NationStates

Bump.

I'm still not sure about crimes committed by "a significant number" of an organisation's members. How many major bombings or mass shootings does an organisation need to be implicated in for it to be apparent that there's a problem?

Uan aa Boa wrote:I'm still not sure about crimes committed by "a significant number" of an organisation's members. How many major bombings or mass shootings does an organisation need to be implicated in for it to be apparent that there's a problem?

To give you a real world example of this: would the government of the United Kingdom be right, under the terms of this resolution, to ban Sinn Fein due to the ("alleged") former involvement of some of their members with the IRA? Bear in mind that SF committed atrocities during the Troubles including bombings and assassinations.

And this would be an...especially tricky case given that Sinn Fein maintains no actual ties with the IRA or its successor organizations to my knowledge.

The key words there are alleged and former. The current draft explicitly requires members of an organisation to have been convicted of crimes committed during their membership. It wouldn't allow the UK government to ban Sinn Fein.

Boston Castle wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:I'm still not sure about crimes committed by "a significant number" of an organisation's members. How many major bombings or mass shootings does an organisation need to be implicated in for it to be apparent that there's a problem?

To give you a real world example of this: would the government of the United Kingdom be right, under the terms of this resolution, to ban Sinn Fein due to the ("alleged") former involvement of some of their members with the IRA? Bear in mind that SF committed atrocities during the Troubles including bombings and assassinations.

And this would be an...especially tricky case given that Sinn Fein maintains no actual ties with the IRA or its successor organizations to my knowledge.

OOC: What atrocities did Sinn Féin commit during the Troubles?

Edit: Also, at the OP. In what way is this superior to the existing resolution?

Uan aa Boa wrote:I'm still not sure about crimes committed by "a significant number" of an organisation's members. How many major bombings or mass shootings does an organisation need to be implicated in for it to be apparent that there's a problem?

"Drawing a line is often hard in situations like these, and you do have a point. Our delegation may be inclined to make the number 2 (the first one would obviously receive punishment for the people involved, but the 2nd would be the one where the resolution affects the outcome.) Either way this is a complicated part of the resolution that we still need to think about and we are open to other opinions."

Bananaistan wrote:

Boston Castle wrote:To give you a real world example of this: would the government of the United Kingdom be right, under the terms of this resolution, to ban Sinn Fein due to the ("alleged") former involvement of some of their members with the IRA? Bear in mind that SF committed atrocities during the Troubles including bombings and assassinations.

And this would be an...especially tricky case given that Sinn Fein maintains no actual ties with the IRA or its successor organizations to my knowledge.

OOC: What atrocities did Sinn Féin commit during the Troubles?

Edit: Also, at the OP. In what way is this superior to the existing resolution?

OOC: Overall clearer wording (which is admittedly still being worked on, but I would say it's a lot better already) and more detailed clauses that just make my proposal deal with the topic more carefully than the current resolution.

"Some new changes have been made and are now in draft 5."

Jimmy McTernan, an Understudy for Tinhampton's WA Delegation: I have two comments on the draft. Firstly, there is no longer an Article 2c as you assert in Article 4. Secondly - and more substantially - is the disclaimer at the end of Article 3 that "organizations must not deny historical genocides or similar repression of marginalized groups, as this will be considered discrimination." How is this discrimination and against who is this discriminating? If against the group subjected to such repression, what if the genocide completely eliminated their group? What is "similar repression"? Does this clause apply in a member state when a declaration is made by that member state, by another member state, by many member states, by many historians not affiliated with any one government, by the WA Judiciary Committee, on the sayso of Michael from the local pub, or someone else entirely? As Lydia would probably ask, is this an attempt to block out any and all organisational criticism of Bigtopian Lives Matter and such of the like?
While I appreciate that the Boani delegation is notoriously tough on hate crime and included extremely vaguely similar provisions in Freedom of expression for organisations, my boss Alex Smith and his staff don't really think they needed to go that tough.

Tinhampton wrote:Jimmy McTernan, an Understudy for Tinhampton's WA Delegation: I have two comments on the draft. Firstly, there is no longer an Article 2c as you assert in Article 4. Secondly - and more substantially - is the disclaimer at the end of Article 3 that "organizations must not deny historical genocides or similar repression of marginalized groups, as this will be considered discrimination." How is this discrimination and against who is this discriminating? If against the group subjected to such repression, what if the genocide completely eliminated their group? What is "similar repression"? Does this clause apply in a member state when a declaration is made by that member state, by another member state, by many member states, by many historians not affiliated with any one government, by the WA Judiciary Committee, on the sayso of Michael from the local pub, or someone else entirely? As Lydia would probably ask, is this an attempt to block out any and all organisational criticism of Bigtopian Lives Matter and such of the like?
While I appreciate that the Boani delegation is notoriously tough on hate crime and included extremely vaguely similar provisions in Freedom of expression for organisations, my boss Alex Smith and his staff don't really think they needed to go that tough.

"The obvious error has been fixed. As for your other criticism, it is a fair one. We will consider eliminating that part, and are leaning on doing so: perhaps it is too specific for a resolution about a broad topic."

Calamari Lands wrote:

1. If a significant number of an organisation's members or leaders have, during their membership, been found guilty of crimes (by national or WA law) of violence or crimes regarding property law committed in furtherance of the organisation's goals, and the organisation has failed to take proportionate disciplinary measures in response, member nations may dissolve it, ban membership of it, or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law.
   
2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence or terrorist crimes through actions or verbal expressions that would fall under hate speech, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them in accordance with their national law.

What about... competition law?

Old Hope wrote:

Calamari Lands wrote:

1. If a significant number of an organisation's members or leaders have, during their membership, been found guilty of crimes (by national or WA law) of violence or crimes regarding property law committed in furtherance of the organisation's goals, and the organisation has failed to take proportionate disciplinary measures in response, member nations may dissolve it, ban membership of it, or otherwise penalise it within the boundaries of their national jurisdiction, subject to extant international law.
   
2. If an organization actively promotes hatred towards a specific minority or delimited group of individuals beyond their freedom of speech, consistently enciting violence or terrorist crimes through actions or verbal expressions that would fall under hate speech, member nations may impose penalties or dissolve them in accordance with their national law.

What about... competition law?

"Elaborate."

Calamari Lands wrote:

Old Hope wrote:What about... competition law?

"Elaborate."

Well, for example, companies having monopolies and defending them with unfair business practices not involving property law could not be dissolved under this proposal.
Cartels are usually illegal in most nations following capitalism. For good reason.

Old Hope wrote:

Calamari Lands wrote:"Elaborate."

Well, for example, companies having monopolies and defending them with unfair business practices not involving property law could not be dissolved under this proposal.
Cartels are usually illegal in most nations following capitalism. For good reason.

"A slight wording change has been made, but this isn't a resolution made to regulate capitalism."

Tinhampton wrote:Jimmy McTernan, an Understudy for Tinhampton's WA Delegation: I have two comments on the draft. Firstly, there is no longer an Article 2c as you assert in Article 4. Secondly - and more substantially - is the disclaimer at the end of Article 3 that "organizations must not deny historical genocides or similar repression of marginalized groups, as this will be considered discrimination." How is this discrimination and against who is this discriminating? If against the group subjected to such repression, what if the genocide completely eliminated their group? What is "similar repression"? Does this clause apply in a member state when a declaration is made by that member state, by another member state, by many member states, by many historians not affiliated with any one government, by the WA Judiciary Committee, on the sayso of Michael from the local pub, or someone else entirely? As Lydia would probably ask, is this an attempt to block out any and all organisational criticism of Bigtopian Lives Matter and such of the like?

"We thank Mr McTernan for his recognition of our commitment to this cause, and congratulate him on his long memory. It may surprise him to learn that we broadly agree with him here. We do maintain that it is appropriate to discuss genocide denial in this resolution, but we would place it in clause 2b. Genocide denial in this context is significant not as an instance of discrimination but as a reliable indicator of the intention to spread a message of hate.

Allowing the restriction of organised genocide denial is not the infringement of freedom of speech it is often believed to be. We are all aware of nations that have such a specific and limited prohibition while successfully remaining signatories to far reaching international agreements on human rights. Those cases are more clear cut only because the laws of those nations refer to a single specific historical event of particular significance to that nation, meaning they do not need to define genocide in the abstract in the way that this draft struggles to do. Perhaps this proposal could follow that example by allowing member states, if they so wish, to address denial of specific events.

Mr McTernan will of course be aware that as this proposal has been tabled by the WA Delegate of Mariner Trench we should not be surprised to see robust anti-fascist provisions included."