[PASSED] Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action

[Goobergunchia]

Advancement of Anti-Fascist Action
A resolution to express a position on international affairs.

Category: Declaration | Proposed by: Cormactopia Prime

---

The Security Council:

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, a fascist region as any region that identifies as fascist or engages in the promotion of fascism, or willfully harbors fascist residents and permits them to promote fascism within the region or abroad;

Asserting that fascism is abhorrent by its very nature and should be granted no safe haven, given its utter contempt for civil rights and fueling of violent oppression based on race, ethnicity, and other immutable characteristics of identity;

Maintaining that fascist regions pose a universal and grave threat to the Security Council's mission to spread interregional peace and goodwill;

Praising prior interregional efforts to combat fascism, notably including multi-regional Antifa military operations and the Civil Defence Siren's outreach initiative regarding the dangers of residing in fascist regions;

Reaffirming the World Assembly's commitment to opposing the spread of fascism, as expressed in numerous resolutions previously passed by the Security Council to impose sanctions against various fascist regions;

Hereby declares the following guidelines to advance anti-fascist action throughout the world:

Article I. Regional Participation

1. No region should grant safe haven to fascist residents.
2. Any resident or member discovered to be fascist should be expelled from a region and barred from its communication infrastructure immediately upon discovery.
3. Should a region be unable to expel a fascist resident, the region should take all reasonable action to suppress that resident's use of regional communication infrastructure, taking special care to suppress promotion of fascist ideology.

Article II. Diplomatic Sanctions

1. No region should maintain diplomatic or cultural relations of any kind with a fascist region.
2. No World Assembly Delegate should approve or vote for any World Assembly proposal that would directly and primarily benefit a fascist nation or region.
3. No World Assembly Delegate should approve or vote for any World Assembly proposal submitted by a fascist nation or any nation residing in a fascist region, sponsored by a fascist region, or otherwise corrupted by the tenets of fascism.
4. Every World Assembly Delegate is encouraged to approve and vote for Security Council proposals to impose sanctions against fascist regions, provided such proposals do not grant disproportionate attention to the region in question.

Article III. Military Intervention

1. Regions are exhorted to participate in ad hoc or standing military coalitions for the defense of other regions against fascist military aggression, and for military interventions against fascist regions, putting aside disagreements or conflicts between participating regions.
2. To the extent practicable, military intervention against a fascist region should endeavor to place the region permanently under the control of coalition forces to prevent the region from ever again serving as safe haven for fascists or a platform for the promotion of fascism.
3. No region should provide military assistance to a fascist region in its invasion of another region, provide defense to a fascist region against military intervention, or permit a fascist region to assist in its military operations.

Article IV. Interregional Cooperation

1. To the extent applicable, interregional and non-regional organizations should adhere to the guidelines for regions declared by this resolution, and the guidelines herein applied to fascist regions are equally applicable to fascist interregional and non-regional organizations.
2. Regions and organizations are urged to impose proportionate diplomatic, military, or other sanctions against regions and organizations that willfully disregard these guidelines.

I'm not in a rush here because this is a continuation of nine and a half years of opposing fascism in this game, and not at all a badge hunt. I do think it would be a fantastic statement if this is the first declaration the Security Council ever passes, but if it needs more time to get it right, that's more important.

Suggestions are welcome!

[Honeydewistania]

Imo, the last clause should be in the list format, it looks a bit out of place without it. Full support for this though!

[Cormactopia Prime]

Imo, the last clause should be in the list format, it looks a bit out of place without it. Full support for this though!

I think it's standard legislative convention not to use a numerical list when an article is only one clause, but I'm not that fussed so if it bugs others too then sure.

[Sedgistan]

What you've got drafted looks fine from a legal point of view, since it's all presented as guidelines. So long as that remains the case, I can't see any rules issues arising with regards to the category.

[Greater Cesnica]

Full support.

[Zentata]

Support, support, support.

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Fully opposed.like anyone would care lol.

[Greater Cesnica]

Fully opposed.like anyone would care lol.

You do understand that in a fascist society you'd be killed off, right?

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Fully opposed.like anyone would care lol.

You do understand that in a fascist society you'd be killed off, right?

(Was that an OOC question? I suppose yes…)
OOC: That depends on what exact type of fascism you’re talking about. Classical fascism, Mussolini-style actually puts the state even before the race. Other than that I’ll gladly die if my country needs me to. Sacrifices have to be made and if the sacrifice is me than fine.

[Greater Cesnica]

You do understand that in a fascist society you'd be killed off, right?

(Was that an OOC question? I suppose yes…)
OOC: That depends on what exact type of fascism you’re talking about. Classical fascism, Mussolini-style actually puts the state even before the race. Other than that I’ll gladly die if my country needs me to.

Remind me what the Manifesto della razza was.

[Sedgistan]

No, please don't. Let's not go down the NSG-esque threadjack route here.

[Nova Vandalia]

Full Support!

[Cailona]

Yes, fascism is divisive and full of anger.

[Unibot III]

I think the draft would need to define fascism. The WA cannot advocate for the destruction of something it has not legally defined.

Your current definition is self-referential.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I think the draft would need to define fascism. The WA cannot advocate for the destruction of something it has not legally defined.

Your current definition is self-referential.

I'm of two minds about this. One, I can see the point you're making, and it's also a point someone else made to me via Discord. But on the other hand, whether and to what degree to enforce any of these guidelines would be up to nations and regions, so I feel like it may be better to allow them to determine what constitutes fascism for themselves. Ultimately, they will anyway, because they'll be the ones deciding enforcement.

I haven't decided yet which way is best. If anyone wants to suggest a relatively concise definition of fascism, I'd certainly be open to it.

[Nova Vandalia]

I think the draft would need to define fascism. The WA cannot advocate for the destruction of something it has not legally defined.

Your current definition is self-referential.

I disagree with that line of thinking. 1) Working to define it is just going to toss this into a semantic pit that isn't going to satisfy anyone and just toss the whole thing into a needless mire. 2) if this clause is true "Reaffirming the World Assembly's commitment to opposing the spread of fascism as implicitly or explicitly expressed in numerous resolutions previously passed by the General Assembly to uphold and defend human rights, and by the Security Council to condemn or otherwise sanction specific fascist nations and regions;" then we've have established precedence that defining fascism isn't needed to combat it nor to legislate against it 3) I think while there is no international equivalent of the American Roth Test (which applies to obscenity but I think speak to the ability of reasonable folx to identify something slightly nebulous), I think it can be assumed pretty easily that most, not all though, regions are reasonable when it comes to identifying fascism in a " you know it when they see it" way and we can full well leave it at that

[Astrobolt]

I do agree that a definition of fascism is needed, otherwise regions might be under or over inclusive. (In an extreme example, someone could say that Joe Biden is a fascist, something I have seen on this site.)

Additionally, just to be thorough, I think the proposal should make perfectly clear why specifically "fascism is an abhorrent ideology".

[Jedinsto]

Looks pretty good to me. Support.

Edit: and that's mainly because declarations don't actually enforce anything, and it's purely symbolic.

[Daarwyrth]

Full support, no questions asked, absolutely phenomenal proposal.

[Aerlanica]

I literally wrote an entire civil war about slaying fascism!

This is amazing! Full support from Aerlanica!

[Comfed]

I definitely like this.

[Cormactopia Prime]

I do agree that a definition of fascism is needed, otherwise regions might be under or over inclusive. (In an extreme example, someone could say that Joe Biden is a fascist, something I have seen on this site.)

Having given it some thought, I've decided based in part on Nova's comment above that I'm going to decline to define fascism in this draft unless it looks like it's likely to be a major obstacle to passage. If anything, I think defining it is likely to be the bigger obstacle to passage, because a definition is going to get thorny and won't please everyone. I very much agree with Nova that it's a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing and most regions are reasonable enough to determine it for themselves. Given it's regions who will be enforcing this, from a gameplay perspective, I'm comfortable with them figuring out when a region is or isn't fascist.

There is also the RP component of international interaction, which I've included in the proposal, but I'm sure RPers can also handle it for themselves.

Additionally, just to be thorough, I think the proposal should make perfectly clear why specifically "fascism is an abhorrent ideology".

I feel like this is already pretty well established, but I will add in a bit of language to that effect.

[Sedgistan]

Speaking non-modly, I'll note that someone could always pass a Declaration proposal that codified some definitions, if they wanted to.

[Unibot III]

I think the draft would need to define fascism. The WA cannot advocate for the destruction of something it has not legally defined.

Your current definition is self-referential.

I'm of two minds about this. One, I can see the point you're making, and it's also a point someone else made to me via Discord. But on the other hand, whether and to what degree to enforce any of these guidelines would be up to nations and regions, so I feel like it may be better to allow them to determine what constitutes fascism for themselves. Ultimately, they will anyway, because they'll be the ones deciding enforcement.

I haven't decided yet which way is best. If anyone wants to suggest a relatively concise definition of fascism, I'd certainly be open to it.

I mean that’s always been the challenge with fascism in NS in that the word isn’t used consistently and the targets of invasion vary widely in their ideology.

I also think “fascism” tends to be used more broadly as a hate-based region or a region that harbours racism, hate, or discrimination. It doesn’t seem to really have a lot to do with the governing structure of a region (e.g., is it a dictatorship?).

Like, I’ve pointed out before (and people always strongly oppose this point), the NPO is the classic idea of a fascist state in RL — European Fascism, particularly Italian and Spanish fascism, was an inspiration for the NPO — and yet in NS, no one would call NPO fascist, and NPO is widely considered anti-fascist. The idea that the NPO is ‘Roman’ is a silly point of confusion — Italian fascism was emulating parts of Roman culture.

I think I would define fascism in NS as ‘support for the development of an authoritarian state that promotes racism and hate’ — but I have a feeling that today’s NS really doesn’t care whether their targets are pro-authoritarian or not…

Which brings me to my final point — maybe the focus on “fascism” is completely mistaken? Maybe the resolution should be focused on hate and hate-based groups and drop the fascism/anti-fascism language — the focus of popular anti-fascists in NS tends not to be anti-fascism specifically.

With respect, if no one can define “fascism” in NS that’s a big problem for the resolution in practice — if everyone agrees fascism is bad, but nobody agrees what fascism is, you’ve got a definitional problem.

Like.. if someone was running a group that was quasi-homophobic, most people would want to oppose it in the same way they would for fascist regions — but using ‘fascism’ as the category of choice is problematic in that you have to warp the definition to fit communities that traffic hate but have no strong views regarding authoritarianism.

[Fauxia]

Defining, for the purposes of this resolution, a fascist nation or region as any nation or region that identifies as fascist or engages in the promotion of fascist ideology, and further defining a fascist region as any region that willfully harbors fascist nations and permits them to promote fascist ideology within regional borders or abroad;

I think that definition is a little bit too strict. That would be a region that allows fascists (obviously not a good thing, but different than a fascist region). You could also do some "fascist collaborator" thing or something.

Reaffirming the World Assembly's commitment... by the Security Council to condemn or otherwise sanction specific fascist nations and regions;

I get why this is here, but realistically we are never going to condemn a fascist nation or region, except on a very IC level which I don't think this declaration is intended to address. Admittedly, I am nitpicking.

No World Assembly Delegate should approve or vote for any World Assembly proposal submitted by a fascist nation or sponsored by a fascist region.

I have mixed feelings about this, because I think it can lead to bad results, but fine in principle.

Every World Assembly Delegate is encouraged to approve and vote for Security Council proposals to condemn or otherwise sanction fascist nations or regions, provided such proposals do not grant disproportionate attention to the fascist nation or region in question.

Again, I think condemnations are a bad example. I might change this phrase to something about recommending Delegates approve and vote for SC proposals that oppose and counteract the spread of fascism, as I think it's neater and you don't need the second line about attention; it's implied.

Nations and regions are urged to impose proportionate diplomatic, military, or other sanctions against nations and regions that willfully disregard these guidelines.

Very specific and clear. I do think this can justify some unreasonable readings, with the exhortation at the end, but of course it's non binding so I'm not sure anyone really cares.

I'm not in a rush here because this is the culmination of nine and a half years of opposing fascism in this game

Okay, I'm going to tell you this right now, you've wasted your time opposing fascism if this is the culmination. SC resolution is cool and all, but like, I think on the list of anti-fascist stuff on this site this is probably not the most impressive.

and not at all a badge hunt. I do think it would be a fantastic statement if this is the first declaration the Security Council ever passes, but if it needs more time to get it right, that's more important.

Inclined to say I hope it is. This was a welcome change from the sixteen thousand shitty proposals vying to be the first one.