long as neither the contracts for doing so, nor the actions undertaken, are in direct violation of another, such expressions of freedom will be upheld.
Citizenship does not confer this right, merely facilitates, by means of increased capacity, an extension of an individuals natural right to self determination, within a given state.

I shall also address the points contained herein before yielding back to the ambassador;

The guidelines we refer to here would be to some framework for ensuring that banishment was reserved to those crimes whose alternate would be life in prison or execution.

Neville: GA #375 a.k.a Crime and Punishment already bans disproportionate punishments.

Or that banished persons be allowed to appeal their banishment with a neutral third party or maybe a council.

Neville: GA #202 a.k.a Convict Appellate Rights already grants the right of appeal.

We thank the Ambassador's Assitant for providing reference to such resolutions. As stated in the Islands' remarks the specifics were as of yet not important and that these two suggestions are just as intended suggesting a direction. However in reading both resolutions we find nothing contradictory with the proposed ideas.
For GA#375, the provision referenced by the quote is a solitary line banning disproportionate punishment, and as such the specifics of elevating banishment to being an reserved alternate punishment in lieu of either execution or life imprisonment would compliment the provision without relying on it solely. We suggest the following wording:
Hereby decrees that banishment shall only be considered as valid punishment in cases where the legal alternative punishment shall be either life imprisonment, or execution;
For GA#202, the provision provides for the rights of appeal and again, by providing for a means of doing so while in banishment affirms earlier resolutions and yet doesn't rely solely upon the Right existing. For this we suggest:
Herby establishes that the Global Emigration, Security, Travel And Passport, Organisation, shall form and control an international state status council (ISSC), which shall:
(1) provide access to appeals or hear cases for appeal from banished persons against the banishing state;
(2) provide access to applications of immigration, citizenship, and/or passports to stateless indivuals seeking relocation;
Mandates that member states are required to inform banished persons, extant and ongoing, of the provisions established herein;
Both of these provide for the assurances that banishment is provided in a manner consistent with the other resolutions of the World Assembly that prevent abuses of civil rights, while retaining the right of each member state to determine punishments based upon their traditions.

The Ambassador from the United Royal Islands of Euramathania, The Honorable J. Everett:
We thank the Royal Household for their guidance and insight into this matter as well as the words to better frame the guidelines to which we referenced prior. We acknowledge and thank the Ambassador for his spirited debate and wish to clarify a few points.

Fairburn: Simply crying "false equivalence!!!" isn't enough. You need to demonstrate why it's a false equivalence.

(1) As to false equivalence we refer the ambassador to the paragraph following that claim in our statement. We had hoped this discussion, focused on the central point that any type of punishment carries with it a different infringement of rights, would demonstrate the differences between these punishments. There is a vast distinction between punishments that abridge natural rights and those the redact legal, or social rights. We however, will elaborate if needed to clarify this matter.

Fairburn: Oh, we agree that the protection of life is a noble goal, but it'd be diplomatic suicide to attempt to ban the death penalty. That doesn't mean that we should completely give up on forbidding cruel and unusual punishment, however.
Neville: Besides, it's debatable if capital punishment is an international issue, while banishment has a clear international remit.

(2) As to one commuting diplomatic suicide, and the international remit of dealing with banishment, we again wonder how the legal concept of citizenship is more valuable a target of protection than the natural rights of individuals. We have established that nothing about banishment itself interferes with the individual right to life, autonomy, self determination, or bodily integrity. While the international implications of acceptable banishment can be avoided or alleviated by providing concrete guidance on the matter.

Fairburn: Well, if you'd rather that we ban exile outright in the name of equality then we'd be more than happy to accommodate you.

(3) As to banishing it all together, we refer again to the matter and custom of allowing member states to set their own punishments while providing standards for doing so. Why should banishment be unique in this regard? Especially given that it is possible to craft a resolution that deals with its implications and still allows for it.

As is, we remain firmly opposed to the resolution and shall consider the possibility of presenting a competing resolution.

Fairburn: You're "considering the possibility"? I'm shaking with fear. Please, have mercy

(4) As to considering our writing a resolution, we feel it is important to address our concerns with the original author first before seeking to provide a competing proposal. To that end, we remain opposed to the resolution in its current formulation and seek to have substantive changes made. We shall not support a resolution that undermines the respect for the traditions of member states, and their right to determine policy based on them. Failing that we shall endeavor to provide our own version of the resolution for consideration by this body.