NationStates

The GA Secretariat is proposing to abolish the ideological ban rule. This comes after prolonged internal discussion as to the role of the rule in the modern General Assembly as well as possible alternatives.

The core tension of the rule is that its actual application creates an artificial and textually unsupported distinction between disfavoured ideologies and favoured ones worthy of more stringent protection (anarchism and minarchism being prime examples). The majority believes that alternative approaches that try to regulate "ideologically-motivated practices" – especially by enumerating exceptions, creating some distinction between "fundamental" and non-fundamental principles, or trying to wade into the question of "what is a real ideology" – fail to establish meaningfully cognisable standards that accord with previous resolutions without also unduly burdening new players with complicated and unpredictable tests.

Regardless, application of the rule to forms of government and "ideologically-motivated practices" has always been extremely weak. Extremely few, if any, proposals have been rejected on Ideological Ban grounds in the last decade. Inasmuch as the Secretariat is unwilling to extend the rule to "ideologically-motivated practices", abolition is substantively the same as existing application. Abolition also helps to avoid a learning curve problem: players reading the ideological ban rule for the first time easily misapprehend it as being broader than it actually is. Removing it entirely as grounds for action eliminates this issue and greatly clarifies enforcement without a major change therein.

Those voting in favour of abolition were Bananaistan, Imperium Anglorum, Sierra Lyricalia, and Separatist Peoples. Bears Armed dissented. Grays Harbor is absent on leave. Under the procedures, this comment period will end in two weeks, subject to finalisation.

---

Related discussions.

Gruenberg (as Quintessence of Dust), "Get rid of the ideological ban rule" (4 Feb 2022) viewtopic.php?t=515227
Imperium Anglorum, "Legalize Private Industry Act" (1 Feb 2022) viewtopic.php?t=515162
Auralia, "Abolishing the ideological ban rule" (24 Feb 2017) viewtopic.php?t=403524
Wallenburg, "Patent Recognition Treaty" (24 Feb 2017) viewtopic.php?t=403517
GA rules consortium, "The Ideological Ban Rule" (4 May 2015) viewtopic.php?t=340120
"Optionality and Ideological Bans" in GA Moderator Rulings Repository (18 Apr 2015) viewtopic.php?p=24256225#p24256225

Nice.

Does this mean that full bans on "religious, political or economic ideologies" - such as Ban Dictatorships and Legalize Private Industry Act - will become theoretically legal?

"Would this allow for international regulation of ideologies and religions then, Ambassador? Because our state religion of Satanism is sure to be banned if this would allow for such regulation, and should it be approved. This kind of rule change could cause massive discrimination upon certain religions, ours being a concerned pick for such discrimination. Would you address this potential issue should the ban be lifted?" - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

Makko Oko wrote:"Would this allow for international regulation of ideologies and religions then, Ambassador? Because our state religion of Satanism is sure to be banned if this would allow for such regulation, and should it be approved. This kind of rule change could cause massive discrimination upon certain religions, ours being a concerned pick for such discrimination. Would you address this potential issue should the ban be lifted?" - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

This is not an in-character discussion.

Tinhampton wrote:Does this mean that full bans on "religious, political or economic ideologies" - such as Ban Dictatorships and Legalize Private Industry Act - will become theoretically legal?

Neither of those proposals are currently illegal for this reason.

---

The Orwell Society wrote:Strongly against, for the same reason in which it was implemented in the first place. And I didn't know that Secretariats could use the [warn] code.

We don't use the warn code.

Strongly against, for the same reason in which it was implemented in the first place. And I didn't know that Secretariats could use the [warn] code.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Makko Oko wrote:"Would this allow for international regulation of ideologies and religions then, Ambassador? Because our state religion of Satanism is sure to be banned if this would allow for such regulation, and should it be approved. This kind of rule change could cause massive discrimination upon certain religions, ours being a concerned pick for such discrimination. Would you address this potential issue should the ban be lifted?" - The Makko Oko Ministry Of Diplomatic Affairs, World Assembly Affairs Division

This is not an in-character discussion.

Tinhampton wrote:Does this mean that full bans on "religious, political or economic ideologies" - such as Ban Dictatorships and Legalize Private Industry Act - will become theoretically legal?

Neither of those proposals are currently illegal.

My apologies, kind of used to it lol, not that it's a bad thing. Regardless though, would this repealing of this ban allow for regulation of ideologies and religions? I think that power is best kept in check, we don't need overreaching by the WA after all, many people try to subvert that from happening, on a daily basis even.

Makko Oko wrote:would this repealing of this ban allow for regulation of ideologies and religions? I think that power is best kept in check, we don't need overreaching by the WA after all, many people try to subvert that from happening, on a daily basis even.

Define "regulation", "ideologies", and "religions".

This has my full and unwavering support.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Makko Oko wrote:would this repealing of this ban allow for regulation of ideologies and religions? I think that power is best kept in check, we don't need overreaching by the WA after all, many people try to subvert that from happening, on a daily basis even.

Define "regulation", "ideologies", and "religions".

Regulation would be any legislation that tries to, by force via international power, change for instance, religious laws or tries to ban a religion or religious institution.

Ideologies are really just a kind of mindset, not to make it political, but Trumpism is somewhat an ideology, just a political one moreso than religious. There's also Anarchists which is also an ideology of destruction and chaos.

Religions are similar to ideologies I feel, except religions cover beliefs of a higher power or a following of a book, maybe you could even call it a cult.

FYI, did not google any of this or research it (just personal thinking) so some of this could very well be wrong, but I was trying to bring upon my own self-knowledge on the subject.

not in the WA but i have had puppets in the past involved in it and i have to say that this is a very bad idea, at least from an IC perspective. what's stopping the WA from, say, banning communism, or banning capitalism, or banning fascism?

like, i personally have no problem banning the last two, but the WA is a multinational institution with nations subscribing to multiple ideologies. it makes as much sense as the organization-that-shall-not-be-named IRL banning cuba and vietnam for being socialist or the united states and germany for being capitalist.

This is not a great idea. Oppose.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Does this mean that full bans on "religious, political or economic ideologies" - such as Ban Dictatorships and Legalize Private Industry Act - will become theoretically legal?

Neither of those proposals are currently illegal.

The LPIA controversy is well-known and - perhaps - the forebear of the ongoing efforts to abolish Ideological Ban.

You say that Ban Dictatorships is not "currently illegal." Assuming that GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act" did not exist, why would a proposal that reads
be legal - even under the current ruleset, which contains Ideological Ban - and why? How about Hannasea's proposed rewrite of Protecting the Right to Vote?

And to return to my original point, phrased without examples: Will the abolition of Ideological Ban allow for the WA to pass a full ban on any "religious, political or economic ideolog[y]?"

Tinhampton wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Neither of those proposals are currently illegal.

The LPIA controversy is well-known and - perhaps - the forebear of the ongoing efforts to abolish Ideological Ban.

You say that Ban Dictatorships is not "currently illegal." Assuming that GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act" did not exist, why would a proposal that reads

The World Assembly hereby requires all member states to hold elections for public office on the national level.

be legal - even under the current ruleset, which contains Ideological Ban - and why? How about Hannasea's proposed rewrite of Protecting the Right to Vote?

And to return to my original point, phrased without examples: Will the abolition of Ideological Ban allow for the WA to pass a full ban on any "religious, political or economic ideolog[y]?"

Help me out here, like genuinely, how does an election tie into ideology? I wasn't aware voting was something that was tied to the religious books

Makko Oko wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:...You say that Ban Dictatorships is not "currently illegal." Assuming that GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act" did not exist, why would a proposal that reads

The World Assembly hereby requires all member states to hold elections for public office on the national level.

be legal - even under the current ruleset, which contains Ideological Ban - and why? How about Hannasea's proposed rewrite of Protecting the Right to Vote?...

Help me out here, like genuinely, how does an election tie into ideology? I wasn't aware voting was something that was tied to the religious books

An "ideology" can be imposed at the state level as well as held at the individual or group level. Communists in Comradetopia can join together in the Communist Party of Comradetopia; Comradetopia can adopt Communism (and/or an ideology which forbids the holding of elections) as its state ideology. Then the WA says "you must hold elections haha get rekt." What then?

Makko Oko wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Define "regulation", "ideologies", and "religions".

Regulation would be any legislation that tries to, by force via international power, change for instance, religious laws or tries to ban a religion or religious institution.

Ideologies are really just a kind of mindset, not to make it political, but Trumpism is somewhat an ideology, just a political one moreso than religious. There's also Anarchists which is also an ideology of destruction and chaos.

Religions are similar to ideologies I feel, except religions cover beliefs of a higher power or a following of a book, maybe you could even call it a cult.

FYI, did not google any of this or research it (just personal thinking) so some of this could very well be wrong, but I was trying to bring upon my own self-knowledge on the subject.

We already change religious laws. A religion could make a law saying people cannot abort their foetuses is overridden; the WA could make a law banning religious institutions from discriminating on the gender of priests. I think trying to ban "Islam" or "Graeco-Roman paganism" would probably fall afoul of the real life references rule, the moderator precedent on "Catholicism" notwithstanding. We similarly already put restrictions on ideological practices and many WA resolutions are entirely incompatible with ideologies like minarchism and anarchism.

Tinhampton wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Neither of those proposals are currently illegal.

The LPIA controversy is well-known and - perhaps - the forebear of the ongoing efforts to abolish Ideological Ban.

You say that Ban Dictatorships is not "currently illegal." Assuming that GA#579 "Promoting Democratic Stability Act" did not exist, why would a proposal that reads

The World Assembly hereby requires all member states to hold elections for public office on the national level.

be legal - even under the current ruleset, which contains Ideological Ban - and why? How about Hannasea's proposed rewrite of Protecting the Right to Vote?

And to return to my original point, phrased without examples: Will the abolition of Ideological Ban allow for the WA to pass a full ban on any "religious, political or economic ideolog[y]?"

As I told Makko, you need to define ideology. Many people in these discussions conflate ideologies with ideological practices. They are distinct. Second, such a hypothetical proposal would ban no ideology and would not be illegal under the current ruleset.

Tinhampton wrote:

Makko Oko wrote:
Help me out here, like genuinely, how does an election tie into ideology? I wasn't aware voting was something that was tied to the religious books

An "ideology" can be imposed at the state level as well as held at the individual or group level.

I mean...that's good information to know, but that still doesn't answer my question. Election has nothing to do with ideology, nor does the right to vote have anything to do with it. If I were to, for example, walk up to a capitalist and say, "Hey! We can vote now!", they may care because they just gained a majorly important and fundamental human right, but they're not going to care due to their ideology, their ideology wouldn't make them care.

The way I see it, the only way elections affect ideologies in the slightest, is the potential loss of power, or the potential for the ideology to get a bigger say in the government, possibly taking power themselves.

Makko Oko wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:An "ideology" can be imposed at the state level as well as held at the individual or group level.

I mean...that's good information to know, but that still doesn't answer my question. Election has nothing to do with ideology, nor does the right to vote have anything to do with it. If I were to, for example, walk up to a capitalist and say, "Hey! We can vote now!", they may care because they just gained a majorly important and fundamental human right, but they're not going to care due to their ideology, their ideology wouldn't make them care.

The way I see it, the only way elections affect ideologies in the slightest, is the potential loss of power, or the potential for the ideology to get a bigger say in the government, possibly taking power themselves.

Elections do have something do to with the ideology of democracy.

IMO the biggest problem with this entire topic is how we define ideology.

Makko Oko wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:An "ideology" can be imposed at the state level as well as held at the individual or group level.

I mean...that's good information to know, but that still doesn't answer my question. Election has nothing to do with ideology, nor does the right to vote have anything to do with it. If I were to, for example, walk up to a capitalist and say, "Hey! We can vote now!", they may care because they just gained a majorly important and fundamental human right, but they're not going to care due to their ideology, their ideology wouldn't make them care.

The way I see it, the only way elections affect ideologies in the slightest, is the potential loss of power, or the potential for the ideology to get a bigger say in the government, possibly taking power themselves.

Regular, free, and fair elections, a political activity, are not - in any way, shape, or form - a fundamental component of capitalism, an economic ideology.

Ideological Ban says that "Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery." It can be argued that allowing "private industry," as LPIA, is a specific practice - or otherwise positive enough not to be an Ideological Ban. But what about attempts to actively forbid an entire ideology in itself? Would those not be such?

Time to start drafting "Full Communism For NS" and "Elections for All"

Comfed wrote:

Makko Oko wrote:
I mean...that's good information to know, but that still doesn't answer my question. Election has nothing to do with ideology, nor does the right to vote have anything to do with it. If I were to, for example, walk up to a capitalist and say, "Hey! We can vote now!", they may care because they just gained a majorly important and fundamental human right, but they're not going to care due to their ideology, their ideology wouldn't make them care.

The way I see it, the only way elections affect ideologies in the slightest, is the potential loss of power, or the potential for the ideology to get a bigger say in the government, possibly taking power themselves.

Elections do have something do to with the ideology of democracy.

I'll give you a fair point, just because I genuinely didn't know democracy counted as an ideology, but even then, democracy in itself isn't an ideology, it's the generalization of a bunch of different ideologies. There's at least 56 ideologies that fall under the generalization of democracy.

Tinhampton wrote:

Makko Oko wrote:
I mean...that's good information to know, but that still doesn't answer my question. Election has nothing to do with ideology, nor does the right to vote have anything to do with it. If I were to, for example, walk up to a capitalist and say, "Hey! We can vote now!", they may care because they just gained a majorly important and fundamental human right, but they're not going to care due to their ideology, their ideology wouldn't make them care.

The way I see it, the only way elections affect ideologies in the slightest, is the potential loss of power, or the potential for the ideology to get a bigger say in the government, possibly taking power themselves.

Regular, free, and fair elections, a political activity, are not - in any way, shape, or form - a fundamental component of capitalism, an economic ideology.

Ideological Ban says that "Proposals cannot wholly outlaw, whether through direct or indirect language, religious, political or economic ideologies. However, proposals can target specific practices, such as slavery." It can be argued that allowing "private industry," as LPIA, is a specific practice - or otherwise positive enough not to be an Ideological Ban. But what about attempts to actively forbid an entire ideology in itself? Would those not be such?

See, that's exactly what I was asking. As for your point on economic vs. political, wholeheartedly agree. May have been a bad example but I think it may have gotten my point across (maybe).

Private industry is a practice, but outllawing it would be outlawing capitalism as well. Same with oppression - it is a practice, but outlawing it would put an end to fascism.

The Orwell Society wrote:Private industry is a practice, but outllawing it would be outlawing capitalism as well. Same with oppression - it is a practice, but outlawing it would put an end to fascism.

I think the WA has outlawed many forms of oppression, there's a whole category for it

Comfed wrote:

The Orwell Society wrote:Private industry is a practice, but outllawing it would be outlawing capitalism as well. Same with oppression - it is a practice, but outlawing it would put an end to fascism.

I think the WA has outlawed many forms of oppression, there's a whole category for it

And there are little to no truly fascist WA nations because of it. I see no purpose for the lifting of this ban when unwanted ideologies are already being indirectly phased out by passed resolutions.