NationStates Jolt Archive

Please support the Anti-Racism Bill of 2004.

Which says....?

Please support the Anti-Racism Bill of 2004.

hey. people have a right to be racist. i'm not (please! be assured of this!) but being racist is comparable to being religious.

maybe i should explain - there is no way of proving the existance of God either way, right? for example -

God must exist - God created the universe

We, what/who created God? ockham's razor suggests the simplest theory is the most possible. the simplest theory is that the the universe was not created by God?

in the same way, no one can prove black/white/asian etc people are inferior/otherwise. although there is a hole in this logic - this can be proved with tests etc. Hwever, if someone feels God created black/asian/etc people inferior, we'd all have to agree, because of respecting someone's religion...

so, here's the point - anyone can use God to prove a point either way, but this is not proofat all. People are supposed to respesct other's religion, but what if the religion involves racism?

Anti-Racism Bill of 2004

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Brydog

Description: The world-wide banning of all hate groups. The bill states.
-Any group that supports racism is banned under this bill.
-Nazis and the KKK are enemy of the people of the world.
-Commies are under this bill too and are outlawed by this bill.
This bill will make the world a better place. It will promoted the racial bonding of the world.


Oh, soooo many things wrong with this. The nation of Rehochipe is firmly opposed to racist groups, and has outlawed incitement to racial hatred and various racist organisations, but there's not a gnat's chance in hell that we could support this.
Bad spelling and grammar. Lack of any real implementation of the core ideas.
Communism has nothing to do with racism (its core dogmas, unlike those of Nazism, are non-racist, though individual Communist parties have been guilty of racism) and its inclusion is irrelevant. And use of the term 'commies' is inappropriate for a UN document.

I hate racists, but I am a passionate believer in free-speech, which has its ugly side. You cannot have a parliament deciding what people can and cannot say and think - that is my bottom line, and this bill would violate that belief.

I hate racists, but I am a passionate believer in free-speech, which has its ugly side. You cannot have a parliament deciding what people can and cannot say and think - that is my bottom line, and this bill would violate that belief.

you hate racists? hmm.. i also believe in free speech, but this is merely a hate of someone because of their political beliefs... as for the "commies" comment in the bill... well... *rolls eyes*

Free speech is not an enshrined institution. Most nations have laws against perjury, defamation, libel and slander.

Free speech is not an enshrined institution. Most nations have laws against perjury, defamation, libel and slander.

yeah, but these make sense... free speech in the "important" sense - defemation, libel, slander etc are all lies.

Not merely lies; there's no law against exaggerating the size of the salmon you hooked last Wednesday. They're harmful lies. So, frankly, are racist opinions.

Whilst abhorring the spiteful, ill judged opinions of extremist groups, Bahgum would rather that people of such unsavoury ilk met regularly under party banners. This way our security forces can watch them and keep track of the fringe nutters. Banish the groups and they will just become secretive and underground. Best to curtail their rights and educate the population, but let them meet.
As for communists, we respect the workers struggle and have deep reservations about nations who wish to impose their own government styles upon others.

If you want my support for this proposal, PM me and we can work something out.

commies are included in this bill. My god, what a fantastic idea, we'll go vote to outlaw ourselves immediately! We find that the proposal is nothing but petit bourgeois 'multi culturalism' which is designed to crush the class struggle and stifle of the attempts of genuine anti fascists to organise to take fascists off the street. It is the considered opinion of the WLP Central Committe that this is the worst proposal we have ever seen-- it is even worse than the one which read 'The Belemore Family Smells', and the one about getting Kitsylvania laid by a 'black stud' (pre mod days, obviously).

We will now blidfold ourselves lest our eyes be further contaminated by this wretched stinking garbage brought in front of us.

WLP Central Committee (Left-Communist Faction)

This proposal would unfairly impede the rights of free assembly, free association, and free speech. Therefore, we oppose it.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
Founder of the DU Region
Retired UN Delegate

Would people who call themselves 'commies' be banned, or will there be a definition of 'commie' in a sub-clause in order for us to weed out the evil racists? What about people who disagree over definitions? Some people might regard others as 'commie', or indeed 'tree-hugging pinko greenie commie liberal elite socialist immoral anarchist perverts', yet the objects of such accusations may disagree - what do we do then?

Did somebody mention a circus?

Anti-Racism Bill of 2004

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.

Category: Human Rights
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Brydog

Description: The world-wide banning of all hate groups. The bill states.
-Any group that supports racism is banned under this bill.
-Nazis and the KKK are enemy of the people of the world.
-Commies are under this bill too and are outlawed by this bill.
This bill will make the world a better place. It will promoted the racial bonding of the world.


Oh, soooo many things wrong with this. The nation of Rehochipe is firmly opposed to racist groups, and has outlawed incitement to racial hatred and various racist organisations, but there's not a gnat's chance in hell that we could support this.
Bad spelling and grammar. Lack of any real implementation of the core ideas.
Communism has nothing to do with racism (its core dogmas, unlike those of Nazism, are non-racist, though individual Communist parties have been guilty of racism) and its inclusion is irrelevant. And use of the term 'commies' is inappropriate for a UN document.

Well said. Permit me to add and clarify that racism at its core is not political but rather biological and cultural.

We are predominantly a brown-skinned people, yet our color does not assign us to any particular political ideology. We have, however, taken our turn throughout history with our paler brothers and sisters as both oppressor and oppressed, demonstrating the full cycle of human nature.

Repression of subversive, reactionary hate groups did nothing but drive those groups underground where, frankly, they were able to do more damage. It resulted in a weakened law enforcement as officers were taken away from their usual protective duties to fulfill the requirements of the new laws. Every action having an equal and opposite reaction, violent crime flourished.

Education and communication are slower and require far more work, but provide a healing that the bandaid of enforcement only covers up.

Write a better proposal, explore it more thoughtfully, and realise that any change this complex, as complex as human nature itself, is going to require more than an easily applied (and highly ineffective) bandaid.

The ever tolerant but high localized nation of Berkylvania feels that, while this bill has good intentions, it falls far short of anything rational or, indeed, applicable.

To deal specifically with the items outlined in the bill alone, there are several problems.

First, there is no definition of racisim. Could this bill be used to outlaw ethnic awareness groups such as the NAACP? With such a...well, frankly, with no definition of racisim in your bill, it could potentially be used to ban a group celebrating their Irish heritage by holding an Irish fest. We, the people of Berkylvania, find this unacceptable as Irish fests tend to have the best beer and we would hate to lose this valuble cultural mix.

Second, you only specifically mention three core groups, namely: Nazis, KKK and "Commies". For future reference, if you wish people to take you seriously, perhaps you should refer to them at least as "Communists" instead of "Commies". Furthermore, how in the name of all that's holy do you expect to outlaw a viable political choice that many current UN members have? I believe this...er, um, well, for lack of a better word, plank in your resolution directly interferes with game mechanics and therefore the proposal should be stricken from the table on those grounds alone. And, to extend on this point, will we also be outlawing Hezbolla or Islamic Jihad and other such groups? Technically, one could make a case for outlawing the entire nation of Israel under your resolution.

Third, how exactly does this resolution solve anything? You claim it will promote the 'racial bonding' of the world. In exactly what way? History has given us many examples of people claiming victory by legislating away a particularly distasteful social condition: alcohol, drugs, communisim in the United States. Yet, despite the 'victory' claimed, all three are still present in society (and, at least in the case of communisim, probably should be). You only suggest banning groups in law, which will lead to witch hunts, false accusations and both increased government spending and abuse, while offering no incentive for your demographically vauge "races" to come to any more understanding of one another.

In summation, your resolution, while I'm sure well intentioned, is poorly thought out, discriminatory in and of itself and a sure fire way to increase racial tensions, not mitigate them. While Berkylvania supports a liberal, progressive world view, until further thought and clarification go into a resolution such as this, there is no way we can support it or advocate for it.