DRAFT: Free Speech and Legislation

[Barrettstia]

The following is a draft of a proposal the Federation of Barrettstia intends to submit assuming that the current resolution "Condemn gatesville" is voted down. If the resolution is successful we will instead propose to repeal the resolution and, if successful, propose the following one.

Basically, the resolution will limit the legislative competence of the World Assembly to prevent future resolutions which condemn a nation for exercising free speech.

This is the first time Barrettstia has attempted to submit a proposal, and whilst our lawyers and senate have studied the rules that the World Assembly has regarding the submission of proposals, it is possible that this falls outside the scope of what the World Assembly can legislate on, although I would suspect that it should be within the World Assembly's power to limit it's power.

Notes will be written in blue, alterations in red

Council: General Assembly
Category: Political Stability/Furtherment of Democracy [please advise which]
Resolution Name: Free Speech and Legislation
Description: APPALLED at recent attempts by World Assembly members to condemn nations and regions which assert a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership,

CONCERNED that such attempts could ultimately lead to the condemnation of any nation or region which abstains from World Assembly membership,

ACCEPTING that every nation has the right to protect or surrender its sovereignty as it chooses,

RECOGNISING that the right to free speech extends to the right of a nation to publicly express views, opinions and values which are contrary to those of the World Assembly and its members,

BELIEVING that the World Assembly should be allowed to condemn only nations or regions which pose a significant threat to international stability,

BELIEVING that a nation or region which merely asserts a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership does not pose a significant threat to international stability,

The World Assembly hereby declares that while this resolution is in effect:

1. No nation or region may be condemned by the World Assembly on the basis that said nation or region has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

2. The World Assembly may not pass any resolution which condemns a nation or region for asserting a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

3. Any such resolution passed by the World Assembly will be considered null and void and be immediately repealed.

4. A nation or region which has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership may still be condemned by the World Assembly for other reasons as long as it is within the power of the World Assembly to do so.

5. This resolution does not repeal or amend any resolution passed before it came into effect.

Strength: Strong

In short, resolutions such as "Condemn gatesville", (which seek to condemn nations or regions solely for the reason that they wish to retain full sovereignty) which are passed while this resolution is in effect (i.e. from the time it is passed until the time it is overturned) will not have any effect. However, nations and regions like Gatesville can still be condemned for other reasons as long as it is within the ability of the World Assembly to do so.

I welcome the commentary and suggestions of my fellow heads of state.

Chris B Chikin
Premier,
Federation of Barrettstia

[The Emmerian Unions]

Um, did you read the rules for creating proposals? This is pure and simler blocker, which is illegal to do. And my two cents on the proposal:

Council: General Assembly
Category: Illegal(Blocker)
Strength: Strong
Resolution Name: Free Speech and Legislation
Description: APPALLED at recent attempts by World Assembly members to condemn nations and regions which assert a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership,

CONCERNED that such attempts could ultimately lead to the condemnation of any nation or region which abstains from World Assembly membership,

ACCEPTING that every nation has the right to protect or surrender its sovereignty as it chooses,

RECOGNISING that the right to free speech extends to the right of a nation to publicly express views, opinions and values which are contrary to those of the World Assembly and its members,

BELIEVING that the World Assembly should be allowed to condemn only nations or regions which pose a significant threat to international stability,

BELIEVING that a nation or region which merely asserts a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership does not pose a significant threat to international stability,

The World Assembly hereby declares that while this resolution is in effect:

1. No nation or region may be condemned by the World Assembly on the basis that said nation or region has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

2. The World Assembly may not pass any resolution which condemns a nation or region for asserting a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

3. Any such resolution passed by the World Assembly will be considered null and void and be immediately repealed.

4. A nation or region which has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership may still be condemned by the World Assembly for other reasons as long as it is within the power of the World Assembly to do so.

5. This resolution does not repeal or amend any resolution passed before it came into effect.

[Grand Europic States]

1. No nation or region may be condemned by the World Assembly on the basis that said nation or region has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

2. The World Assembly may not pass any resolution which condemns a nation or region for asserting a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

3. Any such resolution passed by the World Assembly will be considered null and void and be immediately repealed.

4. A nation or region which has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership may still be condemned by the World Assembly for other reasons as long as it is within the power of the World Assembly to do so.

I think that in its current form its at risk of falling foul of the following rule: "...another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation."

Europic Diplomatic Corps

[Buffett and Colbert]

This would imply changing the game which is against the rules. Sorry!

[Barrettstia]

1. No nation or region may be condemned by the World Assembly on the basis that said nation or region has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

2. The World Assembly may not pass any resolution which condemns a nation or region for asserting a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership.

3. Any such resolution passed by the World Assembly will be considered null and void and be immediately repealed.

4. A nation or region which has asserted a desire to retain full sovereignty by abstaining from World Assembly membership may still be condemned by the World Assembly for other reasons as long as it is within the power of the World Assembly to do so.

I think that in its current form its at risk of falling foul of the following rule: "...another example of this is forbidding WA action at a future point in time -- you can't make your Resolution "Repeal-proof" or prohibit types of legislation."

Europic Diplomatic Corps

I hadn't noticed that bit. I knew you couldn't make something repeal-proof but missed the bit saying I couldn't prohibit certain types of legislation. The real aim was going to be to make resolutions such as "Condemn gatesville" more difficult to make since nations wanting to submit a proposal would have to repeal this on first, but as I said, I missed that note in the rules.