[DRAFT] Preventing State-Sponsored Denialism

[Deropia]

--snip--

The pie and scotch bottle were not thrown at the same time

OoC: I was honestly just trying to reference both actions. Ah, foiled once again by my poor wording, edited.

[United Massachusetts]

Forbids the deliberate spread of the denial or "revisionism" of a genocide, war crime, or atrocity on behalf of a World Assembly member nation, by any means

This makes it sound as though you're trying to shut down Joe Skinheads holocaust denial blog rather then prevent nations from engaging in denial. Is that intended?

I'm trying to prevent nations from supporting things like Holocaust denial directly.

I updated the clause to make this more clear

[United Massachusetts]

Updated preamble

[Essu Beti]

Iksana shrugs. "My only beef now is with the "human" cruelty bit in the preamble. Believe me, non-humans are fully capable of being absolute bastards to each other. Also you have a comma instead of a period at the end of section 5."

[United Massachusetts]

Addressed

[Separatist Peoples]

Forbids the deliberate spread of the denial or "revisionism" of a genocide, war crime, or atrocity by a World Assembly member nation,

"And if there is a genuine question of material fact regarding that genocide, war crime, or atrocity? For example, if a C.D.S.P. unit bombed a Bigtopian village where they believed enemy forces were operating but were mistaken, there would, of course, be a war crime investigation. The credibility of that information, though potentially questioned by international observers and Bigtopian authorities, is nonetheless strongly believed by C.D.S.P. forces. As such, the incident is viewed as an atrocity by most of the world, but not by the C.D.S.P. Is it then revisionism to deny that the use of force was unjustified? Must nations promulgate information believed false by that nation but nonetheless subject to genuine dispute?"

Further forbids member-states from deliberately misconstruing the statistics, facts, or reasons regarding any genocide, war crime, or atrocity,

"You have an interesting question of intent here, your Excellency. After all, they say there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I'm sure I can formulate a calculation that compares, say, unjustified civilian deaths in a conflict in several different, valid ways that nonetheless are all honest and accurate. Statistics relies heavily on the method of testing, which is subject to no small amount of subjectivity. How do you intend to separate intentional material misrepresentation and valid statistical efforts? Further, how do you mean to separate intent from materially disputed facts or evolving understandings of rationale?

"Ultimately, your Excellency, the basis of your proposal relies on the idea that genocide and other atrocities are somehow resolved to a single viewpoint, where there is at least some kind of 'official' adjudication on the matter as to what is 'correct.'"

Bell pulls out a soap box and stands on it for a moment, "Until there is a supranational judicial body capable of assessing these kinds of 'international' crimes, there isn't any way for the WA to comprehensively deal with these questions of unresolved fact."

Bell steps off the soap box and resumes his normal position. "Regardless of my views as to what the GA needs to be successful, your presuppositions weaken the case for this, your Excellency. Any reasonable attorney could defend the actions you're trying to ban with absurd ease, which necessitates a redraft."

[Rhuritania]

"I can announce that Rhuritania will gladly support this proposal, as if not been shown thousands of times in history prior to this day that when the truth, history, is twisted and made sick by evil minds it always ends up in a conflict."

[Fauxia]

"I can announce that Rhuritania will gladly support this proposal, as if not been shown thousands of times in history prior to this day that when the truth, history, is twisted and made sick by evil minds it always ends up in a conflict."

"And who decides what is a genocide? The World Assembly as a whole? The government of the nation in question? The citizens of the nation in question? United Massachusetts? Fauxia? Rhuritania? It is impossible to fairly mandate and should therefore be left alone."

[Araraukar]

"And who decides what is a genocide? ... Fauxia?"

OOC: Given your "accuracy" so far, anyone but you.

To author: You define "revisionism", but use "denialism" in the title. Perhaps you should make sure the title matches the content?

[Fauxia]

"And who decides what is a genocide? ... Fauxia?"

OOC: Given your "accuracy" so far, anyone but you

I have to sig that

[Wallenburg]

Gee. I guess you all hated that Violet line.

I, for one, welcome our new amythestine overlords.

At any rate, Violet has been referenced in the SC before.

News to me. I got a flag on my account for putting the word "Violet" in an SC proposal.

[Fauxia]

Gee. I guess you all hated that Violet line.

I, for one, welcome our new amythestine overlords.

At any rate, Violet has been referenced in the SC before.

News to me. I got a flag on my account for putting the word "Violet" in an SC proposal.

Commend Separatist Peoples