Weaken Faith Authority [DRAFT]

[Liberimery]

Really curious, I read GARs #436 I haven’t noticed that it is outlawing my clause 6. Well I will continue debates tomorrow cause it is 1:31 AM here I am really want to sleep.

Freedom of Speech protects a citizens right to discuss opposition to government policy. This is an inherently disloyal action. A statement like "The King is going to hell" is potentially disloyal but is not in and of its self an illegal form of speech. We permit those who politically oppose the king to freely let us know why. Only actions taken by the speaker to hasten the proposed arrival in he'll (threats to harm the king) would move such a statement into a possible illegal statement that can be prosecuted as a threat.

[Dawn Kingdom]

OOC: I suppose it depends. If these checks have no enforcement power, then Clause 6 isn't illegal. If your checks come with a penalty for insufficient loyalty, then you've a reprisal against a form of expression, and likely violate GAR#436. So, either your clause is useless, or it is illegal.

What about clause 2,3/4. I will change the numeration and will specify clause 6.

[The New California Republic]

4.) Mandates that governments must commence annual checks of families to determine their loyalty to the nation. If family is determined to be unloyal, no direct actions will be taken, but the family will be under surveillance.

That sounds like a penalty for "insufficient loyalty" to me...

[Separatist Peoples]

4.) Mandates that governments must commence annual checks of families to determine their loyalty to the nation. If family is determined to be unloyal, no direct actions will be taken, but the family will be under surveillance.

That sounds like a penalty for "insufficient loyalty" to me...

OOC: It is as I understand it. Any action taken in response to these checks that is dependent on Insufficient Loyalty is itself a reprisal from my understanding.

Why are we enforcing loyalty checks? My nation ICly doesn't care if it's citizens say disloyal things about the government. Freedom of Speech, man.

[The New California Republic]

That sounds like a penalty for "insufficient loyalty" to me...

OOC: It is as I understand it. Any action taken in response to these checks that is dependent on Insufficient Loyalty is itself a reprisal from my understanding.

Why are we enforcing loyalty checks? My nation ICly doesn't care if it's citizens say disloyal things about the government. Freedom of Speech, man.

It would be better if the entire clause was just removed. I mean, the author is having to resort to bending and twisting and distorting it just so that it can even begin to pass muster, and even then it still isn't. In my experience, any clause that you have to bend and twist and distort into some horrific monstrum just to make it work really isn't worth it, it is a sign that it is a bad clause that needs removing post haste.

[Dawn Kingdom]

That sounds like a penalty for "insufficient loyalty" to me...

OOC: It is as I understand it. Any action taken in response to these checks that is dependent on Insufficient Loyalty is itself a reprisal from my understanding.

Why are we enforcing loyalty checks? My nation ICly doesn't care if it's citizens say disloyal things about the government. Freedom of Speech, man.

Nobody will be sent to the court, nobody will be trialed, nobody will be imprisoned, so it isn’t punishment. Surveillance is to unsure that people aren’t starting religious coup. Nothing more, nothing less.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: It is as I understand it. Any action taken in response to these checks that is dependent on Insufficient Loyalty is itself a reprisal from my understanding.

Why are we enforcing loyalty checks? My nation ICly doesn't care if it's citizens say disloyal things about the government. Freedom of Speech, man.

Nobody will be sent to the court, nobody will be trialed, nobody will be imprisoned, so it isn’t punishment. Surveillance is to unsure that people aren’t starting religious coup. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is still an action being taken on account of insufficient loyalty, that but for "failing" the loyalty test wouldn't happen. Surveillance in and of itself being implemented on account of a test being failed is a form of reprisal. You just need to look at the history of the Stasi to understand the manner in which surveillance alone constitutes a punishment.

[Fahran]

It doesn’t ban the basic of Theocratic ideology. Religious representatives can be in the government. That’s basics of Theocracy. Political figures can be religious. Clause 7 made sure that it didn’t ban the Theocracy itself. About other resolutions, I asked to quote the part where I am actually breaking the rule.

OOC: I'd mention this in the draft. "This resolution shall not be interpreted to preclude political figures from holding religious beliefs." California gave you some excellent criticism on the current draft as well. While I re-wrote your prior draft to give it a more professional appearance, some of the resolution is probably still illegal, not useful, or superfluous. I'd remove articles four and five at least, and I'd contemplate perhaps adding and fleshing out a couple new articles.

[Dawn Kingdom]

I just like clause 4 too much to give up on it, what about clause5. It is the newest edit in the draft, so I imagine it might not be perfect.

[The New California Republic]

I just like clause 4 too much to give up on it, what about clause5. It is the newest edit in the draft, so I imagine it might not be perfect.

You need to get rid of clause 4 because of the legality issues surrounding it. But with that said, let's take a look at the new clause 5, hopefully it will be an improvement, but I won't hold my breath...

5.) Mobilization of police forces
a) Places of worship will be defended by police forces chosen by the government to ensure stability.
b) Religious representatives will be escorted by police officers chosen by the government to ensure their safety and to report their speeches to the government.

What the actual fuck is this? You know, I wouldn't have thought it was possible, absolutely would not have thought it was possible for this draft to be made worse, but it has. I barely even know where to begin with my criticism of this clause, but I'll try.

First, what on Earth are the places of worship being "defended" from?? I know fine well what you are trying to do here, you are trying to be incredibly sneaky by oppressively placing police around all places of worship under the guise of "defending" them. Sorry, that shit is transparent as hell. It isn't smart.

Second, the religious representatives are NOT being escorted for "their safety" at all. More completely underhanded bullshit.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Clause 4 is irrevocably in violation of GAR#213, and cannot be included.

New Clause 5 actually seems legal. It doesn't place the WA in control of police forces in contravention of GAR#2, and I don't recall any resolution that prevents the WA from requiring increased security and protections for certain, possibly vulnerable, individuals.

[Dawn Kingdom]

OOC: Clause 4 is irrevocably in violation of GAR#213, and cannot be included.

New Clause 5 actually seems legal. It doesn't place the WA in control of police forces in contravention of GAR#2, and I don't recall any resolution that prevents the WA from requiring increased security and protections for certain, possibly vulnerable, individuals.

Yay, thanks for noting that clause 5 is legal. Do you hear that California?! LEGAL.

[The New California Republic]

OOC: Clause 4 is irrevocably in violation of GAR#213, and cannot be included.

New Clause 5 actually seems legal. It doesn't place the WA in control of police forces in contravention of GAR#2, and I don't recall any resolution that prevents the WA from requiring increased security and protections for certain, possibly vulnerable, individuals.

Yay, thanks for noting that clause 5 is legal. Do you hear that California?! LEGAL.

Another reminder: legal =/= good.

[Dawn Kingdom]

Yay, thanks for noting that clause 5 is legal. Do you hear that California?! LEGAL.

Another reminder: legal =/= good.

Another reminder: Legal=Legal. About clause 4 I will reconsider.

[Holy Marsh]

The fact it is legal doesn't mean it will garner any actionable support, is what California is trying to say. Clause 5's actual aim is too transparent for people who read this proposal to support, regardless of whether it is legally worded and protected.

[The New California Republic]

Another reminder: legal =/= good.

Another reminder: Legal=Legal.

If you are only aiming for the draft to be legal, then you are doing it wrong...

[Jebslund]

Another reminder: legal =/= good. ;)

Another reminder: Legal=Legal. About clause 4 I will reconsider.

[OOC: Another reminder: People will not vote for a bad proposal, and delegates will not *approve* a bad proposal, meaning a bad proposal will not make it to the voting floor, legal or not. You would do well to heed the advice of those who have been here longer, or have a *very* solid argument against.]

[Wallenburg]

meaning a bad proposal will not make it to the voting floor, legal or not

I wish.

[Jebslund]

meaning a bad proposal will not make it to the voting floor, legal or not

I wish.

Exceptions do not void a general rule.

[Wallenburg]

I wish.

Exceptions do not void a general rule.

Seeing as we have 124 repealed resolutions (and therefore 124 repeals to go with it, in total making up 56% of all passed resolutions), and seeing as many more bad resolutions have failed at Vote, I'm going to have to say that there is no such general rule.

[Jebslund]

Exceptions do not void a general rule.

Seeing as we have 124 repealed resolutions (and therefore 124 repeals to go with it, in total making up 56% of all passed resolutions), and seeing as many more bad resolutions have failed at Vote, I'm going to have to say that there is no such general rule.

A resolution being repealed does not automatically make it bad.

[Imperium Anglorum]

[OOC: Another reminder: People will not vote for a bad proposal, and delegates will not *approve* a bad proposal, meaning a bad proposal will not make it to the voting floor, legal or not. You would do well to heed the advice of those who have been here longer, or have a *very* solid argument against.]

WSA

[Dawn Kingdom]

PLus why do you think that it is a bad idea? For starting surveillance on people or escorting religious representatives? Esiring their safety and loyalty is one of the best/good idea.

[Alaril]

Personally, I really like clause 4 and 5, even though 4 is illegal. Surveillance on citizens and religious people is a good way to make sure no dissent will rise.

[Jebslund]

[OOC: Another reminder: People will not vote for a bad proposal, and delegates will not *approve* a bad proposal, meaning a bad proposal will not make it to the voting floor, legal or not. You would do well to heed the advice of those who have been here longer, or have a *very* solid argument against.]

WSA

?