[ABANDONED] Freedom of Movement

[States of Glory WA Office]

Freedom of Movement
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that member states have a right to protect their border,

OBSERVING that there is a variety of reasons for restricting movement across international borders,

BELIEVING many restrictions on the movement of individuals across an international border to be grounded in genuine concerns,

AWARE of the need, however, to preserve due process and equal rights where international movement is restricted,

NOTING with concern that some member states may refuse to grant visas to individuals based purely on said individual's country of citizenship,

NOTING also that the aforementioned member states may extend this refusal to individuals based purely on the countries that said individual has visited,

OPINING that such restrictions violate the principles of due process and equal rights,

WISHING to halt these injustices,

APPALLED that innocent travellers are treated as threats due to these discriminatory practices,

LAMBASTING member states that utilise said practices,

LAMENTING that prior to this resolution's passage, many innocent travellers have already suffered from tyrannical border laws,

HEREBY:

1. FORBIDS member states to refuse visas to individuals based purely on the countries that said individuals have visited,
   
   
2. FORBIDS member states to refuse visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by another member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless the receiving member state is at war with the government by which the passport was issued,
   
   
3. REQUIRES member states to recognise passports issued by other member states,
   
   
4. FORBIDS member states to refuse visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by a non-member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless:
   
   
   • the member state is at war with the non-member state,
   • the non-member state has the same policy towards the member state at the time of the visa refusal, or
   • the member state refuses to recognise the non-member state in all other areas,
   
   
5. CLARIFIES that this resolution does not oblige member states to recognise the legitimacy of any non-member state,
   
   
6. ESTABLISHES the following process for handling alleged violations of this resolution:
   
   
   1. A nation or a legally competent citizen of a nation allegedly the target of such a violation may request the Compliance Commission to investigate the basis on which the visa was refused or on which the passport was not recognised.
      
      
   2. If the Compliance Commission finds evidence suggesting that a violation of this resolution has occurred, the nation or citizen in question may bring a civil cause, presided over by the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), against the member state that has allegedly committed the violation.
      
      
   3. In the event that the CIJ finds that a violation has been committed, it may compel the member state that has committed the violation to provide damages to the plaintiff proportionate to the scale and severity of the violation.
   
   
7. ASKS member states to resolve allegations of noncompliance of this resolution or of other resolutions through diplomatic means, utilising the services of the IMF if necessary,
   
   
8. RESERVES to member states the right to maintain more extensive vetting policies towards individuals based on the countries that said individual has visited or said individual's country of citizenship, so long as these policies do not violate this resolution or extant legislation,
   
   
9. DECLARES that member states have a right to shut down their border entirely.

Fairburn: Since I haven't completed all of the paperwork, I am not technically the Ambassador yet. Because of this, my diplomatic passport is still in the possession of the government and I am currently banned from two countries.

Barbera: It is worth noting that this resolution will not change that situation, however.

Fairburn: Regardless, freedom of movement is an important right which should be restricted only under certain circumstances.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Freedom of Movement
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that member states, by nature of their sovereignty, have a right to maintain and protect their border,

OBSERVING that there is a multitude of reasons for restricting movement across international borders, such as national security and economic protectionism,

BELIEVING that many restrictions on the movement of individuals across an international border are grounded in legitimate concerns,

AWARE of the need, however, to preserve due process and equal rights in situations where international movement is restricted,

NOTING with concern that certain member states may refuse to grant visas to individuals based purely on said individual's country of citizenship,

NOTING also that some of the aforementioned member states may extend this refusal to individuals based purely on the countries that said individual has visited,

OPINING that such restrictions violate the principles of due process and equal rights,

WISHING to correct these injustices,

APPALLED that innocent travellers are treated as threats due to these discriminatory practices,

LAMBASTING member states who utilise these practices,

LAMENTING the fact that prior to the passage of this resolution, many innocent travellers have already suffered at the hands of tyrannical border protection laws,

HEREBY:

1. FORBIDS member states to refuse to grant visas to individuals based purely on the countries that said individuals have visited,
   
   
2. PROHIBITS member states from refusing to grant visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by another member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless the receiving member state is in a state of war with the government by which the passport was issued,
   
   
3. REQUIRES member states to recognise passports issued by other member states,
   
   
4. PROHIBITS member states from refusing to grant visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by a non-member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless:
   
   
   1. the member state is in a state of war with the non-member state,
   2. the non-member state maintains the same policy towards the member state at the time of the visa refusal, or
   3. the member states refuses to recognise the non-member state in all other areas,
   
   
5. CLARIFIES that this resolution does not oblige member states to recognise the sovereignty of any non-member state,
   
   
6. RESERVES to member states the right to maintain more extensive vetting policies towards individuals based on the countries that said individual has visited or said individual's country of citizenship, so long as these policies do not violate the mandates of this resolution or of prior unrepealed resolutions,
   
   
7. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution bans member states from shutting down their borders entirely.

Freedom of Movement
Category: Human Rights | Strength: Significant

The World Assembly,

NOTING that member states, by nature of their sovereignty, have a right to maintain and protect their border,

OBSERVING that there is a multitude of reasons for restricting movement across international borders, such as national security and economic protectionism,

BELIEVING that many restrictions on the movement of individuals across an international border are grounded in legitimate concerns,

AWARE of the need, however, to preserve due process and equal rights in situations where international movement is restricted,

NOTING with concern that certain member states may refuse to grant visas to individuals based purely on said individual's country of citizenship,

NOTING also that some of the aforementioned member states may extend this refusal to individuals based purely on the countries that said individual has visited,

OPINING that such restrictions violate the principles of due process and equal rights,

WISHING to correct these injustices,

APPALLED that innocent travellers are treated as threats due to these discriminatory practices,

LAMBASTING member states who utilise these practices,

LAMENTING the fact that prior to the passage of this resolution, many innocent travellers have already suffered at the hands of tyrannical border protection laws,

HEREBY:

1. FORBIDS member states to refuse to grant visas to individuals based purely on the countries that said individuals have visited,
   
   
2. PROHIBITS member states from refusing to grant visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by another member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless the receiving member state is in a state of war with the government by which the passport was issued,
   
   
3. REQUIRES member states to recognise passports issued by other member states,
   
   
4. PROHIBITS member states from refusing to grant visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by a non-member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless:
   
   
   • the member state is in a state of war with the non-member state,
   • the non-member state maintains the same policy towards the member state at the time of the visa refusal, or
   • the member states refuses to recognise the non-member state in all other areas,
   
   
5. CLARIFIES that this resolution does not oblige member states to recognise the sovereignty of any non-member state,
   
   
6. ESTABLISHES the following procedure for handling alleged violations of this resolution's mandates:
   
   
   1. Any nation or any legally competent citizen of a nation allegedly the target of such a violation may request that the Compliance Commission investigate the rationale on which the visa was refused or on which the passport was not recognised.
      
      
   2. If the Compliance Commission finds evidence suggesting that a violation of this resolution's mandates has occurred, the nation or citizen in question may bring a civil cause, presided over by the Court of International Jurisdiction (CIJ), against the member state that has allegedly committed the violation.
      
      
   3. In the event that the CIJ finds that a violation has been committed, it may compel the member state that has committed the violation to provide monetary damages to the plaintiff proportionate to the scale and severity of the violation.
   
   
7. ENCOURAGES member states to resolve allegations of noncompliance of this resolution or of any other resolution through diplomatic means, utilising the services of the International Mediation Foundation if necessary,
   
   
8. RESERVES to member states the right to maintain more extensive vetting policies towards individuals based on the countries that said individual has visited or said individual's country of citizenship, so long as these policies do not violate the mandates of this resolution or of prior unrepealed resolutions,
   
   
9. DECLARES that nothing in this resolution bans member states from shutting down their borders entirely.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Opposed. The WA should not regulate national border control policies.

[Christian Democrats]

PROHIBITS member states from refusing to grant visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by another member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless the receiving member state is in a state of war with the government by which the passport was issued

What if Government A doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Government B?

[Aclion]

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not oblige member states to recognize the sovereignty of any non-member state,

It absolutely does do that, by requiring we recognize their authority to issue passports.

I'm a bit disappointed by how little this resolution does to actually protect freedom of movement. It restricts itself entirely to mandating recognition of each-others passports and forbidding travel bans. Freedom of movement compasses a lot more then just entering a country.

[Bears Armed]

Contradicts G.A.R. #76, inasmuch as that only "Urges" member nations to recognize each other's passports as valid.

[States of Glory WA Office]

Opposed. The WA should not regulate national border control policies.

Barbera: Lord Colonel His Grace Cyril Parsons, 1st Duke of...

Harold: Cyril, mate. Listen. Due process. The WA has mandated it in member nations, even though it has no international scope. Somehow, though, due process that does have international scope is unacceptable. What gives?

PROHIBITS member states from refusing to grant visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by another member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless the receiving member state is in a state of war with the government by which the passport was issued

What if Government A doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Government B?

Barbera: Clause Three mandates that member states recognise the passports issued by other member states, so your point is moot. As for passports issued by non-member states, there is no obligation for member states to recognise them as long as at least one of the three conditions is met.

Fairburn: Your nation's government is aware of the requirements laid out in GA #80 a.k.a A Promotion of Basic Education, right?

Barbera: I probably ought to have apologised in advance for Ambassador Fairburn's conduct.

Fairburn: (scoffs)

CLARIFIES that this resolution does not oblige member states to recognize the sovereignty of any non-member state,

It absolutely does do that, by requiring we recognize their authority to issue passports.

Harold: Ahem.

PROHIBITS member states from refusing to grant visas to individuals travelling on passports issued by a non-member state based purely on the government by which the passport was issued, unless:

the member states refuses to recognise the non-member state in all other areas,

Fairburn: Great, another "Ambassador" who can't read! Just what we needed!

I'm a bit disappointed by how little this resolution does to actually protect freedom of movement. It restricts itself entirely to mandating recognition of each-others passports and forbidding travel bans. Freedom of movement compasses a lot more then just entering a country.

Barbera: Do you have suggestions for an alternative title?

Contradicts G.A.R. #76, inasmuch as that only "Urges" member nations to recognize each other's passports as valid.

Harold: Oh, you really are such a buzzkill, you know that? A bigger buzzkill than bee pests, in fact.

Barbera and Fairburn roll their eyes.

Harold: Anyway, say that Barbera allows you to jump out of a ten-storey window, I urge you to jump out a ten-storey window and Fairburn, being Fairburn, decides to compel you to jump out of a ten-storey window by defenestrating you himself. It would be foolish even by my standards to claim that all of our actions contradicted each other, yet you are arguing such a thing!

Now, if one of us recommended that you didn't jump out of a ten-storey window, yet Fairburn decided to compel you to do so anyway, then that would most definitely be contradiction. That is irrelevant to this proposal, but it may be relevant at a future point in time, so please bear that in mind.

Fairburn: The fact that a clown has just solved one of the biggest questions in WA jurisprudence should speak for itself. I'm out of here. (exits)

[Araraukar]

There are various degrees of two nations not being on good terms that fall short of an active war, so it seems very unfair to require the declaration of war to prevent possible spies from entering your country. (OOC: Think of how in RL many Russian bigshots are currently on "traveling denied" lists by various countries, including the EU, because of what Russia did in Ukraine - but there's been no declaration of war between Russia and the members of EU.)

[Grays Harbor]

There are various degrees of two nations not being on good terms that fall short of an active war, so it seems very unfair to require the declaration of war to prevent possible spies from entering your country. (OOC: Think of how in RL many Russian bigshots are currently on "traveling denied" lists by various countries, including the EU, because of what Russia did in Ukraine - but there's been no declaration of war between Russia and the members of EU.)

Or using the Cold War, where "Cultural Attaché" was virtually the code word for KGB!!! in every Soviet embassy.

[Christian Democrats]

What if Government A doesn't recognize the legitimacy of Government B?

Barbera: Clause Three mandates that member states recognise the passports issued by other member states, so your point is moot.

No, your answer misses the point. What if A does not consider B to be a member state?

[Araraukar]

What if A does not consider B to be a member state?

How is that even logically possible?

[Separatist Peoples]

Barbera: Clause Three mandates that member states recognise the passports issued by other member states, so your point is moot.

No, your answer misses the point. What if A does not consider B to be a member state?

"GAR#2 ensures that members recognize each other. I'm not entirely sure that this is a possible scenario."

[Sophista]

Independent of issues raised by other Delegates, the Federated States of Sophista are skeptical of any legislation that would infringe upon their ability to control the flow of individuals across its borders. We join with the Delegate from Araraukar in asserting there are a number of circumstances other than open conflict where we would prefer to categorically deny entry to citizens of a specific nation, including but not limited to the outbreak of infectious disease, unchecked smuggling or human trafficking, or evidence of state-sponsored terrorism. While it is not generally the policy of our government to block the free movement of peoples between nations, neither can we accept these limitations on which tools our government has at its disposal.

Separate to this concern, a broad prohibition does little without a means to verify the intent behind any specific visa revocation or refusal. Might it be coincidence that every traveler from the States of Glory WA has been denied permission to enter the Federated States of Sophista? We might, after discovering a spy network within our borders, decide that any citizen of a particular nation presents an espionage risk. Surely the Delegate does not expect us to provide sensitive national security information to justify every refusal. What recourse exists, then, for a nation that feels its citizens are being rejected de facto on the basis of citizenship, but de jure on some other, secret criterion?

We are sympathetic to the authors intention, but unconvinced of their means.

[Araraukar]

including but not limited to the 1) outbreak of infectious disease, unchecked smuggling or 2) human trafficking, or 3) evidence of state-sponsored terrorism.

1) I think there's a resolution that says something about that, but can't remember it off the top of my head. 2) Banned by an existing resolution. 3) Banned by an existing resolution. Of course those resolutions only apply to member nations, but so does this one.

OOC: I realize your account is rather old by NS standards, but you seem to be a bit out touch with the current day GA, so I suggest you re-visit the proposal rules (some were changed not long ago) and at least leaf through the resolutions passed under the NSWA banner. The thread on this forum is easy to search with keywords.

[Sophista]

1) I think there's a resolution that says something about that, but can't remember it off the top of my head. 2) Banned by an existing resolution. 3) Banned by an existing resolution. Of course those resolutions only apply to member nations, but so does this one.

That any particular act is banned does not mean a member government is adequately controlling it, or even attempting to. A great many things are are ostensibly illegal on the international stage, but continue to a non-negligible degree in several member states. Perhaps the Delegate from Ararukar can provide evidence that their government has quashed all the great evils of the world, to include suppressing any and all criminal elements engaged in said activities, perhaps not. We would prefer the Sophistan Foreign Ministry be the judge of a government's performance in enforcing these bans rather than take a nation's word for it while their citizens stream through our ports.

[Araraukar]

That any particular act is banned does not mean a member government is adequately controlling it, or even attempting to.

No, but noncompliance doesn't have to be made allowances for in resolution texts. (OOC: And no, I'm not getting into that debate again. We've had that fight more times than I care to count. Search the forum with "compliance" to see what I mean...)

Perhaps the Delegate from Ararukar

OOC: "Ambassador from Araraukar", please.

can provide evidence that their government has quashed all the great evils of the world

*laughs* There are many very good reasons why Araraukar isn't in the WA. We'd be in violation of... well, most likely the majority of the existing resolutions. However, we are allied with a WA nation (OOC: my WA puppet, Potted Plants United) and, I daresay, have made frenemies friends with some ambassadors from other member nations and wouldn't want to see their nations to suffer for foolish resolution writing either.

All of which is besides the point that making special excuses just because some member nations might not follow the resolutions they signed up to follow when joining the World Assembly, is not necessary, and might even duplicate or contradict the existing resolutions banning said practices.

We would prefer

That reminds me, who are you, ambassador?

rather than take a nation's word for it while their citizens stream through our ports.

I'm the last person to whom you want to be complaining about that, as I advocate for each nation having complete border control over anything or anyone getting into their nation. Which is another reason my home nation is not in the WA; existing resolutions require you to let in all kinds of people and transports, whether you want to or not. (OOC: And yes I know there are nations like Tinfect, but they don't trade with other nations either. Creative compliance for the sake of RP rather than outright noncompliance is muchly preferred around here. )

[Sophista]

No, but noncompliance doesn't have to be made allowances for in resolution texts.

Indeed, nor should it. And likewise neither should legislation be built like a castle on a foundation of sand, until the piling on of ignored consequences causes the whole of it to collapse. This isn't a question of whether some nations will seek creative ends to circumvent their obligations. If the answer to every question is, "but nations will find a way to get around it," then the business of drafting and debating is all rather pointless, hm?

Perhaps the Delegate from Ararukar

Ah, but of course. My apologies, ambassador.

*laughs* There are many very good reasons why Araraukar isn't in the WA. We'd be in violation of... well, most likely the majority of the existing resolutions.

Rather, it's a question of whether those nations among us who choose not to insulate ourselves from the consequences of these debates should have to let those consequences come rolling over our borders after the fact. And if you share some measure of concern for your friends who remain members of this body, then I would hope you might measure the benefits of this kind of action in the face of their costs. Borders are part of what makes a state a state. Adding to the mess of unrestricted travel in the name of generic human altruism, by our math, doesn't quite add up. Frankly, the notion that every citizen of the world should have a de jure right to travel to whatever corners of whatever nations they please is absurd on face. Obviously you understand, or you'd not be so eager to escape the reach of other resolutions prying at your borders.

To what end should we strip yet another decision from the world's sovereign governments? A warm-hearted stroke for the human spirit? This can't be about refugees or trade goods; those situations are covered under existing law. Neither can it be about law enforcement, public welfare, or national security, where exceptions have already been carved out. At its core, this is a resolution prohibiting nations from being mean to one another for no reason, and that hardly seems worth the price of admission.

That reminds me, who are you, ambassador?

Ah, right. It's understandable that people have forgotten, what with the move and all. My name is Daniel Hillaker, Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Federated States of Sophista and Ambassador to the World Assembly. Before you're arrival, I authored the seminal guide used to raise the quality and form of resolutions submitted to what was then the United Nations, shepherded the proposal that would eventually become the World Assembly Funding Act. They tried to put my name on it, if I recall..

There was also that messy business about the Law of the Sea -- now repealed, mercifully -- where we went to war over our right to assert territorial claims despite a resolution that denied them. I suppose you could say we know a fair bit about "creative noncompliance." I think they made a meme out of it?

In any case, I digress. Costs. Benefits. Math's not tipping in the right direction for us, or indeed, for the members of the World Assembly.

[Christian Democrats]

What if A does not consider B to be a member state?

How is that even logically possible?

China is a member of the WA. One year, the Nationalist government of China is physically displaced by a Communist government. The Nationalist government retreats to another section of the territory and continues to maintain an ambassador at the WA. The Communist government also sends an ambassador to the WA. All recognize that China is a WA member state.

What if your nation recognizes the Nationalist government of China as the legitimate government of China and does not recognize the Communist government? Would your nation be in violation of this proposal if it refused to recognize the Communist passports?

[Araraukar]

My name is Daniel Hillaker

Daniel it is, then.

(OOC: I don't place much value on past credentials, as the game has evolved a lot since. Hang around for a few months to become a GAer again. )

If the answer to every question is, "but nations will find a way to get around it," then the business of drafting and debating is all rather pointless, hm?

OOC: Are you for or against this? You seem to take my comments as though I was for this nonsense.

[RL China example dressed up as NS]

OOC: Falls flat at the part where apart from players being restricted to 1 WA account each, there's nothing to stop the breakaway part from becoming a proper WA member nation as well. Like I said, a WA member nation is a WA member nation, RL examples don't always work. If you were grumbling about governments in exile, that's a whole 'nother thing and in the realm of RP as far as the GA is concerned.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Parsons remarks, 'We find Minister Hillaker's comments vis-à-vis quite persuasive in favour of the need to have some manner or level of border controls. From there, we will reiterate our opposition to this proposal'.

[Sophista]

Daniel it is, then.

Actually, Ambassador Hillaker will do. Or Minister Hillaker if you prefer. The ambassador presumes too much familiarity.

OOC: I don't place much value on past credentials, as the game has evolved a lot since. Hang around for a few months to become a GAer again.

The fact that nearly 400 resolutions have been submitted using the format I constructed and advocated for -- including the one you co-authored, apparently -- seems to indicate otherwise. Let us also pause to appreciate your position that past contributions and debates don't matter, followed immediately by an appeal to more-recent past contributions and debates. Regardless, the point of the links was to give some history on the character and events that predates your recollection. I'm sorry you took it as an assault on your out-of-character ego. Moreover, while I appreciate that the rules and normative opinions have evolved while I was away, I don't see anything in the forums that declares your sole authority to decide who is and isn't allowed to participate in the General Assembly or consider themselves "a GAer."

If your intent is to be hostile and contrarian as an in-character ambassador, that's fine. But I'm not really interested in that kind of thing out-of-character. This is the last time I'll bring it up, as I intend to ignore it moving forward.

[Deutsche Demokratische Reich]

Party Member and WA represenitive of the DDR "Jockel Schultz" has issued the following statement regarding the DDR's opinoom on this WA proposal:

The GDR fully opposes the proposal to allow the "freedom of movement" on the grounds of defending national and international security. The DDR's tight border regulations with its western neighbors are fully defensive and the WA trying to in any way control these borders or remove these defensive measures is a serious security risk for the German Democratic Reich.

We encourage the allies of the GDR and other concerned nations to oppose this and make sure it never leaves the draft stage.

Jockel Schultz

[Araraukar]

Actually, Ambassador Hillaker will do. Or Minister Hillaker if you prefer. The ambassador presumes too much familiarity.

Either wear a name tag like most others do, or be happy about being called by one of your actual names. Then again, I think the post of "ambassador Whatshisname" is currently open, if you'd prefer that instead.

OOC: My memory for names sucks, so as long as you don't have a forum siggy with your ambassador's name on it, I'm going to stick to the name I'm more likely to remember the spelling of (before this reply of yours, my memory could've sworn it was Hilliker). Plus it's kinda established by now that it's an Araraukarian practice to ignore titles and use first names with people they like/appreciate/approve of.

I'm sorry you took it as an assault on your out-of-character ego.

Pot, meet kettle. The bit about "credentials" and "becoming a GAer again" were not about whether you've had a lasting impression on GA in the past or whether I have any say in who counts as a GAer (a better word I could've use might've been "GA regular"), but rather that based on what you've posted here in this "life" (aka this particular forum site), you've gone a bit out of touch with how things work here.

If your intent is to be hostile and contrarian as an in-character ambassador, that's fine.

Janis can be a bit of a troll, but the first names thing isn't meant as hostile or contrarian. If she decides on hostile, she'll probably just defenestrate your ambassador.

But if you're able to differentiate between RL person and IC person and not let the dislike of one entity bleed into a dislike of the other one, I'm cool with that.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Either wear a name tag like most others do, or be happy about being called by one of your actual names. Then again, I think the post of "ambassador Whatshisname" is currently open, if you'd prefer that instead.

PARSONS: Are you blind? It's right there. (He points to the clear identification which Minister Hillaker is wearing.) He told you his name. Because from now on, Janis, we're going to refer to you as Polyphemus, because apparently, it looks like Odysseus struck the sight out of you. And at this rate, we may as well give Minister Hillaker the moniker 'Cassandra' too, because it doesn't seem anyone heeds a word he says.

[Araraukar]

PARSONS: Are you blind? It's right there. (He points to the clear identification which Minister Hillaker is wearing.)

OOC: I'm fairly sure you did understand I meant the forum siggy... do I really have to mark all such things with the 4th wall warning?

And at this rate, we may as well give Minister Hillaker the moniker 'Cassandra' too, because it doesn't seem anyone heeds a word he says.

...for some reason I don't think he'd be very happy with a girl name, but if it makes you happy... *shrugs*

Anyway, I don't know why you think nobody listens to ambassador Cassandra, considering that more than half the debaters here (OOC: before you jump on me for failing statistics or whatever this time, I count 5 against, 2-3 uncertain and none for), myself and yourself included, agree with him about there needing to be cases other than active state of war between nations to allow restrictions on travel. To quote ambassador Cassandra:

We are sympathetic to the authors intention, but unconvinced of their means.

(OOC: The rest of his posts seem to be griping about noncompliance, then either mistaking me to be for the proposal or else for some weird reason using a quote from me to make it look like that, and then taking offence at me being bad with names and thus usually relying on people's forum siggies. Not really sure where in all that you got the idea that I didn't agree with him when it comes to the proposal.)

EDITs because typos and failings with code.