[ON HOLD] International Cultural Expositions

[Araraukar]

OOC: hence the grand WA tradition of assuming good faith compliance, as we simply don't have the space to write things out that a real-world body would have. On some level you have to accept that the resolution says don't do it and that's enough grounds to assume that the intention is for it not to happen.

OOC: The compliance committee or whatever it was eventually named, was deemed legal exactly because apparently compliance cannot be assumed. (I don't agree with that ruling, btw.) And yes I get it there are length issues, but you should be able to make your committee deal with applications to attend the affair, as well.

[Astrolinium]

OOC: hence the grand WA tradition of assuming good faith compliance, as we simply don't have the space to write things out that a real-world body would have. On some level you have to accept that the resolution says don't do it and that's enough grounds to assume that the intention is for it not to happen.

OOC: The compliance committee or whatever it was eventually named, was deemed legal exactly because apparently compliance cannot be assumed. (I don't agree with that ruling, btw.) And yes I get it there are length issues, but you should be able to make your committee deal with applications to attend the affair, as well.

OOC: What would you suggest? I'm thinking something along the lines of adding "and to ensure that applications for exhibitions are handled equitably" to the EMPOWERS clause at the bottom, but I'm not very happy with quite that wording.

[Araraukar]

OOC: What would you suggest?

OOC: Burning this whole thing and forgetting it ever existed. Seriously.

But if you start with the assumption of getting the committee to deal with the bureaucracy part of the whole affair, it'll ease up the pressure on the hosting nation a lot. How you decide to do it fairly is up to you. I don't really want this proposal to be passable, so I'll decline rewriting it for you.

But considering the huge effort to host it and even just to partake it, I'm not sure an annual event of this magnitude is a good idea. How about biennial?

Also, you may want to really think about how you're going to pass the hurdle of this in effect only affecting one nation at a time. Sure, others can join, but events like this one (or olympics or whatnot) have generally failed to pass the "must affect all nations" and "no optionality" pitfalls. Now a nation would get to ignore this if they didn't apply to either host or partake.

Also, I'm not entirely certain how "public exhibitions of the cultures of WA member states with accompanying amusement and entertainment" will raise educational budgets of all nations. Or even the nations that are partaking.

And when you take into account the various tech levels stuff, I really have a hard time imagining how a past tech nation, even relatively recent past, like Wallenburg, is going to get around to attending something in some starfaring nation, whose portal to the WAHQ is in empty interstellat space.

[Calladan]

FURTHER NOTES that the host nation may not expel or prevent the participation of member states or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultural practices, or other beliefs unless the aforementioned ideologies, cultural practices, or other beliefs present a clear and present danger to the national security of the hosting state or to the safety of those in attendance at these expositions, or would constitute a violation of other WA policies,

This presents a major problem to me. Because while I accept that the world is a wide and wonderful place, and believe that every nation is free to pursue their own ideology within their own borders, I am NOT going to allow them to glorify ideologies I fundamentally disagree with from within the borders of MY nation. The most clear example of this would be fascist nations, racist nations and nations that hold religious views I find utterly and totally abhorrent.

They are free to do it in their own nation, but I am not having them do it in mine.

So - yeah. This will prevent a major problem to me. Because I am not letting overt racists, fascists, lunatic religious zealots or other idiotic bigot nutjobs in to my country whether I can prove they are a danger to my people or not. They are just not welcome here and I am not going to support something that tells me I am compelled to accept them.

[Astrolinium]

FURTHER NOTES that the host nation may not expel or prevent the participation of member states or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultural practices, or other beliefs unless the aforementioned ideologies, cultural practices, or other beliefs present a clear and present danger to the national security of the hosting state or to the safety of those in attendance at these expositions, or would constitute a violation of other WA policies,

This presents a major problem to me. Because while I accept that the world is a wide and wonderful place, and believe that every nation is free to pursue their own ideology within their own borders, I am NOT going to allow them to glorify ideologies I fundamentally disagree with from within the borders of MY nation. The most clear example of this would be fascist nations, racist nations and nations that hold religious views I find utterly and totally abhorrent.

They are free to do it in their own nation, but I am not having them do it in mine.

So - yeah. This will prevent a major problem to me. Because I am not letting overt racists, fascists, lunatic religious zealots or other idiotic bigot nutjobs in to my country whether I can prove they are a danger to my people or not. They are just not welcome here and I am not going to support something that tells me I am compelled to accept them.

"Respectfully, Ambassador, there is no reasonable way to allow legislation of this sort and allow members to ban people simply for disagreeing with them. Either nations cannot discriminate based on ideology (unless that ideology presents a clear and present danger), or nations can discriminate at will and the whole point of the resolution -- which is, in part, to expose our nations' citizens to new and foreign ideas so that they may become more educated about the world in which they live -- is defeated. Fundamentally, this is a body which exists to encourage globalism, and a desire to isolate your nation from the world is incompatible with it."

Giovanni motions towards the back of the chamber.

"The door is over there if you're so opposed to actually participating in the world in which we all live."

[Calladan]

FURTHER NOTES that the host nation may not expel or prevent the participation of member states or individuals due solely to their ideologies, cultural practices, or other beliefs unless the aforementioned ideologies, cultural practices, or other beliefs present a clear and present danger to the national security of the hosting state or to the safety of those in attendance at these expositions, or would constitute a violation of other WA policies,

This presents a major problem to me. Because while I accept that the world is a wide and wonderful place, and believe that every nation is free to pursue their own ideology within their own borders, I am NOT going to allow them to glorify ideologies I fundamentally disagree with from within the borders of MY nation. The most clear example of this would be fascist nations, racist nations and nations that hold religious views I find utterly and totally abhorrent.

They are free to do it in their own nation, but I am not having them do it in mine.

So - yeah. This will prevent a major problem to me. Because I am not letting overt racists, fascists, lunatic religious zealots or other idiotic bigot nutjobs in to my country whether I can prove they are a danger to my people or not. They are just not welcome here and I am not going to support something that tells me I am compelled to accept them.

"Respectfully, Ambassador, there is no reasonable way to allow legislation of this sort and allow members to ban people simply for disagreeing with them. Either nations cannot discriminate based on ideology (unless that ideology presents a clear and present danger), or nations can discriminate at will and the whole point of the resolution -- which is, in part, to expose our nations' citizens to new and foreign ideas so that they may become more educated about the world in which they live -- is defeated. Fundamentally, this is a body which exists to encourage globalism, and a desire to isolate your nation from the world is incompatible with it."

Giovanni motions towards the back of the chamber.

"The door is over there if you're so opposed to actually participating in the world in which we all live."

Then I have another question which mayor may not be covered by the proposal, but as far as I can tell isn't :-

Whose laws apply to visiting citizens? Because if this is supposed to be an area where various nations can showcase their cultures and so forth, then one would assume that they would have to be free to do that, but Calladan has strict laws in certain areas, and certain nations may have cultures that fall foul of those laws.

For example we forbid private ownership of guns - no private citizen may own, carry or use a gun without facing arrest and investigation. And following the Seven Years of Darkness we have laws about religious activities as well, and if nations with overtly religious beliefs and what we would politely describe as novel religious practices want to showcase them within our borders, they might break some of our laws in regard to those - would we be require to allow that, or would they be required to follow our laws?

And to expand it out a bit more - there has been recently discussion about the widely varying ages of majority across The WA and ages of consent. Do visitors to Calladan have to obey our age of Majority (18) and our age of Consent (15) or does each nation retain their own? (Or is that covered by existing legislation? I am not sure since there is quite a lot of it). I only ask because for all I know there might be some nations that have "cultural practices" that involve what we would consider to be children and as such would be illegal in our country yet perfectly legal in their own. It would not be an issue of national security, or a clear and present danger to our nation or citizens, and yet would require our laws to be broken in our nation - something we find reprehensible and entirely unacceptable and something we believe we should not have to be forced to accept.

I know it sounds like I am looking for reasons to oppose this, but the truth is you have kind of annoyed me with your attitude.

If you look through the other debates, and the other arguments, you will find I am a HUGE supporter of The World Assembly and of its goals. I am a big believer in live and let live, and that the idea of IDIC is something I vehemently champion. While I personally dislike the idea of fascist nations, of nations based on the idea of racial superiority or misogyny or misandry or any other kind of bigotry I am not going to oppose their existence or their membership in The WA because - quite honestly - it is none of my business what other nations do in their privacy of their own country.

But do not ask me to glorify their existence. Do not ask me to celebrate their culture. Do not ask me to invite them into my nation and make them feel at home. Because to ask me to do so is an insult to everyone in my nation who fought during The Seven Years to free Calladan from the fascist religious bigotry that enslaved our country, and neither I, nor anyone in the government I speak for, will bear such an insult. We will resign from The WA before being forced to do so.

[Araraukar]

Whose laws apply to visiting citizens? Because if this is supposed to be an area where various nations can showcase their cultures and so forth, then one would assume that they would have to be free to do that, but Calladan has strict laws in certain areas, and certain nations may have cultures that fall foul of those laws.

According to pre-existing resolutions, the laws of the nation you're in, apply, regardless of culture. With some very specific exceptions (OOC: like your otherwise-considered-to-be-minor spouse's pictures on your smartphone not counting as child porn).

[Calladan]

While I have endeavoured to make my position clear, I think I can provide an example to make it slightly clearer.

Imagine, if you will, you are a follower of Zorp. You believe in the deity and what s/he teaches about the world. Now imagine your neighbour's prime belief is that every member of the followers of Zorp is a twat. That he finds every single one of the beliefs you hold to be contemptible, stupid, idiotic and laughable. That every time he talks to you, he belittles and insults your faith, calls you names and generally treats you like crap. BUT he does not threaten you, attack you or make you feel like your life is in danger in any way shape or form, because while his belief is that you are a gullible twat who clearly has the brains that his god gave a field mouse, he has no desire to hurt or kill you.

Would you invite him over for dinner? Would you go out for drinks with him? Would you spend ANY MORE TIME with him than was necessary?

I am guessing the answer is probably no. You would avoid him like the plague and never, ever invite him in to your house because why in the name of Zorp would you want to invite someone like that in to your own home??

And yet this is EXACTLY what this proposal would have you do -- you would COMPEL my country to invite people we find evil, contemptible, vile - the very scum of this earth - into our country and do it against our will.

Why would we agree to this? Why would ANYONE agree to this?

[Whovian Tardisia]

Ambassador Pink wanders in, mumbling something about custard, and picks up a copy of the latest draft and the minutes. "Hmm. Rather intriguing, but I'm afraid I'll have to oppose." He states. "While I like the idea of an event like this, and would love to attend such an exhibition, I believe it is outside of the scope of this Assembly to legislate having one. Events like this would be better handled on smaller scales by individual member nations and any willing participants."

Calladan's concerns are addressed by the fact nominations can be declined, but this makes the proposal illegal due to optionality. I admire your initiative, Astro, but I have to agree with Ara that you should probably just abandon it. We don't see stuff like this IRL. So far as I know, the UN plays no part in things like the Olympics, and didn't in the World's Fairs of old, or the modern Expos. However, there is citation needed.

[Calladan]

Ambassador Pink wanders in, mumbling something about custard, and picks up a copy of the latest draft and the minutes. "Hmm. Rather intriguing, but I'm afraid I'll have to oppose." He states. "While I like the idea of an event like this, and would love to attend such an exhibition, I believe it is outside of the scope of this Assembly to legislate having one. Events like this would be better handled on smaller scales by individual member nations and any willing participants."

Calladan's concerns are addressed by the fact nominations can be declined, but this makes the proposal illegal due to optionality. I admire your initiative, Astro, but I have to agree with Ara that you should probably just abandon it. We don't see stuff like this IRL. So far as I know, the UN plays no part in things like the Olympics, and didn't in the World's Fairs of old, or the modern Expos. However, there is citation needed.

While I don't want to start another argument with someone, my concerns are not actually addressed by that. While it is true I can decline to hold an expo in my nation, that just means I can opt out of it entirely, which is not my major problem. My problem is what if I want to hold an Expo but refuse certain nations because I find them to be utterly reprehensible, vile, evil scum-sucking bigots of the lowest kind and would not want them anywhere near my country, let alone inside my borders glorifying their hate-filled bigoted ideologies as if they were actually nice people? (Which I know sounds a tad judgemental, but you have to admit, there are some nations within the hallowed halls of The WA that are not nice).

So if my only options are resign from The WA or NEVER host an Expo then I guess NEVER hosting an Expo is probably preferable, but still - that does seem to make it a tad pointless from my point of view, and is unlikely to engender my support for it.

And - fair warning - if this does pass and become law - my refusal will be a standing thing and I might as well be removed from any future nominations list just to save time.

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Pink wanders in, mumbling something about custard, and picks up a copy of the latest draft and the minutes. "Hmm. Rather intriguing, but I'm afraid I'll have to oppose." He states. "While I like the idea of an event like this, and would love to attend such an exhibition, I believe it is outside of the scope of this Assembly to legislate having one. Events like this would be better handled on smaller scales by individual member nations and any willing participants."

Calladan's concerns are addressed by the fact nominations can be declined, but this makes the proposal illegal due to optionality. I admire your initiative, Astro, but I have to agree with Ara that you should probably just abandon it. We don't see stuff like this IRL. So far as I know, the UN plays no part in things like the Olympics, and didn't in the World's Fairs of old, or the modern Expos. However, there is citation needed.

While I don't want to start another argument with someone, my concerns are not actually addressed by that. While it is true I can decline to hold an expo in my nation, that just means I can opt out of it entirely, which is not my major problem. My problem is what if I want to hold an Expo but refuse certain nations because I find them to be utterly reprehensible, vile, evil scum-sucking bigots of the lowest kind and would not want them anywhere near my country, let alone inside my borders glorifying their hate-filled bigoted ideologies as if they were actually nice people? (Which I know sounds a tad judgemental, but you have to admit, there are some nations within the hallowed halls of The WA that are not nice).

So if my only options are resign from The WA or NEVER host an Expo then I guess NEVER hosting an Expo is probably preferable, but still - that does seem to make it a tad pointless from my point of view, and is unlikely to engender my support for it.

And - fair warning - if this does pass and become law - my refusal will be a standing thing and I might as well be removed from any future nominations list just to save time.

"Yikes. At least, when the C.D.S.P. opens fire on those attempting to illegally immigrate to our nation, we aren't discriminative about it. If that is your nation's stance, it could easily find itself in violation of the Charter on Civil Rights or the International Transport Safety Commission's requirements. Just a thought, of course."

Bell reclines, "It's nice to see that even our ideological opponents are capable of base xenophobia."

[Calladan]

While I don't want to start another argument with someone, my concerns are not actually addressed by that. While it is true I can decline to hold an expo in my nation, that just means I can opt out of it entirely, which is not my major problem. My problem is what if I want to hold an Expo but refuse certain nations because I find them to be utterly reprehensible, vile, evil scum-sucking bigots of the lowest kind and would not want them anywhere near my country, let alone inside my borders glorifying their hate-filled bigoted ideologies as if they were actually nice people? (Which I know sounds a tad judgemental, but you have to admit, there are some nations within the hallowed halls of The WA that are not nice).

So if my only options are resign from The WA or NEVER host an Expo then I guess NEVER hosting an Expo is probably preferable, but still - that does seem to make it a tad pointless from my point of view, and is unlikely to engender my support for it.

And - fair warning - if this does pass and become law - my refusal will be a standing thing and I might as well be removed from any future nominations list just to save time.

"Yikes. At least, when the C.D.S.P. opens fire on those attempting to illegally immigrate to our nation, we aren't discriminative about it. If that is your nation's stance, it could easily find itself in violation of the Charter on Civil Rights or the International Transport Safety Commission's requirements. Just a thought, of course."

Bell reclines, "It's nice to see that even our ideological opponents are capable of base xenophobia."

Seriously - am I the only person who has an issue with this?

There are nations out there who think all Jewish people are scum and should be burned on crosses. Who think all black people are subnormal human beings and should be hunted for sport. And this proposal would require every other WA nation to allow these nations - that want to hunt fellow human beings and other sapient species for sport, to commit genocides so wide and so broad that they would make The Seven Years look like a clam bake - into their countries and allow them to present these warped and twisted ideologies to people as if they weren't truly offensive and sick?

Am I really the only person who doesn't see the problem with this?

[Separatist Peoples]

Seriously - am I the only person who has an issue with this?

There are nations out there who think all Jewish people are scum and should be burned on crosses. Who think all black people are subnormal human beings and should be hunted for sport. And this proposal would require every other WA nation to allow these nations - that want to hunt fellow human beings and other sapient species for sport, to commit genocides so wide and so broad that they would make The Seven Years look like a clam bake - into their countries and allow them to present these warped and twisted ideologies to people as if they weren't truly offensive and sick?

Am I really the only person who doesn't see the problem with this?

"In my country, ambassador, we believe that everybody has the right to their beliefs, regardless of how awful they are. We also expect people to follow the laws of the nation they are in, so while we wouldn't necessarily be happy about having racist foreigners visit, we would tolerate them if they obeyed our laws. Neither beliefs nor words that are not explicit threats cannot be treated as dangerous, or we follow the inevitable slope into treating those who speak or believe them as somehow less than those who do not. What shocks me is that you don't see the hypocrisy inherent in your carte blanche maligning of these foreign nationals. If your nation wishes not to expose their people to icky "ideas", it need not participate in these exchanges. Frankly, the idea that you so severely restrict your people's access to the free flow of ideas, even repugnant ones, is abhorrent to me, but you don't see me looking for a gag order.

"If your society is so coddled and soft that it cannot withstand exposure to ideas you find disturbing, then your society needs to become significantly more insular than it is."

[Calladan]

"In my country, ambassador, we believe that everybody has the right to their beliefs, regardless of how awful they are. We also expect people to follow the laws of the nation they are in, so while we wouldn't necessarily be happy about having racist foreigners visit, we would tolerate them if they obeyed our laws. Neither beliefs nor words that are not explicit threats cannot be treated as dangerous, or we follow the inevitable slope into treating those who speak or believe them as somehow less than those who do not. What shocks me is that you don't see the hypocrisy inherent in your carte blanche maligning of these foreign nationals. If your nation wishes not to expose their people to icky "ideas", it need not participate in these exchanges. Frankly, the idea that you so severely restrict your people's access to the free flow of ideas, even repugnant ones, is abhorrent to me, but you don't see me looking for a gag order.

"If your society is so coddled and soft that it cannot withstand exposure to ideas you find disturbing, then your society needs to become significantly more insular than it is."

Perhaps I am not making my position entirely clear.

The Calladanian government doesn't object to visitors from other countries, no matter what countries they come from. As you say - as long as they obey the laws of our land (and do not attempt mass slaughter and genocide while visiting our famous waterfalls) they can come and go as tourists. We might have issues if they want to immigrate, or if they have outstanding criminal warrants in Calladan.

But what this proposal is demanding we do is let them set up a booth in Greater Leadworth and preach hate, loathing, bigotry and abuse to my people. It is demanding that we glorify ideologies that we find truly and utterly offensive. And - because it is a government sponsored event (via The WA) it implies that my government could be seen to endorse these views because we are the ones that are allowing them to be presented.

With advance apologies to people I might offend, imagine you are black, or Jewish, or a follower of Zorp, and you are walking through one of these Expositions, and you see a booth that essentially calls for you and your entire family to be burned at the stake just because of your skin colour or religion. And that that booth is there with the permission of your government - the government that is supposed to treat you as an equal with everyone else in your nation. Would you not feel somewhat betrayed?

We teach our children about these ideologies in school - we teach history and culture, but we teach it in an unbiased and neutral manner. We expose our children to the entire range of views - good and bad - that this world can throw at them. But we do endeavour to make it clear that some are acceptable, and some are not. And the wholesale slaughter of people because they have a different skin colour or faith or last name than some other people is NOT acceptable, and being asked to let someone come into our country and stage an exposition in the centre of our largest city as if it is........ that's just bollocks and nothing anyone says is going to convince me otherwise.

If it passes, we will turn down nominations. And if it fails, or doesn't make it to a vote, we will raise a glass to common sense prevailing.

[Araraukar]

Seriously - am I the only person who has an issue with this?

OOC: No, you're not, but it's not as easy to make a case for a challenge based on "we think some nations should be wiped out for the good of all sapient creatures". Especially since, in effect, that places your nation amongs them as well...

EDIT: I still think it's illegal for optionality.

[Astrolinium]

OOC: I still think this is a good idea. There's clearly issues with it, but I fundamentally think I can eventually work them out and find a way to make this work. That said, I start the new semester on Tuesday and I'm not going to be able to work them out between now and then, and I certainly won't be able to do so and find time to campaign for this, so I think I'll be putting this on hold until May, when school lets out for the summer and I'll actually have time to dedicate to working on this again.

[Calladan]

Seriously - am I the only person who has an issue with this?

OOC: No, you're not, but it's not as easy to make a case for a challenge based on "we think some nations should be wiped out for the good of all sapient creatures". Especially since, in effect, that places your nation amongs them as well...

EDIT: I still think it's illegal for optionality.

Oh - right. That's where the misunderstanding is coming.

I am not suggesting it is illegal or that it should be scrapped because of that. Nor am I wanting to mount a challenge to it.

All I am doing is giving a reason why I wouldn't support it if it came to a vote.

For all the flaws it appears to have, I can't see any illegality in it - it is actually quite well written as proposals go