[DRAFT] Freedom From Violence

[Keronians]

The elder girl rises to address the Kriovan Ambassador.

Then don't claim that this doesn't affect member states' military readiness when several delegations have indicated how it would. If accusations of deceit are not to your liking, I would suggest ending this deceit, whether it is intentional or due to willful opposition to acknowledging it as such. This proposal is too broad, affects things it shouldn't, and it is this way because you don't want to address the issue of conscription directly.

"We never once said this wouldn't effect military readiness. We said it wouldn't ban conscription. Which it doesn't. It may have a detrimental effect on your trigger-men - we don't care. We never pretended to care. But this proposal ain't about conscription; not directly. Blah blah, support personnel, blah. Conscription is not banned. Forcing people to kill is."

So they should be required to find different professions? This proposal would prevent those already in those positions from being forced out. Our entire point during this conscription debate, now here, is that many people would choose to abuse the system given half a chance. Your proposal hands them more than enough room to challenge any efforts to actually make them do the jobs they signed up to do, let alone those compelled to aid in the national defense. And I don't give a damn who I'm addressing - either you're qualified to be here or you're not - and children are hardly "unsuspecting" of homework beyond the age of six or seven, at least in Krioval.

"Yes, they bloody well should be required to find different professions. If Rowan, for whatever reason, refused to translate for French-speaking diplomats, she would not be called upon to handle said diplomats. If a judge or teacher cannot perform their jobs properly, they can find other work in the field, or other work entirely. Terminating the employment of a person not doing their job is neither 'persecution' nor 'prosecution', Ambassador, and while some could argue it to be a 'punishment', I would disagree. An employee and employer enter into a contract. If the employee violates the terms of that contract, by not performing the work mandated by the employer, the contract ends - along with the employment. I get the impression you think people couldn't be fired for not performing their jobs under this law. You would be mistaken."

Well, I've heard it all. I hope that delegates here are taking transcription. If you are invaded by a larger force without provocation, it's entirely your fault. Next up: are rape victims responsible for their "misfortune"? How about the murdered? Blaming the victim is ugly when reduced to its most basic components, isn't it? As for the tone of the debate, if you can't handle a little rough-and-tumble here, I'd suggest leaving, rather than sticking out tongues and throwing things. Hypocritical much - both in your statements here and in your lofty little legislation?

"If you are invaded by a larger force, without provocation, and your citizens refuse to take up arms in defense of your nation - if they would rather die for their cause than kill for yours - I would say you did something wrong, yes. Drawing parallels between pacifism and rapists and murderers is amusing and all, but you seem to be missing the point, nevermind failing to make one of your own. Your people are free to fight for you as much as they want. They just shouldn't have to. As to the tone of the debate, Dr. Castro's comments did nothing to further said debate. We are here to pass legislation, Ambassador. Not insult each other. Rowan and I have been through many 'rough-and-tumble' debates, and I assure you, we will be around for many more. Keep in mind that I'm only here because Eireann Fae officially left the WA. Imagine what would come if we did the same again..."

"And if you will notice, neither Faerie present asked me to throw the knife. I did that of my own accord, which I could still do under the terms of this resolution."

With regard to your education system not being compulsory, let me just say: it shows.

Rowan speaks up, quietly. "Such words from such a man matter little." Alexandra sticks out her tongue at Ambassador Søgård, and takes her seat.

"We don't care" Really, Ambassador? This is your argument? What's the point of concription, I believe the question is, if you have renderd it useless? Personally, I am "compelled" (terrible joke, I know) to agree. Conscription may sometimes be required. Conscription is also an internal, at least till now, policy. I believe that the preamble to this is "Or deliberately oppress them. It's up to you." is it not?

Forcing people to kill. Again, you are wrong. You provide no definition of pain whatsoever. And the one you did was, let's just say, rather disappointing. Any kind of pain you said. Rather disappointing. So a prank could be considered so as well. The typical jokes played on some people as well. A little bit of bullying (whilst wrong, but not deserving such a punishment) as well. How many support personnel do you want us to keep? This is not reasonable. Any PMT or FT nation won't need many, if any for FT, support persons. Our military is PMT (and voluntary), and we don't need that many support's.

As an Ambassador you refuse to perform your job? (Rowan case-scenario). Wrong, and deserving of a good whack. As for the contract, no, again. It's the first time I'm disagreeing to this extent with your delegation, Ambassador. A contract is a contract. If you don't wish to perform, you don't just leave quietly, you submit a letter of resignation and you are then relieved of your duties as soon as possible. That's how it generally works. If a person were to do that, we wouldn't even have any firefighters or medics! Oh, I don't really feel like hurting this man, y'know? Oh, I don't feel like spraying this guy with carbon dioxide, he'll get really dirty and may even suffocate slightly, y'know? Do you realise the level of education that is required in our nation, for example, for any decent job? According to international standards, every single adult holds some degree in some field. A Master's, usually, but it may change from field to field. And then, the majority of people who hold prestigious jobs or high-end jobs also hold PhD's. A judge would hold a PhD in law. How long would it take the guy to get into another field? 10 years? The compulsory education ends with you having a Master's in any three fields of your choice.

Not so much refuse in our case, more so flee. The amount of refugees in any war is astounding. Our nation is quite patriotic (in the sense that we have pride in our culture and defend our nation, not that we are anti-immigration, etc), but other, more multicultural (by which I mean countries that make themselves like "citizens of the World" kind of thing) may not be willing to take up arms, and would rather flee to another part of the World. They wouldn't die. But they'd think; what the hell can we do against them? Organisation, good tactics, good equipment and the extra few assholes (I meant conscientious objectors) do miles better than a mob of civilians defending a city with sticks and stones.

As for the education remark, we request the Ambassador (not you, delegation) to refrain from making side comments on the nation's education system and policies. They have full right to do whatever they want, and I personally feel that the kids are, in some ways, smarter than I am.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Curtis rises to address the Eireann Fae ambassadors. "This has the full support of the people of Rawrgirnia. Some other ambassadors may be choosing to present this in dishonest ways, but it is clear that this proposal goes a long way to protect the basic rights of citizens. Thank you for all you do."

The girls, feeling the Ambassadors from Burnination and Krioval added nothing to the discussion, simply shrug at their 'arguments'. Both turn to Curtis as he speaks, though, smiling broadly. Rowan is the one to address him, "And thank you for your support." The two turn their attention to their Delegate as she speaks, appreciating Alexandria's support more than either of them can really show. Alexandra rises at the end of the woman's admonishment of the Mahajan Ambassador, and speaks, "Your support, of course, is always welcome as well, Delegate Yadoru. I'll totally never stab you again!" She winks as the girl besides her giggles, withdrawing her own rubber knife (that she thankfully had not thrown), and placing it on the table.

We are dismayed by what you are being accused of. We see no deceit in this resolution and believe it to be a genuine call for peace. What we do think however, is that the resolution is impossiblist and ultra-left. That said we support your ideals, not your strategic aims with this proposal; being peaceable and charming will not deter resolute, cunning and ruthless enemies. I have wondered how this resolution would be enforced?

And to Krioval, Eireann Fae spends merely 1% less on education than you do.

00c. Force is defined by law. Laws are regarded as setting the limits of legitimate use of force from procedures by which the law was created.

[Krioval]

We are dismayed by what you are being accused of. We see no deceit in this resolution and believe it to be a genuine call for peace. What we do think however, is that the resolution is impossiblist and ultra-left. That said we support your ideals, not your strategic aims with this proposal; being peaceable and charming will not deter resolute, cunning and ruthless enemies. I have wondered how this resolution would be enforced?

Then they should specify that their primary goal is to ban or cripple conscription in those nations who employ it. That should be the focus of the proposal, not some fuzzy language about "pain" and "harm" that leaves itself open to hundreds of possible interpretations. The authors* have requested an honest examination of their work, and it has been given - their proposal is vague, and overreaches as a result. Trying to coyly hide language opposed to national defense is deception. If they intend to degrade our defense forces at a critical juncture, which is when conscription would typically be in force, they should say so directly.

Also, it's not as if anybody *can* be compelled to kill another, even in the heat of battle. The person refusing will likely end up dead one way or another as a result of their refusal, most likely due to enemy action. Barring mind control, I think that free will ultimately prevails.

And to Krioval, Eireann Fae spends merely 1% less on education than you do.

Then they are flushing money down the drain. We also have a much stronger economy, per capita, than do they, and while not sacrificing individual or political freedoms. You can see why the Imperial Chiefdom does not necessarily want to emulate their society - it may work for them, but we are accustomed to a certain standard of living.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

OOC: By "authors", I'm referring to Eireann Fae's delegation as a whole. I'm not aware of a formal coauthor at this time.

OOC 2: Beware of national stats. People can and do RP their nations differently from the formal stats the game assigns, though I play Krioval as being fairly similar - deviating when it comes to individual health (I RP it better than the stats seem to show) and courtesy toward foreigners (Kriovallers are notoriously snarky and foulmouthed when it suits them, but they're typically much more polite toward visitors).

[Parti Ouvrier]

We are dismayed by what you are being accused of. We see no deceit in this resolution and believe it to be a genuine call for peace. What we do think however, is that the resolution is impossiblist and ultra-left. That said we support your ideals, not your strategic aims with this proposal; being peaceable and charming will not deter resolute, cunning and ruthless enemies. I have wondered how this resolution would be enforced?

Then they should specify that their primary goal is to ban or cripple conscription in those nations who employ it. That should be the focus of the proposal, not some fuzzy language about "pain" and "harm" that leaves itself open to hundreds of possible interpretations. The authors* have requested an honest examination of their work, and it has been given - their proposal is vague, and overreaches as a result. Trying to coyly hide language opposed to national defense is deception. If they intend to degrade our defense forces at a critical juncture, which is when conscription would typically be in force, they should say so directly.

Also, it's not as if anybody *can* be compelled to kill another, even in the heat of battle. The person refusing will likely end up dead one way or another as a result of their refusal, most likely due to enemy action. Barring mind control, I think that free will ultimately prevails.

And to Krioval, Eireann Fae spends merely 1% less on education than you do.

Then they are flushing money down the drain. We also have a much stronger economy, per capita, than do they, and while not sacrificing individual or political freedoms. You can see why the Imperial Chiefdom does not necessarily want to emulate their society - it may work for them, but we are accustomed to a certain standard of living.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

I still doubt that it was the intention of the Ambassador to deceive. It is clear to see that Eireann Fae is a utopian society that cannot possibly be spread throughout the WA with this current proposal.

Spokesperson on behalf of Parti Ouvrier

[Eireann Fae]

Rowan smiles as she rises to address the Embolalian Ambassador. "I was wondering if you would make an appearance. And yes, I imagine the effect will be quite jarring as the oppressed subjects of militaristic tyrants--sorry, I really should be trying to use more neutral language..." The girl takes a deep breath and tries again. "Yes, unfortunately there is a high likelihood of a disruption in military affairs for the period of time immediately following this resolution's passage. However, as we have stated before, we are champions of individual liberties, and believe that the drone comes before the hive. As we have made clear during the debate of your own proposal, we do believe in the person's right to 'conscientiously object' to harming others at any time, for any reason. Or no reason, to put a finer point on it."

The girl frowns as she mulls over the Ambassador's second primary assertion. "If a nation is kidnapping their subjects and tossing them into the field of battle against their will, Eireann Fae hereby reminds the subjects of such nations that our borders are completely open to all refugees, citizenship and/or sanctuary available to all. I find the very idea of your suggestion being a reality somewhere quite alarming. Atrocities do happen in this world, though, and while we cannot stop all of them, we will do what we can." Rowan smiles again at the Embolalian's last statement. "You really should not. Forcing a being to butcher animals against their will? Abhorrent!" Her tone suggests facetiousness, but they make no move to change the text of the proposal.

Dropping the smile again to turn and address the more serious concerns of the Keronian Ambassador, Rowan continues. "We do not care indeed, Ambassador. We disagree with the practice of conscription - why would we care that our proposal renders it, apparently, 'useless'? We disagree with that assertion, but I assure you, the ideal does not bother us in the least. Forcing a person to harm another person is never required, in the eyes of the Eireann Fae. Everything is an 'internal' policy, until the Assembly gets their fangs into it. We are taking a bite at ending the terrible practice of forcing people to kill."

"The definition of pain is well-documented, and our use of it here is intentionally broad. I suppose a prank could be considered as inflicting pain, depending on the nature of the prank. I fail to see your point in bringing up pranks and bullying, though. These are, to the best of our knowledge, people that want to cause such discomfort to others, and the third clause of this resolution explicitly allows them to do so. The difference is, the State cannot compel someone to play pranks, or be a bully. The person may still choose to do such things of their own volition, however (and face the consequences of their actions)."

"You do not have to keep support personnel, Ambassador. You could, of course, stop using conscription, and keep your support-to-trigger-man ratio at its optimal levels." The girl smiles for the first time while addressing the Keronian. "Or you could adjust your tactics so that less killing is needed to defend your nation, and rely on superior non-violent techniques to win your battles. Restrain or render unconscious the opposing military, for instance, or build stronger fortifications. There are more ways to secure the sovereignty of your nation, even with a military, than by simply killing as many foreigners as possible."

"I will overlook your suggestion of violence to prod an employee to do their job... We stand by the simplicity of ending a contract, Ambassador. If a man wishes to risk lowering his weapon in the heat of battle and decide to start objecting to violence then and there, that is his prerogative. Would you have another soldier force the objector into a firing position and squeeze his trigger? What good would it do to secure such a man in prison? He certainly cannot serve your nation in any capacity there, except as an example of tyranny, perhaps. Ahem." 'Stop that!' Rowan thinks, silently admonishing herself. 'You cannot win hearts and minds with such aggression!'

"Anyway, I find the idea of 'objecting' medics and firefighters in the middle of their task as ludicrous as the idea of a surgeon walking away from their patient. Most firemen would realize that extinguishing the fire presently consuming the victim is likely less harmful than allowing the blaze to continue, and would not likely walk away from such a task. If he did, he would be the one to live with allowing the victim to burn to death, and the social judgements that would likely be cast upon him. If a citizen of your nation goes through years or decades of schooling, why do you think they would suddenly object to doing the job they trained so long for? Do you really believe that a surgeon who spends a dozen years and a small fortune acquiring the skills he needs to do his work is going to walk away from that job should this resolution pass, just because the law would say his government could not force him to take scalpel to flesh? Your arguments, while similar to others that have been expressed here, have no basis in reality."

"The policy of Eireann Fae, if voluntary defense is not possible, is to flee. I understand it has been done only a couple of times in the past few thousand years, but I have been instructed in evacuation measures, and made aware of possible future sites for the Community. We see no problem with 'flight before fight' tactics. Of course, the Faeries usually come to our defense, voluntarily, so I would not recommend anyone spawning invasion plans to actually attempt to carry them out." Rowan smiles as she looks around the room. "Our Community has been attacked more than a few times in the past few millenia - we do not always run." Rowan and Alexandra both smile at the Keronian Ambassador as he makes his closing statement.

The younger girl turns her attention now to the Ambassador from Parti Ouvrier. "Our idea is pretty far to the 'left', is it not? You say it is impossible, we prefer implausible; and as long as we feel this resolution has a chance at passing, we will continue to support the measure. We are glad that you see the honesty in what we are attempting to do here, and moreso that you at least tend to agree with the principles. Enforcement, I suppose, would be handled by the Gnomes."

Wincing slightly as she hears the northman's^† voice, Rowan sighs and turns to face the Kriovalan Ambassador. "Our primary goal is to prevent national governments from forcing their subjects to inflict harm, pain or death on other sentient beings. Conscription, in particular, never entered our minds while drafting this proposal. It has come up in debate, of course, and we have defended our position against conscription, but that is not primary goal of this legislation. You should know by now that we like the 'fuzzy language', assuming that's what you call unabashedly supporting individual rights, and recognize that our primary goal is to stop people from forcing other people to harm other people."

"We agree that people can, of course, simply drop their guns in the heat of battle, and are glad that you at least acknowledge that fact. All we are attempting to do is codify in the General Assembly what Nature of Free Will already allows. Perhaps such an idea will make this an easier pill to swallow?"

^† You're viking in my head. Correct me if I'm wrong :-)
(OOC: I more or less RP my nation as complying to both the WA and the issues I answer. I RP as not using currency, but that that information is still probably a good indicator of where I'm paying the most attention, socially. The Fae are more concerned about Social Welfare, Education, and Administration than anything else, and last time I checked spent $0 in Law & Order and Military :-)

[Parti Ouvrier]

Thank you Ambassador.

Spokesperson on behalf of Parti Ouvrier.

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra rises, holding a bit of parchment with a short quote written upon it. "A nice argument supporting what we are attempting to accomplish here has just been uttered by one of our fellow Ambassadors. And I quote,

Freedom is the primary value which defines life, to think, act and live independently is to be alive. There can be no life without freedom. To be enslaved to another being's life is to be dead. The right to choose what happens to one's own body is central to the concept of freedom and freedom is definitive of life, therefore to be deprived of the right to control what happens to one's own body is to have death thrust upon one.

"I wish to thank the Khan for his inspiring words in celebration of freedom!"

[Parti Ouvrier]

Alexandra rises, holding a bit of parchment with a short quote written upon it. "A nice argument supporting what we are attempting to accomplish here has just been uttered by one of our fellow Ambassadors. And I quote,

Freedom is the primary value which defines life, to think, act and live independently is to be alive. There can be no life without freedom. To be enslaved to another being's life is to be dead. The right to choose what happens to one's own body is central to the concept of freedom and freedom is definitive of life, therefore to be deprived of the right to control what happens to one's own body is to have death thrust upon one.

"I wish to thank the Khan for his inspiring words in celebration of freedom!"

Of course it has been known in our nation that an Officer that objects to giving orders, (that would cause harm to others) has been shot. Also, orders have to be obeyed without discussion.

[Krioval]

Wincing slightly as she hears the northman's^† voice, Rowan sighs and turns to face the Kriovalan Ambassador. "Our primary goal is to prevent national governments from forcing their subjects to inflict harm, pain or death on other sentient beings. Conscription, in particular, never entered our minds while drafting this proposal. It has come up in debate, of course, and we have defended our position against conscription, but that is not primary goal of this legislation. You should know by now that we like the 'fuzzy language', assuming that's what you call unabashedly supporting individual rights, and recognize that our primary goal is to stop people from forcing other people to harm other people."

I will concede the very specific point that you may not have meant to make this debate about conscription and its mechanisms of enforcement. That said, you are now very much aware of this being a central aspect of the debate, intended or not, and it must therefore be addressed. Further, your goals are admirable, but you simply cannot leave key terms in your proposal undefined for the reasons I attempted to outline. "Pain" and "harm", for example, may have commonly used definitions, but WA legislation cannot assume this, nor can they be assumed to carry with them the unwritten intent of the author. The limits of this legislation need to be spelled out to reduce both unnecessary intrusion by the WA in the actions of its member states and loopholes by which member states can effectively ignore the legislation.

How a person might be coerced or compelled into a certain action should also be defined, in so much as it is possible. Include examples of the more important instances of what should not be allowed. Unlike whether to legalize or ban something completely, this issue is far more diffuse, and as such, requires more precision. Your proposal is currently very short, and it can easily be expanded to cover these issues. Krioval may even be made to support a revised draft, should the necessary work be undertaken.

"We agree that people can, of course, simply drop their guns in the heat of battle, and are glad that you at least acknowledge that fact. All we are attempting to do is codify in the General Assembly what Nature of Free Will already allows. Perhaps such an idea will make this an easier pill to swallow?"

As long as it is undertaken with a certain degree of legislative rigor, I can at least determine that the issue is worth the Assembly's time to consider. That does not necessarily mean Kriovaller support, but it does mean that we will note your respect for the process.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

OOC: Henrik is mostly Norwegian by ancestry, so "Viking" isn't too far off. He certainly considers himself one.

OOC 2: I get my information from NSDossier when I want to see stat-related stuff. Thank you, Texas!

[Embolalia]

Rowan smiles as she rises to address the Embolalian Ambassador. "I was wondering if you would make an appearance. And yes, I imagine the effect will be quite jarring as the oppressed subjects of militaristic tyrants--sorry, I really should be trying to use more neutral language..." The girl takes a deep breath and tries again. "Yes, unfortunately there is a high likelihood of a disruption in military affairs for the period of time immediately following this resolution's passage. However, as we have stated before, we are champions of individual liberties, and believe that the drone comes before the hive. As we have made clear during the debate of your own proposal, we do believe in the person's right to 'conscientiously object' to harming others at any time, for any reason. Or no reason, to put a finer point on it."

The girl frowns as she mulls over the Ambassador's second primary assertion. "If a nation is kidnapping their subjects and tossing them into the field of battle against their will, Eireann Fae hereby reminds the subjects of such nations that our borders are completely open to all refugees, citizenship and/or sanctuary available to all. I find the very idea of your suggestion being a reality somewhere quite alarming. Atrocities do happen in this world, though, and while we cannot stop all of them, we will do what we can." Rowan smiles again at the Embolalian's last statement. "You really should not. Forcing a being to butcher animals against their will? Abhorrent!" Her tone suggests facetiousness, but they make no move to change the text of the proposal.

Dropping the smile again to turn and address the more serious concerns of the Keronian Ambassador, Rowan continues. "We do not care indeed, Ambassador. We disagree with the practice of conscription - why would we care that our proposal renders it, apparently, 'useless'? We disagree with that assertion, but I assure you, the ideal does not bother us in the least. Forcing a person to harm another person is never required, in the eyes of the Eireann Fae. Everything is an 'internal' policy, until the Assembly gets their fangs into it. We are taking a bite at ending the terrible practice of forcing people to kill."

"The definition of pain is well-documented, and our use of it here is intentionally broad. I suppose a prank could be considered as inflicting pain, depending on the nature of the prank. I fail to see your point in bringing up pranks and bullying, though. These are, to the best of our knowledge, people that want to cause such discomfort to others, and the third clause of this resolution explicitly allows them to do so. The difference is, the State cannot compel someone to play pranks, or be a bully. The person may still choose to do such things of their own volition, however (and face the consequences of their actions)."

"You do not have to keep support personnel, Ambassador. You could, of course, stop using conscription, and keep your support-to-trigger-man ratio at its optimal levels." The girl smiles for the first time while addressing the Keronian. "Or you could adjust your tactics so that less killing is needed to defend your nation, and rely on superior non-violent techniques to win your battles. Restrain or render unconscious the opposing military, for instance, or build stronger fortifications. There are more ways to secure the sovereignty of your nation, even with a military, than by simply killing as many foreigners as possible."

"I will overlook your suggestion of violence to prod an employee to do their job... We stand by the simplicity of ending a contract, Ambassador. If a man wishes to risk lowering his weapon in the heat of battle and decide to start objecting to violence then and there, that is his prerogative. Would you have another soldier force the objector into a firing position and squeeze his trigger? What good would it do to secure such a man in prison? He certainly cannot serve your nation in any capacity there, except as an example of tyranny, perhaps. Ahem." 'Stop that!' Rowan thinks, silently admonishing herself. 'You cannot win hearts and minds with such aggression!'

"Anyway, I find the idea of 'objecting' medics and firefighters in the middle of their task as ludicrous as the idea of a surgeon walking away from their patient. Most firemen would realize that extinguishing the fire presently consuming the victim is likely less harmful than allowing the blaze to continue, and would not likely walk away from such a task. If he did, he would be the one to live with allowing the victim to burn to death, and the social judgements that would likely be cast upon him. If a citizen of your nation goes through years or decades of schooling, why do you think they would suddenly object to doing the job they trained so long for? Do you really believe that a surgeon who spends a dozen years and a small fortune acquiring the skills he needs to do his work is going to walk away from that job should this resolution pass, just because the law would say his government could not force him to take scalpel to flesh? Your arguments, while similar to others that have been expressed here, have no basis in reality."

"The policy of Eireann Fae, if voluntary defense is not possible, is to flee. I understand it has been done only a couple of times in the past few thousand years, but I have been instructed in evacuation measures, and made aware of possible future sites for the Community. We see no problem with 'flight before fight' tactics. Of course, the Faeries usually come to our defense, voluntarily, so I would not recommend anyone spawning invasion plans to actually attempt to carry them out." Rowan smiles as she looks around the room. "Our Community has been attacked more than a few times in the past few millenia - we do not always run." Rowan and Alexandra both smile at the Keronian Ambassador as he makes his closing statement.

The younger girl turns her attention now to the Ambassador from Parti Ouvrier. "Our idea is pretty far to the 'left', is it not? You say it is impossible, we prefer implausible; and as long as we feel this resolution has a chance at passing, we will continue to support the measure. We are glad that you see the honesty in what we are attempting to do here, and moreso that you at least tend to agree with the principles. Enforcement, I suppose, would be handled by the Gnomes."

Wincing slightly as she hears the northman's^† voice, Rowan sighs and turns to face the Kriovalan Ambassador. "Our primary goal is to prevent national governments from forcing their subjects to inflict harm, pain or death on other sentient beings. Conscription, in particular, never entered our minds while drafting this proposal. It has come up in debate, of course, and we have defended our position against conscription, but that is not primary goal of this legislation. You should know by now that we like the 'fuzzy language', assuming that's what you call unabashedly supporting individual rights, and recognize that our primary goal is to stop people from forcing other people to harm other people."

"We agree that people can, of course, simply drop their guns in the heat of battle, and are glad that you at least acknowledge that fact. All we are attempting to do is codify in the General Assembly what Nature of Free Will already allows. Perhaps such an idea will make this an easier pill to swallow?"

^† You're viking in my head. Correct me if I'm wrong :-)
(OOC: I more or less RP my nation as complying to both the WA and the issues I answer. I RP as not using currency, but that that information is still probably a good indicator of where I'm paying the most attention, socially. The Fae are more concerned about Social Welfare, Education, and Administration than anything else, and last time I checked spent $0 in Law & Order and Military :-)

This speech, and especially your response to my statements, betrays a complete and utter disregard for the possible consequences of your proposal. You say "unfortunately" there will be military disruption, and yet are completely unwilling to do anything about it. So one can reasonably surmise that you are either a troll or lying.
You are presenting this legislation for debate. The purpose of debating a proposal is to find flaws and fix them. You have shown a complete unwillingness to do so. You admit the flaws, but refuse to fix them! Honestly, I'm beginning to question why I'm bothering to respond! Am I talking to myself? Would I benefit by finding a brick wall, and talking to it instead?
Oh, and as to your claim that conscription wasn't in your mind when you wrote this, my language has a word for this: Ynwmhys. Means bullshit.

[Parti Ouvrier]

Settle down, it's not been submitted.

[Socklund]

Should this proposal come to a vote, we have regretfully instructed the Socklundian representative to cast eir vote AGAINST. This proposal is very much in line with our own ideals, but we are not convinced that it is reasonable or necessary to so drastically impair the militaries of countries that have a need for one. We prefer the Military Freedom Act.

[Tsim Sha Tsui]

This speech, and especially your response to my statements, betrays a complete and utter disregard for the possible consequences of your proposal. You say "unfortunately" there will be military disruption, and yet are completely unwilling to do anything about it. So one can reasonably surmise that you are either a troll or lying.

Are trolls and fairies related!? The Republic of Tsim Sha Tsui asks that the World Assembly form a committee to investigate this serous allegation!

Edit: I just noticed that in the Community of Eireann Fae organ donation is compulsory. How does that jibe with your "freedom for all" mantra? I also note that the fact that you spend nothing on crime-prevention shows... I feel for your (literally) poor police officers, with their high mortality rate, and the parents in your nation that must struggle against the youth-related crime their children are so exposed to.

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra rises now, taking her turn to address Ambassador Søgård as Rowan takes her seat and a sip of water. "Yes, we're well aware that one of the main points of contention here is on the topic of conscription. Our position is that we will always support the individual's right to not perform combative military service against their will. You, and others, probably call this a flaw in our defense of our proposal, but it is not such from our perspective. Our goal may not be to eliminate conscription, Ambassador, but we will not make allowances for the practice in our proposal."

"I suppose, however, that it is a small concession to define the actions people are to be defending from performing against their will. Would something like this suffice?

DEFINES "pain" as the condition of suffering or anguish of the mental, emotional, or spiritual sort, or bodily suffering, resulting from a derangement of functions, disease, or injury by violence;
DEFINES "harm" as causing injury, perceived or real, to another being;

"The definitions are open to negotiation, of course. It's still our opinion that 'compel' is a word with a solid enough definition to be understood without making this resolution any more of a glossary, but if you really feel that strongly about it, we are open to suggestion. Thanks for being one of the few not directly supporting this proposal to at least recognise the sincerity with which we make the proposal. If only all the 'opposition' were so helpful." Alexandra closes with a smile.

The smile doesn't last long, however, fading quickly as her attention is redirected to the Embolalian Ambassador. "We are unwilling to support conscription because we don't like conscription. Do you seriously expect us to coddle your generals while trying to pass a bill that does the exact opposite of conscription? Holding an opposing viewpoint does not make one a liar, and there are no trolls in Eireann Fae^†. As I've said before, we don't consider this proposal's effects on conscription to be a flaw in it. Ergo, it does not need 'fixing'. Clearly your are of a different opinion. That I cannot help. We will not please everybody, though, and I'm not even going to try. All I will do is what is in my power to secure the rights of people to not be forced to cause pain. 'Fixing' your perceived 'flaw' is counterproductive to what I am attempting to achieve here. Neither Rowan nor myself have ever said removing trigger-men from the conscription pool was a flaw, so we 'admit' to no flaws in the proposal."

"And watch your fucking mouth."

^† Alexandra, clearly, is not familiar with the practice of 'trolling'. I am, and I'm not doing it, and I'm starting to take your posts personally. Player, Alexandra, and Rowan have never lied nor trolled in this debate. The repeated accusations of such are uncalled for.

[Parti Ouvrier]

This speech, and especially your response to my statements, betrays a complete and utter disregard for the possible consequences of your proposal. You say "unfortunately" there will be military disruption, and yet are completely unwilling to do anything about it. So one can reasonably surmise that you are either a troll or lying.

Are trolls and fairies related!? The Republic of Tsim Sha Tsui asks that the World Assembly form a committee to investigate this serous allegation!

Edit: I just noticed that in the Community of Eireann Fae organ donation is compulsory. How does that jibe with your "freedom for all" mantra? I also note that the fact that you spend nothing on crime-prevention shows... I feel for your (literally) poor police officers, with their high mortality rate, and the parents in your nation that must struggle against the youth-related crime their children are so exposed to.

We believe this resolution was written with a sincere heart.
Police officers: The police in our nation, (the counter-revolutionaries) also have a high mortality rate. Our workers militia make sure they do not get fully established, hence, the police have a high mortality rate. And the crime rate can be attributed to rightist media propaganda, they report our proletarian militia as causing a lot of crime. I cannot speak for the nation of Eireann Fae, only the Ambassador is fully aware of why the E.F. has a high crime rate.

[Embolalia]

OOC: My posts are entirely in-character, except where noted otherwise. My character was the one making the comparison to trolling (Ambassador LLwyd is a touch more technophilic than your average politician). The accusations that your character has lied are, from a political and diplomatic point of view, absolutely justified. Your character has made statements in numerous debates stating her objection to conscription, so I hope you can see how it would be a rational assumption that your character would have had such opinions in mind while drafting this. To say otherwise is to say that your character's political decisions are made discretely and in a vacuum which generally isn't the case. Maybe it was. I don't know you, and I don't know your character very well. But the vast majority of people will have the arguments they make on one issue in mind when they're considering another issue that is almost precisely the same. Perhaps it's wrong to assume that your character acts the same way, but it's such a basic part of the concept of ideology that it's hard not to.

IC: Did I say you should support conscription? I did not. I stated that the fact that its failure to ban conscription properly, when combined with its other effects, has the potential for disastrous consequences. (When I speak of flaws, I also would include my "harming a fly" argument, to which you responded with such intransigence.) This you did say was true, if not in such words. Perhaps yours is different, but my definition of flaw includes a fault with the potential for negative consequences.

[Ossitania]

Since we first started taking an active role in the World Assembly, Ossitania has often found itself allied with the noble people of Eireann Fae; indeed, it was on Embolalia's first conscientious objection proposal that we first collaborated, arguing for concessions in that proposal to expand its protection of individual freedoms. It is therefore somewhat fitting, even poetic, to an extent, that the return of conscientious objection to the floor has found us on opposite sides of the fence.

Ossitania has the utmost respect for the idealism that Eireann Fae represents. To see the world as it is, to see the suffering, to see the horrors that plague the people of the world, and to even then be able to believe that the world doesn't have to be that way, to believe that a utopia is possible; that is the trait that defines Eireann Fae and, whatever you think of her politics, I think we can all agree that such idealism is admirable.

However, as always, Ossitania must present the core of its own political philosophy for scrutiny before the Assembly; idealism tempered with realism and pragmatism. Ossitania has a very consistent record of support for the advancement of human rights and the protection of individual freedoms. However, while abstract ideals and beliefs are important, indeed, it is these ideals and beliefs that differentiate us from mere beasts, we must take into account realistic, practical concerns about the proposals that are brought before us.

Moral absolutism is the downfall of this resolution. The honoured ambassadors from Eireann Fae have stood up and said "never". My only logical response is that one must never say never.

By all means, have your beliefs, have your strict morals, but never put honour before reason. Principles are all well and good, but they don't put food on the table. No one ever stopped a bullet with belief. It is simply preposterous for the ambassadors from Eireann Fae, in fact, it is simply preposterous for anyone to say "it is always immoral to do this". For every moral belief, there are a set of circumstances where abiding totally and strictly by that moral belief would in of itself be immoral. If a man is kidnapped by terrorists and given the choice between killing his family or the terrorists bombing the capital city, you can bet your left testicle that I'll try and force that guy to kill his family. I'm sorry if that came out callous but if it's a choice between killing four people and traumatising one versus the deaths of thousands, I'm going to save the thousands. I believe strongly, so strongly, in human rights and individual freedoms but I could never support a proposal that put them above human life.

Unfortunately, that's what this proposal does. It is an absolutist proposal and absolutism is a road that could lead to ruin if it passes through a certain place at a certain time, creating a set of circumstances that lead to death and destruction.

As I said earlier, I admire the idealism shown by the nation of Eireann Fae and I hold the utmost respect for her people. But I cannot support her politics. Time and time again, the ambassadors of Eireann Fae have shown themselves unwilling to compromise on their beliefs and, in this way, they have put honour before reason, abstract ideals before practical concerns and, most disagreeably, the advancement of human rights before the protection of human lives.

Ossitania is firmly opposed to the proposal.

However, just because we find ourselves standing against the ambassadors for Eireann Fae does not mean we cannot defend them and just because we find ourselves in alliance with Mr. Heir, Dr. Castro, ProtoConsul Thorgood, Mr. Søgård and Ambassador Llwyd does not mean we cannot attack them if necessary.

We have found the behaviour on the part of the opposition to be totally lacking in the decorum, etiquette and class that should be rightly expected of a national representative. Flippant dismissals of the matter at hand, baseless accusations of deceit based on nothing more than an arrogant, fallacious presumption that one's opponent acts and thinks a certain way when they do no such thing, blatant insults against the culture of one's opponents, snide remarks about the personal beliefs of the other side; is this what our great legislature has been reduced to? Are we so cynical and suspicious that when a genuinely idealistic person makes a proposal, we assume deceit and lies on her part? Have we become so jaded and paranoid that we find it more logical to read between imaginary lines than flirt with the idea that someone might actually believe strongly enough in something to propose and advocate it without ulterior motives?

That's what it looks like to me, and it is, frankly, embarrassing. At least Mr. Søgård has conceded that he approached certain things from a position of misunderstanding, a concession for which he is to be commended; it isn't easy to admit that one is wrong. Perhaps it is a skill that some of the rest of you need to learn.

[Quelesh]

Oh, and you mean sapient. Unless you think nobody should be required to kill flies, though I certainly wouldn't put that past you.

I believe that sentient is the more appropriate term in this instance. Under what circumstances, exactly, should a state force a person to harm a fly? Even if, for example, the legislative building is infested with flies, forcing someone to kill those flies is not necessary. The state can hire an exterminator who will be quite willing to kill the flies voluntarily. If the exterminator is unwilling to do so, then she will likely not find much future work as an exterminator, and the state can hire someone else to do it. No one need be forced to kill the flies.

To force someone to harm a non-sapient animal is repugnant.

I will concede the very specific point that you may not have meant to make this debate about conscription and its mechanisms of enforcement. That said, you are now very much aware of this being a central aspect of the debate, intended or not, and it must therefore be addressed. Further, your goals are admirable, but you simply cannot leave key terms in your proposal undefined for the reasons I attempted to outline. "Pain" and "harm", for example, may have commonly used definitions, but WA legislation cannot assume this, nor can they be assumed to carry with them the unwritten intent of the author. The limits of this legislation need to be spelled out to reduce both unnecessary intrusion by the WA in the actions of its member states and loopholes by which member states can effectively ignore the legislation.

Why are pain and harm the only terms that need to be explicitly defined in the text of the proposal? Why not inhabitant, compelled, inflict, sentient, being, persecuted, prosecuted, punished or refusal? If a word has a commonly-accepted definition, it need not be explicitly defined.

Also, I have noticed something else in the text of the proposal that I would recommend changing: at the end of clause 2, "inflict harm" should be changed to "inflict harm, pain or death" to be consistent with clause 1, and to close a potential loophole.

the advancement of human rights before the protection of human lives.

The state should protect both rights and lives to the best of its ability, but it should not protect lives at the expense of rights. The safest state that I can imagine, in terms of avoiding death, is one in which everyone is forcibly held in some kind of stasis, their bodies maintained artificially by feeding tubes or other mechanisms. They would be completely safe from physical harm, but would have no rights whatsoever. States routinely use the protection of safety as an excuse for the abridgement of rights.

[Eireann Fae]

Alexandra turns to the Embolalian Ambassador and makes a brief statement. "This proposal fails to ban conscription 'properly' because it is not designed, explicitly, to ban conscription. Rowan mocked your observation regarding us and harming flies because she thought you were insincere. As Delegate Yadoru has pointed out, we would indeed like these protections afforded to 'lower life forms', including flies. I hope that's clear enough for everyone. And Ambassador, every resolution has the potential for negative consequences, depending on the actions of the law and one's point of view. This cannot be helped. All we can do is attempt to do what we set out to do, and minimize the damage. Epifkœ has just suggested a compromise, which I will share with the Assembly after my response to the unfortunate stance of my colleague from Ossitania..."

The adolescent sighs deeply, brushes a loose strand of raven-black hair from her hazel eyes, and directs her gaze at the Ossitanian Ambassador. "I am sorry you feel that way, Ambassador. I must say, it sounds like you think us naïve for having such dreams and pursuing them, which makes me sad. Not that you could be so condescending towards our goals, but that you have to be. It's like you said - the world ain't paradise, and not everybody lives in their own utopia. But we're here to tell you now, it's not for lack of trying. We are in a position help a large swath of the population of the world - indeed, of many worlds."

"I must protest at having flat-out said 'never'. There are some things we will not bend for, and some things we can. In a few moments, I will offer such a compromise, which I believe will may the bill more palatable in a number of ways. Not all of them, of course - I have no intention of promoting or protecting conscription, which seems to be the single largest point of contention we face. We will give a little, though, and it will simplify things." Alexandra takes a sip of pure, chilled H₂O, courtesy of Melöʃina, before continuing.

"Reason is a barrier to be overcome and redefined as we evolve, Ambassador, not a wall to keep us caged. There are cultures where it's completely reasonable to consider powered flight an affront to Nature, yet most of you have pressed on and even now sail the stars! If everybody only ever did what was 'reasonable', where would science be? How many marvels of sapient ingenuity would have never seen the light of day had they not railed against the barrier that others called 'reason'? People put their beliefs before logic many times for many causes, Ambassador. This one is ours."

"You would have the man kill his family to save your city. Imagine how the man's wife would feel about that. Imagine how the man's daughter would feel, staring, terrified, into her father's eyes as you force him to hold a gun to her head and squeeze the trigger. Imagine how her brother feels, watching this and knowing he's next. You are worried about the capital - a collection of buildings in a place arbitrarily chosen as your center of government. We are concerned with the lives of everyone else. We understand your point of view, Ambassador. We just don't agree with it."

"I thank you again for your acknowledgement of our sincerity and spirit, and respect your difference of political opinion. You say we put honour before reason, I say we defy the establishment to secure the rights of individuals. You say we put abstract ideals before practical concerns, I say the right to not be forced to kill is a fairly solid ideal, and comes before the logistical concerns of a nation's military. I flat-out disagree with your assertion that we disregard human lives, but I understand where you're coming from with that. Delegate Yadoru put it quite nicely when she said 'the state should protect both rights and lives ... but it should not protect lives at the expense of rights'." She subconsciously emphasizes the word in the same manner the Delegate had. "Our socio-political differences are many, but at least we can share mutual respect." Alexandra smiles at the Ossitanian Ambassador, demonstrating the sincerity of her wish for continued cordiality.

"Also, I'd like to personally thank you for the defense of our character, and for standing up for the proper decorum demanded by this august body. We often hear this place referred to as the 'festering snakepit', but I never held much stock in that title, until recently. Please don't let me get too jaded here, Ambassadors! I'm only fourteen!" The girl smirks to show she's kidding, but does think it'd be nice if there was a bit more civility in the Assembly. It's been getting uncomfortable lately...

"Now, about that change." Alexandra looks around at the Assembly, particularly at the Ambassadors that have been involved so far in the debate. "What if I changed the active clauses to read 'physical injury or death' rather than 'harm, pain or death'? It would simplify the text of the resolution, in our opinion taking away the need for definitions entirely, and would narrow its effect. As I indicated earlier, the so-called 'damage' to conscription remains, but the text would be less ambiguous, and easier to enforce. Of course, we do not expect this to please everybody, but surely it is a change for the better, yeah?"

[Quelesh]

"Now, about that change." Alexandra looks around at the Assembly, particularly at the Ambassadors that have been involved so far in the debate. "What if I changed the active clauses to read 'physical injury or death' rather than 'harm, pain or death'? It would simplify the text of the resolution, in our opinion taking away the need for definitions entirely, and would narrow its effect. As I indicated earlier, the so-called 'damage' to conscription remains, but the text would be less ambiguous, and easier to enforce. Of course, we do not expect this to please everybody, but surely it is a change for the better, yeah?"

If such a change is necessary to gain enough support for passage, then it would not be unacceptable. The proposal would still be a bold step forward even with this change. That said, it is not my preference. I would imagine that a state forcing an individual to inflict mental or otherwise nonphysical pain or damage on others is rarer than its physical counterpart, but it is still reprehensible and would be rightly prohibited by this Assembly.

[Coxnord]

"Now, about that change." Alexandra looks around at the Assembly, particularly at the Ambassadors that have been involved so far in the debate. "What if I changed the active clauses to read 'physical injury or death' rather than 'harm, pain or death'? It would simplify the text of the resolution, in our opinion taking away the need for definitions entirely, and would narrow its effect. As I indicated earlier, the so-called 'damage' to conscription remains, but the text would be less ambiguous, and easier to enforce. Of course, we do not expect this to please everybody, but surely it is a change for the better, yeah?"

While The Holy Empire has supported this resolution from the start, we are becoming ever more aware of not only the noble intentions but also the impressive competence of its authors. As I myself became a bit concerned earlier when references were made to homework being harmful, concerned about the possibility of different interpretations of the clauses proposed here, I think a change to 'physical injury or death' is a sound one. As I do not like resolutions that look like dictionaries or are so complexly written that the text seems to push itself into a corner, I must applaud the authors for their continuous efforts of maintaining this draft a straight-forward, concise resolution comprehensible a prima vista. As reality is that enforcement of physical injury and death is much more prevalent than enforcement of mental, emotional and spiritual distress, suffering and anguish, the former remains a matter deserving a higher degree of immediate attention, although The Holy Empire most definitely would be sympathetic towards any future legislation addressing the latter.

[Krioval]

Why are pain and harm the only terms that need to be explicitly defined in the text of the proposal? Why not inhabitant, compelled, inflict, sentient, being, persecuted, prosecuted, punished or refusal? If a word has a commonly-accepted definition, it need not be explicitly defined.

Oh. I'm "sorry". Did I specify a starting point for revision in the proposal? And I'm unaware of the provision in WA law that specifies that "a commonly-accepted definition" is automatically the one and only way to interpret things. I suppose this is why no resolutions have ever had any loopholes or other vagueness that leads to problems down the road. Ever.

While I may attempt to subscribe to the reasonable nations theory and its derivatives, cleaning up a proposal's language to reduce or eliminate vagueness is a good thing, and it should be encouraged. If you think otherwise, then you're a shoddy legislator who will see many repeals in your future.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Suckeryou]

There goes the whole Bondage industry.

Little Lana won't be able to bring out the gimp anymore....





And that's about all that I could post here....

[Krioval]

There goes the whole Bondage industry.

Little Lana won't be able to bring out the gimp anymore....

[giant image redacted]

And that's about all that I could post here....

At the risk of having to channel my opponents here, does your nation actually force people to practice BDSM? If not, then this proposal really wouldn't apply to you.

Henrik Søgård
Imperial Chiefdom of Krioval

[Ossitania]

The state should protect both rights and lives to the best of its ability, but it should not protect lives at the expense of rights. The safest state that I can imagine, in terms of avoiding death, is one in which everyone is forcibly held in some kind of stasis, their bodies maintained artificially by feeding tubes or other mechanisms. They would be completely safe from physical harm, but would have no rights whatsoever. States routinely use the protection of safety as an excuse for the abridgement of rights.

I agree with you totally, ambassador, states should strive to strike a balance between rights and lives and should always strive to make that balance more balanced. What I am saying is that this resolution doesn't strike that balance; it tips the see-saw disproportionately towards "rights" and sends several of those on the "lives" side tumbling to the ground.

"You would have the man kill his family to save your city. Imagine how the man's wife would feel about that. Imagine how the man's daughter would feel, staring, terrified, into her father's eyes as you force him to hold a gun to her head and squeeze the trigger. Imagine how her brother feels, watching this and knowing he's next. You are worried about the capital - a collection of buildings in a place arbitrarily chosen as your center of government. We are concerned with the lives of everyone else. We understand your point of view, Ambassador. We just don't agree with it."

I am not concerned about the collection of buildings, honoured ambassador, I'm concerned about the millions of people in those buildings.

And, believe me, I can imagine all those things. One does that not see as much conflict as I have; two civil wars, a coup, several years of extended guerrilla warfare against a brutal dictatorship; and not come face to face with the harsh realities of our world. In fact, it is these harsh realities that put me in the position I find myself in; advocating ideals in theory but opposing them in practice.

"I thank you again for your acknowledgement of our sincerity and spirit, and respect your difference of political opinion. You say we put honour before reason, I say we defy the establishment to secure the rights of individuals. You say we put abstract ideals before practical concerns, I say the right to not be forced to kill is a fairly solid ideal, and comes before the logistical concerns of a nation's military. I flat-out disagree with your assertion that we disregard human lives, but I understand where you're coming from with that. Delegate Yadoru put it quite nicely when she said 'the state should protect both rights and lives ... but it should not protect lives at the expense of rights'."

While the first few comments are really a matter of semantics, I feel the need to reiterate that I totally agree with the revered ambassador from Quelesh but that I believe the opposite is also true; the state should not protect rights at the expense of lives, which is what I believe this proposal would do and, hence, why I oppose it, despite believing totally in the ideals it represents.