NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi,

Just added two new proposals: "Prosecute Hate Group Members"
and "Act Against Hate Groups". So that you won't be confused,
they are both identical, except for the correction in the second
one of the word "violators" to "perpetrators", which is obviously
the way it should be.

Let's do something now to get rid of those horrific hate groups!

Wuv

I think we should declair war on all hatefull groups :!:

This proposal is flawed and unnecessary. There are already laws to deal with people to commit violent crimes. And banning hate groups would curtail people's right to free speach and association.

How about we NOT punish people for what they think.

No problem. Let's not punish anyone for forming a group
right outside Ithuania's lawn, hurling obscenities at him and
his family, burning crosses on his lawn, marching through
the streets proclaiming all kinds of nasty things against him,
crashing his windows with rocks that are hurled with utmost
love, and then denying they actually hate him.

Wuv

Blackley recently banned the march of nazi's into its capital, yes it is suppressing free speech to an extent but we as a nation feel it is a just cause. However, Blackley also recognised the right of each and every nation to dictate what they feel is right for free speech. It is up to them to deicde how far it is goes.

So, for the reason stated above Blackley will not support this proposal.

-Maitias Tomas
-President

There is a difference between proclaiming all kinds of nasty things against someone, and "crashing his windows with rocks that are hurled..". When it becomes right is for each nation to decide and not for the UN. Once it gets to physical violence, or when you are still subjected to offensive messages while inside your house, then New Imperial Prussia will punish the purpotrators.

If a group of people were burning crosses on my lawn, throwing rocks through my windows, and shouting obscenities at me, I would fire a warning shot or two in their general direction. If this didn't dissuade them, then I would think of something else to do.

How do you have apost count of zero?

Just added two new proposals: "Prosecute Hate Group Members" and "Act Against Hate Groups". So that you won't be confused, they are both identical, except for the correction in the second one of the word "violators" to "perpetrators", which is obviously the way it should be.

I am concerned that if someone forms a religion, one of whose tenets is that its members must hate the members of another religion, then the U.N. itself will have to act against that religion and itself will become subject to the law, causing the computer on which the U.N. acts are stored to explode and incurring unnecessary U.N. expenses. Can the proposal be amended to take this concern into account?

The less political freedoms a country has, the easier it is to manage civil freedoms. Who cares if Nazis hold parades in my country? They're not changing anything.

No problem. Let's not punish anyone for forming a group
right outside Ithuania's lawn, hurling obscenities at him and
his family, burning crosses on his lawn, marching through
the streets proclaiming all kinds of nasty things against him,
crashing his windows with rocks that are hurled with utmost
love, and then denying they actually hate him.

Wuv

I am opposing this proposal on the grounds that it would limit free expression and the right to organize.

In Goobergunchia...
-Hurling obscenities: annoying but legal.
-Burning crosses on lawn: Criminal trespass.
-Marching through streets: Legal, unless there is significant traffic obstruction.
-Crashing windows: Destruction of property and ILLEGAL.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

We agree with Goobergunchia on all counts. Furthermore, we believe that all violent crimes are hate crimes. Some are premeditated, some happen in an instant, and some are accidental. This is why we have varying degrees of murder, etc.

No problem. Let's not punish anyone for forming a group
right outside Ithuania's lawn, hurling obscenities at him and
his family, burning crosses on his lawn, marching through
the streets proclaiming all kinds of nasty things against him,
crashing his windows with rocks that are hurled with utmost
love, and then denying they actually hate him.

Wuv

I am opposing this proposal on the grounds that it would limit free expression and the right to organize.

In Goobergunchia...
-Hurling obscenities: annoying but legal.
-Burning crosses on lawn: Criminal trespass.
-Marching through streets: Legal, unless there is significant traffic obstruction.
-Crashing windows: Destruction of property and ILLEGAL.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate
Thank you for saving me the trouble of doing it myself.

I hate groups. Groups are bad. They are overly complicated.

The majority wins, even if I don't want to see a resolution affecting free speech in a positive or negative way in the UN.

I personally think that free speech should apply to EVERYONE, even those you DON'T agree with.

No problem. Let's not punish anyone for forming a group
right outside Ithuania's lawn, hurling obscenities at him and
his family, burning crosses on his lawn, marching through
the streets proclaiming all kinds of nasty things against him,
crashing his windows with rocks that are hurled with utmost
love, and then denying they actually hate him.

Yep. That's how free speech works. It's not a concept for wimps. However VANDALISM is a different story. That's illegal.

Don't you think though that one inevitably leads to the other?
Let hate groups publicly hate, demean, curse, and dehumanize
others and you will most inevitably eventually get those groups
hurling stones, bottles, and marbles at those they hate.
Don't you think that someone who openly declares his/her
membership in a group known to have been responsible for
illegal action against others should be advised in no uncertain
terms to stay away from that group? And shouldn't we take
steps to make such groups, whether members hurled a stone
or not, illegalities, in the name of protecting the future of our
peace-loving societies and to foster the better, more moral,
ways of life?

Don't you think though that one inevitably leads to the other?
Let hate groups publicly hate, demean, curse, and dehumanize
others and you will most inevitably eventually get those groups
hurling stones, bottles, and marbles at those they hate.
Don't you think that someone who openly declares his/her
membership in a group known to have been responsible for
illegal action against others should be advised in no uncertain
terms to stay away from that group? And shouldn't we take
steps to make such groups, whether members hurled a stone
or not, illegalities, in the name of protecting the future of our
peace-loving societies and to foster the better, more moral,
ways of life?

In a word, no. The people of our nation value their freedom over their security. Each identifiable group would rather know about those who hate them then find out when a subversive group attacks. As long as hate groups can meet publicly, the rest of the nation can track their beliefs and activities, as well as to try to convince them to leave the group and become better human beings. Hate groups will form regardless of what our law states. We hope that by allowing them to do so publicly, we increase societal awareness whlile decreasing the rate of violence by allowing them to vent their hatred openly.

The Kingdom of Schim would like to propose a ban on the oldest hate groups, religious institutions.

Should we ban player hating?

My proposal (Act Against Hate Groups) does not ban people
for hating others. It tries to take action against those who
join groups who declare their hatred of others openly.
You can hate anyone you want, but don't join a group that
declares its hatred openly, because in 99% of the cases,
such groups have in the end taken physical and other
steps to show just how much they hate the objects of their
hatred.

Then why not just punish them when they commit physical violence (and then only for the violence) rather than preemptively restrict their rights of association before they've ever committed a crime (or after they've committed a crime but served out their sentence)?

This may be the only time I agree with Ithuania, but he (she? I don't know) is right on this issue.

Fact is, if you ban hate groups and try to silence them, you only give credence to their beliefs. A better and more effective way to deal with hate groups is to confront them in the marketplace of ideas and show them to be wanting. I mean, does anyone think that the KKK comes off as intelligent when they get on tv and start spouting their hate-filled rhetoric? Very few do, and the number they turn off is far greater than any they might gain as recruits--and why? Because their ideas are intellectually empty and can't stand up to close scrutiny. But if they were suppressed, those ideas would gain credence because the holders of those beliefs could argue that "the government doesn't want you to know about this because it has something to hide." No--the answer is not to outlaw hate groups--the answer is to challenge hate groups and beat them in the realm of thought.

I don't think there's a purpose in beating them in intellectual
discussion. Their hate is not rational at all and therefore
arguing with them makes no sense. What we will be doing
by condemning such groups is sending a real active message
to our children and the world that such "organizations" are
not the right way to go in this world.
And besides, hitler's masses and messes all started out
as that simple idea of hating others on the basis of their
race and religion. See what those "open" and "free" ideas
led to? By the time the supporters of "free speaking"
realized what was happening, it was much too late to
stop those "model civilians" from wreaking havoc on the
world ...

This may be the only time I agree with Ithuania, but he (she? I don't know) is right on this issue.
He...I can prove it if you like :)