NATION

PASSWORD

Freedom of conscience

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Freedom of conscience

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:04 am

The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding of or belief in any thought.

Human rights: Significant.
Mobile.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Sat Aug 31, 2019 10:06 pm, edited 5 times in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5095
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:09 am

(OOC: The human rights category has been renamed to ‘civil rights’.)

“Support.”
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13738
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:25 am

OOC: Joke proposals go here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807

Given the general lack of reliable thought reading ability or machinery for the same purpose, the whole idea is unnecessary to begin with, or already covered by the current freedom of expression resolution.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Kenmoria
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5095
Founded: Jul 03, 2017
Corporate Bordello

Postby Kenmoria » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:32 am

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Joke proposals go here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=255807

(OOC: The last one wasn’t.)
A representative democracy with a parliament of 535 seats
Kenmoria is Laissez-Faire on economy but centre-left on social issues
Located in Europe and border France to the right and Spain below
NS stats and policies are not canon, use the factbooks
Not in the WA despite coincidentally following nearly all resolutions
This is due to a problem with how the WA contradicts democracy
However we do have a WA mission and often participate in drafting
Current ambassador: James Lewitt

For more information, read the factbooks here.

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 374
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Losthaven » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:41 am

The whole proposal wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.

The idea of freedom of conscience is something Losthaven would support but could we please figure out a better (and more comprehensive way) to frame this.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:43 am

Ara, vexatious legality challenges go elsewhere. You want to challenge it, go ahead, rack up the numbers; you're already first on the leaderboards.

Also, seriously? The number one RP-wanker is telling me that we can't ban something because it's not possible, even when the technology to do it already exists? I'm shocked, shocked, to find that reasonable nation theory is going on here.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 10:44 am

Losthaven wrote:The idea of freedom of conscience is something Losthaven would support but could we please figure out a better (and more comprehensive way) to frame this.

What do you recommend?

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Bananaaaaa
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 20
Founded: Aug 28, 2017
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Bananaaaaa » Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:54 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.

Human rights: Significant.
Mobile.


Greetings please expand and submit a proper format for your proposal.
NEWS UPDATE The Principality
Law Writing equals headache, Flag has been changed, might change it in the foreseeable future. Factbook Category History updates

Real Life has been rearing again, so have been on and off again. W.A voting is really on a rare occasion, but endorsements are in full swing

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:40 pm

GA 454, UN 9 (?, correct if mis-cited).

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Munkcestrian Republic
Diplomat
 
Posts: 759
Founded: May 01, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Munkcestrian Republic » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:42 pm

Against, people should be free to think what they want.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:46 pm

Proposes requirement to have water
> Against, people have a right to water
> Pikachu face

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Blueflarst
Envoy
 
Posts: 331
Founded: Aug 25, 2016
Father Knows Best State

Postby Blueflarst » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:49 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.

Human rights: Significant.
Mobile.


Riddicously short and vague
opposition
Economic position -0,10
Social position 3
[_★_]_[' ]_
( -_-) (-_Q) If you understand that both Capitalism and Socialism have ideas that deserve merit, put this in your signature.
Card
Blueflarst know the philosophy of force. It is strength and it is victory.
“The care of nature and the environment is of ultimate importance. We cannot prosper we cannot even survive without a healthy, viable ecosystem to support us.”
“Violence is not an unnatural thing. It is the normal state of being.”
“Our game is a long game. We do not plan for the next year, or the next ten years, or the next budget cycle. We plan for eternity.”
"Knights are noble warriors that fight for right, not for personal gain. "
I am a spirit have a soul and own a body

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:52 pm

Blueflarst wrote:Riddicously short and vague
opposition

The opposition is ridiculously short and vague, yes. If length really is your only objection, read some Aristophanes.
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Sciongrad
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2996
Founded: Mar 11, 2012
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Sciongrad » Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:57 pm

Why is the length a problem, exactly...? Is this just one of those arbitrary community rules we sometimes like to enforce to make the game more exclusive? Is there actually any explanation for why being short is a point against a proposal?
Natalia Santos, Plenipotentiary and Permanent Scionite Representative to the World Assembly


Ideological Bulwark #271


User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2246
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:24 pm

"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed. Unenforceable laws are pointless."

OOC: I'm glad that IA is no longer Mister-My-Format-Is-The-Only-Acceptable-Format-And-I'll-Stomp-Anyone-Who-Dares-To-Bold-Or-Italicise-Any-Word but it's kinda funny that even this is about three times longer than it needs to be.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:47 pm

Legit is this a meme or something? I did make a joke once or twice saying that, but is there any proof that I have ever stomped anything for format violations? Do any of the WALL IFVs sayformat bad stomp plox? Any instances where I commented on a proposal thread saying my vote was due to poor formatting?

Also seriously, this isn't some kind of newfangled idea. Otherwise, get on the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and tell them to screw article 18.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Munkcestrian Republic
Diplomat
 
Posts: 759
Founded: May 01, 2019
Corporate Bordello

Postby Munkcestrian Republic » Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:04 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Proposes requirement to have water
> Against, people have a right to water
> Pikachu face

Oh

User avatar
Losthaven
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 374
Founded: Dec 31, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Losthaven » Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:02 pm

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Losthaven wrote:The idea of freedom of conscience is something Losthaven would support but could we please figure out a better (and more comprehensive way) to frame this.

What do you recommend?

Shrug...

Haven't thought about it much. For start, I generally prefer to vote on things that have a preamble explaining why I should give a damn, or what the problem is that needs to be addressed. I am not one of the folks who thinks all proposals must look similar and I'm rather impressed with your ability to pass a nifty (if short lived) one line resolution during my long absence from the game, but I don't support this writing style as a convention. Not on formatting principles, but rather because proposals written in this way are far too susceptible to interpretation (and misinterpretation) when so sparsely written.

Would this prohibit, for instance, charging attempted bank robbery where a person legally bought a high powered rifle, a ski mask, and a one-way ticket to Tahiti, and also documented in his journal that he had thoughts about robbing a bank?

Most legal traditions do criminalize thought to some degree. Attempt and conspiracy crimes are common examples (although often it is also necessary to prove the person performed some act, lawful or otherwise, which served to further the criminal thought). Nearly every crime has an accompanying mens rea or a guilty state of mind, such as an intent to cause injury, knowledge that a check is fraudulent, driving with reckless disregard to whether someone may be hurt. There are many civil causes of action with similar standards, intentional infliction of emotional distress comes immediately to mind.

Would this proposal pose a problem for those legal standards because they effectively prohibit thoughts of bank robbery, thoughts of beating up your coworkers, or thoughts of defauding your grandmother? I don't know. It's hard for me to really know where to begin debating the merits of this proposal because it's so sparse and general.
Once a great nation, a true superpower; now just watching the world go by

User avatar
Bananaistan
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 2246
Founded: Apr 20, 2012
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bananaistan » Wed Aug 28, 2019 12:38 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Legit is this a meme or something? I did make a joke once or twice saying that, but is there any proof that I have ever stomped anything for format violations? Do any of the WALL IFVs sayformat bad stomp plox? Any instances where I commented on a proposal thread saying my vote was due to poor formatting?

Also seriously, this isn't some kind of newfangled idea. Otherwise, get on the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and tell them to screw article 18.


OOC: I'm sure I've seen you demand that people format their proposals in your preferred format more than once or twice.

Re: UN covenant ... NS =/= RL.
Delegation of the People's Republic of Bananaistan to the World Assembly
Head of delegation and the Permanent Representative: Comrade Ambassador Theodorus "Ted" Hornwood
General Assistant and Head of Security: Comrade Watchman Brian of Tarth
There was the Pope and John F. Kennedy and Jack Charlton and the three of them were staring me in the face.

User avatar
Araraukar
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13738
Founded: May 14, 2007
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Araraukar » Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:46 am

Bananaistan wrote:"The People's Republic of Bananaistan is opposed. Unenforceable laws are pointless."

OOC: ^This.

And IA, Legality Challenges aren't what you do when someone first posts a draft. They're what you do if there's no way to find any kind of agreement with the drafter and you are certain a rule has been broken. Or when it has already been submitted. Look through my challenges, point out any frivolously made ones. Go on, I'll wait.

And if this is any kind of serious proposal, then you'll indeed run into the "conspiracy to commit X" problem - whether it's murder or treason or whatever else - and whether that can still count as criminal. Or if someone confesses to therapist/priest/whatever, that they can't stop thinking of hurting someone or raping a child or whatever. Can the authorities do nothing?
Last edited by Araraukar on Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Linda Äyrämäki, acting ambassador in the absence of miss Leveret
Araraukar's RP reality is Modern Tech solarpunk.

Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
Araraukar wrote:
Blueflarst wrote:a cosmopolitan hammer
United Massachusetts wrote:Can we all call ourselves "cosmopolitan hammers"?
Us cosmopolitan hammers
Can teach some manners
Often sorely lacking
Hence us attacking
Silly GA spammers

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 18547
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:50 am

OOC
Expressing beliefs or thoughts is already covered in various ways by existing resolutions, which would have to be taken into consideration if this proposal is intended to cover expression.
If this proposal is not supposed to cover actually expressing the thoughts, rather than just holding or believing them, then the lack [that has already been pointed out] of any reliable way for most member nations' governments to tell what people really think or believe means that this would have little or no actual effects: 'Mild', at the most.
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Our population is approximately 20 million. We do have a national government, although its role is strictly limited. Economy = thriving. Those aren't "biker gangs", they're our traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies'... and are generally respected, not feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152.

User avatar
Liberimery
Envoy
 
Posts: 318
Founded: May 27, 2018
Anarchy

Postby Liberimery » Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:55 am

Losthaven wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:What do you recommend?

Shrug...

Haven't thought about it much. For start, I generally prefer to vote on things that have a preamble explaining why I should give a damn, or what the problem is that needs to be addressed. I am not one of the folks who thinks all proposals must look similar and I'm rather impressed with your ability to pass a nifty (if short lived) one line resolution during my long absence from the game, but I don't support this writing style as a convention. Not on formatting principles, but rather because proposals written in this way are far too susceptible to interpretation (and misinterpretation) when so sparsely written.

Would this prohibit, for instance, charging attempted bank robbery where a person legally bought a high powered rifle, a ski mask, and a one-way ticket to Tahiti, and also documented in his journal that he had thoughts about robbing a bank?

Most legal traditions do criminalize thought to some degree. Attempt and conspiracy crimes are common examples (although often it is also necessary to prove the person performed some act, lawful or otherwise, which served to further the criminal thought). Nearly every crime has an accompanying mens rea or a guilty state of mind, such as an intent to cause injury, knowledge that a check is fraudulent, driving with reckless disregard to whether someone may be hurt. There are many civil causes of action with similar standards, intentional infliction of emotional distress comes immediately to mind.

Would this proposal pose a problem for those legal standards because they effectively prohibit thoughts of bank robbery, thoughts of beating up your coworkers, or thoughts of defauding your grandmother? I don't know. It's hard for me to really know where to begin debating the merits of this proposal because it's so sparse and general.


Attempted crimes are typically not solely thinking about committing crime. Otherwise I’d be facing an unknown bu high number of attempt mass murder and attempted drunk driving offenses for playing GTA. Usually attempted crimes involve crimes that were thwarted and “pre-crimes” usually involve more evidence to show that you would have committed the crime but for being caught before you could succeed. Other times it’s that you did commit the crime but you’re a lousy criminal. If you stab someone with intent to kill, but they manage to survive, then it’s an attempted murder.

Many crimes do not require a guilty mind. Murder under common law systems requires a guilty mind only to establish the degree of the offense (1st, 2nd, Felony, and manslaughter) with only the first two determined by whether or not you were planning the murder and the latter two being applicable if someone dies as a direct result of a crime you committed but didn’t plan on anyone dying (the crime being either a felony or misdemeanor respectfully.).

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:03 am

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: I'm sure I've seen you demand that people format their proposals in your preferred format more than once or twice.

Really? And any situations where there is a proximate connection between an against vote and format? Because if you can pull that up, I'll happily shift my position from "I don't think that ever actually happened and the narrative that it did is slanderous" to "My apologies for holding such a position, I now disavow it".

Bananaistan wrote:Re: UN covenant ... NS =/= RL.

This is barely an argument: the assertion that NS isn't real life has no impact and no link. Clearly, there's some point at which it proves too much, what is it? The point where we pass laws guaranteeing sexual privacy? Because we have those in real life and oh, NS ≠ RL, so let's not pass any of those. Wielding this specific warrant is the same sort of philosophical inconsistency as old NatSov philosophy.

Araraukar wrote:And IA, Legality Challenges aren't what you do when someone first posts a draft. They're what you do if there's no way to find any kind of agreement with the drafter and you are certain a rule has been broken. Or when it has already been submitted. Look through my challenges, point out any frivolously made ones. Go on, I'll wait.

And I'm telling you that if you want to argue that this violates the joke rule, you should (1) read the decision on the joke rule, it's somewhere in the spreadsheet I created, and (2) applying your own framework because I can already tell you there is not going to be any agreement between us on that topic.

Araraukar wrote:And if this is any kind of serious proposal, then you'll indeed run into the "conspiracy to commit X" problem - whether it's murder or treason or whatever else - and whether that can still count as criminal. Or if someone confesses to therapist/priest/whatever, that they can't stop thinking of hurting someone or raping a child or whatever. Can the authorities do nothing?

Generally conspiracy, at least in the law to which I'm familiar, requires that "conspirators have a plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate the crime and others to provide support" Salinas v. United States, 522 US 52, 64 (1997). I mean sure, there are other legal traditions and if they penalise the state of holding a belief about the conspiracy, I'm disinclined to care because they could instead be penalising a far more connected sort of crime: the planning of a conspiracy.

Moreover, unless you also think mental health is a belief that one can just shake off like how people who aren't depressed tell depressed people to get over it and pull themselves up by the bootstraps, involuntary commitment laws when judiciously applied (obviously, Soviet Russia's commitment of political dissenters to asylums notwithstanding) are not penalising belief in as much as they are attempting to aid the ill. I'm also agnostic that such laws ought be involuntary given the resolution on legal competence.

Also, you can't defend the positions "what about laws which would be prohibited by this resolution, getting rid of them is bad" if you think the resolution itself is "unenforceable", those are mutually exclusive. If they are unenforceable, the negative impact of prohibiting those laws ought be zero. I'm not sure what your advocacy is other than "IA bad, proposal bad" but you may want to give it a rethink instead of knifing your arguments.

Edit: grammar
Last edited by Imperium Anglorum on Wed Aug 28, 2019 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Imperium Anglorum
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8886
Founded: Aug 26, 2013
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:05 am

Bears Armed wrote:If this proposal is not supposed to cover actually expressing the thoughts, rather than just holding or believing them, then the lack [that has already been pointed out] of any reliable way for most member nations' governments to tell what people really think or believe means that this would have little or no actual effects: 'Mild', at the most.

What is your philosophy on the application of the strength rule? Is there a framework in which the breadth of what is being regulated maps to statistical impact?

Author: 1 SC and 28 GA resolutions
Maintainer: GA Passed Resolutions
Developer: Communiqué and InfoEurope
Delegate for Europe
Out-of-character unless marked otherwise
Ideological Bulwark 285, WALL delegate
Dastardly villain providing free services to the community sans remuneration

User avatar
Pilipinas and Malaya
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 413
Founded: Jun 23, 2017
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Pilipinas and Malaya » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:05 am

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The World Assembly hereby declares that within the jurisdiction of the World Assembly, there may not be enacted or enforced any law, policy, or regulation which shall impose any legal penalty or create any right of action against the holding or belief of any thought.

Human rights: Significant.
Mobile.


OOC: I honestly thought that this was a 1984 joke proposal from IA. My head feels so weird now. In all seriousness, shouldn’t this be covered already in another Civil Rights Proposal, or at least implied?

IC: Foreign Affairs Minister Sarah Tan has said that the nation of Pilipinas and Malaya opposes the idea, and recommends the creation of a larger resolution or charter covering other aspects of civil rights. In the same presscon, she has also announced that there will be a creation of a new bureau, the World Assembly Bureau.
Honorary Member-State of The Srivijayan Consortium
Member of Europe

Overview.
HAIL VOOPEERIA!
Kurobuta Pork Katsu,Best Pork Katsu! Eleanor of Aquitaine just chilling there, gaining cities, while the world is on fire.
You have to see this.
Please watch Designated Survivor, by any and all means.
Yes,my nation DOES represent most of my views,deal with it.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Imperial adyaxa

Advertisement

Remove ads