[DEFEATED] Limitations on Banishment

[Kitzerland]

Harold enters the chamber dressed as a priest.

Harold: I hereby banish this draft to the fiery pits of Hell! The power of Christ compels thee!

Barbera: Oh, look, another old draft. Alright, let's revive this thing.

Harold: Please don't. I'm not in the mood required to perform a real exorcism.

The Kitten ambassador would like to restate his support to the resolution and hopes that it will pass.

[Bakhton]

"We would recommend an expansion of the Preamble to directly mention instances of how this violates our Assembly's commitment to human rights."

[The United Royal Islands of Euramathania]

A.Meridian: We re-affirm our support of this revised draft. We wish to thank Fmr. Ambassador Everett for his work on articulating Islander Values in regard to this resolution, as well as the delegation from States of Glory for their willingness to consider these views. We look forward to continuing this mutual work under my Ambassadorship, and to the successful passage of this bill.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Harold: Here it is!

Barbera: (enters the chamber) Oh, so this is BanBan?

Harold: Yep. This is the one that tries to create an international court.

Fairburn: (enters) What's going on here?

Harold: I'm reviving BanBan!

Fairburn: You mean Banishment Ban? That old thing? Why haven't we submitted it yet?

Barbera: We are still looking for comments.

Fairburn: They better come quickly, then. My patience is running out.

[Aclion]

BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,

Can you elaborate on this belief?

[States of Glory WA Office]

BELIEVING, however, that banishment, also known as exile, can often result in an unacceptable breach of civil rights,

Can you elaborate on this belief?

Fairburn: Yes.

Harold: Trust you to answer the question without actually answering the question.

Fairburn: Hey, it's not my fault that the question was worded poorly.

Barbera: The rationale behind this proposal is that while member states are currently forbidden from depriving individuals of their nationality if such deprivation would render the individual stateless, the same prohibition does not apply to citizenship. Therefore, a situation could occur in which an individual is left without citizenship, meaning that they no longer possess any political rights nor do they possess a right to consular protection, amongst other problems.

[Araraukar]

OOC: You should name it "Exile Excision". More serious commentary you'll get once my innards have stopped making me wish I was going to die of this... *whimpers*

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: Why has this draft been banished to the back of my filing cabinet?

Harold: I don't know, but I'll try to drum up some activity...literally. (loudly beats drum)

[States of Glory WA Office]

Harold: Well, that didn't work. Perhaps this will. (sets off fire alarm)

OOC: Added a long-overdue co-authorship credit (did I do it right?) and referenced the proposal that gave me the idea in the first place (thanks, Krisville!). Unless anyone has any further comments to make, I think that I'm just about ready to submit this.

[Arr-there-be-cars]

The World Assembly is the name of both a region, with and without 'the', and a number of nations. #mustbebranding
Also, CIJ is a real life reference to the French court with the same initialization. Arr.

[States of Glory WA Office]

The World Assembly is the name of both a region, with and without 'the', and a number of nations. #mustbebranding
Also, CIJ is a real life reference to the French court with the same initialization. Arr.

...Does anyone have any constructive comments to make?

[Arr-there-be-cars]

This is constructive. I'm helping you improve your proposal by making it not illegal. And it would horrifying, nay, I would say world shattering, if any nation received a stat boost from the category which is not exactly in line with the text itself. The whole idea is ... I mean ... it ... it ... it strikes at the very roots of the ... of the ... it's the beginning of the end, the thin end of the wedge, a Excidian solution! Where will it end, the abolition of the Assembly?

[Imperium Anglorum]

This is constructive. I'm helping you improve your proposal by making it not illegal. And it would horrifying, nay, I would say world shattering, if any nation received a stat boost from the category which is not exactly in line with the text itself. The whole idea is ... I mean ... it ... it ... it strikes at the very roots of the ... of the ... it's the beginning of the end, the thin end of the wedge, a Excidian solution! Where will it end, the abolition of the Assembly?

Well, though I think it's clear you're a fan of Yes, Minister, I don't think category consistency outweighs the need to reduce the use of procedural delay tactics, because one of those actually has an effect on the game. Category statistics inconsistencies are only important when they are far out of whack and when people actually care about them.

[Emericia]

Vladim: Currently I cannot support this, on the basis that requires an "adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship". Emericia frequently exiles criminals to 'the badlands'. A small unowned stateless section of land on the Emerician boarder. Once exiled there, the state no longer has any interaction with the exiled individual, except for if they try to enter Emericia before the exile has ended.

[Kitzerland]

Vladim: Currently I cannot support this, on the basis that requires an "adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship". Emericia frequently exiles criminals to 'the badlands'. A small unowned stateless section of land on the Emerician boarder. Once exiled there, the state no longer has any interaction with the exiled individual, except for if they try to enter Emericia before the exile has ended.

"Have you considered setting up a puppet government in that area that does nothing?"

[Emericia]

Vladim: Currently I cannot support this, on the basis that requires an "adequate opportunity to obtain citizenship of another state if they do not already possess such citizenship". Emericia frequently exiles criminals to 'the badlands'. A small unowned stateless section of land on the Emerician boarder. Once exiled there, the state no longer has any interaction with the exiled individual, except for if they try to enter Emericia before the exile has ended.

"Have you considered setting up a puppet government in that area that does nothing?"

Vladim: "Generally speaking the Emerician government doesn't condone the establishment of puppet governments. Then again, I am sure individuals exiled their would have an adequate opportunity to apply for citizenship with one of our neighborers."

[Morlago]

We fail to see why removal of citizenship rights and eviction are unacceptable punishments for crime, particularly for serious crimes, or more traditional communities with little to no formal political structure. The concept of punishment is built on the idea of taking away the criminal's possessions and freedoms to compensate for what they have done, or to allow them to understand their wrongdoings and deter them from repeating their ways. Why is life in prison acceptable, but eviction unacceptable? When the WA cannot even form a stance on taking a life as a form of punishment, we consider it wrong to declare banishment unacceptable.

[States of Glory WA Office]

We fail to see why removal of citizenship rights and eviction are unacceptable punishments for crime, particularly for serious crimes, or more traditional communities with little to no formal political structure. The concept of punishment is built on the idea of taking away the criminal's possessions and freedoms to compensate for what they have done, or to allow them to understand their wrongdoings and deter them from repeating their ways. Why is life in prison acceptable, but eviction unacceptable? When the WA cannot even form a stance on taking a life as a form of punishment, we consider it wrong to declare banishment unacceptable.

Fairburn: If your nation would be willing to provide a home for all the people who will inevitably be left stateless due to banishment then we'd be more than happy to abandon this.

[Araraukar]

Fairburn: If your nation would be willing to provide a home for all the people who will inevitably be left stateless due to banishment then we'd be more than happy to abandon this.

OOC: Would be easier to just execute them.

EDIT: Also, if this were to pass, many nations most likely would just expand the list of crimes that get a death penalty to cover the ones that would've gotten an exile.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: If your nation would be willing to provide a home for all the people who will inevitably be left stateless due to banishment then we'd be more than happy to abandon this.

OOC: Would be easier to just execute them.

EDIT: Also, if this were to pass, many nations most likely would just expand the list of crimes that get a death penalty to cover the ones that would've gotten an exile.

OOC: Yes, and? The death penalty achieves the same results as banishment but with less cruelty and with no money spent on continually enforcing said banishment. Believe you me, I'd love to ban the death penalty in all member states, but we both know that it isn't practical.

[Morlago]

We fail to see why removal of citizenship rights and eviction are unacceptable punishments for crime, particularly for serious crimes, or more traditional communities with little to no formal political structure. The concept of punishment is built on the idea of taking away the criminal's possessions and freedoms to compensate for what they have done, or to allow them to understand their wrongdoings and deter them from repeating their ways. Why is life in prison acceptable, but eviction unacceptable? When the WA cannot even form a stance on taking a life as a form of punishment, we consider it wrong to declare banishment unacceptable.

Fairburn: If your nation would be willing to provide a home for all the people who will inevitably be left stateless due to banishment then we'd be more than happy to abandon this.

"The laws plain and clear. If you do not wish to be banished, do not commit a crime whose punishment is banishment. You made a huge mistake, you lose your rights and your place to live. Simple. It is a whole other issue if a government circumvents its own laws and banishes its citizens without cause, but we do not think that even this bill would put an end to their barbaric ways."

[United Bovinia]

Fairburn: If your nation would be willing to provide a home for all the people who will inevitably be left stateless due to banishment then we'd be more than happy to abandon this.

Done.

[Araraukar]

OOC: Yes, and? The death penalty achieves the same results as banishment but with less cruelty and with no money spent on continually enforcing said banishment. Believe you me, I'd love to ban the death penalty in all member states, but we both know that it isn't practical.

OOC: So you'd like to ban death penalty but want to drive through a resolution that would make nations expand the list of crimes you can get executed for?

Also, my apologies for OOC commenting, but Janis is currently somewhere battling the Wallenburgian Paperwork Monster.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Fairburn: If your nation would be willing to provide a home for all the people who will inevitably be left stateless due to banishment then we'd be more than happy to abandon this.

"The laws plain and clear. If you do not wish to be banished, do not commit a crime whose punishment is banishment. You made a huge mistake, you lose your rights and your place to live. Simple. It is a whole other issue if a government circumvents its own laws and banishes its citizens without cause, but we do not think that even this bill would put an end to their barbaric ways."

Fairburn: The law is plain and clear. If you do not wish to be tortured, do not commit a crime whose punishment is torture. You made a huge mistake, you lose your rights and your dignity. Simple. It is a whole other issue if a government circumvents its own laws and tortures its citizens without cause, but we do not think that even this bill would put an end to their barbaric ways.

The law is plain and clear. If you do not wish to be enslaved, do not commit a crime whose punishment is enslavement. You made a huge mistake, you lose your rights and your personhood. Simple. It is a whole other issue if a government circumvents its own laws and enslaves its citizens without cause, but we do not think that even this bill would put an end to their barbaric ways.

The law is plain and clear. If you do not wish to be summarily executed, do not commit a crime whose punishment is summary execution. You made a huge mistake, you lose your rights and your life. Simple. It is a whole other issue if a government circumvents its own laws and summarily executes its citizens without cause, but we do not think that even this bill would put an end to their barbaric ways.

Want me to give more examples?

OOC: Yes, and? The death penalty achieves the same results as banishment but with less cruelty and with no money spent on continually enforcing said banishment. Believe you me, I'd love to ban the death penalty in all member states, but we both know that it isn't practical.

OOC: So you'd like to ban death penalty but want to drive through a resolution that would make nations expand the list of crimes you can get executed for?

OOC: What do you want me to do? Repeal Crime and Punishment and pass a resolution that bans the death penalty in all member states? Besides, the voters have previously decided that reducing statelessness was an action that the WA ought to perform, so I don't see what the problem is.

[Morlago]

Fairburn: The law is plain and clear. If you do not wish to be tortured, do not commit a crime whose punishment is torture.

Of course, let's pull out the torture card, if only it were not so irrelevant. The concept of torture has nothing to do with punishing the individual for their wrongs, but to fulfill a personal desire of, say, hurting someone or extracting information. Simply inflicting pain does not equal torture. Caning, paddling, flogging are all (barbaric) forms of punishment. Torture is not. The intent is what separates the two.

The law is plain and clear. If you do not wish to be enslaved, do not commit a crime whose punishment is enslavement.

And you are right. Thank you for reiterating my point. If it is the result of your own wrongdoing, you have no one to blame for that. Slavery is only wrong if one is enslaved without having committed a wrong. To use one of your "approved alternatives", being imprisoned without cause is wrong, but being imprisoned after committing a crime is not.

The law is plain and clear. If you do not wish to be summarily executed, do not commit a crime whose punishment is summary execution.

Now you are just conflating other parts of the legal process that have nothing to do with this argument. We, too, agree that denying the right to a trial is wrong, regardless of whether the punishment is death or a mere fine. This point has no relevance whatsoever to whether banishment is acceptable.

Want me to give more examples?

We pray that you do, but please, only if they are pertinent to the discussion at hand.