Advertisement
by Tinfect » Mon May 13, 2019 4:01 pm
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by Uan aa Boa » Tue May 14, 2019 6:31 am
Bears Armed wrote:"The main potential problem with “not arrest or prosecution” in that situation comes from the [almost certain] existence of some WA member nations which lack the distinction between ‘criminal law’ and ‘civil law’ which exists in — for example — the ‘RealWorld’ nations called ‘UK’ and ‘USA’. Anyhows, hwhat do you think of the changes that we are now suggesting?”
by Bears Armed » Tue May 14, 2019 6:36 am
Araraukar wrote:Bears Armed wrote:(OOC: Please try to remember that, regardless of the situation in your own nation or even the probable situation in RL, there are nations in NationsStates that do have verifiable proof for the existence of various supernatural elements — possibly even extending to the existence of certain deities — in their role-played realities. Even though I myself OOC would probably be classed as either an atheist or an agnostic [depending on precisely how one defines those two terms], Bears Armed is one such nation — although the precise nature of some of those elements is open to debate — and they will need more than just dismissive statements from a few foreigners to “disprove” those facts…
*snip*
On the other hand, removing that clause (as some people here want) would leave organisations open to governments enforcing any discriminatory policies that they could justify as having “compelling practical purposes” on ALL organisations within their jurisdictions, which would be much harder for people to escape… and neither I on an OOC basis nor the Bears IC would be happy about not just ”discrimination enabling” but also “tyranny-enabling” in that way.
To use one example, what if a nation’s government believes in a religion that considers people of some particular type (e.g. redheads) to be “accursed by the Goddess” and — possibly even with some proof of their deity’s existence locally (even though they obviously can’t make that canon right across all of NS) — decrees that there is therefore a ‘compelling practical purpose’ for excluding people of that type from membership in all organisations within that nation? Impossible under the current draft with its ‘Article Three’, but possible under a version of this proposed resolution from which that Article has been removed...
OOC: You seem to be arguing against yourself. On one hand claiming that your RP reality must be honored, on the other ridiculing just such RP (actual deities actually saying stuff) as a compelling reason. Which do you want it to be?
Tinfect wrote:OOC: Something that seems to always be missed in this talk of 'oh in my RP god was down at the pub last sunday we KNOW he's real', is what good reason is there to exclude any god from the law? Hell, if there is literally a god at the head of the church, occasionally showing up to chat and smite a few people, that's a really good reason to regulate the church like any other private industry, and I sincerely hope that we can agree that you shouldn't be able to put up 'we don't serve f*gs' signs at the local supermarket.
Long story short, I don't see why being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, form people out of clay, or throw lightning from mountaintops, should make you above the law.
Uan aa Boa wrote:Bears Armed wrote:"The main potential problem with “not arrest or prosecution” in that situation comes from the [almost certain] existence of some WA member nations which lack the distinction between ‘criminal law’ and ‘civil law’ which exists in — for example — the ‘RealWorld’ nations called ‘UK’ and ‘USA’. Anyhows, hwhat do you think of the changes that we are now suggesting?”
I'm wholly satisfied with the protection of the right to strike. I do wonder, however, if this draft allows a great variety of things that might be illegal in some nations to be safely done so long as multiple citizens assemble for the purpose. Slander/defamation, drug use, buying and selling of goods, gambling, prostitution, animal cruelty and many, many other activities slip through the net of exceptions to Clause One. You might deliberately intend this to be the case where the activities cannot be shown to be directly harmful, but delegates should be aware of the extent of the intrusion into national sovereignty.
by Kenmoria » Tue May 14, 2019 11:00 am
by Kowani » Tue May 14, 2019 4:45 pm
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Something that seems to always be missed in this talk of 'oh in my RP god was down at the pub last sunday we KNOW he's real', is what good reason is there to exclude any god from the law? Hell, if there is literally a god at the head of the church, occasionally showing up to chat and smite a few people, that's a really good reason to regulate the church like any other private industry, and I sincerely hope that we can agree that you shouldn't be able to put up 'we don't serve f*gs' signs at the local supermarket.
Long story short, I don't see why being able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, form people out of clay, or throw lightning from mountaintops, should make you above the law.
by Aclion » Tue May 14, 2019 9:53 pm
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Something that seems to always be missed in this talk of 'oh in my RP god was down at the pub last sunday we KNOW he's real', is what good reason is there to exclude any god from the law?
by Araraukar » Tue May 14, 2019 9:57 pm
Bears Armed wrote:I wasn’t trying to demand that my RP be “honoured” to the extent that it should be canon in everybody else’s RP too, just trying to remind people that it’s canon among the Bears IC themselves so that they’re unlikely to consider arguments that simply dismiss this factor out-of-hand as worthy of consideration… rather like you did in this forum, not long ago, about your nation’s concept of economics.
Did the strength of your own disbelief in the truth of any religious views in RL
Do you have a reply to my basic argument here that allowing governments to make those decisions for everybody within their nations could potentially be at least as ‘discrimination-enabling’ as letting the relevant organisations do so separately for themselves and would be ‘tyranny-enabling’ as well?”
Tinfect wrote:OOC:
“It might be interesting to see you try saying that to one of Them in person, especially somewhere in one of “Their” nations and — just in case —away from the Weapons Neutralisers… If one could observe from a reasonably safe distance, anyhows.”
Kowani wrote:OOC: I’m not entirely sure how we’d enforce the law on a god. Unless it was something shitty like the “God of Clay Pots”, ‘cause I don’t think Quezecoatl would exactly like some puny mortal telling him that his human sacrifice is now subject to health regulations.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Bears Armed » Wed May 15, 2019 6:40 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Article five would appear to prohibit completely unintentional monopolies, even when there isn’t suppression of other movements involved. When, for instance, a religion is introduced to a nation, it may very well hold a monopoly over being the only organisation of that faith for a number of years, without shutting down other groups. Since you ban monopolies themselves, and don’t allow any exceptions for natural ones, this would be prohibited by your proposal.”
OOCAraraukar wrote:Bears Armed wrote:I wasn’t trying to demand that my RP be “honoured” to the extent that it should be canon in everybody else’s RP too, just trying to remind people that it’s canon among the Bears IC themselves so that they’re unlikely to consider arguments that simply dismiss this factor out-of-hand as worthy of consideration… rather like you did in this forum, not long ago, about your nation’s concept of economics.
OOC: I won't get in the way of your RP or your reasoning for creative compliance, which is what I expect others to do to me as well, but I'm not trying to write my excuses into a proposal.
OOCAraraukar wrote:Bears Armed wrote:Did the strength of your own disbelief in the truth of any religious views in RL
You assume that being an atheist means not believing in anything "supernatural". I have more trouble with organized religions (exactly because they're used to discriminate, harass and oppress minorities) than faith. Everyone's free to believe whatever they want. That doesn't mean they should be free to do whatever they want.
OOCAraraukar wrote:Bears Armed wrote:Do you have a reply to my basic argument here that allowing governments to make those decisions for everybody within their nations could potentially be at least as ‘discrimination-enabling’ as letting the relevant organisations do so separately for themselves and would be ‘tyranny-enabling’ as well?”
I'm fairly sure you must be confusing me for someone else, as I'm the one that keeps saying CoCR's antidiscrimination parts should be read much stronger than they usually are.
OOCAraraukar wrote:OOC: I think the point was more about "why should the WA codify fear of a local god into a resolution"? Whether the god is local in the player's (who RPs them as being real) opinion or not doesn't matter, because other players can't be forced to acknowledge that RP as real in their RP realities.
by Chairman Cities » Wed May 15, 2019 7:30 am
by Bears Armed » Wed May 15, 2019 7:55 am
Kenmoria wrote:“Article six seems strangely precise about matters, particularly the two-thirds section. It is currently unclear whether you wish to say that those who are 66% the legal age must have the ability to decide religious or political matters, or whether you are allowing this to happen. In addition, particularly with religious matters, I think anyone who doesn’t believe in a god shouldn’t be forced to attend church by their parents, no matter the age.”
by Uan aa Boa » Wed May 15, 2019 9:06 am
Bears Armed wrote:Uan aa Boa wrote:I'm wholly satisfied with the protection of the right to strike. I do wonder, however, if this draft allows a great variety of things that might be illegal in some nations to be safely done so long as multiple citizens assemble for the purpose. Slander/defamation, drug use, buying and selling of goods, gambling, prostitution, animal cruelty and many, many other activities slip through the net of exceptions to Clause One. You might deliberately intend this to be the case where the activities cannot be shown to be directly harmful, but delegates should be aware of the extent of the intrusion into national sovereignty.
Fair question. I'd think that quite a few of those categories would count as 'economic', and therefore unprotected (buying & selling of goods, obviously; gambling, and prostitution, too), and that animal cruelty could reasonably be considered either damage to others' property or environmental damage: Okay, I suppose that that would still leave the possibility of people being unnecessarily cruel to domesticated animals that were their property, so if I can free-up enough extra characters to use (probably by taking the suggestion to replace every “Article ‘Number’ ” with just an unadorned number…) then I will add “otherwise-illegal harm to animals” to the list in that sub-clause as well. Drug use without an economic transaction involved is slightly trickier, but if the drug genuinely causes direct physical harm to the users then it's already covered here as well... and if it doesn't do so then I don't see why, for example, an anti-religious government should be allowed to get around the general protection of religion by banning drugs that are used in small & basically harmless purposes for "essential" sacramental reasons...Can you come up with reasonably concise wording to prevent slander/defamation without giving repressive governments an excuse to suppress honest criticism of their other actions?
(EDIT =>) As this proposal would only apply "subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force", slander & defamation are already covered by the existing resolution GAR# 436 'Protecting Free Expression'.
by Kenmoria » Wed May 15, 2019 9:11 am
Bears Armed wrote:Kenmoria wrote:“Article five would appear to prohibit completely unintentional monopolies, even when there isn’t suppression of other movements involved. When, for instance, a religion is introduced to a nation, it may very well hold a monopoly over being the only organisation of that faith for a number of years, without shutting down other groups. Since you ban monopolies themselves, and don’t allow any exceptions for natural ones, this would be prohibited by your proposal.”
"Hr'mm, maybeso there is potential for confusion there: If we replace "may legally hold a monopoly" with "hold a monopoly by law" would that, in your opinion, be enough?"
by Bears Armed » Thu May 16, 2019 8:34 am
Bears Armed wrote:OOCAraraukar wrote:OOC: I won't get in the way of your RP or your reasoning for creative compliance, which is what I expect others to do to me as well, but I'm not trying to write my excuses into a proposal.
I try to write my proposals, as I vote on them, from an IC viewpoint. If we have to write purely from an OOC viewpoint here then, as passing resolutions has no effect on the OOC world, what's the point?
OOCAraraukar wrote:Bears Armed wrote: “It might be interesting to see you try saying that to one of Them in person, especially somewhere in one of “Their” nations and — just in case —away from the Weapons Neutralisers… If one could observe from a reasonably safe distance, anyhows.”
You know that was OOC, right? In IC I wouldn't make bets against a civilization I know has destroyed inhabited planets with their "planet-killing gun"...
OOCAraraukar wrote:There's also the "if all gods are real, what do you do with disagreeing commandments?" problem.
Uan aa Boa wrote:What this proposal essentially does is provide a list of exceptions and then say that people can lawfully assemble in order to do anything that isn't on that list. Unless the Assembly takes a similar line regarding the actions of individuals there will remain situations in which people in certain nations can legally do something in an assembly that they cannot legally do on their own. With, I presume, no prospect of a resolution that says that individuals cannot be prevented from doing anything outside the scope of a list of specific exceptions this does seem a little odd.
I appreciate what this is trying to do in terms of legitimising protest and dissent - but wouldn't it make more sense to begin by protecting these at an individual level before moving on to deal with assemblies?
by Kenmoria » Thu May 16, 2019 10:38 am
Bears Armed wrote:Also regarding that sub-clause, do you think that replacing “non-sapient animals” with “non-sapient sentients” would be preferable?
by Araraukar » Fri May 17, 2019 5:11 am
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Aclion » Fri May 17, 2019 9:17 am
Araraukar wrote:Bears Armed wrote:OOC
Ask them to sort it out in the 'God of Thunder'-Dome: Two gods enter, one god leaves... preferably broadcast on a pay-per-view basis.
OOC: ...I'd watch that. Andthankdamn you for completely derailing my thoughts...
Reason I'm arguing OOCly is that - believe it or not - I get to be more polite on the topic of religion that way. Araraukarian view of religion is not even as tolerant as that of the Imperium of Tinfect. And yes that's possible while following the existing resolutions.As for planet-killing guns and gods, does the god die if you kill the people that worshipped it? If yes, you don't need to be able to aim at the god itself... Just wait until it's duking it out with other gods to find out which one of them is "the true god", and kill its followers meanwhile.
by Araraukar » Fri May 17, 2019 9:00 pm
Aclion wrote:I'm pretty sure killing people based on their religion is a violation of WA law.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Bears Armed » Sat May 18, 2019 4:31 am
Araraukar wrote:Reason I'm arguing OOCly is that - believe it or not - I get to be more polite on the topic of religion that way. Araraukarian view of religion is not even as tolerant as that of the Imperium of Tinfect. And yes that's possible while following the existing resolutions.
by Kenmoria » Sat May 18, 2019 7:15 am
by Bears Armed » Sat May 18, 2019 8:20 am
Kenmoria wrote:“In 1a, it should be ‘people’s’ rather than ‘peoples’’, since you are describing the property of people in the sense of multiple persons, rather than the property of various peoples as groups of persons.”
by United Massachusetts » Sat May 18, 2019 9:07 am
by Araraukar » Sun May 19, 2019 12:32 am
United Massachusetts wrote:We are in favour of this resolution, and will vote for it.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Kenmoria » Sun May 19, 2019 2:57 am
by Bears Armed » Sun May 19, 2019 5:32 am
I'm waiting until everything else is "complete" before adding that because I’m not practiced with using it and don't want to run the risk that changing the text after adding it might accidentally mess up the code.Araraukar wrote:To Bears: Is there a particular reason you're not using list code?
There are nations here whose governments would claim all practice and teaching of ideologies they dislike -- rival political views, religion, or whatever -- to be psychologically harmful, and use that excuse to ban it: I am not going to legitimize that oppression.Araraukar wrote:Also, why only physical harm to people?
This explicitly says that it applies only "subject to any limits set by earlier resolutions that are still in force”, and therefore doesn't try to contradict those: It over-rides parts of the COCR (by declaring that Freedom is a "compelling practical purpose" for upholding the rights listed here) without illegal Contradiction, but not all of that resolution... I'll take a look at 'Child Abuse Ban', but unless that also includes a "compelling practical purposes" clause I think that it would over-ride this. Even if your KKK example doesn’t fall under ‘1.d’ it would presumably be covered by 'Protecting Free Expression' which allows limits on hate speech and which again -- due to the clause here acknowledging earlier resolutions' authority, and the lack in 'PFE' of a "compelling practical purposes" exemption -- would over-ride this. Possibly even mentioning the environmental resolutions wasn't necessary, but I decided to err on the side of caution.Araraukar wrote:Also given that it only mentions "WA laws against environmental damage" rather than "pre-existing WA laws", it pretty much contradicts resolutions that specify restrictions on mental/emotional harm. The Child Abuse Ban comes to mind (something targeting children, rather than having children partaking), but also CoCR in general. Because I refuse to believe that you're trying to make it okay for a KKK gathering outside a church with mostly a black congregation, calling (possibly aided by sound amplification devices, to disrupt the service) the churchgoers by slurs I don't want to even type here, I'm viewing that as a mistake.
It seems to me that your first point here should already be covered by '1.d.'.... and why should "state-approved" events automatically be entitled to more protection under this proposed resolution than other events -- especially as they're likely to be given more help by the approving governments anyway -- to start with?Araraukar wrote:Additionally, I would like to see something about restrictions on "disrupting another, pre-announced and state-approved event" and letting states require notification of any gatherings that are likely to require re-routing of traffic. And requiring that the organizers provide access to emergency services at large gatherings. Just, you know, general basic safety rules, like what are in effect in RL.
No, it’s just meant to say that if you didn’t freely agree to accept those activities as a condition of employment when you took the job, or at some later point, then the requirement can’t be imposed on you as a condition of employment without your consent and so you can’t be forced to participate in those activities. I hadn’t considered the possibility of somebody being fired for refusing either to go beyond their contractual duties or to agree on an extension of those duties: Thank you for pointing out that possibility, and I’ll consider trying to insert a fix... although maybe this would be better as part of a separate proposal about protecting contractual rights, instead.Araraukar wrote:Clause 4.d. - is that meant to be read so that your employment can be terminated because you don't want to partake a politicals gathering (because your personal morals don't like the idea of showing up in support of whatever cause it has, and you're actually a member of their political polar opposite party) your boss has decided to have an "employee bonding" thing in and said anyone not coming is fired, despite no mentions of political gatherings when they first took the job?
What?!? The exceptions in clause 5 allow single-party or theocratic governments to remain legal (thus avoiding illegality for ‘Ideological Ban’), mean that a government can have a single agency for some role (e.g. army, police, civil service), and mean that an organisation which was founded independently of the government can’t insist on being treated as a government agency: They do nothing to limit the existence and number of non-government agencies in any general field, and the continuing independent status of those organisations is specifically protected by clause ‘2.a.’.Araraukar wrote:The exceptions in clause 5 seem to negate all the rest of the resolution. Is that intentional?
”except as” is a legitimate English usage, at least in this sort of context, and if I replace “as” with “allowing” then I’d have to add another word or two for better grammar. I’ll consider this if there are still enough characters free after making any other changesAraraukar wrote:Clause 6 still has vague/confusing wording for the exception. Maybe instead of "except as", make it "except allowing" and maybe "states" instead of "governments"? (Also I think later in the sentence it's supposed to have "at least" instead of "least".)
What you effectively mean by “allows brainwashing children” is “allows families to decide what ideological beliefs their children are taught”, yes? Are you actually suggesting that children shouldn’t be told anything at all about such matters until they reach legal adulthood, despite the principle of (and existing resolution to protect) freedom of expression, or 'just' suggesting that the state should have a monopoly of such teaching? State-monopolised ‘education’ on these topics is probably just as likely as parentally-authorised education to become indoctrination, perhaps even more so given that the exclusion of alternative viewpoints would be on a wider scale and so children would be less likely to encounter them, and therefore neither I on an OOC basis nor a majority of the Bears IC regards it as a preferable approach.Araraukar wrote:Also the whole thing still allows brainwashing children (politically, ideologically or religiously, doesn't matter), so ICly for it for that reason, OOCly staunchly against.
by Uan aa Boa » Mon May 20, 2019 5:33 pm
Bears Armed wrote:Uan aa Boa wrote:What this proposal essentially does is provide a list of exceptions and then say that people can lawfully assemble in order to do anything that isn't on that list. Unless the Assembly takes a similar line regarding the actions of individuals there will remain situations in which people in certain nations can legally do something in an assembly that they cannot legally do on their own. With, I presume, no prospect of a resolution that says that individuals cannot be prevented from doing anything outside the scope of a list of specific exceptions this does seem a little odd.
I appreciate what this is trying to do in terms of legitimising protest and dissent - but wouldn't it make more sense to begin by protecting these at an individual level before moving on to deal with assemblies?
That's a reasonable question. Individuals’ rights to promote causes are covered already by the existing resolution ‘Protecting Free Expression’. Which of the other rights that I recognise here for assemblies and organisations do you think specifically (a) would be relevant for individuals as well and (b) aren’t also covered already by existing resolutions, so that we can see whether I or anybody else wants to start work on that?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement