NationStates Jolt Archive

For all those delegates who wish to tackle this growing threat, please endorse our proposel

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi

That link doesn't work - it's the general url of the entire site.

Here's the proposal:

Fighting the Far Right

A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability Strength: Significant

Description: The extreme right has become more active and more organized around the world, and this means they pose a greater threat. Far right movements openly seek to impliment bigoted and fascist regimes which would have no quirms with removing our right to freedom of speech, freedom of association etc.

We must remain focused and objective when fighting for our way of life. The far right are a real danger and must be dealt with if we wish to continue to live in a world of freedom and democracy.

1. Banning of Far Right movements/Restriction of Assosition.

A) The devolvement of the party memberships.
B) Removel of finance, property and intellectual rights of the party, organization and/or group.
C) Removel from parliment, any member who belongs to any far right political party, organization and/or group.
D) All political emblems, uniforms or memorabilia must be inturned for destruction by the appropriate authorities.
E) No person can publically or privatly associate themselves with any individual or group of individuals who belong to, advocate or support any far right party, organization, group or beliefs.

2. Restriction of Speech

A) No person who belongs to, advocates or supports a far right wing party, organization or group will be able to publically or privatly discuss the political, social or economic ideologies, theories or practices of that party, organization or group.
B) No person will be permitted to publically or privatly discuss far right political, social or economic ideologies, theories or practices regardless of affiliation.
C) All persons whom belong too, advocate or support far right parties, organizations, groups or beliefs will not be permitted to distribute any material which dicusses such beliefs either written in a book, newspaper, magazine, newsletter physically or electronically, or by broadcast either on the television, radio or other media outlet.
D) Any person who allows such a publication will be liable for prosecuation.

3. Restriction of Assembly

A) No person who belongs to, supports or advocates any far right party, organization, group or belief can meet publically or privatly to discuss the political, social, economic or practices of such parties or beliefs.
B) Any person found doing so will be prosecuted.
C) No meeting for organizational purposes can be arranged or perpetrated for the purpose of advancing or discussing the actions, ideologies, theories or practices of any far right party, organization or group.

4. Further restrictions and Points.

A) Any leader or offical of any far right party, organization or group who activly condems this resolution will be prosecuted.
B) All finances, real-property or intellectual property gained by any member of a far right party, organization or group obtained for the reason of that membership will be seized.

C) All independent states will retain the right to deside on the appropriate punishment of any prosecuted individual or group of individuals in relation to any motion within this resolution.

...Together we an make our world safer....
I cannot support this. I find it hypocritical in the idea that you would remove the right to free speech from some in order to protect it.

In other words a one party state! Sounds a bit communist to me. If you value free speech you should allow people to disagree with you.

I personally am against democracy on the basis that the theory behind it is that the majority of people will vote for the party that has the general interest of society at heart. Pure crap. The majority of people will vote for whoever will look after their personal interests and sod the rest.

Long live the Tyrant of Jeem.
:twisted:

Just a little extreme, don't you think?

Just being out on the far right shouldn't make you persona non grata. (Hell, this'd mean you'd have to ban the Republicans). Until your group starts inciting violence or racial hatred, or conspiring to commit crimes, it's deeply undemocratic to move against them - and even then matters should be taken case-by-case. Saying 'all far-right groups' is incredibly clumsy.

"Far right movements openly seek to impliment bigoted and fascist regimes which would have no quirms with removing our right to freedom of speech, freedom of association etc. "

Oh No!

Let's do something!

To save our dearly held freedom of association:

"A) No person who belongs to, supports or advocates any far right party, organization, group or belief can meet publically or privatly to discuss the political, social, economic or practices of such parties or beliefs.
B) Any person found doing so will be prosecuted.
C) No meeting for organizational purposes can be arranged or perpetrated for the purpose of advancing or discussing the actions, ideologies, theories or practices of any far right party, organization or group."

Yay! Now we can be sure we'll always have freedom of association!

To save our dearly held freedom of speech:

" A) No person who belongs to, advocates or supports a far right wing party, organization or group will be able to publically or privatly discuss the political, social or economic ideologies, theories or practices of that party, organization or group.
B) No person will be permitted to publically or privatly discuss far right political, social or economic ideologies, theories or practices regardless of affiliation.
C) All persons whom belong too, advocate or support far right parties, organizations, groups or beliefs will not be permitted to distribute any material which dicusses such beliefs either written in a book, newspaper, magazine, newsletter physically or electronically, or by broadcast either on the television, radio or other media outlet.
D) Any person who allows such a publication will be liable for prosecuation. "

That was a close one, but we're safe now!

Now I can say whatever I want.
This is the most hypocritcal resolution I've ever seen.

Uh Oh!

"Any offical... who activly condems this resolution will be prosecuted. "

Just a little extreme, don't you think?

Just being out on the far right shouldn't make you persona non grata. (Hell, this'd mean you'd have to ban the Republicans). Until your group starts inciting violence or racial hatred, or conspiring to commit crimes, it's deeply undemocratic to move against them - and even then matters should be taken case-by-case. Saying 'all far-right groups' is incredibly clumsy.

Exactly. You're planning to restrict those who might want to restrict your free speech... by restricting... their free speech...
:roll: Welcome to the age of equality (is it okay to say that?)

How will it be determined whether or not you are far right? In my opinion, extremists at both ends of the spectrum are dangerous. Why are you only proposing a restriction on the right?

I personally am against democracy on the basis that the theory behind it is that the majority of people will vote for the party that has the general interest of society at heart.

Not to try to be rude, but that ISN'T the theory behind democracy.

The majority of people will vote for whoever will look after their personal interests and sod the rest.

That is only slightly true, and IS the theory behind democracy. Looking out for number 1. That's what democracies are about.

In the US(and probably other countries as well), the voting has become an issue of parties, which is most unfourtunate. Maybe one day we'll all wake up and vote how we truly should...

I realize that proposals like this never win in the UN, but many that are nearly as stupid do. I wish that I could be a part of the UN and discuss matters like this--but in the end it would only hurt my country badly.

p.s. So my country believes in Capitalism. . .are we banned under this rule?

I personally am against democracy on the basis that the theory behind it is that the majority of people will vote for the party that has the general interest of society at heart.

Not to try to be rude, but that ISN'T the theory behind democracy.

The majority of people will vote for whoever will look after their personal interests and sod the rest.

That is only slightly true, and IS the theory behind democracy. Looking out for number 1. That's what democracies are about.

In the US(and probably other countries as well), the voting has become an issue of parties, which is most unfourtunate. Maybe one day we'll all wake up and vote how we truly should...

Aoelian, the US is not a democracy. The best people can do when trying to claim that it's one is to say "representative democracy." By definition, this means that we're a republic. Just remember what Socrates said about democracies. . .

I never claimed that the US was a democracy.

Also, was it socraties who said that the best type of rule would be a dictatorship run by some philosipher king?

I believe you made a spelling error in you resolution that is causing confusing:

Left is spelled l-e-f-t not r-i-g-h-t.

As a proud memeber of the "far" right I can proudly say that the threat to freedom comes not from the right (look at my country hehe) but from far leftists nut-jobs who seek consildation of thier power through U.N. resolutions calling for a one party state.

I see the UN delegates have once again managed to demonstrate how outstadingly objective they are...

The resolution does not, and never did, advocate a one party state. On the contrary the propsel means to defend against such messures, by removing from people who condone the systematic extermination of people based on race and seeks to subjugate people to a regime which can not be questioned and can not be changed through democratic means, the power to achieve such goals.

Is it so unreasonable to desire to take messures to protect Democracy and freedom. Is it so outragous to suggest that we do not allow Nazis, people who condone murders and experimentation on a grand scale, to have the ability to achieve positions within society where by they can propogate those ideals.

These people gave up their right to humanity when they advocate the extermination of races and the subjugation of thought. We can not use the same equation when dealing with these people. We have to remain focused and objective.

What do we want to achieve. Democracy and freedom. How do we achieve it? Not by allowing fascists and nazis to achieve power. They are scurged to manking and should be dealt with accordingly.

Your judgement is obviously clouded. I urge you all to reconsider your positions.

Just a little extreme, don't you think?

Just being out on the far right shouldn't make you persona non grata. (Hell, this'd mean you'd have to ban the Republicans). Until your group starts inciting violence or racial hatred, or conspiring to commit crimes, it's deeply undemocratic to move against them - and even then matters should be taken case-by-case. Saying 'all far-right groups' is incredibly clumsy.

Nazis do incite violence and racial hatred. Where have you been for the last 60 years?

Democracy is not just an ideal in your head, it is a real living thing, and has to be protected. Things happen in the real world that make other things happen. By giving freedom of speech and assemlbly to nazis and fascists you are creating one thing that will make another thing happen. IE the destruction of democracy.

You can not just say, "I am democratic and i giove everyone free speech therefore democracy will alst for ever." Be objective. Do you want to keep democracy for those who wish to have democracy, or dont you?

Tueber: "As a proud memeber of the "far" right I can proudly say that the threat to freedom comes not from the right (look at my country hehe) but from far leftists nut-jobs who seek consildation of thier power through U.N. resolutions calling for a one party state."

Yes, dear. The UN is actually a tool of the far left. You've sussed us out, we're going to have to publicly declare our insidious agenda. Prepare to be assimilated.

Enarchovia: "These people gave up their right to humanity when they advocate the extermination of races and the subjugation of thought. We can not use the same equation when dealing with these people. We have to remain focused and objective."

Alarming rhetoric like this only strengthens our resolve to oppose your misguided and excessively suppressive proposal.

Maya Toitovna
Speaker for Home Affairs

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living. The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand: … an end to the power of the financial interests. We demand profit sharing in big business. We demand a broad extension of care for the aged. We demand … the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of national, state, and municipal governments. In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education … We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents … The government must undertake the improvement of public health – by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor … by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth. We combat the … materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of the common good before the individual good.
------------------------

Out of curiosity, how many of you think the above text would be a good idea? Also, who thinks gun registration is a good idea?

Wait, I forgot. Those "right-wing" Nazis think it's a good idea. In fact, they thought it was so good they adopted it as their platform in Munich in 1920.

On guns: "This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" – Adolph Hitler [1935] The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany.

Yes, that really resembles America's right-wingers, doesn't it?

The Nazi's were National Socialists :P

As the representative of Midgard X pointed out... they had many modern leftie platforms.

I fear the left far more than I do the right. Leftie movements killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century... yet they still want to give it another shot...

just a tought:
it would violate another UN Resolution to restrict anyone's freedom of speech.

just a tought:
it would violate another UN Resolution to restrict anyone's freedom of speech.

This is the dumbest damn resolution I've seen in a good while. There is no definition of "far right", so for all I know, the socialist UN could make the far right anyone it doesn't like, and use that to persecute them. Why doesn't this proposal include the far left as well? What about the crimes and violence of groups like PETA, The Animal Liberation Front, and militant abortion activists who physically attack pro-lifers at their rallies? This is something someone on the far left came up with to persecute a group they ideologically despise.

I fear the left far more than I do the right. Leftie movements killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century... yet they still want to give it another shot...

First off, I feel this proposal is not well focused and demonstrates a certain lack of understanding about the very nature of freedom by focusing an attack on a broad umbrella of not-necessarily related ideologies.

Let's try some rational dialog:

Resolution Sponsor: Let's go after the right!
Psychotropic's response: All leftist movements are bad and trying to take freedoms!

Left, right, center are too vague. NS has a fairly good system.
Authority structure: Authoritarian vs. Libertarian
Economics: Conservative(Unrestrained capital) vs. "Liberal"(Regulated capital).
Social: Conservative(Traditional) vs. Liberal(evolving/libertarian)

Most governments fall in between both extremes. The bad examples that were given were ALL *authoritarian* regimes. (Authoritarian regimes, naturally tend to favor heavy government regulation in order to preserve...well...authority.) Stalinism was basically a thin veneer of socialism, but the the actions were basically corrupt authoritarian-imperialist regime. Granted, it evolved from something that was ostensibly socialist, but the initial hierarchy that formed out of a previously represive society basically lead to the evolution of a dictatorship. Stable democracies, left or right, with healthy internal dialogs should not have these problems.

Since individual freedom tends to be paramount concern of democracies, a resolution that inhibits this freedom should be summarily rejected. In short, it looks like the sponsor is attacking a perceived problem from the wrong angle.

The UN contains many both "leftist" and "rightist" governments. Indeed, many probably have semi-compatible values. If they're democracies, certainly reducing the threat from virulent authoritarian regimes should be a concern given the catastrophes of the 20th century. As such, this resolution utterly fails to create any productive consensus on how to resolve what might be a real issue. Rather it only antagonizes those who might agree on some basic principles.

I suggest digging for those principles and consensus-building points.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds

In NS, there is no "right" wing or "left" wing. Indeed the model is considerably more complicated than a simple spectrum....

Anyway, the DSH will campaign against this proposal, not only because this goes against previous resolutions (such as Stop privacy intrusion, The Universal Bill of Rights, and Universal Freedom of Choice) but also because this resolution fails to cater for several other forms of government, for example:

All political emblems, uniforms or memorabilia must be inturned for destruction by the appropriate authorities.

So what about theocracies, where their political emblem might also be their religous emblem?

I fear the left far more than I do the right. Leftie movements killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century... yet they still want to give it another shot...

First off, I feel this proposal is not well focused and demonstrates a certain lack of understanding about the very nature of freedom by focusing an attack on a broad umbrella of not-necessarily related ideologies.

Let's try some rational dialog:

Resolution Sponsor: Let's go after the right!
Psychotropic's response: All leftist movements are bad and trying to take freedoms!

Left, right, center are too vague. NS has a fairly good system.
Authority structure: Authoritarian vs. Libertarian
Economics: Conservative(Unrestrained capital) vs. "Liberal"(Regulated capital).
Social: Conservative(Traditional) vs. Liberal(evolving/libertarian)

Most governments fall in between both extremes. The bad examples that were given were ALL *authoritarian* regimes. (Authoritarian regimes, naturally tend to favor heavy government regulation in order to preserve...well...authority.) Stalinism was basically a thin veneer of socialism, but the the actions were basically corrupt authoritarian-imperialist regime. Granted, it evolved from something that was ostensibly socialist, but the initial hierarchy that formed out of a previously represive society basically lead to the evolution of a dictatorship. Stable democracies, left or right, with healthy internal dialogs should not have these problems.

Since individual freedom tends to be paramount concern of democracies, a resolution that inhibits this freedom should be summarily rejected. In short, it looks like the sponsor is attacking a perceived problem from the wrong angle.

The UN contains many both "leftist" and "rightist" governments. Indeed, many probably have semi-compatible values. If they're democracies, certainly reducing the threat from virulent authoritarian regimes should be a concern given the catastrophes of the 20th century. As such, this resolution utterly fails to create any productive consensus on how to resolve what might be a real issue. Rather it only antagonizes those who might agree on some basic principles.

I suggest digging for those principles and consensus-building points.

g.e.
Spokesperson for the future peoples of the Jovian Worlds


Well, you almost nailed it. But the Libertarian model is the absolute opposite of left.... hence "almost" nailed it.

But yes, I am tired of lefties trying to legislate an end to peoples freedoms.

Last I checked the U.N. was not allowed to ban political groups or forms of government, (I think), right ?

That mean anything at all ?

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS,

Who had to leave suddenly to chase after their ISP account with a large cast iron frying-pan.

Last I checked the U.N. was not allowed to ban political groups or forms of government, (I think), right ?

That mean anything at all ?

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS,


Actually, the UN has already outlawed capitalism. Now they're just trying to state it explicitly. Not a big difference.

Left-wing Nazis are just trying to outlaw freedom so that this time, they'll be free to conquer the earth. No more capitalist pigs to stop them.

Actually, the UN has already outlawed capitalism. Now they're just trying to state it explicitly. Not a big difference.
I wasn't aware of this. Can you give the resolution/resolutions that back up this statement?

Aside from that: as a 'far-left' person (or at least that's what others tell me), I am opposed to this proposal completely and utterly. You cannot protect freedoms by, well, removing freedoms. The entire concept is hypocritical.

This is a really disturbing proposal! How do you determine what is "far right" enough? And how do you make people freer by restricting free speech? What you're proposing is a political which hunt; you claim to be fighting dictatorships but you have a resolution which is inherently dictatorial. If you don't believe in free speech you don't like, then you don't believe it at all.

-HIM the Most Revered One of Krygillia

I see the UN delegates have once again managed to demonstrate how outstadingly objective they are...

The resolution does not, and never did, advocate a one party state. On the contrary the propsel means to defend against such messures, by removing from people who condone the systematic extermination of people based on race and seeks to subjugate people to a regime which can not be questioned and can not be changed through democratic means, the power to achieve such goals.You can't say there's freedom of speech if it only applies to you. That isn't what the right is anymore, unless you haven't read the papers over the last fifty years...

Is it so unreasonable to desire to take messures to protect Democracy and freedom. Is it so outragous to suggest that we do not allow Nazis, people who condone murders and experimentation on a grand scale, to have the ability to achieve positions within society where by they can propogate those ideals.Well, then, I'd say you ought to make the resolution more specific. Right-wingers don't condone (in fact, they despise) the actions or ideology of what those "people" did half a century ago. But, then again, if the left finds a way to decimate the right (eg: not allow them to speak, regardless of their positions) they will take it. All that would remain is the left, so essentially, it would be a one-party state.

These people gave up their right to humanity when they advocate the extermination of races and the subjugation of thought. We can not use the same equation when dealing with these people. We have to remain focused and objective.Again, that was a minority of "conservatives" before most of us were born. Subjugation of thought? Isn't that EXACTLY what this resolution would do? Right-wingers wouldn't be allowed to peacably assemble or use free speech. It's proposals like this that have kept my nation out of the UN.

What do we want to achieve. Democracy and freedom. How do we achieve it? Not by allowing fascists and nazis to achieve power. They are scurged to manking and should be dealt with accordingly.Democracy (except for those we don't like) and freedom for all (except select groups) :roll: Nazis have been decimated. They are incapable of regaining power.

Your judgement is obviously clouded. I urge you all to reconsider your positions.Look who's talking.

All that would remain is the left, so essentially, it would be a one-party state.

Anyone who's seen the infighting the left's capable of would see this is a little inaccurate. When you've got a lot of scruples, you're a lot more picky about your allies.

We'll note that this proposal is talking about the far right, not just the right; but the distinction between the two isn't very clear, since moderate rightists are inclined to ally with far-rightists. Which is why this proposal sucks.

Anyone who's seen the infighting the left's capable of would see this is a little inaccurate. When you've got a lot of scruples, you're a lot more picky about your allies.

Infighting on the left? An outrageous suggestion! We won't tolerate such splittist behaviour!
*flounces off to form own party*

Lack of definition on "far right" is alarming. Even if nothing else is considered, that just about completely sinks the proposal.

These people gave up their right to humanity when they advocate... the subjugation of thought.

Right. It's okay to limit their thought because they advocate the limitation of thought? I suppose you're ready to be the first person exiled from your nation if this proposal becomes law, eh?

You can not just say, "I am democratic and i giove everyone free speech therefore democracy will alst for ever." Be objective. Do you want to keep democracy for those who wish to have democracy, or dont you?

While nazis and fascists and communists and whackos may well be a threat to democracy, prematurely destroying democracy doesn't do a whole lot to preserve and protect democracy, either.

My only hope is that this proposal is satirical in nature and was done for nations to realize how ridiculous proposals such as these are. If it is not, I wish to express my outrage at a statement such as this. Restricting the political freedoms of others to protect political freedoms leads the UN down a dangerous road.

This topic is dumb and whoever supports it obiously is ignoring the truth. By restricting one groups freedoms more groups will suffer. Look at George Orwells animal farm. They wanted freedom from fascit tyrants but tryed to weed out critiizms and it turned out to be the same as the last tyrant. If you take the rights away of republicans whose to say who is on the far right. Hell even socialist may be classified as in the far rightr for critisizing U.N. policys. You traviling on dangorus waters buddy. Before you blindely state your opinon have some research to back it up.

It's obvious. The left cannot win by playing by the rules... so they try and outlaw their competition. This is typical modus operandi of the left ...

Why else do they fear the free market so much ? Could it be that their ideas lose ?

BUMP

Well, you almost nailed it. But the Libertarian model is the absolute opposite of left.... hence "almost" nailed it.

But yes, I am tired of lefties trying to legislate an end to peoples freedoms.

That's not true. A pure Liberatarian ideology supports as free a market as possible (which is certainly what is considered to be a "rightist" view), but also supports as much freedom as possible for the individual, so a liberatarian would generally support gay marriage and abortion.

As for the proposal- as the Italians would say, che robaccia (what stupid garbage.) This is probably the dumbest resolution I've ever seen on the forums, even dumber than the resolution in which all childeren are suppose to be eaten, because this resolution restricts the type of government that UN members can have.

Also, it sounds like a witch-hunt to me. There is no definition of "far-right" given anywhere, and any government can be considered a far-right government if you want it to be.

Finally, this blatantly violates human rights in so many ways.

In a word, I'm just speechless.

Well, you almost nailed it. But the Libertarian model is the absolute opposite of left.... hence "almost" nailed it.

But yes, I am tired of lefties trying to legislate an end to peoples freedoms.

That's not true. A pure Liberatarian ideology supports as free a market as possible (which is certainly what is considered to be a "rightist" view), but also supports as much freedom as possible for the individual, so a liberatarian would generally support gay marriage and abortion.

As for the proposal- as the Italians would say, che robaccia (what stupid garbage.) This is probably the dumbest resolution I've ever seen on the forums, even dumber than the resolution in which all childeren are suppose to be eaten, because this resolution restricts the type of government that UN members can have.

Also, it sounds like a witch-hunt to me. There is no definition of "far-right" given anywhere, and any government can be considered a far-right government if you want it to be.

Finally, this blatantly violates human rights in so many ways.

In a word, I'm just speechless.

Libertarian philosophy = smallest possible government needed to avoid anarchy.

Leftist = a wide range of socialist philosophies where the state is paramount and centralized.

ergo....... Libertarian is the complete opposite of the left.

As much as we'd LOVE to see the far right disappear, we are a democratic state. We have no right to restrict the free speech of our citizens, as hateful or stupid as some of their opinions may be.

That is a horrible proposal.

In a decent society people are allowed to hold views. People are allowed o have thoughs. People are allowed to share those thoughts. What they are not allowed to do is to infringe on another's human rights based on those thoughts.

For example, a person is allowed to dislike someone because of the colour of their skin. They are allowed their own thoughs and views. They are allowed to choose who they like and it can be based on whatever they like.

However this person is not allowed to then hit said person who they dont like because of the colour of their skin. The crime here is in hitting the person, not why they hit them.

Why they hit them is their own thoughts, their own beliefs and when the government is allowed to suppress thoughts, when someone is not allowed to hold their own views for fear of persecution, is when the most important thing is taken away from the human race.

If you want further convincing, read 1984 by George Orwell.

Sorry if that sounds odd. Im tired.