[DRAFT] Authority Security Pact

[The Emerald Union]

.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Many nations don't have problems between their citizens and police. I simply don't see this as an international issue.

Members of protests that become violent or invade private property be arrested and charged in the Court of law

Many nations do not have a concept of private property. Mandating that people be charged on the international level for damages to private property would be a gross violation of their internal sovereignty.

[Calladan]

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

Description:

The World Assembly,

Believing that non peaceful protesting could plausibly lead to Nation's societies and or governments to collapse.

Realizing that violent protesting could lead to citizens lack of respect for law enforcement.

Acknowledging that not all protests are violent and that peaceful protest is not at stake with this proposal.

Hereby declares:

I. Members of protests that become violent or invade private property be arrested and charged in the Court of law.

II. Nations develop programs to help Police Officers interact with the community.

III. Nations develop "Pro Police" campaigns to help encourage good relationships between communities and Police.

IV. Police Officers not be subject to Affirmative Action for their personal safety in hostile situations.

V. Nations put more funding into Law Enforcement Programs and Protest Control security Programs. (To help ensure protests do not become violent)


This proposal will help strengthen Domestic and international security and Social Awareness.

Greetings, and welcome,

While I understand the desire behind this proposal, I am afraid that I have one or two issues with the way it is phrased and some of the concepts behind it.

First - let me say (and I realise this will come out sounding somewhat patronising and that is not my intention) it is very well written and quite impressive for a first time proposal - assuming it is a first time proposal? (Given your founding date and that this is your first post, I was making that assumption?) So don't let any of the following detract from that

But in Clause 1 you require "members of protests" that become violent to be arrested and charged. That would imply that if a protest march of 20,000 people became violent, but only 100 people were responsible for the violence, all 20,000 people would still be required to be arrested and charged.

If you could rephrase so only those responsible for the violence would be arrested and charged, it would be more suitable (to me at least).

I am not certain how "affirmative action" applies in Clause 4, unless you have a different definition than I do (affirmative action in Calladan is about helping minority groups overcome stereotyping and discrimination - quite how that would help when they have someone threatening them with an axe is somewhat confusing).

In addition, while I am aware police officers have difficult jobs, I am loathe to accept any laws, regulations or rules that would put their safety above that of the public they are supposed to protect. It is the ultimate duty of every officer to sacrifice their life for the public, if it is necessary to do so, and every officer goes on the job knowing that.

Now I admit that gets a bit blurry when it comes to a member of the public threatening them with swords, knives and pointy sticks and so forth - they have the right to self defence, same as every other citizen, but they are required to take every step to disarm and remove the threat with as little risk to their own life as possible before they move onto using lethal force, and I will not do anything that would mean The WA could change that, because I believe it would be a betrayal of what the police are here to do.

However - those points aside - the other parts seem suitably acceptable (at least at first glance) and I can't find anything unduly wrong with them.

Once again - welcome.

[Separatist Peoples]

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Significant

Description:

The World Assembly,

Believing that non peaceful protesting could plausibly lead to Nation's societies and or governments to collapse.

"Plausibly, yes. Beyond a reasonable doubt? Is there even a preponderance of evidence supporting this assertion?"

Hereby declares:

I. Members of protests that become violent or invade private property be arrested and charged in the Court of law.

"This has no caveat for participants in a protest that becomes violent, despite no individual participation in the violence. In fact, by this metric, a one-hundred person protest with ninety-nine peaceful protests and one violent individual could result in one hundred arrests. This is, clearly, not in anybody's interests. It also doesn't make accommodations for protests on private property that are nonetheless held open to the public, despite the protest never becoming violent."

II. Nations develop programs to help Police Officers interact with the community.

"Do your police need help? Ours don't."

III. Nations develop "Pro Police" campaigns to help encourage good relationships between communities and Police.

"The C.D.S.P. doesn't think much of community outreach on the federal level. Every territory has control of it's own police, and they are in charge of maintaining the peace, except for those crimes that are inherently federal in nature. The C.D.S.P. federal government cares absolutely not at all if the community at large likes our federal officers, and resolutions are designed to affect governments principally on the national level. I see no need to bother with this clause."

IV. Police Officers not be subject to Affirmative Action for their personal safety in hostile situations.

"What on earth do you mean by Affirmative Action? This clause is indecipherable."

V. Nations put more funding into Law Enforcement Programs and Protest Control security Programs. (To help ensure protests do not become violent)

"If a nation doesn't care that their people protest violently against the govenrment, why does it require a reassessment of funding?"

This proposal will help strengthen Domestic and international security and Social Awareness.

"Not really. Ultimately, I fail to see how this, in any way, is necessary on the international level. What international threat or issue does this address? How is the international community affected? You go into none of this, ambassador. I would like to see more explanation in the text as to the need and details of the execution."

[Tinfect]

Believing that non peaceful protesting could plausibly lead to Nation's societies and or governments to collapse.

"Only in those states so utterly unstable, or utterly oppressive, that their military and law-enforcement forces are unable to respond to a simple civilian riot. In such cases, the Imperium would argue that it is likely best that the existing regime falls."

Realizing that violent protesting could lead to citizens lack of respect for law enforcement.

"The Imperium finds that it is the lack of respect for law-enforcement personnel that often leads to violent 'protests' amongst the citizenry. We have seen absolutely no evidence that your claim is true."

I. Members of protests that become violent or invade private property be arrested and charged in the Court of law.

"One would imagine that all Member-States already arrest those committing crimes, Ambassador. In any case, this clause seems to imply that the 'Court of Law' is an entity which all Member-States must release violent 'protesters' into the custody of. The Imperium will not allow any such thing to occur, our Citizens, for crimes committed within the Imperium, will be tried by Imperial courts."

This proposal will help strengthen Domestic and international security and Social Awareness.

I do not believe you understand the meaning of either of those terms, Ambassador.

In any case, the Imperium sees little reason for the necessity of this legislation, and will not provide support for it, or any future derivation of it."

Many nations do not have a concept of private property. Mandating that people be charged on the international level for damages to private property would be a gross violation of their internal sovereignty.

"Not at all, Ambassador. For those Member-States that do not recognize the concept of private property, this clause would simply not apply, as it would be impossible for private property to be damaged within their borders, as it does not exist."

[The Emerald Union]

.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Declaring things does not mean that they are actually done. Also, none of the objections I raised were addressed. Furthermore, many nations don't have these issues between the police and the populace writ large.

[Calladan]

I. Members of protests that cause a protest to become violent or invade private property be arrested and charged in the Court of law.

Sorry to sound like I am being overly picky, but perhaps "Cause the protest to become" and "engage in violence" (or something like that - I realise it is very clunky and hard to phrase) -- I might not be the instigator of the violence but I could still burn down a building or break a window or something. My original comment was to protect those who neither instigate the violence nor take part in it - I didn't want the government to have to charge THEM because of a badly worded clause

III. Nations develop "Pro Police" campaigns to help encourage good relationships between communities and Police (Example would be how police put their lives on the line for the citizens daily).

"...how police might be required to put their lives...."? While I can't speak to any other nation in The WA, Calladan is not a hotbed of crime and terror and shoot-outs on every street corner (not least because personal ownership of guns was banned years ago and having shoot-outs with sling-shots and nerf-guns is really not as dramatic as it sounds), and most officers don't face marauding bands of people on horseback waving swords every day. Generally the most an average police officer has to face is a cat stuck up a tree, and the odd traffic accident on the high street.

Please don't think I am undervaluing their service - far from it - but painting the entire WA as an urban war-zone seems...... excessive

[Sierra Lyricalia]

"I. I'm not aware of any nation that fails to do this already, except the occasional total anarchy, which has bigger fish to fry than property destruction at protests."

"II. OK, but why assume they don't already? What if a nation's law enforcement and its citizens are just fine with each other?"

"III. Absolutely not. The WA should not be mandating national propaganda campaigns."

"IV. Again, any country that doesn't already provide their officers with safety training has much bigger problems than protests turning violent."

"V. Nothing indicates most nations need increased law enforcement budgets; and developing 'protest control' measures is anathema to free expression, a blatant invitation for corruption and repression, and violates the spirit, if maybe not the letter, of GAR #30."

"VI. Fine, sounds good."

"In short, we find most of this resolution either redundant or repressive, Ambassador, and we cannot support it without basic and fundamental revisions."

[Kryozerkia]

I'm not seeing how this is "Moral Decency" when the focus is on police training and increasing its budget. Seems this would fall under "International Security".