Advertisement
by Liberimery » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:31 am
by Kenmoria » Mon Aug 13, 2018 4:39 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Under the mandates clause b, could you add age and profession to the list of the protected characteristics. The former because of ageism, and the latter because, at least historically, any job considered “immodest” was liable to huge persecution. Also, could you number your active clauses please.)
Sorry, but I'm definitely not including profession. It would be wholly inappropriate to stop a comedian ranting about politicians, bankers or traffic wardens. I'd need a lot of persuading to include age as well. I'm not taking all the categories from anti-discrimination law here, I'm focused on serious hate speech. Give me examples if you'd like, but I'm not aware of the elderly being significantly on the receiving end of what LGBT+ people or immigrants are more often subjected to.
by Uan aa Boa » Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:22 am
by Bears Armed » Mon Aug 13, 2018 7:54 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:I'm not aware of the elderly being significantly on the receiving end of what LGBT+ people or immigrants are more often subjected to.
by Liberimery » Mon Aug 13, 2018 2:17 pm
Uan aa Boa wrote:To the ambassador from Liberimery I would point out that the resolution permits restrictions on the incitement of hatred on the basis of race, nationality, immigration status, religion, sexual orientation, disability, gender identity, or gender reassignment. The eating of pineapple on pizza does not appear on that list. This is not the first objection the ambassador has raised that is answered by simply reading the text of the proposal.
I can assure the ambassador that I do understand what incitement to hate is. To incite means to rouse or stir up, from the Latin citare, and I assume the ambassador understands what hatred is. If necessary I believe the ambassador would be able to purchase a dictionary from the bookshop in the foyer. It would be possible to contend that your nation should be governed exclusively by white people, that immigration should be banned, homosexuality outlawed, gender reassignment unworthy of public funding, Catholics forbidden from frequenting bakeries etc etc without inciting hatred (some of my best friends are black/gay/whatever). In implementing such suggestions you might run into difficulties with other WA resolutions, especially GA #30, but this proposal would not trouble you as long as you didn't incite hatred for any of these groups. Assuming your nation had imposed any restrictions which, as we've said, it doesn't have to do.
To the ambassador from Kenmoria I would point out that while a comedian is indeed an individual, and permitted by Protecting Free Expression to perform her routine in the street without fear of sanction, if she intends to appear in a theatre, or have her material broadcast, or published, or hosted online then she will need to do so through the auspices of legal persons.
by Uan aa Boa » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:25 am
by Aclion » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:43 am
by Liberimery » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:38 pm
Uan aa Boa wrote:The Boani ambassador takes a deep breath with the air of someone mentally counting to ten.
I'm not sure what accusation or attack I'm supposed to have made. Perhaps when I said "It would be possible to contend that your nation should be governed exclusively by white people, that immigration should be banned, homosexuality outlawed, gender reassignment unworthy of public funding, Catholics forbidden from frequenting bakeries etc etc" you thought I was saying that your government or people believe or contend those things. I wasn't. If that isn't the source of the confusion then frankly I'm baffled. I will make one last attempt to explain this.
I'm not sure what you mean by "association speak" but if you read the proposal you'll find it concerns expression by legal persons i.e. entities other than individuals that are able to have rights and obligations under your nation's legal system. You ask me about the line between acceptable and unacceptable action. Referring you again to the proposal text, you'll read there that a nation can enact restrictions in order to prevent one of three specific things, provided that they don't restrict significantly more instances of expression than necessary to achieve that objective. A comedian cannot be banned because I or anyone else think they're not funny, but a nation could under this proposal enact laws against legal persons (theatres, publishers, broadcasters, web hosts etc) disseminating a comedy routine that (for example) incites anti-Semitic hatred.
I stress again that this resolution does not ban anything. It allows member nations to take certain specified actions if they wish. If your nation would prefer absolute and no-holds-barred free speech then this resolution will not stand in your way. In opposing the clauses on incitement of hatred and denial of genocide, you are saying to other sovereign nations that they must not restrict such practices in any circumstances, no matter what the specific situation of their society is, even if the country is a powder keg of ethnic or sectarian tension. I would suggest that yours is the more draconian approach to take.
I don't wish to repeal Protecting Freedom of Expression and this proposal does not seek to undermine it. I think this proposal compliments it - no government will be permitted to criminalise hate speech by individuals in everyday conversation but governments will have the option to place restrictions on the organised dissemination of material that seeks to incite hatred. That seems to me an appropriate balance.
Far from restricting free speech this proposal significantly extends it since, until such time as the Assembly passes legislation on the free expression of legal persons, governments are free to censor opposition political parties, close down theatres, silence civil rights organisations and many other examples. If you want to support free speech this is an effort you should do something to help with instead of shouting "no, no, no" from the sidelines.
As for my "constant rewrites," that's called drafting and it's what this forum is for. You will notice that many ambassadors have assisted with this process, as good legislation is often a collective effort.
I don't wish to continue our debate because you aren't contributing to the draft, you're simply stating continual opposition based on a limited understanding of what is being proposed. I would ask you to pause and make a small effort to understand what's being said and why rather than just searching for things you can protest about, but it seems a vain hope. You have every right to vote against should this proposal make it quorum.
by Wallenburg » Tue Aug 14, 2018 1:43 pm
Liberimery wrote:Remove the hate speech and genocide clauses and this can be workable. Right now, these issues are possibly illegal under current free speech resolution.
by Liberimery » Tue Aug 14, 2018 2:25 pm
by Wallenburg » Tue Aug 14, 2018 3:15 pm
by Imperium Anglorum » Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:13 am
by NewLakotah » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:56 am
by Jocospor » Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:04 am
by Pan-Asiatic States » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:19 am
NewLakotah wrote:While many of the principles of such a proposal are in line with what we believe, the actual proposal is far to vague and incomplete for such a thing to support.
{_{_✯_}_}
⛏(☉_(✹‿✹)_⚆)⚑
☯ PAN-ASIATIC STATES ☯
♫ Music ♬
Discord
? Mystery Link ?
Puppet(s): Hintuwan |
NO-ONE FIGHTS ALONE! JOIN ESCB • TWI • ISC • ISVC TODAY!
by Kenmoria » Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:55 am
Jocospor wrote:We are ever so pleased to inform our World Assembly compatriots that we have voted against this pathetic excuse of a resolution. Corporations, in our opinion, can only do the best for society. Limiting their power is just another way for fake democracies to role play dictatorships. But don't worry, we understand why you'd be jealous.
Hail the Confederation!
Delegate's Office
Confederation of Corrupt Dictators
by Greater Cascadiana » Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:10 pm
by New Nukia » Mon Aug 20, 2018 3:50 pm
by Auralia » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:09 pm
by Fardhin » Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:05 pm
Chairman : Farid Harun Samporna | Official Language : Malay | IC Year : 2069 | Anthem : Malaya will be Victorious!
A coalition of the nations of Malaya working hand in hand towards common goals and supporting each other. Founded to combat Natzarist faction in currently ongoing Malayan Civil War [PMT | OPEN].
NEWS:Coalition conducts ICBM and nuclear test, armed missile launched into Sahara with cooperation of Malayan ally, Cairene Arabia. | "Natzar is a fraud and the aristocratic party are traitors. If you are loyal to Malaya, it is much better to support the Coalition." says former Crown Prince Sayf Ar-Rijal Bolkiah.
by Uan aa Boa » Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:01 pm
Fardhin wrote:After all, who are we to decide what is hate speech and what is not? There are certain ethno-states that call any criticism of their actions "hate speech".
by Cosmopolitan borovan » Mon Aug 20, 2018 7:45 pm
by Liberimery » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:30 am
Uan aa Boa wrote:Fardhin wrote:After all, who are we to decide what is hate speech and what is not? There are certain ethno-states that call any criticism of their actions "hate speech".
Incitement of hatred on the grounds of race, religion etc is a pretty clear criterion, and not one that extends to criticism of the actions of the state.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement