Advertisement
by Tinhampton » Sat May 15, 2021 1:12 am
by Bananaistan » Sat May 15, 2021 2:57 am
by Molopovia » Sat May 15, 2021 3:06 am
by Tinhampton » Sat May 15, 2021 1:09 pm
by Bananaistan » Sat May 15, 2021 2:51 pm
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.
by Tinhampton » Sun May 16, 2021 12:17 am
by Bananaistan » Sun May 16, 2021 3:02 am
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.
by Bears Armed » Sun May 16, 2021 5:14 am
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?"
by Wallenburg » Sun May 16, 2021 2:33 pm
by Tinhampton » Sun May 16, 2021 4:05 pm
by Bananaistan » Sun May 16, 2021 4:24 pm
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?"
by Wallenburg » Sun May 16, 2021 4:51 pm
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.
"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."
by Bananaistan » Sun May 16, 2021 5:11 pm
Wallenburg wrote:.… snip …
by Wallenburg » Sun May 16, 2021 5:29 pm
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.
“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.”
by Bears Armed » Mon May 17, 2021 5:04 am
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."
by Bananaistan » Mon May 17, 2021 5:38 am
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...
by Tinhampton » Mon May 17, 2021 5:53 am
by Wallenburg » Mon May 17, 2021 10:03 am
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...
by Tinhampton » Thu May 20, 2021 9:13 pm
by Bears Armed » Fri May 21, 2021 2:12 am
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."
by Tinhampton » Tue May 25, 2021 8:57 am
by Pan-Asiatic States » Tue May 25, 2021 9:40 am
{_{_✯_}_}
⛏(☉_(✹‿✹)_⚆)⚑
☯ PAN-ASIATIC STATES ☯
♫ Music ♬
Discord
? Mystery Link ?
Puppet(s): Hintuwan |
NO-ONE FIGHTS ALONE! JOIN ESCB • TWI • ISC • ISVC TODAY!
by Tinhampton » Tue May 25, 2021 12:00 pm
Hulldom wrote:“What exactly does “pressured” mean in Article E ambassador?”
by Hulldom » Tue May 25, 2021 12:23 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement