NationStates

Would this prevent Nations from pushing propaganda in schools and else where? I feel like that could become a very difficult grey area if so considering one could argue that it's not technically outlawing a belief, but simply teaching one that is more favorable, albeit technically by force/fear tactics. Not to mention I assume National Sovereignty would play some part as well, but that's just a guess coming from a rebuilding nation.

OOC (I guess?): Did I do it right?

Thetopia wrote:

Would this prevent Nations from pushing propaganda in schools and else where? I feel like that could become a very difficult grey area if so considering one could argue that it's not technically outlawing a belief, but simply teaching one that is more favorable, albeit technically by force/fear tactics. Not to mention I assume National Sovereignty would play some part as well, but that's just a guess coming from a rebuilding nation.

OOC (I guess?): Did I do it right?

Would such a policy contravene the proposed policy 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"?

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:OOC: Significant is fine IMO. Mild would be too. I've zero interest in assessing a "how long is a piece of string?" type question.

It's settled then. Banana will take a battalion of clones...

---

Any substantive non-hysterical-this-is-illegal comments?

Yeah. This is covered by The Charter of Civil Rights and is totally superfluous, if not completely duplicative.

Cf two posts below your response the last time you said that.

“It would be less repetitive if you had ‘its jurisdiction’ rather than ‘the jurisdiction of the World Assembly’ in your first and indeed last clause.”

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Presumably it advances civil rights in a significant fashion. The NS site statisticians are generally mum on their rationales.

OOC: Reason I asked Sanct is because FMRI scans aside, it's unenforceable (because the only realworld application would be some totalitarian regime and people not buying into the official truth or whatever, and if the ruling regime was willing to go to such lengths, they could loophole this thing to death and compliance committee wouldn't be able to do anything) and thus meaningless (hence not meriting more than Mild strength), beyond what CoCR already does. If they saw something in it that's more than you've been able to explain - and which the proposal itself does not do - it would have been interesting to get their POV.

Araraukar wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Presumably it advances civil rights in a significant fashion. The NS site statisticians are generally mum on their rationales.

OOC: Reason I asked Sanct is because FMRI scans aside, it's unenforceable (because the only realworld application would be some totalitarian regime and people not buying into the official truth or whatever, and if the ruling regime was willing to go to such lengths, they could loophole this thing to death and compliance committee wouldn't be able to do anything) and thus meaningless (hence not meriting more than Mild strength), beyond what CoCR already does. If they saw something in it that's more than you've been able to explain - and which the proposal itself does not do - it would have been interesting to get their POV.

"I imagine not. If nothing else, it allows a totalitarian regime to jail citizens and dissenters on more than just whim. Which, in the case of many tyrannical governments, is often valuable. Many despots, being lawfully evil, adhere to the law, tyrannical though it is.

"More to the point, it certainly prevents not-yet-tyrannical governments from getting into the business of thought control in the first place. Regime change is often followed by a crackdown on civil liberties to restabilize, even when, or perhaps especially when, the new regime deposes the old one in the name of freedom and liberty."

OOC: I can't help but think of how much longer the Reign of Terror would have gone on if the Committee of Public Safety was able to substitute genuine evidence for the public trials instead of just banning the submission of evidence. It would have been a lot harder for the people to topple Robespierre and Friends if the Committee could demonstrate actual proof to the people of their victim's counterrevolutionary beliefs. It strikes me that Louis XVI's trial would have been even less just, too. Or any religious or political inquisition, from Torquemada to McCarthy. This has merit.

Between that and deferring to the eminent wisdom of those with firsthand knowledge of the code, I'd say the strength is acceptable. I suspect that, given public input from an IE on the strength, GenSec would defer to that.

Sorry, I don't come into this forum as often as I used to.

So Mild, Significant, and Strong are coded as, putting it very simply and this is just a vague thing so as to not give away the stats, Civil Rights + X, Civil Rights + Y, and Civil Rights + Z respectively. They used to be much stronger, where Mild used to be coded like we currently code Strong, but we've reduced it a few years ago.

What I generally do when I see a resolution like this, is I look through the issue base and see if we've had similar issue or issues on similar themes. In this case, it's a little difficult, since we don't have a whole host of issues on the topic and yes it's difficult to *prosecute* someone because of thought crimes, because it's hard to prove. But in the end the resolution is still instilling a right to be and to feel and to think free from government interference. So I look at bodily sovereignty issues, I look at euthanasia issues, and I look at (to a small extent) abortion issues. And we code those issues that grant those rights usually somewhere between Mild and Significant - but normally stronger than Mild.

If we code those issues stronger than Mild, then Mild is imo too weak a strength. If we usually code equal to, or a little less than Significant, than imo Significant is a more appropriate strength even if sometimes issues aren't always quite there.

I hope that makes sense. I don't have any influence at all over GenSec when it comes to ruling on matters of Strength and/or Category, but sometimes when I know the author and the discussion comes up in my presence, I have a wee gander and give my opinion. But it's just my opinion. What the author or GenSec do with that isn't something I have control over.

Okay, so now that Sanct has cleared everything up for everyone for a second time, any comments on this?

"Any particular reason for only prohibiting enforcement of laws on thought crime rather than striking them from the books of member nations?"

I prefer regulating actions to states.

"Your argument for this proposal does not exist. Why should I vote for something so effortless that it does not even have an argument to convince voters." He turns to look at Elsie, "I know you can do better than this, just spend more than a minute on it."

No consensus has emerged as to whether we ought stop calling out IC responses to OOC statements. Ms Mortimer Wellesley isn't in the committee chamber.

As to preambles. You don't need a preamble to write legislation. Go to legislation.gov.uk and look at the UK Public General Acts. Where are the preambles? Go to the Parliament (Qualification if Women) Act 1918. No preamble. I'm shocked that people voted for these Acts.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:No consensus has emerged as to whether we ought stop calling out IC responses to OOC statements. Ms Mortimer Wellesley isn't in the committee chamber.

OOC:I assumed Ms Wellesly was in the chamber otherwise who is drafting but alright. As to your second statement, read your own recommendations.

Oh wow, I wrote those a long time ago, I think before I had even written my first resolution. However that is, I don't hold the same views. Preambles are unnecessary.

EDIT: I wrote that so long ago, the Text line was called Description and I hadn't found out that blocktext tags don't work in the GA bbCode screen. One probably ought not take advice from a person of such meagre experience.

Bump.

Is this meant to be a draft?

The sentence at the top of the OP is the entire proposal.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:The sentence at the top of the OP is the entire proposal.

Ok

Wallenburg wrote:This has absolutely no material effect on anyone. Useless laws get voted down.

I stand by my earlier statement. This Assembly has better things to do than publish feel-good bumper stickers.

Wallenburg wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:This has absolutely no material effect on anyone. Useless laws get voted down.

I stand by my earlier statement. This Assembly has better things to do than publish feel-good bumper stickers.

What "better things" are there to do?

Aprenencia wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:I stand by my earlier statement. This Assembly has better things to do than publish feel-good bumper stickers.

What "better things" are there to do?

I see three other proposals in the queue that, regardless of your opinion on their policy, actually do something.

Sure. See infra.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Reason I asked Sanct is because FMRI scans aside, it's unenforceable (because the only realworld application would be some totalitarian regime and people not buying into the official truth or whatever, and if the ruling regime was willing to go to such lengths, they could loophole this thing to death and compliance committee wouldn't be able to do anything) and thus meaningless (hence not meriting more than Mild strength), beyond what CoCR already does. If they saw something in it that's more than you've been able to explain - and which the proposal itself does not do - it would have been interesting to get their POV.

"I imagine not. If nothing else, it allows a totalitarian regime to jail citizens and dissenters on more than just whim. Which, in the case of many tyrannical governments, is often valuable. Many despots, being lawfully evil, adhere to the law, tyrannical though it is.

"More to the point, it certainly prevents not-yet-tyrannical governments from getting into the business of thought control in the first place. Regime change is often followed by a crackdown on civil liberties to restabilize, even when, or perhaps especially when, the new regime deposes the old one in the name of freedom and liberty."

OOC: I can't help but think of how much longer the Reign of Terror would have gone on if the Committee of Public Safety was able to substitute genuine evidence for the public trials instead of just banning the submission of evidence. It would have been a lot harder for the people to topple Robespierre and Friends if the Committee could demonstrate actual proof to the people of their victim's counterrevolutionary beliefs. It strikes me that Louis XVI's trial would have been even less just, too. Or any religious or political inquisition, from Torquemada to McCarthy. This has merit.

Between that and deferring to the eminent wisdom of those with firsthand knowledge of the code, I'd say the strength is acceptable. I suspect that, given public input from an IE on the strength, GenSec would defer to that.

The moment that an individual's thoughts are communicated to another person, they become expression. We already have a resolution protecting free expression.

Wallenburg wrote:The moment that an individual's thoughts are communicated to another person, they become expression. We already have a resolution protecting free expression.

OOC: That resolution protects expression, as you say. What nations might still make illegal is not the expression but the holding of such thoughts. Rebels in such a society might pose as aspiring (shitty?) stand-up comedians ("No, officer, it's just a comedy routine - I don't actually believe this stuff! Now how 'bout that airline food, huh? What is up with that stuff???"), as anyone suspected of actually harboring such beliefs would be subject to interrogation. There is no duplication here.

The argument that this proposal is unnecessary because nations won't use brain scanners to ferret out thoughtcrimes, or make certain thoughts criminal in the first place, is an entirely different one.