NationStates

Glen-Rhodes wrote:For what it counts, I wouldn't give two canaries if NAZI EUROPE was filled with white supremacist-shouting, Jew-bashing Nazis. The World Assembly still does not have the right or authority to formally condemn them for their beliefs. This doesn't make me a Nazi sympathizer. It makes me a free speech advocate.

Sadly Free speech only happens if you're speaking about something they approve of

Scarsaw wrote:

Glen-Rhodes wrote:For what it counts, I wouldn't give two canaries if NAZI EUROPE was filled with white supremacist-shouting, Jew-bashing Nazis. The World Assembly still does not have the right or authority to formally condemn them for their beliefs. This doesn't make me a Nazi sympathizer. It makes me a free speech advocate.

Sadly Free speech only happens if you're speaking about something they approve of

Comments from a member of my region (I suppose we're being cited as representative? ) were referenced early in the repeal process, as proof that this as an ideological witch hunt. For several of our members, I would say that description is accurate. (Notably, our Monarch is not one of them, and seems to be of the opinion that this constitutes discrimination based on the conflation of NS with RL history and ideology.)

For my part, this issue has been an interesting collision of motivations. I give permission for the Nazi rally every time that issue comes up, simply because I believe in the importance of free speech. However, while I was not present for it, our regional military once engaged in an anti-Nazi mission, and that sub-agenda has, with admittedly little ideological examination, since been incorporated into our training information (though our latest statement of military policy may cause us to examine that clause more closely).

With all of that said, I was originally inclined not to approve the original Condemnation. When I clicked on the regional link from the proposal here, I was not expecting to see much that could serve as legitimate cause for a Condemnation. Unfortunately, perhaps, at that moment (July 8, 00:20 GMT) there happened to be a discussion taking place on the RMB about a detailed plan for implementing the "Final Solution." I promptly reported it, but you may be sure that experience has colored my impressions of the region. However much I desire the protection of free speech, I do not believe that protection extends to publicly posting a 'how-to' guide for genocide, and my vote to condemn the region was made under the assumption - flawed, perhaps, but grounded in the only evidence I saw - that the members of Nazi Europe considered such behavior acceptable and engaged in it whenever the mods weren't looking.

I appreciate hearing from Scarsaw through this process, who seems to have made use of the National Socialism ideology in a way that does not threaten the lives of others either IC or OOC (zombies being, by definition, not alive). I admire the creativity and the intellectual audacity that is involved in administering such a nation. However, my reservations about the nature of Nazi Europe as a region remain... particularly, I note that Nazi Europe has recently invaded Anarchy and Socialist Utopia, and seems to be attempting to lock it down via password. While I would not condemn a region simply for raiding, such behavior does not make me inclined to repeal their condemnation, either.

I understand the argument that this forms a troubling SC precedent, and would support mod removal of the Condemnation for that reason. However, since I did not vote on the Condemnation in order to condemn an ideology (RL or otherwise) but in order to condemn a very specific range of behavior in-game, I will not be voting for this repeal.

Naivetry wrote:(long quote)

And if Equilism was being condemned for ideology-based military missions and I voted to condemn them because they don't like bunny wabbits, that wouldn't make much sense either. I'm sorry, but I have to point out that if you voted for the condemnation, you voted for condemning their ideology. That's what the condemnation was about, not some user that posted an offensive message. That's what the record would show, if there was a permanent record. If you truly believe that that the World Assembly shouldn't condemn on ideological grounds, then support the repeal. You'd be supporting the repeal of an ideological condemnation, not a repeal of a condemnation of those RMB messages or a silly raid.

(Edited: No need for my angst, I suppose.)

Glen-Rhodes wrote:And if Equilism was being condemned for ideology-based military missions and I voted to condemn them because they don't like bunny wabbits, that wouldn't make much sense either. I'm sorry, but I have to point out that if you voted for the condemnation, you voted for condemning their ideology. That's what the condemnation was about, not some user that posted an offensive message. That's what the record would show, if there was a permanent record. If you truly believe that that the World Assembly shouldn't condemn on ideological grounds, then support the repeal. You'd be supporting the repeal of an ideological condemnation, not a repeal of a condemnation of those RMB messages or a silly raid.

(Edited: No need for my angst, I suppose.)

I have heard ambassadors argue that the text of a repeal doesn't matter, just the operative clause. I realize that is a point of some controversy and disagreement, but it is the position I seem to have arrived at with C/C's as well.

I know that must be frustrating, and I can understand why, since I usually take the opposite approach (that the wording absolutely does matter) when considering GA legislation and repeals.

Eh. I'll consider it.

Apologies for causing it!

Naivetry wrote:I have heard ambassadors argue that the text of a repeal doesn't matter, just the operative clause. I realize that is a point of some controversy and disagreement, but it is the position I seem to have arrived at with C/C's as well.

I know that must be frustrating, and I can understand why, since I usually take the opposite approach (that the wording absolutely does matter) when considering GA legislation and repeals.

Eh. I'll consider it.

Apologies for causing it!

I haven't seen anybody say that, but I wouldn't doubt it. Anyways, I just wanted to get the point across that repealing "Condemn NAZI EUROPE" doesn't mean okaying whatever actions you saw, or whatever raids they might do or are doing. If a condemnation for those arose -- a condemnation that didn't have a sense of being a Nazi witch-hunt -- then that would be fine. But this repeal and the original condemnation don't address those things. So, I do hope you'll reconsider it and come down on the side you think is the right one.

Firstaria wrote:THAT IS IDEOLOGICAL BAN. You can hate it, screw it, invading every region with NAZI in the name, but involving a resolution is AGANIST the rules. The fact it passed is only because...well i don't know, miracle or mod distracted by summer.

No, it is only against the 'General Assembly' rules... which, for better or for worse, don't apply to 'Security Council' proposals/resolutions.

What Bears Armed said. Also, to Condemn is not the same as to Ban. "Ban" says it's illegal; "condemn" says "we don't like it". And it ain't summer here.

Well it rather depends on one's definition of a Ban. A condemnation can quite easily be seen as a form of ban, especially when that condemnation comes in the form of a legal resolution. GA bans on Ideologies were partly against the rules because they were unenforceable and a Condemnation acts as a kind of enforcement of the WA view on a specific ideology, and since we can't actually eject members for their views this is the closest we're likely to get ( I hope), so taken in the round I cannot really see how a condemnation of an ideology is practically any different from a ban on one.

Urgench wrote:Well it rather depends on one's definition of a Ban. A condemnation can quite easily be seen as a form of ban, especially when that condemnation comes in the form of a legal resolution. GA bans on Ideologies were partly against the rules because they were unenforceable and a Condemnation acts as a kind of enforcement of the WA view on a specific ideology, and since we can't actually eject members for their views this is the closest we're likely to get ( I hope), so taken in the round I cannot really see how a condemnation of an ideology is practically any different from a ban on one.

a condemnation just serves to attract attention and members to a region so it's actually a good thing. "sure we don't like the way you think so have some free publicity" is the main thinking. Also I now support a repeal.

Glen-Rhodes wrote:

The World Assembly,

REALIZING that the World Assembly has a tradition of staying neutral, when it comes to denouncing or celebrating any given political, economic, or religious ideology,

NOTING that Security Council Resolution #3 condemns a political and religious ideology outright, and not any specifically condemnable actions taken by NAZI EUROPE, and that in doing so, the World Assembly has made it permissible to assert prejudice in to its resolutions,

HOPING that all the members of the World Assembly realize how paramount upholding freedom of expression and speech is, even if such expression or speech is viewed as deplorable by society,

ALSO NOTING that NAZI EUROPE has not caused any international problems by exercising their freedom of expression,

ASSERTING that by condemning any given political, economic, or religious ideology, the World Assembly threatens to limit freedom of expression and speech,

ENCOURAGING member states to thoughtfully analyze and dismiss any resolution that attempts to declare one ideology acceptable or deplorable,

BELIEVING that condemnations are to be directed at nations or regions and not ideological beliefs,

The World Assembly hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #3, "Condemn NAZI EUROPE".

The proposal has reached the quorum threshold and is now in queue to be voted on! But, you can still add your support and approve of if it here: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_pro ... match=nazi

I will NOT be supporting this resolution.

Would the ambassador from James Bluntus care to inform the World Assembly of his reasoning?

[Lord] Michael Evif
Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Nasicournian Officer

Description: WA Security Council Resolution #3: Condemn NAZI EUROPE shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

REALIZING that the World Assembly has a tradition of staying neutral, when it comes to denouncing or celebrating any given political, economic, or religious ideology,

NOTING that Security Council Resolution #3 condemns a political and religious ideology outright, and not any specifically condemnable actions taken by NAZI EUROPE, and that in doing so, the World Assembly has made it permissible to assert prejudice in to its resolutions,

HOPING that all the members of the World Assembly realize how paramount upholding freedom of expression and speech is, even if such expression or speech is viewed as deplorable by society,

ALSO NOTING that NAZI EUROPE has not caused any international problems by exercising their freedom of expression,

ASSERTING that by condemning any given political, economic, or religious ideology, the World Assembly threatens to limit freedom of expression and speech,

ENCOURAGING member states to thoughtfully analyze and dismiss any resolution that attempts to declare one ideology acceptable or deplorable,

BELIEVING that condemnations are to be directed at nations or regions and not ideological beliefs,

The World Assembly hereby repeals Security Council Resolution #3, "Condemn NAZI EUROPE".

---

PRESIDING OFFICER: I now yield the floor

edit: n/m, thread was merged.

Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote:Next time, could you ask the author if he wishes to use the existing thread, before unilaterally creating a new one?

Especially considering the author had already requested that his be stickied.

Sorry, that was my accident. Carry on.

So I guess repeals count as GA proposals then? Even if they are repealing SC resolutions...

I vote for.

The Federation of Scarsaw votes for the repeal as we feel it was unfair to ban Nazi Europe with such a poorly written and ideology based condemnation.

I must say .. I am not surprised that the repeal is losing (though as of my post its close)- its the same mindset that got this horrible thing passed off as resolution.. passed. "Nazi is bad vote to condemn them" now its "Nazi Bad must not repeal* sigh. I can only hope common sense prevails this time around. I am supporter of free expression and the repeal -

Wencee wrote:I must say .. I am not surprised that the repeal is losing- its the same mindset that got this horrible thing passed off as resolution.. passed. "Nazi is bad vote to condemn them" now its "Nazi Bad must not repeal* sigh.

It's losing by only 6 votes currently. It could pass by a very close margin... I'm hoping all the big delegates side with us.

The Dominion of Almajoya would like to state for the record that it has voted FOR this resolution and recommended its region mates do do the same.

OOC: Sorry so short, I have an appointment in half an hour.

I think the system will work and ideology ban will triumph on the prejudice. I voted for, and personally i think we have to speak to any delegate who vote aganist to convince them "witch hunting is more bad than nazi".

The Empire of Sudreich is appalled to hear that such a resolution managed to pass. As delegate of the Island Continent, I approve of this repeal and hope that ideological resolutions stay out of discussion within these esteemed halls.

As we oppose the condemnation of regions on the basis of their ideology, and having voted against the initial condemnation this resolution aims to repeal, we are in favour of the repeal. Not that the opinion of our nation matters one whit.

From the resolution:

the World Assembly has made it permissible to assert prejudice in to its resolutions

This line shows me why this measure doesn't "get it". I am fully against this measure, and fully in favor of condemning them.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. A great line from a great man. I think the rationale extends to many other emotions as well. We should fear fear, love love, and hate hate. We shouldn't tolerate intolerance, and we should treat bigotry and prejudice with a direct dose of bigotry and prejudice.

In this world, I believe you reap what you sow. I understand this is a game, and we've come together to create a fictitious world for the sake of entertainment and distraction, but this is one of those core values for me that I believe we cannot even entertain the illusion of supporting. Especially across a vast group of thousands of game players that we don't personally know.

This isn't a group of buddies joking with one another. This is a group of individuals who have sought out the comfort of other like-minded bigots. Whether or not they are able to act on their beliefs, this game should not even pretend to condone it.

I am not against freedom of belief. I simply believe that there is a price to pay for holding the most despicable of beliefs. You are free to think that child molestation is good, but don't go looking for an endorsement of thosebeliefs. If you do, and you get flak for it, well, GOOD!

Likewise for this region, created in Nation States.

Join with me in voting against this measure. I can appreciate that most voting for it are not people who discriminate in the real world. I am not trying to vilify those who support this measure on its intellectual merits. But I do think you are misguided in your judgement.

Good day!

First great bla bla, still not change the facts: this resolution passed under an ideological ban rule. If moderators have decided to not solve this, is our duty to make sure no one will be ever persecuted fot his ideology, good or bad. We all know Nazi is to condemn, but ONLY in RL.