Advertisement
by Kublam » Mon May 10, 2021 11:07 am
by Land Without Shrimp » Mon May 10, 2021 12:29 pm
Kublam wrote:Why is this just a contentious issue. Can we not treat prisoners like human beings? Giving them the right to vote won't cause any harm and if you legitimately believe that treating a human being like, well, a human being then you should reexamine your priorities.
by Kublam » Mon May 10, 2021 1:12 pm
Land Without Shrimp wrote:Kublam wrote:Why is this just a contentious issue. Can we not treat prisoners like human beings? Giving them the right to vote won't cause any harm and if you legitimately believe that treating a human being like, well, a human being then you should reexamine your priorities.
How exactly does denying someone the privilege of voting equate with not treating someone like a human being?
Would not denying a prisoner their right to freedom and self-determination be a far worse violation of their personhood?
by Land Without Shrimp » Mon May 10, 2021 1:45 pm
Kublam wrote:Land Without Shrimp wrote:
How exactly does denying someone the privilege of voting equate with not treating someone like a human being?
Would not denying a prisoner their right to freedom and self-determination be a far worse violation of their personhood?
Obviously but that's not what's being debated here though. It's about letting individuals vote. Why can't they be entitled to an opinion and a say in how they want their home country to be run? Because they're dangerous? Because if they're in jail then clearly their reasoning can't be trusted? It's unfair and dangerous for anyone to decide who is or isn't capable of voting.
by Wallenburg » Mon May 10, 2021 2:37 pm
Land Without Shrimp wrote:Kublam wrote:
Obviously but that's not what's being debated here though. It's about letting individuals vote. Why can't they be entitled to an opinion and a say in how they want their home country to be run? Because they're dangerous? Because if they're in jail then clearly their reasoning can't be trusted? It's unfair and dangerous for anyone to decide who is or isn't capable of voting.
And that is the crux of the matter and we'll have to agree to disagree on what is fair.
I would argue it is acceptable and even appropriate for convicted criminals currently incarcerated to be denied their voting rights. Convicted criminals have violated the social compact (according to current laws) and thus it is not inherently immoral to take someone's voting rights away. Voting rights are not a universal human right.
by Imperium Anglorum » Mon May 10, 2021 3:36 pm
Wallenburg wrote:"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."
by Land Without Shrimp » Mon May 10, 2021 4:01 pm
Wallenburg wrote:Land Without Shrimp wrote:And that is the crux of the matter and we'll have to agree to disagree on what is fair.
I would argue it is acceptable and even appropriate for convicted criminals currently incarcerated to be denied their voting rights. Convicted criminals have violated the social compact (according to current laws) and thus it is not inherently immoral to take someone's voting rights away. Voting rights are not a universal human right.
"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."
by Kublam » Mon May 10, 2021 5:23 pm
Land Without Shrimp wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."
I must respectfully disagree. Two quick points.
Firstly, the right of the people to choose their own government is something that surely must have its set rules and strictures, correct? Would you argue that non-citizens should be allowed to vote? What about those who are under-age? If we grant that there may possibly be qualifications for voting, then there is nothing immoral or indecent about denying the right to vote to convicted criminals.
Secondly, I would ask a question that is possibly too philosophical and most certainly off-topic, but from what source does democracy derive its virtue as a universal right? Stating a thesis does not make it so.
by Ardiveds » Mon May 10, 2021 8:21 pm
Kublam wrote:
We aren't arguing about underage voters or non-citizen voters, the point you're trying to make is a red herring. We are specifically addressing prisoners and their right to vote. In a democracy, people should be allowed to vote and people should have a say in the direction they want their country to go in. Regardless of whether or not they're in jail. Prisoners are still citizens, they are still accounted for by the government, they are still subject to a countries laws. The only difference is they're in jail but it's unfair and downright immoral to segregate a huge group of people and deny them one of the most basic democratic rights. Everyone wants to fix the criminal justice system, but how can you do that without giving a voice to the very people affected by it?
by Nouvelle Provence » Tue May 11, 2021 1:17 am
by Lacral » Tue May 11, 2021 5:19 am
Thermodolia wrote:Tinhampton wrote:Anderson: What makes you think that the delivery of a few hundred bits of paper into a prison every four-and-a-bit years will spontaneously cause Super Happy Funny Fun Exciting Times?
“What makes you think we use paper ballots? This isn’t the 1800s over here the modern age is here and we use electronic voting systems. Also it’s three not four years.”
by Laka Strolistandiler » Tue May 11, 2021 5:23 am
Wallenburg wrote:Land Without Shrimp wrote:And that is the crux of the matter and we'll have to agree to disagree on what is fair.
I would argue it is acceptable and even appropriate for convicted criminals currently incarcerated to be denied their voting rights. Convicted criminals have violated the social compact (according to current laws) and thus it is not inherently immoral to take someone's voting rights away. Voting rights are not a universal human right.
"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Heavens Reach » Tue May 11, 2021 7:12 am
by Laka Strolistandiler » Tue May 11, 2021 7:34 am
Heavens Reach wrote:I don't know where I land on this bill altogether, but I think that ambassadors who are searching for crimes that could ostensibly "justify" disenfranchisement are roundly missing the point. The state should not, under any circumstances, be able to disenfranchise any adult citizen member of its nation. It's a "soft" sort -- if there could even be such a sort -- of oligarchic fascism and allows the state to choose who and who is not allowed to participate in the democratic process on what are ultimately arbitrary pretenses in inherently imperfect justice systems. Routinely the result is the disenfranchisement of the poor and working-class, particularly of marginalized groups of other sorts. There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders -- disenfranchisement should not be among them.
? There is indeed and end- the WA heavily regulated prison sentences and, because our “genius” queen wants for the nation to stay in the WA we basically have to spend enormous amounts of money on prisoners, that we would’ve executed, should we be given a choice.There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Nouvelle Provence » Tue May 11, 2021 7:46 am
by New Ionian islands » Tue May 11, 2021 8:49 am
by Remavas » Tue May 11, 2021 9:23 am
[R]equires members to ensure that no person within their jurisdiction is prevented (or otherwise unduly restricted) from voting in a election for public office simply because they currently are being, or have previously been, punished for a crime...
by Laka Strolistandiler » Tue May 11, 2021 10:34 am
Nouvelle Provence wrote:I tend to think that this resolution goes beyond convict's voting rights. For those nations that at the moment do not hold elections but are considering shifting towards a democratic opening, forcing them to allow convicts to vote would be a major drawback. Instead of opening their country to democracy, it will reassure them in their choice not to hold elections!
Furthermore, even if this resolution is passed, it is easy to circumvent it. For example, if I as Governor of Nouvelle Provence would think it best for Sa Majesté's colonial subjects to have them vote for public offices but would not want to allow those rotting away in my prisons to participate, and yet I must abide by the W.A.'s resolutions, I would round up all the wrong-doers and ship them off to France's infamous galleys. Technically, they would not be under my jurisdiction, since Sa Majesté has not granted me galleys to make up my colonial fleet, and since these galleys where my prisoners would be serving on are not mine, but they are the King's, the said prisoners would no longer be my colonial subjects. Thus, it is not my "fault" if these convicts are not able to register and vote in Nouvelle Provence from their shackled rowing bench! They would no longer be New Provencal subjects at all! Problem solved and trickery successful!
I reserve the right to /stillme any one-liners if my post is at least two lines long
by Ardiveds » Tue May 11, 2021 10:42 am
Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Ambassador, you’re not the first one to attempt to work around the resolutions of the WA. My predecessor, Oe, attempted to do this- and guess where she’s now? No, she’s not dead- she was demoted from this position and is currently serving community work for the damage she did to our nation’s reputation.
Your “trickery” is in direct violation of GA #534 “Fair Treatment of Prisoners” (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=38422131&hilit=Prisoner#p38422131), precisely, in violation of clause 3. Also, I do believe that forced displacement of prisoners is in violation of a resolution which number I don’t remember, but that’s not that matters. Also, I suppose a partial violation of GA #345 “Proscription on Living Shields”, (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=26911818&hilit=Prisoner#p26911818 )as I suppose, the conditions of yet he vessels you mentioned exactly mention those discibed there. Furthermore, I suspect violation of anti-death penalty resolutions that my superior forbid me to mention because reasons...
by Nouvelle Provence » Tue May 11, 2021 12:27 pm
*sighs*
Ambassador, you’re not the first one to attempt to work around the resolutions of the WA. My predecessor, Oe, attempted to do this- and guess where she’s now? No, she’s not dead- she was demoted from this position and is currently serving community work for the damage she did to our nation’s reputation.
Your “trickery” is in direct violation of GA #534 “Fair Treatment of Prisoners” (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=38422131&hilit=Prisoner#p38422131), precisely, in violation of clause 3. Also, I do believe that forced displacement of prisoners is in violation of a resolution which number I don’t remember, but that’s not that matters. Also, I suppose a partial violation of GA #345 “Proscription on Living Shields”, (viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30&p=26911818&hilit=Prisoner#p26911818 )as I suppose, the conditions of yet he vessels you mentioned exactly mention those discibed there. Furthermore, I suspect violation of anti-death penalty resolutions that my superior forbid me to mention because reasons...
by Thermodolia » Tue May 11, 2021 5:03 pm
Lacral wrote:Thermodolia wrote:“What makes you think we use paper ballots? This isn’t the 1800s over here the modern age is here and we use electronic voting systems. Also it’s three not four years.”
you do realize, when actually relating to iirc modern technology, the US and several other developed countries still actively use paper ballots for safety?
by Wallenburg » Tue May 11, 2021 5:17 pm
Land Without Shrimp wrote:Wallenburg wrote:"Democracy is absolutely a universal right. It is a severe shame that the World Assembly has tied itself against mandating democracy across its membership."
I must respectfully disagree. Two quick points.
Firstly, the right of the people to choose their own government is something that surely must have its set rules and strictures, correct? Would you argue that non-citizens should be allowed to vote? What about those who are under-age? If we grant that there may possibly be qualifications for voting, then there is nothing immoral or indecent about denying the right to vote to convicted criminals.
Secondly, I would ask a question that is possibly too philosophical and most certainly off-topic, but from what source does democracy derive its virtue as a universal right? Stating a thesis does not make it so.
by Tinhampton » Tue May 11, 2021 9:20 pm
by Heavens Reach » Wed May 12, 2021 7:22 pm
Laka Strolistandiler wrote:Heavens Reach wrote:I don't know where I land on this bill altogether, but I think that ambassadors who are searching for crimes that could ostensibly "justify" disenfranchisement are roundly missing the point. The state should not, under any circumstances, be able to disenfranchise any adult citizen member of its nation. It's a "soft" sort -- if there could even be such a sort -- of oligarchic fascism and allows the state to choose who and who is not allowed to participate in the democratic process on what are ultimately arbitrary pretenses in inherently imperfect justice systems. Routinely the result is the disenfranchisement of the poor and working-class, particularly of marginalized groups of other sorts. There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders -- disenfranchisement should not be among them.
And why, may I wonder, are you branding oligarchies as fascists? You know, that there are WA laws that regilate voting, and they are indeed supposed to prohibit the misuse of such “loopholes”- I personally consider making a resolution that bans restricting voting rights, excluding some crimes. This allows us to have the cake and eat it!
Furthermore, I don’t understand why do you say that? There is indeed and end- the WA heavily regulated prison sentences and, because our “genius” queen wants for the nation to stay in the WA we basically have to spend enormous amounts of money on prisoners, that we would’ve executed, should we be given a choice.There is no end to the possibilities that exist for sanctions against violent or otherwise serious offenders
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement