NationStates

Anderson: The Boani ambassador - and, by extension, Bananamen Comrade Ted - is directed to Article h.

"And I draw Anderson's attention to my previous question which has remained unanswered. I quote:

"In any of these debates on these insane proposals to regulate the actions of only democracies in this assembly and granting tin pot dictatorships a say on how the internal affairs of democracies are conducted, not one person in favour has adequately explained why this is fair or reasonable. Any chance any of the weakminded fools supporting this nonsense can advance a justification?"

Ambassador Broska Tarlishak: "While I recognize the dedicated effort, considering if I recall correctly there were one or two other attempts to replace "Protecting Convicted Voters," it has become increasingly clear that this simply cannot become a resolution (at least in its current standing.) Merely the number of attempts taken to replace this bill is already showing some anomaly. Furthermore, I believe some other delegations may have said this, but I retain the point that nations are different, what can be considered good in one country is bad in another. In this case, there may be nations that agree with your viewpoint on this matter, but there are certainly nations who oppose it as well. Not every country would want prisoners voting, for various reasons, including security. One last worthwhile thing to mention is that, while I notice your proposal no longer restrains itself to incarcerated individuals, the delegation of Molopovia lauds you for this expansion of scope, but hereby declares a vote against this resolution.

Anderson: I was not aware of any attempts to replace the Bay Staters' resolution other than my own. This proposal does not restrict itself to democratic states only.

Tinhampton wrote:Anderson: I was not aware of any attempts to replace the Bay Staters' resolution other than my own. This proposal does not restrict itself to democratic states only.

"It does. Section h is the easiest worked around provision of international law ever proposed. It would be entirely optional.

"The whole thing is morally bankrupt, this idea that it also applies to non-democratic member states is the most transparent dishonesty I've ever seen around here and the question I posed remains unanswered. I'll keep asking in the vain hope that you might eventually lower yourself to answer it: In any of these debates on these insane proposals to regulate the actions of only democracies in this assembly and granting tin pot dictatorships a say on how the internal affairs of democracies are conducted, not one person in favour has adequately explained why this is fair or reasonable. Any chance any of the weakminded fools supporting this nonsense can advance a justification?"

Anderson: How exactly are the indirect requirements of Article h "entirely optional?" Since there appear to have been multiple concerns by multiple parties about the alleged bias of this proposal, a new Article i has been added if that is of any concern to anybody.

(OOC: I reiterate that GA#436.2 "prohibits member states from hindering the right of individuals to free expression, excepting... restrictions permitted in future, unrepealed WA legislation." Article i would presumably stop such "WA legislation.")

Tinhampton wrote:Anderson: How exactly are the indirect requirements of Article h "entirely optional?" Since there appear to have been multiple concerns by multiple parties about the alleged bias of this proposal, a new Article i has been added if that is of any concern to anybody.

"See GAR550, section 1.

"New section i does nothing original."

Bananaistan wrote:

Tinhampton wrote:Anderson: I was not aware of any attempts to replace the Bay Staters' resolution other than my own. This proposal does not restrict itself to democratic states only.

"It does. Section h is the easiest worked around provision of international law ever proposed. It would be entirely optional.

"The whole thing is morally bankrupt, this idea that it also applies to non-democratic member states is the most transparent dishonesty I've ever seen around here and the question I posed remains unanswered. I'll keep asking in the vain hope that you might eventually lower yourself to answer it: In any of these debates on these insane proposals to regulate the actions of only democracies in this assembly and granting tin pot dictatorships a say on how the internal affairs of democracies are conducted, not one person in favour has adequately explained why this is fair or reasonable. Any chance any of the weakminded fools supporting this nonsense can advance a justification?"

"We, without using such aggressive language, agree with this argument against the proposal."

Hwa Sue,
Legal Attache,
Bears Armed Mission at the W.A.
(and anthropomorphic [male] Giant Panda)

"Comrade Hornwood, I sympathize with your distaste for working with monarchies, capitalist states, and other forms of dictatorship. That is, however, the price of admission to the World Assembly. There are member states with heinous governments, and they will have a say in all policy passed in this house. This we must accept if we are to advance justice to any degree through international law. I accept this, and therefore am willing to consider laws which further democracy even if they do not do so as much as I wish they would. This proposal seems rather healthy to me. It advances democracy without conceding any issues to the whims of member states. Its only effect is to produce a more democratic world. Tell me, Ambassador, is that really such a bad thing? Are you really so full of ire as to condemn the proposal and its author for failing to do something it could never have possibly done? Are you unwilling to engage in harm reduction if it does not also mean total victory?"

Article i has been given a haircut - thanks, Wally.

Wallenburg wrote:"Comrade Hornwood, I sympathize with your distaste for working with monarchies, capitalist states, and other forms of dictatorship. That is, however, the price of admission to the World Assembly. There are member states with heinous governments, and they will have a say in all policy passed in this house. This we must accept if we are to advance justice to any degree through international law. I accept this, and therefore am willing to consider laws which further democracy even if they do not do so as much as I wish they would. This proposal seems rather healthy to me. It advances democracy without conceding any issues to the whims of member states. Its only effect is to produce a more democratic world. Tell me, Ambassador, is that really such a bad thing? Are you really so full of ire as to condemn the proposal and its author for failing to do something it could never have possibly done? Are you unwilling to engage in harm reduction if it does not also mean total victory?"

"Literally every other type of proposal that can be conceived applies equally to all member states - all our highly advanced human rights legislation applies to all these distasteful regimes as much as they apply to us proper countries. This is true advancement of justice.

"That's as far as we are willing to go. Legislation that applies to all countries. None of this, follow this "law" if you wish. How you could call this justice is beyond me.

"Also, there's literally great harm in forcing member states to warp their electoral systems to suit anti-social scumbags who are locked up after committing some heinous crime against the revolution. It's simple really - if you want to retain your full rights as a citizen, don't commit crimes. Why should voting be held up as a key right when freedom isn't? What about the prisoner's job and family? Right to earn a living and have their roof over their heads? All the long list of rights and freedoms that prisoners are prevented from enjoying. What's next - abolish prisons altogether? How exactly does this advance democracy?

"You'd have us setting up a separate ballot box for every constituency in the country in literally every single prison. This is insane.

"The whole thing is nonsense. Was nonsense from the start, is nonsense now, and always will be nonsense, same as all the other proposals to target only democratic nations. It does nothing to advance democracy because it is impossible under the standing orders for this assembly to actually advance democracy.

"However, I do thank you Comrade for attempting to answer the question even if your answer didn't answer the question posed but some other question about harm that nobody actually asked or is worried about."

Bananaistan wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"Comrade Hornwood, I sympathize with your distaste for working with monarchies, capitalist states, and other forms of dictatorship. That is, however, the price of admission to the World Assembly. There are member states with heinous governments, and they will have a say in all policy passed in this house. This we must accept if we are to advance justice to any degree through international law. I accept this, and therefore am willing to consider laws which further democracy even if they do not do so as much as I wish they would. This proposal seems rather healthy to me. It advances democracy without conceding any issues to the whims of member states. Its only effect is to produce a more democratic world. Tell me, Ambassador, is that really such a bad thing? Are you really so full of ire as to condemn the proposal and its author for failing to do something it could never have possibly done? Are you unwilling to engage in harm reduction if it does not also mean total victory?"

"Literally every other type of proposal that can be conceived applies equally to all member states - all our highly advanced human rights legislation applies to all these distasteful regimes as much as they apply to us proper countries. This is true advancement of justice.

"That's as far as we are willing to go. Legislation that applies to all countries. None of this, follow this "law" if you wish. How you could call this justice is beyond me.

Ogenbond grimaces, "So, yes to all my questions. Burn it all, the revolutionaries would have been pushed into the Grey Desert if it had people like you in charge."

"Also, there's literally great harm in forcing member states to warp their electoral systems to suit anti-social scumbags who are locked up after committing some heinous crime against the revolution. It's simple really - if you want to retain your full rights as a citizen, don't commit crimes. Why should voting be held up as a key right when freedom isn't? What about the prisoner's job and family? Right to earn a living and have their roof over their heads? All the long list of rights and freedoms that prisoners are prevented from enjoying. What's next - abolish prisons altogether? How exactly does this advance democracy?

Gerald's ears twitch, his eyes darting up excitedly at the mention of prison abolition. "Don't threaten us with a good time--"

Ogenbond continues, "Now, comrade Hornwood, there's no need for absurd hyperbole. You must understand that the proper purpose of the law is to protect its people, not to punish them. Stripping criminals of suffrage does not protect anyone, and it denies people a vital right. No true democracy can simply label a man counterrevolutionary and remove his voice from its body."

"You'd have us setting up a separate ballot box for every constituency in the country in literally every single prison. This is insane.

"Ambassador, may I ask whether you have ever participated in an election? I have. It's a rather small, although professional, affair to run a voting place. To have many such places scattered around a country is the norm, not an anomaly. Unless your nation is in the habit of building individual prisons for almost every individual convict, I'm not sure how the requirement to set up a voting place at each prison could possibly become a measurable burden."

"The whole thing is nonsense. Was nonsense from the start, is nonsense now, and always will be nonsense, same as all the other proposals to target only democratic nations. It does nothing to advance democracy because it is impossible under the standing orders for this assembly to actually advance democracy.

"However, I do thank you Comrade for attempting to answer the question even if your answer didn't answer the question posed but some other question about harm that nobody actually asked or is worried about."

"It is impossible for this house to advance democracy only when delegations stand opposed to advancement of democracy. There remains quite considerable room for the World Assembly to maximize democratic liberties within its operational limits. Again, I will not challenge your belief that it would be better for the World Assembly to advance democracy upon undemocratic states. I will challenge your idea that nothing can be done unless that ultimate victory is possible."

Wallenburg wrote:.… snip …

“There are 114 constituencies. A prison holding prisoners from each of these constituencies would require 114 separate ballot boxes to ensure that the ballot boxes are delivered to the correct count centre. Our election integrity laws specify that only the returning officer at 9am on the day after the election can open ballot boxes. Having the prison authorities sort through the ballots would rather defeat the purpose of the proposal.

“And that’s just the general election. Local elections would be far greater administrative burden.

“As to the rest of your comments, I feel we won’t have a meeting minds. Violent counterrevolutionaries can maintain their right to vote by not engaging in violent counterrevolution.”

Bananaistan wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:.… snip …

“There are 114 constituencies. A prison holding prisoners from each of these constituencies would require 114 separate ballot boxes to ensure that the ballot boxes are delivered to the correct count centre. Our election integrity laws specify that only the returning officer at 9am on the day after the election can open ballot boxes. Having the prison authorities sort through the ballots would rather defeat the purpose of the proposal.

“And that’s just the general election. Local elections would be far greater administrative burden.

"It would seem far easier to reassign prisoners to the local constituency, at least for the duration of their incarceration."

“As to the rest of your comments, I feel we won’t have a meeting minds. Violent counterrevolutionaries can maintain their right to vote by not engaging in violent counterrevolution.”

"Ah, well, I never meant to say anything good about traitors. The Anglicans screwed us over on that one, I'm afraid. Can't even have a quiet firing squad anymore, much less public immolation. I'm told there was a carnival after the last immolation, it was such a large event."

Ogenbond frowns in nostalgic disappointment, but Gerald's mouth curls into a disgusted grimace. "Really, Mikael, I asked you never to talk about it like that in my presence. I'll be in the bar if you need me."

Gerald gets up, leaving a somewhat surprised Ogenbond. "Oh, uh." He looks to Hornwodd. "Well, uh, sorry about that. But you know what I mean. Traitors aside, most criminals, for the harm they have done to society, have not harmed it to such a degree as to merit disenfranchisement as pure punishment."

Wallenburg wrote:

Bananaistan wrote:
“There are 114 constituencies. A prison holding prisoners from each of these constituencies would require 114 separate ballot boxes to ensure that the ballot boxes are delivered to the correct count centre. Our election integrity laws specify that only the returning officer at 9am on the day after the election can open ballot boxes. Having the prison authorities sort through the ballots would rather defeat the purpose of the proposal.

“And that’s just the general election. Local elections would be far greater administrative burden.

"It would seem far easier to reassign prisoners to the local constituency, at least for the duration of their incarceration."

Not for nations where government and elections are run through clans and septs (and other such ancestry-based groupings) rather than just through geographical areas...

Bears Armed wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"It would seem far easier to reassign prisoners to the local constituency, at least for the duration of their incarceration."

Not for nations where government and elections are run through clans and septs (and other such ancestry-based groupings) rather than just through geographical areas...

"Good point Comrade, the cultural imperialism in these proposals is another problem."

Anderson: I did not at any point consider or incorporate Ambassador Ogenbond's suggestion about prisoner relocation.

Bears Armed wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:"It would seem far easier to reassign prisoners to the local constituency, at least for the duration of their incarceration."

Not for nations where government and elections are run through clans and septs (and other such ancestry-based groupings) rather than just through geographical areas...

"If this is such a considerable concern, I am surprised they do not segregate their prisons by these groupings."

Anderson: This will likely be submitted next week - or, in other terms, a few days after the Corporal Punishment Ban - should there be no serious concerns with its text.

Wallenburg wrote:

Bears Armed wrote:Not for nations where government and elections are run through clans and septs (and other such ancestry-based groupings) rather than just through geographical areas...

"If this is such a considerable concern, I am surprised they do not segregate their prisons by these groupings."

As far as the Bears are concerned _
People accused of committing offences against other members of their own groups within those groups' own territories are usually tried and -- if necessary -- imprisoned with in those same territories, although some of the smaller groups do not maintain prisons of their own and so must contract either with neighbours or with the Confederal government for this service. People accused of committing offences against members of other groups, and/or in other groups' territories, are usually held either by the local authorities or by the ["neutral"] Confederal government depending on the severity of the offence & perhaps other circumstances as well. It is only those accused or convicted of certain serious offences under Confederal laws who would always be held by the Confederal authorities...
And, given the relatively low crime rates (on average), the large number of groups involved (c. 190 as of the latest reorganisation... OOC: and remember that for RP purposes the nation's population is under 20 million...), and the small sizes of some of those groups, segregating as you suggest would require an impractical multitude of small -- and sometimes empty -- prisons.

Anyway, because Bears take even less well to prolonged imprisonment than do Humans, punishment of convicted criminals within Bears Armed itself -- where, of course, GA resolutions are not binding -- generally involves either fines or physical punishment ('corporal', or for the worst crimes -- such as Treason, large-scale Arson, or Demon-summoning -- 'capital') instead. Thus, prisons there are mainly for those who have been charged -- and are not trusted out on bail -- but not yet tried & punished [or found innocent, & released].

Anderson: I will submit this over the weekend if there are no concerns with the actual text of my proposal.

Forgive me for my lack of surface understanding of the proposition, but would this mandate all WA member-states to allow their criminals to vote? The Pan-Asiatic States believes that a criminal record inhibits the capability of a criminal to vote wisely, and thus, deprives them of that privelege. We do not wish to be pressured by the international community to reverse this.

“What exactly does “pressured” mean in Article E ambassador?”

Hulldom wrote:“What exactly does “pressured” mean in Article E ambassador?”

Anderson: Coercion, for all intents and purposes... I was hardly sure how better to word it myself at the time.

Tinhampton wrote:

Hulldom wrote:“What exactly does “pressured” mean in Article E ambassador?”

Anderson: Coercion, for all intents and purposes... I was hardly sure how better to word it myself at the time.

“And how would one define coercion? I think it needs to be clearer that if it is coercion, it’s a treatment being applied to prisoners that is somehow deleterious to them rather than, say, normal campaigning.”