Advertisement
by Greater Cesnica » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:13 am
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:46 am
by Wallenburg » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:40 pm
by WayNeacTia » Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:02 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Well, you're certainly in a hurry.
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Maowi » Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:07 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Approved.
Wallenburg wrote:Well, you're certainly in a hurry.
by Wallenburg » Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:48 pm
Maowi wrote:OOC:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Approved.
Thank you, IA \o/Wallenburg wrote:Well, you're certainly in a hurry.
Given the passage of the GA#27 repeal, as well as the existence of a competing replacement draft with differing policy goals, we thought it advisable to minimise the wait between repeal and submission.
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Feb 05, 2021 2:56 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Perhaps you should have waited until a replacement was ready to attempt a repeal.
by Wallenburg » Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:22 pm
by Maowi » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:35 am
Wallenburg wrote:You misunderstand. I mean that the repeal should not have been submitted until this too was prepared for submission, if the author so genuinely abhors an intermission from repeal to replacement. The replacement quite unquestionably was not ready for submission, since edits were made to it through the repeal's approval period and through its voting period.
If you wish to discuss the replacement's current readiness, however, I will do so. Clause 3.b remains a considerable problem, a weak point by which member states may comply with clause 1 as it is written but not as the author desires.
by CoraSpia » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:49 am
by Marxist Germany » Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:46 am
by Greater Cesnica » Sat Feb 06, 2021 11:52 am
Marxist Germany wrote:"Does clause 2 not prohibit private entities from removing trespassers if they claim to be participating in a 'non-violent assembly'? If that is not changed, Germany will not be voting for this replacement."
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Maowi » Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:58 pm
CoraSpia wrote:Because it allows states with very strict laws re speech to allow for the assembly but not to allow for any particular speech to be expressed in it. A state which banned 'outdoor shouting would still be able to enforce that ban. This proposal is not ready for the voting floor and I can't help but feel that it was rushed to be submitted because another proposal on this issue was submitted and you wanted to have the replacement.
Marxist Germany wrote:"Does clause 2 not prohibit private entities from removing trespassers if they claim to be participating in a 'non-violent assembly'? If that is not changed, Germany will not be voting for this replacement."
by Marxist Germany » Sun Feb 07, 2021 5:59 am
Maowi wrote:Marxist Germany wrote:"Does clause 2 not prohibit private entities from removing trespassers if they claim to be participating in a 'non-violent assembly'? If that is not changed, Germany will not be voting for this replacement."
"If trespassing is unlawful in Germany, private entities may act to curtail the trespassing, as per 3.b. of this proposal. I hope that clarifies the matter."
by Hexxon » Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:15 am
This was a fairly easy vote. At first I was worried that it didn't have sufficient support but now I'm more willing to cast my vote in favor of this proposal.
by CoraSpia » Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:18 am
by Westinor » Tue Feb 09, 2021 10:34 am
by Draconic Aiur » Tue Feb 09, 2021 3:19 pm
by Alpha Carinae » Wed Feb 10, 2021 12:47 am
Draconic Aiur wrote:While the issue at hand is great, it does nothing to help the case of a global pandemic or extremists banding together to fight the government or a different group. If history tells us one thing is that nothing is perfect, but we should try to fill those holes in a documents, otherwise we will get something like 2020 and early 2021 in America. So I plan to be against this issue until something more solid comes along.
Yes I'm in hell, so what?
by Jutsa » Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:16 am
unless doing so is the [most proportionate/least restrictive] way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.
the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
by CoraSpia » Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:19 am
Jutsa wrote:"The Grand Council of Jutsa firmly applauds this proposal, and has voted FOR. However, there's one caveat they wish to have addressed.
Both clauses 1 and 2 state this at the end - which is a good addition, in their opinion.unless doing so is the [most proportionate/least restrictive] way of preventing or curtailing harmful activities as defined in clause 3.
Clause 3c adds this to 3's definition of harmful activities, which is also accepted by the Grand Council as a good addition.the advocacy of probable imminent unlawful action.
There's just one issue with this: what happens if the member state simply makes it an unlawful action to protest?
Sure, this resolution essentially makes it illegal to make it illegal... but with the caveat that if it's illegal, then it would be legal?
Or - pardon my jibberish - even though the point of the resolution is to make it an inalienable right to assembly,
wouldn't simply making such practices illegal in the first place mean that sections 1 and 2 automatically are made null and void by clause 3c?"
by Jutsa » Wed Feb 10, 2021 11:27 am
by Maowi » Wed Feb 10, 2021 1:20 pm
Jutsa wrote:"I'd like to believe in a good-faith argument against this worry, but we've seen proposals repealed for reasons like this,
and this is something big enough that, unless it's already protected by an existing or shall be protected by a future resolution,
The Council would like other opinions on whether it's simply misinterpreting this, or if this is really as big a loophole as they - and I - thought."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement